University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Key factors for successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact driven grantmaking practices

(USC Thesis Other)

Key factors for successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact driven grantmaking practices

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Key Factors for Successful Adoption of Culturally Relevant and Impact-Driven
Grantmaking Practices
Pauline Chen Fong
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 2024

© Copyright by Pauline Chen Fong 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Pauline Chen Fong certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Anthony Maddox
Marc Pritchard
Patricia Tobey, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
While a general recognition of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices
contributing to effective grantmaking exists, some efforts by philanthropic funders to adopt such
grantmaking practices have taken long timeframes or seen less than ideal results. Gaps in these
practices result in poor stewardship of resources, while successful adoption of such practices will
ultimately lead to better collaboration, more successful change adoptions, and increased efficacy
towards alleviating human suffering and encouraging human flourishing. This study examined
and identified factors that enabled successful adoptions of such practices in philanthropic
funders. Utilizing a gap analysis framework and the qualitative research method of interviewing
12 participants from five philanthropic funders in the United States. Findings from this study can
better inform philanthropic funders and staff about the key factors that need to be in place as they
seek to adopt more culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices, contributing to
more successful adoptions and ultimately to more impactful grantmaking. Key factors that lead
to successful adoption include leadership changes, external influences such as societal and
political events, and internal pressures such as scaling of grantmaking distributions. Key factors
preventing successful adoption include the lack of work processes and resources, the lack of
motivation, the lack of alignment in leadership, and knowledge differentials. Key factors that
improve successful adoption include operationalizing feedback and accountability, trust, and
authority delegation, having champions at multiple levels of the organization, and learning as a
paradigm and as organizational culture.
Keywords: philanthropy, culturally relevant, impact-driven, grantmaking practices,
knowledge, motivation, organizational influences, KMO, learning, evaluation, gap analysis
framework

v
Dedication
To my family, Brian, Caitlyn, and Caleb: My biggest hope is that this work will contribute to
making this world just a little better for you and others to live in.

vi
Acknowledgements
Nothing is impossible with God, from whom all blessings flow.
May this dissertation be a blessing and contribute to making this world more reflective of
the love of God.
This doctoral journey of learning, researching, listening, asking, investigating, and
writing has equipped me for the adventure ahead. I am deeply grateful to so many people who
have helped to make this journey possible.
Learning would not have been possible without the expertise of the faculty with whom I
have had the privilege to work at the University of Southern California Rossier School of
Education. Dr. Patricia Tobey, thank you for being such a patient and encouraging dissertation
chair, with untiring championing through the ups and downs. Dr. Marc Pritchard, thank you for
the many conversations trying to land on a problem of practice before you were even on my
committee and your generosity of spirit and time. Dr. Anthony Maddox, your ability to push me
(and many others) to think beyond the box challenges and compels scholarship and action
beyond the status quo. To the many professors and adjunct professors who imparted wisdom,
perspective, knowledge, and skills—thank you!
Colleagues in cohort 21 taught me much through your stories, questions, and
perspectives, and you inspired me with your love and passion for justice. Dan Watkins, Linda
Vasquez, Bryan Hirayama, Taylor Mizumi Moore, and Connie Green, awesome reading group:
Thank you for your help and support and companionship on this crazy journey. Special thanks to
Dan for the IT support and bailing me out of tech issues on numerous occasions.
Family, friends, and colleagues truly are the essential supports that made this crazy
endeavor possible. To leaders and colleagues at the Trust: Romanita, Trustees, Jill, Steve,

vii
Megan, Mike, and so many others: Thank you for your support and encouragements to take on
this crazy challenge and keep going. Many thanks to nonprofit leaders and philanthropy leaders
who shared their journeys and insights with me and are the brains of the study. To the many
friends who have cheered me on, excused my absence, and prayed along the way. To Kafi and
Leslie, for your comradery and hours in writing retreats together. To my sister Janet and brotherin-law Benny, thank you for your generosity for the use of your condo to focus on research and
writing. To my mom, Susie, thank you for all the extra meals you made and housework you
helped with, and for your continued love and support. To my children, Caitlyn, and Caleb, I am
so proud of who you are becoming, and thanks for cheering me on. And finally, I am deeply
grateful to my wonderful husband, love and partner in life, Brian, who sees me and encourages
me to be who I am—thank you for your unwavering support, without which this achievement
would not have been possible.
Please address correspondence concerning this dissertation to Pauline Fong, subject line:
Dissertation Inquiry, via email at paulinechenfong@gmail.com.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures............................................................................................................................... xii
List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................xiii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study.......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem............................................................................ 1
Organizational Goal............................................................................................................ 4
Description of Stakeholder (Interest-Holder) Groups......................................................... 4
Interest-Holder Group for the Study................................................................................... 5
Interest-Holder Performance Goals .................................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions.................................................................. 7
Importance of the Study...................................................................................................... 7
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 8
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 11
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 13
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 15
History of Philanthropic Evaluation ................................................................................. 15
Philanthropic Strategies of Impact.................................................................................... 17
Philanthropic Models of Evaluation ................................................................................. 21
Other Philanthropic Innovations....................................................................................... 22

ix
Barriers and Challenges in Seeking Philanthropy with Impact ........................................ 23
Frameworks and Tools...................................................................................................... 23
Gap Analysis Framework ................................................................................................. 25
Interest-Holder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences......................... 26
Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................... 43
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 45
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 47
Research Questions........................................................................................................... 47
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 48
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 50
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 50
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 51
Participants........................................................................................................................ 51
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 54
Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................... 55
Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 56
Credibility and Trustworthiness........................................................................................ 56
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 57
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 58
Chapter Four: Results or Findings................................................................................................ 61
Participants........................................................................................................................ 62
Qualitative Findings Overview......................................................................................... 63
Factors Leading to Successful Adoption: Findings Research Question 1 ........................ 64

x
Discussion Research Question 1....................................................................................... 70
Barriers to Successful Adoption: Findings Research Question 2 ..................................... 71
Discussion Research Question 2....................................................................................... 84
Factors That Improve Successful Adoption: Findings Research Question 3 ................... 87
Discussion Research Question 3..................................................................................... 100
Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................... 102
Chapter Five: Recommendations................................................................................................ 104
Discussion....................................................................................................................... 104
Recommendations for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences............ 105
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 122
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 124
References................................................................................................................................... 127
Appendix A: Interview Protocol................................................................................................. 140
Research Questions......................................................................................................... 140
Respondent Type ............................................................................................................ 140
Introduction to the Interview .......................................................................................... 140
Setting the Stage ............................................................................................................. 141
Heart of the Interview ..................................................................................................... 142
Conclusion to the Interview............................................................................................ 146
Closing Comments.......................................................................................................... 146
Appendix B: Qualitative Codebook for Interviews.................................................................... 147

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal, Interest-Holder Goal 6
Table 2: Knowledge Influences 31
Table 3: Motivation Influences 37
Table 4: Organizational Influences 43
Table 5: Data Source 49
Table 6: Foundations Information 53
Table 7: Participant Demographics 63
Table 8: Factors, Categories, and Themes Leading to Successful Adoption 69
Table 9: Participating Foundations’ Grant Approval Thresholds and Years 76
Table 10: Factors, Categories, and Themes: Barriers to Successful Adoption 84
Table 11: Factors, Categories, and Themes: Improve Successful Adoption 99
Table 12: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 106
Table 13: Summary of Motivational Influences and Recommendations 109
Table 14: Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations 116
Table A1: Interview Protocol 143
Appendix B: Qualitative Codebook for Interviews 147

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 45
Figure 2: Workplace Culture Word Cloud 121

xiii
List of Abbreviations
KMO Knowledge, motivation, organizational

1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Philanthropic funders lack culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices,
and primarily employ racially homogenous cultural models of impact and evaluation in their
grantmaking. These homogenous cultural models commonly result in the exclusion of leaders
from communities of color and nonprofits led by people of color from grant funding (Consuegra
et al., 2022; Dorsey et al., 2020) and participation in addressing complex societal problems
which philanthropy aims to mitigate or prevent. The gap between the kind of evaluations
philanthropic funders currently employs and the kind of evaluation required to engage with
complex and difficult social problems (Bach-Mortensen & Montgomery, 2018; Coffman, 2016;
Ebrahim, 2016; Long & Nolan, 2017) results in poor stewardship of resources and the
persistence of pressing societal issues.
Context and Background of the Problem
White dominance in philanthropic leadership (Council on Foundations, 2020; Cyril et al.,
2021) leads to philanthropic funders employing primarily racially homogenous cultural models
of impact and evaluation in their grantmaking (Dorsey et al., 2020). Forty percent of foundation
boards are all White, and members from communities of color make up 15% of foundation board
members overall (Council on Foundations, 2020; Cyril et al., 2021). Only about 25% of
foundations’ staff, 33% of program officers, and 8% of CEOs are people of color (Cyril et al.,
2021). These homogenous cultural models inform cultures of impact and evaluation that are less
effective for the solutions needed by philanthropy and nonprofits to address complex issues.
Research in sectors such as business and education show how diversity enhances groups with
collective wisdom and better solutions, with evidence that diverse teams outperform
homogenous groups on complex tasks (Biemesderfer, 2017; Page, 2008, 2019). Diversity

2
enhances creativity, innovation, decision-making, and problem-solving (Rock & Grant, 2016).
Societal problems that nonprofits and philanthropic funders are trying to mitigate or prevent are
complex and need creative problem-solving. Furthermore, homogenous cultural models of
impact and evaluation lead to the exclusion of nonprofits led by people of color from
philanthropic funding, overlooking the expertise of leaders from communities of color who have
the experiential knowledge and understanding of the problems (Consuegra et al., 2022) and
bypassing potentially grassroots, efficacious solutions (Dorsey et al., 2020; Ladson-Billings &
Tate, 1995).
In addition to challenges in connecting to philanthropic networks and building and
sustaining relational rapport with primarily White philanthropic funders, leaders from
communities of color face significant barriers in the lack of culturally relevant approaches in
philanthropic grant funding practices (Dorsey et al., 2020). Traditionally, many philanthropic
funders’ grantmaking practices adopt White, male, dominant perspectives fraught with one-way
power dynamics that are burdensome and not useful to nonprofits (Bryan et al., 2020; Word,
2020). Often, these grantmaking practices result in the exclusion of funding from nonprofits led
by and serving communities of color (Consuegra et al., 2022; Dorsey et al., 2020). Even with
leaders in the philanthropic sector desiring to employ more culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices, many do not know how (Behrens, 2020; Long & Nolan, 2017). Many
foundations task their program officers as the main researchers and evaluators of nonprofits and
their proposals. However, many program officers lack confidence and ability to conduct effective
evaluations. In fact, research shows that only 53% of program officers believe they have the
necessary knowledge (Buteau et al., 2017). The lack of culturally relevant evaluation practices
can also lead to funding of grants that bring about unintended consequences, including being less

