SOCAP10 presentation by Charity Navigator's President & CEO

6,537 views
6,473 views

Published on

Nonprofit Analysis: Beyond Metrics

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
6,537
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3,987
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
32
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

SOCAP10 presentation by Charity Navigator's President & CEO

  1. 1. Nonprofit Analysis: Beyond Metrics Tactical Philanthropy Track CN 2.0 3-Dimensional Rating System Prototype* Presented by Ken Berger, President & CEO SOCAP10 San Francisco, California October 5, 2010 *Prototype for purpose of illustration only and in no way represents the final product.
  2. 2. THE EVOLUTION OF CHARITY NAVIGATOR 2001 – 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
  3. 3. CN 2.0 - From One Dimensional to 3-Dimensional 20 40 60 80 100 120 2002 to 2010 2011 2012 & Beyond %WeightofRating Effectiveness/Results Accountability/Transparency Financial 100% Financial 33.3% Account- Ability/ Trans- parency + 66.6% Financial 50% Effectiveness/Results + 17% Accountability/ Transparency + 33% Financial
  4. 4. SCALING UP: 6 Steps to a 3-Dimensional Rating System July 2010 Accountability & Transparency Methodology 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 & Transparency Now 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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 LEVEL DCCK SCORECARD: 82/100 POINTS Low Risk
  7. 7. EFFECTIVENESS/RESULTS 6 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
  8. 8. EFFECTIVENESS/RESULTS 6 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:
  9. 9. EFFECTIVENESS/RESULTS 3rd Party Evaluations/Reviews Weighted score based on quality and rigor of data: 1. Volunteer Reviews 2. Primary Constituents Feedback 3. Independent Expert Reviews 4. Independent In-depth Research and Analysis
  10. 10. EFFECTIVENESS/RESULTS 3rd Party Evaluations/Reviews Weighted score based on quality and rigor of data: 1. Volunteer Reviews 2. Primary Constituents Feedback 3. Independent Expert Reviews 4. Independent In-depth Research and Analysis

×