ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report 2019-2020

APPALACHIAN COMMUNITY FUND: GRANTMAKING EVALUATION REPORT

SUBMITTED TO: MARGO MILLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORTED BY: RACHEL CARRETTA, M.A. APRIL 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS 01 02 03

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

METHODOLOGY

04

GRANTMAKING DEMOGRAPHICS

13

PERCEPTIONS OF GRANT APPLICANTS

21

RECOMMENDATIONS

Acknowledgements: Special thanks to Walter Davis, Taysha DeVaughan, Kathy Johnson, Margo Miller and Reed Young for assisting me throughout the evaluation.

Thanks also to the organizations who participated in the grant applicant survey.

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

01

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Appalachian Community Fund (ACF) indicated a need for a comprehensive evaluation of their grantmaking, as their previous evaluation was conducted in 2013. The purpose of this evaluation was to aid ACF in improving their grantmaking, especially in the domains of diversity, equity and inclusion. Thus, the focus of this evaluation was collecting information on ACF's grantmaking patterns as well as perceptions of ACF's grantmaking from grant applicants, with the intention of using this information to better ACF's grantmaking strategies and processes. Data from grantee proposals awarded funding between 2014 and 2018 was analyzed to determine grantmaking demographics. In addition, survey data was collected and analyzed from previous grant applicants on perceptions of different aspects of ACF's grantmaking.

Key findings include: The majority of funding went to organizations and initiatives located in Tennessee and West Virginia, with Knox County receiving the largest proportion of funding compared to other counties.

Compared to other key issues, Community Building received the largest amount of funding.

The majority of grantees indicated that their work would address a new or emerging issue.

The majority of grantees are repeat applicants and many received funding more than once between 2014 and 2018.

Approximately 58% of grantees have 5 or more board members who are women.

Approximately 44% of grant applicants indicated that the grant application took them between 5 to 10 hours.

Grant applicants mostly indicated high average agreement scores in response to positive statements about different aspects of ACF's grantmaking.

Positive statements regarding the grant application's similarity to other grant applications and its helpfulness for applying to other grants received slightly lower average agreement scores compared to other positive statements.

Key recommendations include: ACF should consider creating a targeted grant program that would support work devoted to either immigration reform or racial justice. Â ACF should further explore funding decisions made for repeat applicants.

ACF should consider expanding efforts to support minority leaders of organizations.

ACF should consider lessening the burden of their grant application.

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

02

INTRODUCTION "ACF funds and encourages grassroots social change in Central Appalachia. ACF works to build a sustainable base of resources to support community-led organizations seeking to overcome and address issues of race, economic status, gender, sexual identity, and disability. As a community-controlled fund, ACF offers leadership to expand and strengthen the movement for social change through its practices and policies." - Appalachian Community Fund, Mission Statement

Founded in 1987 by individuals living in Central Appalachia, Appalachian Community Fund (ACF) is a publicly supported, non-profit grantmaking organization that funds grassroots organizing and initiatives for social, economic, and environmental justice in the Central Appalachian region.

ACF awards funds to organizations and initiatives through its multiple grant programs including the General Fund (the largest source of ACF's grantmaking), LGBTQ Fund, Technical Assistance Fund, and Power and Powerlessness Fund programs.

The purpose of this evaluation was to aid ACF in improving their grantmaking, especially in the domains of diversity, equity and inclusion. Thus, the focus of this evaluation was collecting information on ACF's grantmaking patterns and perceptions from grant applicants of different aspects of ACF's grantmaking that can be used to better ACF's grantmaking strategies and processes. This report includes methods used for the evaluation, key findings, and recommendations.

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

METHODOLOGY Grantee proposals awarded funding between 2014 and 2018 were used to create a database of grantmaking demographics. 60+ variables were created which reflect questions from the General Fund application. All of the names, counties, states and funding amounts of organizations were included in the database, resulting in 169 cases. However, many of the variables had missing data (e.g., staff and board members demographics) due to different grant fund applications asking different questions.