3
effective, or ineffective, in addressing social and economic issues embedded in communities
with cultural dynamics and nuances (Elers et al., 2021).
The gap between the kind of grant proposal evaluations and grantmaking practices that
philanthropic funders currently employ and the kind that engagement with complex and difficult
social problems requires (Bach-Mortensen & Montgomery, 2018; Coffman, 2016; Ebrahim,
2016; Long & Nolan, 2017) results in poor stewardship of resources and excludes many
nonprofits led by communities of color from participating in the solution of pressing societal
issues affecting their own communities. To make true progress on the societal problems
philanthropy seeks to mitigate through its grantmaking, philanthropic funders must address this
problem of practice. Both nonprofits and philanthropic funders need to recognize the key factors
that lead to the successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking
practices, which will ultimately lead to better collaboration and increase impact.
Traditionally, many philanthropic grant funding processes adopt a dominantly White,
male, and upper-class perspective of philanthropic leaders and evaluate potential grantees or
grant proposals based on those assumptions (Consuegra et al., 2022; Dorsey et al., 2020). It is
well researched and well known that philanthropic funders’ lack of impact-driven grantmaking
practices and lack of culturally relevant approaches, along with the evaluation data they request
and gather, lacks usability (Behrens, 2020; Bovens & Schillemans, 2014; Bryan et al., 2020),
while excluding leaders from communities of color (Consuegra et al., 2022; Dorsey et al., 2020).
Studies, research, and proposals of frameworks and tools for more effective evaluation exist and
are available from organizations such as Trust-Based Philanthropy, Center for Effective
Philanthropy, Principles Equity Advocacy Knowledge Grantmaking (PEAK), and Grantmakers
for Effective Organization (GEO), and more. However, few studies have identified the key

4
factors that lead to the successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking
practices (Coffman, 2016; Schambra, 2003). Research that can identify salient factors leading to
the embrace of culturally relevant and impact-driven practices can better equip and resource
philanthropic funders to become more effective in their grantmaking practices. The adoption of
effective practices will lead to more impactful grantmaking.
Organizational Goal
Defining the field of philanthropy as the organization for this study, the goal is to
encourage and increase the successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices. Such practices will contribute to progress towards equitable funding of
leaders of color and nonprofits serving communities of color, and ultimately lead to more
effective solutions to complex societal problems. Specifying dates and benchmarks for a field of
more than 141,000 private foundations (Koob, 2021) proves challenging. That said, the
organizational goal is to turn the findings of the study into a series of articles on key factors that
lead to successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices before
the end of 2025 and diffuse the information through philanthropic networks by the end of 2026.
Description of Stakeholder (Interest-Holder) Groups
Two stakeholder (interest-holder) groups contribute to and benefit from the achievement
of the goal of employing culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. Due to the
term stakeholder referencing the taking of land and forced relocation of Native Americans, this
study uses the term interest-holder to indicate those with an interest or concern. The first
interest-holder group is philanthropic funders and the second is nonprofits, especially those
impacted by grantmaking practices that exclude nonprofits led by and serving communities of
color. Historically excluded nonprofits who are potential key contributors of solutions to societal

5
issues can receive resources previously not accessible to them. This study resources both
nonprofits and philanthropic funders with research on factors that lead to successful adoption of
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. The successful adoption of such
practices ultimately leads to greater impact, and to more effective progress on addressing the
societal problems that both are seeking to mitigate.
Interest-Holder Group for the Study
The interest-holder group for the study consists of philanthropic funders who have
successfully adopted culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. Specifically,
the study focuses on staff members of this interest-holder group of philanthropic funders because
philanthropic funders hold decision-making power over the creation and implementation of grant
evaluation and grantmaking practices. Staff members of philanthropic funders hold the key to the
adoption of grantmaking practices, influencing the formation and execution of guidelines,
policies, and processes (Behrens, 2020; Buteau et al., 2017; Long & Nolan, 2017). Failure to
adopt culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices results in poor stewardship of
resources and excludes many nonprofits led by and serving communities of color from
participating in the solution of pressing societal issues (Buteau et al., 2017; Dorsey et al., 2020).
Addressing this problem of practice resources both nonprofits and philanthropic funders with
more effective grantmaking practices, leading to better collaboration and work towards
improving the societal problems philanthropy seeks to mitigate through its grantmaking.
Interest-Holder Performance Goals
The mission and goal of philanthropy as a field is to engage with, prevent, and mitigate
societal problems through partnering with nonprofits to make change happen (McCarthy, 2020;
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, 2017). A performance goal for the field of philanthropy is to

6
increase the successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices
in private foundations in the United States (Table 1). Private foundations, according to a report
by Candid (Koob, 2021), include approximately 115,000 independent foundations (those
established by individual donors or donor families), approximately 8,500 operating foundations
(those who primarily run programs and do some grants, generally established by individuals or
families), and approximately 2,900 corporate foundations (those established by businesses as
legally separate entities). The above data excludes about 1,200 community foundations (those
who raise funds from the public and engage in grantmaking primarily within a defined
geographic area).
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal, Interest-Holder Goal
Organizational mission Organizational performance goal Interest-holder goal
The mission of philanthropy
is to engage with, prevent,
and solve societal
problems.
A performance goal for
philanthropy is to increase the
successful adoption of
culturally relevant and impactdriven grantmaking practices
in the 141,000 private
foundations in the United
States.
Before December 2025, the
findings of the study will
be published into a series
of articles on key factors
that lead to successful
adoption of culturally
relevant and impactdriven grantmaking
practices. Publications
will diffuse the
information through
philanthropic networks by
the end of 2026.

7
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of the study is to examine and identify factors that enable philanthropic
funders to successfully adopt culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. The
goal for inquiry and research on this topic is to examine five philanthropic funders successfully
employing culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. The study ascertains the
key factors that influence philanthropic funders to adopt such processes and find the best
practices and organizational factors that lead to these practices. Philanthropic funders can utilize
this research to reduce exclusion of grant funding to nonprofits led by and serving communities
of color. Further, the adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grant proposal evaluation
and grantmaking practices will result in more strategic and impactful philanthropy.
Three research questions guide this study:
1. What factors lead philanthropic funders to successful adoption of culturally relevant
and impact-driven grantmaking practices?
2. What knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences prevent
philanthropic funders from successfully adopting culturally relevant and impactdriven grantmaking practices?
3. What KMO influences improve the successful adoption of grantmaking practices in
philanthropic funders?
Importance of the Study
Although much literature exists for actual models and processes of culturally relevant and
impact-driven grant proposal evaluations and grantmaking practices, little research exists on
which factors and practices are key to enable philanthropic funders to successfully adopt these
models and processes. This study contributes to the literature by providing qualitative research

8
data on philanthropic funders that employ culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking
practices successfully. Philanthropic funders who desire to increase impact and effectiveness in
grantmaking practices can use this research to inform decisions and make changes. Historically
excluded nonprofits who are potential key contributors towards solutions to societal issues can
receive resources previously not accessible to them. This study resources both nonprofits and
philanthropic funders with research on factors that lead to successful adoption of grantmaking
practices, which in turn can lead to better collaboration and more impactful work towards
moving the needle on the societal problems that both are seeking to mitigate.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis model provides the conceptual framework for this
study. Philanthropic funders aim to fund grants that lead to impact and effective engagement
with societal issues, and yet, the lack of culturally relevant and impact-driven grant proposal
evaluation and grantmaking practices leads to a gap in effective engagement. Long and Nolan
(2017) outlined the trends in nonprofit and foundation evaluation, citing concerns about both the
usefulness and effectiveness of evaluations. The gap between the kind of evaluations and
practices that philanthropic funders currently employ, and the kind of evaluation that
engagement with complex and difficult social problems requires, highlights a performance issue
(Bach-Mortensen & Montgomery, 2018; Coffman, 2016; Ebrahim, 2016; Long & Nolan, 2017).
Gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) provides categories for pinpointing performance
improvement opportunities by identifying the difference between where an organization
currently is, with respect to a given performance category (or goal), and where it would like to
be. Clark and Estes (2008) examined three critical factors that cause these gaps: knowledge and
skills (K), motivation (M), and organizational (O) causes (referred to as KMO). Solutions in the

9
form of information, job aids, training, or education tackle inadequate knowledge and skills.
Cultivating a more positive environment addresses motivational barriers by increasing
confidence (for individuals and teams), growing trust (interpersonal and organizational),
encouraging collaboration, and fostering hopeful beliefs and expectations about the work.
Positive and motivated organizational conditions lead to greater persistence, better-quality work,
and active effort towards goals. Organizational changes confront inefficient or ineffective
organizational policies, work processes, or resource levels and support performance (Clark &
Estes, 2008). A study using the gap analysis theoretical framework can examine the three critical
dimensions of KMO factors necessary to improve philanthropic funders’ grantmaking practices
to be more culturally relevant and impact-driven. Key concepts pertinent to the proposed study
include knowledge (procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive) of culturally relevant and
impact-driven grant evaluation and grantmaking practices; motivational concepts such as selfefficacy, attainment value, expectancy value, perceived cost, and utility value; and organizational
factors such as commitment to cultural relevance, leadership and policies, work processes and
resources, and workplace culture. The gap analysis framework can also identify best practices,
which relate to the KMO factors that are present when philanthropic funders successfully employ
culturally relevant and impact-driven grant proposal evaluations and grantmaking practices.
To better understand factors that lead to philanthropic funders’ successful adoption of
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices, this qualitative case study
investigates and identifies the key factors by studying five philanthropic funders with a
reputation for successful adoption of such practices. Qualitative research aims to understand how
people interpret and make meaning of their experiences and thereby define and construct their
worlds (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This research seeks understanding from the participants’

10
perspectives to delineate the grant proposal evaluation processes and grantmaking practices
employed and describe how participants interpret their experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The case study qualitative research approach aligns with the purpose of this study to unearth key
themes, factors, and dimensions by focusing on a small, purposeful sample of philanthropic
funders, to further understand the context, process, and meaning attributed to the grant proposal
evaluation processes and grantmaking practices they deploy (Creswell & Creswell, 2023;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
This study consists of an in-depth analysis of each of these five case studies, bounded by
time (the timeframe of the interviews and analyses) and by activity (focus on the grant evaluation
funding processes and grantmaking practices). Individual interviews of staff members of the five
chosen philanthropic funders collected detailed information. Qualitative face-to-face interviews
(via Zoom video conferences) with open-ended questions created the space for participants to
articulate their views and opinions, and to bring forth meaning and insight into the grant funding
evaluation processes and grantmaking practices they employ (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). This
study focuses on staff from five philanthropic funders located in the United States because
philanthropic culture and practices and societal racial landscapes differ significantly from
country to country.
Due to the significant differences in foundation size and to the differences between
community foundations (who hold an additional function as fundraisers and not just grant
makers) and family and institutional funders with sole grantmaking functions, this study focuses
on midsized and large-sized family and institutional funders. Midsized referred to philanthropic
funders with annual grantmaking disbursement of $10 million to $99.99 million and net assets of
$200 million to $1.49 billion, and large-sized referred to those philanthropic funders with annual

11
grantmaking disbursements of $100 million to $250 million and net assets of $1.5 billion to $15
billion. Also, this study aimed for a degree of geographical diversity within the United States, as
much as allowable within a five-entity sample. At the time of the study, participants worked as
staff of Foundations A, B, C, D, and E. The staff dedicated to grantmaking in each of these
funding institutions, including the CEO, executive staff, and program officers, stand as those best
situated to illuminate the histories, processes, factors, and best practices that constitute the
adopted grantmaking practices.
Definition of Terms
The following operational definitions provide clarity for their use throughout this study.
• Community foundations refer to foundations who raise funds from the public and
engage in grantmaking primarily within a defined geographic area (Koob, 2021).
• Corporate foundations refer to foundations established by businesses as legally
separate entities (Koob, 2021).
• Culturally relevant refers to philanthropic funders’ ability to interact effectively with
grant applicants who do not share the same cultural knowledge, experiences, and
understandings. Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) described culturally relevant
approaches as those that “accept and affirm cultural identity” and allow “cultural
values and styles to be appreciated and affirmed” (p. 476). These approaches
incorporate cultural competence and a “sociopolitical or critical consciousness”
(Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995, p. 483) and include the use of “complex assessment
strategies” (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995, p. 482) and a collaborative approach
regarding “the standards by which they were to be evaluated and the pieces of
evidence they wanted to use as proof of their mastery of particular concepts and

12
skills” (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995, p. 482). Culturally relevant and responsive
principles and pedagogies utilized in education (Frierson et al., 2010; Hood et al.,
2015; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Mensah, 2021) transfer well to the complex
assessment strategies needed by funders seeking to interact effectively with diverse
applicants and grantees.
• Exclusion refers to “the inequitable access to social networks that enable connections
to the philanthropic community,” which in turns leads to inequity in grant funding
awarded (Dorsey et al., 2020, pp. 12–13).
• Grant funding evaluation refers to the evaluation that helps philanthropic funders
“assess the quality or impact of funded programs, plan and implement new programs,
make future grant decisions, and demonstrate accountability to the public trust”
(Council on Foundations, 2020, p. 1). For the purposes of this study, grant proposal
evaluation specifically refers to the assessment of a grant application before proposal
award or declination.
• Impact-driven or Impact investing refers to an approach to philanthropy that views
giving “as an investment in outcomes and impact, not merely doing good” (Ferris,
2021, p. 1).
• Interest-holder: a term this study uses in lieu of the traditional term of stakeholder,
due to the term stakeholder referencing the history of the forced taking and relocation
of Native Americans from their lands in the United States.
• Operating foundations refer to foundations who primarily run programs and do some
grants, generally established by individuals or families (Koob, 2021).

13
• Philanthropy refers to the “disposition or active effort to promote the happiness and
well-being of others; practical benevolence, now especially expressed by the
generous donation of money to good causes” (Oxford English Dictionary, n.d., para.
1).
• Private foundations refer to foundations established by individual donors or donor
families (Koob, 2021).
• Strategic philanthropy: Strategic philanthropy allocates funding to charitable work
according to a concrete, overarching strategy in pursuit of a specific, defined mission,
moving beyond traditional charity, seeking to create change by deciding on a specific
goal that matters and funding what it believes will achieve that goal (Brest, 2014;
Brest & Harvey, 2018; Fulton, 2018).
• Venture philanthropy: Philanthropy which embraces a venture-capital model with
practices that differed significantly from traditional philanthropy in terms of risk
management, performance measures, expectations of relationship (investment partner
instead of oversight), and length of partnership (Ferris, 2021; Letts et al., 1997).
Organization of the Study
The dissertation follows a traditional five-chapter model. Chapter One provides an
overview of the study. Chapter Two provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope
of the study, including the history of philanthropy around evaluation and impact, issues and
challenges surrounding evaluation and funding of grant proposals, frameworks, and tools
available to philanthropic funders for grant proposals evaluation, and the lack of successful
adoption of these same tools and frameworks towards culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking approaches. The literature review also discusses social-science theories and the

14
KMO barriers impeding successful adoption. Chapter Three details the research methodology of
qualitative research and semi-structured interviews. Chapter Four provides the findings that lead
to, prevent, and improve the successful adoption of culturally relevant impact-driven
grantmaking practices. Chapter Five details the proposed recommendations.

15
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter provides a review of the existing literature related to philanthropic funders’
grantmaking practices in the United States. After describing the history of philanthropy’s
evolution in its models of evaluation and impact, the chapter reviews the various impact
strategies and models of evaluations employed by philanthropic funders to seek impact and
includes a discussion of the challenges and barriers surrounding evaluation and determination of
impact. Building on the challenges and barriers discussion, the review continues with a
presentation of literature on the importance of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking
practices for effective philanthropy towards impact and various frameworks and tools. The
chapter concludes by reviewing the literature associated with Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis and the multiple KMO influences affecting philanthropic funders’ ability to successfully
adopt culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. Identifying these key KMO
influences is essential to addressing gaps inhibiting successful adoption of such practices and to
facilitate change in optimizing philanthropic funders’ pursuit of more effective grant funding
decisions. These specific KMO influences serve to frame the qualitative research and analysis
within this study.
History of Philanthropic Evaluation
To move beyond feeling good about giving money away, philanthropy as a field has long
asked a question: What good is philanthropy actually doing by giving money away in the form of
grants? As a sector, philanthropy struggles with how to choose efficacious grantees (Coffman,
2016; Doyle et al., 2023; Ferris, 2021; Schambra, 2003). Philanthropic funders and their staff
also encounter challenges when determining how to measure impact and how to evaluate postgrant results to determine the consequences of their giving (Brest, 2012, 2014; Chang, 2018;

16
Coffman, 2016; Ferris, 2021; Frumkin, 2006; Kania et al., 2014; Schambra, 2003; Walker &
Grossman, 1998). Collectively, the data on the ongoing conversations about the need for
measurable, impact-driven outcomes instead of overly sentimental and purely relational
networks-based grant funding practices (Ferris, 2021; Schambra, 2003) suggest the continuing
dilemma. Seeking efficacious grantees for impactful grantmaking and evaluating impact is
crucial for philanthropy, given its aim to tackle problems that affect hundreds of millions of
people (Coffman, 2016) and given the expenditure of an enormous number of financial
resources, with U.S. foundations’ assets totaling $1.2 trillion and philanthropic giving totaling
$90 billion per year (Koob, 2021).
From Personal Charity to Institution-Based Giving
The Oxford English Dictionary defines philanthropy as the “disposition or active effort to
promote the happiness and well-being of others; practical benevolence, now especially expressed
by the generous donation of money to good causes” (Oxford English Dictionary, n.d., para. 1).
Traditional giving practices in many U.S. communities represent charitable giving directly to
family members or local groups and businesses, instead of third-party grantmaking institutions
(Koob, 2021). Institution-based philanthropic giving began with philanthropists such as
Rockefeller and Carnegie in the early 20th century (Coffman, 2016; Schambra, 2003). In the
1920s, philanthropic leaders from Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Sage, along with the National
Bureau of Economic Research, the Social Sciences Research Council, and researchers from
major universities with foundation-backed projects, began discussions regarding the use of the
social sciences to find scientific and measurable outcomes from their philanthropic endeavors
(Schambra, 2003). Conversation and research led to institutional funders’ movement towards
philanthropic strategies focused on evaluation and outcomes.

17
Evaluation and Outcomes-Based Philanthropy
In the 1960s and 1970s, foundations like the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the
W. K. Kellogg Foundation began utilizing evaluations based on social-science research to
answer impact questions about their investments and their actual effects on people’s lives
(Coffman, 2016; Coffman et al., 2013; Hall, 2004). Subsequently, in the 1980s and 1990s, a
crisis in confidence regarding social sciences raised the objection that nothing worked. As
evaluation expert Peter Rossi says in his book, Iron Law, “The expected value for any measure
effect of a social program is zero” (Rossi, 1983, as cited in Schambra, 2003, p. 18). Likewise,
Walker and Grossman (1998) indicated that traditional evaluation frameworks require control
groups as well as evidence for outcomes attributed to factors being funded—a challenging task in
settings with complex social issues (Schambra, 2003; Schorr & Schorr, 1989; Walker &
Grossman, 1998). In the 1990s, in addition to influence from the social sciences, a movement
towards strategic philanthropy began to emerge, shaped by a venture-capital approach (Ferris,
2021). Strategic philanthropy allocates funding to charitable work according to a concrete,
overarching strategy in pursuit of a specific, defined mission, moving beyond traditional charity,
seeking to create change by deciding on a specific goal that matters and funding what it believes
will achieve the goal (Brest, 2014; Brest & Harvey, 2018; Fulton, 2018). The subsequent section
outlines the various impact strategies and evaluations models that have emerged.
Philanthropic Strategies of Impact
Venture philanthropy introduced the investment metaphor to grantmaking. In the 21st
century, new principal donors with technology and financial industry backgrounds created new
institutions, strategies, and approaches (Ferris, 2021; Patrizi & Heid Thompson, 2011). The
technology and financial industry backgrounds of principal donors such as Bill and Melinda

18
Gates, Warren Buffet, Thomas and Stacey Siebel, and Jeff Skoll brought concentrated efforts to
develop strategies focused on impact (Ferris, 2021; Kramer, 2009). These philanthropists
brought a venture-capital model to grantmaking, with venture-capital practices that differed
significantly from traditional philanthropy in terms of risk management, performance measures,
expectations of relationship (investment partner instead of oversight), and length of partnership
lasting 5–7 years instead of 1–3 years (Ferris, 2021; Letts et al., 1997). Venture philanthropy
embraced two main strategies: one evidenced in strategic philanthropy with theories of change
and the other in capacity building of organizations such as nonprofits that deliver the programs
and actions for change (Ferris, 2021; Patrizi & Heid Thompson, 2011). Philanthropic strategies
discussed in subsequent sections include strategic philanthropy (logic model and theories of
change), capacity building, emergent strategy, design thinking, and impact investing.
Strategic Philanthropy
Strategic philanthropy embraced theory of change, logic models, and outcome metrics, in
addition to evaluation (Coffman, 2016; Ferris, 2021; Frumkin, 2006; Patrizi & Heid Thompson,
2011; Schambra, 2003). Philanthropic funders like the Hewlett Foundation and the Annie E.
Casey Foundation, among others, embraced theories of change. Eventual growths from this
model are impact investing and pay-for-success or pay-for-performance programs (Brest &
Harvey, 2018). Harold (2023) named this a linear mindset for strategic action, alternatively
named as a logic model in nonprofits, a logical framework in international development work,
and a value chain in the business sector. Essentially, each of these phrases refers to a series of
action steps that lead to achieving a goal or goals.

19
Capacity Building
In addition to articulating a theory of change, venture philanthropy focused on building
the capacity of nonprofits tasked with executing the action steps, the work, to enhance
organizational ability to achieve the desired goal (Ferris, 2021; Gregory & Howard, 2009). The
theory of change in capacity building strategy asserts that as nonprofits’ capacity (leadership,
revenues, and internal operations) grows, more work transpires, and more impact achieved.
Hence the capacity building strategy focuses on expanding or strengthening the infrastructure of
a nonprofit, typically through funding a staff position, technology enhancements, or capital
expansion and improvements.
Emergent Strategy and Design Thinking
Other strategies, such as emergent strategy and design thinking, seek to mitigate the
weaknesses of outcomes and evaluation-based strategies of venture philanthropy. With its roots
in business, both strategies of venture philanthropy (theories of change and capacity building)
underscore a linear model in which input leads to outcomes (Harold, 2023). Critics raise
legitimate challenges, such as asking whether business paradigms can fully translate into social
solutions (Harold, 2023). Some argue that donors are less like investors and more like consumers
(Blau, 2005). Others critique the downsides of professionalizing philanthropy: the sometimesnegative impact on nonprofits and on democracy, with the power of philanthropy to dictate and
influence (Anheier, 2007; Eisenberg, 2006; Sievers, 1997). Still, others, like Harold (2023),
noted the weaknesses of a linear model when dealing with the complexities and long timelines of
social change. In contrast to linear strategies, and to address these challenges and shortcomings
of evaluation and outcomes-focused philanthropy, emergent strategy (brown, 2017) employs a
nonlinear, more circular, or cyclical mindset. It focuses on iterative learning and progress rather

20
than prediction, recognizing the often-nonlinear complexity of the multi-layered systems
contributing to the social issues that philanthropy is seeking to engage (brown, 2017; Coffman et
al., 2020; Harold, 2023). Design thinking, also an iterative, cyclical strategy, focuses on an
ecosystem made up of philanthropy, other donors, behavioral sciences, nonprofits, and those they
serve (Raikes, 2017; Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society Guide, 2017). Design
thinking as a process aims for systems change through various techniques and principles such as
listening with an intentional focus on users’ perspectives, to seek impact with intention and
attention (Chang, 2018; Harold, 2023). As Harold (2023) clearly delineated in his book on
strategies for crafting social impact, both linear and cyclical strategies have strengths and
weaknesses. Harold proposed a hybrid model, a spiral mindset that adopts the clarity of linear
strategies and incorporates the iterative learning of cyclical strategies.
Impact Investing
Impact investing seeks yields in both business and social returns (Pandit & Tamhane,
2018). Impact investing directs financial capital to social enterprises that produce social or
environmental benefits, such as affordable housing developments and medical clinics, projects
that traditional businesses typically avoid (Pandit & Tamhane, 2018). Although the evaluation of
proposals seeking investment is not necessarily considered grantmaking due to its considerations
of financial profit, it does involve similar issues regarding whether that evaluation and due
diligence process is culturally relevant, and impact-driven.
One type of impact investing is capital aggregation collaboration. As evidenced by
funders such as the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation and its offshoot Blue Meridian Partners,
launched in 2016, capital aggregation collaboration focuses on investment and capital
aggregation towards specific sectors (Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, 2024). This capital

21
aggregation collaboration attracted donors such as Steve and Connie Ballmer of Ballmer Group
Philanthropy to focus on children and youth, and to discover and invest on a large scale in the
most promising evidence-based programs to maximize their impact (Clemmons, 2016).
Alternative versions of collaborative funding that have recently been employed by many
philanthropic funders to scale impact are pooled funds such as the Stand Together Foundation,
and collaborative funds addressing a specific issue such as COVID-19 pandemic relief, wildfires,
mental-health-specific initiatives, or the refugee crisis (Harold, 2023).
Philanthropic Models of Evaluation
Philanthropic funders employ various models of evaluation to assess the impact of their
grant funding, both in the due diligence process (applications, interviews, and conversations) and
in post-grant-award reporting. Evaluation models include the following: accountability,
formative, summative, and developmental evaluation (Patton, 2014), social return on investment
(Schambra, 2003), participatory evaluation (Gibson, 2017, 2018), utilization-focused evaluation
(Patton & Campbell-Patton, 2021; Schambra, 2003), accountability or improvement-oriented
evaluation (Schambra, 2003; Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 1985), goal-free evaluation (Schambra,
2003; Scriven, 1991), trust-based philanthropy (Schambra, 2003; Whitman Institute, 2022),
needs-based evaluation (Schambra, 2003; Shadish, 1994), and the balanced scorecard (Norton &
Kaplan, 1992; Schambra, 2003).
Each evaluation model has strengths and weaknesses. For example, in participatory
evaluation models, instead of independently making decisions, funders invite non-grant makers
to help set priorities, develop strategies, sit on foundation’s boards or advisory committees,
conduct research, and evaluate grant proposals (Gibson, 2017, 2018). The logic model or theory
of change for this evaluation model is that by shifting power and enabling a more process-

22
oriented, iterative, and relational process than traditional grantmaking, it democratizes
philanthropy, promotes justice and equity, promotes community engagement, increases
participants’ sense of agency, power, and leadership, and generates more effective philanthropic
decisions and outcomes. The challenge of the participatory evaluation model is that outcomes are
often difficult to evaluate due to lack of codification or quantifiable goals (Gibson, 2018). As a
result, this evaluation model is strong on cultural relevance, and weaker on impact-driven
grantmaking practices. Examples of funders adopting this model are Knight Foundation,
Catherine Donnelly Foundation, Headwaters Foundation, and some community foundations.
This model is easier for place-based funders who can have long-term and deeper relationships
with their grantees, given the closer geographical focus (Gibson, 2018). Some evaluation models
emerge out of attempting to address the weaknesses of other evaluation models. The
participatory evaluation model seeks to address the power imbalance that is inherent in other
evaluation models, with funders at the power center of decision, and this participants-centered
approach of participatory model offer learnings that may not have yet been uncovered. And yet,
addressing the weaknesses of one model often reveals other weaknesses (Schambra, 2003).
Other Philanthropic Innovations
Other innovations such as philanthropic collaborations with government, business, and
nonprofits, in addition to the various impact strategies and evaluation models discussed in the
previous sections, seek to increase impact in philanthropy. Examples include philanthropic
collaborations with government, business, and nonprofits (Ferris, 2021) and initiatives
prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (Anft, 2020; D5 Coalition, 2016; Dorsey et al., 2020).
New giving vehicles include new institution types such as limited licensed corporations and
donor-advised funds (Ferris, 2021). New mechanisms such as GoFundMe campaigns on social

23
media, and giving circles such as women’s giving circles, use a collective giving model where
individuals gather, discuss their values and issues in the community, and then pool their funds to
make grants (Ferris, 2021; Gamboa, 2022). Each innovation seeks to increase philanthropic
impact, and each encounters the challenge of integrating cultural relevance with an impactdriven focus.
Barriers and Challenges in Seeking Philanthropy With Impact
Despite decades of seeking philanthropy with impact, the debate and discussion on how
best to evaluate and achieve impact through philanthropic giving continues (Ferris, 2021;
Schambra, 2003). Barriers and challenges include historic practices of philanthropic funders not
funding nonprofits’ costs around evaluation, contributing to the lack of resources (financial,
personnel, training, and expertise) in nonprofits to employ effective evaluation and strategically
measure impact (Buteau et al., 2017; Despard, 2016); the lack of culturally relevant evaluations
excluding potentially effective grantees and missing the actual impact (Buteau et al., 2017;
Dorsey et al., 2020); and the lack of meaningful accountability mechanisms and processes that
encourage effective evaluation and measurement of impact (Bryan et al., 2020; Coffman, 2016;
Sen & Villarosa, 2019; Word, 2020). Even though there is no perfect impact strategy and
evaluation model, a variety of frameworks and tools exist to address historic, exclusionary
practices in the philanthropic sector and to promote impact-driven and culturally relevant grant
funding evaluations. The next section provides a brief overview of some frameworks and tools
available to philanthropic funders to understand and increase impact.
Frameworks and Tools
While every impact strategy and evaluation model has its strengths and weaknesses, and
every philanthropic funder employs different strategies and evaluation models, there is broad

24
consensus in the literature and the sector that grant proposal evaluations ought to be impactdriven and that evaluations are best done in a culturally relevant way for enhanced impact (Cyril
et al., 2021; D5 Coalition, 2016; Dorsey et al., 2020; Ferris, 2021; Frierson et al., 2010; Gienapp
& Hostetter, 2022; Hood et al., 2015; Page, 2008; Raikes, 2017). Anft (2020) and Ferris (2021)
name several frameworks and tools that organizations such as GEO, BoardSource, Mission
Investors Exchange, PEAK, and others developed, and used by various philanthropic funders
seeking to implement culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. Funders
utilize frameworks and tools such as trust-based philanthropy, the racial-equity grantmaking
framework, and the equitable evaluation framework, in addition to various versions of equity
initiatives employed by different charitable funders. While numerous frameworks and tools have
been researched, developed, and made available to funders, and several foundations have
produced business cases and action guides based on their own journey and learnings (Anft,
2020), there is a gap in the literature about the key factors that are needed to accomplish
successful adoption of these culturally relevant and impact-driven practices.
A case study of the Annie E. Casey Foundation (Sykes, 2017) detailed the foundation’s
own journey from its chief diversity officer’s perspective and delineated key factors leading to
successful adoption of its current practices. A summary article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy
(Anft, 2020) briefly mentioned some factors that are foundational for a number of foundations
such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, Borealis Philanthropy,
McKnight Foundation, and the San Francisco Foundation. While McGill and Potapchuk’s (2014)
case study explored the work and learnings of four different foundations (Akonadi Foundation,
the California Endowment, Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, and Woods Fund Chicago) and their
evolution from traditional grantmaking to intentional racial justice funders, the study fell short of

25
specifically naming the key factors present in all four foundations. The most comprehensive
research came from Ford Foundation’s 2019 study on 12 multi-year, funder-influenced
initiatives, which discussed promising approaches and four elements that consistently occur:
evidence, engagement, example, and easing adoption (Reich et al., 2019). There appears to be
little other published research focused on key factors leading to successful adoption of culturally
relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. This gap is the focus of the proposed research:
to examine and surface the key factors that contributed to philanthropic funders’ successful
adoption of such practices. The literature review provides the concepts for a deeper investigation
of KMO factors affecting successful adoption. The following sections delineate the elements of
the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) and their roles in successful adoption of
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices.
Gap Analysis Framework
Based on evidence from social, educational, and organizational research, Clark and Estes
(2008) identified three primary performance influences, or KMO influences, which affect the
attainment of both organizational and stakeholders’ goals. This gap analysis framework pinpoints
key factors affecting a philanthropic funder’s ability to adopt culturally relevant and impactdriven grantmaking practices. Because philanthropic institutional funders’staff members (such
as CEO’s, vice presidents of programs, program managers, program directors, or portfolio
managers) typically hold the responsibility for evaluating grant proposals or setting policies for
such evaluations, these philanthropic staff are the interest-holder group at the center of this study.
The first section below addresses the knowledge and skills necessary to implement culturally
relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices, followed by a discussion of factors affecting
staff motivation. The last section outlines organizational influences identified in the literature as

26
those that shape philanthropic staff’s ability to conduct culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices. These assumed KMO influences related to the successful adoption of
such practices drive the qualitative research methodology outlined in Chapter Three.
Interest-Holder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
The following review of literature focuses on KMO influences, identified by Clark and
Estes (2008) as key dimensions affecting performance—in this case, the successful adoption of
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. Each of these dimensions serves to
inform a gap analysis and pinpoint the factors that support or impede successful adoption of such
practices (Clark & Estes, 2008). As a result, understanding the ways in which KMO influences
impact philanthropic staff’s ability will enable philanthropic funders to pay attention to the
common causes of performance gaps related to KMO influences and will help them discern
which influences are the most crucial to engage when they seek to adopt culturally relevant and
impact-driven grantmaking practices (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge and Skills Influences
Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that both knowledge and skills are vital to achieve
organizational performance measures. Having a sufficient level of knowledge and skills is
essential to philanthropic staff reaching the goal of conducting culturally relevant and impactdriven grant proposal evaluations and grantmaking practices (Rueda, 2011). Krathwohl (2002)
incorporated and modified Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom, 1956) to delineate the knowledge
dimension into four distinct categories: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. The
related work of Anderson et al. (2001) classified the above four knowledge types as a part of the
knowledge dimension that is essential for analyzing, evaluating, and assessing. While all four are
relevant, the literature showed that conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive elements are

27
pertinent key factors contributing to successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices (Anft, 2020; Dorsey et al., 2020; Sykes, 2017). Sen and Villarosa (2019)
spoke to the importance of the knowledge of root causes and systems that led to this gap. Dorsey
et al. (2020) named the critical relationship of the conceptual knowledge of how racism affects
the impact of philanthropic funding, how diversity matters for effective, impactful giving.
Dorsey et al. (2020) also named deeply rooted norms, structures, and biases that play critical
roles in grant proposal evaluations, which requires evaluators to have competence in
metacognitive knowledge (strategic, conditional, and self-knowledge; Anderson et al., 2001) and
check for bias and gaps in knowledge. Anft (2020) noted numerous data points showing the
growth of knowledge about the problems surrounding the lack of culturally relevant and impactdriven grantmaking practices leading to mainstream attention in philanthropy and discussion of
these issues. However, the article also notes the need for philanthropic funders to not only have
conceptual knowledge and discuss the issues, but also operationalize solutions in their
grantmaking practices, which infers the need for both procedural and metacognitive knowledge.
The knowledge of the why (the principles and concepts of what culturally relevant and impactdriven grant proposal evaluations are—conceptual knowledge), the knowledge of the how
(processes and methods that operationalize these practices—procedural knowledge), and the
knowledge of the way (strategic and self-knowledge about the context—metacognitive
knowledge) are all essential factors contributing to the successful adoption of these practices.
Staff Knowledge: Conceptual Elements
Conceptual knowledge identifies knowledge associated with domain-specific principles,
concepts, or structures (Krathwohl, 2002). Specific types of conceptual knowledge include
knowledge of classifications and categories, knowledge of principles and generalizations, and

28
knowledge of theories, models, and structures (Anderson et al., 2001). To adopt culturally
relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices, the staff members of philanthropic funders
need to have knowledge of the concepts surrounding cultural relevance and impact and the ways
in which their identities inform their bias and influences analysis. Raikes (2017) named colorblindness in grant funding decisions as an excuse, naming the critical role of racism and how
color-blindness both ignores root causes that are essential to name in addressing societal
systemic issues, and neglects the reality that philanthropic grant funding disproportionately
exclude. The Ford Foundation study (Reich et al., 2019) named the four Es (evidence,
engagement, example, and easing adoption) as key factors. The elements of evidence and
example are specifically relevant to conceptual knowledge. Evidence refers to clear, data-driven
evidence of the problem or gap, which is key to defining goal(s) for addressing that gap and for
tracking evidence of progress (Reich et al., 2019). Knowledge of this evidence and of examples
of success, both at the beginning of the launch and throughout the journey, are key for building
buy-in and momentum (Reich et al., 2019). In the analysis of the Annie E. Casey Foundation
case study, Sykes (2017) noted the importance of building a case for change based on data.
Sykes (2017) also emphasized the importance of owning accurate, disaggregated data on
grantmaking results and practices reflecting culturally relevant and impact categories and
communicating a clear and consistent message of key relevant concepts to ensure the ‘conceptual
knowledge of the whole staff team, not just the program officers. Knowing the why is crucial for
successful adoption. In addition, knowing how (procedural knowledge) is also essential.
Staff Knowledge: Procedural Elements
Procedural knowledge includes the methodological knowledge or processes related to
accomplishing the goal (Krathwohl, 2002). Specific types of procedural knowledge include

29
knowledge of specific skills, techniques, and methods, and knowledge of specific criteria for
deciding when to use appropriate procedures (Anderson et al., 2001). In addition to having
conceptual knowledge, philanthropic staff need to know how to effectively conduct procedures
that reflect culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. The ease of adoption
element in the Ford Foundation study (Reich et al., 2019) infers the need for methods and
procedures that are easy for philanthropic staff to adopt. Anft (2020) specifically names
grantmaking practices that lead to the limiting access or exclusion of grassroots organizations,
often led by leaders of color, from grant funding, highlighting the need to adopt culturally
relevant and impact-driven policies and procedures. In their own assessment of the impact of
their grantmaking, Bridgespan and Echoing Green recognized the importance of culturally
relevant and impact-driven methods and procedures for sourcing potential grantees who may
have a high potential impact but are culturally different from dominant cultural paradigms
(Dorsey et al., 2020). Sykes (2017) emphasized the importance of a foundation implementing
changes to its grantmaking policies and practices, trainings for all levels of staff, and creating
pathways for learning that enabled the employees at the Annie E. Casey Foundation to adopt
culturally relevant and impact-driven grant proposal evaluations and practices. Successful
adoption of a culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking approach requires the why
(conceptual knowledge) and the how (conceptual knowledge), in addition to the way
(metacognitive knowledge).
Staff Knowledge: Metacognitive Elements
Metacognitive element refers to knowledge of a person’s own self in relation to the
subject matter and context (Krathwohl, 2002). Specific types of metacognitive knowledge
include knowledge of strategic knowledge, knowledge about cognitive tasks—including

30
appropriate knowledge of the context and conditional knowledge—and self-knowledge
(Anderson et al., 2001). Sen and Villarosa (2019) emphasized how the growing knowledge of
root causes and systems influences decisions on grant funding decisions. Anft (2020) recognized
the importance of multiple dimensions in a change strategy towards adoption, incorporating
knowledge integral to cultural relevance and impact, as well as available frameworks and tools
that are appropriate to the context, embracing awareness of both the individual and the
philanthropic funder’s bias and positionality in the determination of grantmaking criteria,
approach, and practices.
Table 2 presents the knowledge influences pertinent to philanthropic funders’ successful
adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. Knowledge influences
related to successful adoption include conceptual (such as effects of racism, bias, and
exclusionary practices), procedural (such as methods and procedures that reflect cultural
relevance and impact-driven paradigms), and metacognitive knowledge (such as self-knowledge
of organizational and individual bias and positionality).

31
Table 2
Knowledge Influences
Assumed knowledge influence Knowledge type
Staff need to know concepts related to culturally
relevant and impact-driven grantmaking
practices, such as the impact of racism,
exclusionary access, and funding practices
that affect grant funding decisions (Anft,
2020; Dorsey et al., 2020; McGill &
Potapchuk, 2014; Reich et al., 2019; Sykes,
2017).
Conceptual
Staff need to know methods and procedures that
reflect culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices (Anft, 2020; Dorsey et
al., 2020; Reich et al., 2019; Sykes, 2017).
Procedural
Staff need to be aware of individual and funder
bias and positionality and appropriately
incorporate conceptual and procedural
knowledge into specific contexts (Anft, 2020;
Sen & Villarosa, 2019).
Metacognitive
Motivational Influences
Individuals require both knowledge (such as the knowledge discussed in the earlier
section) and desire or motivation in order to achieve performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Eccles & Wigfield, 2023; Rueda, 2011). As a result, motivation represents one of the leading
causes for performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation refers to different processes that
account for a person’s intensity, direction, and persistence of effort toward attaining a goal
(Grossman & Salas, 2011). Consequently, motivation is a key influence on performance. Active
choice (or action), persistence, and mental effort (or self-regulation) represent key categories and
dimensions of motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008; Elliot et al., 2017; Pajares & Valiante, 2006).
Theories related to motivation include main theoretical perspectives, such as attribution and

32
control beliefs, value, interest, goals and goal orientation, emotions, expectancy value, and selfefficacy and competence (Ambrose et al., 2010; Pekrun et al., 2011; Rueda, 2011; Schunk &
Usher, 2019). Positive motivational influences lead to active effort, greater persistence, and
better-quality work towards the goal of adopting these practices (Rueda, 2011; Schunk & Usher,
2019). While the field of motivation is widely researched, the review of literature in the next
section focuses on motivation-related influences pertinent to philanthropy funders’ successful
adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grant evaluation and grantmaking practices,
most notably the motivational influences of expectancy value, attainment value, utility value,
perceived cost, and self-efficacy.
Expectancy Value Theory
Eccles and Wigfield (2023) asserted that value comes from expectancies, which are the
perceived importance that people attribute to a specific task and are key indicators for successful
performance and goal attainment. Expectancy value theory premises that there is an expectation
of success while doing the task. A high expectancy value is correlated with active choice,
persistence, and mental effort towards performance to reach a goal (Rueda, 2011; Schunk &
Usher, 2019). When goals have a high relative value, motivation increases for people to engage
in behaviors to attain that goal (Ambrose et al., 2010). Eccles and Wigfield identified four
dimensions within the expectancy value theory: intrinsic value (e.g., personal enjoyment),
attainment value (e.g., importance of doing well), utility value (e.g., perceive usefulness for
future goals), and perceived cost (e.g., competition with other goals). While each dimension is
relevant, as a result of the literature review, this study will focus on the attainment value, the
utility value, and the perceived cost as motivational factors that contribute to the successful
adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices.

33
Attainment Value
If people believe the task to be important and believe in the importance of doing well,
they will be more motivated to actively choose and do the task (Ambrose et al., 2010; Eccles &
Wigfield, 2023; Elliot et al., 2017; Schunk & Usher, 2019). When philanthropic funders
understand the importance of operationalizing funding practices that do not exclude a diversity
of voices and perspectives and understand how these practices augment the effectiveness of
foundations, motivation increases (Dorsey et al., 2020; McGill & Potapchuk, 2014; Reich et al.,
2019; Sykes, 2017). This attainment value, which refers to the philanthropic staff’s belief that
adopting culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices is important, ties closely to
the utility value of such practices—the perceived usefulness of such practices for future goals
(Pintrich, 2003). In addition to the importance of doing well, the perceived usefulness of
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices towards the goal of effective
grantmaking represents a key motivational factor.
Utility Value
A high perceived usefulness for future goals, utility value, leads to fully engaged and
motivated performance of that task (Ambrose et al., 2010; Eccles & Wigfield, 2023; Elliot et al.,
2017). If philanthropic staff believe that adopting culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices has value towards the widely agreed-upon future objective of effective
grantmaking, they will be more motivated to actively choose for and adopt such practices
(Ambrose et al., 2010; Eccles & Wigfield, 2023; Elliot et al., 2017; Schunk & Usher, 2019). This
utility value increases philanthropic staff’s motivation to adopt culturally relevant and impactdriven grantmaking practices (Blackwell, 2017; D5 Coalition, 2016; Raikes, 2017; Reich et al.,
2019; Sykes, 2017).

34
Perceived Cost
If philanthropic staff believe that adopting culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices is important and that the payoff is worth the cost in comparison to other
goals, they will be more motivated to actively choose for adoption of such tasks (Ambrose et al.,
2010; Eccles & Wigfield, 2023; Elliot et al., 2017; Schunk & Usher, 2019). When philanthropic
funders understand and own the reason for adopting culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices, the importance of such an endeavor increases motivation and enables the
overcoming of perceived costs. When philanthropic funders perceive that the exclusion of
grassroots organizations led by leaders of color from funding poses a tremendous risk to
impactful grantmaking, the perceived costs for employing culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices become worthwhile, and adoption of such practices becomes a priority
(Blackwell, 2017; D5 Coalition, 2016; Daniel, 2019; Ferris, 2021; Foster et al., 2016; McGill &
Potapchuk, 2014; Raikes, 2017; Reich et al., 2019; Sykes, 2017). Perceived costs of adopting
such practices may range from significant changes to grantmaking practices, dissonance, and
objections from both internal and external interest-holders, letting go of control and power, and
other inherent costs of change management such as financial costs of adopting new processes or
systems and staff (Ferris, 2021; Reich et al., 2019; Sykes, 2017). McGill and Potapchuk (2014)
and Sykes (2017) all highlighted the importance of the board’s understanding of, and value for,
ownership. Philanthropic funders who can perceive the adoption of these practices as key to
philanthropy’s goal for impactful grantmaking towards the mitigation and prevention of society’s
problems and challenges are then better able to navigate the perceived costs of pursuing this
endeavor (Daniel, 2019; McGill & Potapchuk, 2014; Sykes, 2017).

35
Ultimately, the above elements of expectancy value theory, including attainment value,
utility value, and perceived costs, influence the degree of motivation and impact the extent of
successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. In addition
to expectancy value elements, another key motivational influence is self-efficacy, the belief in
one’s capacity to execute behaviors (Bandura, 1997; Clark & Estes, 2008).
Self-Efficacy Theory
Increasing the degree of self-efficacy also positively impacts philanthropic funders’
adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grant proposal evaluations and grantmaking
practices. Self-efficacy is an individual’s perceptions about their ability to perform a given action
at a certain level of performance, or the judgment an individual makes about their own ability to
perform a given task (Bandura, 1982). The Ford Foundation study points to two Es that
positively increase motivation: engagement and examples (Reich et al., 2019). Engagement
refers to engaging a coalition of like-minded collaborators and equipping that coalition to engage
more adopters (Reich et al., 2019). These key coalitions enable the sharing of knowledge, best
practices, and encouragement, and they produce more energy towards change (Reich et al.,
2019). Examples, both initial and ongoing, refer to showcasing successful examples of other
philanthropic funders to help funders see that they can do it too, therefore increasing selfefficacy (Reich et al., 2019). Both produce positive outcome expectancies (Ambrose et al., 2010)
and increase self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy beliefs influence action, perseverance, and self-regulation (Elliot et al.,
2017; Pajares & Valiante, 2006) which are categories that align with Clark and Estes’s (2008)
indicators of choice, persistence, and mental effort regarding goal-oriented behaviors. Selfefficacy beliefs can either positively or negatively impact choices, regardless of whether that

36
belief is objectively accurate (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Factors that affect selfefficacy beliefs are complex and multi-faceted. Rueda (2011) included prior knowledge,
feedback, and past success or failures as significant contributors to the level of self-efficacy. The
case of the Annie E. Casey Foundation (Sykes, 2017) points to the importance of discussions and
training towards core competencies for all staff, reflecting Rueda’s (2011) concepts. A higher
level of self-efficacy leads to increased confidence and more transfer of one’s ability to learn and
apply the new knowledge around culturally relevant and impact-driven grant proposal
evaluations and grantmaking practices, which in turn affects motivation (Chiaburu & Lindsay,
2008; Grossman & Salas, 2011; Reich et al., 2019; Sykes, 2017).
Successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices
requires philanthropic staff who can perform culturally relevant and impact-driven assessments.
When philanthropic program officers lack confidence in their ability to perform an effective
evaluation (Buteau et al., 2017), the lack of self-efficacy hinders successful adoption. Case
studies of funders who have successfully adopted such practices show that philanthropic staff’s
ownership and core competency are crucial (D5 Coalition, 2016; McGill & Potapchuk, 2014;
Reich et al., 2019; Sykes, 2017). Cultivating a positive environment addresses motivational
barriers by increasing confidence (for individuals and teams), growing trust (interpersonal and
organizational), encouraging collaboration, and fostering hopeful expectations about the work.
Table 3 presents the motivational influences pertinent to philanthropic funders’
successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices, including
expectancy value (expectation for success), attainment value (importance of doing well), utility
value (perceived usefulness for future goals), perceived cost (competition with other goals), and
self-efficacy (belief in one’s capacity to execute behaviors).

37
Table 3
Motivation Influences
Assumed motivation influence Motivation type
Philanthropic funders (board and staff) need to believe
they can succeed in implementing culturally relevant
and impact-driven grantmaking practices (McGill &
Potapchuk, 2014; Sykes, 2017).
Expectancy value
(expectation for success)
Philanthropic funders need to understand why culturally
relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices are
essential and crucial to impactful and effective
grantmaking (Blackwell, 2017; D5 Coalition, 2016;
Daniel, 2019; Ferris, 2021; McGill & Potapchuk,
2014; Raikes, 2017; Reich et al., 2019; Sykes, 2017).
Attainment value
(importance of doing well)
Philanthropic funders need to perceive the usefulness of
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking
practices towards future goals (Blackwell, 2017; D5
Coalition, 2016; Raikes, 2017; Reich et al., 2019;
Sykes, 2017).
Utility value
(perceived usefulness for future
goals)
Philanthropic funders need to perceive the cost of
employing culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices as worthwhile in comparison to
other goals (Raikes, 2017; Sykes, 2017).
Perceived cost
(competition with other goals)
Philanthropic funders (board and staff) need to believe
that they have the competence and ability to perform
culturally relevant and impact-driven grant proposal
evaluations and grantmaking practices (Buteau et al.,
2017; D5 Coalition, 2016; McGill & Potapchuk,
2014; Reich et al., 2019; Sykes, 2017).
Self-efficacy
(belief in one’s capacity to
execute behaviors)
Organizational Influences
Organizational deficiencies in policies, work processes and material resources, and
workplace culture represent a key factor in the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008),
and significantly impact philanthropic funders’ ability to adopt culturally relevant and impactdriven grantmaking practices. An organization’s unique processes and cultures define how work
happens (Senge, 2006), and the four organizational frames (structural, human resources,

