Skip to main content
    RealOutcomes
    Sign In
    Standards Document

    RealOutcomes Evaluation Framework

    Version 1.1

    Effective Date: February 1, 2026Last Updated: June 11, 2026

    Section 1: Purpose

    The RealOutcomes Evaluation Framework defines the methodology used to assess nonprofit organizations based on publicly observable transparency, outcomes maturity, and evidence strength.

    The framework is designed to provide capital allocators with structured, repeatable evaluation signals derived from publicly available information.

    This framework does not constitute a rating, endorsement, or certification.

    Section 2: Scope

    The framework evaluates publicly observable information across four documented layers:

    • •Watchdog Score — website crawl signals (Transparency, Outcomes Maturity, Evidence Strength)
    • •Accountability flags (FWA) — IRS master-file status and Form 990 ratio thresholds (separate from the score formula)
    • •Verified source context — FEC, USASpending, LDA, state charity, 990 XML grants/lobbying with provenance citations
    • •AI investigation (optional) — Promise vs Reality cross-check; supplementary to the deterministic score

    Primary datasets include the IRS Exempt Organizations Business Master File (~1.5M organizations), IRS Auto-Revocation List, Form 990 XML, ProPublica summaries, FEC, USASpending, Senate LDA, state charity registries, and automated website crawls.

    The framework does not evaluate internal operations, unpublished data, or confidential documents. Verified API facts are cited on org profiles but only affect Watchdog dimension scores when a matching signal rule exists in the versioned scoring config.

    Section 3: Dimensions

    3.1 Transparency (30%)

    Evaluates the public availability of program descriptions, leadership and governance information, financial disclosures, and annual or impact reports.

    Transparency does not imply effectiveness.

    Observable Signals

    • •Mission statement is clearly stated
    • •Programs and services are publicly described
    • •Leadership and team information is listed
    • •Contact information is available
    • •Annual or impact reports are accessible
    • •Financial documents (Form 990 or audit) are accessible
    • •Governance details are visible
    • •Recent updates indicate active operations
    • •Donation pathway and purpose are clear

    3.2 Outcomes Maturity (40%)

    Evaluates whether an organization defines measurable outcomes, distinguishes outputs from outcomes, states target populations, describes measurement cadence, and identifies baseline metrics.

    This dimension assesses structural clarity, not outcome success.

    Observable Signals

    • •Outcomes are distinguished from outputs
    • •Target population is clearly defined
    • •Specific outcomes are explicitly stated
    • •Measurable indicators (KPIs) are provided
    • •Baseline or starting point is described
    • •Time horizon for outcomes is stated
    • •Measurement cadence is described
    • •Logic model or theory of change is present
    • •Limitations or learning are acknowledged
    • •Longitudinal tracking is implied

    3.3 Evidence Strength (30%)

    Evaluates whether outcome claims are supported by published reports, described methodology, data specificity, and independent evaluation references.

    Evidence strength reflects verifiability.

    Observable Signals

    • •Evidence artifacts (reports or PDFs) are published
    • •Measurement method is described
    • •Data is presented with specificity
    • •Independent evaluation is referenced
    • •Metric definitions are clear
    • •Attribution or counterfactual care is present
    • •Method appendix or data link is available
    • •Claims appear internally consistent
    • •No obvious inflation patterns detected

    Section 4: Scoring

    Each dimension is scored on a 0–100 scale using weighted observable signals.

    The overall score is calculated:

    Overall = (0.30 × Transparency) + (0.40 × Outcomes Maturity) + (0.30 × Evidence Strength)

    Scores reflect publicly observable signals only.

    Section 5: Versioning

    All scoring logic is versioned.

    Organizations may experience score changes due to:

    • •Website updates
    • •New published materials
    • •IRS status changes
    • •Framework updates

    Score history is preserved.

    Section 6: Disputes and Corrections

    Organizations may submit corrections or supporting documentation through the dispute process.

    All revisions are logged.

    Subscription status does not influence scoring.

    Section 7: Limitations

    The framework does not:

    • •Assess internal governance practices not publicly disclosed
    • •Guarantee accuracy of self-published data
    • •Evaluate mission alignment or social value

    The framework evaluates transparency and observable structure, not moral merit.