1

March 4th, 2008

Redfern Research
Grantee, Applicant and Advisor
Performance Assessment of
GFW
2007

Final Version

Redfern Research
2
Table of Contents
Section A: Summary
Section B: Grantees and Applicants
Grantees and Applicants: Income and Sources
Grantees and Applicants: The Application Process
Grantees and Applicants: Grant Support and Reporting
Grantees and Applicants: GFW - Familiarity and Perceptions
Grantees and Applicants: GFW Communications and the Relationship
Grantees and Applicants: Awareness and Perception of Advisors
Grantees and Applicants: Assessment of GFW performance
Grantees and Applicants: In Their Own Words
Section C: Advisors
Advisor Profile
Advisors: Familiarity With GFW
Advisors: Perceptions of GFW Performance
The Roles of Advisors
Advisors: GFW Communications and the Relationship
Advisors: In Their Own Words
Redfern Research
3
Research Populations
In November 2007, GFW conducted a review of
external stakeholders. This project focused upon three
specific populations:
Grantees: Groups that were awarded one or more GFW grants in
the last six years*. Approximate population of 1,980.
Applicants: Groups who submitted one or more grant proposals to
GFW in the last six years but were unsuccessful. Approximate
population of 3,464.
Advisors: Individuals contracted by GFW to perform advisory
functions on a voluntary basis, in the last six years. Approximate
population of 115.
The exact status of each population was verified within
the survey.
* Specifically, the survey referred to the period 2002 to 2007.
Redfern Research
4
Research Approach
In November 2007, email invitations were sent to GFW
Grantees, past unsuccessful Applicants, and GFW Advisors to
participate in an on-line survey.
Grantees and Applicants completed a 20-minute survey which was
available in English, French, Spanish, Russian and Arabic. Advisors
completed a separate 15-minute survey available in English, French
and Spanish.
Grantees and Applicants were offered the chance to win a random
draw of $500.
By the end of December 2007, 929 Grantees, 619 Applicants,
and 62 Advisors had responded.
Grantee and Applicant responses are reported in percentages.
Due to their small number, Advisor results are reported in counts.
Response rates were good for Grantees (47%) and GFW
Advisors (54%). As expected, the response rate was weaker for
Applicants (18%).
Redfern Research
5
49
5
8
62
English
French
Spanish
Total
Language of Response
920
227
221
103
77
1548
English
French
Spanish
Russian
Arabic
Total
Grantees and
Applicants
GFW Advisors
6
Section A:
Summary
Redfern Research
7
Summary Grantees and Applicants
Income and Sources
Most grantees (62%) and applicants (74%) had 2007
budgets of under $50,000 USD. One-fifth of Applicants
(21%) had budgets under $5,000.
On average, 20% of Grantees incomes between 2002 and
2007 came from GFW. For one-quarter of Grantees, this
exceeded 50%.
Many grant sources are used by Grantees and Applicants.
The most common are GFW, Mama Cash, USAID, and
Open Society / SOROS Foundation. Twenty donors are the
source of one-half of all grants.
Two-thirds of grants (68%) were under $25,000 USD. There
has been no change in grant size overall since 2002.
Summary
Redfern Research
8
Summary Grantees and Applicants
Applications
Forty percent of (unsuccessful) Applicants have applied to GFW more
than once.
On average, preparing an application to GFW takes 40 hours. For
79% of Applicants and Grantees, it takes more than 10 hours.
On average (median), Grantees report waiting 6 months for a
response to their application, while Applicants received a response in
an average of 5 months. There is wide variation in response times.
Most Grantees (82%) will definitely apply to GFW again. Somewhat
fewer Applicants (64%) will definitely reapply.
While the application process itself is reasonably clear, there is some
uncertainty about the criteria used to award grants and whether the
process treats all applicants fairly.
Summary
Redfern Research
9
Summary Grantees and Applicants
Grant Process
On average, funds were disbursed to Grantees within 5 weeks
of their being informed of the grant. In about one-quarter of
cases, this took more than 10 weeks.
Grantees offer strongly positive assessments of the support
they received from GFW during the grant period. Strengths
include reporting requirements and overall support. Weaker
elements are networking and feedback on reports.
The final report format is widely considered to be helpful.
Familiarity with GFW
Almost all Grantees (87%) and most Applicants (60%) say they
are familiar with GFW. Over 90% of Grantees know at least one
person by name at GFW, as compared to barely one-half of
Applicants.
Summary
Redfern Research
10
Summary Grantees and Applicants

Assessments of GFW
Almost all Grantees (95%) and most Applicants (64%) give
GFW an overall rating of Good or Very Good.
Overall the majority of Grantees and Applicants also offer
positive assessments of GFW in all areas tested, including
professionalism, interactions and impact. Applicant opinions
are tempered by much higher Dont know responses.
In terms of professionalism, fairness and interactions, most
Grantees and Applicants consider GFW to be significantly
outperforming other funders. There is less certainty with regard
to GFWs knowledge and impact compared to others funders.
Most Grantees and Applicants believe that GFW is interested in
working in their region and/or their country specifically.
Summary
Redfern Research
11
Summary Grantees and Applicants
Assessments of GFW (contd)
GFWs two strongest attributes, according to respondents, are
its commitments to promoting womens rights and its
responsiveness to requests.
GFW is seen to be weakest in the areas of timeliness and
infrequent or poor communications.
Suggestions for improved grant support appear to relate
primarily to increased communication and networking, as well
as increased support or diligence in monitoring and evaluation.
There is a significant appetite for increased knowledge sharing
among Grantees and Applicants through publications and
conferences. This would also maintain and improve the
relationship with GFW.
Summary
Redfern Research
12
Summary Grantees and Applicants
Advisors
Only 53% of Grantees and 29% of Advisors were aware that
GFW has a team of Advisors. About 30% of all Grantees have
spoken to an Advisor, as have only 8% of Applicants.
Advisors receive strong positive marks from Grantees and
Applicants for knowledge, helpfulness and fairness.
Evaluations
Among participants in GFW Evaluations (20% to 30% of
Grantees) most found them useful.
Summary
Redfern Research
13
Summary Advisors
About one-half of GFW Advisors were also Grantees in the
years they served.
Just over one-third also serve as advisors other Womens
Funds, especially Mama Cash and Urgent Action Fund.
Most spend two days or less per month fulfilling their role as
Advisors to GFW. They are typically engaged in research and
assessment tasks in support of GFW grant-making.
Advisors are most familiarity with GFW grant making processes
and policies and the least familiar with special initiatives,
internal staff and structure changes and long range planning
Just over one-half of Advisors feel very familiar with the role
Advisors play at GFW or GFWs expectations of Advisors.
There is only limited knowledge of other Advisors working in
their region or the regional grant portfolio.
Summary
Redfern Research
14
Summary Advisors
Like Applicants and Grantees, Advisors offer very positive
assessments of GFW. Almost everyone offering an opinion of
GFW overall rates it as very good or good.
In terms of approachability, responsiveness and efficiency, most
Advisors consider GFW to be significantly outperforming other
funders. Similarly to Grantees and Applicants there is less
certainty with regard to GFWs knowledge and impact, and
GFWs involvement of advisors in general.
As a group, Advisors tend to give themselves fairly positive
marks in the areas of avoiding conflict of interest, fairness and
being a useful resource.
Summary
Redfern Research
15
Summary Advisors
Advisors see value in all the roles tested.
The most important roles of Advisors (according to Advisors)
are being a resource to GFW on regional planning, long range
planning and specific assessments, and providing help to
grantees.
On a personal level, Advisors express the most enthusiasm
about attending regional linking meetings, acting as a resource
on strategic planning, and assessing potential grants.
The majority of Advisors are personally interested in most tasks
tested, except monitoring and evaluating grants and acting as a
mentor. These attract the personal interest of slightly less than
one-half of Advisors.
Most Advisors are satisfied with GFW communications,
although less than one-half are very satisfied.
Summary
Redfern Research
16
Summary Advisors
Advisors also offer very positive assessments of their own relationship
with GFW (respectful, open/honest, cooperative, fair, warm,
supportive, productive and interactive).
They largely reject the suggestion that the relationship is distant,
strained or formal.
When asked what is the most gratifying about their role the most
frequent answers are helping small groups obtain access to funding
and providing expertise and knowledge to GFW.
When asked about what they find the most challenging or difficult
more than half mention that they dont have enough time for the
assessments, and that they have to base assessments on limited
information.
Top suggestions for GFW on how to do a better job of working with
advisors are more regional advisor meetings, more contact and direct
communications and making better use of advisor expertise in
determining funding priorities and grant decisions.
Summary
Redfern Research
17
Summary Advisors
What many appreciate the most is GFWs honesty, warmth and
friendliness, a commitment to womens rights and womens issues and
GFWs responsiveness to womens needs and current trends.
What many like the least is that individual grants and the overall grants
budget is too small, the delays in grant application review processes
and that limited communications with advisors.
Summary
18
Section B:
Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
19
Respondents: Region of Residence
17%
17%
8%
39%
15%
Asia and
Oceania
Europe / CIS
Middle East /
North Africa
Africa
Americas
In which country do you reside?
Base: 929 Grantees and 619 Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
N=268
N=259
N=116
N=607
N=242
Redfern Research
20
Respondents: Region of Residence
20%
17%
10%
30%
19%
13%
16%
3%
54%
11%
Asia and
Oceania
Europe / CIS
Middle East /
North Africa
Africa
Americas
Grantees
Applicants
In which country do you reside?
Base: 929 Grantees and 619 Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
21
Top 20 Responding Countries
99
87
78
60
58
42
40
39
33
33
31
30
29
25
24
22
21
21
20
20
19
Kenya
Uganda
Nigeria
India
Congo Brazzaville
Cameroon
Brazil
Tanzania
Philippines
Argentina
Mexico
Ghana
Georgia
Palestine Occupied Territories
Pakistan
Colombia
Togo
Chile
Serbia Montenegro
Israel
Indonesia
In which country do you reside?
Base: 929 Grantees and 619 Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Figures indicate
actual number of
respondents from
each country.
22
Grantees and Applicants:
Income and Sources
Redfern Research
23
Average Income in 2007
- Applicants Versus Grantees -
9%
37%
16%
16%
9%
4%
7%
21%
38%
15%
10%
7%
3%
3%
Under $5,000
Between $5,000 and
$25,000
Between $25,001 and
$50,000
Between $50,001 and
$100,000
Between $100,000 and
$200.000
Between $200,000 and
$300,000
Over $300,000
Grantees Applicants
Which of the following ranges most closely reflects your
groups 2007 budget in US Dollars?
Base: 912 Grantees and 605 Applicants
US Dollars
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
24
Grants Received from GFW (2002 to 2007)
51%
30%
11%
3%
5%
One
Two
Three
Four
Five or more
How many grants has your groups received from GFW in the last five
years?
Base: 926 Grantees
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
25
Percentage of 5-year Income from GFW
- Grantees in Last Five Years Only -
7%
22%
12%
20%
18%
8%
8%
5%
None
5%
10%
11% to 25%
26% to 50%
51% to 75%
More than 75%
Not sure
And, over the last five years combined, roughly what percentage of
your groups income has come from the Global Fund for Women?
