Fireside Chat: Redefining Impact in Philanthropy: Are we measuring the right things right?

The fireside chat featured Christopher J.L. Murray, Jason Saul and moderator Henry Timms exploring how philanthropy can rethink impact measurement. They emphasised the need for predictive, standardised, and empowering approaches rather than solely relying on retrospective evaluations.

Saul began by outlining three reasons to care about measurement: to prove, to predict outcomes, and to learn what works and why. Timms asked about “measurement at its best” and Murray pointed to the Global Burden of Disease platform, emphasising the “power of simple description” through rigorous, peer-reviewed, and standardised data. This approach helps decision-makers understand the scale of problems and can lead to major shifts in focus, such as the recognition of worsening mental health in low- and middle-income countries in the late ‘90s. Saul contrasted philanthropy and sectors like finance and healthcare, where desired outcomes are often elucidated before investment, allowing for more impactful use of resources. 

On the challenges of social impact measurement, Saul pointed to the success of standardising measurements in carbon markets and suggested that philanthropy could benefit from a similar approach.  There need to be common taxonomies and standardised social impact measurements to reduce fragmentation in the sector, he said. Murray expanded on the importance of standardised definitions, robust data flows, and statistical methods in measuring impact. He also stressed that understanding whether a problem is improving or worsening is critical to evaluating program success and suggested that population-level measurements and programme-level interventions should be interconnected.

The burden of reporting on smaller non-profits was another key topic of discussion. Timms singled out the phenomenon where funders demand sophisticated reports with little feedback. Saul argued that non-profits should be empowered to define and own their outcomes, supported by appropriate evidence, rather than made to respond to exhaustive reporting demands. Both speakers called for greater collaboration and standardisation of reporting tools and infrastructure.

The panellists also discussed the role of data and technology in reshaping measurement, with Murray highlighting the potential of satellite data and AI to reduce the cost and complexity of manual measurements.

During Q&A, Murray emphasised the significance of communicating meaningful impact. Saul urged funders to reframe investments as purchasing outcomes to incentivise better impact measurement.

In conclusion, the session called for philanthropy to shift toward outcome-based investments, driven by standardised and predictive measurement frameworks.