John S. and James L.
Knight Foundation Writing the Story of Transformation
Prosperity Campaigns Help To Lift Working Families Out of Poverty
Author Mt. Auburn Associates, Inc. January 2006 Commissioned by Julie E. Tarr, Ph.D., Director of Evaluation, tarr@knightfdn.org John S. and James L. Knight Foundation Abstract Prosperity campaigns have played a critical role in improving the economic well-being of low-income, working families, boosting income levels and lifting many families out of poverty. Knight Foundation-funded organizations are part of efforts to secure and return EITC dollars to low-income working families in targeted communities. For example, in 2005, the Knight Foundation-funded organizations included in this study, collectively, operated 118 free tax preparation sites, prepared and filed over 16,000 federal income tax returns, and returned close to $22 million in federal refunds to their local communities, including $9 million in EITC refunds. Community Akron, Ohio.
FFEF INTERIM GRANTEE EVALUATION
SUBMITTED TO: FUND FOR OUR ECONOMIC FUTURE
SUBMITTED BY: MT. AUBURN ASSOCIATES, INC.
JANUARY 2006
FFEF INTERIM GRANTEE EVALUATION JANUARY 2006 Evaluation Framework Objectives The objectives of the interim grantee performance evaluation were to: 1. Track the progress of grantees in achieving FFEF success measures, namely: y y
grants are well executed and are hitting their milestones; grants are collectively demonstrating the potential to make a difference in the economic situation of the region; y grants are promoting the values of fairness and inclusion and reinforcing the importance of core cities. 2. Assess how the FFEF grantmaking model has affected grantee performance (either positively or negatively). 3. Assess other factors affecting grantee performance to date. 4. Make recommendations regarding additional funding, work plan revisions, performance metrics, and grant monitoring, as appropriate.
Metrics Performance of the four initial grantees was gauged against the performance measures established by the Fund in the grant agreements. Additional metrics were established as appropriate to measure grantee performance in relation to general Fund success measures. Specifically, the analysis measured the following: 1. Project outputs — activities that have been undertaken in the initial grant period and how they compare with established milestones. 2. Economic impacts — progress to date in meeting targets for business formation, investment, and job creation, as appropriate to each grant. 3. Institutional relationships — the role of various stakeholders in the process and how the collaborative partners have worked together. 4. Interim or developmental outcomes — outcomes accomplished that indicate progress toward longer-term economic impacts. Specific developmental impacts measured included: y y y
increased management capacity; increased leverage of outside funding; networking and coordination with other public and private stakeholder groups, including local development and business organizations; and
2
y
changes in public policy that create a more supportive environment for grantee activities. 5. Adherence to other key fund goals and principles: y y y y
regional impact; serving diverse constituencies and under-represented populations; attention to core cities; evidence of increasing scale of activity.
Information Sources y
y
y
y
y
Baseline analysis of regional economic development activities. Mt. Auburn reviewed information on recent regional economic development strategies, programs, tools, and resources to establish a baseline for economic development activities in the region related to the grant focus areas. The analysis included: type and scale of activities; extent of regional focus; and linkages to broader institutional/regional strategies. Grantee and partner interviews. Individual interviews were conducted with grantees and other stakeholders involved in the projects. These interviews focused on the metrics listed above, the role and influence of FFEF, and other factors influencing grant performance to date. The interviews also explored the vision and goals for the grantee organizations as they move forward, the challenges and barriers envisioned, and how these might be addressed through support of the Fund and other actors. Feedback from grantee clients and partners. Feedback from grantee clients and partners was obtained through partner interviews and surveys and other feedback mechanisms used by grantees to obtain client feedback. FFEF interviews. Interviews will be conducted with the lead Fund staff member and board observer assigned to the grant, and other Fund members (e.g., other due diligence team members) as appropriate. These interviews will focus on FFEF’s initial funding rationale and expectations, assessment of grantee performance to date and factors influencing performance, and views regarding FFEF’s relationship with the grantee moving forward. Document review. Mt. Auburn reviewed all relevant documents, including grant proposals, due diligence reports, grant award letters, progress reports, and other relevant background information.
3
Assessment of Grantee Performance Summary of Individual Grant Assessments
BioEnterprise General Assessment: Strong performance to date. Project Outcomes •
The BioEnterprise Initiative (the combined activities of BioEnterprise and its four institutional partners) has assisted more bioscience companies than initially targeted during each of its first three years of activity (including the initial year of FFEF funding).
