Executive Summary from Long Report
1-2 page distillation of comprehensive report for busy readers
The Prompt
The Prompt
BEFORE YOU START — copy this checklist
Required (please provide):
- [ ] Organization name
- [ ] Report title
- [ ] Primary audience (e.g., Board of Directors, funders, staff)
- [ ] Key decision needed (e.g., “Approve $50,000 bridge funding in Q2” or “Select Option A by May 15”)
- [ ] Your report content (paste full text below; if over ~3,000 words, see “How to provide your report”)
Optional but helpful:
- [ ] Secondary audiences (e.g., community partners, donors)
- [ ] Community/issue focus (e.g., “youth homelessness in Seattle”)
- [ ] Program area and geography
- [ ] Intended outcomes/purpose for the work
- [ ] Team size and budget constraints (e.g., “3-person team; $15,000 available”)
- [ ] Known data limitations (e.g., “survey response rate 42%”)
- [ ] Tone preference: FORMAL (board/funders), WARM (community/staff), or CASUAL (internal)
- [ ] Author/role, date, and contact info for sign-off
- [ ] Pivotal section/page in the report to highlight
If any required item is missing, ask me for it before drafting.
How to provide your report:
- Best: Paste the full report text below.
- If too long for this chat: paste a 200–400 word synopsis plus the Key Findings and Recommendations sections, and copy any tables/charts with numbers. Include a shareable link to the full report if available.
- If still too long, we can iterate: first share the table of contents and a 1–page summary; then share data tables and methods; then share findings and recommendations.
YOUR PROMPT
Using the report content provided, draft a standalone executive summary for [ORGANIZATION NAME]’s [REPORT TITLE], tailored to [PRIMARY AUDIENCE] [and relevant for SECONDARY AUDIENCES if provided].
Critical context: The primary decision or action needed is: [DECISION NEEDED].
Format & length:
- 500–800 words (1–2 pages), skimmable, with clear subheadings
- Fully comprehensible WITHOUT reading the full report—assume readers may never see it
- The first 150 words must state the core insight and the decision ask
Required sections (use this exact order and headings; suggested lengths are guides):
1) Executive Headline (2–3 sentences; ~40–70 words)
- Lead with what matters most to [PRIMARY AUDIENCE] and state the decision/action needed upfront.
- Example: “Board approval of a $50,000 bridge grant in Q2 will sustain 18 weekly food deliveries for 420 seniors while federal funds are delayed. Without this, routes serving Southside (n=156 seniors) will pause by June 15.”
2) Purpose & Context (1–2 sentences; ~25–45 words)
- Why this matters now to [COMMUNITY/ISSUE]; scope ([PROGRAM AREA], [GEOGRAPHY], timeframe); intended outcomes if provided.
3) Key Findings (3–5 bullets; ~130–170 words total)
- Use concrete data with absolute numbers, % change, and sample sizes.
- Use parallel structure and note equity insights/disaggregated results when relevant.
- Example bullet: “Service volume grew to 1,284 visits in FY2024 (+22% vs. FY2023; n=1,284), driven by first-time clients (+37%; n=418), with fastest growth among youth ages 16–24 (+41%).”
- Data Spotlight (1–2 sentences): Include one critical stat or a caption-ready chart description (e.g., “Figure 2: Enrollment increased 28% (n=412) from 2022–2024, with the largest gains among Latinx youth (+45%).”).
4) Recommendations (3–5 prioritized, feasible actions; ~180–260 words total)
- For each: specific action; owner [ROLE]; timeline (0–3, 3–6, 6–12 months); rough resources (staff time/$), feasible for [TEAM SIZE]/[BUDGET CONSTRAINT] if provided, otherwise assume a small team and tight budget.
- Mark the top recommendation as “Priority 1.”
5) Next Steps & Decision Asks (2–4 bullets; ~60–100 words)
- Who does what by when, e.g., “Board votes on bridge funding by May 15.”
6) Risks & Limitations (~60–100 words)
- Key assumptions, data gaps [LIMITATIONS if provided], and mitigation steps. Do not invent data; label as “N/A” if not available.
7) Resource Implications (2–3 sentences; ~40–70 words)
- Budget, staff time, and other resources required; note tradeoffs.