38
political, and political) significantly shape the beliefs and attitudes of the organizational
stakeholders (Bolman & Deal, 2013). Organizational influences, in addition to knowledge and
motivation, affect whether philanthropic funders can successfully adopt culturally relevant and
impact-driven grantmaking practices. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) maintained that an
organization’s culture can be examined through tangible factors in its cultural setting (such as
employees, tasks, and social context), and through cultural models (shared mental schema and
cultural practices). The review of literature below focuses on organizational influences that
impact the successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grant evaluation and
grantmaking practices: leadership and policies, work processes and resources, and workplace
culture. Both organizational change and performance support are needed to confront
organizational policies that do not reflect culturally relevant grant evaluation practices, to modify
work processes or materials and resources that are not conducive to adopting such practices, and
to change workplace culture that discourages, stalls, or sabotages efforts to adopt such practices
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Dorsey et al., 2020; Reich et al., 2019; Sykes, 2017).
Leadership and Policies
For successful adoption, philanthropic funders must provide intentional and competent
leadership dedicated to the pursuit of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking
practices, and they must set policies that reflect such practices (Dorsey et al., 2020; Ferris, 2021;
McGill & Potapchuk, 2014; Reich et al., 2019; Sykes, 2017). Leadership’s beliefs and values
(both explicit and implicit) set the tone and determine policies (Clark & Estes, 2008; Gallimore
& Goldenberg, 2001). Philanthropic leadership’s value for culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices, and the buy-in for change on multiple levels of leadership (from the
board to executives to all levels of staff), are crucial to reaching success (Ferris, 2021; McGill &

39
Potapchuk, 2014; Reich et al., 2019; Sen & Villarosa, 2019; Sykes, 2017). Anft (2020)
highlighted leadership not only influencing frameworks and tools but also changing overall
grantmaking strategy. The presence or lack of leadership value and endorsement guides
grantmaking policies, impacts the hiring of diverse and culturally competent staff with
experiential knowledge, affects performance evaluations and management of staff, influences
organizational culture, and shapes the creation and allocation of work processes and resources
(Ferris, 2021; McGill & Potapchuk, 2014; Reich et al., 2019; Sen & Villarosa, 2019; Sykes,
2017). Work processes and resources significantly influence the ability of philanthropic staff to
employ culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices.
Workplace Processes and Resources
Workplace systems and processes, along with the presence or lack of resources, are key
to achieving desired performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Philanthropic funders must create or
modify their work processes and provide materials and resources that align with culturally
relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices (Anft, 2020; Reich et al., 2019; Sen &
Villarosa, 2019; Sykes, 2017). Work processes, such as collecting accurate, disaggregated data
on grant applicants and grantees, provide accountability and inform the analysis and formulation
of grantmaking policies and practices, providing a basis for assessing and improving the
foundations’ cultural relevance (Anft, 2020; Sykes, 2017). Most if not all departments and units
within a philanthropic funder, ranging from reception to financial reporting, interact with
grantmaking practices either directly or indirectly. Signs such as the cultural competency of the
receptionist or the accessibility of grant resources and information show evidence of culturally
relevant and accessible reception practices. Further evidence is provided by grant applications
and evaluation criteria that are culturally relevant to diverse populations, program officers

40
conducting the evaluations who are competent and capable of conducting culturally relevant and
impact-driven evaluations, and reporting processes, templates, and supports that are accessible to
diverse audiences (Buteau et al., 2017). Culturally irrelevant and non-impact-driven work
processes become barriers and burdens for grant applicants and grantees (Anft, 2020; Sen &
Villarosa, 2019). All units and their work processes need to function with a focus on culturally
relevant and impact-driven practices. Alignment and effectiveness increase when all
departments, including administrative departments, are thinking intentionally about their own
work processes, and continuously improving towards the goal of culturally relevant and impactdriven practices (Sykes, 2017).
In addition to appropriate work processes, resources for philanthropic staff to learn and
continually grow in their ability to conduct culturally relevant and impact-driven grant proposal
evaluations and grantmaking practices are essential and help to drive continuous improvement
(Reich et al., 2019; Sen & Villarosa, 2019; Senge, 2006; Sykes, 2017). Pathways for nonjudgmental learning through varied platforms and formats, trainings with clear goals and
measurements, clear long-term learning arcs with staged agendas that prioritize learning and
relationship rather than punishment, and intentional efforts to create space and cultivate respect
for diverse voices are key attributes of learning resources that contribute to a cultural setting
focused on learning and improvement (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Senge, 2006; Sykes,
2017). Sykes (2017) highlighted the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s practice of providing training
and holding staff discussions for all staff from all departments through varied platforms and
formats, not just for program officers, which demonstrates an understanding that the focus on
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices is both procedural and cultural.
Discussion of the cultural component of the workplace follows in the next section.

41
Workplace Culture
The saying about culture eating strategy for breakfast is often attributed to Peter Drucker,
a well-known management consultant (Reidy, n.d.). The culture of an organization includes its
rituals, roles, customs, practices, expected behaviors, values, thinking, language, accepted norms
for relationships, interactions, communication, and decision-making (Bolman & Deal, 2013;
Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). A workplace culture that promotes a focus on culturally
relevant and impact-driven practices is key to successful adoption.
The factors already discussed earlier around knowledge, motivation, leadership and
policies, work processes, and resources all contribute to the culture of the organization. Not
surprisingly, work environments that encourage the adoption of culturally relevant and impactdriven grantmaking practices lead to successful adoption. To bring in the expertise needed to
create this kind of culture, the organization needs to hire staff with experiential knowledge and
skills for cultural relevance who will focus on impact (McGill & Potapchuk, 2014; Sen &
Villarosa, 2019). In addition, existing staff need to grow and learn culturally relevant and
impact-driven paradigms and principles to affect actual practices, and to have a metacognitive
level of understanding of the ways in which practices, identities, and systems perpetuate issues of
access and in influence grantmaking practices (Sykes, 2017). In the transfer climate of learning,
cues that prompt trainees to use new skills, consequences for the correct use of skills and
remediation of errors, and social support from supervisors and peers through incentives and
feedback are all key factors (Grossman & Salas, 2011; Sykes, 2017). Environments seen as
supportive will increase motivation, while the converse is also true (Ambrose et al., 2010; Reich
et al., 2019; Sykes, 2017). To achieve successful adoption, philanthropic funders must create a

42
workplace culture that encourages ownership of, and values training for, culturally relevant and
impact-driven grantmaking practices (Reich et al., 2019; Sykes, 2017).
Bandura (1977) defined collective efficacy as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint
capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of
attainments” (p. 447). While knowledge and motivation factors may impact individual interestholders and heighten self-efficacy, organizational influences of leadership and policies, work
processes and resources, and workplace culture promote collective efficacy, beyond the
individual (Bandura, 2000; Reich et al., 2019; Sen & Villarosa, 2019; Sykes, 2017). Both levels
of efficacy contribute toward the successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices.
Table 4 shows organizational influences that contribute to the successful adoption of
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. Organizational influences include
leadership and policies that point the organization towards the pursuit of such grantmaking
practices, work processes and resources for both philanthropic staff and for grant applicants and
grantees that support the operationalization of such grantmaking practices, in addition to a
workplace culture that encourages, values, and empowers the adoption of such culturally relevant
and impact-driven grantmaking practices.

43
Table 4
Organizational Influences
Assumed organizational influence Organizational category
Philanthropic funders must provide
intentional and competent leadership
dedicated to the pursuit of culturally
relevant and impact-driven grantmaking
practices and set policies that reflect such
practices (Dorsey et al., 2020; Ferris, 2021;
McGill & Potapchuk, 2014; Reich et al.,
2019; Sykes, 2017).
Leadership and policies
Philanthropic funders must create work
processes and provide resources such as
culturally relevant and impact-driven
applications and reporting templates (Anft,
2020; Reich et al., 2019; Sen & Villarosa,
2019; Sykes, 2017).
Work processes and resources
Philanthropic funders must create a workplace
culture that encourages ownership of, and
values training for, culturally relevant and
impact-driven grantmaking practices (Reich
et al., 2019; Sykes, 2017).
Workplace culture
Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework provides a model to consider the
intersectional factors of philanthropic funder KMO influences. The model examines the
performance gaps impeding the successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices by philanthropic funders. A conceptual framework is an intersecting
network of ideas, values, and models that shape a research study (Maxwell, 2013). This literature
review has synthesized the existing research around philanthropic funder knowledge,
philanthropic funder motivation, and organizational influences, each of which is a key factor
leading to successful adoption. A conceptual framework also places a research study within a

44
methodological approach and the researcher’s knowledge and experience (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Maxwell (2013) highlighted the importance of the conceptual framework framing a
researcher’s assumptions about the interactions of stakeholders and key influences to address the
research problem. This study utilizes a constructivist worldview, focusing on how factors like
process and meaning interact, and the causal mechanisms that contribute to the successful
adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices (Creswell & Creswell,
2023). Overarching theories on knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001; Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda,
2011), motivation (Bandura, 1977, 1982, 2006; Eccles & Wigfield, 2023; Pintrich, 2003), and
organizational influences (Bolman & Deal, 2013; Senge, 2006) undergirded the KMO
discussion. In this way, this literature review highlights the key KMO influences, and the path
towards examining the interaction between these key factors.
Both in the literature and in actual practice, KMO factors significantly impact one
another. Organizational influences can enhance or detract from knowledge and motivation, and
vice versa. Using the KMO key factors to shape the research questions and align interview
questions in the qualitative approach to said factors (Creswell & Creswell, 2023), this study
further examines the impact of each of these factors and the interactions between them.
Figure 1 illustrates the intersectional presence of philanthropic funder KMO influences
that lead to the successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking
practices. Knowledge influences include procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive factors.
Motivation influences include expectancy value, attainment value, utility value, perceived cost,
and self-efficacy factors. Organizational influences include leadership and policies, work
processes and resources, and workplace culture factors.

