Mapping Philanthropic Foundations’ Characteristics: Towards an International Integrative Framework of Foundation Types

Abstract

As philanthropic foundations take on increasingly prominent sociopolitical roles, the need for stronger conceptualizations of foundations as an organizational form is articulated widely across academic, policy, and practice contexts. Building on institutional research’s tradition of categorizing, classifying and typologizing organizational forms, our article critically explores the different ways in which foundations have been cast and differentiated in international academic and practice literatures. Examining and integrating these, we propose an integrative framework of foundation types. Incorporating 13 categories—three contextual, five organizational, and five strategic ones—the framework allows for clarifying distinctions and identifying commonalities between different foundation forms, offering a basis for developing more reflective and differentiated research and practice knowledge.

The more you know, the more you give: Influence of online disclosure on European community foundations' donations

“…Since then, these organizations have increased to 1,874 CFs spread worldwide, with 66% created in the past 25 years, and they account for a combined grant‐making figure of US$5,028 million. Although these organizations differ slightly, depending on the country in which they are established (Guo & Lai, 2019), CFs are grant‐making charities that serve a locality's philanthropic needs, and typically, their funds comprise donations from many donors for that locality (Carman, 2001; Community Foundation Atlas, 2014; Graddy & Morgan, 2006; Harrow et al, 2016; Jung, Harrow, & Leat, 2018; Ostrower, 2007). Thus, to raise funds successfully, CFs must be accountable because “people don't feel able to give money to an institution they don't know and don't understand” (Worldwide Initiatives for Grantmaker Support, 2018, p. 29).…”

Corporate Foundations as Hybrid Organizations: A Systematic Review of Literature

“…This paper argues that the combination of different institutional logics in CFs is based on the characteristics of three different, more or less simultaneously emerging dimensions. This distinction is based on the framework proposed by Jung et al (2018), in which foundations are differentiated on the basis of characteristics from strategic, organizational and contextual dimensions. According to these authors, ''they serve to demonstrate foundations' pandomain situation-across markets, states, and nonprofitsrather than just 'nonprofitness''' (Jung et al 2018: 13).…”

The European philanthropy manifesto: ‘clearly needed and a very good thing'?

“…foundations, thus conflating Harrow, J and Jung, T, The European Philanthropy Manifesto: 'clearly needed and a very good thing'?, -post-peer-review preprint authors' version accepted for publication in Voluntary Sector Review 10 diverse accompanying debates. These range from the spectrum of characteristics within the foundation field itself (Jung et al 2018) to engaging with the wider 'canon of concerns' that has been put forward in the literature: from questions about the origins and size of foundations funds, to foundations' unelected and undemocratic nature, their elite composition and influence, and the cultural imperialism and dominance that have been associated with foundations' activities (Jung and Harrow 2019). Instead, foundations are portrayed as possessing 'an outstanding set of expertise, deep knowledge and excellent stakeholder networks', as being in need of being 'cherished, stimulated and rewarded persistently', as making 'unique' contributions to society (Philanthropy Advocacy 2019).…”