Using Data to Improve: Reflections on Two Years of Grantmaking

We hear you!

Last July, we borrowed from the musical Rent and asked the question of “how do we measure a year” in the life of a new way of grantmaking? We shared a blog post with data we used to assess our progress one year after we launched our new grantmaking priorities and approaches. At that time, we could see that we had a larger and more diverse applicant pool than ever before and that many organizations that had never previously been funded by the William Penn Foundation had been awarded grants. We had some early and anecdotal evidence that our new programs and processes were better than what we’d done in the past.

And in November 2025, we shared a blog post that we have begun posting early data about the results of our grantmaking. 

But until now, we did not have the rigorous and comparative data that we need to assess how our changes were experienced by our grantees and grant applicants.

As of early this year, we now have that kind of data. So this year, we have Dreamgirls on our mind and we want to let you know that “I am changing / Tryin' every way I can / I am changing /I'll be better than I am...”  We don’t want to change too much – because most of the data say we are heading in the right direction. But there are surely tweaks we can make to do better.

In the fall of 2025, we partnered with the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) to survey our grantees and, for the first time, also surveyed applicants who applied for funding through our Requests for Proposals (RFPs) but did not receive a grant.   

CEP is a national organization with more than two decades of experience collecting and analyzing data in order to improve the practice of philanthropists and foundations. One of CEP’s most widely recognized services is the Grantee Perception Survey, a standardized survey that has been administered for two decades and for which CEP now has data from more than 350 funders and more than 60,000 grantees. 

WPF has administered the survey every three years since 2013, allowing us to track our progress over time. This year’s survey included grantees who were awarded grants under our previous programs and priorities (prior to summer 2024) and grantees who were awarded grants under our current system. So, in addition to tracking progress over time, we are able to compare how our new strategies and processes have affected grantees.

We’re grateful to every grantee and applicant who took the time to share candid feedback, and excited to share what we learned and how we are using it to improve our work.

What’s Going Well

The survey data show that the new grantmaking approach has been well received by grantees and applicants. Across nearly every measure, the 2025 results showed meaningful improvements compared to previous years’ survey results.

Below we highlight a few of our key takeaways. 

• The new grantmaking approach is better than the previous one. The most striking pattern in the results is how consistently grantees funded under our new strategy report better experiences than those funded previously. As one example, grantees awarded under our new strategy rate us in the top quarter of all foundations on how responsive our staff is, compared to grantees awarded under our old system ranking us in the bottom third. Similarly, grantees report feeling much more comfortable approaching the Foundation if a problem arises and that the Foundation exhibits more trust in grantee organizations--this holds true whether we compare our 2025 results to those from 2022 or compare this year’s respondents based on whether their grant was awarded under our previous or current grantmaking approaches. These and other indicators make it clear that we are moving in the right direction.
   
• We have improved transparency and are providing clearer communications. One of the clearest areas of improvement is how grantees perceive our communications. In 2025, grantees placed us in the top 20 percent of foundations in CEP’s dataset for the clarity of our goals and strategy. This represents a dramatic improvement from 2022 when WPF ranked near the bottom third. If we look only at those who were awarded grants since our strategy revision, WPF is in the top 5 percent for the clarity of our goals and strategy. 
   
• WPF’s impact is significant and improving. Perceptions of the Foundation’s impact on our community have long been a relative strength of WPF, and they improved further in 2025. Grantees’ ratings of our impact on their communities rose significantly since 2022, placing us in the top third of foundations. 

Where We Can Improve

While the positive survey results are gratifying, quantitative and qualitative results from the survey also helped to highlight ways in which we can improve. Below are some of the key steps we are taking to address this feedback and continue to adapt and refine our work:

• Provide applicants more time to respond to the RFP. Respondents told us that they want more time to develop proposals in response to our RFPs.  In 2027, we will increase the time by adding roughly two weeks between the RFP release and application due date.  And we will still adhere to our commitment to a maximum of three months between application submission and final funding decision from our Board of Directors. Because, while survey respondents want more time to complete their proposals, they really appreciate having a final decision in just a few months.
   
• Clarify and simplify our RFPs. Some respondents told us that it was not always clear how proposals were evaluated or what types of projects may be eligible for funding. As a result, we are re-structuring future RFPs, highlighting eligibility requirements, ensuring that all evaluation criteria are found on one to two pages, and shortening the length of the RFPs so that potential applicants can hone in on the most essential information. 
   
• Reduce the time applicants spend developing proposals. The CEP survey revealed that even with our more streamlined application process, applicants spend about 25 hours on the application process. While this is five hours less than the time spent on applications compared with the 2022 survey, it puts us at the high end of our peer foundations. (However, our relatively large grant size means that the potential return for the time invested is significant.) To understand more about which aspects of the application are most time consuming, this year we will work with applicants to study the application experience in more detail and identify any potential streamlining that can be done while still retaining a rigorous and fair process. 

If you are curious about more of the results from our grantee survey, you can find a detailed summary, a PowerPoint presentation comparing the 2025 results with results from 2022, or the full survey report on our website. As we seek to be increasingly transparent, we make these data available so we can engage in conversations with you about how we can do better. If you have thoughts on how we can be a better partner, we want to hear them. Please reach out to your program officer or Liz Thompson, Senior Learning and Organizational Improvement Officer to share your views.

At the end of our first year, we measured progress in applications reviewed, grants awarded, applicant and grantee diversity, and stakeholder feedback. Now, as we end our second year, we are thrilled to see the improved grantee perceptions and experiences. With the data in hand, we will continue changing in all the ways we can to be even more supportive of the important work that our grantees continue to do.