Base: 746 Grantees
Median: 20%
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
26
20 Most Common Grant Sources
Between 2002 and 2007
785
259
136
109
100
88
80
74
72
68
64
63
61
53
46
41
41
40
37
29
Global Fund for Women
Your National or Local Government
Mama Cash
United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
Open Society Institute SOROS Foundation
European CommissionEU
Ford Foundation
Swedish Government (SIDA)
Oxfam International Members
Africa Womens Development Fund (AWDF)
Canadian Government (CIDA)
United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM)
United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
HIVOS
World Bank
CORDAID CEBEMO
United Nations Population Fund (UNFDP)
British Government (DFID)
Norwegian Government
Dutch Government (DGIS)
Total Number of Grants
from Each Donor
Base: 762 Grantees and 359 Applicants
Top 20 Donors account for 2,246
(48%) of grants.
A further 2,243 grants were
provided by other sources.
Total number of grants (2002 to
2007): 4,669.
Average grants per organization:
Grantees: 3.1 grants per year.
Applicants: 3.1 grants per year.
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
27
20 Most Common Grant Sources
- Grantees and Applicants -
23%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
10%
1%
2%
0%
3%
2%
1%
2%
1%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
1%
2%
1%
Global Fund for Women
Your National or Local Government
Mama Cash
Open Society Institute SOROS Foundation
Ford Foundation
United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
European CommissionEU
Oxfam International Members
Swedish Government (SIDA)
United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM)
Africa Womens Development Fund (AWDF)
Canadian Government (CIDA)
United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
HIVOS
CORDAID CEBEMO
United Nations Population Fund (UNFDP)
Dutch Government (DGIS)
Norwegian Government
World Bank
British Government (DFID)
Grantees Applicants
Base: 762 Grantees and 359 Applicants
Percent of total grants in each
group originating with each donor.
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
28
Grant Sizes Between 2002 and 2007
1025
1207
1019
700
453
233
71
45
Under $5k
$5k to $10k
$10k to $25k
$25k to $50k
$50k to $100k
$100k to $250k
$250k to $500k
Over $500k
Total Number of Grants in
Each Range (of 4,669 Total)
68% of Grants Were Under $25k.
Base: 762 Grantees and 359 Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
29
Grant Sizes Between 2002 and 2007
- Grantees Versus Applicants -
18%
27%
23%
15%
10%
5%
2%
1%
32%
22%
18%
14%
8%
4%
1%
1%
Under $5k
$5k to $10k
$10k to $25k
$25k to $50k
$50k to $100k
$100k to $250k
$250k to $500k
Over $500k
Grantees' Grants
Applicants' Grants
Applicants received smaller grants
overall than did Grantees
Base: 762 Grantees and 359 Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
30
Trend in Grant Sizes 2002 to 2007
16%
19%
18%
17%
19%
22%
24%
24%
22%
23%
25%
24%
23%
22%
23%
17%
16%
16%
17%
16%
11%
9%
11%
12%
11%
8%
8%
8%
9%
8%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Under $5k $5k to $10k $10k to $25k
$25k to $50k $50k to $100k Over $100k
Base: 762 Grantees and 359 Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
31
Grantees and Applicants:
The Application Process
Redfern Research
32
Grant Applications to GFW (2002 to 2007)
- Applicants Versus Grantees -
34%
37%
18%
7%
3%
0%
62%
27%
7%
2%
2%
1%
1
2
3
4
5 to 9
10 or more
Grantees
Applicants
In the last five years, how many times has your group applied for
funding from the Global Fund for Women (GFW), including both
successful and unsuccessful applications?
Base: 929 Grantees and 619 Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
33
Time Spent Preparing Applications
- Applicants Versus Grantees -
21%
36%
21%
22%
19%
24%
27%
25%
10 hours or
less
11 to 40
hours
41 to 80
hours
More than 80
hours
Grantees Applicants
How many hours of work in total do you think your group
invested in your last grant application to GFW?
Medians
Grantees: 36 hours
Applicants: 48 hours
Base: 837 Grantees and 571 Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
34
Time Elapsed to Decisions
- Applicants Versus Grantees -
18%
19%
25%
19%
19%
29%
30%
20%
12%
9%
2 months or
less
3 or 4 months
5 or 6 months
7 to 10
months
More than 10
months
Grantee Applicant
Approximately how much time elapsed between the submission of
your application and when you were informed of the final outcome?
Base: 833 Grantees and 554 Applicants
Medians
Grantees: 6 months
Applicants: 4 months

Note: the GFW database
(07/2003 - 06/2006)
indicates a median of 7
months for grantees
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
35
Likelihood of Applying to GFW Again
- Applicants Versus Grantees -
82%
14%
1%
1%
2%
64%
29%
4%
1%
5%
Definitely will
Probably will
Probably will not
Definitely will
not
Not sure
Grantee Applicant
How likely is it that you will apply for funding from GFW again in the
next three years?
Base: 873 Grantees and 584 Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
36
Perceptions of Application Processes
78%
71%
73%
54%
48%
30%
50%
32%
GFW contacts applicants for more
information or clarifications about their
application
GFW treats all applications fairly
I am clear about grant the application
process
I understand the criteria GFW uses to
decide on proposals
Grantees Applicants
Do you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements about the GFW grant application?
Base: 1339 to 1373 Grantees and Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Percentage who strongly agree
37
Grantees and Applicants:
Grant Support and Reporting
Redfern Research
38
Time Elapsed from Award to transfer
15%
35%
13%
12%
23%
2 weeks or
less
3 or 4 weeks
5 or 6 weeks
7 to 10 weeks
More than 10
weeks
Approximately how much time elapsed between the time you learned you had
been awarded the grant and when you actually received the funds?
Base: 796 Grantees
Median: 5 weeks
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
39
Assessment of Grant Support
54%
42%
59%
42%
32%
34%
33%
27%
9%
16%
5%
9%
2%
4%
3%
17%
The support GFW provided to your group
during the grant period
The degree of linking and networking
support and opportunities provided
GFWs requirements for reporting and
evaluation
The feedback you received from GFW on
your final report or evaluation of the grant
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very poor Dont know
Base: 787 to 851Grantees
Thinking about your most recent grant from GFW, how
would you rate each of the following?
