Sei sulla pagina 1di 15


DATE: 5/16/06 (REVD 02/13/07)

Lecturer Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen and Victoria Chang prepared this case as the basis for class discussion rather
than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation. The Stanford Graduate School
of Business gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Giving 2.0 ( in the development of this case.

Copyright 2013 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. Publically available free cases
are distributed through No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used
in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording,
or otherwise without permission of the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Every effort has been made to
respect copyright and to contact copyright holders as appropriate. If you are a copyright holder and have concerns,
please contact the Case Writing Office at or write to the Case Writing Office, Stanford
Graduate School of Business, Knight Management Center, 655 Knight Way, Stanford University, Stanford, CA


In 1988, Paul Jones, a 32-year old money manager, started the philanthropic foundation Robin
Hood with $3 million and the objective to fight poverty in New York. He invited two of his close
friends, Peter Borish and Glenn Dubin, both of whom had backgrounds in investing, to serve as
cofounders. They each donated an additional amount in the six-figure range. All three recruited
David Saltzman, the executive director of Robin Hood as of 2006, to join the staff. Saltzman had
previously served as special assistant to the president of New York Citys Board of Education
and had extensive experience in the areas of education and social services. From its inception,
Robin Hood applied the investment orientation of its founders to focus on poverty prevention by
fundingthe best community-based groups and partnering with them to maximize results.

As an early innovator of venture philanthropy, Robin Hood emphasized rigorous due diligence,
direct engagement with grantees, and social outcomes assessment. Believing in the connection
between strong internal operations and high-performing organizations, Robin Hood provided
grantees with both financial contributions and management and technical assistance. If additional
skill sets were needed beyond staff expertise, Robin Hood tapped an external network of
individuals and firms to offer pro bono services. While Robin Hood aspired to sustain long-term
funding relationships with its grantees, organizations that repeatedly failed to meet mutually
determined performance goals risked a funding reduction or loss.

Robin Hoods board members demonstrated their commitment to high engagement philanthropy
by contributing their own time and money to supporting Robin Hoods grantmaking and internal
administration. Board members included prominent investors from various hedge funds; well-
known New Yorkers such as Gwyneth Paltrow and Diane Sawyer; and corporate leaders such as

Robin Hood, Home, (August 9, 2006).
Robin Hood SI-86

p. 2
MTV Networks executives, the president of Goldman Sachs, and the chairman of General
Electric. Board members covered all infrastructure and overhead costs. As a result, 100 percent
of external donations went directly to Robin Hoods grantmaking programs. Robin Hood did not
have an endowment, but did maintain a reserve fund that could cover the organizations existing
grantee costs for a year to a year and a half.

At the end of 1988, Robin Hood reported assets of $3.2 million, with grants of $63,000
distributed and contributions from external sources (excluding board member support) of $3.1
million. In 2000, Robin Hood reported assets of $66 million, grants of $13 million, and external
contributions of $25 million. By 2005, assets had increased to $210 million, grants to $63
million, and external contributions to $102 million. Robin Hood had become the largest private
poverty-fighting organization in New York City, and its venture philanthropy model had inspired
various foundations and funding intermediaries nationwide. As Saltzman noted, We were
pioneers in applying due diligence and measuring outcomes of our grantees.

In the future, Saltzman and his staff were committed to having an even greater impact on the
fight against poverty in New York. At the organizational and strategic level, Robin Hoods
management team hoped to improve the identification and application of best practices and
metrics to aid in its grantmaking decisions, as well as its internal operational and organizational
decisions. Members of the group also saw opportunities to share their knowledge and
grantmaking experience within the greater philanthropic community, as they sought to improve
Robin Hoods programs and expand its funding.
Robin Hood focused on four core program areas: (1) early childhood and youth (17.7 percent in
2005), (2) education (28 percent), (3) jobs and economic security (27.3 percent), and (4) survival
(27 percent).

In the area of early childhood and youth, Robin Hood supported organizations working on
parenting education, early intervention, juvenile justice, and foster care. According to the Robin
Hood Web site, For too many New York City children, the absence of informed parents,
inadequate health care and poor preparation for school hampers their development, putting them
years behind their peers before they even begin the first grade.
Robin Hoods programs aimed
to ameliorate these conditions by contributing to the elimination of abuse, neglect, and
avoidable foster-care placement and the provision of counseling, education, medical, and other
services to at-risk children and adolescents.

Believing that education served as one of the best means of poverty prevention, Robin Hood
funded public, charter, private, and parochial schools in the citys poorest neighborhoods. Robin
Hood supported schools with strong leaders and a focus on academics, as well as organizations
that helped students remain at grade level. It also worked to reinvigorate teaching and provided

Michele Orecklin, Princes of the City, Time, November 5, 2001, p. 84.
Robin Hood, Programs, Early Childhood and Youth, (August 9, 2006).
Robin Hood SI-86

p. 3
students with mental and social services. Recognizing the importance of libraries in supporting
positive educational outcomes, in 2001, Robin Hood launched the L!brary Initiative in
collaboration with the Citys Department of Education to create libraries that are vibrant centers
of teaching and learning.

Through its program on jobs and economic security, Robin Hood funded organizations that
provided low-income people with employment opportunities, loans and grants, financial literacy
and free banking services, as well as assistance in starting businesses. Robin Hood also helped
poor working families gain access to public benefits and tax credits.

Finally, Robin Hoods program on survival highlighted its awareness of the need for charitable
relief as well as poverty prevention. Through its work on survival and homelessness, Robin
Hood provided food for the hungry, housing for the homeless, healthcare to the uninsured,
shelter to victims of domestic abuse, and services and shelter for those living with HIV/AIDS.

Beyond its core program areas, Robin Hoods dedication to the city of New York had guided its
decision to establish a September 11
relief fund to help meet the immediate and long-term
needs of low-income victims. Relief fund focus areas consisted of: (1) employment, (2) low-
income victims services and relief, (3) mental health services, and (4) other grants. The relief
fund was overseen by a special board committee that met weekly for the first nine months after
the attack and then on a biweekly and monthly basis thereafter. As with Robin Hoods other
programs, all overhead expenses were underwritten by the board to ensure that 100 percent of
donations went directly to relief fund activities. As of September 2004, Robin Hoods relief fund
had donated $64.5 million!making it one of the 10 largest September 11
concluding its active grantmaking at that time.
100 Percent Donation Rate

Robin Hood articulated four tenets to its approach for combating poverty in New York City. The
first aspect of Robin Hoods approach, as referenced above, was its 100 percent donation rate.
According to the organizations Web site:

Robin Hoods board of directors underwrites [pays for] all of our fundraising and
administrative expenses. From the rent to staff salaries to the website youre
browsing right now, its all paid for so your money goes to help others. We
believe the urgent need in New Yorks poor communities requires us to put every
dollar out on the streets helping people and not in an endowment.

Although the organization did not have a traditional endowment, it did have a small reserve fund
comprised of board member donations. Our philosophy has always been, why wait for a rainy

Robin Hood, Programs, Education, (August 9, 2006).
Robin Hood, Approach, 100%, (August 9, 2006).
Robin Hood SI-86

p. 4
day when its pouring? said Saltzman.
We dont know of any other foundation in New York
that has our funding philosophy. New York is arguably the wealthiest city in the history of the
world and yet 1.7 million of our friends and neighbors live in poverty. We cant go collecting
money for an endowment; weve got to save lives right now.
Attack the Source
The second tenet of Robin Hoods approach!called attack the source!was to focus on a
problems root causes through poverty prevention (programs in early childhood and youth, jobs
and economic security, and education). To complement this philosophy and respond to those in
immediate crisis, Robin Hood also funded basic survival programs in healthcare, hunger,
housing, and domestic violence.
Add Value
Robin Hoods third tenet was called add value, which began with an extensive due diligence
process to ensure that every dollar invested generates results.
Before investing in a program,
Robin Hood review[ed] its strategy, scrutinize[ed] its financial statements, evaluate[ed] its
management teams, and conduct[ed] multiple visits.
Once grantees had been selected, Robin
Hood provided them with management services related to areas such as strategic and financial
planning, recruiting and legal concerns, and organizational issues and capital needs. If Robin
Hood did not have the expertise in-house, it solicited the help of firms and individuals in New
York to do the work on a pro bono basis. Participating firms included consultants McKinsey &
Co., Accenture, Deloitte & Touche, law firm Shearman and Sterling, and Microsoft (which
provided technology consulting to Robin Hood and funded computer labs).

