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 Collins Feeding America Summit Las Vegas, NV April 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?

15 M pounds 30 employees $6 million

Food Bank A

1 M People Served • • • • No food manufacturing 100 retail stores $40k household income $50 M philanthropic giving

Food Bank B

15 M pounds 30 employees $6 million 1 M People Served • • • • 10 major production facilities 500 retail stores $70k household income $500 M philanthropic giving

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

Food Insecure Population 1 800 000 1 600 000 1 400 000 1 200 000 1 000 000 800 000 600 000 400 000 200 000 Larger Need Intermediate Need Smaller Need

How the factors work: All four factors create a group

1 800 000 1 600 000 1 400 000 1 200 000 1 000 000 800 000 600 000 400 000 200 000 Food Insecurity Food Insecure Pop 1 800 000 1 600 000 1 400 000 1 200 000 1 000 000 800 000 600 000 400 000 200 000 Resources Available Food and Funds in $ Lime Group Intermediate Need, Intermediate Area, Intermediate Resources, Intermediate Costs 1 800 000 1 600 000 1 400 000 1 200 000 1 000 000 800 000 600 000 400 000 200 000 1 800 000 1 600 000 1 400 000 1 200 000 1 000 000 800 000 600 000 400 000 200 000 Service Area Size Square Mileage Operating Cost 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 Reducing the Meal Gap in the Service Area Food Access

Service Area PPIP % Nutritious Avg County PPIP SNAP Meals Local Pounds Food Safety

Resource Development

Individual Giving Private Support Revenue Private Support % of Operating Expenses Avg Individ Gift Size Individual Support % Of Total Fundraising

Community Mobilization

Individual Donors per 1,000 Population Volunteer Hours Food Drive Pounds

Organizational Efficiency

Program Expense % Cost Per $ Raised Meals Distributed per $ Inventory Turns

Recognized Leadership*

*Until Available, Refer to the Appropriate Sections Of Capacity Self Assessment Tool 9

Performance Framework: results for each food bank within EPG and network-wide TX – Your Food Bank - GRAPE

Metric actual and % change Percentile within EPG Percentile within entire network

Framework is interactive: Clicking on a metric displays results for entire EPG

Pulling it all together

Lime Group Harvest Hope Food Bank Food Bank of Iowa Columbia SC Des Moines IA Mid-Ohio Foodbank Second Harvest North Florida Harvesters – The Community Food Network United Food Bank Second Harvest Food Bank of Middle Tennessee Nashville Second Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida Grove City OH Jacksonville FL Kansas City MO Mesa Orlando AZ TN FL FeedMore, Inc.

Bay Area Food Bank Richmond Theodore VA AL Food Access Community Mobilization Resource Development Organizational Efficiency 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?

TX-Dallas (North Texas Food Bank) - Blueberry <-- Select Food Bank Environmental Peer Group (EPG)

Number of Food Banks in EPG Blueberry 15 Operation Statistics by Food Bank Combined EPG Ranked in the Network

Environmental Peer Group Variables

Size of Service Area (Sq Miles) 10,509 Detailed Metrics for All Food Banks in EPG Intermediate 2010 Food Insecure Individuals Food and Funds Resources in Dollars Cost to Operate Index 739,985 $ 81,641,274 105.43

High High Intermediate

PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK - FY2012 (1) Food Access

Service Area PPIP Percent Foods to Encourage (5) Average County PPIP SNAP Meals Local Pounds Food Safety Index (4)

COMPOSITE INDEX Actual

82.17

67.0% 102.87

10,766,482.68

9,703,650.00

2.00

Change Over Last Year

35.5% -0.1% 26.6% -2.0% -5.5% N/A

Food Bank Percentile within EPG (based on Actuals) Percentile within EPG

80% 93% 80% 100% 53% 67%

79% Resource Development

Penetration into Individual Giving Private Support Revenue Private Support Percent of Operating Expenses Average Direct Mail Renewal Gift in Dollars (3) Individual Support Percent of Total Fundraising

COMPOSITE INDEX Actual

37.3% $ 15,870,224.00

68.9% $ 85.50

39.4%

Change Over Last Year

2.5% 23.3% 1.0% N/A -4.1% 100% 100% 80% 60% 13%

71% Organizational Efficiency

Meals Per Dollar (2) Cost Per Dollar Raised Program Expenses Percent of Operating Expenses Inventory Turns

COMPOSITE INDEX Actual

3.02

$ 0.12

74.9% 10.19

Change Over Last Year

-6.4% -32.8% 19.3% 18.3% 33% 100% 53% 40%

57% Community Mobilization

Volunteer Hours Number of Individual Donors per 1,000 Population Food Drive Pounds Advocacy Index (3)

