SAMPLE DIAGNOSTIC — This report uses anonymized data to illustrate the structure and character of a Freehold portfolio diagnostic. Actual reports are generated for specific entities on request.

Sample Entity (Anonymized)

Portfolio Diagnostic


Generated: 2026-04-02
How to read this report
Strategic Overview frames who this entity is, where it operates, and the headline findings.
PCS measures structural complexity on a 0–100 scale with peer comparison.
Conflict Map shows where obligations overlap in time, type, or funding source.
Diagnostic Notes flag priority observations about portfolio structure.
Timeline Pressure shows what is due soon.
Detail sections provide ecological context, historical patterns, and reference data.
Operating ContextThis entity operates across 4 WRIAs, 11 active stream gauges, 33.8% riparian forest cover.

Match commitments represent 90% of active portfolio value, placing this entity in the upper range of the dataset for cost-sharing burden.

It is engaged in 4 Puget Sound NEP recovery activities spanning 8 Vital Signs.

It also operates 1 EPA-regulated facility. Chinook populations across 7 management units show 3 declining, 1 stable, 3 increasing over 9 years.

Across 47 completed RCO projects, 25 acres have been restored or conserved (25 acquired), in watersheds with 1,114 known fish passage barriers. Annual revenue has grown 18% over the 2011–2023 filing period. These barriers affect 9 salmonid species.

Watershed water quality data shows 4 active TMDL impairments (Bacteria, Dioxin). Within the benchmark dataset, this portfolio's structural complexity is at the 84th percentile. This picture is assembled from multiple public data sources that do not otherwise see each other. This entity's obligations span at least 4 distinct reporting systems, including RCO PRISM, federal award reporting, federal single audit, and PSP Action Agenda tracking.

Sample Entity (Anonymized) manages 13 active obligations totaling $10M, rated MODERATE complexity (PCS 65.0/100). The active portfolio is 5.8× annual revenue ($2M), indicating significant leverage relative to operating capacity. However, ⚠️ Funding concentration risk: 53% of the active portfolio flows through State Conservation Program. The next two sources are State Fish Passage Program (14%) and State Program (14%). ℹ️ Status reconciliation adjusted 2 obligations (2 marked active but past end date). The engine detected 7 structural conflicts, including overlapping same-type obligations, deadline clustering, high match burden. Established in 1995 (31 years of operations, Animal-Related). 12 open federal opportunities in programs this entity currently uses. 10d Single Audit history: material weakness noted; 1 finding across 2 audits (2017–2020). 10d State project portfolio: 62 RCO projects (47 completed), 25 acres delivered, clean compliance. 12d Strengths: proven state project delivery, active federal pipeline, 31-year operating history. Gaps: material weakness in audit history.Methodology: RPAF — Restoration Portfolio Analysis Framework. See Data Transparency for full methodology, factor definitions, and data sources.

Portfolio Complexity Score

A composite measure (0–100) of the structural demands of this portfolio, based on weighted factors including obligation count, funder diversity, match burden, and timeline density. Factor weights are being developed for the PNW restoration sector.

ℹ What am I looking at?
PCS Score (0–100)
A composite measure across 10 weighted factors. Higher scores indicate a more complex portfolio to manage. Tier thresholds: MINIMAL (0–19), LOW (20–44), MODERATE (45–74), HIGH (75–100).
Total Portfolio Value
The sum of all active obligation award amounts. This is the dollar baseline the complexity score is measured against.
Weighted Contribution
Each factor’s raw value is normalized to a 0–10 scale, then multiplied by its configured weight. The bar chart shows each factor’s share of the total PCS score.
Normalization Methods
Factors use three normalization methods: logarithmic scaling (compresses large values — the 15th obligation adds less complexity than the 3rd), linear scaling (direct proportion to a sector-calibrated maximum), and bell-curve scaling (balanced ratios score highest; extremes in either direction score lowest).
→ See the full PCS Factor Guide for all 10 factors
This portfolio is rated MODERATEPCS score range: 45–74. The score is a weighted composite of 10 portfolio factors.. The portfolio is significantly complex. Diverse funding sources, overlapping timelines, and multiple compliance frameworks require strong administrative capacity. Common for active organizations — manageable with adequate staffing and systems. The primary complexity driverThe factor with the highest weighted contribution to the overall PCS score. is Total Portfolio Value — the combined dollar value of all obligations in the portfolio. The primary drivers fall in the Capacity Pressure category, contributing 52% of the total score.Is the portfolio size driven by a few large awards, or many mid-sized obligations? The management implications differ significantly.
Top quartile
84th percentile
Above median (48.4)
Population tiers: LOW and MODERATE
Among enhancement groups in the dataset, the median PCS is 65.

Data Transparency

PCS Factor Guide

PCS factor weights are being developed for the PNW restoration sector, informed by practitioner input and iterative testing. The specific score reflects current calibration choices. Different reasonable calibrations would produce different scores. The framework’s value is in the structural picture it assembles — which factors are elevated, which conflict types are present, how sources interact — rather than in the specific number. PCS is best interpreted as a structured lens, not a precise measurement.

