2010 GMN BOK Session by qnbYDMHx


									2010 GMN Annual

                   GMN Body of Knowledge
                           All You Need to Know!
                   Joe Behaylo, Open Society Institute
                   Chad Gorski, Howard Hughes Medical Institute

                   March 15, 2010
             Session Outline

• Review of BOK Validation Survey

• BOK Exercise: Self-Assessments

• Certification Program Plan

• Q&A
               Review of BOK Process

 What is the Body of Knowledge?
  A compendium of what an individual must know to
  accomplish work in the field of grants management
 How was it compiled?
  Panel of 12 recognized experts representative of the field
  drafted iteratively over one year
 What does it consist of?
  A 33-page outline of 12 domains and 89 topics
 How was it validated?
  Online survey that ran Jan/Feb with 213 completed
  responses (of 310)
           BOK Task Force Membership

   Joe Behaylo, Open Society Institute
   Corey Davis, Boston Foundation
   Armanda Famiglietti, Nathan Cummings Foundation
   Adrienne Fisher, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
   Ann Gael, Lavelle Fund for the Blind
   Chad Gorski, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
   Meridian Napoli, Comcast Foundation
   Janice Opalski, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
   Sheila Jenson, Target Foundation
   Suzanne Shea, Ford Foundation
   Dee Slater, Dekko Foundation
   Rikard Treiber, Carnegie Corporation
                 BOK Domains

1. Nonprofits and Philanthropy
2. Guidelines and Applications
3. Grantmaking Practices
4. Monitoring and Evaluation
5. Accounting and Financial Analysis
6. Legal and Tax Compliance
7. Staffing and Operations
8. Policies and Procedures
9. Project Management
10. Communication
11. Technology
12. Ethics
              Sample Topic Outline

Transparency and accountability in the application
1. Establishing customer service benchmarks
2. Effective practices to monitor and consistently meet
   service standards
3. Communicating benchmarks and the review process to
4. Principles of zero-based information gathering in
   setting application requirements
5. Common scenarios for flexible application requirements
6. Characteristics of effective applicant screening
            Survey Response Summary

 Characteristics of the 213 respondents
 Top-rated and lowest-rated Topics
 Controversial Domains and Topics
   10-25% not applicable rating – no topics or domains to drop
 Respondent comments
 Crosstab analysis of responses
Position Type
          Validation Survey Ratings Scale

“To what extent must grants management practitioners with basic
  competence master this knowledge?”

0 = NOT APPLICABLE Knowledge of this area is not required

1 = RECALL Ability to understand basic concepts and
  information encompassed by the knowledge area

2 = BASIC APPLICATION Ability to use and apply concepts
  from the knowledge area to conventional practice situations

3 = COMPLEX APPLICATION In-depth mastery of the
  knowledge area and the ability to apply it to complex or unique
  practice situations
                  Top 10 Topics

1.   Handling funding requests
2.   How to maintain data integrity in the grants
     management system
3.   Requirements for application contents
4.   Grant file and record maintenance
5.   Communicating with grantseekers and grantees
                   Top 10 Topics (2)

6. Establishing and managing the grantmaking
7.    Program procedures
8.    Transparency and accountability in the application
9.    How to develop policies and procedures within
      grants management
10.   Internal communications with board,
      management, and staff
                 Bottom 10 Topics

80. Program-related investments
81. Current state of the nonprofit sector
82. Special topics in project management
83. Grantee site visits
84. Common variations in state laws that may apply to
    grantmaker and grantees
              Bottom 10 Topics (2)

85. Government-nonprofit relations
86. Funding issues related to foreign nonprofits and
    other vehicles for charitable activity
87. Managing human resources
88. Conducting pre-award site visits
89. History of U.S. nonprofits and organized
             Controversial Domains

 Nonprofits and Philanthropy
 Monitoring and Evaluation
 Legal Compliance
 Staffing and Operations
 Project Management
               Controversial Domain #1

