Content area
Full text
IMPROVING THE LIVES OF DISADVANTAGED POPULATIONS-WHETHER THROUGH BETTER SCHOOLS, AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS, OR TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION CLINICS-REQUIRES PROVEN THEORIESOFCHANGE. THE VERYDEVELOPMENTOF A FIELD DEPENDSON THEIRDIFFUSION, REPLICATION, CRITIQUE, AND MODIFICATION. YET SOME ORGANIZATIONS REFUSE TO ARTICULATE A THEORY OF CHANGE AND SOME FUNDERS THINK IT WOULD BE INTRUSIVE TO DEMAND THAT THEY DO SO. THE INTERESTS OF ALL CONCERNED ARE SERVED BY A DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH TO CREATING AND EVALUATING THEORIES OF CHANGE.
The fundamental tenets of strategic philanthropy are that funders and their grantees should have clear goals, strategies based on sound theories of change, and robust methods for assessing progress toward their goals. Although these ideas are gaining traction, some prominent philanthropic thinkers continue to express reservations about how they may affect the balance of power between funders and the organizations they support.
For example, former Ford Foundation president Susan Berresford expresses concerns about "funder-led strategic planning that imposes wearying and unnecessary demands on applicants and grantees," and wistfully asks, "Has the role of the quiet, patient, and responsive funder become less appealing?" 1 She quotes the Indian social entrepreneur Sheela Patel's complaint about funders' imposition of logic models and their demand "that in a period of two years, we can implement perfect strategies and produce complete solutions."
Similarly, Sean Stannard-Stockton, the founder and CEO of Tactical Philanthropy Advisors and philanthropic blogger, argues that the idea of a theory of change makes sense in a "static landscape, where you can learn more and more about what works and what doesn't andfinally craft the perfect theory," but "fails in a dynamic landscape, such as social change, where what you learned on your last trip might not apply this time." He asserts that funders should focus on bunding great organizations rather than on honing theories of change.2
Social change is inevitably complex and dynamic, andfunders should be patient and forbear from micromanaging their grantees. But a funder has a legitimate interest in knowing whether an organization is on the path to success and, at some point, whether it is actually achieving impact. Indeed, it is the funder's confidence in an organization's theory of change, as well as in its leadership and management, that justifies patience in asking for proof of impact.
I believe that the issues raised...