|
The Assessment Challenge for Foundations: Understanding Impact
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Ellie Buteau, Center for Effective Philanthropy, ellieb@effectivephilanthropy.org
|
| Andrea Brock, Center for Effective Philanthropy, andreab@effectivephilanthropy.org
|
| Abstract:
The quality of an evaluation for a funder can only be as good as the clarity of a funder’s goals, the fit of its strategy to those goals, and the extent to which information is being collected about relevant performance indicators. Survey data about foundation goals, strategy, and assessment was collected by the Center for Effective Philanthropy during the fall of 2008, from 102 foundation CEOs and 89 program staff. Findings showed that foundation leaders are overwhelmingly positive in their belief that they are effective at creating impact – yet few are rooting those beliefs in relevant performance indicators. Without solid data, on what basis can foundation leaders feel confident that they are being successful in their work? This paper will share findings about the challenges CEOs and program staff face in evaluating their work and examples of funders who are working to improve their evaluation practices.
|
|
Benchmarking Foundation-level Evaluation: What are the Best Practices?
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Jonathan Sachs, Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, jonathan.sachs@chsrf.ca
|
| Kaye Phillips, Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, kayephillips79@gmail.com
|
| Werner Muller-Clemm, Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, werner.mullerclemm@chsrf.ca
|
| Abstract:
In Canada and the United States, few research foundations have addressed the complex challenge of foundation- or organizational-level evaluation (Buteau, 2009). In order to provide a synthesized understanding of its impact as an organization, the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF) has begun to implement its own evaluation strategy. To ensure quality, the first step has been to identify how other foundations have approached this type of evaluation.
This paper presents findings from a research study that CHSRF conducted to identify how comparable organizations approach foundation-level evaluation. A purposive sampling strategy was used to identify key informants at approximately 15 foundations in Canada and abroad. From the resulting interviews, CHSRF was able to identify applicable methods and metrics that will be used to inform its own evaluation efforts.
Buteau,E., Buchanan, P., & Brock, A. Essentials of Foundation Strategy. Center for Effective Philanthropy, 2009
|
|
Foundation-Level Evaluation Approaches: Lessons Learned About Quality in Practice
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Kaye Phillips, Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, kayephillips79@gmail.com
|
| Kathryn Graham, Alberta Innovates-Health Solutions, kathryn.graham@albertainnovates.ca
|
| Jill Yegian, California HealthCare Foundation, jyegian@chcf.org
|
| Werner Muller-Clemm, Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, werner.mullerclemm@chsrf.ca
|
| Abstract:
In the past five years foundations have been transitioning from program-level evaluation to broader foundation or organizational level evaluation approaches (Foundation Strategy Group, 2007). Foundation-level evaluation is a complex process for understanding the cumulative and integrated results and value of an organization’s programs and strategies (Putnam, 2004). To ensure evaluation quality there is an emerging need to identify and practically assess various design, implementation, and analysis issues related to adopting foundation-level evaluation approaches (Buteau, E., 2009).
This paper examines theoretical and practical quality issues related to foundation-level evaluation through a case study of three comparable health foundations. In this paper the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; Alberta Innovates – Health Solutions; and the California HealthCare Foundation collaborate to present lessons learned about processes for capturing, monitoring and reporting foundation-level outcomes and impacts. Issues related to data quality, validation, attribution/contribution, and experimental design required for the counterfactual are highlighted.
|
| | |