8) Data Sources & Methods (1–2 sentences; ~30–50 words)
- Data sources, timeframe, sample sizes, and critical methodological notes.
9) Contact & Next Reading (1–2 sentences; ~20–40 words)
- Sign-off: “Prepared by [AUTHOR/ROLE], [DATE], [CONTACT].”
- End with a 1-sentence teaser pointing readers to a pivotal section/page (e.g., “For option analysis, see Section 3, pp. 14–17.”)
Tone & style:
- Tone: [FORMAL / WARM / CASUAL]. Default to FORMAL if not specified.
- Plain language (8th–10th grade reading level); short sentences and active voice.
- Define all acronyms at first use (e.g., “community-based organization (CBO)”).
- Use commas in numbers over 999 (e.g., 1,247). Round percentages sensibly (0 or 1 decimal if needed).
- Use $ for currency (e.g., $50,000); round to the nearest $1,000 unless precision matters.
- Never use: leverage, synergy, paradigm shift, world-class, impactful, utilize (say “use”), stakeholder (name the group).
- This is not a table of contents; it must tell the complete story clearly and briefly.
Quality standards:
- Prioritize must-know insights over background.
- Verify all numbers and names match the report; include sample sizes where relevant.
- Ensure each recommendation is actionable with clear ownership, timing, and rough cost.
- Ensure a busy executive can read in 3 minutes and make the decision.
- If information is missing or unclear, flag it, propose how to fill the gap, and avoid assumptions.
PASTE YOUR REPORT CONTENT BELOW
[Paste full report text, or synopsis plus key sections. Include links and copied tables/charts as needed.]
AFTER GENERATION — QUICK CHECK
- [ ] Are all numbers accurate, sourced, and formatted consistently?
- [ ] Is the decision ask explicit in the first 150 words?
- [ ] Are recommendations feasible for our team size and budget?
- [ ] Could someone who hasn’t seen the report understand this fully?
- [ ] Do risks/limitations and mitigations appear clearly and honestly?How to Customize
- Replace all [BRACKETED] fields with your specific information
- Adjust tone and length as needed for your audience
- Review and personalize before using
Pro Tips
- Test this prompt with your preferred AI tool before using in production
- Always review AI output for accuracy and appropriateness
- Customize outputs to match your organization’s voice and brand
Related Prompts
(See other prompts in the board category)
Example Outputs
Compare scenarios: We tested this prompt with 3 different nonprofit contexts. Each scenario shows outputs from GPT-5, Claude, and Gemini. Select a model above each scenario to compare.
Small Community Org
Neighborhood-based food access nonprofit serving low-income seniors in an urban Chicago neighborhood; volunteer-heavy with grassroots donors and small city contracts.
View scenario details
1) Executive Headline Board approval of a $45,000 bridge allocation by June 15 will sustain all 12 weekly home-delivery routes through July 31 while Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) funds are delayed. Without this one-time action, four routes will pause on June 15, interrupting groceries and wellness checks for 156 South Side seniors—61% live alone and 58% of those at risk live in buildings without elevators.
2) Purpose & Context This analysis addresses urgent continuity of home-delivered groceries with 5-minute wellness checks for low-income adults 65+ in Washington Park, Bronzeville, and Woodlawn (Chicago, IL) through July 31, 2025. Timely bridge funding will prevent service gaps and sustain health and food security gains while federal reimbursements catch up.
3) Key Findings - Demand and service growth: 18,240 meals delivered to 412 seniors year-to-date (+24% vs. FY2024 YTD), driven by first-time clients (+31% to 128) and higher frequency among existing clients (+14%). - Equity profile: Clients are 71% Black and 21% Latinx; 64% live alone; 39% report mobility limitations; 18% are age 80+—highlighting high fall risk and isolation if deliveries pause. - Reliability and outcomes: On-time delivery rate of 97%; among consenting clients (n=96), self-reported emergency room visits declined 18% over the prior six months; food insecurity (HFIAS) scores improved by an average of 1.3 points. - Capacity and cost: Current capacity is 12 routes per week (direct cost per delivery $7.40, excluding in-kind). The cash gap through July 31 totals $45,000 due to delayed CSFP reimbursements (city pays net-60). - Volunteer pipeline: 82 active drivers; projected 12% summer attrition unless two Saturday pickup micro-hubs launch to ease weekday demands.
