Strategic philanthropy has always had its critics, and Paul Brest does an eloquent job of refuting the most common objections. But I think something different is going on. It is hard to imagine how anyone who wants to achieve a goal—whether through philanthropy or any other human endeavor—can object to Brest’s basic framework: defining clear objectives, selecting the most promising evidence-based strategies, and monitoring results in order to course correct. So why the persistent resistance?

The real objection, I think, lies in different understandings of a “goal” and a “strategy.”

Brest assumes that the goal of philanthropy is social impact, but that is only sometimes true. Philanthropy encompasses multiple motivations. My very first article on philanthropy nearly 20 years ago cited three different motivations for giving: communal obligation, relationships, and the desire to achieve a specific goal.¹ The first leads us to support organizations to which we are connected—schools, churches, communities, clubs, civil society, and the like. We give out of obligation and gratitude, and expect no change in the world as a result. The second is a response to requests from friends and associates, and we give to honor the relationship. Again, we do not intend to change the world. The third category is where we seek a specific result, and a strategic approach is needed.² In my experience, every funder does all three types of giving, and all are legitimate reasons to give.

The true “goals” of the first two motivations, however, are to support the community and honor the relationship, and those goals are accomplished by the mere act of giving, regardless of the ultimate social impact achieved. The reason strategic philanthropy has not caught on more, in my view, is simply that the vast majority of charitable giving falls into these first two categories. The tools of strategic philanthropy are irrelevant or even in opposition to those goals. I see most objections to strategic philanthropy primarily as justifications to protect those first two unacknowledged motivations for giving.

So, how widely should strategic philanthropy really be practiced? Large foundations already try to orient most of their giving to Brest’s definition of strategic philanthropy. And very few smaller donors have the focus, determination and time to take on the hard work that strategic philanthropy requires. In my view, strategic philanthropy will always be a limited percentage of total giving, and has already won most of its potential converts. Our debate should be about how to refine the thinking and move past Brest’s accurate, but basic vision to a more sophisticated understanding of how funders can achieve social change.

This brings up the question of what a “strategy” really is. Brest describes strategy as a highly predictable “flight-path,” and further elaborates in his book on the metaphor of an airplane trip and flight plan.³ But social change does not follow such a predictable linear path. Rather than pick an airplane as the metaphor, I would suggest a hot-air balloon: One can control the height by heating or cooling the balloon, but the direction of lateral movement is controlled only by the wind. A skilled pilot can raise and lower the balloon to catch different air currents and steer the balloon to some degree, but the actual path and precise destination are largely outside her control. Having a strategy is still useful, but the nature of the strategy and goal are different from what Brest has in mind.

For example, Brest argues that selecting a goal falls outside of strategy—strategy is the means to the goal, and therefore cannot determine the goal. Instead, he uses an expected return calculation to choose the goals worth pursuing. In a hot air balloon, however, the expected return is so wildly unpredictable as to be useless. The selection of the goal depends on the foundation’s ability to execute the necessary strategy. Every foundation has a unique set of resources, capabilities, values, history, staff, and relationships. These determine how well equipped it is to execute a given strategy toward a specific goal. Rather than look for the highest expected value, funders should pick the strategies and goals that they are best qualified to reach, where their unique contribution of attributes enables them to deliver the most social impact per dollar.⁴ This does not mean that foundations operate alone with competing strategies, only that each funder coordinate with other organizations by concentrating on what it can do best. The strategy, goal, and profile of the foundation are interdependent and must be arrived at iteratively rather than sequentially.

Finally, Brest addresses the delicate relationship between funders and grantees. Strategic philanthropists are often faulted for imposing answers on their grantees, treating them as sub-contractors in the foundation’s grand plan. This assumes, however, that a “strategy” has to offer a pre-determined solution to the problem.

The multi-faceted and multi-sector nature of almost any problem of real significance means that a single intervention, however good it may be, is rarely able to achieve lasting systemic change. The proliferation of nonprofits working in isolation from each other, as well as from companies and governments, only makes matters worse. Many social problems exist and are sustained entirely because of the lack of coordination, knowledge, and long-term perspective among the many nonprofit organizations, companies, and government agencies that influence the issue. This suggests that the role of a strategic philanthropist might be to try to improve the knowledge, alignment, and incentives within a system, rather than to identify particularly effective programs and organizations that appear to solve the problem. In other words, a “strategy” can be a collaborative process that does not impose any predetermined answers.

This is how collective impact works. The “strategy” is to bring together a cross-sector group of leaders to forge a common agenda, share the same measurement system, and communicate regularly to figure out for themselves what solutions might work. The funder does not know or impose any answers. Rather than subcontracting to grantees, the funder is supporting and enabling others to find their own solutions more effectively. She may turn up the flame to catch the wind, but she doesn’t control the flight path or ultimate destination.

Brest describes collective impact accurately, but views it as a something different from strategic philanthropy because it lacks that clear flight path.⁵ In my view, it is simply a different type of strategy that focuses on process and system change rather than individual grantees and prepackaged solutions. Collective impact is no less goal oriented, it just assumes that the funder cannot bring about the ultimate goal directly, but instead can only create the conditions for others to define and achieve a goal that is consistent with the funder’s intent. And this, of course, solves the problem of strategic funders imposing their will on grantees.

In sum, I suggest that strategic philanthropy no longer needs defending from its critics; it needs a more nuanced understanding of social change by its advocates.

Read the rest of the responses.