Advertisement

Dark Corridors or Glass Pockets?

  • Diana Leat
Chapter
  • 271 Downloads

Abstract

The accountability—or lack of it—of foundations is a theme that underlies many of the issues discussed in previous chapters. If foundations were better regulated and more accountable then the ‘playthings of the rich’ charge would have less relevance. If foundations were better regulated and more accountable their effects on democratic process would be more apparent— and so on.

Keywords

Foundation Sector Great Accountability Grant Recipient Normative Isomorphism Foundation Board 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Andrews, J. 2014. When is transparency a really bad idea? Alliance 19(3): 41.Google Scholar
  2. Arnove, R., and N. Pinede. 2007. Revisiting the ‘big three’ foundations. Critical Sociology 33: 389–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bothwell, R. 2001. Trends in self-regulation and transparency of nonprofits in the US. The International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law 2(3): 10–29.Google Scholar
  4. Clotfelter, C.T., and T. Ehrlich (eds.). 1999. Philanthropy and the nonprofit sector in a changing America. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Emerson, J. 2001. Grantee-grantor relations, mutual accountability and the wisdom of Frank Capra. Foundation News and Commentary. March/April, 42(2).Google Scholar
  6. European Foundation Centre. 2011. Comparative highlights of foundation laws: The operating environment for foundation in Europe. Brussels: EFC.Google Scholar
  7. Fitzgibbon, M. 1997. Accountability misplaced: Private social welfare agencies and the public in Cleveland 1880–1920. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 26(27): 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fleishman, J.L. 1999. Public trust in not-for-profit organizations and the need for regulatory reform. In Philanthropy and the nonprofit sector in a changing America, ed. Clotfelter Charles and T. Ehrlich, 172–197. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Frederickson, H.G. 2001. Lessons learned: First there’s theory. Then there’s practice. Foundation News and Commentary. March/April, 42(2).Google Scholar
  10. Frumkin, P. 1999. Private foundations as public institutions. In Philanthropic foundations: New scholarship, new possibilities, ed. E.C. Lagemann, 69–99. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gaul, G.M., and N.A. Borowski. 1994. Free ride: The tax exempt economy. Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel.Google Scholar
  12. Gugerty, M.K. 2009. Signaling virtue: Voluntary accountability programs among nonprofit organisations. Policy Sciences 42(3): 243–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harrow, J., and Jung, T. 2015. Debate: Thou shalt have impact, total impact - government involvement in philanthropic foundations’ decision-making. Public Money and Management (May): 176–178.Google Scholar
  14. Heydemann, S., and S. Toepler. 2006. Foundations and the challenge of legitimacy in comparative perspective. In The legitimacy of philanthropic foundations: US and European perspectives, ed. K. Prewitt, M. Dogan, S. Heydemann, and S. Toepler, 3–26. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  15. Ilchman, W.F., and D.F. Burlingame. 1999. Accountability in a changing philanthropic environment. In Philanthropy and the nonprofit sector in a changing America, ed. C. Clotfelter and T. Ehrlich, 198–211. Indiana: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Karoff, H.P. 2004. On the issue of trust. International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law 6: 3.Google Scholar
  17. Lasby, D., and C. Barr. 2012. What the numbers say: Transparency among Canadian charities. The Philanthropist 24(3): 223–226.Google Scholar
  18. Leat, D. 1998. Faith, hope and information: Assessing a grant application. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  19. Macdonald, D. 1956. The Ford Foundation: The men and the millions. New York: Reynal.Google Scholar
  20. Rourke, B. 2014. Philanthropy and the limits of accountability: A relationship of respect and clarity. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation and PACE.Google Scholar
  21. Schmidt, B. 2015. Time for a new foundation for philanthropy. Alliance 20(2): 52–54.Google Scholar
  22. Siska, D. 2001. Special section: Accountability accountability, updated. Foundation News and Commentary 42(2).Google Scholar
  23. Sutton, F.X. 1987. The Ford Foundation: The early years. Daedulus 116(1), Philanthropy, Patronage, Politics. pp. 41–91.Google Scholar
  24. Van der Ploeg, T.J. 1999. A comparative legal analysis of foundations: Aspects of supervision and transparency. In Private funds, public purpose, ed. H.K. Anheier and S. Toepler, 55–77. New York: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wildavsky, A. 1987. Exchange versus grants: The Buck case as a struggle between equal opportunity and equal results. In Managers and donors: The Buck Trust case, 4–39. New York: Center for the Study of Philanthropy, City University of New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diana Leat
    • 1
  1. 1.Cass Business SchoolLondonUK

Personalised recommendations