Missing Measurement, Misunderstanding Measurement?

  • Diana LeatEmail author


From the 1990s on there has been increasing pressure on foundations to measure their impact—or, perhaps more accurately, the impact of their grantees. Articles by Porter and Kramer (1999), and Letts, Ryan, and Grossman (1997), for example, put the impact of foundations under the spotlight.


Marin County Venture Philanthropy Camping Trip Demonstrable Impact Grantee Organisation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abramson, A., and J. Spann. 1998. Foundations: Exploring their unique roles and impacts in society. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Anheier, H.K., and D.C. Hammack (eds.). 2010. American foundations roles and contributions. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  3. Anheier, H.K., and D. Leat. 2006. Creative philanthropy. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Arnove, R., and N. Pinede. 2007. Revisiting the ‘big three’ foundations. Critical Sociology 33: 389–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernstein, A.R. 2011. Metric mania: The growing corporatization of US Philanthropy. Thought and action. The NEA Higher Education Journal Fall: 33–41.Google Scholar
  6. Brest, P. 2010. The power of theories of change. Stanford Social Innovation Review 8(2, Spring): 47–51.Google Scholar
  7. Buteau, E., and P. Buchanan. 2011. The state of foundation performance assessment: A survey of foundation CEO’s. Washington, DC: Center for Effective Philanthropy.Google Scholar
  8. Covington, S. 2005. Moving public policy to the right: The strategic philanthropy of conservative foundations. In Foundations for social change, ed. D.R. Faber and D. McCarthy, 89–114. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  9. DiMaggio, P.J. 2001. Measuring the impact of the nonprofit sector on society is probably impossible but possibly useful. In Measuring the impact of the nonprofit sector, ed. P. Flynn and V.A. Hodgkinson, 247–272. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Dowie, M. 2001. American foundations: An investigative history. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ebrahim, A., and V.K. Rangan. 2010. Putting the brakes on impact: A contingency framework for measuring social performance. Academy of Management Proceedings 2010.
  12. Ebrahim, A., and V.K. Rangan. 2014. What impact? A framework for measuring the scale and scope of social performance. California Management Review 56(3): 118–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fleishman, J. 2007. The foundation: A great American secret; How private wealth is changing the world. Cambridge, MA: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  14. Flynn, P., and V.A. Hodgkinson (eds.). 2001. Measuring the impact of the nonprofit sector. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Fowler, A. 1995. Assessing NGO performance: Difficulties, dilemmas and a way ahead. In Non governmental organisations – Performance and accountability, ed. M. Edwards and D. Hulme, 143–156. London: Save the Children and Earthscan.Google Scholar
  16. Freund, G. 1996. Narcissism and philanthropy. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  17. Frumkin, P. 2002. Inside venture philanthropy. The third sector in transition. Symposium March 6–7, 2002. Boston University, pp. 7–15.Google Scholar
  18. Harrow, J., and Jung, T. 2015. Debate: Thou shalt have impact, total impact - government involvement in philanthropic foundations’ decision-making. Public Money and Management (May): 176–178.Google Scholar
  19. Herman, R., and D. Renz. 1997. Multiple constituencies and the social construction of nonprofit effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 26: 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heydemann, S., and R. Kinsey. 2010. The state and international philanthropy: The contribution of American foundations 1919–1991. In American foundations roles and contributions, ed. H.K. Anheier and D.C. Hammack, 205–236. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  21. Hogwood, B.W., and L. Gunn. 1984. Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kovacs, P. 2011. The Gates Foundation and the future of US public schools. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Leat, D. 1999. British foundations: The organisation and management of grantmaking. H.K. Anheier, and S. Toepler (eds.), op cit, pp. 121–140.Google Scholar
  24. Leat, D. 2006. Grantmaking foundations and performance measurement: Playing pool? Public Policy and Administration 21(3): 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leat, D. 2014. The inventive foundation - Creating new ventures in Europe. London: Barrow Cadbury Trust, Paul Hamlyn Foundation, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.Google Scholar
  26. Letts, C.W., W. Ryan, and A. Grossman. 1997. Virtuous capital - What foundations can learn from venture capitalists. Harvard Business Review 75: 36–50.Google Scholar
  27. McGrath, R. 2011. On the pitfalls of superstitious learning. HBR Blog Network, Scholar
  28. Ostrower, F. 2004. Attitudes and practices concerning effective philanthropy. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy.Google Scholar
  29. Patrizzi, P., E.H. Thompson, J. Cottmay, and T. Beer. 2013. Eyes wide open: Learning as strategy under conditions of complexity and uncertainty. The Foundation Review 5(3): 7.Google Scholar
  30. Porter, M.E., and M.R. Kramer. 1999. Philanthropy’s new agenda: Creating value. Harvard Business Review 77(November/December): 121–131.Google Scholar
  31. Power, M. 1994. The audit explosion. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  32. Power, M. 2009. The theory of the audit explosion. In The Oxford handbook of public management, ed. E. Ferlie, L.E. Lynn, and C. Pollitt, 326–346. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Radin, B. 2006. Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Reich, R. 2013. Philanthropy and caring for the needs of strangers. Social Research 80(2): 517–538.Google Scholar
  35. Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. 2008. Philanthropy’s new passing gear: Mission related investing. New York: Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.Google Scholar
  36. Roelofs, J. 2004. Foundations and public policy: The mask of pluralism. Albany, New York: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  37. Schlesinger, M. 1998. Mismeasuring the consequences of ownership: External influences on the comparative performance of public, for-profit and private non-profit organizations. In Private action and the public good, ed. W.W. Powell and E.S. Clemens, 85–113. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Schramm, C. 2006–07. Law outside the market: The social utility of the private foundation. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 30: 356–415.Google Scholar
  39. Skloot, E. 2001. Slot machines, boat-building and the future of philanthropy, inaugural address to the Waldemar A. Nielsen issue in philanthropy series. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, October 5.Google Scholar
  40. Weaver, W. 1946. How do you do Dr X? RF 915 Pro -21A. New York: Rockefeller Archive Center.Google Scholar
  41. Weiss, C.H. 1987. Evaluation for decisions: Is anybody there? Does anybody care? Plenary address for meeting of the American evaluation Association, Boston, October 16.Google Scholar
  42. Wildavsky, A. 1987. Exchange versus grants: The Buck case as a struggle between equal opportunity and equal results. In Managers and donors: The Buck Trust case, 4–39. New York: Center for the Study of Philanthropy, City University of New York.Google Scholar
  43. Wooster, M.M. 2010. Great philanthropic mistakes 2nd edition. Washington, DC: Hudson Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cass Business School LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations