GRANTEE PERCEPTION REPORT - cofraholding.com

GRANTEE PERCEPTION REPORT®

cep.org

675 Massachusetts Avenue 7th Floor

Cambridge, MA 02139 617-492-0800

131 Steuart Street Suite 501

San Francisco, CA 94105 415-391-3070

PREPARED FOR

Porticus

MAY 2020

The online version of this report can be accessed at cep.surveyresults.org.

CONFIDENTIAL

Interpreting Your Charts

Many of the charts in this report are shown in this format. See below for an explanation of the chart elements.

Missing data: Selected grantee ratings are not displayed in this report due to changes in the survey instrument, or when a question received fewer than 5 responses.

CONFIDENTIAL

2

Key Ratings Summary

The following chart highlights a selection of your key results. Each of these data points corresponds to an individual survey measure that is displayed with additional detailin the subsequent pages of this report.

Key Measures Trend Data Average Rating Percentile Rank

Field ImpactImpact on Grantees' Fields

5.76

49th

Custom Cohort

Community ImpactImpact on Grantees' Communities

5.39

33rd

Custom Cohort

Organizational ImpactImpact on Grantees' Organizations

6.18

51st

Custom Cohort

RelationshipsStrength of Relationships with Grantees

6.05

27th

Custom Cohort

Selection ProcessHelpfulness of the Selection Process

5.33

79th

Custom Cohort

CONFIDENTIAL

3

SurveyYear

Year of Active Grants

Porticus2020

All Porticus and Porticus Light grants of all amounts (Active, Closure and Closedsuccessful) whose commitment date is greater than 3 years ago

Porticus2017

April 2016 - April 2017 (Excluding grants of $10K or less)

Survey Population

Survey Survey Fielded Survey Population Number of Responses Received Survey Response Rate

Porticus 2020 February and March 2020 1793 1067 60%

Porticus 2017 May and June 2017 1297 1066 82%

Throughout this report, Porticus’s survey results are compared to CEP’s broader dataset of more than 40,000 grantees built up over more than a decade of grantee surveysof more than 300 funders. The full list of participating funders can be found at https://cep.org/gpr-participants/.

In order to protect the confidentiality of respondents results are not shown when CEP received fewer than five responses to a specific question.

Subgroups

In addition to showing Porticus's overall ratings, this report shows ratings segmented by Region. The online version of this report also shows ratings segmented by Region,Portfolio, Program, and Grant Size.

Region Number of Responses

Africa 198

Asia 99

Bangladesh 9

Belgium 59

CEE 122

Community Arts Lab 44

DACH 76

France 11

Global 48

Iberia 28

Latin America 92

MENAT 31

North America 77

The Netherlands 78

UK 95

Portfolio Number of Responses

Catholic Higher Education 47

Catholic/Spiritual Formation 53

Child Protection 41

Community Arts Lab 44

Criminal Justice 47

Early Childhood Development in Adversity 39

Education in Displacement 22

Interreligious Dialogue and Ecumenism 20

Laudato Si 29

CONFIDENTIAL

4

https://cep.org/gpr-participants/

Migration and Human Trafficking 71

Peacebuilding 21

Primary, Secondary and TVET 71

Vital Church Communities 121

Program Number of Responses

Stand Alone 950

Under Approved Program 117

Grant Size Number of Responses

Less than $75K 461

$75K - less than $200K 404

$200K - less than $500K 156

Greater than $500K 46

CONFIDENTIAL

5

Subgroup Methodology and Differences

Subgroup Methodology

Region: Using Porticus's grantee list, and in consultation with Porticus, CEP tagged all grantees by Region.

Portfolio: Using Porticus's grantee list, and in consultation with Porticus, CEP tagged all grantees by Portfolio.

Program: Using Porticus's grantee list, and in consultation with Porticus, CEP tagged all grantees based on whether they belonged to a stand alone program or anapproved programme.

Grant Size: Using Porticus's grantee list, and in consultation with Porticus, CEP tagged all grantees by Grant Size.

Differences by Subgroup

Region: Substantial, though not consistent, variation exists when grantees ratings are segmented by Region. Community Arts Lab grantees rate significantly higher thangrantees in Africa, Asia, Belgium, CEE, Iberia, North America, and the Netherlands for Porticus's understanding of the social, cultural, or socioeconomic contexts that affecttheir work. And while they report feeling significantly more pressure to modify their organizations' priorities in order to create a grant application that would receivefunding, Community Arts Labs grantees also provide significantly higher ratings than grantees of most other regions for the overall quality of their relationships withPorticus. Conversely, grantees in the Netherlands rate Porticus significantly less positively than grantees of most other regions for its impact on their fields andorganizations.

Portfolio: While no Portfolio consistently rates higher or lower than others, Community Arts Labs grantees rate Porticus significantly higher than grantees of most otherportfolios for Porticus's understanding of the social, cultural, or socioeconomic contexts that affect their work. They also report feeling significantly more pressure tomodify their organizations' priorities in order to create a grant application that would receive funding.

Program: Grantees who are under an approved program rate Porticus significantly higher than grantees of stand alone programs on many measures in the report,including for most aspects of their relationships with Porticus.

Grant Size: Grantees who receive grants of $200K or more rate Porticus significantly higher on most aspects of the report, including Porticus's understanding of theirfields, local communities, and goals and strategies, as well as for Porticus's impact on their organizations.

CONFIDENTIAL

6

Comparative Cohorts

Customized Cohort

Porticus selected a set of 16 funders to create a smaller comparison group that more closely resembles Porticus in scale and scope.

Custom Cohort

Adessium Foundation

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Conrad N. Hilton Foundation

Ford Foundation

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

LankellyChase Foundation

Oak Foundation

Open Society Foundations

Porticus

Robin Hood Foundation

The Atlantic Philanthropies

The Children's Investment Fund Foundation

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation

The Rockefeller Foundation

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

W.K. Kellogg Foundation

Standard Cohorts

CEP also included 16 standard cohorts to allow for comparisons to a variety of different types of funders.

Strategy Cohorts

Cohort Name Count Description

Small Grant Providers 40 Funders with median grant size of $20K or less

Large Grant Providers 90 Funders with median grant size of $200K or more

High Touch Funders 36 Funders for which a majority of grantees report having contact with their primary contact monthly or more often

Intensive Non-Monetary Assistance Providers 42 Funders that provide at least 30% of grantees with comprehensive or field-focused assistance as defined by CEP

Proactive Grantmakers 82 Funders that make at least 90% of grants by invitation only

Responsive Grantmakers 100 Funders that make at most 10% of grants by invitation only

International Funders 55 Funders that fund outside of their own country

European Funders 25 Funders that are headquartered in Europe

Annual Giving Cohorts


Funders Giving Less Than $5 Million 58 Funders with annual giving of less than $5 million

Funders Giving $50 Million or More 70 Funders with annual giving of $50 million or more

Foundation Type Cohorts


Private Foundations 158 All private foundations in the GPR dataset

Family Foundations 76 All family foundations in the GPR dataset

CONFIDENTIAL

7

Community Foundations 34 All community foundations in the GPR dataset

Health Conversion Foundations 29 All health conversation foundations in the GPR dataset

Corporate Foundations 20 All corporate foundations in the GPR dataset

Other Cohorts


Funders Outside the United States 39 Funders that are primarily based outside the United States

Recently Established Foundations 78 Funders that were established in 2000 or later

Funders Surveyed During COVID-19 14 Funders who surveyed grantees during COVID-19 (GPR only)

CONFIDENTIAL

8

Grantmaking Characteristics

Foundations make different choices about the ways they organize themselves, structure their grants, and the types of grantees they support. The following charts andtables show some of these important characteristics. The information is based on self-reported data from funders and grantees, and further detail is available in theContextual Data section of this report.

Median Grant Size

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th($2K) ($40K) ($100K) ($223K) ($3300K)

Porticus 2020$118K

55th

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 $79K

Africa $83K

Asia $154K

Bangladesh $434K

Belgium $88K

CEE $143K

Community Arts Lab $177K

DACH $212K

France $366K

Global $283K

Iberia $55K

Latin America $177K

MENAT $171K

North America $163K

The Netherlands $71K

UK $94K

Cohort: Custom Cohort Past results: On Off Subgroup: Region

CONFIDENTIAL

9

Average Grant Length

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(1.0yrs) (1.8yrs) (2.2yrs) (2.7yrs) (7.9yrs)

Porticus 20202.1yrs*

46th

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 2.2yrs

Africa 1.8yrs

Asia 2.4yrs

Bangladesh 2.8yrs

Belgium 2.2yrs

CEE 2.1yrs

Community Arts Lab 1.9yrs

DACH 2.9yrs

France 2.6yrs

Global 1.8yrs

Iberia 2.3yrs

Latin America 1.9yrs

MENAT 1.9yrs

North America 2.1yrs

The Netherlands 2.4yrs

UK 2.2yrs


CONFIDENTIAL

10

Median Organizational Budget

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th($0.0M) ($0.9M) ($1.6M) ($3.0M) ($30.0M)

Porticus 2020$0.7M

17th

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 $0.5M

Africa $0.5M

Asia $0.5M

Bangladesh $0.9M

Belgium$0.2M

CEE $0.5M

Community Arts Lab$0.6M

DACH $2.0M

France $0.5M

Global $2.2M

Iberia $0.8M

Latin America $0.8M

MENAT $1.7M

North America $2.5M

The Netherlands $0.6M

UK $0.5M


CONFIDENTIAL

11

Grant History Porticus 2020 Porticus 2017 Average Funder Custom Cohort

Percentage of first-time grants 28% 33% 29% 38%

Program Staff Load Porticus 2020 Median Funder Custom Cohort

Dollars awarded per program staff full-time employee N/A $2.7M $4.9M

Applications per program full-time employee N/A 28 9

Active grants per program full-time employee N/A 32 24

Was the funding you received restricted to a specific use?

Proportion of grantees responding 'Yes, this funding was restricted to a specific use (e.g. supported a specific program, project, capital need, etc.)'

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(5.9%) (70.2%) (85.7%) (93.6%) (100.0%)

Porticus 202092.4%

68th

Africa 97.9%

Asia 93.9%

Bangladesh 100.0%

Belgium 89.5%

CEE 98.3%

Community Arts Lab 83.7%

DACH 94.4%

France 90.9%

Global 93.6%

Iberia 96.3%

Latin America 90.2%

MENAT 93.3%

North America 92.1%

The Netherlands 87.0%

UK 81.1%

Cohort: None Past results: On Off Subgroup: Region

CONFIDENTIAL

12

Impact on and Understanding of Grantees' Fields

Overall, how would you rate Porticus's impact on your field?

1 = No impact 7 = Significant positive impact

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(4.21) (5.49) (5.78) (5.99) (6.70)

Porticus 20205.7649th

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 5.73

Africa 5.90

Asia 5.89

Bangladesh5.11

Belgium4.98

CEE 5.79

Community Arts Lab 6.18

DACH 5.91

France 5.90

Global 5.69

Iberia 5.64

Latin America 5.92

MENAT 5.85

North America 5.76

The Netherlands5.06

UK 5.88


CONFIDENTIAL

13

How well does Porticus understand the field in which you work?

1 = Limited understanding of the field 7 = Regarded as an expert in the field

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(4.60) (5.46) (5.71) (5.94) (6.63)

Porticus 20205.80*

60th

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 5.71

Africa 5.83

Asia 5.60

Bangladesh 5.89

Belgium 5.70

CEE 5.91


DACH 5.81

France 5.73

Global 5.94

Iberia 5.41

Latin America 5.74

MENAT 6.07

North America 5.67

The Netherlands 5.79

UK 5.85


CONFIDENTIAL

14

Advancing Knowledge and Public Policy

To what extent has Porticus advanced the state of knowledge in your field?

