1. 1 Evaluation Overview and Findings From An Interim Evaluation of Grants to Green Presented by: Highland Communications, LLC Jennifer Ballentine, MPH October 29, 2009

2. 2 Purpose of the Evaluation To monitor implementation and measure success towards desired outcomes –Increased efficiency –Cost savings –Increased awareness of environmental sustainability Findings will be used for: –Ongoing quality improvement –Sustainability planning –Promoting public will and policy –Informing decision making

3. 3 Evaluation Principles We focus on results, use data to make decisions and then act on these decisions We value all input from our grantees We will draw on the wisdom and experience of our grantees We will share and disseminate results We will respect the rights and confidentiality of grantees We will use grantees’ time judiciously We will honor environmental sustainability in our evaluation approach

4. 4 Monitoring and Evaluation Methods Initial Review of Grant Agreement Baseline survey Interim survey Final survey End-of-grant period site visit Monthly monitoring and review of utility bill data Monitoring of web seal placement

5. 5 Web Seal Samples

6. 6 Findings from an Interim Evaluation Methods –Online survey –Analysis of utility bill data for Cycle 1 grantees –Monitoring visits with Cycle 1 Implementation Grantees Time Frame –Data collected in May-June 2009 –Findings presented to Advisory Board in August 2009

7. 7 Assessment Grantees Cycle 1 (September 1, 2008 – September 1, 2009) –19 applicants –12 grantees (approx. $4,000 per grantee = $48,000) –100% grantees completed Cycle 2 (March 1, 2009 – March 1, 2010) –13 applicants –12 grantees (approx. $4,000 per grantee = $48,000) –100% grantees completed Cycle 3 (July 1, 2009 – July 1, 2010) –25 applicants –16 grantees (approx. $4,000 per grantee = $64,000) –In progress

8. 8 Implementation Grantees Cycle 1 (September 1, 2008 – September 1, 2010) 14 applicants 10 grantees ($342,000 awarded, $304,500 matched*) 50% of grantees completed Cycle 2 (March 1, 2009 – March 1, 2011) 10 applicants 9 grantees ($347,126 awarded, $336,068 matched*) In progress *Match rate = $1 to $1 for operational budgets $500K+.50 to $1 for operational budgets $250K-$499K

9. 9 Survey Sample Type of Survey CycleSample Size Response Rate Evaluation (pre and post) 12091% Baseline221100%

10. 10 Change in Knowledge N=20 Average Level of Knowledge 1= Little or No 5= A Lot Knowledge Indicator

11. 11 Green Practices in Place Before and After Grants to Green N=20 Percent Type of Practice

12. 12 Green Policies in Place Before and After Grants to Green N=20 Percent Type of Policy

13. 13 Number of Communications, Presentations and Panels N=20 Number Type of Effort

14. 14 Utility Data Sample 6 Implementation Grantees –Includes 50% who fully completed project –Includes 50% who partially completed project 10 Assessment Grantees

15. 15 Implementation Grantees ’ 6 Month Actual Cost Savings *16% decrease, including 0-2 months of no implementation Annual Utilities

16. 16 Implementation Grantees ’ Annual Projected Cost Savings *20% decrease, projection based on actual savings rate Annual Utilities

17. 17 Implementation Grantees’ Energy Savings EnergyCost% 6 Month Savings257,264$24,47416% Annual Projected Savings646,352$61,40320% -Annual Savings will continue year after year Energy Saved is the annual equivalent of: - Lbs of Coal Saved: 430,858 - Lbs of CO2: 963,064 - Cars removed from road: 104 for 1 year (12,000 miles)

18. 18 Woodruff Arts Center -Goal: Annual Savings of $49,395 -Award: $40,000 -Six Months of Savings: $26,310 -Projected Annual Savings: $51,758 (25%)

19. 19 The Galloway School -Goal: Annual Savings of $6,538 -Award: $25,000 -Six Months of Savings: $7,879 -Projected Annual Savings: $8,740 (12%)

20. 20 Georgia Citizens Coalition on Hunger -Goal: Annual Savings of $3,921 -Award: $50,000 -Six Months of Savings: $2,593 -Projected Annual Savings: $3,002 (4%) -Provided AC for community gym

21. 21 The Open Door Community -Goal: Annual Savings of $1,100 -Award: $9,000 -Six Months of Savings: $-143 -Provided AC for kitchen and dining room serving homeless

22. 22 Assessment Grantees’ Projected Annual Cost Savings * 8% decrease, $59,678 projected annual cost savings Annual Utilities

23. 23 Selected Assessment Grantees’ Cost Savings OrganizationGasElectricWaterTotalPercent Savings CARE$7,972 (24%) $19,587 (8%) $3,871 (14%) $31,43010% Georgia Justice Project N/A*$2,346 (18%) N/A*$2,34618% Agnes Scott$907 (3%) $10, 295 (13%) N/A*$11,20210% Hands on AtlantaN/A*$8,322 (11%) N/A*$8,32211% $53,000 Annual Savings *No data, or not applicable

24. 24 Where is Grants to Green Going? 30 Energy Assessments Completed (includes 6 pilots) 19 Implementation awards granted $503,520 Annual Savings Opportunities Found $150k of opportunities pay for themselves in 6 months or less 16 Assessments in progress 14-16 Assessments starting in January 2010 Additional Implementation awards to be granted in 2010

25. 25 Evaluation Limitations Survey responses dependent on respondent’s knowledge, understanding of program and recall Analysis of energy and cost savings only includes Cycle 1 grantees Analysis does not take into account other factors such as staff changes, changes in hours of operation, etc. 10 Implementation grantees only eleven months into two-year grant period

26. 26 Conclusions Grants to Green has significant impact on: –Knowledge, practices and policies related to green building –Energy usage and cost Savings will grow over the years With continued support, Atlanta’s non-profit community can be a leader in the environmental sustainability movement