Upload
dimaia
View
55
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
FY 2013 Alumni Survey Results. Agenda . Survey Limitations. Response bias Not a random sample Low sample size Only 70% of all alumni receive the survey Translation and linguistic challenges Large number of survey questions skipped. Survey Response Rates Analysis (FY 2011-2013). - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
FY 2013 Alumni Survey Results
Agenda
Discussion and
Feedback
Takeaways & Next Steps
Executive Summary
Survey Limitations & Methodology
Survey Limitations
• Response bias
• Not a random sample
• Low sample size
• Only 70% of all alumni receive the survey
• Translation and linguistic challenges
• Large number of survey questions skipped
Survey Response Rates Analysis (FY 2011-2013)
408 Total Alumni
285 Surveys Sent*
75 Responses
26% Response
Rate
(FY 13)
376 Total Alumni
263 Surveys Sent*
55Responses
21% Response Rate
310Total Alumni
222 Surveys Sent*
67Responses
30% Response Rate
*Note: Based on cohort estimates . Survey sent to roughly 70% of Alumni; not a precise count. Note**: Based on 95% confidence level and 5% confidence interval.
(FY 12) (FY 11)
Sample Size Needed**:
198 190 172
123# of Additional Surveys Needed:
135 105
Implications of Low Sample Size
• Difficult to assess whether results are representative of larger population
• Inconclusive results
• Difficult to generalize about trends
Methodology (Cont.) - Sample Size (FY 13)
• 75 Total Responses
65 Alumni CMs
10 Alumni Supervisors/Directors
• Only valid responses are counted. Questions that were skipped do not count as valid responses
Executive Summary – FY13 Pluses
*Strong BSC Scores
• 96% involved in conservation• 76% continue to use Pride methodology
*Inspiring Conservation & Pride
• 83% influenced others to accomplish something significant in conservation• 65% continued their Pride campaign after formal partnership with Rare ended
*Delivering Conservation Impact
• 92% report that their campaign is still leading to the reduction of significant threat
• 96% report that Pride process is a useful strategic tool
*Note: These results represent only those alumni who responded. Given the low sample size, it is difficult to draw any conclusions. Please contact CRM to communicate this data externally.
Executive Summary – FY 13 Pluses (Cont.)
*Building Constituency
• 97% report that Pride process trains them to mobilize community to reduce threats to biodiversity
• 88% report that support for biodiversity efforts in the target area increased among locals
*Developing Capacity
• 66% of Alumni Rare Fellows received a promotion or other professional recognition in the last year
• 43% of Alumni Rare Fellows articles on conservation published
*Note: These results represent only those alumni who responded. Given the low sample size, it is difficult to draw any conclusions. Please contact CRM to communicate this data externally.
Executive Summary – FY 13 Deltas
Decline in the % of alumni who are very (or completely) likely to recommend Pride, from 92% in 2011 to 84% in 2012 to 76% in 2013.
FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 20130
20
40
60
80
100
92%
84%
76%
Considerable Decrease in the % of Alumni Likely to Recommend Pride
Perc
enta
ge (%
)
*Note: These results represent only those alumni who responded. Given the low sample size, it is difficult to draw any conclusions. Please contact CRM to communicate this data externally.
Executive Summary – FY 13 Deltas (Cont.)
Similarly, the average recommendation score fell from to 4.5 in 2011 to 4.2 in 2012 to 4.0 in 2013 (on a 1-5 Scale)
FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 20131.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
4.5
4.24.0
Average Recommendation Scores Declining
Aver
age
Scor
e (5
Hig
hest
; 1 Lo
wes
t)
*Note: These results represent only those alumni who responded. Given the low sample size, it is difficult to draw any conclusions. Please contact CRM to communicate this data externally.
Executive Summary – FY 13 Deltas (Cont.)
For Alumni who completed the survey more than once between FY11-13:
*Note: These results represent only those alumni who responded. Given the low sample size, it is difficult to draw any conclusions. Please contact CRM to communicate this data externally.