1 = Not at all 7 = Leads the field to new thinking and practice

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(3.45) (4.74) (5.14) (5.46) (6.44)

Porticus 20205.08*

44th

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 4.81

Africa 5.20

Asia 5.01

Bangladesh 4.67

Belgium 4.61

CEE 5.27


DACH 4.85

France 4.63

Global 5.10

Iberia 4.40

Latin America 5.30

MENAT 4.93

North America 5.20


UK 5.13


CONFIDENTIAL

15

To what extent has Porticus affected public policy in your field?

1 = Not at all 7 = Major influence on shaping public policy

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(2.54) (4.12) (4.59) (5.10) (6.11)

Porticus 20204.35*

37th

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 3.98

Africa 4.41

Asia 4.46

Bangladesh 4.13

Belgium 3.62

CEE 4.43


DACH 4.33

Global 4.31

Iberia 3.70

Latin America 4.74

MENAT 3.67

North America 4.44


UK 4.47


CONFIDENTIAL

16

Impact on and Understanding of Grantees' Local Communities

Overall, how would you rate Porticus's impact on your local community?


0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(2.52) (5.11) (5.71) (6.06) (6.69)

Porticus 20205.3933rd

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 5.31

Africa 5.66

Asia 5.56

Bangladesh 4.71

Belgium 4.91

CEE 5.45


DACH 5.44

Global 4.47

Iberia 5.28

Latin America 5.72

MENAT 5.16

North America 5.65


UK 5.22


CONFIDENTIAL

17

How well does Porticus understand the local community in which you work?

1 = Limited understanding of the community 7 = Regarded as an expert on the community

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(3.78) (5.16) (5.61) (5.97) (6.72)


Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 5.28

Africa 5.35

Asia 5.30

Bangladesh 5.78

Belgium 5.51

CEE 5.11


DACH 5.43

France 5.60

Global 5.37

Iberia 5.37

Latin America 5.51

MENAT 5.39

North America 5.08


UK 5.20


CONFIDENTIAL

18

Impact on and Understanding of Grantees' Organizations

Overall, how would you rate Porticus's impact on your organization?


0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(4.37) (5.89) (6.17) (6.33) (6.80)

Porticus 20206.18*

51st

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 6.03

Africa 6.11

Asia 6.14

Bangladesh5.44

Belgium 5.95

CEE 6.32


DACH 6.04

France 6.27

Global 6.30

Iberia 6.00

Latin America 6.32

MENAT 6.07

North America 6.51

The Netherlands5.51

UK 6.47


CONFIDENTIAL

19

How well does Porticus understand your organization's strategy and goals?

1 = Limited understanding 7 = Thorough understanding

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(3.69) (5.58) (5.79) (6.00) (6.60)

Porticus 20205.99*

75th

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 5.89

Africa 5.84

Asia 5.77

Bangladesh 5.56

Belgium 6.16

CEE 5.94


DACH 6.19

France 6.70

Global 6.13

Iberia 5.71

Latin America 5.74

MENAT 6.03

North America 6.04


UK 6.14


CONFIDENTIAL

20

Grantee Challenges

How aware is Porticus of the challenges that your organization is facing?

1 = Not at all aware 7 = Extremely aware

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(4.00) (5.04) (5.31) (5.53) (6.29)


Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 5.39

Africa 5.24

Asia 5.24

Bangladesh 5.44

Belgium 5.49

CEE 5.26


DACH 5.64

France 5.45

Global 5.77

Iberia 5.21

Latin America 5.52

MENAT 5.55

North America 5.36


UK 5.68


CONFIDENTIAL

21

Funder-Grantee Relationships

Funder-Grantee Relationships Summary Measure

The quality of interactions and the clarity and consistency of communications together create the larger construct that CEP refers to as “relationships.” The relationshipsmeasure below is an average of grantee ratings on the following measures:

1. Fairness of treatment by Porticus2. Comfort approaching Porticus if a problem arises3. Responsiveness of Porticus staff4. Clarity of communication of Porticus’s goals and strategy5. Consistency of information provided by different communications

Funder-Grantee Relationships Summary Measure

1 = Very negative 7 = Very positive

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(4.80) (6.03) (6.20) (6.37) (6.72)


Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 6.00

Africa 5.97

Asia 6.11

Bangladesh 5.89

Belgium5.70

CEE 6.07


DACH 6.13

France 6.30

Global 6.19

Iberia5.57

Latin America 5.95

MENAT 6.04

North America 6.07


UK 6.22


CONFIDENTIAL

22

Quality of Interactions

Overall, how fairly did Porticus treat you?

1 = Not at all fairly 7 = Extremely fairly

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(5.12) (6.38) (6.55) (6.68) (6.95)


Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 6.54

Africa 6.30

Asia 6.53

Bangladesh 6.33

Belgium 6.56

CEE 6.67


DACH 6.84

France 6.73

Global 6.65

Iberia6.11

Latin America 6.52

MENAT 6.58

North America 6.58


UK 6.80


CONFIDENTIAL

23

How comfortable do you feel approaching Porticus if a problem arises?

1 = Not at all comfortable 7 = Extremely comfortable

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(4.80) (6.06) (6.23) (6.38) (6.84)

Porticus 20206.26*

55th

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 6.12

Africa 6.15

Asia 6.10

Bangladesh 6.00

Belgium5.83

CEE 6.44


DACH 6.42

France 6.64

Global 6.46

Iberia 5.93

Latin America 6.19

MENAT 6.42

North America 6.30


UK 6.44


CONFIDENTIAL

24

Overall, how responsive was Porticus staff?

1 = Not at all responsive 7 = Extremely responsive

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(4.90) (6.13) (6.37) (6.57) (6.95)

Porticus 20206.25*

37th

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 6.11

Africa 6.20

Asia 6.31

Bangladesh 6.33

Belgium 6.03

CEE 6.38


DACH 6.26

France 6.55

Global 6.46

Iberia 5.93

Latin America 6.12

MENAT 6.42

North America 5.97


UK 6.35


CONFIDENTIAL

25

To what extent did Porticus exhibit trust in your organization's staff during this grant?

1 = Not at all 4 = Somewhat 7 = To a great extent

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(5.93) (6.19) (6.39) (6.48) (6.73)


Africa 6.17

Asia 6.28

Bangladesh 6.22

Belgium 6.37

CEE 6.54


DACH 6.68

France 6.45

Global 6.52

Iberia 6.50

Latin America 6.65

MENAT 6.50

North America 6.32


UK 6.59


CONFIDENTIAL

26

To what extent did Porticus exhibit candor about Porticus's perspectives on your work during this grant?


0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(5.07) (5.84) (6.07) (6.21) (6.52)


Africa 5.84

Asia 6.08

Bangladesh 5.89

Belgium 6.00

CEE 6.02


DACH 6.25

France 6.36

Global 6.31

Iberia 6.29

Latin America 6.32

MENAT 6.10

North America 5.94


UK 6.05


CONFIDENTIAL

27

To what extent did Porticus exhibit respectful interaction during this grant?


0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(6.12) (6.45) (6.58) (6.72) (7.00)


Africa 6.35

Asia 6.43

Bangladesh 6.44

Belgium 6.56

CEE 6.69


DACH 6.82

France 6.73

Global 6.65

Iberia 6.25

Latin America 6.74

MENAT 6.63

North America 6.68


UK 6.61


CONFIDENTIAL

28

To what extent did Porticus exhibit compassion for those affected by your work during this grant?


0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(5.41) (6.21) (6.38) (6.54) (6.94)


Africa 6.21

Asia 6.35

Bangladesh 6.22

Belgium 6.17

CEE 6.30


DACH 6.49

France 6.36

Global 6.58

Iberia 6.39

Latin America 6.54

MENAT 6.32

North America 6.62


UK 6.67


CONFIDENTIAL

29

Interaction Patterns

"How often do/did you have contact with your program officer during this grant?"

Yearly or less often Once every few months Monthly or more often

Porticus 2020 14% 63% 24%

Porticus 2017 20% 59% 21%

Custom Cohort 9% 58% 33%

Average Funder 18% 55% 27%

"How often do/did you have contact with your program officer during this grant?" (By Subgroup)

Yearly or less often Once every few months Monthly or more often

Africa 14% 59% 27%

Asia 12% 62% 26%

Bangladesh 56% 44%

Belgium 16% 67% 17%

CEE 12% 67% 21%

Community Arts Lab 57% 43%

DACH 8% 76% 16%

France 36% 64%

Global 62% 38%

Iberia 4% 70% 26%

Latin America 14% 56% 30%

MENAT 10% 65% 26%

North America 18% 68% 13%

The Netherlands 34% 52% 14%

UK 21% 65% 14%

CONFIDENTIAL

30

“Who most frequently initiated the contact you had with your program officer?”

Primary Contact Both of equal frequency Grantee

Porticus 2020 13% 53% 33%

Porticus 2017 13% 48% 35%



“Who most frequently initiated the contact you had with your program officer?” (By Subgroup)

Primary Contact Both of equal frequency Grantee

Africa 16% 52% 30%

Asia 19% 60% 19%

Bangladesh 11% 78% 11%

Belgium 28% 37% 30%

CEE 7% 57% 35%

Community Arts Lab 16% 59% 25%

DACH 8% 64% 26%

France 36% 45% 18%

Global 8% 62% 27%

Iberia 15% 70% 15%


MENAT 19% 58% 23%



UK 5% 43% 43%

CONFIDENTIAL

31

Contact Change and Site Visits

Has your main contact at Porticus changed in the past six months?

Proportion of grantees responding 'Yes'

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(0%) (6%) (14%) (25%) (90%)

Porticus 202019%62nd

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 19%

Africa 16%

Asia 30%

Bangladesh 11%

Belgium 15%

CEE 14%

Community Arts Lab 14%

DACH 13%

France 9%

Global 9%

Iberia 18%

Latin America 51%

MENAT 41%

North America 12%

The Netherlands 14%

UK 7%


CONFIDENTIAL

32

Did Porticus conduct a site visit during the course of this grant?


0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(6%) (36%) (50%) (70%) (100%)

Porticus 202060%*

64th

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 67%

Africa 64%

Asia 76%

Bangladesh 75%

Belgium 61%

CEE 70%


DACH 64%

France 55%

Global 41%

Iberia 62%

Latin America 58%

MENAT 72%

North America 53%

The Netherlands 47%

UK 44%


CONFIDENTIAL

33

Communication

How clearly has Porticus communicated its goals and strategy to you?

1 = Not at all clearly 7 = Extremely clearly

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(3.65) (5.52) (5.77) (5.98) (6.48)

Porticus 20205.61*

34th

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 5.37

Africa 5.68

Asia 5.74

Bangladesh 5.67

Belgium 5.43

CEE 5.56


DACH 5.44

France 6.27

Global 5.79

Iberia 5.19

Latin America 5.30

MENAT 5.73

North America 5.69


UK 5.63


CONFIDENTIAL

34

How consistent was the information provided by different communication resources, both personal and written, that youused to learn about Porticus?

1 = Not at all consistent 7 = Completely consistent

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(3.89) (5.77) (6.02) (6.20) (6.69)

Porticus 20205.55*

11th

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 5.77

Africa 5.60

Asia 5.76

Bangladesh5.11

Belgium5.05

CEE5.30


DACH 5.75

France 5.50

Global 5.75

Iberia4.74

Latin America 5.69

MENAT5.14

North America 5.60

The Netherlands5.29

UK 5.72


CONFIDENTIAL

35

The following question was recently added to the grantee survey and depicts comparative data from 14 funders in the grantee dataset.

How well do you understand the way in which the work funded by this grant fits into Porticus's broader efforts?


