from good to great: environmental peer groups and the performance framework dashboard
TRANSCRIPT
From Good to Great: Environmental Peer
Groups and the Performance
Framework Dashboard
Good to Great … and the Social Sector
“This network can’t afford not to be great. Your mission
is too important!”
Jim CollinsFeeding America SummitLas Vegas, NVApril 2011
Assisting the journey from good to great (Strategy in Action from the Strengthen Team)
Develop member segments or groups to facilitate peer learning
and tailor support services
Create a performance framework linked to the main outcome of
providing 1 billion more meals by FY2018
Provide a common lens to assess and
strengthen individual and collective performance
Who are my peers?
• No food manufacturing• 100 retail stores• $40k household income• $50 M philanthropic giving
• 10 major production facilities• 500 retail stores• $70k household income• $500 M philanthropic giving
Food Bank A Food Bank B15 M pounds30 employees
$6 million
15 M pounds30 employees$6 million
1 M People Served 1 M People Served
Who are my peers?
• Food insecurity• Resource availability• Size of service area• Cost to operate
Environmental Peer Groups
How the factors work:Food insecurity example
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
LargerNeed
Intermediate Need
Smaller Need
Food Insecure Population
How the factors work:All four factors create a group
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
Food Insecurity Service Area Size
Resources Available Operating Cost
Lime GroupIntermediate Need, Intermediate Area,
Intermediate Resources,
Intermediate Costs
Food Insecure Pop Square Mileage
Food and Funds in $ Cost of Living Index
What does excellence in food banking look like?
Leadership
Community Mobilization
Resource Development
Organizational Efficiency
Food Access
A “common performance dashboard” for members
FoodAccess
Service Area PPIP% Nutritious
Avg County PPIPSNAP MealsLocal PoundsFood Safety
ResourceDevelopmentIndividual Giving
Private Support RevenuePrivate Support % of Operating ExpensesAvg Individ Gift Size
Individual Support %Of Total Fundraising
CommunityMobilizationIndividual Donors
per 1,000 PopulationVolunteer Hours
Food Drive Pounds
RecognizedLeadership**Until Available,
Refer to theAppropriate Sections
Of Capacity Self-Assessment Tool
OrganizationalEfficiency
Program Expense %Cost Per $ Raised
Meals Distributed per $ Inventory Turns
Reducing the Meal Gap in the Service Area
9
Performance Framework: results for each food bank within EPG and network-wide
Metric actual and % change
Percentile within EPG
Percentile within entire network
TX – Your Food Bank - GRAPE
Framework is interactive: Clicking on a metric displays results for entire EPG
Pulling it all together
Food Access
Community Mobilization
Resource Development
Organizational Efficiency
Low
er
Hig
her
Who is performing well in regards to “access to food”? Who has continued success in raising private funds? How efficient is every one else? Where are great examples of mobilizing communities?
Harvest Hope Food Bank Columbia SC
Food Bank of Iowa Des Moines IA
Mid-Ohio Foodbank Grove City OH
Second Harvest North Florida Jacksonville FLHarvesters – The Community Food Network Kansas City MO
United Food Bank Mesa AZSecond Harvest Food Bank of Middle Tennessee Nashville TNSecond Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida Orlando FL
FeedMore, Inc. Richmond VA
Bay Area Food Bank Theodore AL
Lime Group
Environmental Peer Group (EPG) Blueberry Operation Statistics by Food BankNumber of Food Banks in EPG 15 Combined EPG Ranked in the Network
Detailed Metrics for All Food Banks in EPGEnvironmental Peer Group Variables Size of Service Area (Sq Miles) 10,509 Intermediate
2010 Food Insecure Individuals 739,985 HighFood and Funds Resources in Dollars 81,641,274$ HighCost to Operate Index 105.43 Intermediate
PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK - FY2012 (1)
Food Access ActualChange Over
Last Year Food Bank Percentile within EPG (based on Actuals)Percentile within EPG
Service Area PPIP 82.17 35.5% 80%
Percent Foods to Encourage (5) 67.0% -0.1% 93%Average County PPIP 102.87 26.6% 80%SNAP Meals 10,766,482.68 -2.0% 100%Local Pounds 9,703,650.00 -5.5% 53%
Food Safety Index (4) 2.00 N/A 67%COMPOSITE INDEX 79%
Resource Development ActualChange Over
Last YearPenetration into Individual Giving 37.3% 2.5% 100%Private Support Revenue 15,870,224.00$ 23.3% 100%Private Support Percent of Operating Expenses 68.9% 1.0% 80%
Average Direct Mail Renewal Gift in Dollars (3) 85.50$ N/A 60%Individual Support Percent of Total Fundraising 39.4% -4.1% 13%COMPOSITE INDEX 71%
Organizational Efficiency ActualChange Over
