EIF 2024 Module 3

2024

IMPACT REPORT

MODULE 3

A PROMISING CASE FOR IMPACT

2024

MODULE 3 MODULE ONE

Sharing Our First Fund of Funds Impact Report

The Education Impact Fund (EIF) is an evergreen impact investment fund, backed

by ECMC Group, that invests patiently and flexibly toward two objectives: Capitalize impactful companies delivering outcomes aligned with our mission and deliver market-rate returns that can be reinvested to perpetuate that impact.

Since inception, we have invested directly into companies across stages— we have partnered with more than 30 companies to date, ranging from seed to growth stage. We also have a Fund of Funds (FoF) portfolio through which we invest in other mission-aligned fund managers.

A PROMISING CASE FOR IMPACT 2

In addition to scaling and diversifying our capital’s reach, our FoF portfolio provides a unique, data-driven view across an underlying portfolio of hundreds of companies. Leveraging this dataset, we are interested in understanding how rigorous impact measurement—the process used to measure and quantify the impact of an investment—correlates with better outcomes for learners and workers as well as with financial performance.

While we’ve historically analyzed fund managers’ self-reported impact metrics, 2025 marks the first year we collected comprehensive company-level impact data across our FoF investments, and we look forward to continuing this analysis in forthcoming years.

2024

MODULE 3 MODULE ONE

Fund of Funds

Education Impact Fund Portfolio

9 GPs managing 17 funds, comprised of 196 companies

Portfolio-Wide Highlights EIF direct and FoF portfolios

learners 18M underserved and workers served —10.3% growth YoY1

A PROMISING CASE FOR IMPACT 3

learners and 142M total workers served across all companies in our FoF portfolio

1 This is based on each company’s definition of “underserved” 2 Active portfolio, as of 12/1/2025

EIF Direct Portfolio2

2024

MODULE 3 MODULE ONE

Using Our Impact Framework to Assess the FoF and Direct Portfolios Reach

Reach

Efficacy

The size of the impact opportunity that a company is targeting, along with a company’s current and potential impact on underrepresented or marginalized populations.

Portfolio-Wide Metrics

65%

FoF Companies Aligned to ECMC Group’s Mission A PROMISING CASE FOR IMPACT 4

5.4M

Higher Ed Learners Reached

6.9M

K-12 Learners Reached

1.3M

Pell Grant Recipients

4.1M

3.1M

Underserved Workers

Frontline Workers

• Apprentices from low-income zip codes

• CNAs, home health aides

• Non-traditional job applicants

• Cashiers/sales associates

• Working students

• Childcare providers

• Restaurant staff

Scalability

2024

MODULE 3 MODULE ONE

Using Our Impact Framework to Assess the FoF and Direct Portfolios Reach

Efficacy

Efficacy

Scalability

The research and data points that evidence a company’s ability to deliver long-term outcomes aligned with its impact vision.

Portfolio-Wide Metrics

79%

Completion/Success Rate A PROMISING CASE FOR IMPACT

Tier 4

1

61%

Placement Rate

2

129% Wage Uplift3

Tier 3

16%

30%

Provides Rationale for Expecting Promising Evidence of Impact: Impact: Well-defined logic model Well-designed and implemented based on rigorous research correlational study

5 1 2

For 28 companies tracking this metric For 15 companies tracking this metric

3 4

For 8 companies tracking this metric 41% of companies were not tiered, which we classified as having “no rigor”

Learn more about the Tiers of Evidence, our approach and methodology on page 8.

Tier 2

Tier 1

Moderate Evidence of Impact: Well-designed and implemented quasi-experimental study

Strong Evidence of Impact: Well-designed and implemented experimental study4

8%

5%

2024

MODULE 3 MODULE ONE

Using Our Impact Framework to Assess the FoF and Direct Portfolios Scalability Scalability

Company-Specific Highlights

Reach

Efficacy

Scalability

A company’s ability to grow delivery of impact Scalability outcomes aligned to its vision, while also demonstrating an economically sustainable and scalable business model over time.

Portfolio-Wide Metrics

A PROMISING CASE FOR IMPACT 6

Reporting provided by our general partners (GPs) historically does not provide the level of detail to be able to aggregate scalability metrics across the portfolio. Our data collection this year has established a baseline for both the outcomes as well as the financial metrics needed to be able to assess portfolio-wide scalability, which we will report on in future reports.

Program for high school graduates to spend their first year of college studying abroad, earning college credits while engaging in experiential learning

Online educational platform that provides vocational training in Spanish in areas like entrepreneurship, healthcare and trades

A tool for university students to plan their classes and track their academic progress toward graduation

69%

17%

44%

Growth in top line while scaling percent of students who are college-ready

Improvement in EBITDA margin, while growing weekly active users (WAU) by 5% from 2023-2024

Growth in revenue while scaling number of student decisions supported by 2x

2024

MODULE 3 MODULE ONE

Early Signs That Impact Rigor Drives Financial Returns

And found compelling signals in the data:

We examined four critical questions:

A PROMISING CASE FOR IMPACT

1

Does evidence show that impact rigor correlates with stronger financial returns?

When comparing the highest rigor companies against those showing no rigor (i.e., companies that haven’t yet established a logic model), we find a clear pattern of outperformance.

2

How do our GPs’ impact measurement practices compare to industry standards and our internal framework?

Data shows companies demonstrating high-impact rigor outperform on financial outcomes across each category we examined.2

3

What concrete evidence demonstrates mission-aligned impact within each GP’s portfolio?1

4

How can we leverage these insights to enhance collaboration and deepen impact across both our FoF and Direct investments?

This data provides compelling signals that investing in impact rigor could translate to better returns. While we recognize this isn’t causal evidence, and the underlying portfolio is still maturing, these early signals portend a compelling case for deeper investment in impact outcomes measurement.

We’ll continue tracking these metrics as our dataset grows and the portfolio matures, but this data supports our working hypothesis that seasoned investments with stronger impact rigor will deliver more definitive impact outcomes and financial returns, further demonstrating the business case for impact. Read more about our business case for impact in Module 1 here.

7 1 2

The company-level impact data from our FoF and Direct portfolios gives us a unique and proprietary dataset to understand further how more robust, rigorous impact data connects with stronger financial outcomes.

T he Education Impact Fund team collects and analyzes this evidence, but this data is proprietary and not intended for public distribution Even when controlling for investment hold period, stage of company and revenue growth (see additional data support on page 10)

2024

MODULE 3 MODULE ONE

Our Approach and Methodology To evaluate the impact measurement rigor of our underlying portfolio, we developed a framework that was inspired by principles included in the Every Student Succeeds Act’s (ESSA) Tiers of Evidence. While typically applied within a K-12 context, the ESSA tiered evidence framework is simply a tiered assessment of measurement approach, rigor and evidence base, and can also be utilized more broadly—including within higher education and workforce development contexts.​

TIER 4 A PROMISING CASE FOR IMPACT 8

TIER 3

TIER 2

Provides Rationale for Expecting Impact:

Promising Evidence of Impact:

Moderate Evidence of Impact:

Strong Evidence of Impact:

TIER 1

Well-defined logic model based on rigorous research

Well-designed and implemented correlational study, statistically controls for selection bias

Well-designed and implemented quasiexperimental study

Well-designed and implemented experimental study

2024

MODULE 3 MODULE ONE

It is important to note that we are using these tiers as a heuristic for assessing impact rigor in a relatively standard and efficiency way across our portfolio. We are not suggesting that every company can or should aspire to conduct a randomized control trial (RCT). Ultimately, our thesis is that companies need to measure the impact of the Metrics That Matter, but do so with rigor. This can be accomplished in multiple ways and may or may not involve something like an RCT.

Our analysis examines companies with higher-impact measurement rigor (Tiers 1-3) across three key dimensions:

Working with our GPs to apply this framework to their underlying portfolio companies, as well as our own, we created a portfolio-wide database that allow us to use a standardized methodology for comparing impact measurement rigor across different business models and sectors.