Data was also collected from a 26-item survey sent out to previous grant applicants in November 2019. This survey addressed perceptions of different aspects of ACF's grantmaking process. The survey received 68 responses, 43 of which did not have significant missing data. Of these 43 respondents, 32 indicated that they were awarded funding from ACF while 11 indicated that they were not awarded funding.

03

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

04

GRANTMAKING DEMOGRAPHICS (2014-2018) Funding Amount by State

ACF funded organizations and initiatives between 2014 and 2018 in Central Appalachian regions in the following states: Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.

The majority of funding went to organizations and initiatives in Tennessee ($170,000) and West Virginia ($121, 350), with Kentucky ($61,250), Virginia (27,450) and North Carolina ($2,000) receiving lesser amounts.

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

05

Funding Amount by County

Grantees in Knox County, Tennessee received the largest amount of funding ($81, 436) compared to other counties. Kanawha ($29,000), Mercer ($20,850), and Fayette (17,000) counties in West Virginia also received significant amounts of funding.

Grantees located in counties outside of Central Appalachia (e.g., Davidson County, Tennessee) indicated in their grant proposals how their work would serve the Central Appalachian region.

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

06

Grantees' Key Issues

Grantees awarded funding from the General Fund, LGBTQ Initiative, Technical Assistance Fund, or 30,000 for 30 Years Anniversary Fund were asked to indicate key issues that their work would address.

A significant proportion of grantees (16.49%) identified Community Building as a key issue. Alternatively, a small proportion of grantees (3.35%) identified Media Justice as a key issue.

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

07

Funding Amount by Key Issue

The majority of funding ($228,400) was awarded to grantees who identified Community Building as a key issue.

Compared to other key issues, Technical was awarded the least amount of funding ($36, 676).

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

Budget Size of Grantees Grantees were asked to indicate their current fiscal year budget. Responses ranged from $0 to $10,593,287, with a median budget size of $68,000.

New or Emerging Issue

Grantees were asked "Does your work address a new or emerging issue?" The majority of grantees (65.57%) responded "Yes" to this question.

08

MEDIAN BUDGET

$68,000

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

Applied for Funding in the Past

Grantees were asked "Have you applied for funding from ACF in the past?" In 2014 and 2015, 68-69% of grantees indicated that they had previously applied for funding from ACF. In 2017 and 2018, 5761% of grantees indicated that they had previously applied for funding from ACF. Data from 2016 was not included as only several grantees were asked to answer this question in their grant proposals in addition to comparatively fewer grants being awarded in 2016.

09

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

Patterns of Acceptances and Rejections

In total, 53 organizations applied for funding from ACF more than once between 2014 and 2018. Out of these organizations, 45.28% had all their grant applications accepted, 33.96% had their grant application accepted first then rejected upon applying again, 13.21% had their grant application rejected first then accepted upon applying again, and 7.55% experienced multiple acceptances and rejections (e.g., they had their grant application accepted, then rejected, then accepted again).

10

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

11

Board Members' Demographics 5+ BOARD MEMBERS ARE WOMEN

58% 5+ BOARD MEMBERS ARE LOW-INCOME

31% 5+ BOARD MEMBERS ARE PEOPLE OF COLOR

23% 5+ BOARD MEMBERS ARE SENIORS

22%

Grantees awarded funding from the General Fund and LGBTQ Initiative were asked how many board members identified as women, low-income, people of color, seniors, LGBTQ, youth, disabled, and immigrants.

The average total number of board members was approximately 11 individuals. Approximately 58% of grantees indicated having 5 or more board members who are women, 31% indicated having 5 or more low-income board members, 23% indicated having 5 or more board members who are people of color, and 22% indicated having 5 or more board members who are seniors.

In addition, approximately 12% of grantees indicated having 5 or more youth board members, 11% indicated having 5 or more LGBTQ board members, 8% indicated having 5 or more board members who are disabled, and 7% indicated having 5 or more board members who are immigrants.

On average, grantees indicated having approximately 6 board members who are women, 3 low-income board members, 3 board members who are people of color, 3 board members who are seniors, 2 LGBTQ board members, 1 youth board member, 1 board member who is disabled, and 1 board member who is an immigrant.