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
40
Assessment of Grant Reporting and Evaluation
64%
64%
26%
27%
2%
3%
7%
7%
GFWs format for
final report helped
us learn more about
the impact of our
work
GFWs final report
format was useful to
our work
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Dont know
Base: 843 to 851 Grantees
Do you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements about the GFW reporting and evaluation?
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
41
Perceptions of Final Reports and Follow-up
53%
55%
54%
22%
19%
24%
20%
15%
20%
GFWs format for final report helps
grantees learn more about the impact of
their work
GFWs final report format is useful to
grantees
I am very satisfied with the way that GFW
communicates in its publications about
the work of grantees.
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Dont know
Base: 1339 to 1373 Grantees
Do you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements about the GFW grant application?
GFW Grantees and Applicants
42
Grantees and Applicants:
GFW - Familiarity and Perceptions
Redfern Research
43
Familiarity with GFW
- Applicants versus Grantees -
33%
54%
11%
2%
1%
14%
46%
31%
7%
2%
Very
familiar
Somewhat
familiar
Not very
familiar
Not familiar
at all
Not sure
Grantees Applicants
Overall, how familiar are you with the Global Fund for Women?
Base: 875 Grantees and 605 Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
44
Familiarity with GFW Staff
- Applicants versus Grantees -
7%
18%
34%
40%
1%
48%
30%
16%
4%
2%
None
One
Two
Three or more
Not sure
Grantees Applicants
How many individuals do you know by name at GFW, that you could
contact with questions or concerns?
Base: 882 Grantees and 610 Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
45
Perceptions of GFW (1)
50%
52%
50%
44%
42%
42%
37%
33%
33%
29%
29%
32%
32%
34%
31%
32%
9%
8%
12%
15%
16%
14%
15%
15%
1%
1%
3%
3%
3%
1%
4%
3%
0%
0%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
6%
10%
5%
5%
5%
9%
12%
17%
Overall
Professionalism
Clarity in communications
Approachability
Responsiveness
Efficiency
Flexibility
Innovation
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very poor Dont know
How would you assess GFW in each of the following areas?
Base: 1379 to 1420 Grantees and Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
46
Perceptions of GFW (2)
31%
31%
30%
26%
25%
22%
22%
20%
31%
28%
24%
29%
29%
31%
28%
32%
24%
16%
15%
26%
16%
18%
21%
18%
5%
6%
10%
10%
9%
5%
10%
6%
1%
4%
8%
5%
4%
2%
5%
3%
8%
14%
13%
5%
16%
21%
14%
21%
Timeliness
Knowledge of your issue/sector
Impact on your group
Frequency of contact with you
Impact on your issue/sector
Knowledge of your country/region
Knowledge of your group
Impact on your country/region
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very poor Dont know
How would you assess GFW in each of the following areas?
Base: 1379 to 1420 Grantees and Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
47
Perceptions of GFW (1)
- Applicants versus Grantees -
95%
93%
93%
89%
87%
90%
86%
78%
64%
61%
59%
55%
55%
52%
39%
45%
Overall
Professionalism
Clarity in communications
Approachability
Responsiveness
Efficiency
Flexibility
Innovation
Grantees Applicants
How would you assess GFW in each of the following areas?
Base: 1379 to 1420 Grantees and Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Percentage Saying Good or Very Good
Redfern Research
48
Perceptions of GFW (2)
- Applicants versus Grantees -
74%
77%
78%
79%
75%
67%
70%
69%
45%
32%
18%
32%
20%
32%
20%
28%
Timeliness
Knowledge of your issue/sector
Impact on your group
Frequency of contact with you
Impact on your issue/sector
Knowledge of your country/region
Knowledge of your group
Impact on your country/region
Grantees Applicants
How would you assess GFW in each of the following areas?
Base: 1379 to 1420 Grantees and Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Percentage Saying Good or Very Good
Redfern Research
49
Comparing GFW to Others (1)
- Applicants versus Grantees -
79%
62%
79%
74%
75%
75%
69%
67%
37%
32%
42%
43%
42%
40%
40%
34%
Overall
Flexibility
Approachability
Clarity in
communications
Responsiveness
Efficiency
Professionalism
Innovation
Grantees Applicants
Overall, how would you rate the Global Fund for Women compared to other
grant making organizations you have experience with?
Base: 1379 to 1420 Grantees and Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Percentage Saying GFW is Better than Others
Redfern Research
50
Comparing GFW to Others (2)
- Applicants versus Grantees -
67%
63%
65%
60%
60%
55%
53%
54%
39%
32%
20%
27%
25%
21%
25%
25%
Timeliness
Frequency of contact
with you
Impact on your group
Knowledge of your
issue/sector
Impact on your
issue/sector
Knowledge of your
group
Knowledge of your
country/region
Impact on your
country/region
Grantees Applicants
Overall, how would you rate the Global Fund for Women compared to other
grant making organizations you have experience with?
Base: 1379 to 1420 Grantees and Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Percentage Saying GFW is Better than Others
51
Grantees and Applicants:
GFW Communications and the Relationship
Redfern Research
52
Satisfaction with GFW Communications
- Applicants versus Grantees -
61%
23%
29%
32%
8%
26%
2%
13%
1%
6%
Grantees
Applicants
Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Not Very Satisfied Not At All Satisfied Not Sure
Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality of your
communications with GFW?
Base: 882 Grantees and 609 Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
53
Describing the Relationship with GFW
79%
64%
61%
57%
56%
56%
13%
19%
23%
22%
22%
21%
1%
4%
4%
6%
7%
8%
1%
2%
3%
4%
4%
5%
5%
10%
8%
11%
10%
10%
Respectful
Open/Honest
Cooperative
Fair
Productive
Supportive
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Dont know
Do you agree or disagree that the following words accurately describe
the relationship between your group and GFW?
