Bridgewater Community Foundation
2025 Grant Cycle | Workforce Development Portfolio
Program Officer: Dr. Adriana Reyes
Horizon Youth Workforce | $75,000
Step 1
AI Pre-Screening
74/80 pts
Step 2
Interview + Logic Model
Signed Feb 27
Step 3
Mid-Grant Intelligence
Month 6 · On Track
Step 4
Year-End Board Report
Portfolio Aggregation
Step 1 of 4 · AI Pre-Screening
AI scored 3,142 applications overnight against your rubric
This report shows how Sopact Sense evaluated one applicant—Horizon Youth Workforce—using your foundation's 6-pillar scoring framework. The AI extracted evidence from the full application (34 pages + attachments), scored each pillar, and flagged gaps. Your program officers only reviewed the 180 applications that cleared the threshold.
What to look for in Step 1
The overall score (74/80) and the recommendation — did this applicant clear the bar?
Pillar scores — click any pillar row to see the evidence the AI extracted from the application
Gaps flagged — these are the questions your PO must probe at the interview (Step 2)
AI Evidence Brief — every claim is citation-linked back to the page it came from
Step 2 of 4 · Interview + Logic Model
The interview resolved gaps and produced a signed Logic Model
After advancing from Step 1, the program officer interviewed the grantee. Sopact analyzed the conversation transcript, resolved the gaps flagged in Step 1, surfaced new risks, and built a Logic Model that both parties signed. That Logic Model becomes the data dictionary for Step 3 reporting — no re-entry required.
What to look for in Step 2
Gap resolution table — how many of the Step 1 gaps were resolved at interview?
New risks surfaced — things the application didn't reveal but the interview did
The Logic Model — the agreed outcome commitments you'll measure against in Step 3
The Data Dictionary — the 15 specific fields collected during the grant period
Signed outcome commitments — these are the 6 targets Step 3 measures automatically
Step 3 of 4 · Mid-Grant Intelligence
Month 6 of 10 — Sopact compared every data submission to the Step 2 targets
The grantee submitted data through Sopact Sense forms at month 6. Sopact automatically measured all 6 outcome commitments from the Step 2 Logic Model, extracted financial data from submitted documents, and surfaced 3 unusual learnings from narrative text — including one strategic flag for your board.
What to look for in Step 3
Data received panel — what was submitted and what was missing (orange = gap requiring action)
Target vs. Actual table — 6 outcome commitments measured against Step 2 targets
Finance panels — grant spend by budget line with flags for lines running ahead of pace
Unusual learnings — AI-surfaced themes from the narrative (click to expand); one is board-level
The auto-generated board report at the bottom — no PO re-entry required
Step 4 of 4 · Year-End Board Report
Portfolio-level view across all grants — risk, impact, and renewal decisions
This is the report your board sees at year-end. Sopact aggregates data from all active grants — combining Step 1 screening scores, Step 2 Logic Model commitments, and Step 3 actuals — into a single portfolio view. No spreadsheet assembly. No manual re-entry. Risk is color-coded and renewal signals are auto-generated.
What to look for in Step 4
Portfolio KPIs — total deployed, % on track, aggregate impact across all grantees
Risk matrix — which grants are low/medium/high risk and why, with specific action items
Grant-by-grant performance table — how each grantee is tracking against their Step 2 commitments
Sector aggregation — impact rolled up by focus area (workforce, health, education, ESG)
Renewal brief — which grants to renew, hold, or close with the signal behind each decision
Sopact Sense | AI Pre-Screening Report

Horizon Youth Workforce

APP-HYW-2025-0043 | Workforce Development | ZIP 94103 | Bridgewater Community Foundation | 2025 Grant Cycle

74
/80 pts
Advance to Interview
What Sopact Sense Does in Step 1
AI read all 3,142 applications overnight. Scored each against the foundation's 6-pillar rubric. Generated a citation-linked evidence brief for every applicant. Surfaced 180 for human review. Three program officers reviewed 180 briefs in 2 days — not 3,142 applications in 3 weeks. Every decline includes a reason code the applicant can request.
Traditional workflow 5 reviewers × 628 apps each
3 weeks | ~90 hours per reviewer
No consistent rubric
No decline justification
Evidence lives in reviewer notes
01
Foundation submits rubric
6 pillars, weighted criteria, scoring bands — defined once, applied to all 3,142 applications
02
AI reads every application
Reads all 34 pages + 6 attachments, extracts 47 claims, maps each to rubric criteria
03
Evidence brief generated
Every claim citation-linked to source page. Unverifiable claims flagged. Score per pillar.
04
Program officer reviews brief
3 officers review 180 briefs in 2 days — not 3,142 applications in 3 weeks.
89%
2024 Job Placement Rate
$8.40
Avg Hourly Wage Gain
3 yrs
Consecutive BCF Grantee
18
Active Employer Partners
Applicant Snapshot — AI Extracted 3,142 apps | 180 surfaced | This is one of 180
Mission & Model

12-week workforce training for adults 18–35 in ZIP 94103. Technical skills + employer placement. 3-year track record with 18 active employer partners.

