Editor’s note: New contributor Brad Presner is Acumen Fund’s Metrics Manager. In this role, he manages the development of the Pulse social metrics platform and helps define Acumen Fund’s performance assessment strategy. He joined Acumen Fund in July, 2008, having worked closely with the Pulse team while an employee of Google.org. Brad holds a BS degree in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford University.
By Brad Presner
Last October, Brian Trelstad and I were fortunate enough to be invited to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation offices in Seattle. As a part of their own processes for engaging in thoughtful and actionable measurement, the Impact Planning and Improvement (IPI) Group brought together a set of leading thinkers to help inform their own thinking and potentially change their approach to measuring social impact at the Foundation.
Acumen Fund’s contribution to this meeting was a discussion of our BACO Methodology., an exercise whereby our Portfolio team compares the estimated social output of a potential investment we are considering with that of the best available charitable option that addresses the same issue. For us, this process helps us ascertain where philanthropic capital will be most effective – whether invested in the social entrepreneurs we seek to provide with patient capital or with an alternative charitable vehicle.
I think it’s safe to say that Brian and I got as much out of this meeting as we contributed. We were humbled to be in the room with peers such as Jed Emerson ofSROI fame and his former colleagues at REDF; Paul Brest of the Hewlett Foundation; Michael Weinstein from Robin Hood; Kat Rosqueta of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy, Sara Olsenof SVT Group, and others from banks, think tanks and consulting firms. The collection of thoughtful, engaged leaders was truly inspiring.
A little more than halfway through the meeting, Paul Brest made a point that all eight of the methodologies being discussed that day could be boiled down to a similar fundamental goal—calculating the expected return as a function of how you value the benefit of your program, weighted by probability of success, as a ratio of the cost of your program:
Expected Return = (Benefit X Probability of Success) / Cost
This keen observation underscores both the inherently simple goal—how much good came out of what we put in—and an abundantly complex set of questions that all eight of us in the room had endeavored to answer for ourselves – namely, how do you accurately estimate the benefit of your work?
I don’t think we came away with any definitive answers. In fact, the only thing we seemingly could agree on was that there was no single “right” answer (and that it may not even be desirable for there to be). But what this convening really highlighted is that this conversation is happening more and more. At conferences, in team meetings at Foundations, in phone calls among peers – we are seeing a convergence in the field around what we at Acumen like to think of as “cost effective cost effectiveness”. While our methods may never be the same and the metrics we track may differ, the conversations about how and why we seek to assess impact are happening with more frequency and greater depth. And while it will likely take us many more years to get there, we are light years ahead of a time not long ago when the conversations weren’t even happening.
We encourage you to take a look at the recently posted “Measuring and/or Estimating Social Value Creation Report” put together by Melinda Tuan and sponsored by the Gates Foundation. We are grateful to have been included in their process and hope that in some small way, we were able to contribute to our shared goal of advancing the field towards more cost effective cost effectiveness.
