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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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