Pride Scorecard and the Regional DBSC Discussion Cohort Directors October 2014

Agenda: Review where we are today with the Pride Scorecard and what we anticipate for the future in the form of other Scorecard types Discuss Dale’s perspective on the Pride Scorecard and how he plans to use it Review measures in the Pride Scorecard together to determine how many points over time campaigns can realistically achieve from them Ariela’s new capacity measures (led by Ariela) Brian’s new BC measures(led by Brian) Plus a few of the SM measures (P, Q and S) Review the conservation measures that Amielle manages (led by Amielle) Finish by reviewing select measures in the Constituency section that would be helpful to determine with group input (led by Daniel) Outcomes:  Recommend a baseline for the point requirements for Green, Yellow and Red scores over time to send to the cohort teams to test this month and validate  Leave with a clear idea of the purpose of the Pride Scorecard, where it is today in its evolution and what we anticipate for its future i.e. Fish Forever and other types of Scorecards  Provide storyline for an update to Dale on the Pride Scorecard Agenda & Outcomes

Changes for FY14 Updated questions based on feedback from Ariela & TMT, Brian Change the Scoring system and more autonomy for PPM and Cohort Directors Building the Pride Scorecard into the Campaign Tracker % of Campaigns Green will only appear on the Regional BSC

Where do the Scores Go? Weekly update that Liz sends to designated regional teams Monthly update that Liz creates for Dale and reports Quarterly updates in the Departmental BSC (not the version that goes to the Board The expectation is the regional teams discuss key elements of the Pride Scorecard as part of their monthly processes

While the feedback at the Director & Manager level have been favorable, there is still not a conversation with the VPs, and then VPs pushback on Dale when he asks questions. Suggestions?

Moving to a Points System OldNew Description% of campaigns achieving targets, according to the Pride Scorecard UPDATED: Based on the Pride Scorecard, how many campaigns have achieved the 3C objectives according to their targets for that month ImplementationCompleted monthly by regional program staff Score is a result of the average of the 3Cs Completed monthly by regional program staff Campaign receives a point score based on responses Program staff suggest a color score, score is approved by Cohort Direct Assessment + /  + Create a roadmap for what needs to be achieved in the lifetime of a campaign.  Campaigns show very little progress early on  Campaigns score red or yellow for a long period + Maintains the roadmap of what needs to be achieved + Shows a sense of relative progress + Empowers to the Cohort Director to assess progress  Color assessment becomes more subjective  Need to adjust their thinking about number of points available per month

Indicative Pride Scorecard Dashboard Indicative target for cohort at completion

Activity Review the Pride Scorecard and discuss when in the life of campaign it will be available Capacity – Ariela, Daniel Constituency – Brian, Daniel Conservation - Amielle

 Recommend a baseline for the point requirements for Green, Yellow and Red scores over time to send to the cohort teams to test this month and validate  Leave with a clear idea of the purpose of the Pride Scorecard, where it is today in its evolution and what we anticipate for its future i.e. Fish Forever and other types of Scorecards  Provide storyline for an update to Dale on the Pride Scorecard Outcomes Achieved

Appendix

Based on Cohort Director Feedback - Ranking is Now Standardized Objective To create a standardized, forced rank that indicates which campaigns have the greatest potential for strategic impact independent from other measures; also to create a guide that will help cohorts invest more time and resources in the top campaigns and less in the bottom campaigns Suggested Process for Ranking The initial strategic rank will be set by the “strategic value” score in the “Site Value” section of the IP evaluation tool used in the application process Monthly the cohort directors will update that figure and place it in the Pride Scorecard The score should be validated with the RVP so that s/he understands the strategic issues in the cohort. How to determine strategic rank The following criteria should be weighed to determine strategic value:  Biological Value – site is particularly high value in terms of its conservation impact  Validation Value – a site that representative of the cohort strategy as a whole (these sites can contribute to making the case for FF)  Political and Social Value - High-level of interest to highly influential political or funding leaders (interpreted regionally)  Replication Value – the site/partner has a high potential to replicate the solution via replication campaigns, supporting alumni campaigns or simply through other projects/initiatives sponsored entirely by the IP