Understanding the accountability and organisational identity of public philanthropic foundations

Purpose - This paper explores nonprofit accountability in the context of Australian philanthropic foundations, Public Ancillary Funds (PubAFs), which fund other nonprofit organisations. While PubAFs are an important and diverse group, their identity and accountability remain unclear. Having limited regulatory accountability, other forms of PubAF accountability have been assumed rather than systematically explored. Design/methodology/approach - The PubAF population is mapped and profiled. Interviews with a purposive sample of 28 PubAF managers and trustees were then conducted regarding their understandings and practices of accountability. Findings - Findings reveal differences in how PubAFs perceive and practice accountability. Development of a taxonomy and typology of PubAFs highlights variations across three key dimensions: strategic focus, independence, and impact focus; with implications for both identity and accountability. Practical implications - This study informs debate on accountability in philanthropic foundations in an Australian cultural context which has previously been argued from opinion rather than from evidence, influenced by ideas and tropes, particularly from the US. Social implications - Exploring internal identity-based drivers of accountability reveals significant variations in accountability regarding stakeholder salience (accountability to whom), how PubAFs invest their corpus (accountability for what), and whether they identify as being part of a geographic or cause-based community. Originality/value - The importance of organisational identity in understanding accountability of philanthropic foundations is highlighted, facilitating deeper engagement with questions and issues of accountability in these notoriously opaque organisations.