Evaluations of CGV

Common Good Ventures periodically commissions independent evaluations of its work with partners.

The first evaluation was done by Christine Letts in 2002, three years after CGV's founding; Ms. Letts is Associate Dean for Executive Education and the Rita E. Hauser Lecturer in the Practice of Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and has extensive experience in private and public management.

Highlights of her findings:

In 2003 Foundation Strategy Group, a nonprofit group that works with foundations, corporations, government and nonprofits to accelerate the pace of social progress, evaluated CGV.

Christine Letts again evaluated CGV in 2004. Among her findings:

Summary of 2004 Evaluation of CGV by Christine Letts

COMMON GOOD VENTURES VALUE ASSESSMENT STUDY

Christine W. Letts
December 6, 2004

The Study

The purpose of this study was to assess the opinions of clients or "partners" of Common Good Ventures on Common Good's services and relationship. One or more individuals from all 13 current or recently graduated partners were interviewed. Seventeen people in all were interviewed. The individuals and organizations are listed in Appendix A. Of the total of thirteen organizations represented, four were in the original cohort of organizations that received grants and management assistance and were engaged with CGV from 2000 – 2003. One is in an independent grant/MA relationship with CG. Five are part of the Maine Community Foundation partnership, where organizations selected from an RFP process received a grant from MCF and management assistance from CGV and have been involved with CGV since 2002. Of these, two are considered "low engagement." Finally, three are consulting relationships where a grant is not involved. Two are fee for service relationships. Where relevant, I have commented on any difference in responses among these different sets of relationships.

Each interview was one hour long. The findings are organized by the questions asked in the interviews. In addition, each individual was asked to rate six features of the relationship or services on a 1 – 7 scale. Those results, with comments from the respondents, are contained in Appendix B.

Comments on Findings

The partners highly value the services of CGV. Every one of the interviewees was positive about many aspects of the services and praised the competence, skills and professionalism of the CG staff. In general, those partner staff who considered themselves less skilled in, or inclined toward, professional business/management practices praised the CG staff and valued the services more highly, which is not surprising. Every partner responded to questions in a way that indicated that the CG staff is flexible, adaptive and extraordinarily responsive. With the exception of one fairly new relationship, every organization reported systems, skills or tools that have been put in place that will have positive impact past the CG relationship.

It is important to recognize that the positive effects of the Common Good grants and consultations go well beyond the technical systems and competencies reported. The highlights of sustainable improvements are systems and increased professionalism among the leaders who worked with CG staff. In addition to this, several of those interviewed reported changes in the way that they understood their clients or communities or potential stakeholders, indicating significant value to their mission, not just organizational capacity. There is also substantial evidence that Common Good interventions are levers for broader organizational change. Many indicated improvement in strategic clarity, the ability to articulate and accomplish goals and a strengthened capacity to deal with growth and change. I believe these findings attest to the skills of the Common Good staff as strategic partners as well as technical assistance providers.

There are slight variations in certain aspects of relationships in the different categories of partners. The partners in the first cohort, where CG provided a grant plus technical assistance, felt very good about the entire "package," had no issues with the purpose, accountability and clarity of the relationship. There were some early issues of clarity about accountability among the cohort in the MCF initiative, all but one of which have been worked out. In all of these cases, it seemed as though the lack of clarity stemmed as much from the expectations of the partner as any lack of clarity on the part of MCF or CG. In these relationships, the organizations were, as a group, less clear at the beginning about what to expect from CG and what the potential was than the first cohort. My impression is also that until some of these experienced the relationship for over a year, they were not fully committed to exploiting the relationship. This again is not surprising. For those who had neither heard of or were familiar with what to expect from CG, the grant from and potential relationship with MCF was the clear value to them in the initiative. Each of the three fees for service organizations has distinctly different challenges and features, and while each of them reports a positive relationship, there are no distinct common themes that emerge from all three.

In four organizations it became apparent that there was not common understanding or commitment to the Common Good relationship between the enterprise, or main employee contact, and the parent organization. While this dissonance did not make the interventions and activities less effective, it does have the potential to limit the ultimate impact of Common Good's influence. Efforts to change on the part of a subset of a larger organization are frequently sabotaged by the culture or organizational dynamics in the larger organization that are threatened by the change. It is advisable for Common Good to take this into consideration as they form contracts with organizations in the future. For example, it may be useful to construct a small advisory team, comprised of one or two representatives of the parent executive staff, plus one or two board members, who would consult regularly with the CGV team and key client.

Finally, Common Good now has enough experience to structure their work in a way that optimizes the short time that they may be with partners. For example, the enterprise-type organizations, which start fairly small, have been shown to need cost and financial systems, market/sales help, then organizational development as they begin to grow. Common Good staff can (may already have) develop an assessment tool around these elements and quickly help an organization install the right systems and tools. Other standard needs are program evaluation systems, human resource systems or policies, business planning tools. There seems to be ample testimony in these findings that the nonprofit staff does not mind being pushed to clarify their goals, begin to track against them, become more professional, and install systems that help them do their job. CG staff could be more assertive about getting the "systems" work underway, while still helping the manager and organization adjust to a new way of working in an adaptive, responsive way. In other words, my impression is that the work is currently paced according to the manager's ability to absorb and be convinced. Armed with past experience (and testimony from graduated partners) CG might be able to install, convince, and equip more simultaneously.