MODERATE -- The portfolio is significantly complex. Diverse funding sources, overlapping timelines, and multiple compliance frameworks require strong administrative capacity.
Factor Value What It Measures
Active Obligations15How many obligations this entity is actively managing at once. More concurrent obligations increase administrative complexity.
Total Portfolio Value10107903The combined dollar value of all obligations in the portfolio. Larger portfolios generally require more sophisticated financial management.
Unique Funding Sources6How many distinct funding programs support this portfolio. Each additional funding source brings its own reporting requirements and compliance rules.
Unique Awarding Agencies2How many different agencies have awarded obligations to this entity. Multiple agencies mean multiple sets of oversight relationships and audit expectations.
Funder Concentration (HHI)3,264.2Measures how concentrated funding is across sources. A high HHI indicates dependence on one or two funders, creating vulnerability if that funding is reduced or eliminated.
Planning vs. Restoration Balance0.357The balance between planning-phase and restoration-phase obligations. A mix of both types requires managing different timelines, deliverables, and compliance standards simultaneously.
Federal vs. State Balance0.067The balance between federal and state funding sources. Managing both federal and state compliance frameworks adds operational complexity.
Peak Concurrent Obligations14The highest number of obligations running at the same time. Concurrent obligations compete for staff time, field crew availability, and cash flow.
Average Duration (Months)51.1The average length of obligations in the portfolio. Longer obligations accumulate more reporting cycles and require sustained management attention.
Portfolio Velocity0.400What fraction of the portfolio is new (started within the last two years). A high velocity means the entity is onboarding many obligations simultaneously, increasing setup and reporting burden.
Portfolio-to-Revenue Ratio5.9Total portfolio value relative to the entity's annual revenue. Higher ratios indicate greater capacity strain — the entity is managing more obligation dollars per dollar of organizational revenue.
Match Burden Ratio0.867The proportion of the portfolio that requires matching funds from the entity. Higher match burdens create cash flow pressure and limit the entity's ability to take on new obligations.
Conflict Type Guide

Concurrent Restoration (detected)

Detects: Multiple restoration-phase obligations running at the same time.

Why it matters: Restoration work competes for field crews, equipment, and in-water work windows. Too many concurrent projects can stretch capacity and delay deliverables.

Planning–Restoration Overlap (detected)

Detects: A planning-phase obligation overlapping in time with a restoration-phase obligation in the same geographic area.

Why it matters: This is often normal (phased work), but can sometimes indicate scope conflict or coordination challenges between design and implementation teams.

High Match Burden (detected)

Detects: The total match commitment exceeds a significant share of annual revenue.

Why it matters: Match obligations require the entity to provide its own funds. When match commitments are large relative to revenue, cash flow risk increases and the ability to take on new awards is constrained.

End-Date Cluster (detected)

Detects: Multiple obligations ending within a narrow time window.

Why it matters: Clustered closeouts create reporting bottlenecks — final reports, financial reconciliations, and audits all compete for the same staff time.

Glossary
PCSPortfolio Complexity Score — a composite measure (0–100) of how structurally complex this entity's portfolio is to manage.
Match burdenThe percentage of active portfolio value that requires cost-sharing from the entity's own funds (donations, reserves, etc.).
HHIHerfindahl–Hirschman Index — a standard measure of funder concentration. Higher HHI means greater dependence on fewer sources. Reflects only publicly tracked obligation sources; additional revenue streams not captured in public records may reduce actual concentration.
Cross-source overlapWhen obligations from different funding sources (e.g., federal and state) overlap in time and scope, creating coordination demands invisible from either source alone.
End-date clusterWhen 3 or more obligation reporting deadlines fall within 90 days of each other, creating a reporting burden spike.
Concurrent typedWhen 3 or more obligations of the same type (e.g., all restoration projects) are active simultaneously.
WRIAWater Resource Inventory Area — Washington State's watershed boundary system. Each WRIA is a distinct drainage basin.
TMDLTotal Maximum Daily Load — a regulatory designation for water bodies that don't meet water quality standards, with limits on pollutant discharge.
NOR escapementNatural-Origin Return escapement — the count of wild-born (not hatchery) fish that return to spawn. The primary metric for Program health.
Data Provenance

Grant Data Sources

Source Records Retrieved
RCO ArcGIS482026-03-12
RCO PRISM182026-03-11, 2026-03-19
USASpending.gov62026-03-11

Entity & Enrichment Sources

Source Items Retrieved
ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer (entity financials)12026-03-11
SAM.gov (entity registration (queried, no UEI found))0
SAM.gov Assistance Listings (match/cost-sharing enrichment (queried, 0 matches))0
WA WRIA Crosswalk (geographic enrichment (queried, 0 matches))0
IRS BMF (entity classification/maturity enrichment)1
Grants.gov (funding landscape/pipeline)122026-03-22
Federal Audit Clearinghouse (compliance/audit enrichment)22026-03-22
Data Quality Notes
  • Geographic conflict detection covers 48 of ~70 obligations — geographic data unavailable for remainder