Economic Impacts •
•
The BioEnterprise Initiative met its target for capital raised by assisted companies during its first two years of operation, but fell short in its third year of operation (the initial year of FFEF funding), with $72 million invested vs. a $100 million target. It also anticipates difficulty meeting the ambitious and progressively increasing investment targets for the second and third years of the FFEF grant. The 46 companies assisted by the BioEnterprise Initiative in its first three years of operation employ approximately 400 workers and spend approximately $50 million annually in the NEO region.
Institutional Relationships •
•
•
BioE has established an organizational niche that clearly complements rather than duplicates the tech transfer activities of the region’s major biomedical research institutions. BioE has played a leading catalytic role in overcoming longstanding competitive schisms among the region’s premier biomedical research institutions and strengthening collaborative efforts to accelerate technology commercialization and new enterprise development. While current institutional interest in tech transfer and support for BioE are strong, factors such as leadership changes and competing institutional priorities can potentially erode institutional support. BioE will need to stay abreast of and adapt to changes in the institutional environment.
Interim or Developmental Outcomes •
•
BioE focuses on technologies, industry sectors, and markets with obvious highgrowth potential for Northeast Ohio and fills an identified gap in resources and capacity. Through collaboration with its institutional partners and the venture capital community, BioE has increased regional capacity to meet the financial, technical, and human resource needs of new and rapidly growing bioscience enterprises.
4
•
•
•
While developing a critical mass of local investment sources is a long-term process, BioE has already achieved increased investment activity and is laying the groundwork for further increase in the future. BioE leadership believes that creating a supportive environment for biomedical commercialization and entrepreneurship requires a stronger climate of public support. It has been pursuing communications strategies to address these issues, with some success, but acknowledges the slow pace of progress. The availability of sufficient funding to sustain BioE until the anticipated point of “critical mass” in regional technology commercialization and enterprise development is reached remains uncertain.
Adherence to Other Key Fund Goals and Principles •
•
•
BioE has helped to broaden the focus of regional biomedical industry development beyond the three major Cleveland-based biomedical research institutions, primarily by actively outreaching to regional entrepreneurs linked to the established regional industry base in Summit, Lorain, and Lake, as well as Cuyahoga County, and expanding institutional leadership to include Summa Health Care System of Akron. BioE’s Diversity and Urban Core Program involves a partnership with Shorebank to increase assistance to bioscience firms that are minority-owned and/or located in inner city communities. BioE has a long-term focus on bringing region’s biomedical industry to scale by establishing a self-sustaining industry “ecosystem.”
Factors Influencing Performance •
• • •
BioE is viewed by Fund representatives, institutional partners, investment partners, and key state partners as a high performing organization that has significantly exceeded initial expectations. A survey of BioE clients and venture capital firm partners conducted in late 2004 elicited generally positive feedback about BioE’s services. BioE’s senior management and professional staff are highly respected and have gained the confidence of institutional leadership. Venture capital firms value BioE’s extensive regional industry knowledge and respect the quality of its due diligence on potential investment deals.
JumpStart General Assessment: Strong performance to date. Project Outcomes •
JumpStart has exceeded first-year targets established in the grant agreement: • delivered 10,400 hours of technical assistance; • worked with 1,350 entrepreneurs and 52 companies; • directly assisted 39 companies;
5
•
•
invested $3 million in 10 companies;
JumpStart is on track to meet or likely exceed target for full two-year grant period. • Additional 9 companies in investment pipeline as of January 2006.
Economic Impacts • •
Investee companies employ 30. Investee companies have attracted approximately $3 million in additional investment.
Institutional Relationships • •
•
Partnering with Kent State, Cuyahoga Community College, and other higher education institutions to develop entrepreneurial boot camp. Works with several intermediaries to identify promising entrepreneurs — examples include Cleveland Clinic Innovations, Case Tech Ventures, Bio Enterprise, and NorTech. Collaborates with other organizations, including the Council of African-American Organizations, GLIDE, the Urban League, Shore Bank, and the Akron Chamber of Commerce.
Interim or Developmental Outcomes • • •
•
Has raised more than $12 million to develop necessary organizational and investment capacity. Played key role in organizing North Coast Angel Fund, which promises to increase flow of early-stage capital to regional enterprises. e-Zine newsletter providing information about JumpStart events and services and other regional entrepreneurial activities is mailed to approximately 10,000 individuals and organizations throughout Northeast Ohio. The JumpStart Exchange, a program of events and networking sessions held throughout the 15-county region, promises to play a significant role in building the region’s entrepreneurial culture and climate. Thus far, nearly 12,000 people have attended the events.
Adherence to Other Key Fund Goals and Principles • • • • •
Regional focus is evident in events and networking sessions held throughout the 15 counties. Investment portfolio has significant minority representation, with 3 of 10 investments to African-American-owned firms. Has recently completed a multi-dimensional diversity plan to expand and improve services to minority businesses. Focusing investments in core cities has been and will continue to be a challenge because of high eligibility standards. Strong early outcomes foreshadow potential for significant scale. 6
Factors Influencing Performance • • • • • •
Strategic and deliberate approach to designing and developing its programs, services, and outreach efforts. Ability to build a “brand” and to identity itself as the region’s principal source of early-stage and pre-seed capital for new entrepreneurs. Intensive and far-reaching regional outreach efforts. Staff’s deep and direct business experience. Organizational structure and protocol that fosters collaboration and close communication across all key programs and operations. Difficulties encountered in developing substantive partnerships with economic and business development organizations in the region.
NorTech General Assessment: Generally strong performance; 2006 will be a critical transition year from planning to implementation of FFEF-supported initiatives. Project Outcomes •
NorTech has made considerable progress on many components of the workplan negotiated with the Fund: • Regional Technology Strategy scheduled for release in February 2006. • Led Manufacturing Innovation Initiative planning process as part of Northeast Ohio Manufacturing Roadmap Initiative — contributed to development of Manufacturing Advocacy and Growth Network (MAGNET). • Urban Technology & Inclusion Initiative has plans to implement two projects in 2006. • NorTech and the region’s four major research institutions reached agreement on objectives and an implementation framework for the Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences Initiative; implementation to commence in 2006. • Federal Technology Funding initiative has been slow to gel; efforts have been ad hoc while a more comprehensive strategy is being developed.
Economic Impacts •
No direct economic impacts — impacts are indirect and longer-term.
Institutional Relationships •
NorTech has conducted extensive outreach and gained a high level of credibility with major stakeholder groups in technology-based economic development — corporate leadership, political leadership, research institutions, financial community, technology entrepreneurs, and economic development community.
7
Interim or Developmental Outcomes •
• • •
Record of concrete accomplishment as catalyst for technology-based economic development, notably seeding and spinning off organizations that form a support infrastructure for technology commercialization and enterprise development (e.g., BioEnterprise, JumpStart, Ohio Fuel Cell Coalition). Current activities promise to increase regional support infrastructure, e.g., management of Nano-Network, release of Early Stage Capital Task Force report. Has leveraged state R&D funding by coordinating institutional funding efforts and presenting a more unified regional voice. Played leading educational role within region in successful state ballot initiative with $500 million Third Frontier funding.
Adherence to Other Key Fund Goals and Principles •
•
•
•
NorTech has expanded beyond its Cleveland roots to become truly regional in focus, both in terms of geographic reach and technology portfolio. At the same time, some technology leaders from outside Cleveland note that efforts must continue to engage leadership and participation throughout the region and to ensure regional balance in its technology portfolio. NorTech representatives recognize the importance of incorporating the values of diversity and inclusion into technology-based economic development and credit the Fund for seeking to ensure that these values are central to the regional technology agenda. Implementation of the Urban Technology & Inclusion Initiative in 2006 will provide a concrete indicator of NorTech’s success in this regard. NorTech has firmly established itself as Northeast Ohio’s lead organization to guide the development of the region’s technology-based economy. Implementation of Regional Technology Strategy holds promise of a coordinated, broad-based effort with potential for high economic impact. The ability to build on momentum will depend on maintaining and enhancing support among key stakeholder groups. It will be particularly important to continually engage with changing leadership in the corporate and entrepreneurial communities, and to draw new leaders into NorTech’s orbit.
Factors Influencing Performance • • •
Highly respected leadership and skilled, energetic staff. Effective convener of major stakeholder groups, facilitating dialogue, consensus building, and collaboration. Sophisticated analysis of technology base: identification of areas of regional competitive advantage (e.g., technology intersections), resource gaps, and critical interventions.