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

12

Staff Members' Demographics 5+ STAFF MEMBERS ARE WOMEN

63% 5+ STAFF MEMBERS ARE LOW-INCOME

51% 5+ STAFF MEMBERS ARE PEOPLE OF COLOR

33% 5+ BOARD MEMBERS ARE SENIORS

26%

Grantees awarded funding from the General Fund and LGBTQ Initiative were also asked how many staff members identified as women, low-income, people of color, seniors, LGBTQ, youth, disabled, and immigrants.

The average total number of staff members was approximately 18 individuals. Approximately 33% of grantees indicated having 5 or more staff members who are women, 23% indicated having 5 or more low-income staff members, 15% indicated having 5 or more staff members who are people of color, and 11% indicated having 5 or more staff members who are seniors.

In addition, approximately 22% of grantees indicated having 5 or more youth staff members while an additional 22% indicated having 5 or more LGBTQ staff members. Approximately 13% of grantees indicated having 5 or more staff members who are disabled and 11% indicated having 5 or more board members who are immigrants.

On average, grantees indicated having approximately 10 staff members who are women, 7 low-income staff members, 4 staff members who are people of color, 5 staff members who are seniors, 4 LGBTQ staff members, 3 youth staff members, 1 staff member who is disabled, and 1 staff member who is an immigrant.

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

13

PERCEPTIONS OF GRANT APPLICANTS Time Spent Completing Grant Application

Grant applicants who participated in the survey were asked "In total, how long did it take your organization to complete the ACF grant application?"

44.2% of grant applicants indicated that the grant application took 5 to 10 hours, 23.3% indicated that the grant application took 0 to 5 hours, and an additional 23.3% indicated that the grant application took 10 to 15 hours.

Furthermore, 7% of grant applicants indicated that the grant application took 15-20 hours, while only 2.3% reported that the grant application took 20+ hours.

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

14

Perception of Time Allotted for Completing Application

Grant applicants who participated in the survey were asked "Thinking about when you first heard about the grant and the grant application deadline, how would you describe the time allotted for completing the grant application?"

The majority of grant applicants (86.05%) indicated that the time allotted for completing the grant application was just right, However, 13.95% indicated that the time allotted was too short. Finally, no grant applicants indicated that the time allotted was too long.

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

15

Perception of Overall Grant Timeline

Grant applicants who participated in the survey were asked "How would you describe the overall timeline from when your organization first heard about the grant to receiving the final decision on your application?"

The majority of grant applicants (67.4%) indicated that the overall timeline was about what was expected. In addition, 18.6% indicated that the overall timeline was shorter than expected while 14% indicated that the overall timeline was longer than expected.

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

16

Positive Statements

Grant applicants who participated in the survey were asked to indicate their level of agreement with eight positive statements on different aspects of ACF's grantmaking. Responses were indicated using a 7-point scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (7).

Approximately 35% of grant applicants responded to the statement, "The ACF grant application is similar to other grant applications my organization has completed," with Moderately Agree. In response to the statement, "The ACF grant application assisted my organization in applying for other grants,"Â approximately 38% indicated Neither Agree nor Disagree. In response to statements regarding grant application guidelines and questions using clear and simple language, approximately 56%-61% of grant applicants indicated Strongly Agree.

Furthermore, approximately 69% of grant applicants responded to the statement, "Interaction with staff was helpful in answering questions my organization had about the grant application," with Strongly Agree, while 79% responded to the statement, "My organization perceived staff as open to answering questions had about the grant application," with Strongly Agree as well.

In response to the statement, "The ACF website was helpful in answering questions my organization had about the grant application," approximately 36% of grant applicants indicated Strongly Agree. Finally, approximately 65% indicated Strongly Agree in response to the statement "My organization understood the grant application selection criteria.

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

17

Negative Statements

Grant applicants who participated in the survey were also asked to indicate their level of agreement with three negative statements on different aspects of ACF's grantmaking using the same 7-point scale. In response to the statement, "The ACF grant application has extra requirements that other grant applications do not have,"Â approximately 22% of grant applicants indicated Moderately Disagree, while an additional 22% indicated Slightly Agree.

