The Harvard Fall 2017 Class’s evaluation found, with a 72% vote, that their $15,000 grant to Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) was a good decision with a good outcome because work was continued in line with their mission and the donation was allocated proportionately. 14% listed the grant as a good decision with a bad outcome, while another 14% said the grant was a mistake and they wished the outcomes could have been more quantifiable or that they had not chosen to donate to the general operating budget. FAMM works to eliminate mandatory sentencing laws and promote sentencing policies rooted in justice, fairness, proportionality, and respect for liberty and due process. The grant went towards FAMM’s general operating budget. While evaluators admitted it is impossible to track the exact outcome of a grant this size with the type of advocacy that FAMM takes part in, the organization’s transparency and track record was enough to satisfy them.