Porticus 2020 Median Funder

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Understanding of fit into Porticus's broader efforts

Porticus 2020 5.24

Median Funder 5.51

How well do you understand the way in which the work funded by this grant fits into Porticus's broader efforts? - By Subgroup


Africa Asia Bangladesh Belgium CEE Community Arts Lab DACH France Global Iberia Latin America MENATNorth America The Netherlands UK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Understanding of fit into Porticus's broader efforts

Africa 5.33

Asia 5.34

Bangladesh 5.78

Belgium 5.34

CEE 5.09


DACH 5.03

France 4.45

Global 5.48

Iberia 5.58

Latin America 5.16

MENAT 5.07

North America 5.24


UK 4.89

CONFIDENTIAL

36

Openness

To what extent is Porticus open to ideas from grantees about its strategy?

1 = Not at all 7 = To a great extent

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(4.14) (5.08) (5.34) (5.56) (6.29)

Porticus 20205.37*

53rd

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 5.10

Africa 5.28

Asia 5.49

Bangladesh 5.78

Belgium 5.42

CEE 5.35


DACH 5.55

France 5.70

Global 5.57

Iberia 4.75

Latin America 5.64

MENAT 5.55

North America 5.22

The Netherlands4.76

UK 5.17


CONFIDENTIAL

37

Top Predictors of Relationships

CEP's research has shown that the strongest predictors of the strength of funder-grantee relationships are transparency and understanding.

Seven related measures of understanding, together create the larger construct that CEP refers to as “understanding". The understanding summary measure below is anaverage of ratings on the following measures:

Porticus's understanding of partner organizations’ strategy and goalsPorticus's awareness of partner organizations’ challengesPorticus's understanding of the fields in which partners workPorticus's understanding of partners’ local communitiesPorticus's understanding of the social, cultural, or socioeconomic factors that affect partners’ workPorticus's understanding of intended beneficiaries’ needsExtent to which Porticus's funding priorities reflect a deep understanding of partners’ intended beneficiaries’ needs

Understanding Summary Measure

1 = Very negative 7 = Very positive

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(4.05) (5.48) (5.67) (5.84) (6.36)


Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 5.63

Africa 5.57

Asia 5.56

Bangladesh 5.59

Belgium 5.83

CEE 5.58


DACH 5.79

France 6.10

Global 5.78

Iberia 5.44

Latin America 5.70

MENAT 5.84

North America 5.70


UK 5.84


CONFIDENTIAL

38

Overall, how transparent is Porticus with your organization?

1 = Not at all transparent 7 = Extremely transparent

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(3.69) (5.50) (5.77) (5.98) (6.48)

Porticus 20205.81*

55th

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 5.51

Africa 5.79

Asia 5.68

Bangladesh 5.67

Belgium 5.68

CEE 5.91


DACH 5.76

France 5.73

Global 5.89

Iberia 5.29

Latin America 5.92

MENAT 5.77

North America 5.69


UK 6.00


CONFIDENTIAL

39

Beneficiary and Contextual Understanding

How well does Porticus understand the social, cultural, or socioeconomic factors that affect your work?


0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(4.24) (5.45) (5.69) (5.90) (6.54)

Porticus 20205.6951st

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 5.64

Africa 5.50

Asia 5.52

Bangladesh 5.33

Belgium 5.77

CEE 5.44


DACH 5.84

France 6.10

Global 5.93

Iberia 5.57

Latin America 5.84

MENAT 5.77

North America 5.73


UK 5.97


CONFIDENTIAL

40

In the following questions, we use the term "beneficiaries" to refer to those your organization seeks to serve through the services and/or programs it provides.Beneficiaries are often called end users, clients, constituents, or participants.

How well does Porticus understand your intended beneficiaries' needs?


0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(4.00) (5.48) (5.67) (5.87) (6.46)


Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 5.69

Africa 5.65

Asia 5.59

Bangladesh 5.33

Belgium 5.80

CEE 5.62


DACH 5.82

France 5.82

Global 5.76

Iberia 5.58

Latin America 5.70

MENAT 5.89

North America 5.84


UK 5.98


CONFIDENTIAL

41

To what extent do Porticus's funding priorities reflect a deep understanding of your intended beneficiaries' needs?


0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(3.77) (5.35) (5.57) (5.82) (6.45)


Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 5.55

Africa 5.57

Asia 5.56

Bangladesh 5.78

Belgium 5.63

CEE 5.56


DACH 5.73

France 6.00

Global 5.41

Iberia 5.21

Latin America 5.55

MENAT 5.61

North America 5.94

The Netherlands4.85

UK 5.94


CONFIDENTIAL

42

Grant Processes

How helpful was participating in Porticus's selection process in strengthening the organization/program funded by the grant?

1 = Not at all helpful 7 = Extremely helpful

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(3.45) (4.71) (5.04) (5.27) (6.20)

Porticus 20205.33*

79th

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 5.08

Africa 5.54

Asia 5.57

Bangladesh 5.50

Belgium 4.86

CEE 5.18


DACH 5.16

France 5.27

Global 5.38

Iberia 5.15

Latin America 5.86

MENAT 5.43

North America 5.09


UK 4.98


CONFIDENTIAL

43

Selection Process

Did you submit a proposal for this grant?

Submitted an application Did not submit an application

Porticus 2020 98%

Porticus 2017 98%

Custom Cohort 97%

Average Funder 95% 5%

As you developed your grant application, how much pressure did you feel to modify your organization's priorities in order tocreate a grant application that was likely to receive funding?

1 = No pressure 7 = Significant pressure

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(1.32) (2.01) (2.26) (2.49) (4.24)


Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 2.27

Africa 2.74

Asia 2.62

Bangladesh 3.11

Belgium 2.28

CEE 2.07

Community Arts Lab1.38

DACH 2.30

France 1.82

Global 2.61

Iberia 2.52

Latin America1.80

MENAT 2.31

North America 2.08


UK 1.84


CONFIDENTIAL

44

Time Between Submission and Clear Commitment

“How much time elapsed from the submission of the grant proposal to clear commitment of funding?”

Time Elapsed from Submission of Proposal to Clear Commitment of Funding Porticus 2020 Porticus 2017 Average Funder Custom Cohort

Less than 3 months 50% 54% 62% 56%

4 - 6 months 35% 31% 29% 30%

7 - 12 months 11% 13% 7% 11%

More than 12 months 3% 2% 2% 3%

Time Elapsed fromSubmission of Proposalto Clear Commitmentof Funding (BySubgroup) Africa Asia Bangladesh Belgium CEE

CommunityArts Lab DACH France Global Iberia

LatinAmerica MENAT

NorthAmerica

TheNetherlands UK

Less than 3 months 46% 55% 33% 46% 56% 73% 27% 64% 53% 8% 47% 68% 49% 55% 63%

4 - 6 months 43% 35% 33% 33% 32% 20% 50% 18% 28% 46% 42% 21% 26% 37% 24%

7 - 12 months 8% 9% 11% 19% 10% 5% 16% 18% 14% 31% 10% 4% 16% 8% 10%

More than 12 months 3% 1% 22% 2% 2% 2% 7% 0% 5% 15% 1% 7% 9% 0% 2%

CONFIDENTIAL

45

Reporting and Evaluation Process

Definition of Reporting and Evaluation

"Reporting" - Porticus's standard oversight, monitoring, and grant reporting. "Evaluation" - formal activities beyond reporting undertaken by Porticus to assess or learn about a grant, a program, or Porticus's efforts.

At any point during the application or the grant period, did Porticus and your organization exchange ideas regarding how yourorganization would assess the results of the work funded by this grant?


0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(18%) (57%) (68%) (79%) (100%)

Porticus 202076%*

66th

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 67%

Africa 86%

Asia 88%

Bangladesh 88%

Belgium 76%

CEE 75%


DACH 67%

France 100%

Global 86%

Iberia 71%

Latin America 69%

MENAT 66%

North America 64%

The Netherlands 73%

UK 61%


Participation in Reporting and/or Evaluation Processes

Participated in a reporting process only Participated in an evaluation process only Participated in both a reporting and an evaluation processParticipated in neither a reporting nor an evaluation process

Porticus 2020 53% 28% 16%

Porticus 2017 55% 30% 13%



CONFIDENTIAL

46

Participation in Reporting and/or Evaluation Processes (By Subgroup)

Participated in a reporting process only Participated in an evaluation process only Participated in both a reporting and an evaluation processParticipated in neither a reporting nor an evaluation process

Africa 44% 5% 40% 11%

Asia 54% 42%


Belgium 35% 11% 22% 31%

CEE 61% 25% 11%


DACH 66% 24% 8%

France 27% 27% 27% 18%

Global 45% 15% 40%

Iberia 56% 4% 33% 7%


MENAT 55% 35% 10%


The Netherlands 50% 7% 17% 26%

UK 61% 16% 21%

CONFIDENTIAL

47

Reporting Process

The following questions were only asked of grantees that indicated having participated in a reporting process. See the “Reporting and Evaluation Process” page for data onthe proportion of grantees participating in this process.

To what extent was Porticus's reporting process straightforward?


0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(5.00) (5.97) (6.17) (6.38) (6.80)


Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 6.00

Africa 6.04

Asia 5.91

Bangladesh5.17

Belgium5.41

CEE 6.07


DACH 6.16

France 6.50

Global 5.89

Iberia5.33

Latin America5.69

MENAT 6.04

North America 6.38

The Netherlands5.09

UK 5.66


CONFIDENTIAL

48

To what extent was Porticus's reporting process adaptable, if necessary, to fit your circumstances?


0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(4.71) (5.67) (5.91) (6.10) (6.77)


Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 5.85

Africa 5.81

Asia 5.76

Bangladesh4.80

Belgium 5.58

CEE 5.91


DACH 5.89

France 6.50

Global 5.77

Iberia 5.55

Latin America 5.79

MENAT5.32

North America 5.96


UK 5.69


CONFIDENTIAL

49

To what extent was Porticus's reporting process relevant, with questions and measures pertinent to the work funded by thisgrant?


0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(5.17) (5.94) (6.10) (6.27) (6.66)


Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 6.03

Africa 6.09

Asia 6.02

Bangladesh 6.00

Belgium5.55

CEE 6.03


DACH 5.94

France 6.50

Global 6.00

Iberia 6.10

Latin America 5.92

MENAT 5.81

North America 6.19

The Netherlands5.70

UK 5.73


CONFIDENTIAL

50

To what extent was Porticus's reporting process a helpful opportunity for you to reflect and learn?


0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(4.56) (5.65) (5.87) (6.08) (6.48)


Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 5.88

Africa 6.24

Asia 5.94

Bangladesh 6.67

Belgium 5.59

CEE 6.03


DACH 5.63

France 6.17

Global 6.11

Iberia 5.85

Latin America 6.05

MENAT 5.78

North America 5.89


UK 5.77


CONFIDENTIAL

51

At any point have you had a substantive discussion with Porticus about the report(s) you or your colleagues submitted as partof the reporting process?


0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(19%) (51%) (62%) (74%) (100%)

Porticus 202070%*

68th

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 64%

Africa 81%

Asia 71%

Bangladesh 67%

Belgium 87%

CEE 60%


DACH 71%

France 100%

Global 63%

Iberia 83%

Latin America 62%

MENAT 73%

North America 63%

The Netherlands 78%

UK 51%


CONFIDENTIAL

52

Evaluation Process

The following questions were only asked of grantees that indicated having participated in an evaluation process. See the “Reporting and Evaluation Process” page for dataon the proportion of grantees participating in this process.

Who was primarily responsible for carrying out the evaluation?

Evaluation staff at Porticus Evaluation staff at your organization External evaluator, chosen by PorticusExternal evaluator, chosen by your organization

Porticus 2020 26% 37% 15% 21%

Porticus 2017 25% 53% 7% 15%

Custom Cohort 21% 36% 25% 18%

Average Funder 22% 49% 16% 14%

Who was primarily responsible for carrying out the evaluation? (By Subgroup)

Evaluation staff at Porticus Evaluation staff at your organization External evaluator, chosen by PorticusExternal evaluator, chosen by your organization

Africa 30% 33% 13% 23%

Asia 12% 45% 15% 28%

Belgium 39% 56% 6%

CEE 24% 36% 15% 24%

Community Arts Lab 8% 50% 8% 33%

DACH 31% 31% 15% 23%

France 33% 17% 33% 17%

Global 29% 14% 29% 29%

Iberia 20% 20% 40% 20%


MENAT 27% 9% 9% 55%

North America 29% 43% 14% 14%


UK 25% 19% 50% 6%

CONFIDENTIAL

53

Did the Foundation provide financial support for the evaluation?

Yes, the evaluation's costs were fully funded by Porticus Yes, the evaluation's costs were partially funded by PorticusNo, the evaluation's costs were not funded by Porticus

Porticus 2020 48% 21% 31%

Porticus 2017 27% 17% 56%



CONFIDENTIAL

54

Did the Foundation provide financial support for the evaluation? (By Subgroup)

Yes, the evaluation's costs were fully funded by Porticus Yes, the evaluation's costs were partially funded by PorticusNo, the evaluation's costs were not funded by Porticus

Africa 51% 25% 24%

Asia 67% 18% 15%

Belgium 24% 6% 71%

CEE 48% 26% 26%


DACH 36% 14% 50%

France 60% 20% 20%

Global 40% 40% 20%

Iberia 50% 40% 10%


MENAT 50% 10% 40%



UK 64% 36%

CONFIDENTIAL

55

To what extent did the evaluation incorporate input from your organization in the design of the evaluation?


0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(4.00) (5.17) (5.50) (5.75) (6.63)


Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 5.63

Africa 5.63

Asia 6.00

Belgium 6.13

CEE 5.64


DACH 5.50

France 6.17

Global 5.20

Iberia 5.20

Latin America 6.41

MENAT 6.11

North America 5.33


UK 5.31


CONFIDENTIAL

56

To what extent did the evaluation result in your organization making changes to the work that was evaluated?


0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(3.50) (4.51) (4.80) (5.17) (6.33)


Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 5.06

Africa 5.10

Asia 5.60

Belgium 4.33

CEE 5.17


DACH 5.11

France3.33

Global3.50

Iberia 5.20

Latin America 5.20

MENAT 5.50

North America 4.57

The Netherlands4.14

UK 4.50


CONFIDENTIAL

57

To what extent did the evaluation generate information that you believe will be useful for other organizations?


0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(4.00) (5.22) (5.55) (5.75) (6.60)

Porticus 20205.71*

72nd

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 5.40

Africa 5.86

Asia 5.75

Belgium 5.45

CEE 6.07


DACH 4.88

France 5.40

Iberia 5.67

Latin America 5.94

MENAT 5.43

North America 5.69

The Netherlands4.77

UK 5.50


CONFIDENTIAL

58

Dollar Return and Time Spent on Processes

Dollar Return: Median grant dollars awarded per process hour required

Includes total grant dollars awarded and total time necessary to fulfill the requirements over the lifetime of the grant

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th($0.1K) ($1.6K) ($2.5K) ($4.7K) ($24.5K)

Porticus 2020$2.2K

41st

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 $1.8K

Africa $1.1K

Asia $2.0K

Bangladesh $4.3K

Belgium $2.8K

CEE $1.7K

Community Arts Lab $2.0K

DACH $3.6K

France $6.4K

Global $4.8K

Iberia$0.5K

Latin America $2.2K

MENAT $3.4K

North America $5.0K

The Netherlands $2.3K

UK $2.8K


CONFIDENTIAL

59

Median Grant Size

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th($2K) ($40K) ($100K) ($223K) ($3300K)

Porticus 2020$118K

55th

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 $79K

Africa $83K

Asia $154K

Bangladesh $434K

Belgium $88K

CEE $143K

Community Arts Lab $177K

DACH $212K

France $366K

Global $283K

Iberia $55K

Latin America $177K

MENAT $171K

North America $163K

The Netherlands $71K

UK $94K


CONFIDENTIAL

60

Median hours spent by grantees on funder requirements over grant lifetime

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(8hrs) (22hrs) (32hrs) (55hrs) (325hrs)

Porticus 202060hrs

79th

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 40hrs

Africa 80hrs

Asia 70hrs

Bangladesh 80hrs

Belgium 29hrs

CEE 82hrs

Community Arts Lab 75hrs

DACH 68hrs

France 54hrs

Global 55hrs

Iberia 160hrs

Latin America 80hrs

MENAT 51hrs

North America 39hrs

The Netherlands 40hrs

UK 34hrs


CONFIDENTIAL

61

Time Spent on Selection Process

Median Hours Spent on Proposal and Selection Process


Porticus 202040hrs

84th

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 24hrs

Africa 43hrs

Asia 40hrs

Bangladesh 60hrs

Belgium 22hrs

CEE 40hrs


DACH 40hrs

France 30hrs

Global 40hrs

Iberia 60hrs

Latin America 40hrs

MENAT 30hrs

North America 23hrs


UK 25hrs


Time Spent On Proposal And Selection Process Porticus 2020 Porticus 2017 Average Funder Custom Cohort

1 to 9 hours 11% 17% 21% 8%

10 to 19 hours 14% 18% 21% 14%

20 to 29 hours 14% 18% 18% 15%

30 to 39 hours 11% 8% 8% 11%

40 to 49 hours 16% 12% 12% 14%

50 to 99 hours 18% 16% 11% 17%

100 to 199 hours 11% 6% 6% 13%

200+ hours 6% 4% 4% 8%

CONFIDENTIAL

62

Time Spent OnProposal And SelectionProcess (By Subgroup) Africa Asia Bangladesh Belgium CEE


LatinAmerica MENAT

NorthAmerica

TheNetherlands UK

1 to 9 hours 14% 14% 0% 19% 3% 2% 10% 0% 13% 4% 1% 13% 14% 16% 12%

10 to 19 hours 9% 9% 0% 28% 9% 17% 18% 40% 7% 0% 11% 13% 24% 14% 21%

20 to 29 hours 13% 12% 11% 13% 9% 10% 12% 10% 11% 7% 16% 23% 18% 18% 19%

30 to 39 hours 9% 11% 0% 9% 9% 10% 6% 0% 9% 11% 16% 3% 8% 9% 23%

40 to 49 hours 12% 19% 22% 7% 22% 19% 22% 10% 20% 7% 15% 17% 20% 20% 12%

50 to 99 hours 21% 16% 44% 15% 24% 29% 19% 20% 18% 33% 21% 13% 8% 17% 8%

100 to 199 hours 11% 14% 22% 4% 14% 10% 12% 20% 18% 26% 13% 13% 5% 3% 3%

200+ hours 12% 5% 0% 6% 9% 5% 1% 0% 4% 11% 6% 3% 3% 3% 1%

CONFIDENTIAL

63

Time Spent on Reporting and Evaluation Process

Median Hours Spent on Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation Process Per Year


Porticus 202013hrs

82nd

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 10hrs

Africa 25hrs

Asia 18hrs

Bangladesh 13hrs

Belgium 7hrs

CEE 19hrs


DACH 8hrs

France 9hrs

Global 15hrs

Iberia 26hrs

Latin America 25hrs

MENAT 18hrs

North America 10hrs


UK 7hrs


Time Spent On Monitoring, Reporting, And Evaluation Process (Annualized) Porticus 2020 Porticus 2017 Average Funder Custom Cohort

1 to 9 hours 37% 49% 53% 38%

10 to 19 hours 21% 20% 20% 22%

20 to 29 hours 12% 10% 10% 13%

30 to 39 hours 5% 6% 4% 5%

40 to 49 hours 5% 5% 3% 5%

50 to 99 hours 10% 6% 5% 9%

100+ hours 10% 5% 5% 7%

CONFIDENTIAL

64

Time Spent OnMonitoring, Reporting,And Evaluation Process(Annualized) (BySubgroup) Africa Asia Bangladesh Belgium CEE


LatinAmerica MENAT

NorthAmerica

TheNetherlands UK

1 to 9 hours 25% 33% 20% 57% 27% 28% 51% 50% 42% 16% 23% 25% 49% 58% 62%

10 to 19 hours 16% 19% 40% 21% 23% 17% 23% 25% 13% 20% 18% 25% 25% 29% 28%

20 to 29 hours 14% 4% 0% 7% 16% 17% 11% 0% 19% 20% 15% 12% 13% 7% 6%

30 to 39 hours 7% 8% 0% 7% 7% 3% 5% 12% 3% 4% 5% 8% 2% 2% 0%

40 to 49 hours 4% 12% 0% 4% 6% 6% 2% 0% 10% 4% 10% 0% 7% 2% 0%

50 to 99 hours 16% 9% 40% 4% 7% 17% 4% 12% 6% 28% 14% 21% 3% 2% 1%

100+ hours 18% 15% 0% 0% 14% 14% 5% 0% 6% 8% 15% 8% 2% 0% 3%

CONFIDENTIAL

65

Non-Monetary Assistance

Grantees were asked to indicate whether they had received any of the following sixteen types of assistance provided directly or paid for by Porticus.

Management Assistance Field-Related Assistance Other Assistance

General management advice Encouraged/facilitated collaboration Board development/governance assistance

Strategic planning advice Insight and advice on your field Information technology assistance

Financial planning/accounting Introductions to leaders in field Communications/marketing/publicity assistance

Development of performance measures Provided research or best practices Use of Porticus facilities

Provided seminars/forums/convenings Staff/management training

Fundraising support

Diversity, equity, and inclusion assistance

Based on their responses, CEP categorized grantees by the pattern of assistance they received. CEP’s analysis shows that providing three or fewer assistance activities isoften ineffective; it is only when grantees receive one of the two intensive patterns of assistance described below that they have a substantially more positive experiencecompared to grantees receiving no assistance.

Non-Monetary Assistance Patterns Porticus 2020 Porticus 2017 Average Funder Custom Cohort

Comprehensive 6% 5% 7% 6%

Field-focused 9% 6% 12% 16%

Little 45% 46% 41% 43%

None 40% 43% 41% 35%

Non-MonetaryAssistance Patterns(By Subgroup) Africa Asia Bangladesh Belgium CEE


LatinAmerica MENAT

NorthAmerica

TheNetherlands UK

Comprehensive 12% 8% 11% 0% 7% 9% 7% 0% 4% 0% 3% 0% 4% 0% 3%

Field-focused 9% 6% 0% 0% 14% 14% 3% 27% 12% 25% 9% 3% 16% 1% 8%

Little 49% 41% 67% 58% 51% 45% 47% 55% 44% 54% 49% 52% 35% 37% 32%

None 30% 44% 22% 42% 29% 32% 43% 18% 40% 21% 39% 45% 45% 62% 57%

CONFIDENTIAL

66

Proportion of grantees that received field-focused or comprehensive assistance

0th 25th 50th 75th 100th(0%) (10%) (17%) (26%) (60%)

Porticus 202015%*

41st

Custom Cohort

Porticus 2017 10%

Africa 21%

Asia 14%

Bangladesh 11%

Belgium0%

CEE 20%


DACH 9%

France 27%

Global 17%

Iberia 25%

Latin America 12%

MENAT3%

North America 19%

The Netherlands1%

UK 12%


The following question was recently added to the grantee survey and depicts comparative data from 78 funders in the dataset.

Have you ever requested support from Porticus to help strengthen your organization?


0 20 40 60 80 100

I have never requested support from Porticus to strengthen my organization

Porticus 2020 38%

Median Funder 44%

CONFIDENTIAL

67

Have you ever requested support from Porticus to help strengthen your organization? - By Subgroup


0 20 40 60 80 100

I have never requested support from Porticus to strengthen my organization

Africa 31%

Asia 33%

Bangladesh 44%

Belgium 36%

CEE 35%


DACH 28%

France 18%

Global 45%

Iberia 61%

Latin America 44%

MENAT 58%

North America 32%

The Netherlands 28%

UK 61%

CONFIDENTIAL

68

If you have ever requested support from Porticus to help strengthen your organization, how did you determine what specificsupport to ask for?


