Northern California Environmental Grassroots Fund Statistical Evaluation of the Past Year January December 2015

Transcription

1 Statistical Evaluation of the Past Year January December 2015 # Applied # Funded % Funded Total Applications/Grants Awarded % Grant Cycle Spring 2015 $53, % Summer 2015 $45, % Fall 2015 $63, % Winter 2015 $46, % Total Amount Granted: $208,200 Environmental Issue # Applied # Funded % applied that were funded % of total grants Agriculture/Gardens/Food Security % 12% Environmental Education % 7% Habitat/Wilderness/Preservation % 17% Land Management/Urban Sprawl/Open Space % 5% Sustainable Energy/Lifestyle/Climate Change % 8% Sustainable Forestry % 2% Toxics/Environmental Health and Justice % 33% Water Resources/Watershed Protection % 17% Population of Areas as % of % applied that % of total total Nor. CA Geographic Area # Applied # Funded were funded grants Population Central Coast % 3% 6% Central Valley % 10% 25% North Central / East % 10% 4% North Coast % 13% 2% Sacramento Valley % 8% 10% San Francisco Bay Area % 35% 46% Sierra Nevada % 13% 6% Statewide % 7% N/A Urban/Rural/Suburban* # Applied # Funded % applied that were funded % of total grants Urban % 52% Rural % 73% Suburban % 35% * Some organizations identified as being part of more than one type of community Diversity # Applied # Funded % applied that were funded Diverse/Underserved Community Served or % Represented on Board Not Significant Representation of % Diverse/Underserved Communities % of total grants 77% 23%

2 Statistical Evaluation of the Past Year January December 2015 Grantees' Tax Status % Funded Incorporated as a Non- Profit 27% 0-2 hours 6% Has outside Fiscal Sponsor 68% 3-5 hours 25% Requesting Sponsorship from Fund 5% 6-10 hours 36% Grantees' Previous Year Expenses hours 9% 0- $25,000 53% hours 2% $25,001- $50,000 28% More than 80 hours 1% $50,001- $75,000 12% $75,001- $100,000 7% Application Process (All Applicants) Over $100,000 0% Positive responses good/easy to 63% complete/clear/don t change it How Long Grantee Organization's have been Operating Negative responses / suggestions 38% 2 years or less 13% for changing the application 3-5 years 27% 6-10 years 20% First Time Applying or Reapplying (All Applicants) 11 to 24 years 35% First Time Applicant* 36% 25 or more years 5% Reapplying Applicant - Not 8% funded before** Type of Support Given to Grantees General Support 55% Reapplying Applicant - Funded before 56% Project Support 45% *first time applicants have a 55% chance of receiving funding 21% **rejected applicants have a 63% chance of receiving funding Staff Communication with Applicants Grants to New Groups v. Previous Grantees* Organizations in Contact 49% New Groups 33% Percentage of applicants seeking help by 21% *Our Previous goal is 25% Grantees new 67% Percentage of applicants seeking help by phone 21% groups Percentage of applicants who meet with Rose staff 7% Percentage of rejected applicants who received feedback on their application 11% All Volunteer or Paid Staff (Grantees) All Volunteer 41% Paid Staff 59% Of those with employees, average number of employees 1.5 Time To Complete the Application hours How Did You Hear About the Grassroots Fund? Other nonprofits 10 Applied before 9 Online search* 7 Rose staff members 3 Rose website 3 Word of mouth 3 Grassroots Fund Board Member 1 Rose e- newsletter 1 Grantee of another fund at Rose 1 *2 mentioned Foundation Center; 1 mentioned GrantsWatch

