Roll up a whole grant portfolio to your Theory of Change — aggregate outcomes across grantees, map each to a ToC outcome, and surface the coverage gaps no spreadsheet shows.
In short: To aggregate outcomes across a grant portfolio, roll the whole portfolio up to your Theory of Change: sum each grantee's contribution per ToC outcome, name the grantees driving each one, and surface the coverage gaps where no grantee reports. A portfolio rollup should map to your ToC outcomes, not to a spreadsheet of grant lines. Sopact Sense grades each outcome green, amber, or red so a foundation sees what's well-covered, what's mixed, and where the portfolio has a blind spot.
Start with the funder portfolio loaded as clean data with persistent contact IDs, so every contribution traces back to a grantee's reported outcome. Point the assistant at the dataset and have it read your Decision Brief first — the decision, audience, outcomes, indicators, and evidence standard.
You are the Sopact Sense Assistant working over the DEMO-06 · Funder Portfolio dataset (clean data + persistent contact IDs). Load my Decision Brief (decision, audience, outcomes, indicators, evidence standard) first, then wait for my task.
The prompt aggregates the portfolio and maps it to your ToC. Paste this verbatim:
Aggregate outcomes across portfolio [PORTFOLIO] and map to ToC outcomes [TOC_OUTCOMES]: contribution per outcome, coverage gaps, driving grantees. Grade green/amber/red.
The prompt works because of five elements: the dataset it aggregates over, the instruction to map to ToC outcomes, the demand to surface coverage gaps, the rule to mark no-data outcomes explicitly, and the call to grade green/amber/red so blind spots are visible.
Run it against the impact-fund portfolio demo:
Run on the Funder Portfolio dataset (DEMO-06) already loaded in Sopact Sense.
GRADE: green | mobility | well-covered; amber | health | mixed evidence; red | climate | coverage gap
The green outcome is mobility — well-covered, with several grantees contributing. The amber outcome is health, where some grantees report it and some don't, so the evidence is mixed. The red outcome is climate — a coverage gap with no grantee reporting against it at all.
Take the weakest outcome and close it with the one input that resolves it. Sense shows the before → after grade.
Take the lowest-graded element above and fix it using only what the program could realistically measure. Show the before → after grade and the single indicator/edit that moves it to green.
Turn the rollup into a report, then a link that opens with no login.
Create a 'missing & incomplete' report from this analysis in Sopact branding [or paste your website URL / brand guideline to apply your own]. List every element graded amber or red, what is missing, and the one input that fixes each. Lead with the decision this report informs.
Create a shareable link for this report and open it in a new tab.
Map to outcomes, not grant lines. A spreadsheet of grants tells you what you funded; a ToC rollup tells you what the portfolio achieved. Always aggregate to your outcomes so the report answers the strategic question.
Name the driving grantees. Knowing an outcome is well-covered isn't enough — name which grantees drive it, so you can protect that coverage when a grant ends.
A coverage gap is red, not absent. An outcome with no data isn't doing well or badly — it's invisible. Mark it red so a blind spot in the portfolio gets attention rather than silence.
Standardize the shared indicator. Mixed evidence usually means grantees measure the same outcome differently. Agree one shared indicator so contributions can actually be summed.
For the climate outcome with no coverage, propose one shared indicator the portfolio could add at intake to start closing the gap.
Foundations map each grantee's reported results to a shared set of Theory of Change outcomes, sum the contribution per outcome, and name the grantees driving each one. The key is rolling up to outcomes rather than grant lines, and explicitly marking outcomes with no data as coverage gaps so the portfolio's blind spots are visible.
A portfolio rollup to a Theory of Change aggregates every grantee's outcomes against the foundation's own outcome framework, showing contribution and coverage per outcome instead of a list of grants. It answers what the whole portfolio is achieving strategically, and where it leaves a ToC outcome uncovered.
A rollup is weak when it lists grants instead of mapping to outcomes, hides no-data outcomes instead of flagging them as coverage gaps, or sums inconsistent indicators. The fix is to map to ToC outcomes, mark gaps red, name the driving grantees, and standardize one shared indicator per outcome.
Open Sopact Sense, paste your program description, and put it to work.
Try in Sopact
