Jobs for the Future

NONPROFIT INVESTOR
I N D E P E N D E N T R E S E A R C H F O R P H I L A N T H R O P Y

Jobs for the Future (JFF) SUMMARY
JFF identifies, develops, and promotes new education and workforce
Nonprofit Investor Rating: strategies. Partnering with dozens of local, state, and national
HOLD organizations, JFF creates and implements strategies that offer
academic acceleration to struggling and out‐of‐school youth and

adults, helping them learn college‐ and career‐ready skills.
Mission Statement
Jobs for the Future seeks to accelerate the STRENGTHS
educational and economic advancement of
youth and adults struggling in today’s ▲ Large, multistate programs. JFF helps implement and support
economy. several large, multistate programs that not only touch tens of
thousands of individuals, but also allow lessons to be drawn from
Financial Overview significant sample sizes and a diverse range of communities.
$ in MM, Fiscal Year Ended September 30
▲ Strong partnerships significantly increase scale and impact. JFF

2008 2009 2010
partners with local, state, and national organizations to manage and
Revenue and Support $27.5 $15.0 $25.2 support dozens of programs. This allows the organization to build
Operating Expenses $24.2 $27.9 $24.3 scale and leverage national expertise and experience for local impact.

▲ Impressive national donor base. JFF’s national donor base
% of Total:
   Program Expenses 84.2% 82.0% 81.2%
includes some of the nation’s top foundations and investors, which
   G&A 13.7% 16.3% 17.3% underscores the organization’s strong programs and financial health.
   Fundraising 2.1% 1.6% 1.5%
▲ Strong balance sheet. JFF maintains a strong balance sheet with
few liabilities, large cash balances, and significant pledges receivable.
Year Founded: 1983
CAUTIONS
Contact Details ▼Organizational and impact transparency. JFF has weak
Jobs for the Future   organizational transparency and little quantification of impact (offers
88 Broad Street, 8th Floor   primarily single‐program case studies), making it difficult to assess
Boston, MA 02110 the organization and its overall effectiveness.
+1 (617) 728‐4446
● High M&G expense. The organization has a fairly high (and
http://www.jff.org/ increasing) proportion of Management & General expenses. This is
EIN: 06‐1164568 primarily salary related, which has been going up due to expansion.

Analyst: Sandy Gill RECOMMENDATION: HOLD
Peer Review: A. Lee, K. Chao JFF’s programs reach nearly 200 communities across 41 states, offering

thousands of Americans the opportunity to improve their education and
Publication Date
succeed in a global economy. But JFF’s lack of organizational and impact
January 6, 2011
transparency makes it difficult to assess financial red flags—as well as

overall program results—and leaves enough questions unanswered that
we rate it a HOLD until additional information is made available.

Nonprofit Investor Research | nonprofitinvestor.org

OVERVIEW OF JOBS FOR THE FUTURE ACTIVITIES
Jobs for the Future started in 1983, when Arthur White, cofounder of the marketing/research firm Yankelovich, Skelly
and White, teamed up with Hilary Pennington to improve the quality of America’s public education systems and the
skills of the nation’s workforce. Today, JFF continues creating educational and economic opportunity by managing and
supporting more than a dozen programs and initiatives in 200+ communities nationwide.

Vision: By 2020, JFF, working with its partners, is committed to doubling the number of low‐income youth and adults
who attain postsecondary credentials. To achieve this vision, JFF combines research, practice, and policy to provide a
unifying voice advocating for the transformation of the education and workforce development fields.
To accomplish its goals, the organization focuses on four primary program areas.

• Goal: Focus higher education on college success
• Mission Statement: Develop ideas and programs that strengthen opportunities for youth to succeed in post‐secondary
learning and high‐skilled careers
Example Programs:
Creating • Achieving the Dream: Helps 130 community colleges develop and implement strategies to improve student success and build
Successful a culture in which decisions are based on data about student achievement. JFF leads the state policy strand, involving 16
states
Transitions for • The Developmental Education Initiative: Includes an ambitious, three‐year effort led by JFF to use policy levers to
Youth dramatically improve student success in developmental education in six Achieving the Dream states
• Breaking Through: A partnership of JFF and the National Council for Workforce Education, enables adults with little education
to prepare for and succeed in college technical programs at 33 community colleges in 18 states
• Career First : A high‐quality pathway that improves postsecondary outcomes for older youth, ages 18‐26, and results in
career‐track employment in high‐demand, high‐wage occupations