TIER 4 A PROMISING CASE FOR IMPACT 9

Hold period and average Multiple on Invested Capital (MOIC) Hold period and change in revenue growth Company stage and average MOIC

TIER 3

TIER 2

Provides Rationale for Expecting Impact:

Promising Evidence of Impact:

Moderate Evidence of Impact:

Strong Evidence of Impact:

TIER 1

Well-defined logic model based on rigorous research

Well-designed and implemented correlational study, statistically controls for selection bias

Well-designed and implemented quasiexperimental study

Well-designed and implemented experimental study

2024

MODULE 3 MODULE ONE

Impact x Financial Returns: A Deeper Dive on the Data

For companies with high levels of rigor (Tiers 1-3 in our framework), we see promising patterns—companies that have generated evidence and are rigorous in their impact measurement have higher Multiple on Invested Capital (MOIC) ratios and higher average revenue growth.

A PROMISING CASE FOR IMPACT 10

High Rigor

2.5X

MOIC x Hold Period

No Rigor

MOIC x Company Stage

High Rigor

2.5X

Avg +68% higher MOIC for high-rigor companies

250%

1.0X

1.0X

<1yr

1–3 years

3–5 years

5+ years

All Companies

0.0X

Revenue Growth x Hold Period

150%

0.5X

0.5X

High Rigor

Avg +50% higher revenue growth for high-rigor companies

350%

1.5X

1.0X

No Rigor 450%

Avg +37% higher 2.0X MOIC for high-rigor companies

2.0X

0.0X

Does evidence show that impact rigor correlates with stronger financial returns?

1

3.5X 3.0X

When examining the data by company stage, we again found similar trends— companies with higher rigor have higher average MOIC than those with no rigor.

This pattern was across every stage with Series B essentially flat.

We analyzed this data in multiple ways, accounting for hold period and found that companies with longer hold periods demonstrated a stronger relationship, with

Impact Rigor By No Rigor

a higher average MOIC. We also analyzed revenue growth across cohorts and found that companies that have generated evidence and maintain rigorous impact measurement have higher average revenue growth.

50% Buyout Pre-Seed

Total companies: 196, no rigor: n=45, 5+ years: n=30, 3-5 years: n=43, 1-3 years: n=53, <1 year: n=252

Seed

Series A

Series B

Series C

Series All C+ Companies

0 -50%

<1yr

1–3 years

3–5 years

5+ years

All Companies

2024

MODULE 3 MODULE ONE

Impact Measurement Assessment

FoF Average

EIF’s Scoring

Impact Framework Does the fund clearly explain how its investments lead to impact (e.g., theory of change or structured pillars)?

1.7

2

Data Collection Methodology Does the fund share how it collects, verifies and tracks impact data across its portfolio?

0.9

1

External Impact Metrics Does the fund report quantifiable, outcome-based metrics, and benchmark them against external standards?

0.9

1

Portfolio Input Do portfolio companies have a role in shaping or informing what gets measured and reported?

1.3

2

Cadence of Reporting Does the fund publish impact reports consistently (e.g., annually) with comparable data over time?

1.5

2

Partnerships Does the fund engage with third-party experts to strengthen its measurement practices?

1.1

Assessment Category FoF

A PROMISING CASE FOR IMPACT 11

Alongside our analysis of our GPs’ impact and returns data, we also evaluated their Impact Measurement and Management (IMM) practices. We believe that rigorous IMM holds organizations accountable to their stated impact goals and provides a transparent way to verify their claims. Our assessment focused on six categories; see page 14 for additional details on our rubric.

1

2

How do our GPs’ impact measurement practices compare to industry standards and our internal framework?

2024

MODULE 3 MODULE ONE

Driving Closer Collaboration and Meaningful Outcomes Looking across the FoF portfolio, outcomes measurement is inconsistent. Even Series A+ companies are still early in tracking outcomes that rigorously demonstrate efficacy of a product.