COMPOSITE INDEX Actual

95,000.00

40.20

1,719,051.00

2.00

Change Over Last Year

13.8% 108.8% -9.3% N/A 80% 87% 87% 60%

78%

NTFB can both learn and teach

Strengths

   Fundraising Effectiveness Fundraising Efficiency SNAP Outreach

Opportunities

   Inventory Turns Local Food Sourcing County-level Reach (PPIP) 14

Private Support Revenue

Best in class fundraising

$15.9M

Percentile Rank

100% 93% 87% 80% 73% 67% 60% 53% 47% 40% 33% 27% 20% 13% 7%

Cost Per Dollar Raised

$0.12

Rank Rank

100% 100% 79% 93% 58% 87% 51% 80% 48% 73% 47% 67% 46% 60% 37% 53% 36% 47% 32% 40% 29% 33% 28% 27% 25% 20% 15% 13% 6% 7%

From good … to great

Average County PPIP

Percentile Rank 100% 93% 87% 80% 73% 67% 60% 53% 47% 40% 33% 27% 20% 13% 7%

Most of North Texas’ counties are more food insecure than the national average . .

.

Food Insecurity Rate By County % Food Insecure 14.9% is the national food insecurity rate Dallas, Lamar, & Navarro counties have the highest food insecurity rates

NTFB distribution outcomes range widely across its service area Remaining Meal Gap per Food Insecure Person Denton & Collin counties, where North Texas FB distributes less than 2 meals / month per food insecure person, are clear areas for improvement The 3 northeast counties are success stories, particularly Lamar, where we estimate the need was completely met

18

Largest meal gaps associated with two factors: 1) agency density and 2) food throughput Food Insecure Population / Agency Lbs. Distributed / Agency Lbs. Distributed # of FIP Denton & Collin counties had less than half 1 Agency: FI population ratio the network avg Denton & Collin counties’ agency throughput was less than 70% of the network avg

Leveraging facts AND experience

Agency Development Agency Segmentation Agency Enablement Push Models

Where does the data come from?

NAR

Network Activity Data Center

QPR © 2013 Feeding America

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

Top 2 categories of satisfaction = “moderately useful” and “very useful” Top 2 Box % Top Box % Avg. Score (1-5) Usefulness of EPGs to my food bank:

72% 20% 3.72

Usefulness of EPGs to network:

81% 27% 3.97

Usefulness of Performance Framework:

71% 24% 3.81

EPG survey results: Best Practice-Sharing

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

CEOs had the highest rates of best practice-sharing among all functional groups CEO Sharing 35% 57% 30% 37%

% to reach out to EPG % to implement best practice Network CEOs

Topic

Fundraising Programs Operations Volunteers/HR Food Sourcing Technology Nutrition

% of All Topics Shared

30% 19% 15% 15% 7% 7% 7%

EPG survey results: Performance Framework

Use of the Performance Framework by % of respondents

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

46% 92% 47% 88% 32% 74%

Examined own data Compared to peers Network Compared to network CEOs

45%

None

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

Performance Framework – Measures food bank performance in 19 areas controlled by food bank

• 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

• 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 © 2013 Feeding America

Review: Is the factor environmental or performance?

• • • • • Pounds distributed?

Rural service area?

Population level?

Operating expenses?

Hours volunteered?

© 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 EPGs at the bottom of the HungerNet homepage Find your functional area within your EPG, and copy the email list into Outlook

One Goal for the Network

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

36

One Goal target-setting is dependent on three variables

• Number of Food Insecure • Size of Service Area • Cost of Living factors Map the Meal Gap baseline • Distribution to Clients • Water subtracted (greater in disaster areas) Pounds Distributed in FY2010 • State benefits may yield more meals than others SNAP Applications in FY2010

Progress is measured against the Target, not the MMG baseline

5 5 4 1 2 1 3 2 4 3

Network Progress Toward One Goal Target,

LEFT TO SOURCE

as of FY2013 114.1%

TOTAL MEALS

103.5%

ONE GOAL TARGET

69.3% 76.9% 79.3% 86.9% 94.5% FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 PROJECTED FY2015 PROJECTED FY2016 PROJECTED

In FY2014, members were asked to make a One Goal pledge

Equal pledge 23% No pledge 16% Lower pledge 17% Higher pledge 44%

© 2014 Feeding America 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

Contact Information

Mark Buettner

Analytics Manager [email protected]

Appendix

How do we calculate “Resources Available”?

Available Dollars for Charity Organizations in Service Area Based 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 Opportunity Based on median annual store volumes from 35,000 stores monitored by ACNielsen, converted to dollars at the rate of $1.66 per pound Produce Opportunity Based 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 Opportunity Based on consultant study of average yield from manufacturing plants in specific SIC codes, converted to dollars at the rate of $1.66 per pound

Breakpoints for each factor

Performance Framework evaluates 5 specific areas of food banking

Food Access Resource Development Operational Efficiency Community Mobilization Leadership Effectiveness Metrics which evaluate food sourcing, distribution reach, food safety and other meal sources Metrics which evaluate sources of revenue for sustainability, fund-raising development, and individual support Metrics which evaluate costs to distribute meals, costs to raise a dollar, investments in program delivery, and inventory Metrics which evaluate volunteer participation, number of active donors, and advocacy in the community Metrics are not currently available