Institutional philanthropy (which includes the spectrum of all formalized grantmaking organizations) remains one of the least understood and researched aspects of giving. There is also limited scholarly attention to the relationship between foundation governance and grantmaking, despite normative claims about 'elite' foundation boards selecting 'elite' nonprofit's. Yet, foundations are increasingly using committees of community volunteers to allocate grants, rather than leaving grant decisions to a traditional board of directors. The goal of community involvement in grantmaking is better grant decisions, due to community members' information advantage and consequently greater knowledge of community needs. However, no one has tested whether community boards are making different decisions than traditional boards, much less whether their decisions are better. Drawing on a sample of 6 funders who use both community and traditional boards, their 616 grantees, and 955 comparable non-grantees I build on the economic model of giving to identify differences and similarities in the characteristics of nonprofit's that receive grants. Although I find much more congruence between grant decisions of community and traditional boards than literature expects I explore this finding through an in depth case study of two foundations who do this type of work. I find, similar to previous work in the public sector that simply involving community members in a grants process does not automatically generate different organizational decisions. Instead, it is only when a public participation program is effectively designed that grant decisions truly reflective community input.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / The collapse of communism and the fall of the Soviet Union offered an unprecedented opportunity for the international community to support transitions to democracy in a region that had long known only totalitarian rule. Among the key players engaged in supporting efforts were U.S. grantmaking institutions, including both non-state and quasi-state aid providers. This thesis explores the motivations and evolving strategies of three different types of grantmaking institutions in a single country, Russia, with a particular focus on democracy aid provision from 1988-2002. The three types of grantmaking organizations examined through case studies include: the Ford Foundation, a private foundation with a history of international grantmaking spanning several decades; the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, a private foundation known primarily for its domestic focus with a much shorter history of international grantmaking; and, finally, the National Endowment for Democracy, a U.S. government-created and heavily taxpayer-funded organization established as a private nonprofit organization to make grants specifically for democracy promotion. Motivating factors for initiating or expanding grantmaking in Russia in the late 1980s included a previous history of grantmaking in the region, a previously established institutional commitment to democracy promotion, international peace and security concerns, and interest from a top institutional leader. Over the course of the fourteen year period studied, five grantmaking features are identified as influencing the development of grantmaking strategies: professional grantmaking staff; organizational habit; global political, social, and economic environments; market and other funding source influences; and physical presence. Though subject to constraints, the non-state and quasi-state grantmaking institutions included in this study were able to avoid weaknesses identified with private philanthropy in other research and demonstrated a willingness to experiment and take risks, an ability to operate at the non-governmental level, and a commitment to long-term grantmaking, informed by expertise.