0 20 40 60 80 100

Based on what Porticus told your organization to request

Porticus 2020 18%

Median Funder 19%

Based on what your organization believes Porticus would be willing to fund

Porticus 2020 26%

Median Funder 27%

Based on what your organization needs

Porticus 2020 43%

Median Funder 39%

Based on the results of an assessment or evaluation

Porticus 2020 14%

Median Funder 11%

CONFIDENTIAL

69

If you have ever requested support from Porticus to help strengthen your organization, how did you determine what specificsupport to ask for? - By Subgroup


0 20 40 60 80 100

Based on what Porticus told your organization to request

Africa 16%

Asia 19%

Bangladesh 11%

Belgium 19%

CEE 15%


DACH 27%

France 45%

Global 15%

Iberia 14%

Latin America 18%

MENAT 13%

North America 28%

The Netherlands 26%

UK 13%

Based on what your organization believes Porticus would be willing to fund

Africa 29%

Asia 39%

Bangladesh 11%

Belgium 21%

CEE 21%


DACH 25%

France 27%

Global 21%

Iberia 32%

Latin America 24%

MENAT 16%

North America 30%

The Netherlands 31%

UK 20%

Based on what your organization needs

Africa 46%

Asia 42%

Bangladesh 44%

Belgium 48%

CEE 50%


DACH 57%

France 64%

Global 45%

Iberia 18%

Latin America 33%

MENAT 29%

North America 43%

The Netherlands 46%

UK 25%

CONFIDENTIAL

70

Based on the results of an assessment or evaluation

Africa 26%

Asia 23%

Bangladesh 11%

Belgium 2%

CEE 15%


DACH 11%

France 18%

Global 11%

Iberia 4%

Latin America 9%

MENAT 10%

North America 13%

The Netherlands 5%

UK 4%

CONFIDENTIAL

71

Management Assistance Activities

"Please indicate all types of non-monetary assistance, if any, you received (from staff or a third party paid for by Porticus)associated with this funding."

Percentage of Grantees that Received Management Assistance

Porticus 2020 Porticus 2017 Custom Cohort Median Funder

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strategic planning advice

Porticus 2020 17%

Porticus 2017 22%

Custom Cohort 21%

Median Funder 18%

General management advice

Porticus 2020 18%

Porticus 2017 18%

Custom Cohort 14%

Median Funder 12%

Development of performance measures

Porticus 2020 13%

Porticus 2017 10%

Custom Cohort 13%

Median Funder 11%

Financial planning/accounting

Porticus 2020 8%

Porticus 2017 7%

Custom Cohort 8%

Median Funder 5%

CONFIDENTIAL

72

Percentage of Grantees that Received Management Assistance - By Subgroup


0 20 40 60 80 100


Africa 20%

Asia 19%

Bangladesh 33%

Belgium 15%

CEE 18%


DACH 28%

France 18%

Global 29%

Iberia 4%

Latin America 14%

MENAT 13%

North America 16%

The Netherlands 5%

UK 8%

General management advice

Africa 32%

Asia 12%

Bangladesh 11%

Belgium 22%

CEE 16%


DACH 30%

France 27%

Global 8%

Iberia 18%

Latin America 15%

MENAT 3%

North America 13%

The Netherlands 10%

UK 12%


Africa 19%

Asia 21%

Bangladesh 56%

Belgium 2%

CEE 20%


DACH 14%

France 0%

Global 4%

Iberia 18%

Latin America 3%

MENAT 23%

North America 6%

The Netherlands 10%

UK 3%


CONFIDENTIAL

73

Africa 14%

Asia 17%

Bangladesh 33%

Belgium 5%

CEE 4%


DACH 9%

France 9%

Global 6%

Iberia 11%

Latin America 7%

MENAT 0%

North America 4%

The Netherlands 1%

UK 5%

CONFIDENTIAL

74

Field-Related Assistance Activities


Percentage of Grantees that Received Field-Related Assistance


0 20 40 60 80 100

Encouraged/facilitated collaboration

Porticus 2020 35%

Porticus 2017 28%

Custom Cohort 39%

Median Funder 34%

Insight and advice on your field

Porticus 2020 28%

Porticus 2017 29%

Custom Cohort 30%

Median Funder 24%

Provided seminars/forums/convenings

Porticus 2020 21%

Porticus 2017 14%

Custom Cohort 25%

Median Funder 24%

Introduction to leaders in the field

Porticus 2020 17%

Porticus 2017 12%

Custom Cohort 30%

Median Funder 22%

Provided research or best practices

Porticus 2020 12%

Porticus 2017 8%

Custom Cohort 15%

Median Funder 13%

CONFIDENTIAL

75

Percentage of Grantees that Received Field-Related Assistance - By Subgroup


0 20 40 60 80 100


Africa 43%

Asia 31%

Bangladesh 44%

Belgium 37%

CEE 43%


DACH 34%

France 64%

Global 42%

Iberia 54%

Latin America 36%

MENAT 13%

North America 32%

The Netherlands 17%

UK 22%


Africa 42%

Asia 15%

Bangladesh 22%

Belgium 24%

CEE 31%


DACH 41%

France 36%

Global 31%

Iberia 32%

Latin America 22%

MENAT 19%

North America 25%

The Netherlands 10%

UK 20%

Provided seminars/forums/convenings

Africa 23%

Asia 28%

Bangladesh 22%

Belgium 5%

CEE 37%


DACH 16%

France 45%

Global 19%

Iberia 21%

Latin America 20%

MENAT 16%

North America 23%

The Netherlands 9%

UK 14%

Introduction to leaders in the field

CONFIDENTIAL

76

Africa 16%

Asia 18%

Bangladesh 44%

Belgium 7%

CEE 20%


DACH 5%

France 36%

Global 29%

Iberia 11%

Latin America 17%

MENAT 13%

North America 22%

The Netherlands 1%

UK 20%

Provided research or best practices

Africa 17%

Asia 10%

Bangladesh 11%

Belgium 10%

CEE 11%


DACH 5%

France 45%

Global 8%

Iberia 21%

Latin America 17%

MENAT 13%

North America 13%

The Netherlands 4%

UK 7%

CONFIDENTIAL

77

Other Assistance Activities


Percentage of Grantees that Received Other Assistance


0 20 40 60 80 100

Communications/marketing/publicity assistance

Porticus 2020 4%

Porticus 2017 5%

Custom Cohort 11%

Median Funder 10%

Board development/governance assistance

Porticus 2020 7%

Porticus 2017 5%

Custom Cohort 6%

Median Funder 5%

Use of Porticus's facilities

Porticus 2020 4%

Porticus 2017 3%

Custom Cohort 8%

Median Funder 6%

Staff/management training

Porticus 2020 10%

Porticus 2017 10%

Custom Cohort 5%

Median Funder 6%

Information technology assistance

Porticus 2020 4%

Porticus 2017 4%

Custom Cohort 4%

Median Funder 3%

Fundraising Support

Porticus 2020 11%

Porticus 2017 N/A

Custom Cohort N/A

Median Funder 10%


Porticus 2020 8%

Porticus 2017 N/A

Custom Cohort N/A

Median Funder 6%

CONFIDENTIAL

78

Percentage of Grantees that Received Other Assistance - By Subgroup


0 20 40 60 80 100


Africa 6%

Asia 6%

Bangladesh 22%

Belgium 7%

CEE 2%


DACH 1%

France 0%

Global 6%

Iberia 0%

Latin America 2%

MENAT 0%

North America 4%

The Netherlands 3%

UK 2%


Africa 15%

Asia 4%

Bangladesh 11%

Belgium 5%

CEE 6%


DACH 5%

France 9%

Global 10%

Iberia 0%

Latin America 3%

MENAT 3%

North America 4%

The Netherlands 5%

UK 6%

Use of Porticus's facilities

Africa 6%

Asia 4%

Bangladesh 0%

Belgium 2%

CEE 2%


DACH 4%

France 9%

Global 2%

Iberia 0%

Latin America 4%

MENAT 0%

North America 3%

The Netherlands 1%

UK 6%

Staff/management training

CONFIDENTIAL

79

Africa 14%

Asia 16%

Bangladesh 33%

Belgium 7%

CEE 18%


DACH 1%

France 0%

Global 2%

Iberia 21%

Latin America 4%

MENAT 6%

North America 5%

The Netherlands 5%

UK 0%


Africa 8%

Asia 5%

Bangladesh 0%

Belgium 3%

CEE 2%


DACH 3%

France 0%

Global 8%

Iberia 0%

Latin America 8%

MENAT 0%

North America 1%

The Netherlands 1%

UK 1%

Fundraising Support

Africa 14%

Asia 19%

Bangladesh 0%

Belgium 7%

CEE 8%


DACH 4%

France 27%

Global 17%

Iberia 0%

Latin America 12%

MENAT 0%

North America 18%

The Netherlands 9%

UK 8%


Africa 9%

Asia 7%

Bangladesh 33%

Belgium 2%

CEE 13%


CONFIDENTIAL

80

DACH 8%

France 18%

Global 2%

Iberia 11%

Latin America 15%

MENAT 10%

North America 6%

The Netherlands 1%

UK 1%

CONFIDENTIAL

81

Customized Questions

In the following questions, the term “end-beneficiaries” was used to refer to those partners' organizations seek to serve through the programs they provides. End-beneficiaries are also called end-users, clients, constituents, customers, partners, or participants.

"To what extent do you involve your end-beneficiaries in the following aspects of your organization’s work?"

Design of grant/project (i.e. defining priorities and activities)

We do not involve them directly We provide them with information We work with them to ensure their concerns are considered and we decideWe share ownership and partner for joint decision-making

Porticus 2020 17% 12% 45% 26%

Design of grant/project (i.e. defining priorities and activities) - by Subgroup


Africa 8% 9% 47% 36%

Asia 16% 11% 43% 31%

Bangladesh 22% 22% 33% 22%

Belgium 28% 13% 49% 9%

CEE 14% 12% 52% 22%


DACH 24% 13% 49% 15%

France 27% 64% 9%

Global 17% 46% 35%

Iberia 23% 31% 27% 19%

Latin America 12% 10% 43% 34%

MENAT 10% 17% 37% 37%



UK 19% 8% 48% 24%

CONFIDENTIAL

82

Implementation of activities


Porticus 2020 5% 9% 40% 46%

Implementation of activities - by Subgroup


Africa 9% 36% 54%

Asia 6% 11% 35% 47%


Belgium 9% 15% 43% 32%

CEE 11% 36% 53%


DACH 8% 10% 49% 33%

France 73% 27%

Global 4% 7% 39% 50%

Iberia 8% 8% 46% 38%


MENAT 7% 7% 40% 47%



UK 7% 50% 40%

CONFIDENTIAL

83

Monitoring of activities


Porticus 2020 10% 18% 41% 31%

Monitoring of activities - by Subgroup


Africa 14% 36% 48%

Asia 9% 14% 40% 38%


Belgium 11% 23% 40% 26%

CEE 10% 21% 41% 28%


DACH 16% 19% 44% 21%

France 20% 20% 50% 10%

Global 14% 19% 26% 40%

Iberia 15% 27% 35% 23%


MENAT 7% 24% 41% 28%



UK 9% 20% 45% 26%

CONFIDENTIAL

84

Evaluation of effect activities had on beneficiaries


Porticus 2020 5% 12% 44% 39%

Evaluation of effect activities had on beneficiaries - by Subgroup


Africa 9% 42% 48%

Asia 5% 13% 43% 39%

Bangladesh 12% 12% 38% 38%

Belgium 7% 13% 41% 39%

CEE 8% 16% 38% 38%


DACH 6% 5% 59% 30%

France 22% 56% 22%

Global 7% 38% 52%

Iberia 12% 19% 42% 27%


MENAT 13% 50% 33%



UK 10% 49% 37%

CONFIDENTIAL

85

Does the funding you receive involve a partnership with other organizations?