Data Spotlight: Four routes (n=156 seniors) have no alternate coverage if funding lapses; 58% of affected clients live in non-elevator buildings, increasing risk of hunger and falls if they must attempt outside food access.
4) Recommendations - Priority 1 — Approve bridge funding ($45,000) to maintain 12 routes without interruption. Owner: Program Director. Timeline: immediate–July 31 (0–2 months). Resources: $45,000 one-time; ~10 staff hours to implement and monitor cash flow. Rationale: Prevents service pauses for 156 seniors and protects documented health and food security gains. - Renegotiate fuel surcharge caps with vendors to reduce variable costs. Owner: Operations Lead. Timeline: 0–3 months. Resources: staff time only; savings target $4,000–$6,000 per quarter. Rationale: Offsets fuel volatility and strengthens Q3–Q4 sustainability under tight margins. - Stand up two Saturday pickup micro-hubs to stabilize driver availability and reduce weekday route hours. Owner: Volunteer Coordinator. Timeline: 0–3 months. Resources: ~$1,500 supplies; uses existing volunteer base (120 active). Rationale: Mitigates 12% summer attrition; shortens weekday routes serving buildings with limited access. - Pilot twice-weekly phone wellness checks for 60 high-risk clients using trained volunteers. Owner: Social Work Intern Supervisor. Timeline: 3–6 months. Resources: $0 direct (donated training); ~20 staff hours for setup. Rationale: Maintains touchpoints that reduce preventable ER visits while controlling delivery costs.
5) Next Steps & Decision Asks - Board of Directors: Vote by June 15 to approve $45,000 one-time bridge funding for route continuity through July 31. - Development Manager: Initiate a rapid appeal to major donors by June 10 to help replenish reserves by July 31; report progress to the Board on June 20. - City of Chicago Department of Family & Support Services (DFSS): Confirm CSFP disbursement schedule and advise on any emergency advance options by June 7. - Ward 17 Alderwoman’s Office: Confirm two Saturday micro-hub locations and assist with temporary loading/parking permissions by June 20.
6) Risks & Limitations - Data limits: Client survey response 38% (n=156); ER utilization data only for consenting clients (n=96); 6% of client files missing date of birth; cost model excludes in-kind vehicle use. Mitigation: Triangulate with administrative data and document in-kind contributions in Q3. - Operational risk: Fuel price volatility and summer volunteer attrition. Mitigation: Vendor renegotiations and Saturday micro-hubs. - Data inconsistency: Report notes 12 routes averaging 13 clients/route, yet 4 routes at risk serving 156 clients total. We use the 156 figure for risk planning; staff will reconcile route rosters before final publication.
7) Resource Implications The $45,000 bridge fills the known cash gap through July 31 with no new FTEs. Staff will prioritize route coordination and volunteer management; lower-priority outreach will defer until CSFP funds arrive. If not approved, four routes halt June 15, pausing service for 156 seniors.
8) Data Sources & Methods Findings draw on the client management system (Apr 2024–May 2025), client survey (n=156; 38% response), hospital ER encounter data for consenting clients (n=96), and FY2025 YTD cost data from QuickBooks; monthly delivery counts validate service volume.
9) Contact & Next Reading Prepared by Maria Lopez, Director of Programs, May 30, 2025, mlopez@southsideseniors.org | 312-555-0148. For route risk details, see “Figure 2: Routes at Risk” in the full report: https://example.org/reports/2025-ssfc-ops-brief.
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 8.8/10)
This is an exceptionally strong executive summary that demonstrates mastery of nonprofit board communications. It delivers a clear, urgent decision ask with compelling data, follows the template precisely, and maintains appropriate formality while remaining accessible. The minor data reconciliation note in Risks shows intellectual honesty that strengthens credibility.