The Broadway Housing Communities (BHC) offered one example of a Robin Hood grantee that
benefited from the organizations management services. BHC provided permanent housing to
tenants!those who had previously lived on the streets, suffered from addiction problems, or had
long-term hospitalization issues!with the goal of creating a housing community. In this
environment, tenants became a part of building management, providing security, maintenance,
gardening, and babysitting services. The organization produced impressive results, with 95
percent of tenants maintaining residence for more than six years.
In 2000, after funding BHC
for eight years, Robin Hood invited the organization to participate in the inaugural year of a
strategic planning initiative with McKinsey & Company. Over a nine-month period, volunteer
consultants from McKinsey worked with BHCs staff and board to shape its strategy and plans
for the next several years. According to Robin Hood, the results of the planning were
impressive. Assets grew from $12 million to $24 million; public contracts were renegotiated,
saving BHC $600,000; BHCs first-ever fundraising campaign raised more than $80,000; BHC

All quotations from representatives of Robin Hood are from interviews conducted by the authors unless otherwise
Robin Hood, Approach, Add Value, (August 9, 2006).
Robin Hood, Partners in Success, (August 9, 2006).
Robin Hood SI-86

p. 5
hired its first CFO and consolidated seven corporate entities into one; and its board of directors
was reconfigured and reenergized, adding two McKinsey consultants.

By 2002, Robin Hood calculated that it had provided more than $8.1 million in such added-
value management services in addition to its $42 million in grantmaking that year. By 2004, 85
percent of Robin Hoods grantees had received management services from the organization. In
addition to traditional management services, Robin Hood offered other types of assistance to its
grantees, helping organizations to secure everything from architectural services to donated
computers. In an effort to address the widespread lack of technology resources in the sector,
Robin Hood joined with Microsoft, J.P. Morgan Chase (CHECK), and Accenture in 2001 to start
NPowerNY, an organization dedicated to providing technology assistance to nonprofits.
NPowerNY was the second oldest and the largest affiliate in the NPower Network, a national
network of local nonprofits that help other nonprofits use technology to better serve their

Get Results
The final tenet of Robin Hoods approach was called get results. According to representatives of
Robin Hood, We work with [grantees] to set specific goals. Theyre expected to meet these
goals. And theyre measured against these goals and other mutually agreed-upon benchmarks
(e.g., for a school, metrics included attendance, academic achievement, graduate rates, and
college attendance) every year by independent evaluators paid for by the board members. In
addition to the annual evaluation, Robin Hood staff members met with grantees a minimum of
three times per year, of which one visit was a surprise visit.

According to Saltzman, The evaluations are not only used by Robin Hood but also by the
programs [grantees] to figure out whats working and whats not, so that they can improve their
services. When a program falls below expectations, Robin Hood assists it in refocusing its
efforts. If performance doesnt improve, funding is reduced or eliminated. But on the other
hand, if programs are successful at saving lives, if theyre successful at meeting the goals that
theyve agreed to, well try to help them grow and become stronger. In fact, the two
organizations that Robin Hood funded in 1988, its first year, were still being funded by Robin
Hood in 2006 because of their high performance. We provide grantees with many opportunities
to turn things around, and we dont hesitate to invest resources to help them, explained
Saltzman. Each year, Robin Hood did not renew funding for 10 to 15 percent of its portfolio,
which was not a predetermined number. Robin Hoods track record for continuous funding was
nearly 75 percentmeaning that 75 percent of the programs supported by Robin Hood had been
receiving support for more than five years. We would love it if all grantees performed as well as
they hoped to, said Saltzman.

