Marian demonstrated how to find the Grant Results Reports from the RWJF homepage. In the new web version reports will be cataloged with new taxonomy. There will also be a new search engine, which should make searches easier and more accurate. To search everything use the "search button." When looking only for Grant Results Reports, click "about our grantees," then "Grant Results Reports," then click on the search box. To limit the search to Grant Results Reports, make sure only that kind of document is checked.

Marian demonstrated a search, pulled up a Grant Results Report and showed the breakdown of the parts of the report. She discussed the value of the "lessons learned" section. In the future there will be a database of project lessons to narrow the topic being searched and more reader friendly abstracts.

Virtual attendees asked questions. Many were interested in the development of the taxonomy and Hinda would give a brief overview of how it developed later in the meeting.

Q. - On grantee views on posting their results
A. - 80-85% are happy and co-operative

Marian - Non co-operative grantees often become cooperative as they become aware their grants results are being posted on the RWJ Web site. A small subset are uncooperative and don't want to talk.

Molly - Grantees are told upfront, in the Grant Guidelines, that grant information will be posted. Writers contact the grantee to elicit information.

Marian - Embarrassing information won't be posted. Failures are not considered embarrassing. The object is to seek accuracy. There are many layers of rewrites to ensure accuracy. It starts with the writers, and continues through Marian, Molly, and the Program Officer. The grantee can make suggestions for changes. There is no statement of success or failure. 90% or more of project "lessons learned" come from the grantee. Internal grantmaking lessons, which are purely of interest to a grantmaker, are not published but are cataloged in a database kept by the Grant Results Reporting Unit.

Q. - Kathleen Higgs - Grant outcome is of interest. Who and how do you decide if a grant is a success or failure.
A. - Marian - Jim Knickman's evaluation unit formally makes a statement in their report in regards to success or failure.

Hinda - In the precis the objectives are stated which indicate goals and outcomes which are indicators of future success.

Molly - Sometimes grants change their focus in the middle of the grant when approved by P.O.

Q.- Is there a standard length for a report
A. - Marian - No.

Q. - Is the bibliography linked
A. - Marian - Yes
Hinda - IC maintains hard copy and database of grantee products

Q. - David - Hinda, are grantee products made available to the public?
A. - Hinda - Grantee reports are not available to the public but are available for researchers.

Marian -we refer people to the grantee directly for their products, not RWJF

Molly - information (e-mail addresses and phone numbers) on how to contact the grantees is at the front of each report and a few of the products are featured in an article on GRRs in Advances.

Hinda - grantees often have their own external websites where their products can be downloaded or ordered

Marian - if a link is available it is in the Grant Results Report

Q. - Susan - Wanted to know about the changes in the search engine for the grant reports
A. - Marian & Molly - don't know when it will be ready but it will be more powerful

Q. - Louise Zimmerman - How do program officers see this system?
A. - Molly - They love it. They don't have to worry about producing an end of grant report.

Q. - Susan - How quickly after the close of a grant are the reports completed
A. - Molly - for ad hocs, about 2 months. Longer for national program reports.

Q. - Suzanne - Where do raw materials go?
A. - Marian - they go to Andrew Harrison, our archivist. He determines what is unique for saving.

Q. - Susan - How are lessons learned captured?
A. - Marian - interviews with the grantee and PO and the final report

Q. - John McDonald - Are all materials kept on site?
A. - Hinda - yes

Q. - Michele - What was the impetus for this?
A. - Molly - I wrote similar reports for the Commonwealth Fund. Jim Knickman, then at Commonwealth, came to RWJ. Frank Karel, then VP, Communications RWJ, was concerned with philanthropy's public image. He had a desire to have the Foundation be transparent and publicly accountable "here's what we've done with the money." He and Jim asked Molly to develop a prototype document for RWJ.

Q. - Susan - Are other organizations doing grants results?
A. - Marian - Samuels Foundation used to. Pew and Casey have made inquiries.

Molly - I spoke to Grantmakers in Health. The Commonwealth Fund continues to do these, but for internal use only.

Development of the Taxonomy - Hinda

Voting on Dues
Michele led a discussion on the uses of dues and if they are appropriate. Hinda had done a survey with 36% returned and no one opposed dues. Would like to keep $5000.00 available for projects and speakers.

Comments
Jane approves of dues as this is a professional organization. Where would the money go? Maybe a treasurer. By-laws would be amended. It was proposed that each organization would pay dues of $100.00 and a policy would be devised. A quorum was not present. 15 ayes were recorded from among those present. The rest of the membership will be asked to vote.

IFLA Conference - John McDonald
Attended the conference. He wanted to compare consortium work to that of IFLA. He suggested that a poster session would be an effective way to reach a larger audience. The next meeting is August 2003 in Berlin. He found it to be a wonderful experience.

COF Program Submissions - Michele Butler
2 programs were submitted for 2003 and neither were accepted for the formal portion of the Annual Conference. They will be offered in the pre-conference Affinity Group sessions.

Membership Survey Results - Hinda Greenberg

Core Collection - Liz Green