Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy

What it reported doing in 2015

Provided concrete, high quality advice and tools to the policy community on (i) how to increase government effectiveness through the use of rigorous evidence about what works in social policy, and (ii) what programs and strategies are currently backed by the strongest evidence of effectiveness. The following are illustrative examples of how we provided this information:1) The Top Tier Evidence Initiative, which the Coalition launched to assist federal policymakers in identifying social program models meeting the top tier standard for evidence of effectiveness: "well-designed randomized controlled trials [showing] sizeable, sustained effects on important outcomes." This initiative's expert advisory panel has identified program models that meet (or approach) this standard in a wide range of policy areas, such as K-12 education, teen pregnancy prevention, health care financing and delivery, substance use prevention. Summaries of these programs and the evidence supporting them - including their benefits and costs - were disseminated without charge to a wide variety of policymakers and practitioners through our email distribution list, and are also available without charge on our websites: www.toptierevidence.org and www.evidencebasedprograms.org. 2) The Coalition offered workshops, small group discussions, and in-depth consulting on how to advance evidence-based reforms across social policy. These activities were targeted at a broad audience, including federal agency officials, researchers, foundation staff, and community service providers. The Coalition has provided such stakeholders with advice on many topics, including: (i) how to incorporate evidence-based concepts into federal grant programs, (ii) how to successfully carry out a rigorous evaluation of a program/strategy to determine its effectiveness, (iii) what specific programs/strategies have been shown in rigorous evaluations to be effective, and (iv) how to accurately assess and report the costs and benefits of social programs. Since the Coalition had no affiliation with any programs or program models, and did not conduct research itself, it served as an objective, impartial source of expertise to policy and program officials, and other stakeholders, in the above areas. Much of this advice was provided through our free online Help Desk.3) The Coalition developed and published user-friendly guides on various topics related to advancing the wider use of rigorous evidence and evaluation (e.g., how to conduct rigorous evaluations at low-cost, how funders can develop an evaluation strategy that is most likely to build a body of proven-effective social programs). These guides are all in the public domain and are readily available through our website: www.coalition4evidence.org.

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
• Program expense ratio: 96%; rating input score 96
• Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: Limited
• Foreign activity oversight: Limited
• Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
• Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
• Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

• Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 15th percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Pass
  • Document-retention policy: Pass
  • CEO compensation review process: Pass
  • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
  • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
  • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
  • Audit committee oversight: Missing
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

• Operating margin: -124.4%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
• Officer compensation ratio: 10.6%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 31.6% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 34th percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: -5.6% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings