CASE: SI-86 DATE: 5/16/06 (REV’D 02/13/07)

ROBIN HOOD

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 ’s 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 “funding…the best community-based groups and partnering with them to maximize results.”1

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 Hood’s board members demonstrated their commitment to high engagement philanthropy by contributing their own time and money to supporting Robin Hood’s 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

1 Robin Hood, Home, http://www.robinhood.org/home/home.cfm (August 9, 2006).

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 (giving2.com) in the development of this case.

Copyright © 2007 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. Publically available free cases are distributed through ecch.com. 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 [email protected] or write to the Case Writing Office, Stanford Graduate School of Business, Knight Management Center, 655 Knight Way, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5015. Robin Hood SI-86 p. 2

MTV Networks executives, the president of , 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 Hood’s grantmaking programs. Robin Hood did not have an endowment, but did maintain a reserve fund that could cover the organization’s 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.”2

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 Hood’s 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 Hood’s programs and expand its funding.

CORE PROGRAM AREAS

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.”3 Robin Hood’s 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.”4

Believing that education served as one of the best means of poverty prevention, Robin Hood funded public, charter, private, and parochial schools in the city’s 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

2 Michele Orecklin, “Princes of the City,” Time, November 5, 2001, p. 84. 3 Robin Hood, Programs, Early Childhood and Youth, http://www.robinhood.org/programs/grant.cfm?portfolioId=11 (August 9, 2006). 4 Ibid.

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 City’s Department of Education to “create libraries that are vibrant centers of teaching and learning.”5

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 Hood’s 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 Hood’s dedication to the city of New York had guided its decision to establish a September 11th 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 Hood’s 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 Hood’s relief fund had donated $64.5 millionmaking it one of the 10 largest September 11th fundsbefore concluding its active grantmaking at that time.

GENERAL STRATEGY/APPROACH

100 Percent Donation Rate

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

Robin Hood’s board of directors underwrites [pays for] all of our fundraising and administrative expenses. From the rent to staff salaries to the website you’re browsing right now, it’s all paid for so your money goes to help others. We believe the urgent need in New York’s poor communities requires us to put every dollar out on the streets helping people and not in an endowment.6

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

5 Robin Hood, Programs, Education, http://www.robinhood.org/programs/grant.cfm?portfolioId=6 (August 9, 2006). 6 Robin Hood, Approach, 100%, http://www.robinhood.org/approach/100percent.cfm (August 9, 2006).

Robin Hood SI-86 p. 4 day when it’s pouring?’” said Saltzman.7 “We don’t 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 can’t go collecting money for an endowment; we’ve got to save lives right now.”

Attack the Source

The second tenet of Robin Hood’s approachcalled attack the sourcewas to focus on a problem’s 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 Hood’s third tenet was called add value, which began with an extensive due diligence process “to ensure that every dollar invested generates results.”8 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.”9 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 organization’s 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.10 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 BHC’s 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; BHC’s first-ever fundraising campaign raised more than $80,000; BHC

7 All quotations from representatives of Robin Hood are from interviews conducted by the authors unless otherwise cited. 8 Robin Hood, Approach, Add Value, http://www.robinhood.org/approach/value.cfm (August 9, 2006). 9 Ibid. 10 Robin Hood, Partners in Success, http://www.robinhood.org/success/ma/ma.cfm (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.11

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 Hood’s 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 communities.”12

Get Results

The final tenet of Robin Hood’s approach was called get results. According to representatives of Robin Hood, “We work with [grantees] to set specific goals. They’re expected to meet these goals. And they’re 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 what’s working and what’s not, so that they can improve their services. When a program falls below expectations, Robin Hood assists it in refocusing its efforts. If performance doesn’t improve, funding is reduced or eliminated.” But on the other hand, “if programs are successful at saving lives, if they’re successful at meeting the goals that they’ve agreed to, we’ll 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 don’t 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 Hood’s track record for continuous funding was nearly 75 percent—meaning 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 Hood’s focus on results: “When we first started Robin Hood, people thought we were completely unrealistic. Some people [both grantees and donors] said, ‘You’re asking for such specific results.’”13 He continued: “People were taken

11 Ibid. 12 NPower New York, About NPower, http://www.npowerny.org/about/index.htm (August 9, 2006). 13 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 world.”14

More recently, new chief program officer Michael Weinstein had assembled a group of world- class academic economists to estimate a grant’s benefit to the poor “per dollar of cost” to Robin Hood. According to the organization’s 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.”15 The organization used the information collected from each grantee to estimate how much Robin Hood’s grant boosted total earnings of poor families (above what they would have earned in the absence of Robin Hood’s 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 Hood’s money.

