2009-10 Annual Report, THINK Together Inc

1

THINK Together Annual Report

2009 – 2010

Table of ContentsCEO’s Message .......................................page 2

Programs .......................................................... 6

Evaluation Outcomes ...................................... 8

Schools & Community Sites ........................... 9

Donors ............................................................ 12

Financials ........................................................ 14

Board of Directors .......................................... 16

2

Message from the CEO

The ImporTance of Scale

“While small may be beautiful, size matters when it

comes to having a substantial impact on society’s

pervasive problems. By leveraging economies of

scale and management talent, large nonprofits can

deliver services at lower cost. They can offer their

staff compensation and career opportunities. They

have greater capacity to conduct experiments, assess

innovations and share best practices across multiple

locations. In an effective (philanthropic capital) system,

innovative nonprofits with the best management and

social change agendas would grow in scale and scope

while less effective and efficient ones would diminish

and eventually disappear.”

Robert S. KaplanAllen S. GrossmanHarvard Business ReviewOctober, 2010

3

Message from the CEODear THINK Together Friends:

Over the last few years, THINK Together has grown very rapidly while at the same time delivering strong outcomes for its students. This has unleashed a variety of dynamics many of which are articulated succinctly in the quote on the facing page. With this report, we want to explore some of these dynamics but first, let’s take a quick look at the numbers:

• Revenue is up about 5% year-over-year to $42,150,532. Over the five-year period revenue is up fifteen-fold from $2.6 million.

• Students served were up 35% to more than 70,000. However, that is not an apples-to- apples comparison because we are offering different kinds of programs with differing amounts of dosage. On an apples-to-apples basis, the number of students attending our core afterschool program for 30 days or more was 31,138, up 16% year-over-year.

• Philanthropy was down about 7% putting pressure on the organization’s infrastructure which supports the rapid growth in students served.

• The academic gains by our students continued to strengthen. A UCI comparison group study showed that statistically significant gains were achieved by THINK Together students in both language arts and math. A second UCI study showed that students that received multiple treatments through the THINK Together Ecosystem, showed double the increase in gains when compared against students that attended only the after-school program. These findings were also statistically significant.

Where We are headedAfter-school and related out-of-school time programs comprise an almost $10 billion market in California alone. The field is characterized by smallish organizations providing for the most part mediocre programs. The challenge for all of us working in this field is to deliver high quality programs with very thin funding. As an example, in our core programs our school district partners receive $7.50 per student per day in funding (THINK receives 95% of that). The $7.50 is about 20% of the funding that the regular school day receives. Our programs operate between 20 and 22 hours per week (schools operate about 30 hours per week). So, we have 20% of the funds of the regular day and we have students about two-thirds of the time. Delivering quality given these economic constraints is very challenging.

That is why we have come to view after-school (from an economic perspective) as a high volume/low margin business. In a high volume/low margin environment, scale matters. Our vision is to build a world-class program department supported by best-in-class training and spread these costs over a large number of sites. From a mission perspective, we feel this is the best way to deliver consistently high quality programs for our students and families. We believe our programs are of higher quality today across more than 200 schools than they were when we were at 25 schools. And, we have the data to back that up.

In addition, the infrastructure being built to support after-school programs can be leveraged to deliver other programs that surround schools including Summer Learning Programs, Saturday Programs, Early Childhood Education, Parent Programs, and to build connections to Community Health Initiatives that support these same students and their families. We believe with this structure we can build what amounts to a replicable, scalable Community Schools model.

4

After a slower growth year in 2009-2010, THINK Together has resumed a faster growth rate in 2010-2011. We have added 50 new schools in the current year and are strengthening our capacity to add 100 or more new schools per year in the years to come. We also anticipate some consolidation as the field matures and are in various stages of merger discussions with several different organizations. By merging with other organizations, we believe we can become more financially efficient (and therefore stronger) and can take the best practices of the combined entities and share those best practices with more students, thereby serving our mission more effectively. This is being accomplished at a scale few other youth-serving organizations have attempted. Why We need prIvaTe phIlanThropyThe public funding that finances after-school programs was designed to be augmented by a 33% local match. Some of this comes through in-kind donations of facilities (25% of the 33%) and through the federal snack program. However, to really deliver quality, we need to raise cash match as well. The public funds pretty much finance the direct site expenses. That is just enough to warehouse students. But the quality enhancements that increase student performance are funded through philanthropy.

From a philanthropist’s perspective, this is a great investment. A relatively modest investment in program quality can be leveraged across the publicly funded distribution system. Only about 10% of California’s after-school programs raise any cash match. That is one reason why quality is often subpar. By taking over underperforming programs and upgrading them with the support of our strong (but not yet) world-class program department, we upgrade the quality of the services for more students. Investing in one large robust system therefore provides a better return on the philanthropic dollar than dividing up that same amount of money into smaller investments in weaker organizations.

One may ask, “What difference will my $100, $1,000, $10,000 or even $100,000 matter to an organization with a budget north of $40 million?” It’s a good question. The answer is a BIG difference! Here’s why: First, we privately fund our legacy community sites which have now sent over 200 kids to college and the first 50 or so have graduated and are doing amazing things. Second, we privately fund several pilot programs that provide the opportunities to incubate innovations we hope can be taken to scale when shown to be effective. Third, we privately fund much of our evaluation work which helps us to continually improve our programs and document their impact. Fourth, we privately fund policy work which we hope will help to break down silos and re-shape public funding streams so those dollars can be used more effectively. Finally, we privately fund the augmentations to our programs (like our STEM Initiative) that enable them to be that much richer for our students.