Use of Funds
  • Expand from 2 to 3 concurrent cohorts
  • Hire 1 placement coordinator
  • Upgrade digital skills lab (20 workstations)
  • Employer partnership outreach Year 2
Declared Outcomes
  • 120 participants complete training
  • 72% job placement within 90 days
  • Avg wage gain $8.50/hr above baseline
  • 20 active employer partners hiring
Rubric Scores by Pillar Click any pillar to expand evidence brief
Pillar 1 | 25% weight
Application Fit & Mission Alignment
How well does the proposal align with foundation priorities and program theory?
15/16
Evidence Extracted
  • Serves ZIP 94103 — BCF Priority Tier 1 p.3
  • Workforce dev = BCF strategic priority p.1
  • Target population matches RFP exactly p.4
  • Logic model with attachments p.8, Attach. A
  • 3 community anchor partners named p.11
Gaps Flagged
Year 2 "earned revenue" — no pricing model provided
Theory of change doesn't explicitly connect to BCF's economic mobility framework
Dimension Scores
Geographic priority (Tier 1)
4/4
Population alignment
4/4
Theory of change clarity
3.5/4
Sustainability plan
3.5/4
AI Evidence Brief
AI-Generated | Citation-LinkedTargets ZIP 94103 p.3 — BCF's highest-priority geography. Serves unemployed adults 18–35 p.4. Logic model Attach. A shows clear causal chain. Three named anchor partners confirm community roots p.11. One gap: Year 2 earned revenue lacks pricing model.
Pillar 2 | 15% weight
Organizational Capacity & Leadership
Can this organization actually deliver what they're proposing?
10/12
Evidence Extracted
  • 7-year operating history p.2
  • ED: 12 yrs workforce dev experience p.21, Attach. C
  • Board: CFP treasurer, 2 employer reps p.22
  • 4-month operating reserve documented Attach. D
Gaps Flagged
No succession plan or key-person risk disclosure
Placement coordinator hire unfilled — delivery timeline depends on hiring speed
AI Evidence Brief
AI-Generated | Citation-Linked7 years uninterrupted operations p.2, 4-month reserves Attach. D. ED Santos named in 3 employer agreements. Risk flag: Placement Coordinator is vacant. Q2 hiring plan means 2 of 10 program months run understaffed.
Pillar 3 | 20% weight
Prior Outcome Evidence & Accountability
Has this organization delivered measurable results before? Can it prove it?
14/15
Evidence Extracted
  • 2024: 89% placement (target 68%) p.7
  • Avg wage gain $8.40/hr p.7, Attach. B
  • 98 of 100 completed program p.6
  • 81% still employed at 12 months p.9
  • BCF reports submitted on time both cycles
Gaps Flagged
2023 data: self-reported, no third-party verification cited
12-month longitudinal follow-up data is rare at this budget level. Strong trust signal.
AI Evidence Brief
AI-Generated | Citation-LinkedOutcomes substantially exceeded targets: 89% vs. 68% p.7, 98% completion vs. 85% p.6, $8.40/hr vs. $7.50 target Attach. B. 12-month retention 81% p.9. Note: 2023 data self-reported.
Pillar 4 | 15% weight
Financial Health & Budget Integrity
Are the financials sound? Is the budget realistic and well-constructed?
12/15
Evidence Extracted
  • 4-month reserves documented Attach. D
  • Overhead 14% (benchmark ~18%) p.23
  • Revenue diversified: no source >40% p.23
  • Budget narrative justifies each line item p.24–26
Gaps Flagged
Equipment ($22K) — no vendor quotes
Coordinator salary $58K may be below SF market ($68–72K)
No audited financials — internally-prepared only
AI Evidence Brief
AI-Generated | Citation-LinkedReserves and diversification above average for org size. Two flags: (1) $22K equipment line lacks vendor quotes p.25; (2) coordinator salary of $58K may be unrealistic for SF market. Request Form 990 to verify.
Pillar 5 | 20% weight
Scalability & Replication Potential
Can this model grow, replicate, or catalyze broader impact beyond one grant cycle?
13/16
Evidence Extracted
  • Curriculum documented and modular p.16
  • 3-cohort model scales from 2 cohorts p.13
  • SF Workforce Board expressed policy interest p.19, Attach. E
Gaps Flagged
No replication timeline, geography, or cost model
Unit economics not calculated — cost per completer not stated
AI Evidence Brief
AI-Generated | Citation-LinkedReplication signals present: modular curriculum, internal scale move, SF Workforce Board interest Attach. E. Cost per completer calculable at ~$625/participant but not stated. Not disqualifying.
Pillar 6 | 5% weight | Tiebreaker
Geographic Priority Alignment
Does the organization serve the foundation's highest-priority geographic areas?
6/6
Evidence Extracted
  • ZIP 94103 — BCF Priority Tier 1 p.3
  • 91% of participants in BCF target ZIPs p.5, Attach. B
  • 78% of employer placements in target ZIPs p.9
Gaps Flagged
None — full marks
AI Evidence Brief
AI-Generated | Citation-LinkedPerfect score. Deeply embedded in priority geography — sourcing participants from and placing them back into the target community. Tiebreaker advantage confirmed.
Advance to Interview
74 /80 pts
92.5% | Threshold: 50 pts
Sopact Sense Recommendation
One of the strongest applications in the 2025 cycle. Exceptional outcome evidence, deep geographic alignment, and a credible 3-year BCF relationship make this a low-risk, high-confidence advance. The two areas requiring attention — budget details and the unfilled coordinator hire — are interview-level questions, not disqualifying concerns. Full requested amount of $75,000 is supported by the evidence.
OK Advance to Interview OK Full amount: $75,000 → Request 990 + employer agreements → Confirm coordinator hire plan
Step 1 complete — Horizon advances to interview. Go to Step 2: Interview + Logic Model →
Sopact Sense | Interview Intelligence Report

