The literature often observes that private foundations are difficult for nonprofits to access and that distribution of power between foundations and nonprofits is markedly uneven. It has been said that “whoever has the gold makes the... more
The literature often observes that private foundations are difficult for nonprofits to access and that distribution of power between foundations and nonprofits is markedly uneven. It has been said that “whoever has the gold makes the rules.” The resource-intense nature of endowed foundations and the resource-dependence of grant seekers, taken together, combine to create a setting in which an imbalance of power is likely to exist. This can too often result in awkward foundation-nonprofit relations—also restricting foundation access. Yet, sometimes deep relationship development with foundations can reverse challenges to access and mitigate the effects of unequal power.
Research Interests:
Rural communities throughout the United States are alarmingly challenged by deteriorating landscapes, ravished economies, declining populations, and gentrifying populations in the face of unfair and disproportionately lower support from... more
Rural communities throughout the United States are alarmingly challenged by deteriorating landscapes, ravished economies, declining populations, and gentrifying populations in the face of unfair and disproportionately lower support from government and philanthropy compared to urban areas. Rural communities have many big city problems but small-town resources for addressing them. Institutional philanthropy may represent a significant new option for meaningfully addressing rural challenges. Though it appears foundations are largely absent from rural America and, when present, often struggle in developing strategies appropriate for rural contexts. Further, rural needs often require resources of multiple foundations, but many foundations are ineffective in collaborating with other funders. This study of rural practices involving grant making and collaboration between funders examined experiences and approaches employed by representatives of 54 foundations (national, regional, and local place-based). Participants from 31 states and the District of Columbia contributed valuable insights. Findings from this research offer important insights that, if properly addressed, could significantly improve efforts at rural philanthropy.
Research Interests: Collaboration, Collaborative Design, Philanthropy, Collaborative Learning, Venture Philanthropy, and 6 moreCorporate Philanthropy, Strategic Philanthropy, Corporations, corporate philanthropy, and corporate social responsibility, Philanthropy and NGOs, Corporate and Foundation Relations, and Grantmaking Foundations
Over the past year, the pandemic caused havoc globally touching the lives of most people. This included emerging challenges for nonprofits on the front lines of escalating need while at the same time limiting fundraising. Scaling up to... more
Over the past year, the pandemic caused havoc globally touching the lives of most people. This included emerging challenges for nonprofits on the front lines of escalating need while at the same time limiting fundraising. Scaling up to meet needs in an extreme resource constrained environment pushed many nonprofits to the brink of insolvency. Many foundations have responded effectively to this circumstance by increasing grant making, reducing red tape, and extending greater flexibility for nonprofits. In doing so, foundations have exercised unusual humility in how they positioned themselves relative to nonprofits in protecting capacity to serve intended beneficiaries. This op-ed explores the relaxing of traditional tensions between foundations and grant seekers in ways that enabled more adequate and timely responses to pressing human needs in the face of the pandemic.
Research Interests:
Rural communities throughout the United States are alarmingly challenged by deteriorating landscapes, ravished economies, declining populations, and gentri-fying populations in the face of unfair and disproportionately lower support from... more
Rural communities throughout the United States are alarmingly challenged by deteriorating landscapes, ravished economies, declining populations, and gentri-fying populations in the face of unfair and disproportionately lower support from government and philanthropy compared to urban areas. Rural communities have many big city problems but small-town resources for addressing them. Institutional philanthropy may represent a significant new option for meaningfully addressing rural challenges. Though it appears foundations are largely absent from rural America and, when present, often struggle in developing strategies appropriate for rural contexts. Further, rural needs often require resources of multiple foundations, but many foundations are ineffective in collaborating with other funders. This study of rural practices involving grant making and collaboration between funders examined experiences and approaches employed by representatives of 54 foundations (national, regional, and local place-based). Participants from 31 states and the District of Columbia contributed valuable insights. Findings from this research offer important insights that, if properly addressed, could significantly improve efforts at rural philanthropy.