5

Thank youThank you to all of you, our partners that have helped us to become one of the fastest growing, most effective non-profit organizations in the U.S. We feel that we have only just begun. We believe we can build a statewide platform delivering high quality programs that surround our schools with learning. Many of the resources are already in place. It is often a matter of re-organizing them and leveraging them so that they can be put to greater use. It will take all of us working Together – schools, federal, state and local officials, businesses, foundations, and individuals – to enable us to Teach, Help, Inspire, and Nurture our Kids in such a way that California regains its leadership position in education. Education is the engine that drives the greatest innovation machine on the planet – the California private sector. Thank you for your continued investment in the fuel of that economic engine – the education of the next generation of innovators.

Sincerely,

Randy Barth Founder and CEO

6

ProgramsafTer-School programSCalifornia leads the nation in funding for daily comprehensive after-school programs. State funding (known as ASES) and California’s portion of federal funding (21st Century Community Learning Cen-ters and ASSETS) create an annual public investment of more than $700 million per year. These fund-ing streams provide the basis for financing after-school programs at more than 4,400 schools across the state.

THINK Together operated ASES and 21st Century funded programs at 192 schools across 17 districts in 2009-2010. In the 2010-2011 year we are currently operating at 230 schools across 20 districts.

In total, THINK Together served 69,001 students in after-school. This breaks down by county as: 43,033 Orange County, 16,548 Los Angeles County, 6,217 Riverside County, 13,410 San Bernardino County. In 2010-2011, we began serving students in San Diego County and expect to begin operating in Sacra-mento County this school year as well.

SaTurdayS and SummerOver the last two years THINK Together applied for and received $3.1 million in Supplemental 21st Century funding to serve schools in Azusa, Ontario and Santa Ana. This funding enables us to provide Saturday and Summer programs to more than 33,000 students. Saturdays and Summer are important opportunities for Extended Learning Time. Summer programs, in particular, are helpful in preventing summer learning loss and keeping students on track for performing at grade level.

SupplemenTal educaTIon ServIceSSupplemental Education Services is the small group tutoring program funded by federal Title I dollars at schools that have been designated as Program Improvement Schools under No Child Left Behind. THINK Together and Santa Ana Unified are a U.S. Department of Education National Demonstration Site to build alignment between SES, after-school and the regular school day. In 2009-2010, THINK Together served 537 students across six districts through the SES program.

early lITeracyTHINK Together is very focused on using out-of-school time resources to help close the achievement gap. Research shows that exposing low-income children ages 0-5 to more words and different kinds of questioning makes them more receptive when they begin reading in the early K-12 years. Fewer than half of low-income students have access to quality Early Childhood Education. We are running a pilot program in Santa Ana funded by the Orange County Children and Families Commission to build the capacity of parents to read to their children. We teach these parents researched-based strategies and supply them with books through a book bag exchange program that we augment called Raising a Reader.

In our inaugural year, we served more than 500 students and their parents. In the current year, we are also piloting another program with strong evidence called HABLA.

School age careSchool Age Care is the term used for child care programs (often licensed) serving students ages 5-12 years old before school, after school, during school breaks and in the summer. These programs pro-vide on-campus childcare for working parents. In more affluent communities, parents pay for these

7

Programsprograms. In low income communities, the state and federal government subsidize these programs. State and federal subsidies in California combined amounted to $1.2 billion last year. Together with parent fees, this is a more than $7 billion market in California.

These programs are often provided by organizations that are primarily preschool providers. The pro-grams often feel like preschool for older children. We think there is an opportunity to upgrade these programs and make them aligned and complementary with their schools. From the business perspec-tive, operating additional parent pay programs would diversify our revenue streams making THINK Together better able to sustain possible cuts in public funding. In 2009-2010, we either operated or managed in conjunction with schools 5 school age care programs. Over time, we expect to grow this segment of our organization significantly.

place-BaSed InITIaTIveSChildren living in poverty face many challenges inside and outside of school that combine to make it very challenging for them to reach their full potential. Therefore, it is important to build integrated systems of support to address the whole child and the family support system to counter-balance the effects of poverty. Schools sit in the center of most neighborhoods, and are a trusted resource for the families in most communities. However, schools have their hands full providing a high quality educa-tion between 8 and 2:30. So, strategies utilizing public/private partnerships with services co-located at schools seem to be a promising way to build these integrated support systems.

In New York City, the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ) has had some high-profile success with this sort of strategy. HCZ served as the inspiration for two place-based initiatives that THINK Together has be-come involved with. The first is the US Department of Education’s Promise Neighborhoods initiative. THINK Together serves as the lead agency in broad collaboration in Santa Ana pursuing this strategy. We are currently in the planning stage for a strategy that would provide integrated services from cradle-to-career in a neighborhood serving more than 8,000 students.

The second is a place-based health initiative led by The California Endowment (TCE) called Building Healthy Communities. TCE has targeted 14 communities across California and THINK Together is an integral part of the Santa Ana Building Healthy Communities initiative. These two initiatives have some overlap in both their geography and their objectives, providing a real opportunity to build this integrated services model. THINK Together was also an integral part of planning a Promise Neighbor-hood-type initiative in San Bernardino. Some important early work was done in that deeply troubled community before that project was side-tracked by some perceived turf issues between the Mayor’s office and the local school board. There is hope that this work will be resurrected at some future date.

8

Evaluation Outcomes2009-2010

Each year, THINK Together conducts extensive surveys of parents, students and principals and other stakeholders involved with our programs. Some highlights from this year’s surveys include:

• Over 80% of our principals indicated that they were satisfied or strongly satisfied with the quality of the academic program components in our program and found our staff to be professional and caring in their relationships with parents and students.

