Alexandra Williamson

Grantmaking in a Disorderly World: The Limits of Rationalism

This article reflects on the real world relevance of rational approaches to grantmaking. The characteristics and environment of foundation work are outlined, then both traditional and newer funding practices are analysed. Unpacking implicit assumptions of a rational approach, eight costs to foundations and their grantees are identified. The final sections of the paper consider what grantmaking for a complex and disorderly world might encompass. In conclusion, while rational approaches to grantmaking provide a comfortable aura of certainty, funders need to adapt to a little discomfort.

Foundations in Australia: Dimensions for International Comparison

Australia lacks a dedicated legal structure for foundations, and public data on its philanthropic sector are sparse. There is no public registry of foundations as opposed to charities generally, and the information held by the revenue office on foundation activity is generally unavailable. Available data are presented and show that Australian foundations are experiencing a phase of slow but steady growth in both numbers and size, punctuated by an increasing number of high-profile philanthropic donations by individuals, which are bringing public attention to the sector. This has been partially enabled by new tax arrangements that permit modified U.S.-style family foundations. Community foundations and collective giving are steadily growing as well. The major fields of foundation activity as well as their growing roles in Australian society are described. Finally, a research agenda is proposed that encompasses not only improved data collection but an exploration of emerging trends such as foundation staff professionalization, response to government marketization of welfare provision, and the increasing voice of foundations concerned with the environment.

Founders, Families, and Futures: Perspectives on the Accountability of Australian Private Ancillary Funds

This research explores perspectives on the accountability of Private Ancillary Funds (PAFs), a type of Australian endowed philanthropic foundation. PAFs are relatively new giving structures that have experienced strong growth over the past 15 years. With limited regulatory obligations and exemptions available from public reporting, PAFs have discretion in various forms of public accountability. Using Ebrahim’s conceptual framework of nonprofit accountability, this study explores PAF accountability in terms of to whom, for what, how, and why, examining tensions between PAFs’ private form and public purpose. Through in-depth interviews with managers and trustees of 10 PAFs, findings reveal that PAFs engage in accountability for internal reasons relating to their mission and purpose, and their desire to lead others in philanthropy. PAFs are influenced by philanthropic peers, in particular other PAFs; but their accountability does not necessarily include public disclosure or transparency. Four variations to Ebrahim’s accountability framework are proposed.

Giving in Australia

Philanthropy plays a critical role in Australian society, empowering communities and creating a sense of purpose and belonging. A community that gives freely of its time and financial resources is one with strong cohesion and social capital. Some key facts about philanthropic giving in Australia are below.According to Australian Bureau of Statistics data, in 2012–13 giving amounted to

Why Be Accountable? Exploring Voluntary Accountability of Australian Private Ancillary Funds

8.61 billion (8% of total sector income and 0.57% of GDP) being made up of:

Giving in Australia: Philanthropic Potential Beginning To Be Realized

Purpose - The aim of this paper is to consider why Private Ancillary Funds (PAFs), as endowed philanthropic foundations which typically exist in perpetuity, engage with accountability in its various forms. Design/methodology/approach - This exploratory, qualitative study reports on perspectives on accountability from 10 semi-structured interviews undertaken with managers and/or trustees of 10 PAFs from three Australian states. Findings - Through the lens of March and Olsen’s (2011) logics of action, and Karsten’s (2015) typology of motivational forms for voluntary accountability, we find that while logics of appropriateness and consequentiality explain many of the reasons why PAFs engage in voluntary accountability, there are some reasons do not fit comfortably within either logic. Research limitations/implications - The findings challenge the conceptions that are embedded in much of the nonprofit accountability literature that motivations for and purposes of accountability are linked with sustainability and survival. Originality/value - PAFs have no public reporting requirements and their accountability is largely voluntary. Accordingly, by examining this sub-set of nonprofit organisations subject to limited regulatory accountability, a clearer understanding of motivations for voluntary accountability is achieved.

Foundations for giving : why and how Australians structure their philanthropy

Australia in a sense has two histories: that of its indigenous Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on a traditional culture of mutual dependence and reciprocal altruism (Turner, 1981) and the other from its 18th-century colonization as a British penal outpost. These colonial overtones have proved an abiding cultural force. A dominant government presence, British legal platform and ongoing sense that ‘the government will provide’ remain today (Liffman, 2008; McDonald & Scaife, 2011).