Horizon Youth Workforce | Interview Debrief

Interview date: Feb 27, 2025 | Dr. Adriana Reyes, Program Officer | Bridgewater Community Foundation

Step 1: 74/80 — Advance confirmed 5 of 5 Step 1 gaps addressed 1 new risk surfaced Logic Model: Signed today
What Sopact Sense Does in Step 2
Sopact analyzed the full interview transcript. Mapped every exchange against the 5 gaps flagged in Step 1. Surfaced one new risk the application didn't reveal. Built the Logic Model from application + interview inputs combined. Both parties signed — it becomes the data dictionary for automatic Step 3 reporting.
Traditional workflow PO takes handwritten notes
Gaps resolved by memory only
Logic Model built from scratch
No connection to future reporting
Knowledge lives in the PO's head
Step 1 Gaps — Resolution Status 5 gaps from screening | All resolved or monitored
OK Resolved
Year 2 earned revenue pricing model confirmed
OK Resolved
Theory of change mapped to BCF mobility framework
OK Resolved
Coordinator hire: 2 finalists, start Mar 15
OK Resolved
Equipment vendor quotes submitted post-interview
! Monitored
Employer concentration (new risk surfaced)
Interview Transcript — AI Annotated Key exchanges with AI analysis
PO Reyes
You mentioned earned revenue in Year 2 — what's the actual pricing model for the corporate cohort?
Santos
We're charging $6,000 per cohort to corporate partners — Pacific Health has signed, TechCore SF is verbal. That covers their dedicated section plus our reporting to them on placements.
Sopact AI
Gap 1 resolved. $6K/cohort confirmed, one signed partner, one verbal. Adds to Logic Model: revenue input = corporate cohort fees. Monitored assumption: TechCore SF verbal commitment.
PO Reyes
Tell me about your employer relationships. What does your placement network actually look like?
Santos
We have 18 active partners. Three employers account for about 60% of placements — Pacific Health, Bay Area Transit, and a temp agency. We're actively adding employers in construction and healthcare. Target is 20 by year-end.
Sopact AI
New risk surfaced. Employer concentration not in application — 3 employers = 60% of placements. Not a disqualifying concern but creates fragility. Adding as monitored assumption in Logic Model: max 25% concentration per employer by Dec 31.
PO Reyes
Walk me through your coordinator hire — the application said unfilled.
Santos
We have two finalists, final interviews next week. We expect a start date of March 15, which means the position is filled before Cohort 2 launches in April.
Sopact AI
Gap 3 resolved. March 15 start confirmed. Updated Logic Model input: Placement Coordinator FTE = 1.0 by April 1. Risk substantially reduced.
Gap Resolution Summary — Step 1 → Step 2 All 5 gaps resolved or monitored | 1 new risk added
Gap / RiskSourceResolutionLogic ModelStatus
Year 2 earned revenue — no pricing modelStep 1$6K/cohort confirmed. Pacific Health signed. TechCore SF verbal.Revenue input: corporate cohort feesResolved
Theory of change not linked to BCF frameworkStep 1Santos mapped outcomes directly to BCF's economic mobility ladder during interviewImpact layer updatedResolved
Coordinator hire unfilledStep 12 finalists identified. Start date confirmed: March 15Input: Placement Coordinator FTE = 1.0 by Apr 1Resolved
Equipment — no vendor quotesStep 1Dell Education quote submitted post-interview. Competitive bid confirmed.Input: digital lab (20 workstations) = $19,800Resolved
Coordinator salary below SF marketStep 1Salary adjusted to $63,500. Below median but acceptable given benefits package.Personnel budget updated to $63,500Resolved
Employer concentration — 3 employers = 60% of placementsInterview (new)Okafor confirmed awareness. Diversification plan active. No contractual commitment yet.Monitored assumption: reach 20 employers, max 25% each by Dec 31Monitored
Logic Model — Built from Interview Teal = from application | Lilac = surfaced at interview | Amber = monitored assumption
Signed Logic Model | Horizon Youth Workforce × Bridgewater Community Foundation | Feb 27, 2025
Inputs
$75K BCF grant$6K earned revenue (Pacific Health)3 Instructor FTEsPlacement Coordinator (Mar 15)Digital lab $19,800
Activities
12-week cohort training3 concurrent cohortsCorporate cohort deliveryEmployer outreach: 4+ new/qtr
Outputs
120 completers6-mo check: 60 completers20 active employer partnersMax 25% concentration per employer
Outcomes
72% placement ≤90 days$8.50/hr avg wage gain4.3 participant satisfaction75% 12-mo retention (monitored)
Impact
Economic mobility — ZIP 94103BCF ladder: financial stability tierEmployer concentration ≤25% (monitored)
From application Surfaced at interview Monitored assumption
OK Logic Model signed by both parties | Feb 27, 2025 | Becomes data dictionary for Step 3 reporting
Data Dictionary — 15 Fields Across 7 Forms Defined here | Collected via Sopact Sense | Step 3 measures against these automatically
Form IDForm NameFieldData TypeFrequencyCollector
PARTICIPANT TRACKING
HYW-01IntakePre-program wage, ZIP, demographicsStructuredEnrollmentHYW Staff
HYW-02Weekly AttendanceSessions attended, completion flagStructuredWeeklyInstructors
HYW-03Exit SurveySatisfaction (1–5), open feedbackMixedCohort endParticipants
HYW-04Placement RecordEmployer, wage, hire date, ZIPStructuredAt placementCoordinator
HYW-056-Month Follow-UpEmployment status, current wageStructured6 months postCoordinator
HYW-0612-Month Follow-UpEmployment status, wage, stabilityStructured12 months postCoordinator
EMPLOYER TRACKING
HYW-07Employer Partner FormOrg name, hires this cycle, retention at 90 daysStructuredQuarterlyEmployers
FINANCIAL REPORTING
HYW-FIN-01Grant Expense ReportExpenditure by budget line, supporting receiptsStructured + AttachmentQuarterlyHYW Finance
HYW-FIN-02Revenue SummaryRevenue by source (grant / earned / other)StructuredQuarterlyHYW Finance
Outcome Commitments — Agreed at Interview 6 targets | Step 3 measures against all 6 automatically
120
Program completers
Basis: 3 cohorts × 40
72%
Placement within 90 days
Basis: 2024 was 89%, target conservative
$8.50
Avg hourly wage gain
Basis: 2024 was $8.40 — modest increase
4.3
Participant satisfaction (1–5)
Basis: 2024 average was 4.1
20
Active employer partners
Basis: Currently 18, adding 4 new in Q2–Q3
75%
12-month employment retention
Basis: 2024 was 81% — conservative floor
Maria Santos
Executive Director | Horizon Youth Workforce
Signed Feb 27, 2025
Dr. Adriana Reyes
Program Officer | Bridgewater Community Foundation
Signed Feb 27, 2025
Step 2 complete — Logic Model signed. Go to Step 3: Mid-Grant Intelligence →
Sopact Sense | Mid-Grant Intelligence Report

Horizon Youth Workforce | Month 6 of 10

Reporting date: Sept 15, 2025 | Dr. Adriana Reyes, Program Officer | Bridgewater Community Foundation

