Either when they are first established or after early experience as a responsive funder, most foundations eventually view their purpose as creating some sort of impact. In some cases, the impact involves an improvement in a particular condition or indicator (e.g., community health, homelessness, early childhood outcomes), while other foundations set goals that involve improvements in the functioning, effectiveness or capacity of nonprofits, institutions or grassroots groups. Regardless of the nature of the outcome the foundation is seeking to achieve, it will need a strategy to get there. A strategy maps out what the foundation will do, why this will work, and how progress will be assessed. Foundations often struggle with developing strategies that are capable of achieving their desired outcomes. My writings on this topic describe a number of the challenges that inhibit success. This includes incomplete or wishful thinking in the design of a strategy (e.g., failing to appreciate that most health outcomes are entrenched in longstanding dynamics, expecting that grantees’ programs will have a greater impact and will reach a larger segment of the population than is possible). Foundations also fail to recognize what it requires on their own part to fully implement their strategies. One way to create more effective strategies is to get clear on where and how a foundation can influence the dynamics surrounding the condition that is expected to change. In particular, where does the foundation have “strategic leverage” (i.e., the ability to affect a factor that significantly influences the condition that the foundation wants to change)? Providing grants to well-positioned organizations is only one of many ways that foundations can make a difference; even greater influence often comes from the foundation’s leadership work, especially if it operates as a system leader. A second key recommendation in developing strategy is to focus on those aspects of the ecosystem where the foundation has direct knowledge and experience. Many foundation strategies fell short because they were based on theories of change developed internally by staff and consultants. Nonprofits, advocacy groups and community leaders often have a much better grounded understanding of the conditions surrounding a foundation’s goals, which puts them in a better position to formulate a “change strategy.” By partnering with these groups on the front end, a foundation can better determine its own role, again taking into account where it has strategic leverage. That role often includes ongoing work (e.g., awareness-raising, advocacy, convening) that occurs in conjunction with the work of partners. The field of Implementation Science has models and tools that can support foundations and their partners in effectively carrying out the work that is required to achieve social change. Some tools clarify the functions that staff need to carry out in order to have their intended effect, while other tools consider the broader range of conditions inside the organization (e.g., history, leadership, capacity, culture, relationships) that either enable or inhibit success. The model of “strategic philanthropy” has attracted considerable criticism within the philanthropic and nonprofit sectors over the past 25 years, much of it focused on arrogance of foundations acting as if they know how to orchestrate social change. Some critics have argued that foundations should give up the idea of having their own goals and instead just make grants to nonprofits that have a clearer sense of what needs to happen. However, foundations have the potential to add considerable value to social change if they stay in their lane and get smarter about developing and implementing strategy.