Approximately 24% of grant applicants indicated Strongly Disagree in response to the statement, "Questions on the grant application seemed redundant or repetitive." Finally, in response to the statement, "My organization was unable to use previous grant applications to help apply for the ACF grant," approximately 26% of grant applicants indicated Moderately Disagree.

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

18

Final Report Statements

Grantees who participated in the survey (i.e., grant applicants who reported receiving funding from ACF in the past) were also asked to indicate their level of agreement with three statements on the final report stage of ACF's grantmaking process using the same 7-point scale.

Approximately 50% answered with Strongly Agree in response to the statements "The final report guidelines used clear and simple language" and "The requirements for the final report were reasonable."

In response to the statement, "The time allotted for completing the final report was just right," approximately 47% of grantees indicated Strongly Agree. Finally, approximately 59% responded with Strongly Disagree to the statement, "The deadline for submitting the final report was confusing."

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

Apply for Funding Again

Grant applicants who participated in the survey were asked, "Would your organization consider applying for an ACF grant again?" The majority of grant applicants (88.37%) indicated "Yes" while a minority (11.63%) indicated "No."

19

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

20

Selected Comments: What is Working Well “Our interactions [with staff] were very pleasant and there were far fewer hoops to jump through than in other grant award processes.”

“We appreciate the clarity of ACF's application process.”

“ACF has always been gracious in regard to time and the application process considering our needs, especially the unique technological and community hardships of rural places.”

“I'm really appreciative of Margo and all of the staff for being on call to answer any questions that I had regarding the grant guidelines and reporting requirements.”

“Your grant process is outstanding.”

“The ACF grant application and reporting processes are among the most simple, clear, and useful for completing meaningful work rather than being bogged down with grant requirements.”

Selected Comments: Areas for Improvement “In the year applied, ACF awarded no grants to Latino Organizations.”

“The amount of the awards was disproportionately small compared to the time required.”

“The budget information section is hard to accurately complete... This requires us to estimate and spend a lot of time pulling the different pieces of information from multiple locations in our budget.”

“The budget section of the application is wildly confusing and requires organizations to rework their entire budget to fit the parameters, it took hours and caused a great deal of stress and confusion.” “…ACF largely funds the same organizations over and over. New organizations and regions outside the loop of favored, previously funded organizations have little chance of funding.”

“Too difficult, especially when one has never written a grant before like this one.”

ACF Grantmaking Evaluation Report

21

RECOMMENDATIONS As a large proportion of the funding was awarded to organizations and initiatives in Tennessee, and Knox County in particular, ACF should consider targeting its outreach to other regions in Central Appalachia, especially areas that are considered rural.

As only 7.22% of grantees indicated immigration reform and racial justice as key issues, ACF should consider creating a targeted grant program (similar to their LGBTQ initiative) that would support work devoted to either of these issues.

A considerable proportion of ACF's grantees are repeat applicants and between 2014 and 2018, many of these repeat applicants were awarded funding more than once. Although this pattern could reflect strong partnerships with organizations in the region, it could also reflect the tendency for historical inequities to favor certain types of organizations that are high-performing but not particularly diverse. Thus, ACF should further explore funding decisions made for repeat applicants.

ACF should consider expanding efforts to support minority leaders of organizations, such as funding leadership or professional development activities and organizational capacity building for organizations with leaders of color.

Compared to other positive statements, grant applicants indicated lower average agreement scores in response to items regarding ACF's grant application being similar to other applications and the helpfulness of ACF's grant application for applying to other grants. In addition, compared to other negative statements, grant applicants indicated a slightly higher average agreement score in response to the item "The ACF grant application has extra requirements that other grant applications do not have." Thus, ACF should consider lessening the burden of their grant application by allowing applicants to submit proposals prepared for other funders as well as eliminating questions or requirements that are not weighed heavily in making decisions.

ACF should be transparent with grant applicants regarding how long the grant application takes to complete (i.e., approximately 5 to 10 hours).

Finally, ACF should consider not asking grant applicants to translate their budget into ACF's budget format. ACF should revise its budget template so that it's simpler and offers more flexibility.