Grant Health
On Track
4 of 6 targets ahead
1 data gap | 1 risk flag
What Sopact Sense Does in Step 3
Grantee submits data through Sopact Sense forms — exactly the forms defined in the Step 2 Data Dictionary. Sopact automatically compares every submission against the Logic Model targets signed at the interview. No PO manually maps numbers. The three finance panels below show how the Data Dictionary chain works end-to-end.
Traditional workflowGrantee emails narrative report
PO re-reads application to compare
No systematic gap detection
Finance review is manual
Board report takes 2–3 weeks
Data Received — Sept 10, 2025 Submission 4 sources | 1 incomplete
Participant Records
OK Complete
74 records | HYW-01 through HYW-04 | All fields populated
Finance Q1 + Q2
OK Complete
HYW-FIN-01 + HYW-FIN-02 | Q1 and Q2 expense reports submitted
Employer Partner Forms
! Incomplete
6 of 14 forms received | HYW-07 | 8 non-responsive employers | Cannot assess concentration risk
Narrative Report
OK Complete
1,840 words | Submitted Sept 10 | 3 AI-surfaced themes below
!
Action Required | Employer Data Gap
8 of 14 employer partners have not submitted HYW-07 forms. Concentration risk from Step 2 cannot be assessed. PO action required: Call James Okafor by Sept 22 to confirm employer outreach status.
Target vs. Actual — All 6 Step 2 Outcome Commitments Measured automatically against Logic Model | No re-entry
OutcomeStep 2 TargetMonth 6 ActualDeltaSource FormAI Note
Program completers60 at mid-point74+23%HYW-02
Cohort 3 started early — ahead of schedule
Job placement rate72% within 90 days71%-1ptHYW-04
Within range. Cohort 2 calls ongoing.
Avg hourly wage gain$8.50/hr$9.10/hr+$0.60HYW-04
Population shift detected — see Unusual Learnings
Participant satisfaction4.3 / 54.4 / 5+0.1HYW-03
Digital lab cited in 18 open responses
Employer partners (diversification)20 by Dec 3114 mid-yearOn trackHYW-07
Need 6 new in Q3+Q4. Pace required: 3/qtr.
Employer data submission14 of 146 of 14-57%HYW-07
Cannot assess concentration risk. PO call required.
Financial Intelligence — Q1 + Q2 2025 3 panels: Data Dictionary chain | P&L extracted | Grant budget analysis
Panel A — How Sopact Knows This | The Data Dictionary Chain
Every number in Panels B and C traces directly to form fields defined at the Step 2 interview. The fields were specified in the Data Dictionary, signed by both parties. Sopact collected against them automatically. No manual mapping. No spreadsheet.
Step 2 | Data Dictionary
Grant expenditure (line-by-line)HYW-FIN-01
Revenue by source (grant / earned / other)HYW-FIN-02
Defined Feb 27, 2025 | Signed by both parties
→
Sept 10 | Grantee Submitted
Q1 expense report (Jan–Mar 2025)
PDF | 4 pages | Via Sopact Sense
Q2 expense report (Apr–Jun 2025)
PDF | 4 pages | Via Sopact Sense
→
Sopact Extracted & Integrated
OKRevenue parsed: 3 sources identified
OKExpenses mapped to 5 budget lines
OKP&L computed: net position calculated
!1 variance flagged vs. Logic Model budget
No spreadsheet. No manual mapping.
Panel B — P&L Extracted from Finance DocumentsHYW-FIN-01 + HYW-FIN-02 | Jan–Jun 2025
AI Extracted
Line ItemQ1 (Jan–Mar)Q2 (Apr–Jun)H1 TotalSource
REVENUE
BCF Grant (drawdown)$37,500$26,250$63,750HYW-FIN-02
Earned revenue — Pacific Health cohort$0$6,000$6,000HYW-FIN-02
TechCore SF cohort (pending)——$6,000 est. Q4Confirmed, not yet billed
Total Revenue (H1)$37,500$32,250$69,750
EXPENSES
Personnel — Instructors (3 FTE)$10,600$10,600$21,200HYW-FIN-01
Personnel — Placement Coordinator$5,450$4,200$9,650HYW-FIN-01
Digital lab equipment (one-time capital)$19,800$0$19,800HYW-FIN-01
Curriculum development$4,800$4,200$9,000HYW-FIN-01
Participant support (transit + childcare) !$2,100$2,000$4,100HYW-FIN-01
Total Expenses (H1)$42,750$21,000$63,750
Net Position (H1)+$5,250+$11,250+$6,000Earned revenue surplus
Sopact P&L NoteHorizon is operating at a +$6,000 net surplus at H1 — the Pacific Health earned revenue cohort more than offset the slight overpace on participant support. BCF accounts for 54% of total revenue — worth flagging in Year 2 diversification planning.
Panel C — Grant Budget vs. ActualsCompared against Logic Model budget agreed in Step 2
Step 2 Linked
Budget LineApprovedSpent (6 mo)% UsedExpectedFlag
PERSONNEL | HYW-FIN-01
Instructors (3 FTE)$42,000$21,200
50%
~50% | On paceOK Healthy
Placement Coordinator$16,500$9,650
58%
~50% expectedQ1 onboarding — normalizes Q3
PROGRAM | HYW-FIN-01
Digital lab equipment$19,800$19,800
100%
100% | One-time capitalOK Dell confirmed
Curriculum development$18,700$9,000
48%
~50% expectedOK On pace
Participant support (transit/childcare)$6,000$4,100
68%
~50% expected! May overrun $800–1,200
Total Grant Spend$75,000$63,75085% used | On pace for full spend by Dec 311 line needs monitoring
Unusual Learnings — AI Surfaced from Narrative 3 themes found | 1 flagged for board + renewal
Participant confidence exceeding expectations
Mentioned in 28 of 74 exit surveys | 38% unprompted | Not a stated Logic Model outcome
38%

38% of exit surveys mention improved confidence or self-efficacy unprompted. Not a stated outcome in the Logic Model, but may be driving the above-target satisfaction score (4.4 vs. 4.3 target).