Base: 1272 to 1417 Grantees and Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
54
Describing the Relationship with GFW (1)
- Applicants versus Grantees -
91%
78%
79%
73%
74%
75%
61%
41%
33%
31%
28%
27%
Respectful
Open/Honest
Cooperative
Fair
Productive
Supportive
Grantees Applicants
Do you agree or disagree that the following words accurately describe
the relationship between your group and GFW?
Base: 1272 to 1417 Grantees and Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Percentage Who Strongly Agree
Not Sure:
Grantees: 1% to 17%
Applicants: 15% to 31%
Redfern Research
55
Describing the Relationship with GFW (2)
- Applicants versus Grantees -
64%
63%
55%
31%
10%
7%
31%
27%
26%
41%
23%
9%
Warm
Equal
Interactive
Formal
Distant
Strained
Grantees Applicants
Do you agree or disagree that the following words accurately describe
the relationship between your group and GFW?
Base: 1272 to 1417 Grantees and Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Percentage Who Strongly Agree
Not Sure:
Grantees: 1% to 17%
Applicants: 15% to 31%
56
Grantees and Applicants:
Awareness and Perception of Advisors
Redfern Research
57
Awareness of GFW Advisors
- Applicants Versus Grantees -
53%
39%
9%
29%
64%
7%
Yes
No
Not Sure
Grantees Applicants
Base: 901 Grantees and 618 Applicants
Were you aware that GFW has this team of international
advisors?
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
58
Contact with GFW Advisors
- Applicants Versus Grantees -
57%
43%
1%
27%
71%
1%
Yes
No
Not Sure
Grantees Applicants
Base: 462 Grantees and 175 Applicants Aware of Advisors
Have you ever spoken with a GFW Advisor about either an
application or a grant?
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
59
Assessment of Advisors
- Grantees Only -
46%
49%
54%
52%
53%
51%
31%
23%
21%
26%
22%
22%
6%
8%
8%
9%
9%
7%
13%
16%
16%
12%
12%
17%
Providing GFW with accurate picture of
the local situation
Treating all applicants and grantees
equally
Treating all applicants and grantees fairly
Being well informed
Being a useful resource for applicants and
grantees
Avoiding biases and conflicts of interest
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very poor Dont know
Base: 406 to 409 Grantees Aware of Advisors
How would you rate GFW Advisors on each of the following points?
GFW Grantees and Applicants
60
Grantees and Applicants:
Evaluations of GFW
Redfern Research
61
Assessment of GFW Evaluations
22%
15%
17%
7%
9%
6%
1%
1%
1%
60%
64%
66%
11%
11%
12%
GFW evaluation on
Health and
Reproductive
Rights (2007)
GFW assessment of
grants related to the
Beijing process,
1993-2005 (2007)
GFW evaluation on
Girls projects: what
girls need to grow
(2004)
Very useful Somewhat useful Not useful Did not participate Dont know
Base: 584 to 615 Grantees
If you participated in any of the following GFW evaluations,
please rate their usefulness to you and your group.
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Redfern Research
62
Assessment of GFW Evaluations
- Non-participants Excluded -
73%
60%
71%
23%
36%
25%
3%
4%
4%
GFW evaluation on
Health and
Reproductive
Rights (2007)
GFW assessment of
grants related to the
Beijing process,
1993-2005 (2007)
GFW evaluation on
Girls projects: what
girls need to grow
(2004)
Very useful Somewhat useful Not useful
Base: 175 to 185 Grantees
If you participated in any of the following GFW evaluations,
please rate their usefulness to you and your group.
GFW Grantees and Applicants
63
Grantees and Applicants:
In Their Own Words
Redfern Research
64
What, if anything, do you appreciate the most
about GFW?
24%
19%
17%
13%
12%
11%
9%
8%
5%
31%
28%
3%
4%
5%
5%
1%
2%
3%
Commitment to women /
womens rights issues
Responsiveness & timely
communication
Flexibility and Cooperation
Professionalism /
Efficiency/Fairness
Approachability / Warmth /
Friendliness/Respect
Prioritizes new groups/
specific types
Trust-based approach to
working with grantees
Type of funding provided
/Accessibility of funds
Sincerity / honesty
Grantees
Applicants
Base: 810 Grantees and 530 Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Open-ended question.
Multiple responses accepted.
Categories under 3% not shown.
Redfern Research
65
What, if anything, do you like the least about
GFW?
22%
13%
4%
9%
5%
1%
5%
0%
4%
13%
12%
13%
2%
8%
7%
2%
3%
13%
Excessive delays in processing grant applications
Communications and feedback are impersonal/ infrequent/
inadequate communications.
Discriminates against certain groups, regions, and/or issues
Grant size inadequate
Little/no knowledge/ prioritization on grantees work,
regional context, and issues
Not funding our group!
Does not visit grantee/inadequate "presence" in
country/region.
Lack of transparency/clarity in grantmaking criteria
Application process too difficult/complicated.
Grantee
Applicant
Base: 638 Grantees and 472 Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Open-ended question.
Multiple responses accepted.
Redfern Research
66
Do you have any suggestions for GFW to
improve their grant application process?
22%
8%
15%
6%
6%
7%
3%
5%
4%
8%
23%
6%
11%
10%
6%
9%
4%
4%
Shorten grantmaking decision-making
process.
Shift grantmaking priorities to specific
regions and/or issues.
Process is excellent/good/ fine as it is.
Provide clearer criteria / more transparency in
the process
Find mechanism to help more small / new /
grassroots organizations
Need more face-to-face interactions / site
visits
More feedback on applications that are
denied.
More stringent Evaluation and Monitoring
processes.
Mechanisms to give feedback on application
status.
Grantee
Applicant
Base: 508 Grantees and 326 Applicants
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Open-ended question.
Multiple responses accepted.
Categories under 3% not shown.
