1

Evaluation of the BEST Initiative: Report on Overall Initiative To

Date (2003-2010)

January 2011

2

Executive Summary

Organizations showed greatest sustainable success in board development and strategic planning, with fewer successes in fund development and communications/marketing.

BEST was extremely helpful in the face of executive transitions.

Workshops, Coaching and the assessment reports were viewed as valuable by participating organizations, there was less consistent support for ED roundtables.

The Cohort Model was not perceived to be a value-add for organizations.

BEST staff and programming have an excellent reputation.

3

Evaluation Overview: Data Collection

In-person interviews Phone interviews Focus Groups CCAT

4

Outcomes: Communications and Marketing

7 organizations focused on communications, case statements and/or marketing. Of these, there is evidence that 3 were a success, and three had some success. Four were able to sustain change, one was able to sustain change to some extent and one was not able to sustain change as a result of cuts to the marketing budget.

While the organizations that completed the CCAT AND did marketing-related capacity building (n=3) did evidence slightly lower CCAT scores, all organizations indicated some challenges with marketing, especially devoting staff time and financial resources to marketing.

“We developed a case statement and it was good. It included a nice annual report with

beautiful color—but if you don’t have money to continue to do something like that, it

almost seems like a waste. It was beautiful but we couldn’t continue it.”--ED

5

Outcomes: Strategic Planning

15 organizations focused on strategic planning. Of these, 10 were successes, 2 were partial successes and two were not successes. Six organizations sustained their strategic planning work, as evidenced by updating or doing a new strategic plan. Three organizations have sustained the work to some extent (light review) and one has not at all.

The average CCAT score was very close to the “Strong” rating for the sub capacity, “Use of Decision-Making Tools,” but was lower for “Organizational Learning,” which is more closely related to strategic plan implementation. This was supported by interview data.

“Without BEST’s help we would not have done the strategic plan Every staff member [at our organization] and most of the board can articulate our mission and vision statement. It has become embedded in the way we think about planning, programming, and everything else.”—Executive Director

6

Outcomes: Fund Development/Fundraising

15 organizations focused on some type of fundraising/development work. Of these, three were admittedly not ready and two reported a lack of ownership from key internal targets (board), including complete rejection of the proposed fundraising plan. Only five of the projects seemed to be successful, with the others falling along a continuum of ok to not so good. Of these, only three organizations provided evidence of sustained change. Organizations seemed to be largely more successful in diversifying revenue streams than creating a large donor base or developing successful giving campaigns.

7

Outcomes: Board Development

•12 organizations focused on board development. Of these, eight were successes and two were not and two had some limited success. Five have been able to sustain improvements, such as committee structures, board engagement and/or recruitment. •Many organizations continue to struggle with board engagement along with recruitment and retention of board members with the willingness to commit to substantial work.

8

Outcomes: Technology

•Nine organizations focused on technology, broadly speaking. There was a mix of hardware and software purchases. Of these, eight seemed to show strong evidence of improved efficiency or effectiveness as a result of the new technology, with only showing evidence of non-success. •Only four organizations had clear sustainability plans for the technology (evidenced by purchasing new technology on their own or creating a reserve). For five of the organizations, the technology was still being used, but was reported to be outdated and in need of upgrade.

9

Outcomes: Core Capacities

Cohort 1 appeared to show somewhat stronger average capacity, however the only statistically significant difference in capacity between Cohorts 1 and 2 is in Adaptive Capacity. This may be due to institutionalization of CB changes prior to the economic downturn.

10

Economic Downturn

Relatively few organizations discussed specific impacts of the economy on their organizations, with several noting that the troubled economy in Flint is not a recent development.

Apart from mentions of not being prepared and loss of funding (frequent mentions) and the need to do staff/service reductions, a couple of organizations reported that the economy had forced them to better focus and eight interviewees indicated that BEST had left them better prepared to meet the economic challenges. For example, one organization had developed a more strategic niche that has allowed them to be proactive through the recession, while another reported that the development of their BEST-supported strategic plan had given them something concrete to revise and plan around in order to respond to economic uncertainty. One organization was able to grow by 400% even during the downturn, mainly through the better understanding of their niche and the community need through the assessment process.

“I am convinced that the board needed to understand how the organization runs programmatically and financially and to assume responsibility. It [BEST]

was very targeted about board responsibility. It helped us with some of the creative out of the box thinking and willingness to take risks.”--ED

11

BEST Reputation

BEST has a solid reputation and is well-respected. Interviewees also reported that BEST was effective at supporting organizations during transitions, helping them to refocus, a catalyst for change and open to innovative solutions. These are all things that reinforce findings from previous reports about BEST’s professionalism.

