Measurement Matters: Using IMM to Anchor Impact Investing Work
Return on investment is front and center for nearly every investor. Financial returns are relatively straightforward. But when impact is a key component of your investment, how can you know if your capital created the kind of change that you and your investee envision?
As the saying goes, “what gets measured gets managed,” and that’s no different when it comes to impact.
Why We’re Embedding IMM from the Start
At ReHealth Collaborative (ReHealth), we’re building an impact investing strategy rooted in curiosity, humility, and accountability. As a small and growing funder, we know we won’t have all the answers on day one. But we are committed to developing criteria to evaluate whether we’re creating the impact we intend to.
To answer that, we’re embedding Impact Measurement and Management (IMM) into our work from the very beginning. The ReHealth board leadership sees this not only as a reporting requirement, but as a tool for learning, decision-making, and staying aligned with the communities we aim to support.
What IMM Means to Us
To us, IMM is about defining what impact means in context, co-creating goals with investees, and using real-time learning to shape how we show up as partners and stewards of capital.
Unlike traditional evaluation, which often happens after the fact, IMM is integrated into every stage of the investment process. It helps us to:
understand how our investees view their outcomes and impact
ask sharper questions during due diligence
set shared expectations with investees
track progress and reflect as we go, and
course-correct when things don’t go as planned
IMM strengthens our financial strategy too. It brings discipline to how we allocate funds, manage risk, and select investments that are mission-aligned and community-informed.
Over time, we expect that IMM will help ReHealth to avoid mission drift, build trust with our partners, and communicate clearly with future investors, investees, and stakeholders.
A Right-Sized Approach
We’re not interested in overburdening our partners with measurement for measurement’s sake. As a lean organization investing in impact-oriented organizations at various stages, ReHealth takes a right-sized approach, one that balances our needs and those of our investees.
That means that we expect IMM to look different depending on the size of the investment, the capacity of the organization, and the nature of the outcomes. It may include a few key indicators, narrative reflections, or streamlined feedback loops. In some cases, we may help organizations build measurement and evaluation capacity over time. In cases where it makes sense - if, for example, the data and analysis capabilities are in place - robust measurement may be preferable.
We intend to partner to develop necessary measurement tools and reporting rather than denying funding because a potential investee shows up without a fancy impact dashboard. IMM should be a tool for shared learning and not a gatekeeper to capital.
Why Start Early
Even as a new investor, we see real value in building these practices now. Embedding IMM early allows us to:
establish shared definitions of impact from the outset
ensure consistency across our portfolio
make better-informed investment decisions, and
avoid retrofitting systems or misalignments down the line
Laying out our IMM blueprint now also sends a signal to our partners: Impact matters to us, it matters first, and we’re here to learn alongside you.
Learning Thorough Active Listening
We’re not approaching this work as experts, but as learners committed to iteratively improving and growing with experience and feedback from our community. We know many in this field have navigated IMM in smart, creative ways.
We're inspired by models like Sonen Capital’s “Turning Impact Into Insight”, which champions an outcomes-first logic, IRIS-aligned metrics, and transparent dashboards that integrate real-world results across asset classes. And in learnings from Mission Investor’s Exchange IMM gatherings, where Madeline Moerk, MIE member experience coordinator, highlights field leaders like Mike McCreless’ (Impact Frontiers) 5 Dimensions of Impact, and Eliisa Frazier’s (LIIF) Impact-Risk-Profitability (IRP) Framework, that centers impact in everyday investment decisions and culture—not just reports.
If you’re a funder, investor, or practitioner with experiences to share, we’d love to hear from you about what’s worked and what hasn’t. What trade-offs have you encountered between financial return and measurable impact? Where has IMM helped and where has it gotten in the way?
We’re eager to hear your reflections. Let’s keep building and learning together.