Skip to main content

KPIs

SCORE Staff
  • Updated

With any good pilot there are Key Performance Indicators to tell us what has been successful and how we can improve. Thanks to the KPI Reporting Team members below who came together to identify metrics we would need to focus on in Fiscal Year 2024... 

Volunteers

  • Gene Calvano, Merrimack Valley
  • Howard Fineman, Boston
  • Bob Kasprzak, Central Region RVP
  • Donna Lebreaux, Southern Maine
  • Stan Segal,  Atlanta

HQ Staff

  • Amanda Capozio, Vice President, Technology
  • Gina Currence Alago, Data Visualization Analyst, Field Ops
  • Michael Gilman, Sr. Business Systems Analyst, Technology
  • Mat Tse, Support Team Manager, Field Ops

 

The following KPIs are being built out and added to SCORE reports in either a snapshot format, real time dashboard, or both - depending on the metric. These dashboards will be ready by the end of FY24Q1 (December 2023). 

Client Journey KPIs

Conversion

  • Average Days from MRE Submission to Session Entry
    • Average days between MRE submission and session entry for actionable MREs (Actionable is Status != Unable to Contact, Withdrawn)

Growth

  • Total Unique Clients
    • Total unique clients across all services (sessions, local live events, local recorded webinars, national live and recorded webinars)
  • Total Mentoring Sessions Recorded
    • Total number of mentoring sessions recorded
  • Total Local Services
    • Sum of the total mentoring sessions recorded, local live event attendees, and local recorded webinar attendees
  • Total Services
    • Sum of the total local services, national live and recorded webinar attendees

Engagement

  • Average Services per Client
    • Total services divided by the total unique clients

 

Volunteer Journey KPIs

Conversion

  • Average days from Provisional to Active Volunteer
    • Average days between the date a volunteer applicant becomes Provisional and the date they become an Active volunteer

Growth

  • Average Services per Volunteer
    • Total number of services divided by the total number of active volunteers

Engagement

  • Mentor Contribution %
    • Total number of active mentors on 3 or more mentoring sessions each month (includes lead mentor and co-mentor contributions) divided by the total number of active mentors

 

Event Journey KPIs

Conversion

  • Event Registrants to Attendees Conversion %
    • Total number of event attendees divided by the total number of registrants
  • Average Attendees per Event
    • Total number of event attendees divided by the total number of events (includes local live events, local recorded webinars, national live and national recorded webinars)

Quality

  • Did SCORE help you?
    • Total number of event survey responses where Did SCORE Help you? = ‘Yes’ divided by the total number of event survey responses (only includes survey responses from Engage for local live events)

Growth

  • Total Event Attendees *
    • Total number of event attendees broken down by event type (Local live events, local recorded webinars, national live webinars, national recorded webinars, local partner events)

 

View Definitions and Calculation information

*Available in snapshot report only

Related articles

Comments

9 comments

Date Votes
  • Mark Krosse

    Please clarify mentor contribution % KPI:  is this monthly or full year?  is it 3 sessions per month; or 3 sessions during the full year?

    0
  • SCORE Staff

    This is monthly, I've clarified above. Thanks! -Morgan

    0
  • Anita

     

     

    Given the changes that are being made re access to Constant Contact, what  resources will be available at the regional level to assure that local event communications will be distributed efficiently?   We are concerned that there could be a log jam at that level.

    1
  • SCORE Staff

    Hi Anita - local chapters will have campaign creators who can create their local communications just as normal. The only change is our Regional team will have to schedule the send. 

    More information about this process can be found here: https://help.score.org/hc/en-us/articles/24404747312531-Sending-Local-Emails 

    0
  • Whit Ford - Southern Maine

    These are all reasonable metrics - no quibbles there! However, the following musings came to mind - and in particular questions about how these metrics will be used in determining which chapters or individuals receive recognition.

    Client Journey KPIs / Conversion / Average Days from MRE Submission to Session Entry

    Would it makes more sense to use "Session Date" vs "Session Entry Date" to reflect the client experience, vs a Mentor's delay in entering a session?

    Use of "!=" should be explained to mean "not equal to" for non-programmers.

    Volunteer Journey KPIs / Growth / Average Services per Volunteer

    This metric could encourage chapter leadership to drop (or "counsel out") Mentors who contribute few services. While this tends to happen anyhow over time, do we wish to give ambitious chapter chairs reason to move them along sooner vs later? Is there an organizational cost (in time, money, morale, etc.) to keeping them on the roster?

    What about the metrics available on individual volunteers, vs the chapter as whole? For example, workshop presenters who contribute to a large number of "services" via workshop attendance are not visible in Engage. Only Mentoring Sessions are credited to individual Mentors.

    Event Journey KPIs / Conversion / Event Registrants to Attendees Conversion %

    This feels largely out of chapter control. While it is always an interesting & good metric to look at & be aware of, perhaps National should indicate whether this is a metric that will be taken into account when deciding which chapters deserve recognition, and if so, how will it be taken into account?

