Survey Results: what you think of us
Posted 25 March 2010
As part of a mid-term review of our work, we undertook a survey in Summer 2009 to get feedback on all aspects of our work. This was an electronic survey of a sample of applicants, both successful and unsuccessful, policy-makers, second-tier organisations and other funders.
A total of 1,117 requests were sent and we received 301 responses, which represent a 26% success rate. Respondents were assured of their anonymity.
There were a range of questions asked which included views about our guidelines, website, priorities, assessment process, training support and more broadly about our work.
Key Findings of the survey were:
• 93% of respondents had read our guidelines and of those, 94% thought they were clear.
• 71% of respondents had applied to us for funding and 62% had spoken to a member of staff before applying - and 95% had found this helpful.
• 75% thought that the application process was very clear and a further 22% thought it was adequate.
• 85% of all applicants were satisfied in the way their application was dealt with.
• 92% were satisfied with the time it took to deal with their application.
• 62% of respondents were successful in obtaining funds.
• 47% of those not funded felt there reasons for the decision were unclear.
• 98% of those funded found the assessment visit either very helpful or helpful.
• 71% of those who has an assessment visit but were not funded, found the visit either very helpful or helpful.
• 47% of respondents had attended some form of training offered by the Foundation, of these all found the training either very useful or useful.
• Approximately 94% of respondents thought our website was either excellent or good with regard to accessibility and clarity.
• 30% of respondents thought we were excellent and 54% thought we were good at influencing policy-makers.
• 95% thought we either had excellent or good knowledge about poverty in London.
• 75% of respondents were voluntary and community organsiations, 10% were funders. The others included second-tier organistions, policy-makers and statutory organisations.
Overall, the responses to the questions were overwhelmingly positive. In particular, the 92% satisfaction with our timescales is a significant improvement since the last survey was undertaken in 2005 and this indicates that our new process, of having published deadlines and a commitment to shortlisting within four weeks, is working.
One area of criticism amongst 47% of the unsuccessful applicants is that the reasons they were given for being turned down were unclear. We do try to give as much feedback as possible, but our grants team will endeavour to tailor this more to each individual application in the future.
We also received a range of comments about our strengths and weaknesses, and how we could improve our work.
Thank you to all of you who part in our survey. All your comments have been considered as part of our review and will contribute towards our future work.