Research Interests:
Rural communities throughout the United States are alarmingly challenged by deteriorating landscapes, ravished economies, declining populations, and gentrifying populations in the face of unfair and disproportionately lower support from... more
Rural communities throughout the United States are alarmingly challenged by deteriorating landscapes, ravished economies, declining populations, and gentrifying populations in the face of unfair and disproportionately lower support from government and philanthropy compared to urban areas. Rural communities have many big city problems but small-town resources for addressing them. Institutional philanthropy may represent a significant new option for meaningfully addressing rural challenges. Though it appears foundations are largely absent from rural America and, when present, often struggle in developing strategies appropriate for rural contexts. Further, rural needs often require resources of multiple foundations, but many foundations are ineffective in collaborating with other funders. This study of rural practices involving grant making and collaboration between funders examined experiences and approaches employed by representatives of 54 foundations (national, regional, and local place-based). Participants from 31 states and the District of Columbia contributed valuable insights. Findings from this research offer important insights that, if properly addressed, could significantly improve efforts at rural philanthropy.
Research Interests:
While transparency in private philanthropy can have positive effects on public perceptions and grantee relations, it can also result in untoward effects. Private foundations need to fully understand how transparency can be benefit, but... more
While transparency in private philanthropy can have positive effects on public perceptions and grantee relations, it can also result in untoward effects. Private foundations need to fully understand how transparency can be benefit, but also when opacity can be an effective philanthropic tool. This article explores potential negative effects from private foundation engagement in transparency.
Research Interests:
Foundation Transparency - Opacity: It’s Complicated Abstract Private philanthropy has been referred to as one of the least transparent and accountable social institutions in the United States. Accordingly, private foundations are being... more
Foundation Transparency - Opacity: It’s Complicated
Abstract
Private philanthropy has been referred to as one of the least transparent and accountable social institutions in the United States. Accordingly, private foundations are being challenged to become more transparent. Like other charitable institutions, private foundations already disclose extensive information about their activities in federal tax returns, which the public can easily access. Yet, a widely held presumption is that private foundations remain intensely and uniformly opaque. Research findings confirmed that private foundations are generally opaque, but also found that they selectively engage in situational transparency, which is not generally observed in the literature. This article makes three contributions. First, it uses specific indicators to assess the existence private foundation opaque practice, resulting in important insights regarding the contexts in which each may occur. Second, it reports findings that, under certain circumstances, private foundations have intentionally relaxed their opaqueness in favor of greater transparency with certain grantees in furtherance of philanthropic objectives. Third, several questions are posed to help guide foundations in deciding for themselves how and with whom they might wish to engage in greater transparency. Research findings discovered that the matter of transparent/opaque practice in private philanthropy is less than straightforward. As it turns out, transparent/opaque practice among private foundations is a nuanced and complicated matter.
Abstract
Private philanthropy has been referred to as one of the least transparent and accountable social institutions in the United States. Accordingly, private foundations are being challenged to become more transparent. Like other charitable institutions, private foundations already disclose extensive information about their activities in federal tax returns, which the public can easily access. Yet, a widely held presumption is that private foundations remain intensely and uniformly opaque. Research findings confirmed that private foundations are generally opaque, but also found that they selectively engage in situational transparency, which is not generally observed in the literature. This article makes three contributions. First, it uses specific indicators to assess the existence private foundation opaque practice, resulting in important insights regarding the contexts in which each may occur. Second, it reports findings that, under certain circumstances, private foundations have intentionally relaxed their opaqueness in favor of greater transparency with certain grantees in furtherance of philanthropic objectives. Third, several questions are posed to help guide foundations in deciding for themselves how and with whom they might wish to engage in greater transparency. Research findings discovered that the matter of transparent/opaque practice in private philanthropy is less than straightforward. As it turns out, transparent/opaque practice among private foundations is a nuanced and complicated matter.