While leading metrics like Net Promoter Score and usage data are instructive, they are lacking in their ability to evidence both ROI and impact to companies, customers and investors. While difficult, collecting and measuring these metrics is possible and we believe this analysis signals compelling financial ROI to doing so as well.

A PROMISING CASE FOR IMPACT 12

There is real upside in building the systems to capture them and communicating progress to customers. Advancing outcomes‑level measurement is a 2026 priority for our team and direct portfolio.

4

How can we leverage these insights to enhance collaboration and deepen impact across both our FoF and Direct investments?

Why This Matters Clear outcomes build trust with customers, sharpen product focus and shorten sales cycles. We can help standardize definitions, reduce friction and support companies to identify and measure what matters.

Our Next Steps Q2 2026

2026

2027 and Beyond

Publish standardized target outcome recommendations and co-create measurement roadmaps with Tier 1 and 2 companies in the EIF portfolio to guide 2026 reporting.​

In 2025, we joined EdFirst, an evidence-focused organization comprising of mission-aligned investors, to accelerate our learning and approach to IMM. In 2026, we plan to benchmark outcomes across our portfolio, as well as evaluate a third-party partner to support our IMM approach.

Operate as a field leader in outcomes measurement and reporting, sharing playbooks and benchmarks with our GPs and the broader ecosystem.

Commitment We will report progress against these goals in our impact reporting to hold us accountable to our own IMM approach.

APPENDIX

2024

MODULE 3 MODULE ONE

A PROMISING CASE FOR IMPACT 14

Impact Measurement Assessment Rubric Criteria

Description

Foundational (0)

Structured (1)

Mature (2)

Impact Framework

Does the fund clearly explain how its investments lead to impact (e.g., theory of change or structured pillars)?

No public articulation of an impact strategy or logic model.

High-level impact goals shared (e.g., themes, pillars) but lacks structured theory of change.

Clearly defined impact strategy and measurement framework theory that maps investments to learner/worker outcomes.

Data Collection Methodology

Does the fund share how it collects, verifies and tracks impact data across its portfolio?

No information on how impact data is collected or validated.

Fund collects company-level data, but limited public transparency on consistency or validation of data.

Fund publishes its defined methodology or tool (e.g., surveys, dashboards, lifecycle tracking) with clear publicly available cadence and validation.

External Impact Metrics

Does the fund report quantifiable, outcome-based metrics, and benchmark them against external standards?

Reports metrics (e.g., number of learners served), but not benchmarked against standards.

Reports both outputs and outcomes across companies. Partial or no benchmarking for company metrics and outcomes.

Includes outcome-level metrics benchmarked against external references for all companies with relevant outcomes.

Portfolio Input

Do portfolio companies have a role in shaping or informing what gets measured and reported?

No evidence of portfolio companies shaping metrics or reporting.

Investee input is implied or informal (e.g., strong founder relationships).

Portfolio companies co-create or validate impact metrics or influence fund’s IMM strategy.

Cadence of Reporting

Does the fund publish impact reports consistently (e.g., annually) with comparable data over time?

No regular impact updates; no public reporting.

At least one impact report exists but no multi-year cadence.

Demonstrates consistent cadence (e.g., annual impact reporting with trends over time).

Partnerships

Does the fund engage with thirdparty experts to strengthen its measurement practices?

No external partnerships for impact validation or learning.

Collaborates with ecosystem actors (e.g., impact advisory councils, Impact Capital Managers).

Partners with recognized evaluators, researchers or third parties for impact validation or learning infrastructure (e.g., BlueMark).

Our team would love to discuss your insights and your solutions. educationimpactfund.org

Stay in Touch Our portfolio is impacting millions of learners who face barriers to success across the postsecondary and workforce landscape. Our investment thesis is driven by the opportunity to remove these barriers by supporting innovative, impact-oriented solutions to improve educational access and outcomes.

© 2025, ECMC Group. All rights reserved.

1225-01