The social sector is abuzz with language related to measuring results, measurable impact, and outcomes-based thinking these days, but what do these terms really mean for funders? 

The October 1 edition of the Chronicle of Philanthropy includes an opinion piece on the type of information that funders can and should disclose, including “progress in achieving the mission”, which is another way to consider their results or the social impact generated through their grantmaking.  The article points to some examples of the nation’s largest foundations that are communicating the “results” of their grantmaking in terms other than dollars and number of grantees.

As we at Mission Measurement think about what it means to be an outcomes-based funder, we typically look for the following characteristics:

1) Articulation of specific outcomes that the foundation aims to accomplish (e.g. the desired change in status, condition or behavior that the funder aims to bring about).

2) Language that signals a demonstrated interest and focus on both accountability and results (e.g. use of key terms including “measurable results”, “measuring impact” and or “tracking results”).

3) Clear Information about the funder’s measurement approach, whether at the grantee level, across a portfolio or foundation-wide measurement of results.

4) Demonstrated interest in communicating the actual results generated by grantmaking, not just the dollars granted.

Funders that have a common approach to measuring results across grantees or portfolios are often positioned to aggregate results across multiple grantees and the funders that articulate a set of foundation-wide outcomes and measures are positioned to consider the performance of the organization, as a whole.