Last Year
Meals Per Dollar (2) 3.02 -6.4% 33%Cost Per Dollar Raised 0.12$ -32.8% 100%Program Expenses Percent of Operating Expenses 74.9% 19.3% 53%Inventory Turns 10.19 18.3% 40%COMPOSITE INDEX 57%
Community Mobilization ActualChange Over
Last YearVolunteer Hours 95,000.00 13.8% 80%Number of Individual Donors per 1,000 Population 40.20 108.8% 87%Food Drive Pounds 1,719,051.00 -9.3% 87%
Advocacy Index (3) 2.00 N/A 60%COMPOSITE INDEX 78%
North Texas Food Bank (Blueberry)
NTFB can both learn and teach
Strengths Fundraising Effectiveness Fundraising Efficiency SNAP Outreach
Opportunities Inventory Turns Local Food Sourcing County-level Reach (PPIP)
14
Best in class fundraising
Private Support Revenue Percentile
Rank100%
93%87%80%73%67%60%53%47%40%33%27%20%13%
7%
$15.9MCost Per Dollar Raised
Percentile Rank100%
93%87%80%73%67%60%53%47%40%33%27%20%13%
7%
$0.12
Percentile Rank100%
79%58%51%48%47%46%37%36%32%29%28%25%15%
6%
Average County PPIP Percentile
Rank100%
93%87%80%73%67%60%53%47%40%33%27%20%13%
7%
From good … to great
Most of North Texas’ counties are more food insecure than the national average . . .
Food Insecurity Rate By County
% Food Insecure
Dallas, Lamar, & Navarro counties have the highest food insecurity rates
14.9% is the national food insecurity rate
Remaining Meal Gap per Food Insecure PersonRemaining Meal Gap per Food Insecure Person
NTFB distribution outcomes range widely across its service area
18
Denton & Collin counties, where North Texas FB distributes less than 2 meals / month per food insecure person, are clear areas for improvement
Larg
er G
ap
The 3 northeast counties are success stories, particularly Lamar, where we estimate the need was completely met
Largest meal gaps associated with two factors: 1) agency density and 2) food throughput
Lbs. Distributed / Agency
Denton & Collin counties had less than half1 the network avg Agency: FI population ratio
Denton & Collin counties’ agency throughput was less than 70% of the network avg
# of FIP
Hig
her D
ensi
ty
Lbs. DistributedH
ighe
r Thr
ough
put
Food Insecure Population / Agency
Leveraging facts AND experience
Agency Segmentation
Agency Enablement
Agency Development
Push Models
Where does the data come from?
© 2013 Feeding America
NAR
QPR
Reports
Network Activity
Data Center
Find this info in the Network Activity Data Center
Find the NADC at the bottom right of the HungerNet Home Page
The Performance Framework Dashboard in action
DEMO
Relevant Performance Framework metrics
• Local Pounds
• Meals Distributed per Dollar
• Program Expense % of Operating Expenses
• % Foods to Encourage
• Inventory Turns
EPG survey results:Satisfaction
72%
81%
71%
20%
27%
24%
Top 2 Box % Top Box %
Usefulness of EPGs to my food bank:
Usefulness of EPGs to network:
Usefulness of Performance Framework:
Top 2 categories of satisfaction = “moderately useful” and “very useful”
Avg. Score (1-5)
3.72
3.97
3.81
EPG survey results: Best Practice-Sharing
0%20%40%60%
Network CEOs
57%
30%37%
CEOs had the highest rates of best practice-sharing among all functional groups
Topic % of All Topics Shared
Fundraising 30%
Programs 19%
Operations 15%
Volunteers/HR 15%
Food Sourcing 7%
Technology 7%
Nutrition 7%
CEO Sharing
35%
EPG survey results: Performance Framework
Examined own data Compared to peers Compared to network
None0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Use of the Performance Framework by % of re-spondents
Network CEOs
46%
92%
47%
88%
32%
74%
45%
7%
EPG survey results:Knowledge
83% of respondents who knew of environmental peers groups claimed to have a general understanding of why and how EPGs were created.• However, 34% of that group mentioned performance-
based metrics as the basis for EPG groupings
Total
83% claim understanding
34% lack full understanding
Environment vs. Performance
EPGs are not grouped by Performance Metrics
EPGs are grouped by the hand you’re dealt
How you play that hand is your performance
For example:• Service Area PPIP:
Can control efforts to affect amount of food distributed in service area
• Private Support Revenue: Can control efforts to fundraise more revenue from private sources
Performance Framework – Measures food bank performance in 19 areas controlled by food bank
© 2013 Feeding America
Performance Framework – Measures food bank performance in 19 areas controlled by food bank
For example:• Cost per dollar
raised: Can control efforts to affect efficiency of fundraising efforts – how much is spent
• Food Drive Pounds: Can control efforts to prioritize food drives to engage the community
• Pounds distributed?• Rural service area?• Population level?• Operating expenses?• Hours volunteered?
