Special Olympics Strategic Scorecard

Overview and StatusFebruary 2007

2

Purpose of a Scorecard

• Provide centralized, top-level evaluation of the movement’s accomplishments

• Provide Programs with benchmarks and best practices

• Align the organization to the strategic goals• Drive performance and accountability at all

levels

3

Potential Audiences / Stakeholders

Audience Value of Metrics

Core Constituents Special Olympics is committed to creating more quality experiences for my peers, family and me

Program Leaders / Boards

Benchmarks of Program’s performance within the movement; Identify other Programs with best practices and expertise

Regional Leaders Develop regional strategies; Prioritize Program support and training based on performance and needs of the Programs; Identify best practices and expertise

HQ Leaders, SOI Board

Measure impact and value of programs and other solutions; Identify strategic needs and issues; Develop top-line messaging of Special Olympics’ impact and value

Donors, External Rating Groups, Media, External Audiences

Perceive Special Olympics as professional and responsible stewards of the resources directed to the organization; Recognized impact of gifts and donations; Quantifiable results which illustrate impact of Special Olympics in communities around the world

4

Existing Measurement Systems

System DataAccreditation Board size & composition

Program budget & financials

PDS Program metrics – athletes, sports, competitions, coaches, volunteers, staff, donations, cash reservesProgram competencies – developmental levels

GMS Athlete registration, competition results

Financial System Budget / actual revenue & expenses (SOI only)

IRS 990’s (SOI & US only)

Revenue, cost of fundraising, program services expenses

Existing systems provide source data for many performance measures, but do not suffice alone as a single source of performance metrics or “scorecard”

5

Learnings from 2000-2005 Census

• “Grass roots” level data is hard to collect• Variable operating models across Programs• Limited systems to support operations and

data collection• Measurement requires culture change• Are imperfect measures acceptable?

6

Determining what to measure

• Framework: 2006-2010 Strategic Plan• The objectives for selecting metrics were:

─ Broaden the current set of metrics that are regularly evaluated

─ Identify 2 to 3 metrics per Strategic Goal─ Define strategic measures and then evolve to more specific

or operational measures

• Align performance measurement to the movement’s strategy

• Reinforces communication of the strategic goals

7

Principles

• Provide value for Program and Regional leaders

• Keep it simple and then evolve• Consider efforts required by Programs• Balance ideal metrics with the cost of

acquiring them• Consider “80/20 rule” for collecting data or

implementing new measures

8

Possible Metrics – Revenue GoalTo build a movement-wide diversified and sustainable

revenue stream of $300 million per year

Value of Data

Effort to Obtain

• Cash donations and VIK from PDS

• Gross Revenues from IRS 990s

• Revenue by source (audited financials)

• Revenue figures used to calculate accreditation fees

High

LowHighLow

• Cost of Fundraising (revenue efficiency; US only)

Preferred quadrant

• Value of volunteers

9

Possible Metrics – Communications Goal

To expand and engage key audiences with a compelling message to inspire new levels of support and change attitudes toward

people with intellectual disabilities

Value of Data

Effort to Obtain

• # of volunteers from PDS

• Past Attitude surveys (14 nations)

• # of Global messenger appearances

• Media impressionsHigh

LowHighLow

• #of Global Messengers

Preferred quadrant

• # of spectators at SO competitions

• Longitudinal attitude study in key markets

• # of Unified partners from PDS

• # of families from PDS

• CDMP impressions / response rates

10

• Athlete to Participant ratio from census

• ALPs participation

Possible Metrics – Quality GoalTo enhance the quality of the local athlete experience, recognizing

individual motivations and aspirations for sport performance

Value of Data

Effort to Obtain

• Program expense as % of budget (US only)

• Competitions by level

• Evaluation of Maximum Potential

• # of Coaches and Competitions from PDS

High

LowHighLow

• Athlete satisfaction survey

Preferred quadrant

• Coaches demographics, certifications

• Unified Growth

11

Possible Metrics – Organizational Effectiveness

To become a unified and integrated global movement with a common focus on the interests of our core constituents

Value of Data

Effort to Obtain • Program survey

results

• Accreditation compliance

• # of sub-Programs

• # of Programs with strategic plans aligned to regional and global goals

High

LowHighLow

• Mission compliance

Preferred quadrant

• # of Programs on CRM / Collaborative Fundraising

• # of Programs with complete and current PDS data

• Organizational DNA survey (SOI only)

• Program expense as % of budget (US only)

12

Possible Metrics – Growth GoalTo grow to at least 3 million athletes

Value of Data

Effort to Obtain

• Urban Initiative program results

• Young Athlete program results

High

LowHighLow

• Athlete participation (incremental effort)

Preferred quadrant

• Return on CRG investments

13

Metrics Progression – Revenue Goal

Level Measure Time frame

All Programs Cash donations, VIK 2006 baseline, annually

SOI & GOC Revenue by source 2006 baseline, annually

Some Programs Value of volunteers 2007 – 2008, pending available volunteer data

Key Programs(80/20 of movement revenue)

Revenue by source 2007 – 2008, pending available audited financials

US Programs, SOI Cost of Fundraising and other financial metrics (from IRS 990s)

2007 – 2008, pending resource availability

Initial

Moreinformative

14

Metrics Progression – Communications Goal

Level Measure Time frame

All Programs Unified Partners 2006 baseline, annually

Some Programs Volunteers, Families (where already reported in PDS)

2006 baseline, annually

SOI Attitude survey follow-up in key markets

2008, pending definition of key markets

SOI Communication evaluation in key markets and with key audiences

2007 – 2008, pending brand and communications strategy, World Games Legacy measures, and budget

Initial

Moreinformative

15

Metrics Progression – Quality Goal

Level Measure Time frame

All Programs # of Coaches, Competitions, Athlete / Participant ratio

2006 baseline, annually

Some Programs Maximum Potential evaluation

2007 – 2008, pending pilot

Some Programs Athlete survey 2008, pending development of survey instrument

All Programs Coaches demographics (e.g. census form)Competitions by sport, by level

2008, pending PDS enhancements

Initial

Moreinformative

16

Metrics Progression – Organizational Effectiveness

Level Measure Time frame

All Programs Survey to evaluate perception of effectiveness, strategic alignment, and satisfaction

2007-2008, pending development of survey instrument

Key Programs(80/20 of athlete base)

Key Financial metrics (Program expense % of budget, Cost of fundraising, Cost of administration)

2007-2008

SOI Organizational DNA survey 2005 baseline, annually

Additionally, SOI will evaluate and propose recommendations to link strategic goals, metrics, Accreditation and PDS into a more integrated, user-friendly approach for directing and evaluating the movement’s effectiveness.

17

Metrics Progression – Growth

Level Measure Time frame

All Programs Athlete participation Continue annual census process

SOI Regional Growth targets to reach by 2010

2006

Young Athletes (under age 7) will be incorporated into census beginning in 2007

18

Potential Analysis – 2006 Baseline

• 2006 baseline: Cash, VIK, Coaches, Competitions and athlete participation (across all Programs)

• Key audience: SOI Leadership• Strategic Questions that data may help to answer:

─ What is our current revenue baseline?─ What geographic areas have the greatest revenue potential? Are regional

resources appropriately aligned?─ What are our current levels of VIK support?─ Is the trend in Athlete/Participant ratio improving?─ How do levels of coaches / competitions impact athlete experience?─ Is the movement still growing the number of participating athletes?

19

Potential Analysis – Benchmarking and Identifying Best Practices

• Evaluating multiple Programs across combinations of metrics can identify Programs with best practices and Programs needing additional support and guidance

• Key audiences: Programs (by peer group), Regions, SOI Executives

Program peer groups could be determined by:• Program size (athletes or budget)• Developmental level (PDS)• Within Region or across Regions

Com

petit

ions

per A

thle

te

Revenue per Athlete

Median within peer group

Illustrative

- Program 7- Program 1- Program 6

- Program 9

- Program 4 - Program 2

- Program 8- Program 3

- Program 5

Leveraged Resources, Reliance on local competitions

Appropriate allocation of resources; Sponsored

competition events

Questionable allocation of resources

Resource constraintsimpacting Athlete experience

$0 $100 $2000

5

12

20

Potential Analysis – Benchmarking and Identifying Best Practices

• Exercise caution when drawing conclusions• Excellent performance in one area may not show challenges in another

Ath

lete

/ P

artic

ipan

t R

atio

Growth Rate (2000-2006)

Median within peer group

Illustrative

- Program 7- Program 1

- Program 6

- Program 9

- Program 4

- Program 2

- Program 8- Program 3

- Program 5

Restrained Growth Quality Growth

Growth negatively impacting quality

Growth declinesimpacting Athlete experience

-1,000 0 +2,0000

.5

2

21

Potential Analysis – Program “Scorecard”

• With modifications in PDS, it is possible to provide each Program with their own scorecard that tracks progress in each metric and identifies benchmarks and best practices

Illustrative

Metric 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Peer Group Average

Revenue per athlete

$72 $78 $90

VIK,% of budget

$20,000 35%

$22,00033%

$15,00025%

Athletes per Coach

3.5 3.5 2.4

Competitions per athlete

6 7 7

22

Critical Roles

Stakeholder Role

Program staff and volunteers

Incorporate collection of metrics into business processes; Improve accuracy and completeness of data provided

Program Leaders Review and evaluate Program’s performance based on metrics; Review and validate data provided; Leverage results in communications, development and operational improvements

Regions Review and evaluate Region’s performance based on metrics; Support and advise Programs on best practices for collecting metrics and leveraging their results; Review and validate data provided; Leverage results in communications, development and operational improvements; Forward other measures/metrics to Planning

23

Critical Roles (cont.)

Stakeholder Role

HQ Program Managers and Functional leads

Incorporate collection of metrics into business processes and program design; Leverage results in communications, development and program improvements; Forward other measures/metrics to Planning

HQ Leaders Review and evaluate Movement’s performance based on metrics; Leverage results in communications, development and operational improvements; Forward other measures/metrics to Planning

Planning / Metrics Provide education and training on interpreting and leveraging metrics;Maintain central repository of metrics;Conduct analysis of data provided; Champion the use of metrics in decisions, operations, and program evaluation

24

Next Steps

• Collection of 2006 baseline Jan-Mar

• Metrics briefing @ US Business MeetingFeb• Develop peer groups w/ Regions Feb-Mar• Compile and analyze 2006 baseline Mar-

Apr• Prepare first Strategic Scorecard report May• Board discussion on Scorecard results Jun