Statistical Evaluation of the Past Year January December 2015 # Applied # Funded % Funded Total Applications/Grants Awarded 100 60 60% Grant Cycle Spring 2015 $53,500 21 14 67% Summer 2015 $45,500 17 12 71% Fall 2015 $63,000 35 21 60% Winter 2015 $46,200 27 13 48% Total Amount Granted: $208,200 Environmental Issue # Applied # Funded % applied that were funded % of total grants Agriculture/Gardens/Food Security 13 7 54% 12% Environmental Education 5 4 80% 7% Habitat/Wilderness/Preservation 15 10 67% 17% Land Management/Urban Sprawl/Open Space 7 3 43% 5% Sustainable Energy/Lifestyle/Climate Change 16 5 31% 8% Sustainable Forestry 1 1 100% 2% Toxics/Environmental Health and Justice 23 20 87% 33% Water Resources/Watershed Protection 20 10 50% 17% Population of Areas as % of % applied that % of total total Nor. CA Geographic Area # Applied # Funded were funded grants Population Central Coast 4 2 50% 3% 6% Central Valley 8 6 75% 10% 25% North Central / East 7 6 86% 10% 4% North Coast 12 8 67% 13% 2% Sacramento Valley 7 5 71% 8% 10% San Francisco Bay Area 41 21 51% 35% 46% Sierra Nevada 14 8 57% 13% 6% Statewide 7 4 57% 7% N/A Urban/Rural/Suburban* # Applied # Funded % applied that were funded % of total grants Urban 55 31 56% 52% Rural 63 44 70% 73% Suburban 38 21 55% 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 72 46 64% Represented on Board Not Significant Representation of 28 14 50% Diverse/Underserved Communities % of total grants 77% 23%
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 21-40 hours 9% 0- $25,000 53% 41-80 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 email 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 11-20 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
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 email 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.
Evaluation of Past Years 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average Total Applications 64 82 86 88 91 84 106 92 87 84 100 100 88 Total Grants Made 33 45 48 56 55 60 69 65 55 54 61 60 55 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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011** 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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%
Evaluation of Past Years Diversity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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* 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average Number of Groups Ask to Sit Out 0 2 1 6 14 10 10 10 7 8 7 7 7
Evaluations The following statistics are based on self- evaluations submitted by grantees. 1 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 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) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Yes 63% 77% 70% 70% 64% 69% 72% 62% No 37% 23% 30% 30% 36% 31% 28% 38% Grassroots Grant was First Grant Received 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Yes 38% 34% 33% 38% 41% 30% 25% 31% No 62% 66% 67% 62% 59% 70% 75% 69% Difficulty of Application Process* 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Yes 68% 78% 83% 66% 70% 62% 87% 78% No 32% 22% 17% 34% 30% 38% 13% 22% Types of Challenges 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 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* 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Yes 36% 51% 44% 34% 27%
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? 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Yes 64% 85% 69% 90% 82% 80% 91% 86% No 36% 15% 31% 10% 18% 20% 9% 14%
Training Program Convening Attendance 2006* 2007* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Number of people 50 71 75 68 122 105 113 71 73 94 Number of groups represented 38 43 52 45 63 66 69 48 54 57 Location City SF Sacto Oakland Sacto Berkeley Sacto Berkeley Sacto Berkeley Davis *Convenings started in 2006; Training Scholarship program started in spring 2007. Training Scholarships 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Number of people 4 21 32 42 52 60 42 40 21 314 Number of groups 2 15 21 25 33 34 27 28 12 197 Money spent on Capacity Building 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 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% 33 100% 20 100% *From grantee self evaluation
County Distribution 2003-2015 # Total Grants Population County Grants Granted % % Alameda County 92 $341,000 14.3% 9.5% Alpine County 6 $21,000 0.9% 0.0% Amador County 6 $23,000 1.0% 0.2% Butte County 13 $50,000 2.1% 1.3% Calaveras County 16 $57,500 2.4% 0.3% Colusa County 1 $2,700 0.1% 0.1% Contra Costa County 58 $194,000 8.1% 6.5% Del Norte County 24 $104,500 4.4% 0.2% El Dorado County 21 $81,020 3.4% 1.1% Fresno County 24 $90,800 3.8% 5.8% Glenn County 0 $0 0.0% 0.2% Humboldt County 39 $146,750 6.1% 0.8% Inyo County 13 $52,500 2.2% 0.1% Kern County 16 $61,500 2.6% 5.1% Kings County 6 $26,500 1.1% 0.9% Lake County 5 $20,500 0.9% 0.4% Lassen County 12 $54,000 2.3% 0.2% Los Angeles County (statewide) 2 $6,000 0.3% n/a Madera County 2 $7,000 0.3% 0.9% Marin County 39 $126,000 5.3% 1.6% Mariposa County 4 $15,000 0.6% 0.1% Mendocino County 37 $141,500 5.9% 0.5% Merced County 12 $47,000 2.0% 1.6% Modoc County 5 $20,500 0.9% 0.1% Mono County 4 $13,000 0.5% 0.1% Monterey County 8 $29,000 1.2% 2.6% Napa County 7 $22,500 0.9% 0.8% Nevada County 32 $119,918 5.0% 0.6% Placer County 25 $95,600 4.0% 2.1% Plumas County 10 $36,000 1.5% 0.1% Sacramento County 34 $107,500 4.5% 8.7% San Benito 0 $0 0.0% 0.4% San Francisco County 54 $185,200 7.7% 5.2% San Joaquin County 7 $22,000 0.9% 4.2% San Luis Obispo County 9 $32,500 1.4% 1.6% San Mateo County 12 $46,300 1.9% 4.6% Santa Barbara County 4 $13,500 0.6% 2.6% Santa Clara County 10 $31,500 1.3% 11.3% Santa Cruz County 17 $64,800 2.7% 1.6% Shasta County 19 $77,000 3.2% 1.1% Sierra County 9 $39,000 1.6% 0.0% Siskiyou County 20 $85,000 3.6% 0.3% Solano County 21 $73,500 3.1% 2.6%
County Distribution 2003-2015 # Total Grants Population County Grants Granted % % Sonoma County 53 $196,200 8.2% 3.0% Stanislaus County 7 $24,000 1.0% 3.2% Sutter County 5 $15,000 0.6% 0.6% Tehama County 8 $32,500 1.4% 0.4% Trinity County 5 $20,500 0.9% 0.1% Tulare County 43 $208,000 8.7% 2.7% Tuolumne County 3 $9,500 0.4% 0.3% Yolo County 7 $25,000 1.0% 1.2% Yuba County 4 $13,200 0.6% 0.4%
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 2015 21 17 35 27 100 25 60 $52,050 7 2014 25 16 39 20 100 25 61 $54,363 7 2013 17 30 15 22 84 21 54 $54,250 8 2012 19 19 26 23 87 22 55 $51,238 7 2011 19 28 20 25 92 23 65 $62,380 10 2010 32 18 26 30 106 27 69 $63,625 10 2009 22 24 17 21 84 21 60 $59,375 10 2008 22 26 25 18 91 23 55 $55,625 14 2007 24 22 24 18 88 22 56 $53,375 6 2006 22 14 26 24 86 22 48 $51,325 1 2005 19 26 17 20 82 21 45 $46,250 2 2004 13 17 21 13 64 16 33 $32,575 0 2003 18 31 49 25 14 $27,500 0 Average 21.3 21.2 24.8 21.8 1013 *Application deadline changed in 2008 from the earlier month to the latter Most number of applications for that year