Finding Alignment for Impact: Reflections from a Mission Investors Exchange Convening
I recently had the chance to join a gathering hosted by Mission Investors Exchange, in partnership with the Colorado Health Foundation, that brought together impact leaders from foundations doing impact investing. The focus was clear: how can foundations better integrate impact measurement and management (IMM) into the way they invest?
What struck me initially wasn’t the technical details of frameworks or metrics—it was the questions that surfaced in the room.
- What do our stakeholders truly care about - and how do we incorporate those elements across all our capital allocation activities?
- What roles does impact measurement play in a foundation that is leaning into a trust-based philanthropic model?
- When impact investments generate returns, who decides how those dollars are reallocated?
- How do we educate teams that impact investments are simply another tool (similar to grantmaking) to achieve impact goals, with their own set of advantages and disadvantages?
These questions reinforced that IMM is as much about alignment and values as it is about data.
Photograph by Elizabeth Carpio, Communications Director at the Colorado Health Foundation
One example that was shared and stuck with me was from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. They shared how they’re revising their impact approach to include over a dozen specific data points—metrics designed to clarify how their investments create change. It was a solid reminder that real progress doesn’t come from tracking everything under the sun, but from choosing the right things to measure from the outset.
At the same time, I saw how challenging alignment can be inside a foundation. Program officers and investment staff don’t always speak the same language. For example, some teams lean on IMM, others on Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL). The concept of risk is another key obstacle. Some teams have clear understandings of how they want to assess (and invest) to account for both impact risk and financial risk. Other teams are still exploring how risk should be assessed across their portfolio and how to prioritize new risk considerations. And it’s not only about language—sometimes it’s about power: who “owns” the money when it comes back? These tensions are real, but so are the opportunities if we can bridge the gaps.
Another theme that surfaced was collaboration. More and more, foundations are realizing that impact measurement can’t happen in silos. Partnerships - across teams, across departments, even across institutions - are becoming the norm. That felt hopeful to me. It suggested we’re moving toward shared learning rather than isolated reporting.
Perhaps my biggest takeaway, though, was this: trust and learning don’t need to be in opposition. Some foundations lean toward a trust-based approach with grantees and investees, while others focus heavily on data and insights. But in that room, it became clear to me that the two can reinforce one another.
Walking away from the convening, I kept coming back to one thought: impact isn’t just about what we track—it’s about what we choose to value, together. If we can find a shared language, aim at the right bullseyes, and commit to a true north star, we’ll not only measure better—we’ll make better decisions about where - and HOW - our dollars can do the most good.