Review: Is the factor environmental or performance?
© 2013 Feeding America
How can I get the most out of my EPG?
• Share successes (and failures) with food banks in similar circumstances
• Gain knowledge on new fundraising or food sourcing initiatives
• Strategize partnerships• Troubleshoot challenging issues with
peers• Converse about best practices for
food banks “like you”
EPG resources
• Fundraising Captain groups – serve as captain for your own functional group
• Functional Contact Lists• Schedule a webinar/call with your
EPG• Learning Conferences
Find your functional area within your EPG, and copy the email list into Outlook
Find EPGs at the bottom of the HungerNet homepage
One Goal for the Network
36
One Goal gives us a starting point for talking about our collective impact in common terms, both nationally and locally, and allows us to measure our progress consistently across the network
Reduce the meal gap by
providing 3.63B meals annually
by FY18, an increase of +1B meals vs.
FY10
One Goal target-setting is dependent on three variables
Map the Meal Gap baseline
• Number of Food Insecure• Size of Service Area• Cost of Living factors
Pounds Distributed in FY2010
• Distribution to Clients• Water subtracted (greater
in disaster areas)
SNAP Applications
in FY2010
• State benefits may yield more meals than others
Progress is measured against the Target, not the
MMG baseline
FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 PROJECTED
FY2015 PROJECTED
FY2016 PROJECTED
-
500,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,500,000,000
2,000,000,000
2,500,000,000
3,000,000,000
3,500,000,000
4,000,000,000
4,500,000,000
5,000,000,000
Network Progress Toward One Goal Target, as of FY2013
LEFT TO SOURCE
TOTAL MEALS
69.3%
ONE GOAL TARGET
76.9%
79.3%
86.9%
94.5%
103.5%
114.1%
In FY2014, members were asked to make a One Goal pledge
© 2014 Feeding America
No pledge15%
Higher pledge44%
Lower pledge17%
Equal pledge23%
67% of members made a pledge equal to or higher than their One Goal Target. The average percent of pledge achieved for this group is 81.68%
What do the lower performing members have in common?
By FY2015, 44 members will have achieved less than 75% of their goal
• 20 of the 44 members with less than 75% predicted do not do SNAP outreach.
• 30 of the 44 members with less than 75% predicted are Moderately Unengaged or Unengaged.
• 29 of the 44 members with less than 75% have shown a negative rate of growth for the past 3 years, some with significant declines.
• 34 of the 44 members are reliant on retail stores for the majority of the resources in their service area.
© 2013 Feeding America
Appendix
Available Dollars for Charity Organizations in Service AreaBased on median household income, number of households, and reduction factors derived from Giving USA research (for dollars available to charities in general, for dollars available to charities in general that might be given to Human Services charities, and
Retail Store OpportunityBased on median annual store volumes from 35,000 stores monitored by ACNielsen, converted to dollars at the rate of $1.66 per pound
Produce OpportunityBased on Hard 7 yield data reported by USDA, and reduced to 0.5% of total yield, converted to dollars at the rate of $0.33 per pound
FMCE OpportunityBased on consultant study of average yield from manufacturing plants in specific SIC codes, converted to dollars at the rate of $1.66 per pound
How do we calculate “Resources Available”?
Breakpoints for each factor
Performance Framework evaluates 5 specific areas of food banking
Food Access Metrics which evaluate food sourcing, distribution reach, food safety and other meal sources
Resource Development
Metrics which evaluate sources of revenue for sustainability, fund-raising development, and individual support
Operational Efficiency
Metrics which evaluate costs to distribute meals, costs to raise a dollar, investments in program delivery, and inventory
Community Mobilization
Metrics which evaluate volunteer participation, number of active donors, and advocacy in the community
Leadership Effectiveness Metrics are not currently available