No Yes

Porticus 2020 42% 58%

Does the funding you receive involve a partnership with other organizations? - by Subgroup

No Yes

Africa 54% 46%

Asia 45% 55%

Bangladesh 67% 33%

Belgium 32% 68%

CEE 35% 65%

Community Arts Lab 34% 66%

DACH 63% 37%

France 27% 73%

Global 33% 67%

Iberia 41% 59%

Latin America 26% 74%

MENAT 37% 63%

North America 44% 56%

The Netherlands 14% 86%

UK 56% 44%

CONFIDENTIAL

86

The following question was only asked of partners who indicated that the funding they received involved a partnership with other organizations.

Beyond financing this partnership, how would you rate Porticus's role in this partnership?

Not important Somewhat important but silent partner Somewhat important and present Important and present Important and actively engagedToo dominant

Porticus 2020 6% 19% 12% 34% 28%

Beyond financing this partnership, how would you rate Porticus's role in this partnership? - by Subgroup

Not important Somewhat important but silent partner Somewhat important and present Important and present Important and actively engagedToo dominant

Africa 11% 10% 37% 38%

Asia 4% 8% 6% 45% 38%

Belgium 15% 32% 8% 28% 18%

CEE 27% 13% 29% 29%


DACH 21% 7% 43% 29%

France 12% 25% 38% 25%

Global 6% 10% 32% 45%

Iberia 12% 19% 44% 19% 6%

Latin America 25% 9% 32% 28% 5%

MENAT 16% 58% 26%

North America 5% 24% 12% 43% 17%

The Netherlands 32% 22% 28% 12% 6%

UK 28% 12% 35% 25%

CONFIDENTIAL

87

Porticus would like to better understand the types of support that grantees may find valuable. For each of the followingtypes of support, please indicate how important these are to support your organization in achieving greater impact.

1 = Not at all important 7 = Extremely important

Porticus 2020 Porticus 2017

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Assistance securing funding from other sources

Porticus 2020 5.60

Porticus 2017 N/A

Introductions to leaders in the field

Porticus 2020 5.00

Porticus 2017 4.90

Monitoring and evaluation

Porticus 2020 4.98

Porticus 2017 4.74


Porticus 2020 4.87

Porticus 2017 4.82


Porticus 2020 4.76

Porticus 2017 4.62


Porticus 2020 4.69

Porticus 2017 4.67


Porticus 2020 4.68

Porticus 2017 4.69


Porticus 2020 4.58

Porticus 2017 4.71


Porticus 2020 4.07

Porticus 2017 4.11


Porticus 2020 4.05

Porticus 2017 4.06


Porticus 2020 3.85

Porticus 2017 3.77

CONFIDENTIAL

88

Porticus would like to better understand the types of support that grantees may find valuable. For each of the followingtypes of support, please indicate how important these are to support your organization in achieving greater impact. - BySubgroup

1 = Not at all important 7 = Extremely important


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Assistance securing funding from other sources

Africa 5.96

Asia 5.64

Bangladesh 5.86

Belgium 5.44

CEE 5.51


DACH 3.38

France 4.82

Global 5.50

Iberia 5.58

Latin America 6.18

MENAT 6.13

North America 6.20


UK 5.90

Introductions to leaders in the field

Africa 5.31

Asia 5.18

Bangladesh 5.50

Belgium 4.58

CEE 5.17


DACH 3.28

France 4.55

Global 5.71

Iberia 5.32

Latin America 4.86

MENAT 5.03

North America 5.12


UK 5.22

Monitoring and evaluation

Africa 5.69

Asia 5.26

Bangladesh 5.62

Belgium 4.47

CEE 5.03


DACH 3.90

France 5.18

Global 4.54

Iberia 4.83

Latin America 5.39

MENAT 5.03

North America 4.79

CONFIDENTIAL

89

4.79


UK 4.83


Africa 5.21

Asia 4.99

Bangladesh 5.44

Belgium 4.29

CEE 4.89


DACH 4.48

France 4.27

Global 5.28

Iberia 5.48

Latin America 5.36

MENAT 4.27

North America 4.63


UK 4.67


Africa 5.44

Asia 5.16

Bangladesh 5.33

Belgium 4.15

CEE 4.82


DACH 4.00

France 4.27

Global 4.08

Iberia 4.91

Latin America 5.01

MENAT 4.97

North America 4.61


UK 4.45


Africa 5.43

Asia 4.90

Bangladesh 4.62

Belgium 4.49

CEE 4.65


DACH 4.65

France 4.09

Global 4.49

Iberia 4.00

Latin America 4.72

MENAT 4.80

North America 4.43


UK 4.76


Africa 5.24

Asia 4.73

Bangladesh 5 12

CONFIDENTIAL

90

Bangladesh 5.12

Belgium 4.22

CEE 4.67


DACH 4.81

France 4.45

Global 4.81

Iberia 4.73

Latin America 4.80

MENAT 4.43

North America 4.48


UK 4.44


Africa 5.02

Asia 4.41

Bangladesh 4.88

Belgium 4.43

CEE 4.83


DACH 3.75

France 3.00

Global 4.21

Iberia 4.32

Latin America 5.12

MENAT 4.60

North America 4.55


UK 4.70


Africa 5.08

Asia 4.32

Bangladesh 3.57

Belgium 3.36

CEE 4.09


DACH 3.13

France 3.55

Global 3.50

Iberia 3.67

Latin America 4.64

MENAT 4.10

North America 3.76


UK 3.93


Africa 5.01

Asia 4.68

Bangladesh 4.56

Belgium 3.69

CEE 3.89


DACH 4.59

France 3.00

Global 3.07

CONFIDENTIAL

91

Global 3.07

Iberia 3.43

Latin America 4.12

MENAT 4.03

North America 3.72


UK 3.57


Africa 4.55

Asia 3.77

Bangladesh 3.38

Belgium 3.49

CEE 3.62


DACH 3.42

France 2.82

Global 3.50

Iberia 3.09

Latin America 3.86

MENAT 4.37

North America 4.00


UK 4.28

CONFIDENTIAL

92

Grantees' Open-Ended Comments

In the Grantee Perception Report survey, CEP asks three open-ended questions:

1. “Please comment on the quality of Porticus's processes, interactions, and communications. Your answer will help us better understand what it is like to work withPorticus.”

2. “Please comment on the impact Porticus is having on your field, community, or organization. Your answer will help us to better understand the nature of Porticus'simpact.”

3. “What specific improvements would you suggest that would make Porticus a better funder?”

To download the full set of grantee comments and suggestions, please refer to the "Downloads" dropdown menu at the top right of your report. Please note that somecomments may be redacted or removed to protect the confidentiality of respondents.

CEP’s Qualitative Analysis

CEP thoroughly reviews each comment submitted and conducts comprehensive qualitative analysis on two of these questions in the GPR.

The following pages outline the results of CEP’s analyses.

CONFIDENTIAL

93

Quality of Processes, Interactions and Communications

Grantees were asked to comment on the quality of Porticus's processes, interactions, and communications. Their comments were then categorized by the nature of theircontent, specifically whether the content is positive, neutral or constructive.

For a comment to be categorized as constructive, there must have been at least one constructive topic in its content.

Positivity of Comments about the Quality of the Foundation's Processes, Interactions, and Communications

Positive comment Comment with at least one constructive theme

Porticus 2020 68% 32%

Porticus 2017 70% 30%

Custom Cohort 68% 32%

Average Funder 73% 27%

CONFIDENTIAL

94

Grantees' Suggestions

Grantees were asked to provide any suggestions for how Porticus could improve. A random sample of these suggestions were categorized by CEP and grouped into thetopics below. CEP conducted a random sample of these suggestions, stratified by Region to ensure representation across groups. Overall, CEP coded a total of 266 granteecomments (one-third of Porticus's total responses to this question. Of these 266, 200 grantees provided 259 distinct suggestions and 66 grantees did not provideconstructive feedback. All proportions quoted are with respect to the 259 distinct coded suggestions.

To download the full set of grantee comments and suggestions, please refer to the “Downloads” dropdown menu at the top right of your report. Please note thatcomments have been edited or deleted to protect the confidentiality of respondents.

Proportion of Grantee Suggestions by Topic

Topic of Suggestion Proportion

Interactions with Grantees 20%

Non-monetary Assistance 17%

Grantmaking 16%

Simplify Processes 12%

Porticus's Strategy 11%

Impact on Grantees' Fields 10%

Reporting and Evaluation Process 6%

Communications 3%

Administrative Processes 3%

Application and Selection Process 2%

CONFIDENTIAL

95

Selected Comments

Grantees were asked to provide any suggestions for how Porticus could improve. The 1067 grantees that responded to the survey provided a total of 259distinct suggestions. These suggestions were thematically categorized by CEP and grouped into the topics below.

Interactions with Grantees (20% N=52)

Conduct Site Visits When Possible (N = 19)

"...It would have been interesting to have Porticus obtain first-hand knowledge of the project. The reports often make it had to capture the complexity andwealth involved in a project.""Perhaps the occasional field visit would help them to see the reality on the ground....""...Making site visits to their local partners as frequent as possible, will make them see more the local picture."

More Frequent Interactions (N = 19)

"We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to communicate more frequently and receive faster answers to our important questions.""...More regular follow ups, discussions between them and the fundees, would perhaps clarify any unsaid but possible or potential misconceptions.""...Yearly meetings to discuss strategy, results and ongoing activities are very useful."

Foster Trust-based Relationships with Grantees (N = 4)

"Adhere to the principle of trust and administration with a human face and do not give in to the dynamic of bureaucratization, evaluation and control.""Porticus is very good and generous in many areas and many ways, but it tends to take a little bit of time before it trusts an organization with big funds. Theidea of pilot projects to test the objectives, approaches and strengths of new organizations is good, but it should be somehow shortened, where possible."

Increase Responsiveness (N = 4)

"Improve response times....""Reduce the time it takes for the staff to respond."

Clarify Grantees' Primary Office of Contact (N = 3)

"The website needs improvement as it is not terribly clear...which Porticus base (USA, Europe or UK) we should apply to for a grant.""...It is not clear to whom to address possible requests, the local Desks, where are they?..."

Contact Changes (N = 1)

"...When there is a change in the project's contact person, and a new person is named, resume the conversations at the point where they were left off, tokeep from having to restart the conversations from scratch."

Other (N = 2)

Non-monetary Assistance (17% N=44)

Connect and Convene Grantees (N = 17)

"I would love to be a part of the Porticus partner's network, to share our best practices, experiences, drawbacks and achievements. Conduct annual partner'smeetings or forums on most relevant topics. This will help us stay innovative and keep our work up to date.""Porticus can provide learning opportunities or share expertise, and further introduce grantees to peer organisations and networks to support institutionallearning. This will greatly improve the capacity and sustainability of the institutions supported.""Creating more opportunities for interactions between grantees to encourage peer to peer learning and networking."

Provide Capacity Building Opportunities (N = 17)

"Porticus could help young grantees with incubation and organisation development that would help them build robust scalable solutions....""Building capacity of partners in fundraising skills, M&E report writing for sustainability purposes.""Greater non-financial support, something for which our fund manager currently has limited to no capacity...."

Connect Grantees with Alternative Sources of Funding (N = 5)

"Connecting grantees to other funders like Porticus to increase our impact.""It would be helpful if Porticus introduced us to other potential funders."