                        Nonprofits and Philanthropy

Average      Question

      2.07 History of U.S. nonprofits and organized philanthropy
      2.65 Current state of the nonprofit sector
      2.66 Current state of philanthropy
      2.56 Government-nonprofit relations
      3.13 IRS oversight of nonprofit sector
      3.07 Nonprofit organizational issues
           Funding issues related to foreign nonprofits and other
      2.55 vehicles for charitable activity

              Controversial Domain #2

                         Project Management
Average      Question
      2.84 Phases of the project lifecycle
      2.78 Key activities in project management

      2.67 Techniques for forming, leading and facilitating groups
      2.68 Key project management concepts and terminology
      2.61 Special topics in project management
      3.27 Grants management project-specific challenges

                    Controversial Domain #3
                 Legal Compliance
Average          Question
          3.04   IRS Forms and their purpose regarding grant activities

          3.35   IRS determination and verification
          2.91   Tipping public charities into private foundation status
          3.19   Expenditure Responsibility grantmaking
          2.84   IRS requirements for grants to individuals
          2.99   Lobbying, advocacy and political campaign rules
          2.90   Anti-terrorism finance guidelines for grantmaking
          2.71   Requirements for international grantmaking
          3.19   Fiscal sponsorship and fiscal agency
          2.66   Program-related investments
          3.01   Distinctions in grantmaking legal requirements for major categories of grantmaking
          2.98   Contract law and commonly included terms in a grant agreement

          2.58   Common variations in state laws that may apply to grantmaker and grantees

          3.04   Current legislation and IRS regulations that may change due diligence requirements and
                   Controversial Domain #4

                            Monitoring and Evaluation
Average          Question
          3.04 Relation and distinction between monitoring and evaluation

          3.33 Infrastructure for report collection, review, dissemination and
          3.18 How to identify and address common issues in report content

          2.59 Grantee site visits
          3.00 Other midterm monitoring
          2.93 Evaluation basics
          2.95 Development of a monitoring and evaluation plan
          2.95 Implementation of the evaluation plan
          3.17 Documentation and utilization of the final assessment of the grant

          3.48 Closeout of a grant
              Controversial Domain #5

                        Staffing and Operations
Average      Question
      2.54 Managing human resources (hiring, managing, retaining

      3.58 Establishing and managing the grantmaking workflow

      3.61 Grant file and record maintenance
      2.69 Grants management staffing models at different foundations

               Controversial Topics

 Requirements for international grantmaking
 IRS requirements for grants to individuals
 Managing human resources (hiring, managing,
  retaining staff)
 Funding issues related to foreign nonprofits and
  other vehicles for charitable activity
   Comments on the Rating Scale…

 “The level of knowledge required depends on the
  Grants Management function within an organization
  as well as the individual's role within the
 “…the questions did not adequately identify the exact
  role / level of responsibility you were asking about.”
 “Two years competence seems like a really short
  amount of time…”
  GM Ownership of Task/Domain…

 “We rely on our program officers, legal department
  and evaluators to make many of the decisions that
  this survey indicates might be taken on by the
  grants manager.”
 “In this body of knowledge outline are included all
  the responsibilities of our entire staff and the
  Board of Trustees as well.”
 “Project management would be a useful skill to
  have in any position, not specific to philanthropy.”
          BOK and My Foundation…

 “Our foundation does not make grants to
  individuals or other countries, so I indicated "not
  applicable" for those. However, I'm sure this would
  be important for other foundations.”
 “As a corporate giving grant maker, 75% of our
  giving is event/sponsorship and the remainder is
  unrestricted contributions.”
 “This is my fourth Foundation/grants management
  position and I have never been responsible for
  evaluation, grantee site visits, project
          The BOK and Certification…

 “Communication is such a complex area, but it is a
  VITAL component of a grants manager's work. I
  don't know how you could possibly begin to
  measure and assess knowledge in this area.”
 “I was almost afraid to say "complex application"
  for fear that when tested on a particular area that
  doesn't exactly fall under my area of responsibility,
  I wouldn't be able to pass it”
              Potential Uses of a BOK

• Course curricula

• University programs in grants management

• Professional certification

• Programming for conference sessions,
   webinars, regional meetings

• Publications: books, articles, white papers

• Self-assessment tools for professionals
• Framework for research & innovative practices
    What about a
Certification Program
for Grants Managers?
     Certification Program Goals

 Provide Independent Verification of
 Skills and Knowledge

 Promote an enhanced network of

 Raise Professionalism of the field
     Common Elements of Professions

 Training and Specialized Study
 Context of Government Regulation
 Responsibility to Public Interest
 Ethical Standards
 Best Practices and Advancement
 Shared Body of Knowledge
GMN Certification – Program Draft

   Eligibility:
     2 years experience

     GMN membership not required.