Saltzman commented on early reactions to Robin Hoods focus on results: When we first started
Robin Hood, people thought we were completely unrealistic. Some people [both grantees and
donors] said, Youre asking for such specific results.
He continued: People were taken

NPower New York, About NPower, (August 9, 2006).
Colleen Miller, Building on New Foundations, Association Management, October 2000, p. 33.
Robin Hood SI-86

p. 6
aback by our approach in 1988. Grantmakers and professional philanthropists thought their
instincts were enough to determine where money should be invested. But our strategy was to
learn from the best thinking from the investment world and try to apply it to the nonprofit

More recently, new chief program officer Michael Weinstein had assembled a group of world-
class academic economists to estimate a grants benefit to the poor per dollar of cost to Robin
Hood. According to the organizations 2004 Year in Review, In effect, we calculate a rate of
return on our grants to measure success much in the same way that businesses calculate rates of
return to provide a clear, consistent measure of success for investment decisions.
organization used the information collected from each grantee to estimate how much Robin
Hoods grant boosted total earnings of poor families (above what they would have earned in the
absence of Robin Hoods help), taking into account the fact that the organization only provided a
percentage of assistance due to the presence of other funders. Robin Hood then calculated a
benefit/cost ratio for each grantee by dividing the total projected earnings boost by the size of the
Robin Hood grant. The ratio yielded an estimate for each group of the amount by which it raised
future earnings of poor people per dollar of Robin Hoods money.

For instance, Weinstein stated that Robin Hoods job-training grants raised earnings for
participants over their lifetimes (above what they would have earned in the absence of training),
by an average of approximately $54 for every dollar that Robin Hood spent. As we develop
more sophisticated measures, the rankings of our groupssignaling where Robin Hood might
want to focus future grantschanges substantially, he noted. He provided an example: By our
initial estimates, a grantee that specializes in training computer technicians appeared to be among
our worst job-training programsboosting lifetime earnings by only slightly more than $18 for
each dollar spent by Robin Hood and ranking 19 of 21 grantees. But once our metrics were
improved to take into account career advancement [i.e. the fact that some of the jobs for which
our grantees prepare workers pay rising wages over time], we then revised our estimate of this
organizations impact to over $54 a year from $18. This revision drove the organizations
ranking to 8 from 19.

In another example, Robin Hood estimated that one of its charter schools, located in Harlem,
New York, boosted the future lifetime earnings of its students by over $90 for every dollar spent
by Robin Hood. Weinstein said, This startling performance is driven by the fact that the school
raises the percentage of students reading at grade level to over 70 percent from only about 20
percent. Weinstein and Robin Hood also used data to determine that health programs in poor
communities could be greatly beneficial: We estimate that one of our large syringe-exchange
programs, which swaps clean needles for dirty ones [thereby curbing the spread of AIDS],
creates more than $250 of benefits over the lifetime of poor families for every dollar spent by
Robin Hood, Weinstein said.

As stated in Robin Hoods 2004 Year in Review:

2004 Year in Review, provided by Robin Hood.
Robin Hood SI-86

p. 7
Armed with these ratios, we can steer our grantmaking toward high-performing
groups, thereby maximizing the impact of every dollar donated. With a well-
designed metrics system, we will no longer need to speculate how much to
recommend for specific programs. Instead, we will understand the point at which
the benefit/cost ratio for any one program drops below those of alternative

Saltzman felt that the continuous improvement of Robin Hoods evaluation methods had helped
Robin Hood to become more creative in searching for ways to achieve difficult results. As an
example, he noted, One of the things that weve always wanted to do, but had difficulties doing
because of cost, was to build housing for the poor. Now weve joined with other funders to
figure out a way to issue letters of credit that will help builders of low-income housing create
tens of thousands of homes for poor New Yorkers. We hope this will prove to be a very
successful, very low-risk way to help people.

