Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) have become indispensable features in the practice of smart and accountable philanthropy. With the IRS’ recent release of foundations’ 990-PF tax returns as machine-readable data, we may be on the cusp of a new level of public scrutiny of the practices of organized philanthropy in the U.S.
Particularly given the recent astronomical growth of foundation assets, there should be considerable interest in probing the data to get a better sense of what “return” the country is receiving in return for their tax-exempt status.
At this point, however, the answer to that question will continue to be influenced more by personal opinion than by the data itself. While foundations may have kept records on the number and size of grants they have approved, they have historically fallen short in assessing the actual impact of those grants. The outcomes of many grants are relatively easy to measure, but for funders who aspire to promote systems-level change over time, relevant metrics remain elusive.
Clearly, it’s far more difficult to chart and track the impact of a grant portfolio than it is to summarize the annual performance of a foundation’s investments. To the consternation of foundation trustees with a business background, there simply isn’t the social equivalent of a stock price or ROI [return on investment]. That’s not to say it hasn’t been tried: some of the largest foundations have invested millions of dollars in data systems and in external evaluations of their work, but one would be hard pressed to find more than a handful of them who would express unqualified satisfaction with the results.
Both government and private funders of international development work have long placed a priority on Measurement and Evaluation (M&E) systems as a mechanism to help ensure a culture of shared accountability. But, all too often, much time and effort is spent tabulating progress toward programmatic targets, while failing to gather critical information on why programs succeed or fail. Traditional M&E practices have increasingly come under fire from both donors and recipients for failing to answer the most important questions about the nuances of implementation.
Just as major international donors are devoting more attention to augmenting their M&E practices with an “L” (for Learning), U.S. foundations are also exploring ways in which they might better incorporate learning and reflective practice into their organizational cultures. No matter how elaborate or sophisticated the philanthropic data systems, if foundations are not using that data to meaningfully assess their progress or to make important course corrections, they are falling short of their potential as learning organizations.
While a good deal of informal learning typically takes place within foundations at the Program Officer level, it is not often captured or shared in the form of knowledge that could benefit the field at large. Some foundations have employed dedicated staff specifically to promote evaluation, but learning has typically been a secondary priority. With foundations growing in number and in assets, philanthropy has a field-wide imperative to find better ways to learn and share knowledge.
Each of the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation’s six strategic initiatives work with a third-party MEL Partner that helps to track outcomes of grant portfolios, analyze the shifting environments in which the Foundation does work, and understand the contribution the Foundation may be having in each respective field, while identifying gaps and opportunities for impact. Five years after the first of these MEL partnerships began, the Foundation is striving for greater clarity about what it means by “Learning,” both within and across its strategic initiatives, and to explore ways in which it might enhance and improve investment in MEL activities.
In December 2015, I helped to convene the Foundation’s first-ever “Summit” of all of its MEL Partners. To plan for that gathering, I conducted confidential interviews with all Program Staff and current MEL Partners in the form of an Appreciative Inquiry. I asked about what was working, what could be improved, and how the Summit might be used as an opportunity to foster cross-program communication and sharing about MEL. Out of those interviews, I also developed a set of “Draft Principles” for the MEL Partnerships to provide an initial frame for our conversation.
Not surprisingly, a strong consensus emerged from the Summit that the most effective MEL partnerships prioritize learning, though this by no means diminishes the need for a continued emphasis on rigorous Measurement and Evaluation practice. Following four rounds of “World Café” conversations, the following five themes emerged as issues for further consideration:
Learn more about the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation’s MEL efforts here.
As the Foundation looks toward future growth, this conversation will continue, and the Foundation plans to share progress in this space. If you’re engaged in a similar process, we’d love to hear from you. Please contact [email protected].