Private philanthropists have helped propel some of the most important social-impact success stories of the past century: Virtually eradicating polio globally. Ending apartheid in South Africa. Creating a universal 911 service in the United States. These efforts have transformed or saved hundreds of millions of lives. That we take them for granted now makes them no less astonishing: They were the inconceivable moon shots of their day before they were inevitable success stories in retrospect. Today's donors aspire to similarly audacious outcomes, but despite having written big checks for years, many aren't seeing transformative results. A study of 15 breakthrough initiatives, ranging from broad access to end-of-life hospice care to the widespread use of a lifesaving oral rehydration solution in Bangladesh, revealed five shared elements that may help philanthropists improve the odds of swing-for-the-fences success. Effective initiatives: Build a shared understanding of the problem and its ecosystem; set concrete and compelling "winnable milestones"; design approaches that work at massive scale; drive demand; and embrace course corrections.

Many philanthropists have big ambitions, but even the richest individuals and largest foundations don't have enough money to end poverty, reverse climate change, or cure cancer. And many donors impose substantial costs on their grantees by, for instance, becoming excessively involved in program design or imposing burdensome reporting requirements. To achieve breakthroughs, donors need a multiplier effect-an approach that delivers many dollars' worth of impact for each dollar invested. In short, they need an investment model. To develop a sound model for philanthropy, donors must understand the methods of change that breakthrough results require. These include building robust nonprofit organizations, modifying public policy, establishing intermediaries, and facilitating research. The Draper Richards Foundation, for example, helps direct-service nonprofits build their capacity and capabilities; the James Irvine Foundation created an intermediary organization to improve high school education in California. Donors must also understand how they can best support those efforts-through the roles they play, the resources they devote, and the relationships they develop. Michael J. Fox, for instance, has used his celebrity and credibility in his foundation's efforts to cure Parkinson's disease. Developing a clear investment model doesn't have to be complicated or expensive, just deliberate. Without one, donors risk adding little value and imposing steep costs.

Philanthropic organizations, exempt from the accountability imposed on business by markets or on government by voters, are free to experiment and take risks. But they have little experience in objectively evaluating their own performance or figuring out how to improve it. Regardless of the economic climate, the authors say, developing a philanthropic strategy is an iterative process - one they've labeled "getting clear, getting real, and getting better." Getting clear means selecting a few strategic anchors - people, problems, or philosophies the institution truly cares about - and using them to guide decisions about programs and grantees. In addition, hard evidence should be examined in light of values and beliefs. Getting real means pragmatically assessing the resources and time required to bring about desired change and soliciting candid feedback from the field. Getting better means regularly reviewing the organization's entire funding strategy in light of both outside perspectives and nonfinancial assets. Ditkoff and Colby outline the traps that funding institutions must avoid if they are to optimize their resources and organizational outcomes, and they offer stories from the James Irvine, Bill & Melinda Gates, Annie E. Casey, David and Lucile Packard, and Edna McConnell Clark foundations as examples of success. The pursuit of excellence, they say, can be imposed only by philanthropic investors themselves.