|
The Foundation evaluates the performance of its grantees based on its classification as one of two organizational types — single-service organizations (SSOs) and multi-service organizations (MSOs).
The 12 single-service organization grantee reports posted here focus on quantitative measures of numbers of youth served, yearly revenue, and numbers of youth
reaching target outcomes. The data reported for each organization’s performance begin with the year of the Foundation’s first investment. Also included are future projections developed by each organization as part of its business plan. Total revenue refers to all funds raised during an organization’s fiscal year, as stated in its audited financial statements.
Some caveats: These “bottom-line” numbers do not easily illuminate many possible explanations for an organization’s success or failure in achieving its goals. Over time we will also report on many other quantitative and qualitative variables to present a more nuanced view of what the “bottom line” numbers really mean.
For example, an increase in the number of youth served is of less import if, in order to achieve this increase, youth are participating in a program for shorter periods of time or not receiving the full programmatic content. For an example of how the Foundation is addressing such challenges in accurate performance reporting, see Active Service Slots.
Finally, we understand there is no reliable methodology for ascribing with precision success or failure in meeting objectives directly to the Foundation’s investments and extra-financial supports. Our grantees are effective and well-regarded organizations, with strong leaders and a broad base of supporters, and these factors in themselves increase their odds for success. On the other hand, the funding we provide for growth and organizational strengthening is not common in either the philanthropic or public sector. We believe that our strategy can–and does–complement grants from other funders, and strengthens our grantees’ work.
Multi-service organizations (MSOs), in contrast to single-service nonprofits, tend to focus geographically on one community, providing a range of programs to many populations. To make the whole greater than the sum of its parts, these organizations’ theories of change often integrate various services across each agency in order to improve overall quality and drive positive outcomes. Each organization is implementing rigorous performance tracking systems that generate data used to make improvements and prepare for external evaluation. The Foundation’s primary tool for assessing multi-service organizations’ performance centers on implementation of such a system.
The Foundation has developed a four-part, 12-point scale to assess an organization’s ability to collect information about its participants, track their progress, and then use such data to inform decision-making. Organizations are rated on their capacity to track four types of data: 1) participant demographics, 2) program dosage and utilization, 3) staff activity to promote outcomes, and 4) participant outcomes. Grantees are assigned a score based on their status in each area (0 for none, 1 for low, 2 for medium, and 3 for high). The total of these scores (out of 12) corresponds to an overall assessment rating. A total score between 0 and 4 is considered low capacity; between 5 and 8 is considered medium capacity; and 9 or higher is considered high capacity. The goal of each multi-service organization is to reach high capacity.
Once these organizations have built their capacity for internal performance tracking and evaluation, they will consider options for the external evaluation required to demonstrate conclusively the effectiveness of their programs.
These organizations are also implementing other initiatives, such as addressing key infrastructure and organizational needs and, when appropriate, undertaking targeted growth. While the Foundation also tracks progress in these areas, the key goal of its investments in these promising multi-service organizations is increasing their evidence of effectiveness, and their use of data to improve performance.
| 
