Nonprofit Analysis: Beyond MetricsTactical Philanthropy Track

CN 2.03-Dimensional Rating System Prototype*

Presented by Ken Berger, President & CEO

SOCAP10San Francisco, California

October 5, 2010

*Prototype for purpose of illustration only and in no way represents the final product.

THE EVOLUTION OF CHARITY NAVIGATOR2001 – FORMED WITH A MISSION TO BE A DONOR’S GUIDE TO INTELLIGENT GIVING.

2002 – 2007 - USED IRS DATA (990’S) BECAUSE MANY NONPROFITS DIDN’T LIKE US! IT WAS THE ONLY DATA AVAILABLE FOR META ANALYSIS.

2008 - ANNOUNCED PLANS TO REVAMP RATING SYSTEM TO MOVE TO 3-DIMENSIONAL

2009 - FORMED ADVISORY PANEL

2010 - RECEIVED HEWLETT GRANT TO LAUNCH VOLUNTEER STUDENT RATING PILOT PROJECT TO SCALE UP & FIDELITY CGF TRUSTEE’S PHILANTHROPY FUND FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING .

CN 2.0 - From One Dimensional to 3-Dimensional

20

40

60

80

100

120

2002

to 201

020

11

2012

& B

eyon

d

% W

eig

ht o

f Rat

ing

Effectiveness/ Results

Accountability/ Transparency

Financial

100%Financial

33.3% Account-Ability/Trans-

parency

+66.6%

Financial

50%Effectiveness/Results

+17%

Accountability/Transparency

+33%

Financial

SCALING UP: 6 Steps to a 3-Dimensional Rating System

July 2010

Accountability &TransparencyMethodology

Launched (achieved)

Fall/Winter 2010

Financial Metrics

Revised (in process)

July 2011

Methodology to Measure Effectiveness/Results

Launched (provided adequate funding is secured

to scale up)

Accountability & TransparencyNow Part of Star Rating (data will have been collected for all charities

in CN’s database at this point)

July 2012

Effectiveness/Results Dimension Now Part of Star Rating (assuming data has now been collected for all charities in CN’s database)

July 2013

Incorporation of reviews/data into Effectiveness/Results Dimension (e.g.

beneficiary satisfaction, volunteer reviews,expert reviews and independent impact

evaluations.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

FINANCIAL

(33 Points)

ACCOUNTABILITY/

TRANSPARENCY

(17 Points)

EFFECTIVENESS/

RESULTS

(50 Points)EFFICIENCY

(10)

SUSTAINABILITY

(23)

Overhead

(3 yr. moving average)

•Working Capital•Current Ratio Web Site & 990s

Keystone/NPC

6 Questions &

3rd Party Reviews

Low

Risk

27 – 33 15 – 17 38 – 50

Moderate

Risk

22 – 26 13 – 14 26 – 37

Intermediate Risk

18 – 21 11 – 12 12 – 25

Significant Risk

13 – 17 9 – 10 8 – 11

0 Stars High Risk < 13 < 9 < 8

FINANCIAL

0 – 4 STARS

33 Points Max

DCCK: 27 out of 33

ACCOUNTABILITY/

TRANSPARENCY

0 – 4 STARS

17 Points Max

DCCK: 14 out of 17

EFFECTIVENESS/RESULTS

0 – 4 STARS

50 Points Max

DCCK: 41 out of 50

0VERALL SCORE: 0 – 4 STARS; 100 POINTS; RISK LEVELDCCK SCORECARD: 82/100 POINTS Low Risk

EFFECTIVENESS/RESULTS6 Questions*

50 Points Total Maximum

*For this prototype, we are using 6 questions devised by Keystone Accountability and New Philanthropy Capital.

QUESTION Max Points DCCK Score

1. What is the charity’s commitment to reporting results? 5 5

2. How does the charity demonstrate the demand for its services? 3 3

3. Does the charity report its outputs (what it does)? 3 3

EFFECTIVENESS/RESULTS6 Questions

50 Points Total Maximum

QUESTION Max Points DCCK Score

4. Does the charity report its outcomes (defined as the identifiable differences that it makes through its work)?

15 15

5. What is the quality of evidence for reported results? 12 7

6. Does the charity adjust and improve in light of its results? 12 8

DCCK SCORE: 41 OUT OF 50 Rating:

EFFECTIVENESS/RESULTS3rd Party Evaluations/Reviews

Weighted score based on quality and rigor of data:

1. Volunteer Reviews2. Primary Constituents Feedback3. Independent Expert Reviews4. Independent In-depth Research and

Analysis