For instance, Weinstein stated that Robin Hood’s 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 groups—signaling where Robin Hood might want to focus future grants—changes 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 programs—boosting 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 organization’s impact to over $54 a year from $18. This revision drove the organization’s 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 Hood’s 2004 Year in Review:

14 Ibid. 15 “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 grants.16

Saltzman felt that the continuous improvement of Robin Hood’s 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 we’ve always wanted to do, but had difficulties doing because of cost, was to build housing for the poor. Now we’ve 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 Hood’s 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 organization’s 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 Hood’s job-training grantee efforts raised their lifetime earnings by $40 for every dollar that Robin Hood spent.17

GRANTMAKING STRATEGY

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 Hood’s 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 Hood’s 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, we’re not afraid to take chances on new ideas or new leaders if it looks like they’re 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 difference”—KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program); Uncommon Schools, a charter management

16 “2004 Year in Review,” op. cit. 17 Ibid.

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.

“It’s 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. “We’re not afraid of working with institutions that are new, as long as they’re getting the job done.” And according to Robin Hood’s 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.”18 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.

BOARD MAKEUP AND INVOLVEMENT

Robin Hood’s high level of board member engagement mirrored the organization’s own high level of external engagement with its grantees. Robin Hood’s board of directors consisted of well-known New Yorkers and successful business people. Despite their busy lives, the board members actively participated in Robin Hood’s 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 couldn’t 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 Hood’s 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 world’s most successful money managers, have managed our investments from day one. Marian Wright Edelman and Geoff Canada, two of the

18 Robin Hood, Partners in Success, op. cit.

Robin Hood SI-86 p. 9

world’s 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 Hood’s four program committees (each of which focused on one of Robin Hood’s 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 Hood’s history, only four members had left Robin Hood’s board due to other responsibilities and interests or natural causes. One board member, renowned investor, Stanley Druckenmiller, left to join a grantee’s board (Harlem Children’s Zone) because he was so passionate about the grantee. The most recent additions to Robin Hood’s board were Alan Schwartz, president of investment bank , and news anchor, Tom Brokaw.

THE FUTURE

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 organization’s 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 organization’s growth in the years to come.

Robin Hood SI-86 p. 10

ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS

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 Hood’s grantmaking and governance models are dependent upon its own specific resources and history, and which elements could be applied in other organizations?

2. Robin Hood’s 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 II, Founder Capital Management Chairman and CEO, Tudor Investment Corporation Robert Pittman, Vice Chair Partner, Pilot Group, LLC Peter D. Kiernan III President and Partner, Cyrus Capital Partners Dirk Ziff, Vice Chair Chairman, Ziff Brothers Investments Marie-Josée Kravis Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc. Lee S. Ainslie III Managing Partner, Maverick Capital Kenneth G. Langone Management, LLC Chairman and CEO, Invemed Associates, Inc.

Victoria B. Bjorklund Mary McCormick Partner, Simpson Thacher and Bartlett President, Fund for the City of New York

Lloyd C. Blankfein Doug Morris President and COO, The Goldman Sachs Group, Chairman and CEO, Universal Music Group Inc. Daniel S. Och Peter F. Borish Senior Managing Member, Och-Ziff Capital CEO, Twinfields Capital Management Group

Tom Brokaw Gwyneth Paltrow NBC News Actress

Geoffrey Canada David Puth President and CEO, Harlem Children's Zone Managing Director, JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Maurice Chessa Diane Sawyer Director, Bedford Stuyvesant–I Have a Dream Co-Host, Good Morning America and Program Primetime Thursday

Richard L. Chilton, Jr. Alan D. Schwartz President and CEO, Chilton Investment President and Co-COO, The Bear Stearns Company, Inc. Companies

Steven A. Cohen John Sykes Chairman and CEO, S.A.C. Capital Advisors, President, Network Development, MTV LLC Networks

Marian Wright Edelman Harvey Weinstein President, Children's Defense Fund Co-Chairman, The Weinstein Company

Jeffrey R. Immelt Chairman and CEO, General Electric Co. Source: http://www.robinhood.org/home/home.cfm.

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 Bushwick.

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

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

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.

Education 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 Harlem.

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 technicians—certified, for example, to handle hazardous materials and sample asbestos and mold.

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

Survival 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 patients.

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 Bronx.

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 children.

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.

Source: www.robinhood.org.