• Parents are overwhelmingly satisfied (97%) with the quality of the program in terms of the program helping their child to be in a safe place, do better in school and feel more confident.

• Notably, over 60% of parents report that the availability of the program has helped them keep a job, accept a job or continue their education.

While we are pleased that our program is meeting the expectations of our stakeholders, we also want evidence that we are accomplishing our mission by making a positive impact on academic outcomes for students. Therefore, we examine test scores annually, both internally and more recently, externally, as described below:

gaInS made In afTerSchool• In general, about one-third of our elementary students and one-fifth of our middle and high

school students moved up one performance level on the state standardized test scores in English Language Arts (ELA) and math from where they tested before they entered program; the percentages are about half of that when looking at students who moved from below proficient to the goal of proficient. When looking across years, movement between performance levels on the CSTs is greater for students who have participated for multiple years.

• In 2010, comparison group analyses conducted by the University of California, Irvine, found that test score gains in ELA and math were significant for students who attended THINK Together for two years within one of our largest, most urban school districts. The gains were more than double those made by non-participants in ELA and Math. These gains were especially notable in math; whereas non-participants actually saw mean test scores decrease over two years by almost 12 points; THINK Together participants’ scores rose by almost 15 points.

ImpacT of SupplemenTal educaTIonal ServIceS (SeS)Perhaps the most notable finding in the UCI comparison analysis was that the most significant gains were made among students who participated in layered programming that included small group tutoring (1:5) and one other program element: THINK SES and afterschool or THINK SES and supplemental programming, which included summer and weekends during the school year. These gains were double those made by students who participated in the after-school program alone.

9

Partners

loS angeleS counTy

azuSa unIfIed School dISTrIcT

Azusa High

Center Middle School

Dalton (Henry) Elementary

Ellington (Alice M.) Elementary

Foothill Middle School

Gladstone High

Gladstone St. Elementary

Hodge (Victor F.) Elementary

Lee (Charles H.) Elementary

Longfellow Elementary

Magnolia Elementary

Mountain View Elementary

Murray (Clifford D.) Elementary

Paramount Elementary

Powell (W. R.) Elementary

Slauson Intermediate

Valleydale Elementary

BaldWIn park unIfIed School dISTrIcT

Bursch Elementary

Central Elementary

De Anza Elementary

Elwin Elementary

Foster Elementary

Geddes Elementary

Heath Elementary

Kenmore Elementary

Pleasant View Elementary

Santa Fe Elementary

Tracy Elementary

Vineland Elementary

Walnut Elementary

BaSSeTT unIfIed School dISTrIcT

Edgewood Academy (Elem)

Julian (Don) Elementary

Sunkist Elementary

Torch Middle School

Vanwig (J. E.) Elementary

duarTe unIfIed School dISTrIcT

Andres Duarte Elementary

Beardslee Elementary

Maxwell Elementary

Northview Intermediate

Royal Oaks Elementary

Valley View Elementary

lITTle lake cITy School dISTrIcT

Cresson Elementary

Jersey Avenue Elementary

Lake Center Middle School

Lakeland Elementary

Lakeside Middle School

Orr (William W.) Elementary

Paddison Elementary

Studebaker Elementary

loS nIeToS School dISTrIcT

Aeolian Elementary

Los Nietos Middle School

Nelson Elementary

Rancho Santa Gertrudes Elementary

mounTaIn vIeW School dISTrIcT

Baker Elementary

Cogswell Elementary

La Primaria Elementary

Maxson Elementary

Miramonte Elementary

Monte Vista Elementary

Parkview Elementary

Payne Elementary

Twin Lakes Elementary

Voorhis Elementary

SouTh WhITTIer School dISTrIcT

Carmela Elementary

Graves (Richard L.) Middle School

Lake Marie Elementary

Loma Vista Elementary

Los Altos Elementary

McKibben (Howard J.) Elementary


Telechron Elementary

orange counTy

SanTa ana unIfIed School dISTrIcT

Adams Elementary

Carr Intermediate

Carver (George Washington) Elementary

Century High

Davis (Wallace E.) Elementary

Diamond Elementary

Edison Elementary

Esqueda (Manuel) Elementary

Franklin Elementary

Fremont (John C.) Elementary

Garfield Elementary

Harvey (Carl) Elementary

Heninger Elementary

THINK Together serves more than 70,000 at-risk students at 225+ sites in communities throughout Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.

Schools and Community Sites

10

Community Sites

Highland Learning Center

Highland Teen Center

Noah Teen Center

Shalimar Learning Center

Shalimar Teen Center

THINK Together CARE - Consulting Partnerships with:

THINK at St. Angela Merci

THINK at St. John’s

THINK at St. Norbert’s

THINK at Veeh

rIverSIde counTy

Jurupa unIfIed School dISTrIcT

Glen Avon Elementary

Granite Hill Elementary

Ina Arbuckle Elementary

Jurupa Middle School

Mira Loma Middle School

Mission Bell Elementary

Mission Middle School

Pacific Avenue Elementary

Pedley Elementary

Peralta Elementary

Rustic Lane Elementary

Stone Avenue Elementary

Sunnyslope Elementary

Troth Street Elementary

Van Buren Elementary

West Riverside Elementary

lake elSInore unIfIed School dISTrIcT

Brown (David A.) Middle School

Butterfield Elementary

Collier (William) Elementary

Elsinore Elementary

Elsinore Middle School

Lakeland Village Middle School

Machado Elementary

Railroad Canyon Elementary

Terra Cotta Middle School

Wildomar Elementary

Withrow Elementary

romoland unIfIed School dISTrIcT

Boulder Ridge Middle School

Harvest Valley Elementary

Romoland Elementary

THINK Together CARE - Consulting Partnerships with:

THINK at Mesa View

San BernardIno counTy

cucamonga School dISTrIcT

Cucamonga Elementary

Los Amigos Elementary

Rancho Cucamonga Middle

The Ontario Center

onTarIo-monTclaIr School dISTrIcT

Arroyo Elementary

Berlyn Elementary

Bon View Elementary

Buena Vista Elementary

Central Elementary

Corona Elementary

De Anza Middle School

Del Norte Elementary

Edison Elementary

Elderberry Elementary

Euclid Elementary

Hawthorne Elementary

Haynes (Richard) Elementary

Heroes Elementary

Hoover Elementary

Jackson (Andrew) Elementary

Jefferson (Thomas) Elementary

Kennedy (John F.) Elementary

King (Martin Luther, Jr.) Elementary

Lathrop Intermediate

Lincoln (Abraham) Elementary

Lowell (James Russell) Elementary

MacArthur (Douglas) Fundamental Institute

Madison Elementary

Martin (Glenn L.) Elementary

McFadden Intermediate

Mendez (Gonzalo Felicitas) Fundamental Intermediate

Monroe (James) Elementary


Muir (John) Fundamental Elementary

Pio Pico Elementary

Remington (Frederick) Elementary

Romero-Cruz (Lydia) Elementary

Roosevelt (Theodore) Elementary

Santiago Elementary

Sepulveda Elementary

Sierra Intermediate

Spurgeon Intermediate

Taft Elementary

Thorpe (Jim) Fundamental Elementary

Valley High

Villa (Raymond A.) Fundamental Intermediate

Walker (Adeline C.) Elementary

Washington Elementary

Willard Intermediate

Wilson Elementary

11

Lincoln Elementary

Mariposa Elementary

Oaks Middle School

Sultana Elementary

Vina Danks Middle School

Vineyard Elementary

Vista Grande Elementary

Wiltsey (Ray) Middle School

redlandS unIfIed School dISTrIcT

Clement Middle School

Cope Middle School

Franklin Elementary

Kingsbury Elementary

Lugonia Elementary

Moore Middle School

Victoria Elementary

San BernardIno cITy unIfIed School dISTrIcT

Chavez (Cesar E.) Middle School

Curtis Middle School

Del Vallejo Middle School

Golden Valley Middle School

Richardson Prep Middle School

Serrano Middle School

Shandin Hill Middle School

Warm Springs Elementary

Partners

12

Partners

foundaTIonSBNSF FoundationCalifornia Community FoundationCarMax FoundationCommunity Foundation of Western

NevadaThe Croul Family FoundationDraper Family FoundationDwight Stuart Youth FoundationEdward and Helen Shanbrom Family

FundFainbarg Family FoundationThe Green FoundationHenry L. Guenther FoundationHughes Schmidhauser Family FundKroger Co. FoundationLA84 FoundationMajestic Realty FoundationThe Marion Knott FoundationOrange County Community

FoundationPacific Life FoundationPLUS FoundationThe Rose Hills FoundationSinggod FoundationUeberroth Family FoundationUnion Pacific FoundationThe Wal-Mart FoundationWilldan Group of Companies

Foundation

organIzaTIonSAnaheim Ducks & Honda CenterAnonymousApollo ElectricBank of AmericaBrown Colonial MortuaryCharles Abbott Associates, Inc.Church of the MessiahFood Industries Sales Managers Club

of Los Angeles Inc.Ganahl Lumber CompanyGarrett Concrete Coring & Sawing,

Inc.Global ImpactHenkel of AmericaHindu Matiya Patidar Samaj Inc.IBM Employee Service CenterInnovate Partners, Inc.Irvine CompanyJamba JuiceK2 Demolition Co., Inc.

Latham & Watkins, LLPLaw & Mediation Office of Troy Roe,

Esq.Livingston Family FoundationMOMS Club of Southeast IrvineMOMS Club Tustin NorthNational Charity League, Inc.,

Newport ChapterNational Charity League, Orange Villa

Park ChapterThe Nikols CompanyThe O’Donnell Group, Inc.Orange County United WayPartners PantryPosterscope USARalphsRR Medical Services, Inc.Second Church of Christ Scientist,

Newport BeachSt. Andrews Presbyterian ChurchStater Bros. CharitiesStradling Yocca Carlson & RauthSurface Mount Technology

AssociationTenneyHarrison PRThe Prudential Foundation Matching

GiftsTrinity United Presbyterian ChurchUnited Way California Capital RegionUnited Way of Greater Los AngelesUnited Way Silicon ValleyUnited Way of the Inland ValleysUniversity of California, IrvineUniversity of PhoenixWomen of Vision

IndIvIdualSAbbott, MarkAbbott, SusanAdams, ZoeAlbonetti, JosephAlfieri, JosephAllen, Jon & KathrynAlvarez, ElizabethAnderson, DarrelAnderson, Sam and SusanAronoff-Sadacca, LeonaArtis, KimberlyBarkawi, JanetBarth, David and MarseillaBarth, KatieBarth, Randy and Mary