   $495 exam fee
   Paper-based exam
   Re-Certification:
     CPE credits or re-examination every 3 years
             Target Market

 Any grants management professionals
 at any U.S. grantmaking institution

 Tier 1 – GMN members
 Tier 2 – non-GMN members

 Tier 3 – Supervisors and
  Philanthropic Stakeholders
    In nearly all categories, over 75% of survey respondents would
    “definitely” or “probably” pursue certification.
                       - 2008 GMN Certification Market Research Survey
     Certification Motivations & Benefits

 63% - to support professionalization of field
 59% - to keep current on changes in the field
 59% - verification of my knowledge/skills
 33% - increased visibility
 21% - raises & promotions

 50% - strengthen GM community
 45% - curriculum would strengthen programming
 16% - greater job security, raises, promotions
    Reasons for Not Pursuing Certification

57 respondents indicated they would not pursue
  certification because:

 “It will not enhance salary & promotions”
 “It will not improve job performance”
 “Employers will not support it”

 But half of the 57 indicated their likelihood would
  increase with broader employer “recognition” and
Analysis of Educational Alternatives
                Forum of RAGS Report

2007 Grantmaker Education Gap Analysis Report
 Examined educational offerings in 2005 thru:
    31 regional associations
    40 national affinity groups
    11 national research and education orgs
    10 university and college programs

 “the lowest relative levels of grantmaker education
 are in the administration function”
Potential Certification Products and Services

 More robust grants management curriculum
 Study-guide materials
 Webinars/Seminars
 Regional/Sector Study Groups
 Self-Assessment and PD/Career Planning tools
 Scholarships, Awards, and Recognition programs
    Program Governance and Operations

 Autonomous oversight structure
 Job Practice Analysis
 Curriculum & Product Development
 Exam Development/Pilot/Revision
 Staffing and Customer Service Workflows
 Test Administration
 Fundraising and Marketing Plans
 Evaluation Plan
           Implementation Timeline

 2010 – BOK integration, Curriculum Development,
  Job Practice Analysis, Market Research, Recruit
  Program Leadership
 2011 – Establish Governance Structure, Develop
  Eligibility and Appeals Policies, Curriculum
  Development & Exam Development
 2012 – Launch Curriculum, Outreach to Tiers 1-3,
  Pilot Exam
 2013 – Begin offering full exams
                 Ten-Year Vision

 Over 450 certified grants managers by 2019
 $1.2 million in program expenses (60% funded by
  project grants/40% funded by program revenues)
 Cost = Less than $2,500 per certified individual
 Spillover benefits to all GMN members
 More clearly identified GM role
                        Next Steps

 Fundraising for Start-up Costs ($300k in Yrs 1-2)

 Volunteers needed for:
   Linking resources to BOK and developing glossary

   Curriculum Development

   Marketing

   Program Leadership

   Exam Development

 Business Plan Volunteers:

 Ignacio Estrada, Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation
 Christopher Hubbard, California Community
   Cathy Luce, Maine Health Access Foundation
   Meridian Napoli, Comcast Corporation
   Dorothy Reed, CIGNA Foundation
   Gayle Roth, Weyerhaeuser Family Foundation
    Contact Information

 Chad Gorski, gorskic@hhmi.org
 Joe Behaylo, jbehaylo@sorosny.org
Using the Body of Knowledge
                              GMN          External      Conference
                              Community    Environment   Sessions


                                           GM Guide

                              Cert. Exam   New            Research
                              & Training   Content

To top