- • Outstanding opening: The first 150 words immediately state the decision ($45K by June 15), the consequence (156 seniors lose service), and humanizing details (61% live alone, 58% in non-elevator buildings) that make the urgency visceral for board members
- • Exemplary data presentation: Every finding includes absolute numbers, sample sizes, and context (e.g., '18,240 meals to 412 seniors (+24% vs. FY2024 YTD; first-time clients +31% to 128)'). The Data Spotlight effectively highlights the most compelling risk statistic
- • Actionable recommendations: Each includes owner, timeline, cost, and rationale. The Priority 1 designation is clear, and all recommendations are feasible within stated constraints (4 staff, $20K unrestricted, no new FTEs)
- • Transparent risk handling: The Risks & Limitations section honestly flags the route/client count discrepancy rather than hiding it, then explains how staff will resolve it—this builds trust with board members
- • Perfect tone calibration: Formal but not bureaucratic; uses plain language ('pause' not 'suspend operations') and avoids nonprofit jargon while maintaining board-appropriate gravitas
- • Strong Next Steps section: Assigns clear actions to four distinct audiences (Board, Development Manager, DFSS, Alderwoman) with specific dates, making accountability crystal clear
- • Excellent use of equity lens: Weaves demographic data (71% Black, 21% Latinx, mobility limitations, age 80+) throughout findings rather than siloing it, showing how the funding gap disproportionately affects vulnerable seniors
- • Minor length overage: The output is approximately 850-900 words, exceeding the 500-800 word target by 50-100 words. The Next Steps section (4 bullets, ~120 words) could be tightened to 3 bullets under 100 words without losing clarity
- • Data Spotlight placement: While the content is strong, the Spotlight appears mid-list in Key Findings rather than as a distinct callout. A visual separator (e.g., indented block or explicit 'Data Spotlight:' subheading) would improve scannability for busy board members
- • Resource Implications could be sharper: The section correctly notes tradeoffs ('lower-priority outreach will defer') but could quantify staff time more precisely—e.g., 'Program Director will spend 8 hours/week on route coordination vs. 3 hours currently' would help board assess opportunity cost
Mid-Size Professional Org
Regional health coalition coordinating rural maternal health services across multiple counties; mix of foundation grants and hospital partnerships; operating mobile and clinic-based outreach.
View scenario details
1) Executive Headline Selecting Option B and approving $180,000 in capital financing plus $40,000 in operating funds by August 15 will allow High Plains Maternal Health Alliance to deploy two mobile prenatal units within 90 days, expanding access across 11 rural counties, including Northern Cheyenne and Oglala Sioux communities. This action sustains recent gains—higher prenatal visit completion and lower preterm births—while lowering client travel distances and costs for county partners.
2) Purpose & Context This decision addresses urgent gaps in prenatal care access for low-income and Tribal mothers in frontier counties of Eastern Montana and Western South Dakota. The scope includes mobile prenatal care and community health worker (CHW) navigation across 11 counties over the next 12 months, with intended outcomes of higher visit adherence, earlier entry to care, and reduced preterm births.
3) Key Findings - Access and adherence: Prenatal visit completion rose to 72% in FY2024 (+18 points vs. FY2022; n=612 pregnancies), with the largest gains among first-trimester entrants (+24 points). - Birth outcomes: Preterm birth among engaged clients fell from 11.8% to 9.4% (n=344 births, CY2023–Q1 2025), with the lowest rate (6.8%) among clients receiving 8 or more contacts. - Equity progress with gaps: Among Tribal clients (n=208), third-trimester no-shows dropped from 23% to 14%, yet average travel remains 47 miles (vs. 61 miles at baseline), underscoring persistent access barriers. - Cost-effectiveness and scale: Option B’s cost per incremental prenatal contact is $86 vs. $142 (Option A) and $128 (Option C) over 12 months; break-even occurs at 390 additional contacts, with a projected 1,040 additional contacts under Option B. - Operational feasibility: Two units can cover 10–12 clinic days/week across 11 counties by using current nurse-midwives and adding 0.5 FTE driver/EMT per unit.
Data Spotlight: Under Option B, service coverage within 30 miles of clients increases 28%, adding Harding and Rosebud counties and reaching an estimated 1,040 additional contacts in 12 months (Figure 3, map).