Bergman, James and JudyBerry-Cowen, KatieBlank, KathleenBlase, BobbiBlodgett, Kurt and MichelleBock, Larry and DianeBogh, MarkBombardier, SaraBraun-Lewis, KathyBren, Donald and BrigitteBroedlow, Theodore and ElizabethBrown, Bart and LaurieBrown, Greg and StaceyBrown, Roy and JoyceBryan, Vaughn and AnnBucci, DonnaBucci, Erin NicoleBudner, LawrenceBui, David and CherylCalderon, LupitaCampbell, JohnCano, MichelleCantú, CelesteCardoso, Norberto and EricaCarlson, Karen KayCasey, Chris and LynnCazares, Fernando and AliciaChristeson, Don and BonnieClark, Matthew and KathleenClaster, WilliamCoffee, Bill and Mary LynnContreras, LeticiaCrawford, KimDaley, Rod and NancyDaniher, Jr., Charles and MargaretDauderman, Jerry and BobbiDavis, DonnaDialynas, ChrisDiaz, MelissaDiaz, Miguel and MariaDobrenen, DianaDonahue, JoanDonaldson, David and LeighDorsey, MeganDyche, Jerry and KatherineFairborn, John and SharonFelix, JoshuaFeller, Frank and ShirleyFerris, JosephineFlorian, Luis and MonicaFox, George and NatalieFrench, Tony

KEY STRATEGIC PARTNERS

COMERICA BANK | THE IRVINE COMPANY | ST. JOSEPH HEALTH SYSTEM

PartnersPartnersDonors FY 2009 – 2010

Fuller, Jr., Winston and CarlitaGaeta, JesusGarcia, TrishaGartman, Laurel PenicheGerken, Andrew and CatharinaGleason, Fredrick and BettyGoodrich, LoriGranitto, ShellyGreene, HeatherGuggenheim, Daniel and SueHall, Richard and Elinor JaneHarrison, GloriaHarrison, NancyHayes II, KevinHeld, RickHermesch, AnitaHill, RobertHolmes, BillHoward, Glenn and JoyceHughes, Michael and Donna DavisInman, FranJackson, GaryJackson, Gordon and WilmaJaquess, JerryJenkins, Walter and LaurieJohnson, Archie and ErinJoshua Gonzalez and Maria AguilarKargenian, Robert and MichelleKato, Stacey and LeslieKatz, InaKelly, SaraKim, DavidKingston, AdrianaKingston, ChrisKiralla, John and JosephineKiralla, NickKiralla-Orr, GailKirschenbaum, Larry and MyraKiss, Robert and MarisaKozberg, Roger and JoanneKrejci, Rise LeeKuehl, Karl and NormaLaborde, BeatrizLambert, Mark and CarolLauer, LoisLee-Johnson, MonalisaLewis, Mike and KathyLeyden, Timothy and MargaretLinnert, CharlesLinnert, Ralph and AliceLoats, Norm and SaraLoper, MeghanLouchheim, Mark and Cathy

Lunde, Robert and PeggyMacias, Vanessa NicholeMagana, LupeMagdaleno, LawrenceManchester, ColleenMargolis, Jeff and DebbieMarshall, AlMay, BruceMc Whertor, JillMcClellan, RobertMcDermott, RodMetzler, MichaelMiedema, Henry and JanetMirando, LindaMiya, Kirk and KathyMooradian, AregnazMoore, Dwight and BarbaraMoore, Steve and MelindaMunoz, JayneMurillo, Julie AmandaMurphy, Pat and MicheleNelson, EricNguyen, KathyNichols, MichaelNussbaum, Marc and Besser, SherriO’Donnell, John and PatriciaOlsky, Martin & CathieOrnelas, EnedeliaOuellette, JosephPangan, ConradPaulsen, Scott and ElizabethPaulson, Theodore and SuzannePedroza, Martin and Cordova, EvelynPeters, James and BeverlyPetersen, LynnPettis, Alan Pham, QuangPichardo, AyddePollock, BeckyRamirez, SheriRayner, Ralph and EvaRecinos, MaritzaRehnborg, JoanRivera, MariaRoberts, William and BarbaraRobertson, PaulineRobinson, TanishaRobles, Gabriel and ArceliaRodriguez, CassandraRoss, Alan and LindaRudin, MurrayRutherford, Frank

Rutledge, Richard and Daruwala-Rutledge, TehnazSalata, PaulSalgado, KenSandoval, AstridSchoettinger, PaulSchutz, Andrew and ElisabethSelna, Mike and MarjaSewell, SandraShepard, BettyShimamoto, Alan and EllenShimoff, PaulSilberman, DonnSimon, John and Mary EllenSiperstein, Jerold and PhyllisSkorpanich, Mary AnneSlaughter, LizaSolano, PaulSomers, Maclyn and GerryStafford, RuthStanbridge, Ericand PollySucca, CynthiaTamaribuchi, SatTarbell, Donald and BetsyTaube, Robert and PennyTaylor, ReginaTemkin, Gary and JanetTenney, LarryThomsen, Bart and DeborahTipre, Karl and KatherineTirre, LorenzoTrujillo, SiriaUribe, MariaVaca, VeronicaValenzuela, Enrique and Valdez,GuadalupeValenzuela, ValerieVan Dyke, AdamVarner, Bruce and NancyVarner, SeanVillaescusa, Frank and LyVon Freymann, Ronald and JanetWang, Yuh Shin (Jackie)Wenke, William and JeanWilliams, TamikaWittenberg, DonaldWride, Douglas and GretchenWylde, Trent and Christy

13

14

Revenues & Expenses

Program Services

Fundraising

General & Administrative

Expenses 2009-2010

Program Services - State

Program Services - Federal

Program Services - In-Kind

Supplemental Education Services (K-12)