41%
34%
25%
Change in Scores on the Likelihood to Rec-ommend Pride (n=32)
SameDecreaseIncrease
FY 2011-2013 Summary ResultsOutcome Category Metric 2011 2012* 2013
Inspiring Conservation &
Pride
Alumni are currently involved in the conservation field (professionally &/or academically)98% 98% 96%
Alumni are very (or completely) likely to recommend Pride to other organizations92% 84% 76%
Alumni CMs are still using Pride methodology (5 or more specific components)75% 73% 76%
Alumni have continued their Pride campaign after the formal Rare partnership ended69% 58% 65%
Alumni are continuing to train others in the Pride methodology65% 58% 58%
Alumni influenced others during their campaign who went on to accomplish something significant in the conservation field 70% 84% 83%
Delivering Conservation
Impact
Alumni report their campaign is still leading directly to the reduction of a significant threat and/or to a benefit to the conservation target
96% 90% 92%Alumni report that partnering with Rare increased their organization's capacity to protect biodiversity 81% 88% 83%
Alumni agree that the Pride process is a useful strategic planning tool95% 91% 96%
Alumni report that their Pride campaign is currently extremely important (or very important) to their site's overall strategy 73% 71% 86%
Building Constituency
Alumni agree that the Pride process trains them to mobilize the community to reduce threats to biodiversity 96% 88% 97%
Alumni report that support for their biodiversity conservation efforts has increased among locals in the target area 75% 84% 88%
Developing Capacity
Alumni CMs received a promotion and/or other professional recognition in the last year (awards, fellowships, etc.)
64% 67% 66%Alumni CMs increased their level of formal education 43% 51% 55%Alumni CMs who presented at a conservation conference 59% 66% 55%
Alumni CMs who published articles or papers in the conservation field 24% 42% 43%
*Note: These results represent only those alumni who responded. Given the low sample size, it is difficult to draw any conclusions. Please contact CRM to communicate this data externally.
Key Takeaways
• Overall, positive results for FY 13 across nearly all metrics
• Strong network effects suggest that Alumni are actively engaged and find Pride training valuable
• One key to area to explore is why the % of Alumni likely to recommend Pride to other organizations has declined in FY 12 and FY 13
• Inconclusive results due to low survey sample size
Proposed Recommendations
• Update Alumni Survey by making it more concise and clear, ensuring it captures only critical information needed for decision-making
• Improve our Alumni Contact List for each region to ensure our sample size is adequate to ensure the results are representative
• Create a LinkedIn Alumni Group!
• Brainstorm ideas to incentivize survey completion
• Engage Alumni Managers in the regions on possible reasons as well as solutions to address the declining % of Alumni who recommend Pride
Proposed Next Steps
• Engage stakeholders on improving the survey (Eddie & Liz will facilitate)
• Update Alumni contact database (Alumni Managers & Teams)
• Identify a leader to initiate Alumni LinkedIn Group
• Add two agenda items to upcoming Alumni Management Team calls: Incentive ideas for completing surveys Alumni likely to recommend Pride
Discussion
Feedback
Questions?
Annexes
Survey Methodology
• Integration: 5 point scale to integrate into the Pride Scorecard and Rare's Balanced Scorecard (BSC). Scales designed by Vovici Market Research.
• Multi-perspective: Similar questions across the audience to provide comparability across audiences and if possible across regions.
• Longitudinal: Similar questions across time to assess progress or change in perceptions.
• Net Promoter: used as the “Ultimate Question” of customer satisfaction -- “How likely are you to recommend a Pride campaign to colleagues or other organizations?” Method designed by Bain & Company Consulting.
FY 2013 Summary ResultsOutcome Category Metric 2013
Inspiring Conservation &
Pride
Alumni are currently involved in the conservation field (professionally &/or academically)96%
Alumni are very (or completely) likely to recommend Pride to other organizations76%
Alumni CMs are still using Pride methodology (5 or more specific components)76%
Alumni have continued their Pride campaign after the formal Rare partnership ended65%
Alumni are continuing to train others in the Pride methodology58%
Alumni influenced others during their campaign who went on to accomplish something significant in the conservation field 83%
Delivering Conservation Impact
Alumni report their campaign is still leading directly to the reduction of a significant threat and/or to a benefit to the conservation target
92%Alumni report that partnering with Rare increased their organization's capacity to protect biodiversity 83%
Alumni agree that the Pride process is a useful strategic planning tool96%
Alumni report that their Pride campaign is currently extremely important (or very important) to their site's overall strategy 86%
Building Constituency
Alumni agree that the Pride process trains them to mobilize the community to reduce threats to biodiversity 97%Alumni report that support for their biodiversity conservation efforts has increased among locals in the target area 88%
Developing Capacity
Alumni CMs received a promotion and/or other professional recognition in the last year (awards, fellowships, etc.)
66%Alumni CMs increased their level of formal education 55%Alumni CMs who presented at a conservation conference 55%
Alumni CMs who published articles or papers in the conservation field 43%
Note Only valid responses were included in the calculation. Skipped responses were excluded.
Analysis of Results
Outcome Category Metric 2011 2012* 2013
Inspiring Conservation & Pride
Alumni are currently involved in the conservation field (professionally &/or academically) 98% 98% 96%Alumni are very (or completely) likely to recommend Pride to other organizations 92% 84% 76%Alumni CMs are still using Pride methodology (5 or more specific components) 75% 73% 76%Alumni have continued their Pride campaign after the formal Rare partnership ended 69% 58% 65%Alumni are continuing to train others in the Pride methodology 65% 58% 58%Alumni influenced others during their campaign who went on to accomplish something significant in the conservation field 70% 84% 83%
1. Inspiring Conservation & Pride
“I recommend Pride because it is the key to empowering local actors.“
Elizabeth Cabrera, Guad Alumni Fellow
Inspiring Conservation & Pride (by Region)
China
Bogor
Average
PEP
Guad
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
50.0%
58.3%
75.8%
83.3%
96.4%
Percentage of Alumni to Recommend Pride Varies Considerably by Region (n=66 valid responses)
% of Alunni Very (or Completely) Likely to Recommend Pride
Inspiring Conservation & Pride (by Region)
China
Bogor
Average
PEP
Guad
1 2 3 4 5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.3
4.7
Average Recommendation Scores Varies Considerably by Region (n = 66 Valid Responses)
% of Alumni Very (or Completelyh) Likely to Recommend PrideAverage Score (5 Highest; 1 Lowest)
Analysis of Results
2. Delivering Conservation Impact
Outcome Category Metric 2011 2012* 2013
Delivering Conservation Impact
Alumni report their campaign is still leading directly to the reduction of a significant threat and/or to a benefit to the conservation target 96% 90% 92%
Alumni report that partnering with Rare increased their organization's capacity to protect biodiversity 81% 88% 83%Alumni agree that the Pride process is a useful strategic planning tool 95% 91% 96%Alumni report that their Pride campaign is currently extremely important (or very important) to their site's overall strategy 73% 71% 86%
“I recommend Pride because it proved to deliver conservation impact at my site. This approach is effective and powerful enough to replicate at other sites.”
Yusuf Syaifudin, Bogor Alumni Fellow
Delivering Conservation Impact (by Region)
PEP
Guad
Average
Bogor
China
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
67%
92%
92%
96%
100%
% of Alumni Report their Campaign Still Leading to Reduction in Threat (n=62 Valid Responses; 6 for PEP)
Analysis of Results
3. Building Constituency
Outcome Category Metric 2011 2012* 2013
Building Constituency
Alumni agree that the Pride process trains them to mobilize the community to reduce threats to biodiversity 96% 88% 97%Alumni report that support for their biodiversity conservation efforts has increased among locals in the target area 75% 84% 88%
“I recommend Pride because with Pride it is possible to motivate people to change their behavior and to support the conservation work of the local organizations.”
Maritza Tovar, Guad Alumni Fellow
Building Constituency (by Region)
PEP
China
Average
Bogor
Guad
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
80%
88%
97%
100%
100%
% of Alumni Agree that Pride Process Trains them to Reduce Threats by Mobilizing Community (N=66 Valid Responses)
Analysis of Results
4. Developing Capacity
Outcome Category Metric 2011 2012* 2013
Developing Capacity
Alumni CMs received a promotion and/or other professional recognition in the last year (awards, fellowships, etc.) 64% 67% 66%Alumni CMs increased their level of formal education 43% 51% 55%Alumni CMs who presented at a conservation conference 59% 66% 55%Alumni CMs who published articles or papers in the conservation field 24% 42% 43%
““I recommend Pride because it helps to make the organization stronger and more effective in conservation.”
Virgilio Da Silva Guterres, Bogor Alumni Rare Fellow
Developing Capacity (by Region)
Guad
Average
China
PEP
Bogor
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
57%
66%
67%
71%
75%
% of Alumni CMs Received a Promotion or Professional Recognition in the Last Year (n=65 Valid Responses)