Redfern Research
67
How can GFW could do a better job of working
with grantees after grants are awarded?
24%
14%
14%
13%
13%
12%
6%
5%
4%
Current process is good / fine
Communicate more (general)
More networking / communications /
conferences
More face-to-face contact, especially site visits.
Be more systematic / strict in monitoring grants
More / better feedback on impact / reports, etc.
Require interim progress reports
Blank / No Answer
Provide help with capacity building
Base: 676 Grantees
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Open-ended question.
Multiple responses accepted.
Categories under 4% not shown.
Redfern Research
68
How can GFW best support you in learning
more about the impact of your work?
11%
10%
8%
6%
6%
4%
Publish and disseminate assessments to
teach others
More opportunities for grantee meetings
and knowledge sharing
More feedback, including criticism where
needed
Develop an evaluation methodology for
grantees
More face-to-face structured contact with
GFW
Provide capacity-building, technical
assistance
Base: 625 Grantees
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Open-ended question.
Multiple responses accepted.
Categories under 4% not
shown.
Redfern Research
69
Any specific suggestions on how to improve the
relationship between GFW and groups like yours?
28%
21%
19%
12%
5%
4%
More frequent contact,
emails etc.
The relationship is
good / fine as it is.
Direct contact with
Global Fund staff (site
visits, telephone)
More grantee meetings,
conferences and
workshops.
Be more open to types
of organizations/people
to partner with.
Provide capacity-
building and technical
assistance
Base: 625 Grantees
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Open-ended question.
Multiple responses accepted.
Categories under 4% not shown.
70
Section C:
Advisors
71
Advisor Profile
Redfern Research
72
Regional Focus
14
14
12
12
10
Middle East and
North Africa
The Americas
Asia and
Oceania
Africa
Europe and CIS
Which of the following regions is the main focus of your
work as a GFW Advisor?
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Redfern Research
73
Years As An Advisor
22
29
32
39
47
47
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
In which of the following years did you serve as an Advisor
to GFW?
Base: 62 Advisors
One-third (20 of 62)
were Advisors in all
six years.
Three-quarters (47
of 62) were advisors
in 2007.
GFW Advisors
Redfern Research
74
Years Advisors Organization Received GFW Grants
16
15
19
21
24
19
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
In which of the following years (if any) did your group or
organization receive a grant from GFW?
Base: 62 Advisors
One-half (32 of 62)
received grants in
years when they
also served as
Advisors.
GFW Advisors
Redfern Research
75
Days Per Month Spent on GFW work
18
16
15
5
3
5
Less than 1
1 or 2
3 to 5
6 to 8
More than 8
No answer
Approximately how many days per month do you/did you
spend on your work as a GFW Advisor?
Base: 62 Advisors
The majority spend
two days or less per
month on their work
as a GFW Advisor.
GFW Advisors
Redfern Research
76
Roles Fulfilled by Advisors
53
17
16
15
11
16
Research and assessments related to
specific applicants and grantees
Research and assessments related to a
specific geographic area
Research and assessments related to a
specific issue
Attending workshops and conferences
Serve as a GFW spokesperson
Other (specified)
Which of the following types of work do you/did you do in
your role as a GFW Advisor?
Base: 62 Advisors
Other activities focus on
meetings with GFW and
Applicants and local
representation of GFW.
GFW Advisors
Redfern Research
77
39
13
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
None Specified
Mama Cash
Urgent Action Fund US
Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice
African Women's Development Fund
Urgent Action Fund Africa
Fondo de Mujeres del Sur de Argentina
Filia
Mongolian Women's Fund
Women's Fund in Georgia
Slovak-Czech Women's Fund
Advisor Role With Other Womens Funds
In addition to GFW, do you fill an advisory role with any
other Womens funds? (Check all that apply.)
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Of 62 Advisors, 23
(37%) also work as
Advisors for other
funds.
Other funds:
None:39
One: 14
Two: 6
Three: 2
Four: 1
Redfern Research
78
Advisor assessment of Advisors
77%
73%
75%
78%
75%
73%
38%
38%
33%
46%
46%
45%
Providing GFW with accurate picture of the local
situation
Treating all applicants and grantees equally
Treating all applicants and grantees fairly
Being well informed
Being a useful resource for applicants and
grantees
Avoiding biases and conflicts of interest
Grantees Applicants
Base: 567 to 574 Grantees and Applicants Aware of Advisors
How would you rate GFW Advisors on each of the following points?
GFW Grantees and Applicants
Percentage Saying Good or Very Good
Not Sure: Grantees: 1% to 17% / Applicants: 15% to 31%
79
Advisors:
Familiarity With GFW
Redfern Research
80
Familiarity with GFW
34
24
1
0
6
Very familiar Somewhat
familiar
Not very
familiar
Not familiar
at all
Not sure/ No
answer
Overall, how familiar are you with the Global Fund for Women?
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Redfern Research
81
Familiarity with GFW Staff

2
4
17
35
4
None
One
Two
Three or more
Not sure
How many individuals do you know by name at GFW, that you could
contact with questions or concerns?
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Redfern Research
82
Familiarity with GFWs Work
24
23
16
12
8
4
4
25
26
29
31
17
21
18
8
8
10
11
29
19
22
0
0
2
0
2
12
12
5
5
5
8
6
6
6
Grant-making
processes
Grant-making policies
Fundraising
Communications
Special initiatives
Internal staff and
structure changes
Long range strategic
planning
Very familiar Somewhat familiar Not very familiar Not familiar at all Not sure /No Answer
How well informed do you feel about GFW in each of the following areas?
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Redfern Research
83
Familiarity with GFWs Work
37
35
27
14
1
17
17
24
23
9
6
8
8
19
25
0
0
1
4
23
2
2
2
2
4
The role of Advisors
GFWs expectations of
Advisors
The GFW grant
portfolio in your region
of the world
The other GFW
advisors in your region
of the world
GFW Advisors working
on other regions of the
world
Very familiar Somewhat familiar Not very familiar Not familiar at all Not sure /No Answer
How familiar are you with each of the following aspects of GFWs work?