• Goal: Support low‐skilled workers through career advancement
• Mission Statement: Develop ideas and programs that increase opportunities for low‐income individuals to move into family‐
supporting careers and help meet the growing economic demand for knowledgeable and skilled workers
Example Programs:
• Connecting Literacy and Work: Advances low‐skilled adults in their careers by linking adult literacy programs to workforce
Building initiatives in five communities
Economic • Jobs to Careers: Advances the skills and careers of frontline health care workers through work‐based learning at 17 sites
across the country. JFF is the National Program Office for the initiative
Opportunity
• Green Pathways: A partnership of JFF with the AFL‐CIO Working for America Institute and Wider Opportunities for Women, is
building career opportunities for unemployed and disadvantaged individuals in five cities seriously affected by the economic
downturn
• The National Fund for Workforce Solutions: Involving more than 200 foundations and 900 employers, supports regional
partnerships that benefit employers, their employees, and their communities through hundreds of local partnerships. JFF is an
implementation partner

• Goal: Graduate all high school students college ready
• Mission Statement: Improve educational options and prospects of young people who have disengaged or disconnected
altogether from the educational system
Example Programs:
Pathways to • The Early College High School Initiative: Gives underrepresented, low‐income students in 212 schools across the country the
chance to earn up to two years’ worth of college credits while still in high school, tuition free
Postsecondary
• Back on Track/GED to College: Program is growing a new pathway that provides students who have dropped out with the
skills to succeed in postsecondary education
• The Institute for Student Success: Prepares small school developers, leaders, and teachers to implement innovative strategies
and techniques that have led to college readiness at University Park Campus School. The institute is a partnership of JFF,
UPCS, and Clark University

• Goal: Accelerate opportunity through policy solutions

Policy Solutions Example Programs:

/ Other • JFF advocates for key federal and state education and workforce policies that support the design, testing, and implementation
of programs that move the country toward the goals of College Ready, College Success, and Career Advancement. Policy and
practice go hand‐in‐hand to create an environment of educational and workforce opportunity

Jobs for the Future | Nonprofit Investor Research 2

PROGRAM RESULTS AND EFFECTIVENESS
Because JFF works in partnership with dozens of other organizations on numerous initiatives across the nation, it is
difficult to quantify overall program results. While the goal of doubling the number of low‐income youth and adults who
attain postsecondary credentials would be a sure sign of success, this long‐term vision is unlikely to be met quickly or
easily. Consequently there is no information currently available to evaluate the organization’s overall effectiveness.
While we note that information for a more holistic evaluation would be preferable (and we suggest the organization
may find it helpful to provide such figures), many of the programs that JFF supports can be analyzed on a standalone or
case study basis. One such case study is the Achieving the Dream program and the State of Florida.

Case Study – Achieving the Dream & the Florida Community College System (FCCS)
Program / Partner: Setting:
Achieving the Dream – a national non‐ In 2004, Florida’s two‐year college system chose to participate in Achieving the Dream. A list of work plan priorities
profit and multiyear initiative that helps was created including (among others): (1) using state student data system to promote institutional and state
community college students succeed strategies to improve student outcomes, (2) improve the alignment between high school graduation requirements
through completing courses, earning and successful transition into college‐level courses, and (3) set standards on the student learning outcomes that
certificates, and earning degrees. The each student should be able to demonstrate upon completion of the general education discipline requirements
initiative covers more than 100 colleges
in 24 states. Situation:
After enrolling in 2004, the staff from the Division of Florida Colleges began to look at a rich data set tracking every
JFF Role: individual from their entry into the education system to their exit, and into the job market. The data painted a
JFF coordinates the effort to improve disappointing portrait showing that a large proportion of students who had passed Florida’s Comprehensive
policies in 16 states participating in the Assessment Test in high school were not passing college placement tests. The results laid the groundwork for a new
initiative. JFF also co‐leads the national round of education reforms in Florida, this time aimed at increasing college readiness and college completion.
policy effort and participates in engaging
the public and developing knowledge Results:
around the role of community colleges. Seven years later, what began as a simple data inquiry has resulted in a major realignment of expectations for
In this role, JFF selects a lead learning across Florida’s educational systems.
organization in each state, makes grants On the K‐12 side, the changes include:
to those organizations, and helps
leadership teams from each state to set • Raising curriculum content standards in all subjects
agendas for policy change • Adding a college‐preparation indicator to the K‐12 accountability system
• Offering college placement exams in eleventh grade
Case Study:
Florida Community College System • Adding brush‐up courses in the senior year to help students avoid developmental courses in college
(FCCS), 2004 – Today The colleges’ innovations include:
• Working with K‐12 and university instructors to develop new Postsecondary Readiness Competencies and
Conclusion: aligning them with the Common Core State Standards
The program successfully helped Florida
• Developing and implementing a new, customized placement test—the Postsecondary Education Readiness Test
launch a sweeping seven‐year effort to
(PERT)—based on the Postsecondary Readiness Competencies, to replace Florida’s version of the ACCUPLACER
increase college readiness. While the
outcomes of this work will be unknown • Restructuring the developmental education sequence to consist of two levels each of math, reading, and
for several more years, the process that writing at every college
Florida undertook in developing its • Developing diagnostic additions to PERT to provide more detailed analysis of individual students’ remediation
reforms stand out for its clarity of vision, needs in math, reading, and writing
responsiveness to evidence and strength
• Designing modularized remedial courses tailored to students’ specific learning needs to accelerate student
of leadership within federally funded
progression and reduce costs
assessment consortia

For informational on additional programs that JFF currently supports visit: http://www.jff.org/projects/current.

FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
The majority (~85%) of JFF’s revenues are sourced through contributions from large foundations and government
agencies, with the remainder coming from program services and investment income. While support from program
services has increased regularly for the last two years, there was a significant dip in contributions in 2009. Due to a lack
of MD&A associated with the tax form 990, it is unclear whether this drop was due to the economic downturn or simply
part of a normal course business cycle in which pent up program dollars were flowing through. At this point, we identify
it as an area of caution but currently believe that it was a normal business cycle given: (1) the immediate rebound in
contributions in 2010, (2) the large cash balance in 2008 which may have been purposely burned off, (3) the relatively
stable of level of pledges/grants receivable, and (4) the decreasing spend on fundraising over the past two years.


Expenses have remained fairly stable over the past three years, with a slight uptick in 2009 in both program‐related and
general costs. Within program expenses, grants to partner organizations and programs comprise approximately 30% of
costs. The steady increase in Management and General Expenses as a percentage of total is somewhat worrisome and is
something to keep an eye on in the future. These costs are largely salary‐and‐benefits costs incident to the
organization’s expansion (from 99 employees in 2009 to 116 in 2010), including an increase in “Key Employees” from 3
in 2008 to 12 in 2010. While this is slightly misleading, as there were at least five individuals receiving more than
$150,000 in annual compensation not listed as “Key” in 2007, it is indicative of a management‐heavy cost structure. This
high cost may be justified given the high‐end consulting nature of JFF’s work (where higher compensation prevents
employees from being poached by for‐profit industry), but it is certainly a red flag that warrants further investigation in
the future. Though currently very small, one other expense item to keep an eye on is direct lobbying expenses. These
have essentially doubled from $28,957 in 2008 to $51,957 in 2010. While still small, donors should realize that a growing
portion of spend is on unidentified and unexplained direct lobbying costs.
The health of JFF’s balance sheet remains one of its strong points. With nearly $10MM in cash and investments, and
twice that in pledges and grants receivable, JFF seems well positioned to cover outstanding liabilities, as well as meet
expense obligations for well over a year. Given the organization’s donor base and proven ability to raise funds, the
overall financial health of JFF is not in question.
Fiscal Year Ended September 30 2008 2009 2010 Revenue Breakdown
$ in ‘000
Support Revenues
27,488
Contributions $24,460,340 $11,873,197 $22,024,091 25,179
Program Service Revenue 2,119,534 2,622,851 2,983,907
Investment Income 854,043 308,026 128,602
Other Revenue 54,515 178,699 41,933 14,983
Total Support Revenue 27,488,432 14,982,773 25,178,533

Expenses
Program Expenses $20,371,923 $22,877,286 $19,709,327
Management & General 3,307,043 4,555,151 4,192,902
Fundraising 514,205 450,072 357,562 2008 2009 2010
Total Expenses 24,193,171 27,882,509 24,259,791 Other Revenue Program Revenue
Investment Income Contributions
Program Costs as a % of Total Expenses 84.2% 82.0% 81.2%
G&A as a % of Total Expenses 13.7% 16.3% 17.3%
Fundraising as a % of Total Expenses 2.1% 1.6% 1.5% Expense Breakdown
27,883
Revenue Less Expenses 3,295,261 (12,899,736) 918,742
24,193 24,260

Abridged Balance Sheet
Cash and Investments $19,532,305 $9,174,948 $9,813,092
Pledges / Grants Recievable 25,600,738 19,024,009 21,995,805
Other Assets 2,641,425 8,738,277 3,841,636
Total Assets 47,774,468 36,937,234 35,650,533

Total Liabilities 3,486,646 5,549,148 3,343,705
Net Assets/Fund Balances 44,287,822 31,388,086 32,306,828 2008 2009 2010

Fundraising
Source:
Management & General
IRS Form 990 (Tax)
Program Expenses

While all of JFF’s programs aim to improve education and employment opportunities, the program spend breakdown
provided in the Form 990 shows that the organization splits its focus fairly evenly between school age youth (Successful
Transitions) and those already out in the workforce (Building Opportunity). Without management’s discussion and
analysis, it is difficult to explain the breakdowns of non‐grant and grant related spend, as well as program revenue.
However, we wanted to provide all of the information available related to direct program spend and focus, and to


highlight this as another area meriting additional analysis in the future in order to understand trends within the
organization’s activities over time.