3 Statistical Evaluation of the Past Year January December 2015 Application Comments We really like the way we can work on this application collaboratively before submission from multiple computers at the same time. We found it difficult for two of us to work on the document at the same time online, as we often do with google docs. We were not sure how the save function would work if two people made changes and then saved them- - would the changes of one person get lost? Using an ipad makes the scroll feature very sensitive, i.e., trying to scroll within a field causes the entire application to scroll. place more frequent "save" buttons so you don't have to go to the bottom of the application to save. This is appreciated for being user friendly. Staff response and help is always prompt. Thanks for that. This online process is straight forward and efficient. Because we are such a small group I was not able to input.5 for our paid staff. Perhaps the code can be written so that this can happen in the future. [Several commented on this; we have fixed this issue] This is a straightforward application and the web interface is easy to use. I think it asks for just the right amount of information and provides plenty of space (characters). Thank you for making this as easy as possible. The question list was very helpful to download in order to prepare answers head of time and then enter into the online system. Thank you so much for offering this grant. It is rare to find funds specific to environmental concerns in rural counties! The process is well organized. The online access and access to former applications is very helpful. The budget form was not the most intuitive, but the ability to upload our own format made it easy. The ability to download the Word doc, along with the new option to complete the application online, since we last applied for a Grassroots Fund grant, is GREAT. The organization of the application also flows very well. Thanks for the character countdown feature! Perhaps make the non- applicable segments (such as fiscal sponsor fields) disappear or not populate if they aren't part of the applicant's required submissions. It is easily understandable and reasonable in the requirements and submissions. Information request should be streamlined, especially for community based organizations who are not getting support from those in the big league. Especially since we have to work harder, longer and with little resources, nor legal help. I think the form worked well. I really liked the friendly and caring telephone and help from Jasmine. I like the form and the leeway it provides. Maybe just an outline under Work Plan and under budget and income and expense sections, for use by small organizations, so one does not need to leave the page to go find the instructions elsewhere just. Like the SAVE button too and the 90 minute period is very helpful. Grassroots groups working as volunteers are stretched thin doing their program work. Applying for small grants that require extensive applications can exclude people who lack administrative support. Perhaps a process where a very simple LOI is used to vet groups could reduce the problem of small organizations investing lot of time in applications that have a very tenuous chance to be approved. Clearer expectations on project versus general support. We appreciate having the option to request operational support but it's unclear where in the questions you are asking for project vs. operational support information. Please do not lose my application again. You wasted 3 months of calendar time and made it harder for me to assemble funding. I appreciate being able to build the application piece by piece in a Word file rather than having to fill out an online form all at once.

4 Evaluation of Past Years Average Total Applications Total Grants Made Percent of Applications Funded 52% 55% 56% 64% 60% 71% 65% 71% 63% 64% 61% 60% 62% Total Amount of Grants Awarded $130,300 $185,000 $205,300 $213,500 $222,500 $237,500 $253,500 $249,520 $204,950 $217,000 $217,450 $208,200 $212,060 Average Grant Size $3,948 $4,111 $4,277 $3,813 $4,045 $3,958 $3,674 $3,839 $3,726 $4,019 $3,565 $3,470 $3,870 Total Applicants 1022; Total Grants Awarded 680 (includes 2003 grants) Total for all years (including groups funded 2003): $2,599,720 Environmental Issue Average Agriculture/Gardens/Food Security 0% 0% 4% 5% 11% 13% 14% 17% 16% 17% 18% 12% 11% Environmental Education 21% 18% 8% 11% 4% 5% 6% 6% 7% 13% 2% 7% 9% Habitat/Wilderness/Preservation 24% 22% 15% 13% 4% 13% 10% 18% 18% 19% 8% 17% 15% Land Manage/Urban Sprawl/Open Space 6% 13% 10% 21% 20% 18% 25% 17% 13% 11% 16% 5% 15% Sustain Energy/Lifestyle/Climate Change 3% 4% 4% 9% 11% 12% 10% 5% 2% 6% 11% 8% 7% Sustainable Forestry 6% 11% 6% 11% 5% 7% 6% 5% 5% 6% 3% 2% 6% Toxics/Env Health and Justice 21% 11% 31% 16% 27% 22% 12% 22% 24% 6% 25% 33% 21% Water Resources/Watershed Protection 18% 20% 21% 14% 18% 10% 17% 11% 15% 24% 16% 17% 17% Geographic Area Average Central Coast 0% 7% 4% 2% 5% 7% 3% 3% 9% 6% 3% 3% 4% Central Valley 12% 11% 15% 13% 15% 13% 9% 15% 18% 11% 11% 10% 13% North Central / East 9% 11% 10% 7% 9% 8% 12% 9% 4% 6% 5% 10% 8% North Coast 12% 18% 19% 20% 9% 8% 10% 9% 9% 9% 11% 13% 12% Sacramento Valley 6% 2% 4% 4% 7% 7% 3% 5% 7% 4% 7% 8% 5% San Francisco Bay Area 42% 31% 27% 36% 33% 35% 41% 40% 36% 43% 41% 35% 37% Sierra Nevada 18% 20% 17% 18% 16% 18% 23% 18% 15% 20% 18% 13% 18% Statewide* 4% 2% 5% 3% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3% 7% 3% *Statewide was a new category in 2006 Urban/Rural/Suburban ** Average Urban 39% 27% 30% 30% 31% 27% 22% 34% 25% 33% 56% 52% 34% Rural 61% 73% 70% 61% 53% 62% 58% 68% 56% 72% 75% 73% 65% Suburban* 9% 16% 12% 20% 15% 22% 31% 39% 35% 22% *Suburban was a new category in 2007 **Starting in 2011 we allowed people to choose more than one category so total exceeds 100% Tax Status Average Incorporated as a Non- Profit 39% 40% 44% 39% 47% 48% 49% 55% 40% 46% 44% 27% 43% Has Outside Fiscal Sponsor 48% 44% 50% 50% 49% 43% 42% 38% 49% 50% 51% 68% 49% Requesting Sponsorship from fund 12% 16% 6% 11% 4% 8% 9% 6% 11% 4% 5% 5% 8%

5 Evaluation of Past Years Diversity Average Diverse/Underserved Community Served 67% 67% 58% 45% 70% 60% 46% 37% 47% 59% 66% 77% 58% or Represented on Board Not Significant Representation of 33% 33% 42% 55% 30% 40% 54% 63% 53% 41% 34% 23% 42% Diverse/Underserved Communities Amount of Previous Year Expenses Average 0- $25,000 64% 62% 54% 64% 65% 67% 61% 57% 53% 56% 54% 53% 59% $25,001- $50,000 18% 27% 22% 16% 15% 20% 23% 15% 25% 26% 18% 28% 21% $50,001- $75,000 15% 7% 17% 14% 15% 8% 12% 9% 5% 7% 16% 12% 11% $75,001- $100,000 3% 4% 7% 4% 4% 3% 3% 12% 11% 7% 8% 7% 6% Over $100,000 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1% 6% 5% 4% 3% 0% 2% Type of Support Given Average General 39% 53% 54% 57% 59% 62% 65% 54% 73% 56% 57% 55% 57% Project 61% 47% 46% 43% 41% 38% 35% 46% 27% 44% 43% 45% 43% Comments on Application Process* Average Positive responses "good/easy to 81% 83% 97% 87% 95% 95% 96% 87% 80% 57% 53% 63% 81% complete/clear/don't change it" Negative responses/suggestions 19% 17% 3% 13% 5% 5% 4% 13% 20% 43% 47% 38% 19% for changing the application *Application went to online submission in 2013 First Time Applying or Reapplying Average First Time Applicant 73% 38% 60% 39% 33% 37% 36% 32% 38% 33% 41% 36% 41% Reapplying Applicant - Not funded before 12% 16% 8% 16% 13% 15% 3% 8% 13% 14% 8% 8% 11% Reapplying Grantee - Funded before 15% 47% 31% 45% 55% 48% 61% 60% 49% 52% 51% 56% 48% Three and Out Average Number of Groups Ask to Sit Out