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
84
Advisors:
Perceptions of GFW Performance
Redfern Research
85
Perceptions of GFW (1)
35
30
28
23
23
23
19
18
18
17
22
23
21
20
14
13
1
4
4
6
6
11
14
16
0
2
0
1
1
1
2
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
8
11
8
9
11
7
12
8
OVERALL
Professionalism
Approachability
Responsiveness
Efficiency
Clarity in communications
Knowledge of womens rights movements in your
community / country / region
Frequency of contact with you
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very poor Dont know
How would you assess GFW in each of the following areas?
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Redfern Research
86
Perceptions of GFW (2)
17
16
14
12
12
11
9
7
5
20
20
22
20
19
22
21
17
13
11
12
8
18
7
12
7
11
14
1
3
3
3
4
5
3
9
10
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
13
10
15
9
10
12
21
17
19
Innovation
Knowledge of your community / country / region
Timeliness
Impact on your country / region
Impact on womens rights movements*
Giving Advisors support they need
Ensuring enough Advisors in my region
Consulting Advisors on regional developments
Involving Advisors in devel. reg. strat. & priorities
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very poor Dont know
How would you assess GFW in each of the following areas?
Base: 62 Advisors
* in your community / country / region
GFW Advisors
Redfern Research
87
Comparing GFW to Others (1)
30
33
27
24
24
21
20
19
17
14
15
14
17
19
14
15
5
7
10
9
11
10
10
8
0
1
2
1
1
1
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
10
7
8
14
9
11
9
16
Overall
Approachability
Responsiveness
Efficiency
Clarity in
communications
Professionalism
Frequency of contact
with you
Timeliness
GFW is much better GFW is somewhat better GFW is about the same
GFW is somewhat worse GFW is much worse Dont know/Not sure
How would you rate the Global Fund for Women compared to other grant
making organizations you have experience with?
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Redfern Research
88
Comparing GFW to Others (2)
19
17
14
13
12
11
10
6
5
14
16
17
22
17
18
13
18
14
12
9
12
10
9
14
13
10
12
2
2
4
2
5
5
6
2
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
18
15
15
19
14
20
26
23
Knowledge of womens rights movements
Innovation
Knowledge of your community / country / region
Impact womens rights movements
Giving Advisors the support they need
Impact on your country / region
Consulting Advisors on regional developments
Ensuring enough Advisors in my region
Involving Advisors in devel. regional strat. &
priorities
GFW is much better GFW is somewhat better GFW is about the same
GFW is somewhat worse GFW is much worse Dont know/Not sure
Base: 62 Advisors
* in your community / country / region
GFW Advisors
Redfern Research
89
Comparing GFW to Others (1)
47
47
42
41
40
38
34
34
Overall
Approachability
Responsiveness
Clarity in
communications
Professionalism
Efficiency
Frequency of contact
with you
Timeliness
How would you rate the Global Fund for Women compared to other grant
making organizations you have experience with?
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Number Out of 62 Advisors Saying GFW is Better than Others
Redfern Research
90
Comparing GFW to Others (2)
35
33
33
31
29
29
24
23
19
Impact womens rights movements
Knowledge of womens rights movements
Innovation
Knowledge of your community / country / region
Giving Advisors the support they need
Impact on your country / region
Ensuring enough Advisors in my region
Consulting Advisors on regional developments
Involving Advisors in devel. regional strat. &
priorities
Base: 62 Advisors
* in your community / country / region
GFW Advisors
Number Out of 62 Advisors Saying GFW is Better than Others
91
The Roles of Advisors
Redfern Research
92
Perceptions of GFW Advisors on Advisors
21
20
20
19
19
14
18
22
21
29
21
27
9
5
11
4
9
6
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
14
9
10
12
14
Avoiding biases and conflicts of interest
Treating all applicants and grantees fairly
Being a useful resource for applicants and
grantees
Providing GFW with accurate picture of the local
situation
Treating all applicants and grantees equally
Fulfilling their roles and doing their jobs well
Very Good Good Fair Poor Very poor Dont know
How would you assess GFW advisors in each of the following areas?
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Redfern Research
93
Perceived Importance of Advisor Roles (1)
53
41
37
37
36
29
5
14
13
19
17
16
1
2
6
1
4
9
0
0
0
1
1
1
3
5
6
4
4
7
Being a resource person for GFWs regional
strategic planning
Providing recommendations on grant applications
Being a resource person for GFWs long range
strategic planning
Attending regional linking between Advisors
Capacity building of grantees
Being a mentor for grantees
Very important Somewhat important Not very important Not important at all Not sure /No Answer
Regardless of whether or not you are personally interested in participating,
how important is it that Advisors at GFW play each of the following strategic
roles in the future?
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Redfern Research
94
Perceived Importance of Advisor Roles (2)
29
27
24
23
22
12
24
26
26
24
11
5
6
6
7
5
1
0
1
3
5
5
5
6
6
Conducting formal evaluations of the work of
grantees
Attending cross regional linking between
Advisors
Attending GFW grantee meetings
Linking between Advisors of different women's
funds
Monitoring existing grantees
Very important Somewhat important Not very important Not important at all Not sure /No Answer
Regardless of whether or not you are personally interested in participating,
how important is it that Advisors at GFW play each of the following strategic
roles in the future?
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Redfern Research
95
Personal Interest in Specific Roles (1)
50
46
44
39
36
36
Attending regional
linking between
Advisors
A resource person for
GFWs regional
strategic planning
Providing
recommendations on
grant applications
Attending cross
regional linking
between Advisors
A resource person for
GFWs long range strat.
