Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article reviews changes in the accountability landscape that have occurred for foundations in recent years and several precedents for foundation performance assessment. The authors then present a model of portfolio assessment that is used for organizational accountability and learning. This model, which was piloted in 2002 and 2003 for the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco (MPAAT) and is in continuing use today, consists of a report card system based on an organizational logic model and the intended intermediary outcomes of MPAAT’s funding. The model is conducted by an external oversight evaluator and results in aggregated performance measures and findings that are publicly disseminated on an annual basis. This approach to portfolio assessment may be especially relevant for smaller foundations, public trusts, community foundations, health care conversions, government agencies, and other organizations that disburse grants in politically charged fields, such as reproductive rights, the environment, and health policy.

Keywords

foundation performance assessment foundation accountability foundation effectiveness portfolio assessment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bickel, W. E. , Awsumb Nelson, C. , & Millett, R. (200., March/April). The civic mandate to learn. Foundation News & Commentary, 44, 43-46.

Center for Effective Philanthropy . (2002a). Indicators of effectiveness: Understanding and improving foundation performance. Available from www.effectivephilanthropy.org

Center for Effective Philanthropy . (2002b). Towards a common language: Listening to foundation CEOs and other experts talk about performance measurement in philanthropy. Available from www.effectivephilanthropy.org

Center for Effective Philanthropy . (2003). Assessing foundation performance: Current practices, future possibilities. Available from www.effectivephilanthropy.org

Center for Effective Philanthropy . (2004). Assessing performance at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: A case study. Available from www.effectivephilanthropy.org

Chelimsky, E. (2001). What evaluation could do to support foundations: A framework with nine component parts. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 13-28.

Easterly, D. , & Csuti, N. B. (1999). Using evaluation to improve grant making: What’s GOOD for the goose is good for the gander. Denver: The Colorado Trust.

Foundation Center . (2002). Types of support awarded by foundations, circa 2000. Retrieved from http://fdncenter.org/fc_stats/pdf/07_fund_tos/2000/15_00.pdf

McNellis, R. H. , & Bickel, W. E. (1996). Building formal knowledge bases: Understanding evaluation use in the foundation community. Evaluation Practice, 17(1), 19-41.

10.

Nonprofit Sector Strategy Group . (2002). Philanthropy: Foundation accountability and effectiveness. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

11.

Patrizi, P. , & McMullan, B. (1998). Evaluation in foundations: The unrealized potential. Unpublished research paper commissioned by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation Evaluation Unit.

12.

Porter, M. E. , & Kramer, M. R. (1999, November-December). Philanthropy’s new agenda: Creating value. Harvard Business Review, pp. 121-130.

13.

Schmitz, C. C. (2005). The 2005 annual report card review. Minneapolis, MN: Professional Evaluation Services.

14.

Wisely, D. S. (2002). Parting thoughts on foundation evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 159-164.

15.

Worthen, B. R. , & Schmitz, C. C. (1997). Conceptual challenges confronting cluster evaluation. Evaluation: The International Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice, 3(3), 300-319.

Report Carding

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References