Sopact AI Recommendation

Consider adding "participant confidence" as a tracked outcome in Year 2. Strong renewal narrative element.

Childcare and transit demand higher than projected
Referenced in narrative 4 times | Finance line at 68% spend at month 6
68%

The narrative references transportation and childcare barriers 4 times. This aligns with the participant support budget running at 68% spend at month 6 — above the expected 50% pace.

Sopact AI Recommendation

PO should confirm with Santos: Can the participant support line absorb estimated $800–1,200 overrun, or does budget need reallocation?

Population shift — higher-wage participants enrolling
Pre-program avg wage $11.20/hr in 2025 vs. $9.80/hr in 2024 | Would not surface in traditional reporting
Strategic

Pre-program average wage has risen from $9.80/hr (2024) to $11.20/hr (2025). Several Cohort 3 participants were already employed and enrolled specifically for wage increase — not unemployment exit.

Sopact AI | Unusual Learning — Board + Renewal Level

Is BCF funding its intended population? The original RFP targeted unemployed or underemployed adults. If the served population is shifting toward already-employed adults, the Logic Model targets and renewal agreement may need revisiting.

Board-Ready Report — Auto-Generated Generated from Data Dictionary + narrative | No PO re-entry
Bridgewater Community Foundation | Horizon Youth Workforce | Month 6 of 10 | Auto-generated Sept 15, 2025
74
Participants (+23%)
71%
Placement (-1pt)
$9.10
Wage gain (+$0.60)
85%
Grant spend (on track)
At mid-point, Horizon is one of the highest-performing grantees in this cycle. Program delivery is ahead on 4 of 6 targets. One area requiring attention: 8 of 14 employer partners have not submitted data. One strategic question for renewal: the participant population appears to be shifting toward already-employed adults.
OK
Strong program delivery — ahead on 4 of 6 targets
Completers +23%, satisfaction +0.1, wage gain +$0.60. Cohort 3 started early.
!
Employer diversification requires active outreach in Q3
14 of 20 target partners confirmed mid-year. 8 non-responsive on data forms.
*
Population shift — discuss at renewal
Pre-program wages rising. Program may have outgrown original design.
PO Action Required
Call James re 8 non-responsive employers | by Sept 22 Confirm participant support budget sufficiency Prepare population-shift question for renewal
Renewal Signal
Strong trajectory. 4 of 6 targets ahead at month 6. Sopact will generate the renewal brief automatically from all three steps — without PO re-entering a single data point. One strategic question to resolve before renewal: intentional targeting of higher-wage population.
Step 3 complete. Go to Step 4: Year-End Board Report & Portfolio Aggregation →
Sopact Sense | Year-End Portfolio Intelligence | Grant Aggregation Report

Bridgewater Community Foundation — 2025 Portfolio

Year-End Board Report | Auto-generated Dec 31, 2025 | No PO re-entry | Built from Steps 1 + 2 + 3 across all active grants