    Event Journey KPIs / Conversion / Average Attendees per Event

    Good to look at, but will it be used to determine recognition & if so, how will it be used? Chapters serving larger population areas will have an obvious advantage relative to others here.

    Event Journey KPIs / Quality

    Getting attendees to respond to polls is very hard. Presenters tell attendees they will receive a poll & ask them to respond, Event managers do the same when they distribute the slide deck & recording, yet fewer than 5% typically respond. Given that all organizations are now using follow-up surveys, there is great polling fatigue among our audience. The most likely responders are "fans" and/or "detractors", leaving us to try to guess at what those in-between thought & why.

    For on-line workshops, we need a way to give attendees a polling link on our last slide, and have them respond to the poll questions during the final couple of minutes of the presentation (similar to how it used to work with paper surveys after in-person workshops). Then it's done. Waiting until the Event Manager records attendance can mean the poll will not go out for 2-4 days (over weekends for a Thursday or Friday workshop), and response rates drop through the floor when that happens.

    0
  • Mark Krosse
    • Edited

    Avg time to Session

    • I prefer Session Entry Date - it provides additional incentive for certain Mentors to timely file; and to avoid organizational costs of CIC/leadership chasing certain individuals on aging Not_Yet_Counseled; they are usually the frequent flyers in the chapter CNYC triage chase
    • Avg should be changed to Median - there are often outliers not under the Mentor's control: client who books 4 weeks out; Mentor who accepts a 2 week old case from a peer who bounced the case 2X or 3X because of not checking his email

    Avg Svcs / Vol: 

    • Organizational cost: I observe chapter leadership[s] spending too much time on non-contributors; multiple times about the same individual[s], so I think the metric provides useful visibility & incentives to "thank people for their service"; it also provides benchmark information to other chapters on effective roster management
    • How well is CIC spreading the assignment load?
    • For workshop presenters, I submitted enhancement req to add # workshops to the Vol Perf Report - [count is already visible in the vol's Engage profile record]

    Event Yield:

    • Yield should include post-event recording views which are often another 30%-40% to live because of client time-shifting; this is under chapter control by recording [or not]
    • Live attendance yield is influencable by chapter from topic selection. time-of-day selection, effectivity of setting up CC/Zoom reminder cadence & method [SMS anyone?]

    Avg Att's / Event

    • Directly determined by District/Region event strategy: 1,000 events @ 22 per; or 200 events @ 150 per?; topic selection, cadence, marketing process effectivity, etc
    • District/Region events greatly help out the small chapters who lack capacity
    • If National events / recording are credited by zip code; so can field events - just need some backend programming into BIRT

    Event Quality: Great suggestion on a closing poll

    Additional KPI's for Future?

    • h/t Charlie Morris / Bucks County: unique zip codes served by Events, ie; how can field Event strategies expand reach into under-served communities? - initial pilots are showing 4X-5X growth in zipcode coverage from larger events marketed District or Region wide

     

     

     

    0
  • Scott Ladin

    Looking over the KPIs, it's not clear how the metrics will translate to actionable recommendations at the chapter level and by whom or when this will be addressed.

    0
  • Mark Krosse

    Chapter KPI Triage - First Cut: I am thinking that it might be helpful to compare the Chapter KPI's to the corresponding Region KPI's to identify the Chapter's variance to Region. Which one's have negative variance? High to low

    [It would be nice if they added the Region corresponding column to the Chapter KPI BIRT to make it easy to see variance]

    eg; if Region is at 12 days Avg Mentoring Time; and chapter at 21 days Avg Mentoring Time [9 day negative variance]; then chapter inspection of local CIC process & CNYC followup process might be actionable next steps; this would also likely lead to need for chapter mentor re-training on levers/best_practices to reduce cycle-time

    0
  • Anita

    Client Journey KPIs / Conversion / Average Days from MRE Submission to Session Entry

    Agree with Mark that time to session entry is preferable.   However, note that with clients making their own appointments, it is not unusual for them to make the appointments two weeks out.  We don't necessarily have control of this metric.  

    Avg Svcs / Vol:    This is a good outcome measure, but it doesn't reflect the amount of work aside from mentoring that our volunteers do, particularly the leadership group.  Also, those who prepare workshop content and host workshops spend as much or more time as the presenters, but there is no value given to the contribution.  Understand that these may not directly impact client services, but are still a very important contribution to SCORE, and should be recognized in some way.

    Avg Att's / Event:  This may discourage chapters from doing targeted sessions that are important, but to a limited audience.  Also, since many of the clients in the underserved areas don't even have emails, in person events are critical to helping them, but generally have much fewer attendees than online webinars.  If SCORE is genuinely interested in supporting the underserved small businesses there should be some weighted value placed on serving them.  

    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.