In the Stanford Social Innovation Review, Charles Conn of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation argues against metrics-driven philanthropy, arguing that this lowers the bar for social change by focusing foundations and their grantees on goals that can be achieved in the short term:

"A recent movement, sometimes called philanthrocapitalism or venture philanthropy, seeks to avoid complacency and lack of focus in foundation management by introducing rigorous success metrics and accountability practices. Many of these new-style foundations limit their scope to a few problem areas and, like corporations, intensely monitor outcome metrics, often with tight windows for review ... Although there is much talk at these foundations about making large, 'leveraged,' 'focused,' 'accountable,' and 'multigenerational' commitments to critical problems, the evidence is often at odds with the rhetoric. With their position and pay now tied to near-term metrics, foundation managers aim lower. They pick modest programs with highly constrained objectives that they know they can meet. Or they fund noncontroversial 'studies' instead of action. They add layers of bank-like process and control. With quarterly or semiannual hurdles for success, what program officer or foundation leader would choose to take on big, long-term, and risky objectives like contributing to lowering population growth or affecting climate change?"

Interesting points, especially when tied to the environment, but I'd love to hear from Mr. Conn or others of actual examples where "...with their position and pay now tied to near-term metrics, foundation managers aim lower." While "pay for performance" would seem to be a logical practice for venture philanthropists, I haven't heard of any who have actually gone this far.

Read the full article about whether metrics inhibit long-term thinking by Susan Herr at Stanford Social Innovation Review.