2010 Program Break Detail

Total Program Expenses Total Program Revenue

Pathways to Postsecondary Policy/Other Successful Transitions
3%
8% 12%

Policy/Other 37%
44%
28%
44%

Successful Transitions 23% Building Opportunity
Building Opportunity Pathways to Postsecondary

Program Expenses (Excluding Grants) Grant Expenditures

Pathways to Postsecondary Policy/Other Pathways to Postsecondary Policy/Other
4% 5% Successful Transitions
10% 0%
26%

52%
34% Building Opportunity

69%

Building Opportunity
Successful Transitions

Successful Transitions Building Opportunity Pathways to Postsecondary Policy/Other Total
Program Expenses (Ex. Grants) $7,185,604 $4,615,613 $1,340,640 $565,172 $13,707,029
Grants 1,581,330 4,121,187 279,781 20,000 6,002,298
Total Program Spend 8,766,934 8,736,800 1,620,421 585,172 19,709,327

Program Revenue 378,224 850,036 689,836 1,107,744 3,025,840
Net Expenses $8,388,710 $7,886,764 $930,585 ($522,572) $16,683,487

FUNDING
One of the most impressive aspects of JFF that we wanted to highlight is the organization’s long and impressive list of
donors. This large base of contributors not only helps provide financial stability, but also speaks to the type of
sophisticated, national support JFF can mobilize for its programs.
Major national donors to JFF include:
The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Bank of America Charitable Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, The California
Endowment, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Dollar General Literacy Foundation, The Ford Foundation, The Harry and
Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, The Hitachi Foundation, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, The Joyce Foundation,
Lumina Foundation for Education, MetLife Foundation, Microsoft Corporation, The Prudential Foundation, The Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation, U.S. Department of Labor, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, The Wal‐Mart Foundation

TRANSPARENCY
As mentioned earlier in this report, JFF’s single greatest weakness tends to be its lack of transparency and reporting.
While the organization does file timely 990s, the documents are not available on the organization’s website. Additionally,
neither annual reports nor performance updates are available to the public, making it difficult to evaluate JFF beyond
the most basic outside‐in diligence into trends within the form 990s. On the results side, the individual program case
studies are thorough and helpful. But without wider analysis showing the impact of JFF’s programs on graduation rates,
income levels, etc., it is impossible to know if the organization is effecting the changes necessary to achieve its vision of
doubling the number of low‐income youth and adults who attain postsecondary credentials. Without such metrics, it is
also impossible to show accountability, as well as the social impact of dollars spent.

THIRD PARTY RATINGS
 Charity Navigator gives JFF an overall score of 59.84 out of 70.00, resulting in a 3‐star rating (out of 4). JFF
achieves a 60.76 (a 4‐star score) for Financial and a score of 59.00 for Accountability & Transparency. We note
that JFF fulfills all of Charity Navigator’s requirements for information provided on the Form 990 found on the
evaluation checklist, but only 2 of 5 for website information (e.g., has board members and key staff, but does
not provide a donor privacy policy, audited financials, or the Form 990)

 Philanthropedia’s expert network rated JFF a “2010 Top Non‐Profit” under the category “National Workforce
Development” (ranked third among the 17 rated as such), with 53 experts viewing JFF as the nonprofit with the
most impact in its field, while 2 experts disagreed with that assessment
o Strengths include:
 Impactful initiatives characterized by a flexible and collaborative approach that leads to further
sustainable practices
 Strong and experienced senior leadership in the workforce development and school‐to‐work
field; good at working in partnership with foundations, local governments, and school systems
 Very professional and committed staff with a long history of providing great research, education,
and consulting services, as well as expertise and influence in D.C.
o Areas for Improvement include:
 Cost structure could be improved – high overhead rate
 Should increase the amount of credit given to the partners they work with
 Spread too thin – additional staffing / resources are needed in areas including: (1) day‐to‐day
project/initiative management, (2) outreach and marketing of case study and program materials
and (3) engagement with various multi‐state groups in research and focus group work
GET INVOLVED
 Donate: https://www.justgive.org/basket?acton=donate&ein=06‐1164568
 Media Inquiries & General Questions: PR Director Jeff Landis, jlandis@jff.org; info@jff.org
 Job Openings at JFF: Human Resources, jobs@jff.org

DISCLOSURES
Sandy does not have any affiliation with Jobs for the Future and has never made a donation to the organization. NPI
analysts and NPI as an organization do not receive any form of compensation from reviewed charities.


Jobs for the Future

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (17)

Ähnlich wie Jobs for the Future

Ähnlich wie Jobs for the Future (20)

Mehr von Nonprofit Investor

Mehr von Nonprofit Investor (20)

Jobs for the Future