8
Team NEO General Assessment: While Team NEO has made some progress in forging a more defined and transparent regional system for business attraction and retention, its ability to move the region toward fundamental transformation in its area of focus remains problematic. Project Outcomes •
• •
Met with roughly 140 of the 197 large and mid-market companies it had hoped to meet with over the first year of operations; also met with approximately 300 smaller companies. First year “deal flow” (i.e., projects that help companies expand or relocate into the region) was 20-25 compared to a targeted 40-50. Beginning to put in place a coordinated, regional system for responding to business expansions and relocations. Elements include Service Agreements with the larger chambers that spell out a protocol for handling leads, a website that highlights the region’s strengths and resources as a location for expanding and new companies, and development of REDIS, a sophisticated interactive database that enables companies to obtain detailed information on municipalities and specific sites.
Economic Impacts • • •
Played an important role in successful Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) retention effort. Reports adding and retaining 550-600 jobs as a result of assistance to individual companies through June 2005. Has avoided setting specific impact metrics until operations are more firmly established.
Institutional Relationships •
•
•
Has made substantive progress in developing working relationships with regional chambers that delineate respective responsibilities and mitigate fragmentation and competition. Through its leadership of Office Max and DFAS retention efforts, built coalitions and partnerships among multiple organizations and municipalities to support the greater regional interest. Generally lacks the authority to force all organizations to work together, and lacks the resources that are often useful in leveraging changes in organizational behavior.
Interim or Developmental Outcomes •
Has had some success in demonstrating the benefits of a regional approach to recruitment and retention; has gained considerable media attention.
9
• •
•
Has begun to develop important information tools that the region can use for retention and attraction, including its website and the REDIS database. The “intelligence” gained from its meetings with regional businesses has yet to be packaged and distributed in a way that is useful to the regional economic development community. It is questionable if much of the research it has conducted has been as strategically focused as it could be, or clearly tied to its regional mission.
Adherence to Other Key Fund Goals and Principles •
•
•
Has focused heavily on urban centers through contractual relationship with the Greater Cleveland Partnership and MOUs and Service Agreements with the region’s larger chambers. Has yet to develop a clear strategy for overcoming public perception that it is too focused on greater Cleveland and the region’s other major urban centers, and a strategy for developing a deeper penetration into the rest of the region. More sustained outreach and stronger institutional linkages with the smaller organizations and chambers are needed. Has made little progress so far on diversity and inclusion, but is planning efforts to help minority-owned firms make better procurement linkages with the region’s major corporations.
Factors Influencing Performance • •
•
• • • •
Each of the organization’s staff has broad experience in both the public and private sectors, as senior mangers and as economic development practitioners. Reduced budget from annual $6 million projected by McKinsey has forced Team NEO to postpone regional branding campaign and scale back both its recruitment and retention activities. Fuzzy articulation of mission and goals and their relationship to specific organizational activities has created confusion about its role and function in regional economic development and made it difficult to assess its performance. Getting regional recognition and credibility as one of the region’s principal economic development organizations has taken longer than expected. Weak economy has generated fewer deals than expected, and deals currently in the pipeline are taking much longer to close than anticipated. Concern about sensitivities of local economic development organizations has made Team NEO reluctant to assert itself and assume more prominent role. Unrealistic initial expectations of Team NEO’s potential have led to frustrations about the organization’s performance to date.
10
Cross-Cutting Assessment of Grant Portfolio Together, these grants have substantially moved the region toward the goal of a truly region-wide approach to economic development. • • • • •
Have extended the geographic reach of activities within their purview. Have given attention to a range of economic sectors important to diverse regional constituencies. Have cultivated organizational relationships in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors to develop networks of regional activity. Have strengthened regional communications efforts to both internal and external constituencies. Will need to focus continuing attention on the challenge of extending and institutionalizing regional scope.
A common strength of the grantees is their ability to build relationships and to strengthen organizational collaboration, as well as to effectively carry out a range of services and programs. • •
•
Have acted as catalysts for new forms of institutional collaboration (e.g., biomedical research institutions, regional chambers). Have more fully engaged less connected stakeholder groups in the economic development process (e.g., technology entrepreneurs, venture investors, second tier higher education institutions). Have begun to reach out to organizations serving economically and socially disadvantaged constituencies.
As a whole, the grantees have marshaled stronger leadership and technical capacity than characteristic of earlier regionally-focused initiatives. •
• •
Have secured broader and deeper engagement of regional leaders with geographically and institutionally diverse backgrounds on boards and other organizational leadership bodies. Have attracted talented and well-respected senior management. Have assembled staff teams with stronger skill sets related to their business assistance functions, including management, finance, marketing, and product development.
The most promising movement toward regional economic transformation is in the area of technology-based economic development. •
NorTech, BioE, and JumpStart, along with other NorTech spin-offs, form a cluster of strategic, institutional, and programmatic technology-based economic development activities that, with further nurturing, could create a foundation for large-scale growth of technology-based industries.
11
• •
Grantees are focusing on technologies, industry sectors, and markets with obvious high-growth potential for Northeast Ohio. New and anticipated Fund grants (i.e., manufacturing, tech clusters) will further support the region’s technology-based economic development, supplementing established resources and organizational capacity, and moving the region toward a self-sustaining technology “ecosystem.”
It is uncertain whether Team NEO, with its current programmatic structure and activities, can fundamentally reshape the region’s retention and recruitment capacities to incorporate a strong regional orientation and sufficient in scale to contribute to long-term regional economic transformation. • • • •
Has significantly less resources than envisioned to fulfill its role. Limited resources have hindered its efforts to obtain buy-in from sub-regional actors and to implement key parts of its agenda. Has failed to put in place a clear strategic vision, and related action agenda, needed to gain regional consensus and widespread support. Hindered by gaps in complementary regional capacity (e.g., workforce development).
While all grantees have made serious efforts to incorporate the Fund’s values of diversity and inclusion, it is questionable whether the grantees’ combined efforts will satisfy the Fund’s broader intent of ensuring equitable distribution of the benefits of economic transformation across the socioeconomic spectrum. •
• •
Activities addressing diversity and inclusion tend to be peripheral to grantees’ organizational mission and strategic priorities. As such, they are at risk of losing momentum without the Fund’s continued prodding and financial support. These activities constitute a small part of each grantee’s overall activities, meaning that they are unlikely to achieve significant scale. Most activities focus on minority business development which, while important, may not be perceived as addressing many of the primary concerns of the region’s minority communities.
Although all grantees engage in their own communications efforts to inform key stakeholders and the public about their own activities as well as progress toward regional economic revitalization, grantees should consider whether they can achieve synergies through more coordinated communications efforts. •
•
Some communications activities appear to overlap (e.g., NorTech’s and BioEnterprise’s efforts to communicate positive stories about the emergence of technology-based industries). More coordinated efforts could convey a clearer, more coherent message about the region’s strategically important challenges and progress.
12
The sustainability of the grantees beyond the timeframe of the Fund’s current financial commitments remains uncertain. • •
• •
Many of the grant activities are developmental and have a long-term pay-off. The difficulty of demonstrating short-term results complicates funding efforts. Many of the grant activities are also highly labor intensive (e.g., relationship development). While often necessary for path-finding initiatives, this can make organizations less attractive to many funding sources. Some grantees (i.e., NorTech, Team NEO) play intermediary roles, which are typically harder to financially support than “transactional” activities. No grantee has yet identified funding to fill the gap left by prospective termination of FFEF support.
Role and Contribution of the Fund Benefits • •
•
• •
•
The size and multi-year duration of the grants have enabled most grantees to reach sufficient scale and stability to tackle ambitious agendas. The Fund’s grantmaking scale and consortium structure have also significantly reduced grantee fundraising costs, enabling grantees to focus their staff resources on core activities. The imprimatur of Fund support has added to grantee credibility, fostering participation and collaboration from other key regional organizations, and opening doors to additional funding support. Grantees have been able to tap into the contacts and networks of Fund member institutions, increasing access to valuable resources, expertise, and relationships. The Fund’s influence has clearly induced grantees to increase their regional focus and reach, and has influenced other stakeholders to adopt a more regional mindset. In general, the input of Fund representatives into decisions regarding grantee strategy and operations is appreciated by grantees and considered highly constructive.
Problems •
The Fund’s activist approach and major funding role has, in some instances, led it to take insufficient account of the grantee’s own strategic priorities, expertise, and judgment. • Phased funding and interim due diligence processes sometimes lead to imposition of additional funding conditions that grantees are reluctant to question for fear of funding delays or reductions. • The Fund’s strong emphasis on diversity and inclusion have, in some instances, caused grantees to initiate activities that senior management and
13
• •
•
•
board leadership consider peripheral to the organization’s mission and strategic priorities. • Communications between the Fund and grantees are sometimes perceived as too one-sided and top-down — little real opportunity for dialogue. • Conditions imposed by the Fund are sometimes perceived as a lack of trust and confidence. Grantees sometimes left without a clear understanding of the Fund’s expectations, particularly with respect to diversity and inclusion. The Fund’s heavy emphasis on quantitative metrics is, in some cases, counterproductive, particularly in the short run. • As transformational initiatives, Fund grantees focus in the early stages on programmatic innovation and relationship development. Emphasis on quantitative outcomes can stymie these foundational activities. • Premature focus on quantifiable economic impacts can lead to unrealistic expectations and misplaced disappointment. • Team NEO is the most salient example of an excessive focus on quantifiable economic impacts. While Team NEO’s performance has been somewhat disappointing, its problems are more strategic than operational. In at least one case, failure to coordinate grantee oversight with other funders has added bureaucratic burdens to the grantees. This problem primarily relates to Team NEO, which is subject to extensive and differing reporting requirements from both the Fund and the Knight Foundation, but could extend to other grantees in the future. The uncertainty about the future of the Fund and its role in continuing to fund current grantees has made it difficult for grantees to plan for the years following 2007.
Recommendations to the Fund Drawing from the above findings, Mt. Auburn recommends that the Fund take the following actions to improve grantee monitoring, support stronger grantee performance, and better accomplish Fund objectives. 1. Promote more extensive sharing of information and market intelligence between the Fund and its members and grantees, and among grantees. • •
•
Host quarterly or semi-annual networking sessions. Use this opportunity to brief grantees on the Fund’s overall plans, activities, successes, and challenges. This will enable grantees to better understand how their activities fit into the larger context, stimulate new thinking, and engender a strong sense of partnership. Support collaborative efforts that emerging from information sharing sessions, e.g., joint communications and marketing efforts.
14
2. Organize a dialogue among the Fund, grantees, and other key stakeholders to consider how the Fund’s grantmaking can most effectively support the Fund’s values of diversity and inclusion, and to reach more clarity and consensus on this issue. This effort will be particularly important if the Fund decides to proceed to a second phase. • •
• •
Articulate the goals for inclusion and shared benefit in the context of the Fund’s overall mission of supporting long-term regional economic transformation. Identify the types of initiatives that are most likely to achieve these goals — greater discussion with the minority community would be particularly important here. Consider whether and how current grantees can support these goals. Take these findings and conclusions into account in future grantmaking activities.
3. Reach a firm decision by mid-2006 on whether the Fund will continue grantmaking after the conclusion of its initial three-year lifespan, and whether highly performing first-round grants will be eligible for follow-on funding. If not, work with high performing grantees to develop a post-FFEF sustainability strategy. 4. In order to continue the considerable progress of Fund grantees in building the region’s technology-based economy, actively promote the involvement of all grantees and other regional stakeholders in implementing NorTech’s Regional Technology Strategy. • • •
Support communications efforts to introduce and build support for the Regional Technology Strategy. Work with NorTech to ensure that it has the resources and organizational capacity necessary to effectively promote and guide implementation of the strategy. Review with other grantees their work plans and performance metrics to ensure alignment with the strategy as appropriate.
5. Organize a strategic planning process to develop a more effective approach to regional recruitment, retention, and expansion efforts and increase the potential of achieving the “critical mass” required to support long-term regional economic transformation. This might involve the programmatic clarification and realignment within Team NEO and/or the development of additional initiatives that complement Team NEO. Participants should include Team NEO, regional chambers and other major economic development organizations, business leadership, and other important stakeholders. 6. Review and revise grantee metrics, as necessary, to place stronger emphasis on longer-term developmental impacts than short-term direct economic impacts. 7. Convene grantees to consider the development of joint communications and marketing strategies and tools. 8. Develop more standardized reporting requirements that clearly measure grantee progress against established metrics. Work with other grant funders, as necessary, to align grantee reporting requirements and funding cycles.
15