Introduce Grantees to Other Leaders in the Field (N = 5)

"...To connect us more with the leaders of our field or similar projects to ours in our country or abroad. ""...As Porticus has so much professional contacts all around the world, it would be extremely helpful for its partners to get to know other experts and engagethem in their own activity...."

Grantmaking (16% N=41)

Sustain Partnerships and Commitments to Partners' Fields in Service of Impact (N = 25)

"...We do hope that, as the efforts of Porticus to develop a good knowledge base fructify and their internal strategic stance develops, they will be able to fundprojects on a larger scale and over longer time horizons so that the funding matches the natural requirements and time horizons of such projects.""...Solutions in the peacebuilding field often require long-term engagement. Support for these efforts must not focus solely on short-term impacts in order tobe effective. Porticus could enhance its contribution to building peace by supporting such long-term engagements.""Follow up on its partners to renew financing and continue the work being done, contributing to the sustainability of the actions, and producing a greaterimpact."

Grant Type (N = 6)

CONFIDENTIAL

96

"To fully understand the comprehensive needs of its local partners and different areas they may need to fund, be flexible to those needs, cover full projectcosts and different items of the budget not just training and local activities....""If Porticus could open a line of funding that includes a budget portion for activities (limited, on a project basis) and a portion of operational financing (notlimited, for more structural operations expenses, outside of office equipment / travel, etc.), this would be ideal.""For sustainabity purposes: Consider extending funding opportunities to include core grants...."

Remain Flexible (N = 4)

"Be more creative about grant making: call for proposals followings specific themes or innovative ideas, invest in innovation, continue to support leaders andorganizations. ""Flexibility to be able to react to current events."

Consider Continued Provision of Infrastructure Grants (N = 3)

"...Securing funds for building sustainable CSO advocacy and social services, through allowing buying or building property/premises such as office, shelter orday care/activity centers". Looking after funds for covering running costs such as rent is time and energy consuming as well as decreasing funds forimplementing activities.""...Provide funds for the improvement and upgrading of the building and facilities."

Grant Size (N = 3)

"...One positive change would be to stop supporting so many projects and provide...larger-scale institutional support.""If is possible, Portiicus must respect the financial request."

Simplify Processes (12% N=32)

Streamline Application, Reporting, and Evaluation Processes (N = 32)

"I would suggest that they have two types of grant applications: one for large organizations requesting large amounts and one for smaller organizationsrequesting under 200,000 Euros. I found the application almost impossible to answer for our organization...I have filled out many grant applications, butnone as complicated as Porticus....""I would suggest that they have two types of grant applications: one for large organizations requesting large amounts and one for smaller organizationsrequesting under 200,000 Euros. I found the application almost impossible to answer for our organization...I have filled out many grant applications, butnone as complicated as Porticus....""We would suggest to improve the reporting form, if possible, since Porticus has very complicated reporting requirements and criteria. Filling out reportsrequires a lot of time and effort from our employees, and it seems to us that the same data can be obtained with more explicit and simple mechanisms."

Porticus's Strategy (11% N=28)

Clearly Establish Porticus's Strategic Goals and Priorities (N = 25)

"We would appreciate information about the overall strategy and expectations of Porticus to be able to plan in a more long-term way.""I know Porticus Africa keeps in contact with us and I believe the organization keeps changing focus of funding. I wish these areas of focus could be broughtto our attention early enough so that we can orient ourselves towards such new areas of focus....""We would be interested in learning more about their updated strategy (last year, they mentioned a possible change in strategy for our region, and it wasn'tclear if a change took place.) "

Incorporate Grantee Input in Strategy Formation (N = 3)

"Listen to the real needs of the beneficiaries and be guided by them, as was the practice before....""Porticus decisions and policies are determined by the Porticus Board, with little consultation or input from those implementing the activities who might haveuseful insights into the situation on the ground locally, and be aware of local sensitivities, needs and wants, + local possibilities and challenges. "

Impact on Grantees' Fields (10% N=25)

Consider Broadening Funding Priorities (N = 16)

"...Up until now Porticus was a supporter of explicitly Catholic projects from religious congregations for their charitable institutions; now the only possiblehelp is with a scholarship fund open to religious....""Focus on small organizations. The added value of a professional partner such as Porticus is the greatest in these....""...Consider funding individual Organisations than looking at funding Umbrella bodies."

Increase Visibility in the Field (N = 4)

"Be more visible. Tell more people about themselves because they do a great job.""The requirement of confidentiality can sometimes be troublesome with respect to third parties, particularly insitutional third parties, which may wonderabout the reasons for this confidentiality in terms of the names of the funder. A reflection about this topic may be an advantage."

Collaborate with Other Actors in the Field (N = 2)

"...Porticus could have an impact on public policies by federating associations working in the same field, which would then reach a critical mass to get theirvoices heard."

Influence Public Policy (N = 2)

"...Connecting the global to the local is often more effective than focusing solely on local solutions, and Porticus could make an even greater impact byfunding policy work at the global level that informs regional and local interventions..."

Deepen Understanding of Grantees' Fields (N = 1)

"...Sector expertise...."

Reporting and Evaluation Process (6% N=15)

Provide Grantees with Evaluation Training (N = 4)

"...If we could ask for anything, it would be for increased support in evaluation processes specific to the funding provided. "

CONFIDENTIAL

97

"Build capacity of grantees on Monitoring and Evaluation...."

Establish Schedule for Periodic Evaluations (N = 3)

"Regular Monitoring and Evaluation - once in six months...""Quarterly review...of projects."

Establish Shared Metrics for Evaluation (N = 3)

"Slightly less controlling in tempo and quantity for complex changes that an organizing party strives for....""Greater flexibility with reporting...."

Create an Evaluation Template (N = 2)

"...Porticus has criteria for reporting, and having a reporting template will be very helpful...."

Discuss Submitted Reports (N = 2)

"...Feedback process after reporting."

Other (N = 1)

Communications (3% N=9)

Clearly Communicate Likelihood of Future Funding (N = 8)

"It is important to be more clear about the relationship between a satisfactory performance of the project and the partnership renewal processes, as onedoes not necessarily goes with the other and the signals we received are confusing and lead to some instability in the supported organization....""I would appreciate if there was a set timeline during the grant cycle for us to discuss whether our organization is eligible for future funding, when this mightbe available, and what we can do to lock in (or out). This will facilitate our organizational budgeting and planning processes.""...Offer more and clearer information on funding opportunities."

Communicate Consistently (N = 1)

"Regular newsletter with updates, connections shared in the field, regional/national gatherings."

Administrative Processes (3% N=7)

Clarify Relationship Between Porticus Offices (N = 6)

"...I would say there is an issue about the processes being overly centralised internationally - this filters down and creates a distant impression. I’d suggestempowering national offices to take autonomous decisions....""Simplification of structural responsibilities between the two decision levels; stronger subsidiarity of the regional office.""Clearer with regard to the relationship between the national objectives/organization and the international objectives/organization."

Other (N = 1)

Application and Selection Process (2% N=6)

Decrease Time Between Application Submission and Commitment of Funding (N = 3)

"I would merely accelerate the decision making.""Quicker approval of the funds."

Make Forms Available in Other Languages (N = 2)

"The form that needs to be used does act as a barrier. This is due to the English language and also the questions that are asked. We are experienced projectwriters. I can imagine that others could use more support when writing..."

Other (N = 1)

CONFIDENTIAL

98

Contextual Data

Grantmaking Characteristics

Length of Grant Awarded Porticus 2020 Porticus 2017 Median Funder Custom Cohort

Average grant length 2.1 years 2.2 years 2.2 years 2.6 years

Length of Grant Awarded Porticus 2020 Porticus 2017 Average Funder Custom Cohort

1 year 34% 35% 43% 23%

2 years 32% 30% 24% 30%

3 years 28% 26% 20% 31%

4 years 3% 4% 4% 6%

5 or more years 4% 5% 8% 10%

Was the funding you received restricted to a specific use? Porticus 2020 Average Funder

No, this funding was not restricted to a specific use (i.e. general operating, core support) 8% 22%

Yes, this funding was restricted to a specific use (e.g. supported a specific program, project, capital need, etc.) 92% 78%

CONFIDENTIAL

99

Grantmaking Characteristics - By Subgroup

Length of GrantAwarded (BySubgroup) Africa Asia Bangladesh Belgium CEE


LatinAmerica MENAT

NorthAmerica

TheNetherlands UK

Average grantlength

1.8years

2.4years

2.8 years 2.2years

2.1years

1.9 years 2.9years

2.6years

1.8years

2.3years

1.9years

1.9years

2.1years

2.4 years 2.2years

Length of GrantAwarded (BySubgroup) Africa Asia Bangladesh Belgium CEE


LatinAmerica MENAT

NorthAmerica

TheNetherlands UK

1 year 52% 23% 12% 32% 27% 26% 22% 9% 45% 31% 46% 45% 37% 19% 23%

2 years 20% 44% 12% 23% 41% 60% 19% 27% 26% 27% 31% 31% 28% 39% 39%

3 years 23% 25% 62% 39% 28% 12% 33% 55% 23% 31% 20% 21% 30% 31% 34%

4 years 1% 1% 12% 2% 3% 2% 12% 0% 6% 8% 0% 0% 1% 4% 3%

5 or more years 4% 7% 0% 4% 2% 0% 14% 9% 0% 4% 3% 3% 4% 7% 1%

Was the funding youreceived restricted to aspecific use? (BySubgroup) Africa Asia Bangladesh Belgium CEE


LatinAmerica MENAT

NorthAmerica

TheNetherlands UK

No, this funding wasnot restricted to aspecific use (i.e.general operating,core support)

2% 6% 0% 11% 2% 16% 6% 9% 6% 4% 10% 7% 8% 13% 19%

Yes, this funding wasrestricted to a specificuse (e.g. supported aspecific program,project, capital need,etc.)

98% 94% 100% 89% 98% 84% 94% 91% 94% 96% 90% 93% 92% 87% 81%

CONFIDENTIAL

100

Grant Size

Grant Amount Awarded Porticus 2020 Porticus 2017 Median Funder Custom Cohort

Median grant size $117.9K $78.7K $100K $375K

Grant Amount Awarded Porticus 2020 Porticus 2017 Average Funder Custom Cohort

Less than $10K 8% 10% 9% 2%

$10K - $24K 4% 6% 12% 1%

$25K - $49K 9% 14% 13% 3%

$50K - $99K 22% 31% 15% 8%

$100K - $149K 12% 13% 9% 8%

$150K - $299K 28% 17% 16% 22%

$300K - $499K 8% 4% 9% 15%

$500K - $999K 6% 3% 8% 17%

$1MM and above 4% 3% 9% 24%

Median Percent of Budget Funded by Grant (Annualized) Porticus 2020 Porticus 2017 Median Funder Custom Cohort

Size of grant relative to size of grantee budget 11% 9% 4% 6%

CONFIDENTIAL

101

Grant Size - By Subgroup

Grant AmountAwarded (BySubgroup) Africa Asia Bangladesh Belgium CEE


LatinAmerica MENAT

NorthAmerica

TheNetherlands UK

Less than $10K 3% 0% 0% 6% 12% 7% 21% 0% 2% 42% 10% 7% 1% 20% 3%

$10K - $24K 5% 9% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 5% 3% 3% 6% 4%

$25K - $49K 15% 5% 0% 13% 10% 5% 4% 0% 4% 4% 2% 7% 4% 11% 14%

$50K - $99K 37% 17% 11% 36% 15% 14% 3% 18% 6% 19% 22% 17% 21% 23% 29%

$100K - $149K 13% 17% 11% 15% 13% 16% 7% 0% 9% 8% 5% 14% 16% 7% 16%

$150K - $299K 23% 28% 11% 17% 39% 40% 29% 18% 32% 19% 34% 31% 25% 25% 21%

$300K - $499K 2% 7% 22% 4% 5% 14% 13% 27% 17% 4% 10% 14% 15% 4% 8%

$500K - $999K 1% 11% 22% 4% 3% 5% 12% 36% 11% 0% 3% 3% 14% 4% 3%

$1MM and above 1% 5% 22% 4% 3% 0% 10% 0% 17% 4% 9% 3% 1% 0% 1%

Median Percent ofBudget Funded byGrant (Annualized) (BySubgroup) Africa Asia Bangladesh Belgium CEE