6 Evaluations The following statistics are based on self- evaluations submitted by grantees Evaluations Received 91% 87% 80% 70% 71% 82% 70% 75% 1) 2014 is not included in this report since at the time of writing, most grantee self- evaluations were not yet due. Organization Applied for Other Grants (from any source) Yes 63% 77% 70% 70% 64% 69% 72% 62% No 37% 23% 30% 30% 36% 31% 28% 38% Grassroots Grant was First Grant Received Yes 38% 34% 33% 38% 41% 30% 25% 31% No 62% 66% 67% 62% 59% 70% 75% 69% Difficulty of Application Process* Easier than Expected 66% 41% 26% 18% 29% 32% 14% 16% Harder than Expected 2% 8% 7% 3% 11% 8% 8% 7% Same as expected 32% 51% 67% 80% 61% 61% 78% 78% *Application went to online submission in 2013 Application Process Helped Organization in Other Ways Yes 100% 86% 97% 95% 89% 88% 89% 84% No 0% 14% 3% 5% 11% 12% 11% 16% Examples of How Application Process Helped: When you are forced to explain your accomplishments or plan to someone that isn't deeply involved it what you are doing it gives you a chance to really think about your "story" and also how that ties back to the big picture. Applying for a grant such as this is useful in spelling out measurable goals, and comparing accomplishments to intentions. Its always great to articulate who we are, what we do and what our expected outcomes are from our work. We use the developed language for other communication materials. The process of applying to the Grassroots Fund helped our organization think more deeply about how to increase diversity within our organization. Organization's Attempts to Diversify Yes 68% 78% 83% 66% 70% 62% 87% 78% No 32% 22% 17% 34% 30% 38% 13% 22% Types of Challenges Financial 9% 30% 29% 28% 30% 17% 16% 12% Staff/Volunteer Issues 28% 14% 16% 20% 15% 17% 26% 9% Organizational Issues* 2% 9% 9% 3% 0% 8% 6% 11% Strategies for Dealing with Opposition 13% 14% 9% 15% 5% 3% 13% 11% Legal Issues 2% 2% 2% 3% 5% 6% 3% 3% Problems with Government Entity 22% 14% 16% 10% 13% 11% 3% 21% Lack of Capacity to do work 4% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 8% No Challenges 9% 7% 9% 8% 18% 28% 16% 14% Other** 11% 11% 9% 10% 15% 11% 16% 12% *Organization issues faced included losing or outgrowing fiscal sponsor (3), problems with board (2), losing office space **Other challenges faced by grantees in 2014 included unexpected emergencies, drought (4), wildfire, inability to mobilize constituency or to recruit volunteers Grantees who said they used our scholarships to attend a capacity building training* Yes 36% 51% 44% 34% 27%

7 Evaluations No 64% 49% 56% 66% 73% *We first ask this question in 2009 How was the Training Scholarship useful? Our Board president and I attended a class on Building the Board You Need, and found it very helpful. As our organization and Board grows, we recognize the need for a more structured Board, with much more hands- on work than we've had previously. The training helped us understand how a Board should/needs to work. We used the scholarship money to create an infographic - - an image depicting a summary of our successes over the history of our organization. We will use the infographic for fundraising, education and marketing purposes over the next year - - this is an extremely useful tool for us. It was a great opportunity to hire arborist and programmer Alex Brown to build us a Salesforce platform to track our trees. He brought his considerable experience to the task and got us all set up and trained to be able to keep better records on tree growth and health while out in the field doing site visits. Two of the DDDC members attended a training on fundraising. The training provided helpful background information about fundraising techniques. The DDDC's fundraising challenges are less about ideas, however, and more about member capacity to fundraise. The training helped my coalition focus more on our communications plan. Was the Grassroots Fundraising Journal useful? Yes 64% 85% 69% 90% 82% 80% 91% 86% No 36% 15% 31% 10% 18% 20% 9% 14%

8 Training Program Convening Attendance 2006* 2007* Number of people Number of groups represented Location City SF Sacto Oakland Sacto Berkeley Sacto Berkeley Sacto Berkeley Davis *Convenings started in 2006; Training Scholarship program started in spring Training Scholarships Total Number of people Number of groups Money spent on Capacity Building Amount spent on Training Scholarship $280 $2,492 $3,032 $5,394 $6,540 $6,758 $7,654 $5,812 $2,780 Amount spent on Travel Scholarships* $1,000 $5,850 $5,813 $6,921 $6,350 $6,550 $5,175 $5,784 $6,085 Amount spent on Convenings** $8,928 $15,021 $17,328 $18,684 $24,822 $20,786 $22,486 $18,751 $25,907 $26,313 *Travel Scholarship includes travel stipends for people to attend trainings and to attend our convening **Amount spend on convening does not include the amount spent on travel scholarship for those attending the convening Types of Training Scholarships in 2015 Reasons People Didn't Apply for Training Scholarship in 2014* Total People % Total People % Fundraising / Proposal writing 2 10% Lacked time or capacity to attend 16 48% Communications 6 30% Too Far to travel 5 15% Bookkeeping 2 10% Did not know about it 5 15% Executive Director Training 1 5% Don't need training 2 6% Social Media 1 5% Trainings held at bad time 2 6% CEQA Workshop 4 20% Class was cancelled 1 3% Water Quality Monitoring Design 1 5% Attend free trainings 1 3% Project Management 1 5% Applied too late (must apply 14 days prior) 1 3% Environmental Education Conference 2 10% % % *From grantee self evaluation

9 County Distribution # Total Grants Population County Grants Granted % % Alameda County 92 $341, % 9.5% Alpine County 6 $21, % 0.0% Amador County 6 $23, % 0.2% Butte County 13 $50, % 1.3% Calaveras County 16 $57, % 0.3% Colusa County 1 $2, % 0.1% Contra Costa County 58 $194, % 6.5% Del Norte County 24 $104, % 0.2% El Dorado County 21 $81, % 1.1% Fresno County 24 $90, % 5.8% Glenn County 0 $0 0.0% 0.2% Humboldt County 39 $146, % 0.8% Inyo County 13 $52, % 0.1% Kern County 16 $61, % 5.1% Kings County 6 $26, % 0.9% Lake County 5 $20, % 0.4% Lassen County 12 $54, % 0.2% Los Angeles County (statewide) 2 $6, % n/a Madera County 2 $7, % 0.9% Marin County 39 $126, % 1.6% Mariposa County 4 $15, % 0.1% Mendocino County 37 $141, % 0.5% Merced County 12 $47, % 1.6% Modoc County 5 $20, % 0.1% Mono County 4 $13, % 0.1% Monterey County 8 $29, % 2.6% Napa County 7 $22, % 0.8% Nevada County 32 $119, % 0.6% Placer County 25 $95, % 2.1% Plumas County 10 $36, % 0.1% Sacramento County 34 $107, % 8.7% San Benito 0 $0 0.0% 0.4% San Francisco County 54 $185, % 5.2% San Joaquin County 7 $22, % 4.2% San Luis Obispo County 9 $32, % 1.6% San Mateo County 12 $46, % 4.6% Santa Barbara County 4 $13, % 2.6% Santa Clara County 10 $31, % 11.3% Santa Cruz County 17 $64, % 1.6% Shasta County 19 $77, % 1.1% Sierra County 9 $39, % 0.0% Siskiyou County 20 $85, % 0.3% Solano County 21 $73, % 2.6%

10 County Distribution # Total Grants Population County Grants Granted % % Sonoma County 53 $196, % 3.0% Stanislaus County 7 $24, % 3.2% Sutter County 5 $15, % 0.6% Tehama County 8 $32, % 0.4% Trinity County 5 $20, % 0.1% Tulare County 43 $208, % 2.7% Tuolumne County 3 $9, % 0.3% Yolo County 7 $25, % 1.2% Yuba County 4 $13, % 0.4%

11 Number of Applications to Grassroots Fund Start through 2015 Spring Summer Fall Winter # Grants Average # Groups Mar/May* June/Aug Sept/Nov Dec/Feb Total Average Made per round Sitting Out $52, $54, $54, $51, $62, $63, $59, $55, $53, $51, $46, $32, $27,500 0 Average *Application deadline changed in 2008 from the earlier month to the latter Most number of applications for that year