One major emerging trend in formal philanthropy over the past decade has been the increasing effort to quantify social return. As philanthropic dollars are fewer, and competition for contributed income grows more intense, it’s only natural for boards and big philanthropists to seek observable evidence that they’re making the right choices, and that the choices they continue to make are moving their missions forward.
As much as we might moan about bringing metrics to social causes and aesthetic endeavors, we might as well admit that they’ve long been among us. When a donor selects one organization over another, when a foundation funds a small set of those who apply, there are metrics involved. We’re just used to those metrics being squishy and silent, rather than involving math.
If you want a fast-track education in some of the more prevalent social return metrics, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation offers this summary of eight ”integrated cost approaches” already in use by major foundations — from standard cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness metrics to full-on ”social return on investment” tools. The report is from a year ago December, but still a great resource for the language, the intent, and the context of the various approaches defined.
If you can bear the intense intermingling of investment language with social purpose (if you can’t bear it, it might be time to learn to bear it), it’s well worth a reading.
And if I might offer a ninth approach to measuring social return on investment, what about adapting those pain-level indicator charts used in children’s hospitals? After you consider the full cost of each of your projects, measured against the probable returns in mission, in impact, in difference, which of the following will best describe your mood as you present the program results to your board?
I’d shoot for an average of 3.5. But you can pick your own target.