12
Active grants
$840K Deployed
What This Report Does
Sopact aggregated all 12 active grants automatically — combining Step 1 screening scores, Step 2 Logic Model commitments, and Step 3 actuals — into a single year-end view for your board. No spreadsheet assembly. No re-entry. Risk is flagged and renewal signals are generated from the data, not PO memory. This report answers three board-level questions: Are we getting the impact we funded? Where is the risk? Who should we renew?
Portfolio KPIs — 2025 Year-End Aggregated across 12 grants | $840K deployed
$840K
Total Deployed
12 grants | 4 sectors
75%
Grants On Track or Ahead
9 of 12 grants
1,847
People Directly Served
vs. 1,620 committed (+14%)
$9.2M
Estimated Economic Impact
Wage gains + benefits access
92%
Reports Submitted On Time
1 grantee chronic late
Grant-by-Grant Performance — All 12 Active Grants Step 2 targets vs. Step 3 actuals | Risk auto-classified
Grantee Sector Grant ($) Step 1 Score Outcome Performance Spend Risk Renewal Signal
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT — 4 grants | $310K
Horizon Youth Workforce
ZIP 94103 | Adults 18-35
 Workforce $75,000 74/80
4/6 ahead
 97% Low Renew — Full amount
Bay Area Construction Pathways
ZIP 94607 | Justice-involved
 Workforce $85,000 68/80
3/5 on track
 88% Medium Renew — Reduced scope
TechBridge SF
ZIP 94110 | Women in tech
 Workforce $95,000 71/80
5/5 ahead
 102% Low Renew — Increase to $110K
Mission Hire
ZIP 94103 | Undocumented adults
 Workforce $55,000 61/80
2/6 on track
 71% High Hold — Board discussion required
COMMUNITY HEALTH — 3 grants | $240K
SF Community Clinic Network
ZIP 94102 | Uninsured adults
 Health $90,000 77/80
4/4 ahead
 95% Low Renew — Full amount
Bayview Mental Health Collective
ZIP 94124 | Black youth
 Health $80,000 70/80
3/5 on track
 82% Medium Renew — TA support required
Tenderloin Harm Reduction
ZIP 94102 | Substance use recovery
 Health $70,000 65/80
4/5 on track
 91% Low Renew — Full amount
EDUCATION — 3 grants | $200K
Oakland Early Literacy Project
ZIP 94601 | Ages 3-8
 Education $70,000 73/80
4/5 on track
 93% Low Renew — Full amount
Mission District STEM
ZIP 94112 | Middle school
 Education $65,000 66/80
2/4 on track
 79% Medium Renew — Conditional
Excelsior Family Literacy
ZIP 94112 | Immigrant families
 Education $65,000 72/80
4/4 ahead
 96% Low Renew — Full amount
ECONOMIC MOBILITY / ESG — 2 grants | $90K
Bay Area Food Security Coalition
Multi-ZIP | Food insecure households
 ESG $50,000 69/80
3/4 on track
 88% Low Renew — Full amount
Greenways SF
ZIP 94109 | Environmental health
 ESG $40,000 58/80
1/4 on track
 62% High Do not renew — See risk note
Risk Matrix — 2025 Portfolio Auto-classified from Step 3 actuals | Color-coded for board action
Low Risk
7
Grants on track or ahead
  • Horizon Youth Workforce
  • TechBridge SF
  • SF Community Clinic Network
  • Tenderloin Harm Reduction
  • Oakland Early Literacy Project
  • Excelsior Family Literacy
  • Bay Area Food Security Coalition
Board action: Approve renewals as recommended. No intervention required.
Medium Risk
3
Underperforming 1–2 targets
  • Bay Area Construction Pathways
    Placement rate lag; coordinator turnover
  • Bayview Mental Health Collective
    Session delivery behind schedule
  • Mission District STEM
    Student retention below Logic Model
Board action: Renew with conditions. PO to provide TA. Quarterly check-in required in Year 2.
High Risk
2
Missing 3+ targets | Board decision needed
  • Mission Hire
    2/6 targets; ED departure Sept; underspend 29%
  • Greenways SF
    1/4 targets; grant spend 62%; reporting chronic late
Board action required: Mission Hire — hold renewal, schedule leadership call. Greenways SF — close relationship; recoverable funds discussion.
Portfolio Impact Aggregation — Year-End Rolled up from all 12 Step 3 reports | No re-entry
2025 Year-End Impact Summary | Bridgewater Community Foundation | Auto-generated from Sopact Sense
1,847
People directly served
vs. 1,620 committed (+14%)
74%
Avg job placement / program completion rate
Portfolio target was 70%
$9.2M