Philanthropy

Other

Revenue 2009-2010

21%

16%

2%7%

2%

52% 92%

2%6%

Revenues & Expenses 1998-2010

Revenue

Expense35 million

40 million

45 million

30 million

25 million

20 million

15 million

10 million

5 million

0

1998

-1999

1999

-2000

2000

-2001

2001

-2002

2002

-2003

2003

-2004

2004

-2005

2005

-2006

2006

-2007

**

2007

-2008

**

2008

-2009

**

2009

-2010

**

Program Services - State.............................. 22,261,931

Program Services - Federal.............................. 6,619,825

Program Services - In-Kind .............................. 9,073,427

Supplemental Education Services (K-12) ............ 779,582

Philanthropy.................................................... 3,045,464

Other .................................................................. 635,680

Year............................................Revenue .................. Expenses

1998-1999.................................. 552,410 .................... 430,125

1999-2000.................................. 812,809 .................... 740,556

2000-2001.................................. 983,850 .................... 928,198

2001-2002............................... 1,446,638 ................. 1,322,079

2002-2003 .............................. 1,763,308 ................. 1,818,653

2003-2004 .............................. 1,804,091................. 1,900,156

2004-2005 .............................. 2,590,996 ................. 2,651,140

2005-2006 .............................. 3,160,919 ................. 3,266,151

2006-2007 (a)........................ 19,231,847............... 18,989,339

2007-2008 (a)........................ 32,416,478 ................ 32,347,924

2008-2009 (a)........................ 41,431,176 ............... 41,240,326

2009-2010 (a) ........................ 42,415,909 ............... 42,150,532

(a) Revenue and Expense amounts include In-Kind contributions

Program Services ......................................... 38,982,982

Fundraising ...................................................... 676,683

General & Administrative............................... 2,490,867

Program Services

Fundraising


Expenses 2009-2010





Philanthropy

Other

Revenue 2009-2010

21%

16%

2%7%

2%

52% 92%

2%6%


Revenue

Expense35 million

40 million

45 million

30 million

25 million

20 million

15 million

10 million

5 million

0

1998

-1999

1999

-2000

2000

-2001

2001

-2002

2002

-2003

2003

-2004

2004

-2005

2005

-2006

2006

-2007

**

2007

-2008

**

2008

-2009

**

2009

-2010

**





Philanthropy.................................................... 3,045,464

Other .................................................................. 635,680


1998-1999.................................. 552,410 .................... 430,125

1999-2000.................................. 812,809 .................... 740,556

2000-2001.................................. 983,850 .................... 928,198

2001-2002............................... 1,446,638 ................. 1,322,079

2002-2003 .............................. 1,763,308 ................. 1,818,653

2003-2004 .............................. 1,804,091................. 1,900,156

2004-2005 .............................. 2,590,996 ................. 2,651,140

2005-2006 .............................. 3,160,919 ................. 3,266,151

2006-2007 (a)........................ 19,231,847............... 18,989,339

2007-2008 (a)........................ 32,416,478 ................ 32,347,924

2008-2009 (a)........................ 41,431,176 ............... 41,240,326

2009-2010 (a) ........................ 42,415,909 ............... 42,150,532



Fundraising ...................................................... 676,683


Program Services

Fundraising


Expenses 2009-2010





Philanthropy

Other

Revenue 2009-2010

21%

16%

2%7%

2%

52% 92%

2%6%


Revenue

Expense35 million

40 million

45 million

30 million

25 million

20 million

15 million

10 million

5 million

0

1998

-1999

1999

-2000

2000

-2001

2001

-2002

2002

-2003

2003

-2004

2004

-2005

2005

-2006

2006

-2007

**

2007

-2008

**

2008

-2009

**

2009

-2010

**





Philanthropy.................................................... 3,045,464

Other .................................................................. 635,680


1998-1999.................................. 552,410 .................... 430,125

1999-2000.................................. 812,809 .................... 740,556

2000-2001.................................. 983,850 .................... 928,198

2001-2002............................... 1,446,638 ................. 1,322,079

2002-2003 .............................. 1,763,308 ................. 1,818,653

2003-2004 .............................. 1,804,091................. 1,900,156

2004-2005 .............................. 2,590,996 ................. 2,651,140

2005-2006 .............................. 3,160,919 ................. 3,266,151

2006-2007 (a)........................ 19,231,847............... 18,989,339

2007-2008 (a)........................ 32,416,478 ................ 32,347,924

2008-2009 (a)........................ 41,431,176 ............... 41,240,326

2009-2010 (a) ........................ 42,415,909 ............... 42,150,532



Fundraising ...................................................... 676,683


Program Services

Fundraising


Expenses 2009-2010





Philanthropy

Other

Revenue 2009-2010

21%

16%

2%7%

2%

52% 92%

2%6%


Revenue

Expense35 million

40 million

45 million

30 million

25 million

20 million

15 million

10 million

5 million

0

1998

-1999

1999

-2000

2000

-2001

2001

-2002

2002

-2003

2003

-2004

2004

-2005

2005

-2006

2006

-2007

**

2007

-2008

**

2008

-2009

**

2009

-2010

**





Philanthropy.................................................... 3,045,464

Other .................................................................. 635,680


1998-1999.................................. 552,410 .................... 430,125

1999-2000.................................. 812,809 .................... 740,556

2000-2001.................................. 983,850 .................... 928,198

2001-2002............................... 1,446,638 ................. 1,322,079

2002-2003 .............................. 1,763,308 ................. 1,818,653

2003-2004 .............................. 1,804,091................. 1,900,156

