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.

No abstract

Philanthropic foundations in Australia have traditionally been labelled ‘icebergs’. Much of what they do and who they are is not apparent on the surface. Many are unknown and apart from an occasional biography, almost all are sparsely documented in terms of the very personal decisions behind establishing them. Practically and academically, scant data exist on the decision journeys people make into formalised philanthropy. This study seeks to fill that gap. It is believed to be the largest such study of foundation decision-making ever undertaken in this country. It is the latest in a series of ACPNS research into types of considered (versus spontaneous) giving in Australia.This research has been supported by the Perpetual Foundation, the EF and SL Gluyas Trust and the Edward Corbould Charitable Trust under the management of Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd.

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.

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.