Robin Hoods focus on results also enabled it to collect data that showed its impact on grantees
and larger systems. For example, according to the organization, its best-performing school
grantees raised lifetime earnings of their students by between $25 and $75 for every dollar spent
by Robin Hood. After-school programs raised lifetime earnings by students by about $15 spent
by Robin Hood. In addition, the organizations Single Stop/EITC [grantee that offered poor
families free counseling about public benefits, financial decisions, legal problems, and family
services] brought in between $6 and $20 to poor families for every dollar that Robin Hood spent.
Poor workers involved in Robin Hoods job-training grantee efforts raised their lifetime earnings
by $40 for every dollar that Robin Hood spent.

Robin Hood accepted applications from anybody interested in helping others, according to
Saltzman, who added, You just never know where the next great idea is going to come from.
Robin Hood believed in visiting as many applicants as possible since a terrific application might
reflect a terrific program or just a terrific grant writer. We have a wonderful staff that beats the
streets of New York trying to find the most successful programs helping poor New Yorkers.
Many of Robin Hoods staff members had worked for or run nonprofit organizations in the past
and understood the pressures that such organizations faced. Some staff members additionally had
higher degrees such as PhDs and MBAs and regularly kept up on the latest philanthropy
literature and research in an effort to improve Robin Hoods internal operations.

In terms of its grantee selection strategy, Robin Hood did not shy away from high risk grantees,
as long as board members and staff believed in their potential. Saltzman said, I think our
emphasis has always been on what works; therefore, were not afraid to take chances on new
ideas or new leaders if it looks like theyre going to make a difference. Robin Hood was often
the first and, in some cases, the largest donor to its grantees. One example was a group of charter
school organizations in the New York area that Robin Hood felt were really making a
differenceKIPP (Knowledge is Power Program); Uncommon Schools, a charter management

2004 Year in Review, op. cit.
Robin Hood SI-86

p. 8
organization that started and operated charter schools in the Northeast; and Achievement First, a
charter school management organization that started and operated urban schools in New York
and Connecticut. Robin Hood planned to help the three grantees grow and replicate so that poor
children could have greater opportunities to acquire a high-quality education.

Its not our obsession to be the first or the biggest donor to our grantees. Our obsession is with
being as effective as possible, said Saltzman. Were not afraid of working with institutions that
are new, as long as theyre getting the job done. And according to Robin Hoods 2004 Year in
Review, Our capital campaign provides community groups [grantees] with something few other
charities go near: grants for physical facilities that usually have restrictions that too often limit
the number of poor people our groups can serve.
In instances where Robin Hood could not
find potential grantees to fill important service gaps, Robin Hood created its own initiatives, as in
the case of the L!brary initiative.
Robin Hoods high level of board member engagement mirrored the organizations own high
level of external engagement with its grantees. Robin Hoods board of directors consisted of
well-known New Yorkers and successful business people. Despite their busy lives, the board
members actively participated in Robin Hoods operations. Saltzman said:

We have the most extraordinary board of directors on the planet. They are wise
and passionate and think of Robin Hood as being one of their two or three most
important charitable causes. They give a tremendous amount of money, but more
importantly, they give a tremendous amount of time. To say they are engaged
would be an understatement. On average, I speak with at least four to five board
members a day on a wide range of issues. The people on our board are some of
the leaders in just about every important industry in New York. They apply their
intelligence and expertise to helping people in need build better lives for
themselves. You couldnt ask for more than that.

To support his comments, Saltzman provided a series of specific examples:

I speak [and] exchange e-mails with board members many times a day. The
secret to Robin Hoods success is an active and engaged board comprised of
brilliant and caring leaders. They are involved in all the major issues Robin Hood
faces. They decide how every penny Robin Hood invests in our grant recipients is
spent. I seek board members expertise on issues that range from grant ideas to
how to improve aspects of our operations. For example, Peter Kiernan, long-time
Robin Hood board member and former Robin Hood board chair, joined the board
of a Robin Hood grant recipient dedicated to developing excellent charter schools
in New York City. Glenn Dubin, Lee Ainslie, Richard Chilton, and Paul Jones,
four of the worlds most successful money managers, have managed our
investments from day one. Marian Wright Edelman and Geoff Canada, two of the

Robin Hood, Partners in Success, op. cit.
Robin Hood SI-86

p. 9
worlds most successful not-for-profit leaders, have helped shape our grantmaking
for more than a decade.