2004-2005 .............................. 2,590,996 ................. 2,651,140

2005-2006 .............................. 3,160,919 ................. 3,266,151

2006-2007 (a)........................ 19,231,847............... 18,989,339

2007-2008 (a)........................ 32,416,478 ................ 32,347,924

2008-2009 (a)........................ 41,431,176 ............... 41,240,326

2009-2010 (a) ........................ 42,415,909 ............... 42,150,532



Fundraising ...................................................... 676,683


Program Services

Fundraising


Expenses 2009-2010





Philanthropy

Other

Revenue 2009-2010

21%

16%

2%7%

2%

52% 92%

2%6%


Revenue

Expense35 million

40 million

45 million

30 million

25 million

20 million

15 million

10 million

5 million

0

1998

-1999

1999

-2000

2000

-2001

2001

-2002

2002

-2003

2003

-2004

2004

-2005

2005

-2006

2006

-2007

**

2007

-2008

**

2008

-2009

**

2009

-2010

**





Philanthropy.................................................... 3,045,464

Other .................................................................. 635,680


1998-1999.................................. 552,410 .................... 430,125

1999-2000.................................. 812,809 .................... 740,556

2000-2001.................................. 983,850 .................... 928,198

2001-2002............................... 1,446,638 ................. 1,322,079

2002-2003 .............................. 1,763,308 ................. 1,818,653

2003-2004 .............................. 1,804,091................. 1,900,156

2004-2005 .............................. 2,590,996 ................. 2,651,140

2005-2006 .............................. 3,160,919 ................. 3,266,151

2006-2007 (a)........................ 19,231,847............... 18,989,339

2007-2008 (a)........................ 32,416,478 ................ 32,347,924

2008-2009 (a)........................ 41,431,176 ............... 41,240,326

2009-2010 (a) ........................ 42,415,909 ............... 42,150,532



Fundraising ...................................................... 676,683


Program Services

Fundraising


Expenses 2009-2010





Philanthropy

Other

Revenue 2009-2010

21%

16%

2%7%

2%

52% 92%

2%6%


Revenue

Expense35 million

40 million

45 million

30 million

25 million

20 million

15 million

10 million

5 million

0

1998

-1999

1999

-2000

2000

-2001

2001

-2002

2002

-2003

2003

-2004

2004

-2005

2005

-2006

2006

-2007

**

2007

-2008

**

2008

-2009

**

2009

-2010

**





Philanthropy.................................................... 3,045,464

Other .................................................................. 635,680


1998-1999.................................. 552,410 .................... 430,125

1999-2000.................................. 812,809 .................... 740,556

2000-2001.................................. 983,850 .................... 928,198

2001-2002............................... 1,446,638 ................. 1,322,079

2002-2003 .............................. 1,763,308 ................. 1,818,653

2003-2004 .............................. 1,804,091................. 1,900,156

2004-2005 .............................. 2,590,996 ................. 2,651,140

2005-2006 .............................. 3,160,919 ................. 3,266,151

2006-2007 (a)........................ 19,231,847............... 18,989,339

2007-2008 (a)........................ 32,416,478 ................ 32,347,924

2008-2009 (a)........................ 41,431,176 ............... 41,240,326

2009-2010 (a) ........................ 42,415,909 ............... 42,150,532



Fundraising ...................................................... 676,683


15

Statement of ActivitiesFinancials

Program Services

Fundraising


Expenses 2009-2010





Philanthropy

Other

Revenue 2009-2010

21%

16%

2%7%

2%

52% 92%

2%6%


Revenue

Expense35 million

40 million

45 million

30 million

25 million

20 million

15 million

10 million

5 million

0

1998

-1999

1999

-2000

2000

-2001

2001

-2002

2002

-2003

2003

-2004

2004

-2005

2005

-2006

2006

-2007

**

2007

-2008

**

2008

-2009

**

2009

-2010

**





Philanthropy.................................................... 3,045,464

Other .................................................................. 635,680


1998-1999.................................. 552,410 .................... 430,125

1999-2000.................................. 812,809 .................... 740,556

2000-2001.................................. 983,850 .................... 928,198

2001-2002............................... 1,446,638 ................. 1,322,079

2002-2003 .............................. 1,763,308 ................. 1,818,653

2003-2004 .............................. 1,804,091................. 1,900,156

2004-2005 .............................. 2,590,996 ................. 2,651,140

2005-2006 .............................. 3,160,919 ................. 3,266,151

2006-2007 (a)........................ 19,231,847............... 18,989,339

2007-2008 (a)........................ 32,416,478 ................ 32,347,924

2008-2009 (a)........................ 41,431,176 ............... 41,240,326

2009-2010 (a) ........................ 42,415,909 ............... 42,150,532



Fundraising ...................................................... 676,683


Program Services

Fundraising


Expenses 2009-2010





Philanthropy

Other

Revenue 2009-2010

21%

16%

2%7%

2%

52% 92%

2%6%


Revenue

Expense35 million

40 million

45 million

30 million

25 million

20 million

15 million

10 million

5 million

0

1998

-1999

1999

-2000

2000

-2001

2001

-2002

2002

-2003

2003

-2004

2004

-2005

2005

-2006

2006

-2007

**

2007

-2008

**

2008

-2009

**

2009

-2010

**





Philanthropy.................................................... 3,045,464

Other .................................................................. 635,680


1998-1999.................................. 552,410 .................... 430,125

1999-2000.................................. 812,809 .................... 740,556

2000-2001.................................. 983,850 .................... 928,198

2001-2002............................... 1,446,638 ................. 1,322,079

2002-2003 .............................. 1,763,308 ................. 1,818,653

