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 and finally craft the perfect theory,” but “fails in a dynamic landscape, such as social change, where what you learned on…