Non-Cohort BEST participants offered similar praise, stating that BEST staff are clear and transparent and are excellent in not offering a cookie-cutter approach to helping nonprofits.

However, not all of the feedback was positive. Several issues arose from a range of interviewees. These included: Three interviewees from the cohorts, both new to the organizations since completion of the

cohort, reported low levels of knowledge of BEST. BEST was reported to be very Flint focused. While this is not bad, per se, it may speak to

potential limits on regional role. However, the Flint focus was also reported to help increase legitimacy of BEST and foster relationships.

Lack of clarity around mission/scope/benchmarks of success (n=4). Several interviewees reported that they were unclear the benchmarks of success for BEST.

As expected, nonprofits who have not participated in BEST activities had little knowledge of BEST and felt that there was a strong need for greater marketing and awareness.

12

BEST Strategies cot’d

The ED Roundtables had mixed reviews. Five interviewees indicated that they valued support from other EDs and five reported getting good feedback on ideas or gaining good information about what was happening in the community. Three also reported that it was a good problem solving forum and that there were candid discussions. Seven of the EDs ultimately found the roundtables to not be valuable, though their reasons varied.

Most of the interviewees had participated in some trainings, though the articulation of outcomes from the training was fairly low. The workshops generally got very high grades for quality, even when the participant felt that they were too basic. Feedback for specific trainings includes: All of those participating in the Indiana University training reported it to be very valuable and

flagged it as a good example of a more advanced training. However, only two organizations reported using the information and two explicitly indicated they had not (due to time).

The board trainings were reported to be of high quality, especially when multiple board members participated. A couple of participants provided evidence of outcomes such as clearer roles as a board member. Several participants mentioned that board members have been too overcommitted to attend but would like to participate.

The cohort model seemed to have little impact on the first cohort and only a slightly greater impact on the second cohort. Of the organizations, two felt that the cohort was good, reporting that it created a feeling of “all being in this together.” There is some evidence that the cohort model is most likely to work with small to medium sized organizations that have some basis of stability or are in a growth mode.

13

Recommendations

Maintain the consultant pool. Several interviewees noted that BEST had a great pool of consultants to draw on, with two specifically indicating that they should continue providing this as an important resource to the community.

Get beyond senior staff/board focus and increase capacity of back-office support . Support for organizations after they complete the cohort. While the BEST process clearly aims for

deeper change in organizations (as evidenced by the multi-year cohort process), several interviewees indicated that ongoing contact/support specifically directed at organizations post-cohort would be valuable. This would help with integration.

Offer higher levels of training. This was the most frequent recommendation for BEST. Ongoing board trainings . Several interviewees indicated that BEST should continue to do board

training. Interviewees cited both the need for frequent refreshers and also issues of turnover. Facilitating connections among nonprofits (n=8). Several interviewees felt that BEST was uniquely

positioned to help foster relationships among nonprofits. While interviewees varied on how forceful of a role BEST should play in facilitating connections, what was clear is that nonprofits don’t know how to do it on their own and could use support/assistance to make it happen. While four interviewees felt that BEST should be actively pushing merger conversations, another interviewee felt strongly, however, that helping nonprofits work better together was an overreach of their mission. Whether that is the case or not, it is likely that BEST needs to clarify their role in this area.

14

Recommendations cont’d

Help with consistency of executive directors/transitions. While BEST clearly has helped organizations with executive transitions, there was a sense that they could address this issue on a broader scale.

Offer ongoing organizational assessment tool. Several interviewees reported that the assessment process had been very valuable for their organizations.

Focus on well-established organizations. Potentially one of the most controversial recommendations for BEST pertains to who to focus on.

15

TCC Recommendations

Mid-sized organizations poised for growth (especially with a good strategic niche) may be best positioned to benefit from the cohort model.

The consultant pool is perceived to be quite good. Consultants need to understand the Flint area or take the time to learn about it (through listening, etc.), or they will be perceived as cookie-cutter or unrealistic.

BEST is perceived to be community specific and provides individual attention, which are both extremely valued by NPs in Flint.

Board trainings have huge sustainability questions. One aspect that increases likelihood of sustainability is having the board request the assistance. However, beyond that there needs to be support to institutionalize actual behavioral practice change.

A few organizations are very focused on BEST pushing mergers and actively reducing duplication of services in Flint. Whatever direction BEST takes in this area, they must communicate their position strongly and effectively.

16

Questions

ContactThe BEST Project

810-232-8000