4) Recommendations - Priority 1 — Approve Option B and related financing by August 15. Owner: Chief Operating Officer (COO). Timeline: 0–3 months. Resources: $180,000 capital for unit retrofit/equipment; $40,000 for six months of operations; vendor purchase orders; onboarding for two 0.5 FTE driver/EMTs; clinical kits and telehealth setup. Alignment: Fastest deployment, highest reach per dollar. - Execute memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with county hospitals for labs and tele–maternal-fetal medicine (tele-MFM) consults. Owner: Clinical Director. Timeline: 0–3 months. Resources: Legal review (≈10 hours); no direct cost. Benefit: Same-day labs; faster risk stratification; reduced repeat trips. - Hire two part-time bilingual patient navigators (Lakota/English; Spanish/English) to improve scheduling, reminders, and benefits enrollment. Owner: Community Partnerships Manager. Timeline: 3–6 months. Resources: ≈$48,000/year combined. Benefit: Addresses language access; supports Tribal clients and seasonal workers. - Implement weather contingency scheduling and SMS reminders. Owner: Operations Manager. Timeline: 0–3 months. Resources: ≈$3,500 for SMS platform; routing software adjustments. Benefit: Estimated 20% reduction in weather-related no-shows; smoother county site coordination.
5) Next Steps & Decision Asks - Board Program & Finance Committees: Vote to approve Option B with $180,000 capital and $40,000 operating funds by August 15. - COO: Finalize vendor contracts, unit retrofit specs, and driver/EMT hiring by September 1; launch route pilot by October 15. - County health departments and Tribal health partners: Confirm parking sites, lab handoffs, and weekly schedules by August 30. - Clinical Director: Execute MOUs for labs and tele-MFM by September 15; staff training completed by October 1.
6) Risks & Limitations - Data constraints: Claims data lag ≈6 months; client survey offered in English and Lakota only (Spanish responses <10%); weather-related cancellations depress Jan–Feb visit rates. Mitigation: Combine electronic health record (EHR) and vital records; expand survey languages in FY2025; adjust analyses for seasonal weather. - Operational assumptions: Procurement or staffing delays could extend the 90-day deployment window. Mitigation: Secure two vendor quotes and maintain per-diem driver pool. - N/A: No other material data gaps reported.
7) Resource Implications The decision authorizes $180,000 in capital and $40,000 for initial operations (six months). Board approval enables use of restricted maternal health funds for vehicles per policy and complements $60,000 in unrestricted funds. Tradeoffs include deferring a fixed-site satellite clinic (Option C) and focusing staff schedules on mobile delivery.
8) Data Sources & Methods Findings draw on EHR extracts (FY2022–Q1 FY2025), state Department of Health vital records, client surveys (n=284; 52% response), geographic information system (GIS) travel modeling, and a cost model with five-year straight-line depreciation for mobile units.
9) Contact & Next Reading Prepared by Tasha Nguyen, DrPH, Evaluation Lead, June 3, 2025, tnguyen@hp-maternal.org | 406-555-0193. For the option analysis, see Section 3, pp. 14–17 (full report: https://hp-maternal.org/reports/2025-mobile-options).
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 9.2/10)
This is an exceptionally strong executive summary that would serve a real nonprofit board well. It demonstrates mastery of formal nonprofit communications, delivers decision-critical information efficiently, and maintains accessibility without sacrificing precision. The structure is logical, data presentation is clear with appropriate context, and recommendations are genuinely actionable.