Planning
Linking between
Advisors of different
women's funds
Yes
In your role as an Advisor, which of the following responsibilities
would you personally like to take on in the future?
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Redfern Research
96
Personal Interest in Specific Roles (2)
33
32
28
28
28
Capacity building of
grantees
Attending GFW
grantee meetings
Being a mentor for
grantees
Monitoring existing
grantees
Conducting formal
evaluations of the
work of grantees
Yes
In your role as an Advisor, which of the following responsibilities
would you personally like to take on in the future?
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
97

Advisors: GFW Communications and the
Relationship
Redfern Research
98
Satisfaction with GFW Communications
28
17
13
0
4
Very
Satisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Not Very
Satisfied
Not At All
Satisfied
Not Sure
Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality of your
communications with GFW?
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Redfern Research
99
Describing the Relationship with GFW (1)
48
44
41
39
38
37
9
8
13
9
15
17
5
9
6
10
8
7
Respectful
Open/Honest
Cooperative
Equal
Fair
Warm
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Dont know
Do you agree or disagree that the following words accurately describe
the relationship between you and GFW?
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Redfern Research
100
Describing the Relationship with GFW (2)
35
29
28
2
2
1
14
22
21
7
13
0
4
5
4
10
14
12
0
0
0
24
16
30
9
6
9
19
17
19
Supportive
Productive
Interactive
Distant
Formal
Strained
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Dont know
Do you agree or disagree that the following words accurately describe
the relationship between you and GFW?
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
101
Advisors:
In Their Own Words
Redfern Research
102
What do you/did you find most gratifying about your
role as an Advisor to GFW?
18
17
9
8
5
3
2
Helping grassroots organizations find
funding, linking to funding sources
Doing reseach, providing expertise and
knowledge to GFW
Learning about (new) groups
Serving as a GFW representative, being part
of the GFW team
Supporting women and the work of women's
organizations and movements
When advice/expertise is taken seriously and
followed
Other
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Open-ended question.
Multiple responses accepted.
Redfern Research
103
What do you/did you find most challenging or difficult
about your experience as an Advisor to GFW?
39
15
6
5
5
3
1
8
Not enough time for assessments, formulating
advice based on limited information
Limited information on applicants and
women's groups
Inadequate follow-up/monitoring and
evaluation on grantees' work
Lack of clarity on Advisor roles,
responsibilities, and expectations for advisors
Nothing
Inadequate financial support and other kinds
of support for Advisor services
Assessment/advice not taken seriously
Other
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Open-ended question.
Multiple responses accepted.
Redfern Research
104
Do you have any suggestions on how GFW could do
a better job of working with Advisors?
16
11
10
4
3
2
2
1
8
Organize more regional advisor meetings for more
contact with other advisors
More face-to-face contact and direct communication with
GFW
Better utilize Advisor expertise in funding priorities, grant
decisions, capacity building
Be more explicit and transparent about advisors roles,
responsibilities and expect
Inexplicable, response not related to question
Expand advisory network to include new and younger
advisors/ rotate role more!
Nothing, the relationship is fine as it is
Don't know
Other
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Open-ended question.
Multiple responses accepted.
Redfern Research
105
What other strategic roles do you see for GFW
Advisors which are not included in the list above?
7
6
6
3
3
2
2
2
2
Acting as a spokesperson for GFW/doing PR for GFW
Assisting in developing funding priorities/initiatives and
grantmaking strategies
Organizing grantee convenings and other networking and
learning opportunities
Providing technical assistance and capacity building
assistance to grantees and
Policy analysis consultation, policy advocacy
Research, documentation of best practices, monitoring
and evaluation
GFW fundraising assistance
Nothing, roles for Advisors are acceptable
Other
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Open-ended question.
Multiple responses accepted.
Redfern Research
106
When you think about the idea of "Movement Building"
what are the key words or phrases which come to mind?
16
15
10
8
6
5
4
2
2
2
6
Collaboration to advance agendas/ common agenda for
change
Solidarity building, forging alliances and relationships
among women
Commitment to women's rights, fighting discrimination
and oppression
Transforming structures/ making changes to everyday
behaviors and values
Seeking new knowledge / capturing and disseminating
innovation
Capacity-building
Consciousness-raising/ awareness-building/ media/
communications
Policy advocacy/ advocacy in general
Securing financial resources for the women's movement
Identifying and developing new leadership/bringing in new
stakeholders
Other
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Open-ended question.
Multiple responses accepted.
Redfern Research
107
Do you have any specific suggestions on how to
improve the relationship between GFW and Advisors?
27
9
7
5
4
1
Regular and more personalized
communication (including face to face)
More advisors meetings and networking,
defining trends and funding priorities
Involve advisors and their knowledge/ skills
more in day-to-day operations
Nothing
More feedback on Advisor performance,
expectations
Other
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Open-ended question.
Multiple responses accepted.
Redfern Research
108
What if anything do you appreciate the
most about GFW?
28
11
9
7
4
4
3
2
Their honesty, warmth, friendliness,
approachability, respectfulness, and fairness
Commitment to women's rights and women's
issues
Responsiveness to women's needs and
current trends
Commitment to small women's groups
Their grantmaking approach: flexible, general
support
Nonbureaucratic application process very
simple and straightforward
Seeking information and knowledge about
groups and movements
Communication style
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Open-ended question.
Multiple responses accepted.
Redfern Research
109
What if anything do you like the least about GFW?
7
5
5
4
3
3
2
2
4
Grant size too small, grants budget too small
Inadequate communications with Advisors.
Delays in grant application review process
Advisors not supported well or used enough
Not enough followup / monitoring / evaluation on
grantees' work.
Nothing
GFW changing too much, becoming more bureaucratic
and too focused.
Limited knowledge of and vision for women's movements
Other
Base: 62 Advisors
GFW Advisors
Open-ended question.
Multiple responses accepted.