Every grant made by Robin Hood was approved by a board committee. Every board member sat
on one of Robin Hoods four program committees (each of which focused on one of Robin
Hoods program areas). Each program committee met at least four times per year to plan for the
future and to make grants. Additional committees included development, audit, management
assistance, investment, nominating, and executive committees. Each board member served on at
least one committee, while most served on several committees. In order for board members to
make a grant, they really need to have familiarized themselves with the problems around a
specific issue, and each quarter, our board members read several hundreds of pages of
information, explained Saltzman. In addition, board meetings were held on the site of grantee
organizations so that board members could really feel a sense of involvement and engagement.

According to Saltzman, We try to find board members who care passionately about helping
others, are willing to work really hard, and are interested in sitting down with a group of their
peers to determine how best to save lives. We look for people who are smart, influential, and
hardworking. Foundation board members were elected for two-year terms that were renewable
indefinitely. In Robin Hoods history, only four members had left Robin Hoods board due to
other responsibilities and interests or natural causes. One board member, renowned hedge fund
investor, Stanley Druckenmiller, left to join a grantees board (Harlem Childrens Zone) because
he was so passionate about the grantee. The most recent additions to Robin Hoods board were
Alan Schwartz, president of investment bank Bear Stearns, and news anchor, Tom Brokaw.
As of 2006, Saltman noted, Despite our best efforts, 1.7 million New Yorkers still live in
poverty. We are ready, willing, and able to do more. We have identified dozens of opportunities
to improve the lives of poor New Yorkers. Now all we have to do is raise the money and create
the partnerships to bring success to scale.

Reflecting on the challenges the organization would face in accomplishing this goal, he added,
We can probably improve on knowledge sharing. Michael Weinstein, our chief program officer,
is helping rectify that. He has [vast experience] developing programs for poor people. By more
proactively sharing the knowledge that Robin Hood had collected over the years, as well as the
network it had developed, the organization had the potential to help its grantees make significant
strides forward as they sought to improve their services and expand their funding.

Similarly, the identification and implementation of best practices in the organizations internal
operations could help Robin Hood increase its own effectiveness. Just as Robin Hood had been
an innovator in applying rigorous metrics and detailed cost/benefit analysis to its grantees and its
funding strategy, Saltzman and his board believed that the application of performance metrics,
benchmarks, and self-assessment processes would guide the organizations growth in the years to
Robin Hood SI-86

p. 10
1. What methods might Robin Hood use to share its best practices with other foundations and
the venture philanthropy field more broadly? Which elements of Robin Hoods grantmaking
and governance models are dependent upon its own specific resources and history, and which
elements could be applied in other organizations?

2. Robin Hoods data-driven, rigorous evaluation strategies underpin its comprehensive
approach to achieving measurable results. In further developing its self-assessment methods,
what indicators of grantee impact could Robin Hood use to evaluate the effectiveness of its
own staff? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of basing its salary/promotion
practices on this kind of outcomes assessment?

3. Most venture philanthropy funders have pre-determined grant terms (usually of between
three and seven years). However, Robin Hood has a more traditional approach to grant terms,
often funding successful grantees consistently over the course of many years. This creates
risks, both for Robin Hood and for its grantees by making nonprofit grantees highly
dependent upon Robin Hood for ongoing operational funding. In efforts to help grantees
become less reliant on Robin Hood for funding, what role, if any, should Robin Hood play in
facilitating relationships between grantees and other funders and building grantees future
fundraising capacity?

Robin Hood SI-86

p. 11
Exhibit 1
Board Members

Glenn Dubin, Chair
Co-Founder and Managing Member, Highbridge
Capital Management

Robert Pittman, Vice Chair
Partner, Pilot Group, LLC

Dirk Ziff, Vice Chair
Chairman, Ziff Brothers Investments

Lee S. Ainslie III
Managing Partner, Maverick Capital
Management, LLC

Victoria B. Bjorklund
Partner, Simpson Thacher and Bartlett

Lloyd C. Blankfein
President and COO, The Goldman Sachs Group,

Peter F. Borish
CEO, Twinfields Capital

Tom Brokaw
NBC News

Geoffrey Canada
President and CEO, Harlem Children's Zone

Maurice Chessa
Director, Bedford StuyvesantI Have a Dream

Richard L. Chilton, Jr.
President and CEO, Chilton Investment
Company, Inc.

Steven A. Cohen
Chairman and CEO, S.A.C. Capital Advisors,

Marian Wright Edelman
President, Children's Defense Fund

Jeffrey R. Immelt
Chairman and CEO, General Electric Co.

Paul Tudor Jones II, Founder
Chairman and CEO, Tudor Investment

Peter D. Kiernan III
President and Partner, Cyrus Capital Partners

Marie-Jose Kravis
Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc.

Kenneth G. Langone
Chairman and CEO, Invemed Associates, Inc.

Mary McCormick
President, Fund for the City of New York

Doug Morris
Chairman and CEO, Universal Music Group

Daniel S. Och
Senior Managing Member, Och-Ziff Capital
Management Group

Gwyneth Paltrow

David Puth
Managing Director, JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Diane Sawyer
Co-Host, Good Morning America and
Primetime Thursday

Alan D. Schwartz
President and Co-COO, The Bear Stearns

John Sykes
President, Network Development, MTV

Harvey Weinstein
Co-Chairman, The Weinstein Company

Robin Hood SI-86

p. 12
Exhibit 2
Examples of Funded Organizations within Core Program Areas

Early Childhood and Youth
Ackerman Institute for the Family - Improving parenting and early childhood services in

Good Shepherd Services - Providing family support, foster care, and youth development.

Harlem Children's Zone - Providing educational and social services to families in Central

Queens Child Guidance Center - Providing mental health services to families and new parents.

Reach Out and Read - Stocking pediatric clinics with books and training physicians to show
parents how to engage their young children in reading or pre-literacy activities.

Abraham House - Providing educational and support services to the children and families of
offenders in the Bronx.

Achievement First - Opening two K-12 charter schools in Brooklyn.

Advocates for Children - Providing legal representation to youth and training nonprofits on the
educational rights and resources available to their youth.

Boys And Girls Harbor - Replicating a successful teen pregnancy prevention program in East

Children's Aid Society - Replicating successful teen pregnancy prevention programs throughout
the city.

Children's Hospital of New York-Presbyterian - Providing mental health services to the children
of Washington Heights.

East Harlem School At Exodus House - Running a model year-round, extended-day middle
school in Harlem.

East Harlem Tutorial Program - Providing educational support and social services to poor
children and families.

Go Project - Offering Saturday-morning tutoring and mentoring and a five-week academically
focused summer program to hundreds of children who attend public school.

Grand Street Settlement - Replicating a successful teen pregnancy prevention program on the
Lower East Side.
Robin Hood SI-86

p. 13

Groundwork, Inc. - Establishing a comprehensive youth program in a public housing project in
East New York and Brooklyn.

Harlem Day Charter School - Running an extended-day elementary school in East Harlem.

KIPP Academy - Running some of the best charter middle-schools in the country.

KIPP S.T.A.R. - Replicating KIPP Academy in a successful middle school in Harlem.

Nativity Mission Center - Running an extended-day, extended-year middle school for boys on
the Lower East Side.

Wildcat Service Corporation - Offering educational services and job training to troubled teens.

Youth Ministries For Peace & Justice - Running an innovative youth and community
development program in the South Bronx.

Jobs and Economic Security
Accion New York - Providing small loans and technical assistance to low-income small business
owners who are unable to obtain credit from banks and other mainstream sources.

ACORN - Operating tax-preparation sites where low-income families can have tax forms
prepared and filed without charge as part of the Earned Income Tax Credit Campaign.

Budget & Credit Counseling Services, Inc. - Providing on-site financial counseling and referrals
to low-income families through the Single Stop Initiative.

Caritas Training Center - Training low-income women for jobs in Head Start Centers and early
childhood programs.

Citizens for New York City Preparing and filing tax returns forms for low-income families at
no charge as part of the Earned Income Tax Credit Campaign.

Common Ground - Providing housing, training, and employment services to the homeless.

Community Culinary Training Center - Meeting the needs of food service employers by training
Harlem residents in culinary and workplace skills.

FoodChange - Providing meals, benefit assistance, and employment training in the food industry
to poor families throughout the city, as well as technical assistance to other agencies in the area.

Fortune Society - Assisting ex-offenders in securing jobs.

Good Shepherd Services - Providing family support, foster care, and youth development.

Robin Hood SI-86

p. 14
Grand Street Settlement - Replicating a successful teen pregnancy prevention program on the
Lower East Side.

Groundwork, Inc. - Establishing a comprehensive youth program in a public housing project in
East New York, Brooklyn.

Harlem Children's Zone - Providing comprehensive educational and social services to families in
Central Harlem.

MDRC - Implementing and evaluating an enriched academic and counseling program for low-
income students at a community college in New York City.

Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty - Training low-skilled individuals as unionized home
attendants and counseling low-income families through our Single Stop initiative.

Opportunities For A Better Tomorrow - Providing job training and education in Brooklyn.

Osborne Association - Providing inmates and ex-offenders support services, employment
training and job-placement assistance to help them successfully exit prison.

Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute - Training women in Manhattan and the South Bronx for
jobs in home healthcare.

St. John's Bread And Life - Providing food and social services to the homeless and low-income
individuals and families in Brooklyn.

St. John's Place Family Center - Providing housing and employment services to homeless
families in Crown Heights, Brooklyn.

St. Nicholas Neighborhood Preservation Corporation Training low-income adults, including
many ex-offenders, as environmental remediation technicianscertified, for example, to handle
hazardous materials and sample asbestos and mold.

Women In Need - Providing housing and social services for homeless women and families.

AIDS Center of Queens County - Operating the largest H.I.V./AIDS program and the only
syringe exchange program in Queens.

Bailey House/AIDS Resource Center - Providing housing and services to homeless AIDS

Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture - Providing medical, mental-health and social
services to poor immigrants who suffer trauma from torture, war and refugee status.

Children's Health Fund - Providing quality healthcare to homeless children and families.
Robin Hood SI-86

p. 15

The Children's Village, Inc. - Providing counseling and mentoring to youth after they grow too
old to stay in subsidized foster-care.

Citiwide Harm Reduction Program - Providing AIDS-prevention services in Manhattan and the

Coalition for the Homeless - Providing cash assistance to prevent homelessness.

FoodChange - Providing meals, benefit assistance, and employment training in the food industry
to poor families throughout the city, as well as technical assistance to other agencies in the area.

Goddard Riverside Community Center - Providing supportive transitional housing for
chronically homeless, mentally-ill adults through the Safe Horizons program.

Lower East Side Harm Reduction Center - Providing AIDS-prevention services.

Medicare Rights Center - Providing information to elderly and disabled people about high-
quality, affordable health care and helping the elderly sign up for the new Medicare drug benefit.

Montefiore Child Protection Center - Treating and reducing child abuse through comprehensive
medical services, therapeutic counseling, and intensive follow-up assistance.

Mount Sinai Adolescent Health Center - Providing comprehensive medical and mental health
care to adolescents in New York City.

Ralph Lauren Center for Cancer Care and Prevention - Providing comprehensive cancer
screening, treatment and education outreach to the Harlem community.

Sanctuary For Families - Providing housing and protecting domestic violence survivors and their

St. John's Bread And Life - Providing food and social services to the homeless and low-income
individuals and families in Brooklyn.

Violence Intervention Program - Providing housing and protecting domestic violence survivors
and their children.

West Side Campaign Against Hunger - Providing food and supportive services to low-income
individuals and families throughout New York City via a supermarket-style food pantry.

Women In Need - Providing housing and social services for homeless women and families.

Yorkville Common Pantry - Providing food, shelter, and supportive services to the homeless and
low-income individuals and families predominantly living in East Harlem.