Logo for: Connecticut Opportunity Project

Key Performance Indicators

The Opportunity Project's theory of change is built on a comprehensive set of intervention strategies that comprise the support we provide to grantees to help them strengthen their organizational capacity and become highly-effective organizations that drive positive, long-term outcomes for young people.

We anticipate needing at least five years of relentless effort and improvement before partner organizations are able to drive intended youth outcomes effectively, reliably, and sustainably.  Over time, partners’ efforts to strengthen their organizational capacity yield improvements in the initiative's Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), monitored on an annual basis to track progress toward our north star of improving positive, long-term outcomes for young people. 

Key Performance Indicators

  • Level of evidence for core program design, Levels 0 – 4 *
  • Level of confidence for core program effectiveness, Levels 0 – 3 **
  • Number of target population youth enrolled in core programming
  • Number and percentage of target population youth enrolled in core programming who are participating in active slots
  • Number and percentage of target population youth enrolled in core programming who are participating in inactive slots
  • Number and percentage of target population youth (active + inactive slots) enrolled in core programming who graduate
  • Number and percentage of target population youth (active + inactive slots) enrolled in core programming who leave prematurely, complete unsuccessfully, or leave in any way other than graduating
  • Number and percentage of target population youth who enrolled in or graduated from core programming and for the following six months attend school 90% or more or maintain competitive employment

* 0 = program design by partner’s staff based solely on their ideas and experience; 1 = program design based on incorporation of widely shared practitioners’ “best practices”; 2 = program design based on applying fundamental research concepts (e.g., “attachment theory”); 3 = program design based on combining and incorporating elements that repeatedly are found in programs whose effectiveness has been proven by impact evaluation(s); 4 = program design based on implementing program in full that has been proven effective through impact evaluation(s).

** 0 = Asserted Effectiveness as supported by anecdotal data; 1 = Apparent Effectiveness as supported by internally collected outcome data; 2 = Demonstrated Effectiveness as supported by well benchmarked outcome data; 3 = Proven Effectiveness as supported by one or more rigorous impact evaluations.