Opening the Doors: How a Lean Foundation Modernized Processes and Created New Channels of Communication with Grantees

The Champlin Foundation, a Rhode Island-based funder focused on capital investments, worked with the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) on its first Grantee Perception Report in 2019. After making a number of changes based on the feedback they received from their grantees, they engaged CEP for a second time in 2024.

The 2024 report showed marked improvement on a number of themes, including aspects of the Foundation’s understanding of their contexts, their funder-grantee relationships, and the Foundation’s reporting process. Following their engagement, the Foundation’s executive director, Nina Stack, kindly agreed to an interview with CEP to share how they used grantee feedback to modernize processes and significantly improve grantee experiences. Below is our conversation, edited for clarity and length.

Emily Radwin: In conversations, you described how the grantee perception report was one input in your process for “modernizing” the Foundation, which was a significant effort for the team. Can you share more with us about this process and what changed?

Nina Stack: The Champlin Foundation’s previous application and evaluation process was based on foundation practices crafted in the 1990s. The approach was quite simple. And, while there can be benefits to simplicity, we knew that the Foundation needed to evolve if we wanted to maximize our impact to meet contemporary needs.

By 2020, our application process had gone from a one-page letter that was mailed to the Foundation, to a more comprehensive online submission through our new grants management system. We began encouraging more active and streamlined communications with applicants via phone and direct email, rather than relying on the more passive letter correspondence that had been used in years past. Our grants management system also allowed us to transition to online grant reporting, as well as improving the ways in which we use and analyze our internal, historical data.

Perhaps most significantly, creating efficiencies in our systems and practices allowed us to move from having one grant cycle a year with roughly an eight-month turnaround for funding, to two cycles a year. This had reduced the time from submission to funding to roughly four and a half months. 

ER: What role did your Grantee Perception Report results play in influencing what you chose to prioritize in the significant changes made through the modernization process?

NS: Beyond the technological advances, a major aspect of our modernization was a significant cultural shift with the public. The original findings of our Grantee Perception Report with CEP reflected a foundation that was often perceived as insulated and unapproachable. We learned that while respondents felt that we were having an important impact across the state, they also felt that we could better understand the strategies and goals of the organizations for which they worked.

The report helped us to celebrate our areas of strength, but it also helped us to identify those areas in which there was room to grow — particularly regarding our transparency and responsiveness. We used these findings to focus our efforts over the next few months and years. We prioritized updating our website, ensuring that the application process was clear and that specific policies were outlined.

We also hosted a series of webinars and one-on-one calls to guide people through the new online system and provide insight into how the Foundation evaluates submissions. We made intentional efforts to improve our community engagement efforts by increasing the number of site visits we attended, hosting groups of peer organizations at our offices, and attending a greater number of community events.   

ER: How did you make space and time for these significant changes, particularly while balancing the needs of a responsive grantmaking cycle? What lessons would you share with other funders about undertaking significant internal or process changes?

NS: The Champlin Foundation receives about 300 applications a year. We only fund capital requests, which makes the evaluation process a bit more straightforward.  We don’t ask about an applicant’s “theory of change” or need to see their “logic model.” If a new air conditioner means clients won’t faint or a new roof will stop the leaks, we are happy. 

That said, we were also very strategic in our timeline, using a phased approach in implementing change. First, the Grantee Perception Report CEP conducted helped us to present a strong case for support to our Distribution Committee who then fully committed to the plan we developed. This alignment toward a shared vision was critical to our success.

We also created a new position that was specifically dedicated to working with the grants management system team to bring the application online and develop data standards that would allow us to pull reports and analyze information in a way that was not previously possible. We “soft-launched” our online application by using the system internally for a year before opening it up for public submissions. This rollout approach allowed us to comprehensively understand the system and work out potential issues without having to concurrently navigate user technical support. It also allowed us to be very intentional with our communications, ensuring that nonprofits were aware of the upcoming changes and given the necessary instructional resources well in advance of launching the online application.

Finally, we added a second grant cycle only after we were confident in the new online submission process. This proved to be extremely helpful as it provided time for us to hone our new evaluation workflow before introducing additional responsibilities into our work.

Based on our experience, our advice to other funders who may be undertaking similar changes would be:

• Prioritize developing a shared vision with clear goals. Having board support and employees that are committed to the process is critical in determining success.
• Understand your strengths and limitations and allow them to inform your timeline. As a small team, a phased approach over several years allowed us to make significant changes while managing the glitches and challenges that will inevitably arise when adopting new systems.
• Don’t overlook your communications plan. Clear and frequent communication with your applicants and with your board is imperative. Having a predetermined communications plan and a number of instructional resources really helped to support a smooth transition.

ER: How did your approach to interactions with grantees and applicants change after receiving your first set of grantee perception results? Did you approach expectations around additional grantee touchpoints or communication modes differently?

NS: We were much more proactive in engaging with grantees and in encouraging applicants to be in touch with us, even prior to submitting a request for funding if it wasn’t something straightforward. The change of going from written letters to email exchanges and phone exchanges cannot be understated when talking about our communication changes. It opened things up tremendously. Our mantra now is that we want every application to be as strong as it can possibly be. It might make the decision-making harder, but we don’t ever want an applicant putting in the time and effort on a request that just doesn’t fit or wouldn’t be competitive.  

ER: What are you most proud of in your second set of Grantee Perception Report results? What practices, values, or changes do you feel undergird these results?

NS: The improvement we made was apparently among the greatest change those we worked with at CEP had seen in such a short amount of time. The comments we got back from the folks completing the survey were incredibly heartening. So many spoke to how helpful the staff is, even when the grant doesn’t come through. 

ER: What advice would you want to give to other funders, particularly those with a lean staffing model, in either your approach to change management, grantee relationships, or changing processes?

NS: Undertaking the Grantee Perception Report gave me the data to back up the need for change and that feedback provided such a helpful roadmap of where to focus. Especially as a lean foundation, I don’t have the bandwidth to waste time or take on more than we can handle — so the clear focus provided by the report was crucial. 

Emily Radwin is a manager on the Assessment and Advisory Services Team at CEP. Nina Stack is executive director of The Champlin Foundation.