Est. aggregate economic impact
Wage gains + benefits + stability
92%
Reporting compliance
11 of 12 grantees on time
Workforce Development
612 adults trained | 78% placement rate | $8.90/hr avg wage gain
Strategic flag: Population shift at Horizon — higher-wage participants enrolling
Community Health
8,240 service visits | 94% of planned sessions delivered
Bayview Collective behind on session delivery — TA recommended
Education
892 students reached | 81% literacy/STEM outcome attainment
Mission District STEM student retention below Logic Model commitment
Economic Mobility / ESG
343 households served | Mixed outcomes
Greenways SF significantly underperforming — board decision on closure
The 2025 portfolio delivered above aggregate targets in 3 of 4 sectors. The workforce sector produced the strongest return per dollar deployed at an estimated $11.40 of economic impact per grant dollar. The portfolio's main risk is concentration: 2 of 12 grantees are high-risk, but both were identifiable by month 6 through Sopact's automated Step 3 monitoring — 6 months earlier than traditional year-end review would have surfaced them.
OK
Portfolio exceeded aggregate target by 14%
1,847 people served vs. 1,620 committed. Workforce and health sectors drove the overperformance.
!
2 high-risk grantees require board decision
Mission Hire (leadership gap) and Greenways SF (chronic underperformance) — both require explicit board discussion on renewal or closure.
*
Strategic signal: Workforce population drift
Multiple workforce grantees showing pre-program wage increases. BCF should discuss whether to formally expand RFP eligibility or maintain unemployed/underemployed focus in 2026 cycle.
*
Geographic concentration at ZIP 94103
4 of 12 grantees serve ZIP 94103. Board may wish to discuss whether to diversify into Tier 2 ZIPs in 2026.
Renewal Brief — Auto-Generated from Steps 1 + 2 + 3 No PO re-entry | All signals derived from data
2026 Renewal Recommendations 8 Renew | 2 Conditional | 1 Hold | 1 Close
Horizon Youth Workforce
Renew — Full Amount
74/80 screening · 4/6 targets ahead · Population shift question to resolve in Year 2 agreement
TechBridge SF
Renew — Increase to $110K
71/80 screening · 5/5 targets ahead · Highest ROI in workforce sector this cycle
SF Community Clinic Network
Renew — Full Amount
77/80 screening · 4/4 targets ahead · Strongest health grantee
Tenderloin Harm Reduction
Renew — Full Amount
65/80 screening · 4/5 targets · Harm reduction model proven at scale
Oakland Early Literacy
Renew — Full Amount
73/80 screening · 4/5 targets · Consistent performer second cycle
Excelsior Family Literacy
Renew — Full Amount
72/80 screening · 4/4 targets ahead · High engagement among immigrant families
Bay Area Food Security
Renew — Full Amount
69/80 screening · 3/4 targets · Essential infrastructure grant
Bay Area Construction
Conditional Renewal
Reduced scope $65K — placement rate lag + coordinator turnover must be addressed in Year 2 Logic Model
Bayview Mental Health
Conditional + TA
Session delivery behind — PO to provide TA support. Renew at same amount with quarterly check-ins
Mission District STEM
Conditional Renewal
Student retention below target — must revise Logic Model before renewal agreement is signed
Mission Hire
Hold — Board Discussion
2/6 targets · ED departure · 29% underspend · Leadership call required before any renewal decision
Greenways SF
Do Not Renew
1/4 targets · Chronic late reporting · 62% spend · Discuss recoverable funds with program officer
Board Narrative — Year-End Summary For board packet | Auto-generated | Reviewed by PO before distribution
Bridgewater Community Foundation | 2025 Grant Cycle Close | Dec 31, 2025 | For Board of Directors
The 2025 grant cycle deployed $840,000 across 12 organizations in four focus areas. The portfolio exceeded aggregate outcome targets by 14%, directly serving 1,847 people against a commitment of 1,620. The workforce development sector produced the highest return — an estimated $11.40 of economic impact per grant dollar, driven primarily by TechBridge SF and Horizon Youth Workforce.