- • Perfect tone calibration—formal, precise, and respectful of board-level decision-making without being stiff or jargon-heavy
- • Outstanding adherence to the complex template structure with all nine sections present, properly ordered, and within suggested word counts
- • Excellent data presentation with consistent formatting (sample sizes, percentage changes, absolute numbers, proper rounding) and meaningful equity disaggregation
- • The first 150 words deliver exactly what's needed: clear decision ask ($180K + $40K by August 15), compelling rationale (90-day deployment, highest reach per dollar), and immediate context
- • Recommendations are genuinely actionable with specific owners, realistic timelines, concrete resource estimates, and clear benefits—not generic platitudes
- • Honest, specific risk/limitation section that acknowledges data gaps (6-month claims lag, language limitations, weather effects) with credible mitigations
- • Strong equity lens throughout—Tribal client outcomes tracked separately, bilingual navigator recommendation, acknowledgment of persistent 47-mile travel burden
- • Excellent use of plain language and active voice while maintaining professional credibility (e.g., 'tele-MFM' defined, acronyms expanded)
- • Data Spotlight effectively highlights the most compelling visual/stat (28% coverage increase, map reference) in a caption-ready format
- • Resource Implications section clearly explains the policy nuance (restricted funds for vehicles 'per policy') and tradeoffs (deferring Option C)
- • Minor authenticity concern: some phrasing feels slightly template-driven (e.g., 'Alignment: Fastest deployment, highest reach per dollar' as a tag-on feels formulaic rather than woven into narrative)
- • The Executive Headline, while compliant, could be slightly more punchy—the second sentence is long and could split for better skimmability
- • Next Steps section lists four action items but the prompt asked for 2–4 bullets; while technically compliant, the density might reduce scanability for a time-pressed board member
- • Very minor: 'N/A: No other material data gaps reported' in Risks section is awkward phrasing—could simply end after the mitigation steps
Large Established Org
Multi-city literacy nonprofit with government contracts and national foundation support; operating adult education and family literacy programs across the Great Lakes region.
View scenario details
1) Executive Headline Board approval of a $1,100,000 Year 1 investment, plus authorization to reallocate $600,000 from under-enrolled in-school tutoring, will allow Great Lakes Literacy Partners (GLLP) to scale a proven digital learning model across Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee. This will cut waitlists, raise General Educational Development (GED) and English as a Second Language (ESL) outcomes, and lower cost per learner. The action also authorizes fundraising to secure a $500,000 match from National Literacy Fund by March 31, 2026.
2) Purpose & Context Adult and family literacy, GED attainment, and digital skills are gating factors for low-wage workers in our three cities. From FY2024–FY2025, GLLP piloted blended instruction (online classes, in-person coaching) with device and hotspot lending to expand access and improve outcomes; the FY2026 plan scales what worked.
3) Key Findings - Scale and access: 3,280 learners enrolled in pilot cities (+38% vs. FY2023; n=3,280), reducing waitlists by 41% (from 1,120 to 660). - Learning outcomes: GED pass rate 72% in the pilot (n=614 testers) vs. 63% in matched comparison (n=402). ESL gains on Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment Systems (CASAS): 68% achieved level gains (n=1,940), 9 percentage points above baseline. - Equity: Largest improvements among Black learners (+13 points GED pass rate, n=318) and Latino learners (+11 points ESL gains, n=812). Household device access rose from 54% to 91%. - Cost and persistence: Cost per active learner $612 (pilot) vs. $840 (traditional). Six-month retention 74% (pilot) vs. 66% (comparison). - Employment and wages: Among learners with employment follow-up (n=1,998), 46% obtained a job within six months; median hourly wage rose from $13.80 to $16.10 (+$2.30).
Data Spotlight: Figures 4–5 show a 12-point retention advantage for digital learners between weeks 8–20 and document 1,860 devices and 1,240 hotspots lent, with 96% average hotspot uptime.
4) Recommendations - Priority 1 — Approve scale-up and internal shift. Action: Approve $1,100,000 Year 1, reallocate $600,000 from under-enrolled in-school tutoring to digital. Owner: Chief Program Officer. Timeline: 0–3 months. Resources: shift 6 FTE; procure 900 Chromebooks and 300 hotspots; align schedules for evening virtual classes and in-person coaching in all three cities. - Add digital navigators. Action: Hire 5 digital navigators (one per major neighborhood hub) to support onboarding, device lending, and tech troubleshooting. Owner: Regional Directors. Timeline: 0–3 months. Estimated cost: $350,000/year including benefits. - Integrate data systems. Action: Connect the learning management system (LMS) and case management platform for unified analytics and early-warning outreach. Owner: Director of Evaluation. Timeline: 3–6 months. Estimated cost: $120,000 (vendor and IT support). - Secure community access points. Action: Execute memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with libraries and workforce centers for co-located evening labs and Wi-Fi. Owner: Partnerships Director. Timeline: 0–6 months. Cost: minimal; primarily in-kind space. - Independent evaluation. Action: Commission a pre-registered evaluation to validate outcomes and inform city and donor reporting. Owner: Director of Evaluation. Timeline: 6–12 months. Estimated cost: $85,000.
5) Next Steps & Decision Asks - Board of Directors: Vote to approve the $1,100,000 Year 1 investment, authorize the $600,000 reallocation, and authorize fundraising for a $500,000 match by March 31, 2026 (by June 30, 2025). - Chief Program Officer: Launch procurement of 900 devices and 300 hotspots within 30 days of approval; reassign 6 FTE by August 1, 2025. - VP of Development: Execute National Literacy Fund challenge grant agreement within 15 days of approval; initiate corporate technology donor campaign by July 15, 2025. - Director of Evaluation: Issue RFP and select independent evaluator by August 31, 2025.
6) Risks & Limitations - Design: Quasi-experimental matched comparison (no random assignment); results may reflect unmeasured differences. Mitigation: Pre-registered evaluation in FY2026 and sensitivity checks. - Data completeness: Employment and wage outcomes are self-reported for 1,998 learners (about 61% of total). Mitigation: Add administrative wage verification where feasible and increase follow-up rates. - Technology variability: Connectivity quality varies by neighborhood despite 96% average hotspot uptime. Mitigation: Expand co-located labs and negotiate prioritized coverage with carriers. - Attrition: Measured at 6 months (74% retained); longer-term persistence beyond 12 months requires continued monitoring.
7) Resource Implications Year 1 requires $1,100,000 plus a $600,000 internal reallocation. Major costs: 5 digital navigators ($350,000), data integration ($120,000), evaluation ($85,000), devices/connectivity and instruction scaling. Tradeoff: reduce under-enrolled in-school tutoring sections to fund digital scale while maintaining core in-person options.
8) Data Sources & Methods Administrative data from FY2023–FY2025, matched comparison by city, age, and baseline level; intent-to-treat analyses. Learner survey (n=2,104; 64% response) and six-month employment/wage follow-up (n=1,998).
9) Contact & Next Reading Prepared by Jamal Carter, Director of Evaluation and Learning, May 28, 2025, jcarter@gllp.org | 216-555-0177. For city-by-city results, retention curves, and the cost model, see Figures 4–5 and Appendix B at https://gllp.org/research/2025-digital-expansion.
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 9.2/10)
This is an exceptionally strong executive summary that would serve a real Board of Directors well. It delivers a clear decision ask in the opening, provides rigorous data with proper context, and structures recommendations with actionable detail. The formal tone is pitch-perfect for board governance, and the document is genuinely skimmable while remaining comprehensive.
- • Decision ask is crystal clear in first 70 words with specific dollar amounts, timeline, and consequences—exactly what a board needs
- • Data presentation is exemplary: includes sample sizes, comparison groups, absolute numbers, percentage changes, and equity disaggregation throughout
- • Recommendations section is outstanding—each has clear owner by role, realistic timeline, specific cost estimate, and feasible scope for a 45-person organization
- • Risks & Limitations section is honest and sophisticated, acknowledging quasi-experimental design, self-reported wage data, and attrition while proposing concrete mitigations
- • Tone is consistently formal without being stiff—uses plain language, defines acronyms (GED, ESL, CASAS, LMS, MOU), avoids jargon, and maintains active voice
- • Resource Implications explicitly names the tradeoff (reducing under-enrolled tutoring), which demonstrates strategic thinking boards expect
- • Next Steps assigns specific actions to specific roles with dates, making governance follow-through straightforward
- • Formatting and structure exactly match the template requirements with appropriate word counts per section
- • Minor authenticity issue: the phrase 'gating factors' in Purpose & Context, while accurate, feels slightly academic for plain-language standard—'barriers' would be warmer
- • Data Spotlight could integrate one chart description more vividly (e.g., 'Figure 4 shows digital learners stay enrolled 12 percentage points longer between weeks 8–20, when traditional programs lose momentum')
- • The executive headline, while clear, packs three asks into one sentence; splitting into two sentences might improve scannability for time-pressed board members
Test Summary: Generated Nov 2, 2025 • 3 scenarios • 9 total outputs • Average quality score: 9/10 • Total validation cost: $0.3206