Chris CardonaLearning: The “Third Heat” of Impact Investing—and All Grantmaking?

By: Chris Cardona In: 2013 Annual Conference| Impact Investing| Philanthropy

9 Apr 2013

On the TV show 30 Rock, Alec Baldwin’s character is a GE/NBC executive in charge of “TV and microwave programming.” He has to turn around the show-within-a-show led by Tina Fey’s character and invent a new kind of oven. He comes up with a “trivection” oven that combines radiant, microwave, and convection heat, and hires for the show Tracy Morgan’s off-the-wall character, who declares on the air, “I am the third heat!!”

Impact investing may have discovered its third heat. At Monday’s lunch plenary, Sterling Speirn shared the Kellogg Foundation’s framework of assessing impact investment opportunities. In addition to a social return and a financial return, Kellogg expects a learning return. When it invested in Revolution Foods, a social enterprise that provides schools with healthy meals to serve to kids, it helped increase the number of meals provided, got a financial return of 28 percent in eight months, and learned what kinds of conditions need to be in place for an effective school partnership to flourish. The learning returns then get “reinvested” to inform Kellogg’s grant work on sustainable food systems.

What’s intriguing about this framework is that it applies not just to impact investing, but to all foundation investments: grants, loans, PRIs, etc. For all of them, you can ask three questions: What is our expected social return? What is our expected financial return? What is our expected learning return?

It just so happens that the expectation of a direct financial return on grants is negative. You don’t expect to get any of the money back as a funder. You expect it to be spent on what’s been agreed to and to achieve the results you want, but not to get the money back. It’s a fixed negative financial return, one you accept in exchange for the social returns.

But you can also get the third heat from grants: learning returns. What do effective practices look like in the field? What components of the programs you support generate the direct outcomes that most interest the organization and you? What is the state of the field? How well is the community engaged in the programs and organizations you’re supporting? Ideally, these learning goals flow directly from the impact goals you’ve set as an organization. Learning returns inform social returns, and vice versa.

Do you think explicitly about what your expected learning returns are from your grants? Would you structure, monitor, or evaluate your grants differently if you asked of each one, “What is our learning return?”

Chris Cardona is associate director of philanthropy at TCC Group. He blogs about philanthropy and democracy at cardonac.net.

Comment Form


Welcome to RE: Philanthropy! In this blog, guest and Council bloggers share ideas and insights on the most pressing issues in philanthropy. If you want to contribute, please contact webteam@cof.org.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Council on Foundations.

Contributors

Javier Alberto Soto
Terry Kaelber
Kevin Murphy
Sandie Palomo-Gonzalez
Zeke Spier
John Porter
Mary Galeti
Sara Watson
Valerie Batts
Elizabeth Douglass
Ophelia Basgal
Michael Bzdak
Ed Miller
Timothy P. Silard
Ron Ancrum
Kay Guinane
Daniel Mansoor
Bruce Trachtenberg
Mayur Patel
Nancy Henry
David Styers
Judy Sjostedt
Patrick Gaston
Audrey Jacobs
Michelle Kalina
Jim Canales
Andrew Ho
Rachel Leon
Steve Gunderson
Peter Berliner
Rotary International
Sam Stern
Eileen Speaker
Mae Hong
James Head
Kathy Merchant
Chauncy Lennon
Laurel Lee-Alexander
Jessica Bearman
Jeff Pickering and Susanne Norgard
Richard Sussman
Mindie Reule
David Etzwiler
R. Christine Hershey
Rich Westfall
Susan Beaudry
Jennifer Ford Reedy
Ken Sternad
Michelle Byrd
Deidre Lind