To figure out our metrics for the value of dissimilar programs, first we apply a common measure of success for programs of all types: how much our grant to a program boosts the future earnings (or, more generally, living standards) of poor families above that which they would have earned in the absence of Robin Hood’s help. Second we calculate a benefit/cost ratio for the program — dividing the estimated earnings boost by the size of Robin Hood’s grant. The ratio for each grant measures the value it delivers to poor people per dollar of cost to Robin Hood — an analog to the commercial world’s rate of return. We continue to refine the often-complex computation. The following explains the method by which we created metrics for each program portfolio:  How do you measure the impact of an early-childhood program? In other words, how can we estimate the impact on 18-year-olds of interventions delivered when they were 18-months-old? To answer that question, Robin Hood has directed several teams of academic researchers to comb through the public-policy literature and national datasets to identify indicators — for example, scores on reading-readiness tests or scores on tests of mother-child bonding — that we can ask our early-childhood grantees to track because those indicators predict later-in-life outcomes like high school graduation and wages on first-time employment. With those indicators in tow, we can test each child before and after completing a year in one of our early-childhood programs and use the change in outcomes to predict their poverty-fighting impact. Creating metrics for our youth programs is a work in progress. We’re developing metrics for fighting recidivism of young adults, with the goal of capturing the rise in incomes for those who avoid incarceration. And we’re refining our measures of the impact on future earnings of our youth programs that help at-risk young adults enroll and graduate college.  Currently, based on numbers we extract from our own, independent research, we track the ability of education programs to raise test scores, attendance, grades and, above all else, high school graduation rates and enrollment in colleges. By the measures we’ve developed, Robin Hood’s grants to our best performing schools increase lifetime earnings of their students by between $25 and $75 for every dollar spent by Robin Hood. And those figures are underestimates. Working with outside consultants, we’re developing ways to track the impact of our education programs on the health of student and, then, on their future earnings. We know from preliminary data that the education-health-income links are strong.  Robin Hood’s job training programs produce a great return on investment. We measure the success of our job training groups by calculating the amount by which our grants to programs raise the earnings of trainees per dollar of Robin Hood’s grant. For example, by this measure Red Hook on the Road produces a 9:1 return — putting an extra $9 a year in the pockets of poor people for every $1 spent by Robin Hood. In Economic Development, Robin Hood spent $4 million last year at its tax-preparation sites to collect almost $80 million on behalf of about 40,000 working poor families. Thus, for every $1 spent by Robin Hood, poor families collected about $20. For non-tax services at Single Stop sties, Robin Hood spent about $150,000 a year to serve about 400 families. That amounts to about $400 a family. Families received (not just qualified for) an average of $2,000 in additional public benefits (excluding tax refunds). Thus, Single Stop families received $5 of non-tax benefits for every $1 spent by Robin Hood. And that $2,000 figure does not include any of the value of the legal, financial and social services nor the aforementioned tax refunds.  Housing and food programs are the only ones whose success we do not measure by estimating their impact on future earnings. Instead, we estimate the impact of food and shelter on the family’s standard of living. For health (including AIDS and domestic violence) programs, we estimate, with the help of researchers at the public health school at Columbia University, the monetary value of improved health that our programs provide. These impacts loom large. These monetized values take account of the value not only of increased time in school or on the job, but also of the improved quality of daily life. |
|
|
||
|
||||
.. |
||||