Risk is concentrated in two relationships requiring board-level decisions: Mission Hire experienced an executive director departure in September and has spent only 71% of grant funds with 2 of 6 Logic Model targets on track. Greenways SF has underperformed consistently since month 3, with only 1 of 4 targets reached and chronic late reporting. Neither situation was a surprise — Sopact's Step 3 monitoring surfaced both by month 6, six months ahead of this report.

One strategic question for the 2026 cycle: Multiple workforce grantees are enrolling participants with higher pre-program wages than the original RFP targeted. The board should discuss whether to formally update eligibility language to reflect this evolving population, or reinforce the original unemployed/underemployed focus. This question affects renewal agreement terms for at least three grantees.
01
Approve 8 standard renewals at recommended amounts
Horizon, TechBridge (+$15K), SF Clinic Network, Tenderloin Harm Reduction, Oakland Early Literacy, Excelsior Family Literacy, Bay Area Food Security, and Bay Area Construction (reduced) — all with updated Step 2 Logic Models for 2026.
02
Mission Hire — Leadership call required before renewal decision
ED departure creates organizational risk. PO to schedule call with board chair by Jan 15. Renewal contingent on confirmed leadership stability. $18K in unspent grant funds to be addressed.
03
Greenways SF — Close relationship
First-time grantee with chronic underperformance across all measures. Do not renew. Discuss recoverable funds per grant agreement Section 4.2. Remove from 2026 cycle consideration.
04
2026 RFP — Update workforce eligibility language
Workforce population is shifting toward already-employed adults seeking upward mobility. Board to decide by Feb 1 whether to broaden eligibility or maintain current focus. Decision affects 3 renewal agreements.
Board Actions — Required by Jan 15, 2026
Approve 8 standard renewals Leadership call — Mission Hire Confirm Greenways SF closure 2026 RFP workforce eligibility decision TechBridge SF increase: $95K → $110K
Full cycle complete — Step 1 screening → Step 2 Logic Model → Step 3 monitoring → Step 4 board report. ← Review from Step 1    Built by Sopact Sense | No manual re-entry at any stage.