2003-2004 .............................. 1,804,091................. 1,900,156

2004-2005 .............................. 2,590,996 ................. 2,651,140

2005-2006 .............................. 3,160,919 ................. 3,266,151

2006-2007 (a)........................ 19,231,847............... 18,989,339

2007-2008 (a)........................ 32,416,478 ................ 32,347,924

2008-2009 (a)........................ 41,431,176 ............... 41,240,326

2009-2010 (a) ........................ 42,415,909 ............... 42,150,532



Fundraising ...................................................... 676,683


Program Services

Fundraising


Expenses 2009-2010





Philanthropy

Other

Revenue 2009-2010

21%

16%

2%7%

2%

52% 92%

2%6%


Revenue

Expense35 million

40 million

45 million

30 million

25 million

20 million

15 million

10 million

5 million

0

1998

-1999

1999

-2000

2000

-2001

2001

-2002

2002

-2003

2003

-2004

2004

-2005

2005

-2006

2006

-2007

**

2007

-2008

**

2008

-2009

**

2009

-2010

**





Philanthropy.................................................... 3,045,464

Other .................................................................. 635,680


1998-1999.................................. 552,410 .................... 430,125

1999-2000.................................. 812,809 .................... 740,556

2000-2001.................................. 983,850 .................... 928,198

2001-2002............................... 1,446,638 ................. 1,322,079

2002-2003 .............................. 1,763,308 ................. 1,818,653

2003-2004 .............................. 1,804,091................. 1,900,156

2004-2005 .............................. 2,590,996 ................. 2,651,140

2005-2006 .............................. 3,160,919 ................. 3,266,151

2006-2007 (a)........................ 19,231,847............... 18,989,339

2007-2008 (a)........................ 32,416,478 ................ 32,347,924

2008-2009 (a)........................ 41,431,176 ............... 41,240,326

2009-2010 (a) ........................ 42,415,909 ............... 42,150,532



Fundraising ...................................................... 676,683


2009-2010 Revenues

ASES/21stCCLC (K-12)** ................................. 37,407,183


Early Childhood (0-5) ............................................ 548,000

School Aged Care (K-5) ........................................ 560,269

Philanthropy ....................................................... 3,045,464

Other ........................................................................ 75,411

Total Revenues ........................................................ 42,415,909

2009-2010 expenses

Program Services

ASES/21stCCLC** (K-12) ................................. 36,390,930


Early Childhood (0-5) ............................................ 505,807

School Aged Care (K-5) ........................................ 556,633

Community Sites (K-12) ....................................... 887,805

Total Program Services .......................................... 38,982,982

Fundraising .................................................................. 676,683

General & Administrative ........................................ 2,490,867

Total Expenses ................................................. 42,150,532

net Income ................................................................ 265,377

endIng net Assets ................................................. 913,310

** Includes recognition of In-Kind program services, such as volunteer time, and facility and snack costs contributed by school district partners.

tHInK togetHeR stAtement of ActIvItIes for fiscal Year ended June 30, 2010

THINKtogether.orgfacebook.com/THINKtogether

twitter.com/THINK_together

2100 E. Fourth Street, Suite 200, Santa Ana CA 92705

888.485.THINK

Partners

BoARd of dIRectoRs

Randy BarthFounder & CEO, THINK Together

Joseph AlbonettiFounder, Latinolandia USA

darrel AndersonPresident, (Ret.), Knott Anderson Enterprises

samuel AndersonRetired Pharmaceutical Executive

Leona Aronoff-sadaccaFounder, LBJ Management, LLC

mark BoghPresident, Bogh Construction

Kathy Braun-LewisRetired Executive, Western Digital

Brigitte BrenAttorney/Education Advocate

celeste cantúGeneral Manager, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority

mary Lynn coffeeAttorney at Law, Nossaman, LLP

tony frenchPhilanthropist

Kevin Hayes, IISr. Vice President - Southern California, Lincoln Property Company

glenn HowardAttorney & CPA

fran InmanSenior Vice President, Majestic Realty Co.

Rod mcdermottManaging Director, McDermott & Bull Executive Search

michael metzlerPresident & CEO, Greater Santa Ana Business Alliance

Jayne munozEnglish Teacher, Santa Ana Community College

eric nelsonVice President, Red Mountain Retail Group

Alan W. pettisPartner, Innovate Partners

Quang x. phamFounder & CEO, Lathian Health

Ken salgadoPartner, Moss Adams LLP

sat tamaribuchiEnvironmental Policy Consultant

Los AngeLes LeAdeRsHIp councIL

Brigitte BrenAttorney/Education Advocate

Jorge delgadoPresident, ValueSat LLC

senator martha escutiaAttorney (Ret.)

Lynda Boone fetterPrincipal, Samuelson & Fetter LLC

fran InmanSenior Vice President, Majestic Realty Co.

gilbert IveyChief Administrative Officer, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

Lupe valdezDirector of Public Affairs, Union Pacific Railroad

Alan ArkatovPresident, Changing.edu

InLAnd empIRe LeAdeRsHIp councIL

Leona Aronoff-sadaccaChair, IE Leadership CouncilFounder, LBJ Management, LLC

pete AguilarConsultant

carole BeswickPresident & CEO, Inland Action Inc.

mark BoghPresident, Bogh Construction Inc.

celeste cantúGeneral Manager, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority

Lois LauerOwner, Lois Lauer Realty

ellen Weisser(Ret.), Network Pharmaceuticals

oRAnge countY LeAdeRsHIp councIL

sam Anderson(Ret.) Pharmaceutical Executive

Bobbi daudermanCommunity Volunteer

Ranney draperChairman, Spring Creek Investors

michael KerrCEO, Bluestone Communities

marion KnottPhilanthropist

don moeConsultant

Judge frances muñoz(Ret.), Harbor Municipal Court

John o’donnellThe O’Donnell Group, Inc.

Bill podlichCo-Founder (Ret.), PIMCO Advisors

2009-2010 Board of Directors & Leadership Council

Documents

2009-10 Annual Report, THINK Together Inc