There's good news and less good news. The good news: there's still people with money and they want to give their money to support nonprofit's outcomes. The bad news: some of these people who want to give money think you would spend their money better if they "accompanied" you on your journey. A recent Star Tribune articles calls this donor-grantee relationship engaged philanthropy.
Several years ago, this "donation-on-a-string" was referred to as Venture Philanthropy. Whatever we call it, this philanthropy-on-a-rope makes a few presumptions. Again, the good news. The philanthropist cares about your nonprofit -- enough to not only give money but to roll-up their sleves and get down into the nonprofit Exec's back-yard and help dig. The bad news: the philanthropist that's caring about your nonprofit want's to work with the exec and dig-in lending all their business acumen to help ensure you, the recipient get your job done and spend their money well.
Is this so bad? No, not on the surface recognizing that the philanthropist stays wealthy because they are business saavy and you can always stand to gain some business saavy.
Always the best situation for the Exec and nonprofit? I don't think so. The power dynamics alone mean that the exec may compromise, sometimes appropriately and sometimes not so appropriately to ensure the money keeps coming.
So, venture or engaged philanthropy: whatever we call it we must recognize that it may not be the perfect solution. But I suppose there can always be worse solutions -- like having no money at all.....