LatinAmerica MENAT

NorthAmerica

TheNetherlands UK

Size of grant relativeto size of granteebudget

11% 20% 28% 20% 17% 16% 8% 30% 12% 8% 16% 4% 4% 7% 10%

GrantAmountAwarded(BySubgroup) Africa Asia Bangladesh Belgium CEE


LatinAmerica MENAT

NorthAmerica

TheNetherlands

Mediangrant size

$82.5K $153.5K $434.5K $88.4K $143.3K $176.9K $212.3K $365.6K $283K $55.4K $176.9K $171K $162.8K $70.8K $9

CONFIDENTIAL

102

Grantee Characteristics

Operating Budget of Grantee Organization Porticus 2020 Porticus 2017 Median Funder Custom Cohort

Median Budget $0.7M $0.5M $1.6M $2.8M

Operating Budget of Grantee Organization Porticus 2020 Porticus 2017 Average Funder Custom Cohort

<$100K 17% 20% 8% 4%

$100K - $499K 26% 29% 18% 13%

$500K - $999K 16% 15% 13% 12%

$1MM - $4.9MM 24% 23% 30% 30%

$5MM - $24MM 11% 9% 19% 23%

>=$25MM 6% 5% 12% 19%

Grantee Characteristics - By Subgroup

OperatingBudget ofGranteeOrganization(By Subgroup) Africa Asia Bangladesh Belgium CEE


LatinAmerica MENAT

NorthAmerica

TheNetherlands UK

MedianBudget

$0.5M $0.5M $0.9M $0.2M $0.5M $0.6M $2M $0.5M $2.2M $0.8M $0.8M $1.7M $2.5M $0.6M $0.5M

Operating Budget ofGrantee Organization(By Subgroup) Africa Asia Bangladesh Belgium CEE


LatinAmerica MENAT

NorthAmerica

TheNetherlands UK

<$100K 20% 19% 0% 36% 18% 14% 14% 0% 4% 32% 15% 11% 6% 28% 13%

$100K - $499K 29% 30% 44% 28% 34% 31% 22% 50% 17% 12% 22% 14% 11% 21% 37%

$500K - $999K 19% 18% 22% 8% 17% 12% 3% 20% 15% 16% 19% 14% 16% 13% 16%

$1MM - $4.9MM 21% 19% 11% 16% 23% 26% 33% 20% 28% 20% 28% 29% 34% 21% 21%

$5MM - $24MM 6% 12% 11% 12% 4% 12% 17% 0% 22% 0% 14% 25% 20% 10% 11%

>=$25MM 4% 1% 11% 0% 4% 5% 10% 10% 13% 20% 2% 7% 13% 7% 2%

CONFIDENTIAL

103

Funding Relationship

Pattern of Grantees' Funding Relationship with Porticus Porticus 2020 Porticus 2017 Average Funder Custom Cohort

First grant received from Porticus 28% 33% 29% 38%

Consistent funding in the past 46% 47% 54% 45%

Inconsistent funding in the past 26% 20% 18% 17%

Funding Status Porticus 2020 Porticus 2017 Median Funder Custom Cohort

Percent of grantees currently receiving funding from Porticus 76% 77% 82% 87%

Funding Relationship - by Subgroup

Funding Status (BySubgroup) Africa Asia Bangladesh Belgium CEE


LatinAmerica MENAT

NorthAmerica

TheNetherlands UK

Percent of granteescurrently receivingfunding from Porticus

71% 81% 89% 79% 90% 81% 81% 82% 89% 59% 64% 63% 63% 71% 80%

Pattern of Grantees'Funding Relationshipwith Porticus (BySubgroup) Africa Asia Bangladesh Belgium CEE


LatinAmerica MENAT

NorthAmerica

TheNetherlands UK

First grant receivedfrom Porticus

15% 23% 78% 40% 28% 42% 19% 36% 33% 52% 31% 39% 41% 26% 26%

Consistent funding inthe past

64% 57% 11% 21% 53% 47% 35% 45% 40% 30% 48% 50% 28% 36% 46%

Inconsistent fundingin the past

21% 21% 11% 40% 19% 12% 46% 18% 27% 19% 21% 11% 32% 38% 28%

CONFIDENTIAL

104

Grantee Demographics

Job Title of Respondents Porticus 2020 Porticus 2017 Average Funder Custom Cohort

Executive Director 50% 48% 47% 43%

Other Senior Management 19% 12% 17% 21%

Project Director 19% 15% 13% 17%

Development Director 4% 4% 8% 7%

Other Development Staff 7% 3% 8% 8%

Volunteer 1% 1% 1% 0%

Other 0% 17% 5% 4%

Please select the option that represents how you best describe yourself: Porticus 2020 Average Funder Custom Cohort

Female 46% 63% 56%

Male 50% 34% 40%

Prefer to self-identify 2% 0% 1%

Prefer not to say 2% 3% 3%

CONFIDENTIAL

105

Funder Characteristics

Financial Information Porticus 2020 Median Funder Custom Cohort

Total assets N/A $252M $7051.1M

Total giving N/A $17.5M $247.8M

Funder Staffing Porticus 2020 Porticus 2017 Median Funder Custom Cohort

Total staff (FTEs) 180 150 16 122

Percent of staff who are program staff N/A N/A 42% 44%

Grantmaking Processes Porticus 2020 Porticus 2017 Median Funder Custom Cohort

Proportion of grants that are invitation-only 100% 90% 44% 90%

Proportion of grantmaking dollars that are invitation-only 100% N/A 60% 95%

CONFIDENTIAL

106

Additional Survey Information

On many questions in the grantee survey, grantees are allowed to select “don’t know” or “not applicable” if they are not able to provide an alternative answer. In addition,some questions in the survey are only displayed to a select group of grantees for which that question is relevant based on a previous response.

As a result, there are some measures where only a subset of responses is included in the reported results. The table below shows the number of responses included oneach of these measures. The total number of respondents to Porticus’s grantee survey was 1067.

Question TextNumber ofResponses

Overall, how would you rate the Foundation's impact on your field? 964

How well does the Foundation understand the field in which you work? 1019

To what extent has the Foundation advanced the state of knowledge in your field? 876

To what extent has the Foundation affected public policy in your field? 724

Overall, how would you rate the Foundation's impact on your local community? 892

How well does the Foundation understand the local community in which you work? 930

How well does the Foundation understand the social, cultural, or socioeconomic factors that affect your work? 1026

How well does the Foundation understand your organization's strategy and goals? 1029

How consistent was the information provided by different communication resources, both personal and written, that you used to learn about theFoundation?

940

How well do you understand the way in which the work funded by this grant fits into the Foundation's broader efforts? 1032

How often do/did you have contact with your program officer during this grant? 1059

Who most frequently initiated the contact you had with your program officer during this grant? 1061

Did the Foundation conduct a site visit during the selection process or during the course of this grant? 1020

Has your main contact at the Foundation changed in the past six months? 1018

Did you submit a proposal to the Foundation for this grant? 1059

As you developed your grant proposal, how much pressure did you feel to modify your organization's priorities in order to create a grant proposal that waslikely to receive funding?

1035

How much time elapsed from the submission of the grant proposal to clear commitment of funding? 1005

Are you currently receiving funding from the Foundation? 1023

Which of the following best describes the pattern of your organization's funding relationship with the Foundation? 1037

How well does the Foundation understand your intended beneficiaries' needs? 999

To what extent do the Foundation's funding priorities reflect a deep understanding of your intended beneficiaries' needs? 963

Have you participated in a reporting or evaluation process? 1006

To what extent was the Foundation's reporting process...Adaptable, if necessary, to fit your circumstances? 716

To what extent was the Foundation's reporting process...A helpful opportunity for you to reflect and learn? 765

To what extent was the Foundation's reporting process...Relevant, with questions and measures pertinent to the work funded by this grant? 758

To what extent was the Foundation's reporting process...Straightforward? 757

To what extent was the Foundation's reporting process...Aligned appropriately to the timing of your work ? 0

Did the Foundation provide financial support for the evaluation? 284

To what extent did the evaluation...Result in you making changes to the work that was evaluated? 277

To what extent did the evaluation...Incorporate your input in the design of the evaluation? 268

To what extent did the evaluation...Generate information that you believe will be useful for other organizations? 259

Funder-Grantee Relationships Summary Measure 913

Understanding Summary Measure 959

To what extent did the Foundation exhibit the following during this grant…Trust in your organization's staff 1061

To what extent did the Foundation exhibit the following during this grant…Candor about the Foundation's perspectives on your work 1052

To what extent did the Foundation exhibit the following during this grant…Respectful interaction 1057

To what extent did the Foundation exhibit the following during this grant…Compassion for those affected by your work 1057

CONFIDENTIAL

107

Was the funding you received restricted to a specific use? 1046

If you have ever requested support from the Foundation to help strengthen your organization, how did you determine what specific support to ask for?

Based on what the Foundation told your organization to request 1057

Based on what your organization believes the Foundation would be willing to fund 1057

Based on what your organization needs 1057

Based on the results of an assessment or evaluation 1057

Not applicable - I have never requested support from the Foundation to strengthen my organization 1057

Custom Questions

To what extent do you involve your end-beneficiaries in the following aspects of your organization’s work?...Design of grant/project (i.e. defining priorities andactivities)

1007

To what extent do you involve your end-beneficiaries in the following aspects of your organization’s work?...Implementation of activities 1018

To what extent do you involve your end-beneficiaries in the following aspects of your organization’s work?...Monitoring of activities 998

To what extent do you involve your end-beneficiaries in the following aspects of your organization’s work?...Evaluation of effect activities had on beneficiaries 998

CONFIDENTIAL

108

About CEP and Contact Information

Mission:

To provide data and create insight so philanthropic funders can better define, assess, and improve their effectiveness – and, as a result, their intended impact.

Vision:

We seek a world in which pressing social needs are more effectively addressed.

We believe improved performance of philanthropic funders can have a profoundly positive impact on nonprofit organizations and the people and communities they serve.

Although our work is about measuring results, providing useful data, and improving performance, our ultimate goal is improving lives. We believe this can only beachieved through a powerful combination of dispassionate analysis and passionate commitment to creating a better society.

About the GPR

Since 2003, the Grantee Perception Report® (GPR) has provided funders with comparative, candid feedback based on grantee perceptions. The GPR is the only granteesurvey process that provides comparative data, and is based on extensive research and analysis. Hundreds of funders of all types and sizes have commissioned the GPR,and tens of thousands of grantees have provided their perspectives to help funders improve their work. CEP has surveyed grantees in more than 150 countries and in 8different languages.

The GPR’s quantitative and qualitative data helps foundation leaders evaluate and understand their grantees’ perceptions of their effectiveness, and how that compares totheir philanthropic peers.

Contact Information

Kevin Bolduc, Vice President - Assessment and Advisory Services(617) 492-0800 ext. [email protected]

Charlotte Brugman, Manager+31 (20) 299 [email protected]

Emma Poole, Senior Analyst(617) 492-0800 ext. [email protected]

CONFIDENTIAL

109

mailto:[email protected]



cep.org

675 Massachusetts Avenue 7th Floor

Cambridge, MA 02139 617-492-0800

131 Steuart Street Suite 501

San Francisco, CA 94105 415-391-3070

GRANTEE PERCEPTION REPORT - cofraholding.com

Documents

Transcript of GRANTEE PERCEPTION REPORT - cofraholding.com