45
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
Conclusion
This literature review has synthesized the existing research regarding the KMO factors
surrounding successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grant proposal
evaluation and grantmaking practices by philanthropic funders, under the conceptual framework
of the gap analytical model (Clark & Estes, 2008). Collectively, the literature on culturally
relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices provides key insights into the complex web of
KMO factors. Successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grant proposal
evaluation and grantmaking practices requires philanthropic funders’ staff to have sufficient

46
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001; Anft, 2020; Clark
& Estes, 2008; Dorsey et al., 2020; Krathwohl, 2002; Reich et al., 2019; Rueda, 2011; Sen &
Villarosa, 2019; Sykes, 2017). When adopting culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking
practices is perceived as being useful, worth the costs, and important—more important than other
competing goals to effective grantmaking— motivation increases for adopting such practices
(Blackwell, 2017; Buteau et al., 2017; Chiaburu & Lindsay, 2008; Clark & Estes, 2008; D5
Coalition, 2016; McGill & Potapchuk, 2014; Pajares & Valiante, 2006; Sykes, 2017).
Organizational influences framed the KMO discussion regarding the importance of leadership,
policies, work processes and resources, and workplace culture as key factors impacting the
successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices (Anft, 2020;
Bolman & Deal, 2013; Dorsey et al., 2020; Ferris, 2021; McGill & Potapchuk, 2014; Reich et
al., 2019; Sen & Villarosa, 2019; Senge, 2006; Sykes, 2017). This review has also highlighted
the interaction between these key factors that lead to the successful adoption of culturally
relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. A deeper discussion of the research
methodology of this study follows in Chapter Three.

47
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study is to discern and understand key factors that lead to
philanthropic funders’ successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking
practices. This qualitative case study collects and analyzes data on five philanthropic funders
with a reputation for successful adoption of such practices. The study focuses on identifying the
KMO influences (Clark & Estes, 2008). While a complete analysis would include research data
from nonprofits, for practical purposes, this study focuses on the interest-holder group of
philanthropic funders’ staff. This chapter describes the research and design methodology, data
collection, and data analysis. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the ethics and
limitations of the study.
The KMO factors of the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) shape the
following research questions which guide the study. KMO influences serve as key dimensions to
inform a gap analysis and pinpoint the factors that support or impede successful adoption of
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices.
Research Questions
1. What factors lead philanthropic funders to successful adoption of culturally relevant
and impact-driven grantmaking practices?
2. What KMO influences prevent philanthropic funders from successfully adopting
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices?
3. What KMO influences improve the successful adoption of culturally relevant and
impact-driven grantmaking practices in philanthropic funders?

48
Overview of Design
To discern and understand the key factors that lead to philanthropic funders’ successful
adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices, this qualitative case
study examines five philanthropic funders with a reputation for successful adoption of such
practices. Qualitative research aims to understand how people “interpret and make meaning of
their experiences and, through it, define and construct their worlds” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p.
6). This research approach seeks understanding from the participants’ perspectives to delineate
the grantmaking practices employed and to describe how participants interpret their experiences
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The case study qualitative research approach aligns with the purpose
of this study to unearth key themes, factors, and dimensions by focusing on a small, purposeful
sample, in the natural setting of philanthropic funders’ grantmaking practices, to further
understand the context, process, and meaning attributed to the practices deployed (Creswell &
Creswell, 2023; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
This qualitative study consisted of semi-structured interviews of staff members of the five
chosen philanthropic funders to collect data on key factors leading to successful adoption of
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. Qualitative face-to-face interviews
with a standard set of open-ended questions gave the space for participants to articulate their
views and opinions and allowed the researcher to explore answers and to bring forth meaning
and insight into the grantmaking practices participants employed (Creswell & Creswell, 2023).
In addition, a transcript of the complete video recording provided an accurate record of each
interview. Creswell and Creswell (2023) indicated that using mechanically recorded and
verbatim data helps ensure the credibility and dependability of the research, reducing the risk of

49
researcher bias and ensuring the accuracy of data. Table 5 illustrates the relationship between the
research questions and the data source.
Table 5
Data Source
Research questions Method:
interviews
What factors lead philanthropic funders to successful adoption of
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices?
X
What KMO influences prevent philanthropic funders from
successfully adopting culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices?
X
What KMO influences improve the successful adoption of
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices in
philanthropic funders?
X

50
Research Setting
The research focused on staff members from five philanthropic funders located in the
United States. The researcher selected only U.S. funders because philanthropic culture and
practices and societal racial landscapes differ significantly from country to country. Research
took place through video conference meetings with one or more staff members of five
philanthropic funders from five different regions of the United States: West Coast, Midwest,
Northeast, New England, and Southeast.
The Researcher
My own positionality as a person of color, specifically as an Asian woman, with the
experience of working in nonprofits for more than 20 years, impacted how I conducted the
interviews. I have navigated grant funding evaluations and processes as a grant applicant, and as
a philanthropic funder staff member. These experiences helped to give me perspective that
informed the research questions, the interview questions, and the data collection processes.
While my identity as a woman of color may have helped other women and other philanthropic
staff participants from communities of color feel more comfortable in sharing the real story, it
also had the potential to bring discomfort to participants who do not identify as a woman and/or
are not people of color. In conducting this study, I needed to pay attention to interviewerrespondent dynamics, and intentionally build rapport, bring ease, and seek to navigate potentially
complex social identities (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
During the course of the study, no conflict of interest existed between the researcher and
the participant philanthropic funders. I did not hold any supervisory role, employment, or board
service with any of the research participant organizations prior to or during the study. None of

51
the participant organizations received funding from the philanthropic funder where I was
employed at the time of the study.
Data Sources
Data sources for this study included interviews with 12 participants who were working as
staff from five philanthropy funders throughout the United States at the time of the study. The
study utilized interviews with a semi-structured format, which allowed for flexible wording of
questions and for a mix of semi-structured questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews in
virtual format lasted 45–60 minutes, with digital recordings. The researcher utilized a passwordprotected location to securely store interview videos, transcripts, and notes.
Participants
This study examined a purposeful sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) through an
intentionally chosen pool of study participants from five philanthropic funders located
throughout the United States. Due to the significant differences in scope, in both grantmaking or
programming and size (of net assets and annual disbursements of funds), the study focused on
midsized and large-sized family and institutional funders. This study defined midsized
philanthropic funders as those with annual grantmaking disbursements of $10 million to $99.99
million and net assets of $200 million to $1.49 billion, and large-sized philanthropic funders as
those with annual grantmaking disbursements of $100 million to $250 million and net assets of
$1.5 billion to $15 billion. Each of these sites assumed a pseudonym (Foundation A, B, C, D, E),
to protect its anonymity. The study chose philanthropic funders known for their reputation in the
field as funders who employed culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices, as
recommended by several philanthropy support organizations.

52
Participants consisted of the staff who were dedicated to decision-making and
grantmaking roles in Foundations A, B, C, D, and E. Interviews with two or more staff members
at each participating funder, who shaped and/or implemented grant funding evaluation and
grantmaking, illuminated the histories, processes, factors, and influences that lead to effective
adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. Selecting diverse
participants of different races, genders, and levels of leadership within an organization ensured
equity and the presence of multiple perspectives. This study provided an in-depth analysis of
each case study, bounded by time (the timeframe of the interviews and analyses) and by activity
(focus on the grantmaking practices).
Table 6 illustrates demographic information about the participating philanthropic funders.
The table includes information about each funder’s annual grantmaking distribution, total net
assets, location of the foundation regionally in the United States, funding geographical areas, and
funding focus areas,

53
Table 6
Foundations Information
Foundation A Foundation B Foundation C Foundation D Foundation E
Annual
grantmaking
distribution
$108.5M $128M $181M plus
$109M social
investments
$51M $75M
Total assets $2.5B $2.5B $4.5B $1.3B $289M
Foundation location New England Southeast Midwest East Coast West Coast
Funding geographic
areas
National, New
England
National, local National, local National National, local
Funding focus areas Arts, climate,
education,
social services
Arts, public
policy/
democracy,
social services
Arts and culture,
education,
environment,
social services,
leadership,
infrastructure
Arts and culture,
economic
development,
environment
Early education,
health, social
services, youth

54
Instrumentation
The qualitative data collection method of interviews provided experiential knowledge and
data related to the KMO influences on the research questions of this study. Individual interviews
served as a crucial research component, focusing on the influences of critical KMOs on the
successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. The multiple
sets of research data from 12 participants from five philanthropic funders enabled the researcher
to utilize triangulation as a research strategy, which enhances the validity and credibility of the
research with multiple perspectives and reduces the impact of bias (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Semi-structured interviews allowed for flexible wording of interview questions, a mix of
semi-structured questions, and the collection of rich descriptive data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
This flexibility encouraged a more casual and comfortable conversation with study participants
and allowed for organic discussion. It created the freedom to focus on some areas and skip over
others, depending on how much data the participants have to offer (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In
this study, the type of interview questions asked during individual interviews focused on KMO
influences (See Appendix A). The categories of interview questions incorporated diverse types of
qualitative research questions related to participants’ experience and behavior, opinions and
values, feelings, knowledge, sensory experiences, and demographics, as suggested by Patton
(2002). The 12 interview questions utilized five of the six types of questions, excluding sensory
experiences. These types of questions probed for and helped to yield in-depth responses that
explored the process and meaning of the key factors and potential causal mechanisms (Creswell
& Creswell, 2023; Patton, 2002). Although the researcher used a variety of question types, every
question allowed for an open-ended response. Each question mapped to a specific aspect of one

55
or more of the research questions. This approach allowed the researcher to gain insight into a
philanthropic staff’s perspective on which key KMO factors lead to successful adoption of
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices (Patton, 2002). Given the study’s
conceptual framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), the assumed KMO influences shaped the questions
included in the interview protocol. Each of the questions sought to explore the KMO influences
present in the philanthropic funders’ grantmaking practices. Research data provided the
researcher with a deeper understanding of the KMO factors.
Interview procedures began with University of Southern California’s Institutional Review
Board (IRB) process. Post IRB approval, the researcher emailed requests to potential
participants, and obtained informed consent from participants to conduct recorded, virtual,
individual interviews with staff members of the five philanthropic funders. The researcher
contacted 25 potential participants, and conducted interviews with 12 participants, between
October 2023 and January 2024.
Data Collection Procedures
The researcher utilized data collection procedures which were based on recommendations
from Merriam and Tisdell (2016) to ensure accuracy and privacy. In this study, interview data
from virtual interviews with each philanthropic funder staff member provided transcribed
manuscripts and notes. Each interview session took about 45 to 60 minutes. Locations in an
office, either work or home, ensured privacy during interviews. Zoom recordings and
transcriptions, in addition to a backup recording device, provided recorded data with participant
consent. In addition to the two recordings, the researcher also took handwritten fieldnotes related
to major takeaways or notes to emphasize and highlight, such as learnings for subsequent
interviews.

56
Data Analysis
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) defined data analysis as the process through which an
individual provides meaning to the data. For this study, the researcher utilized qualitative data
analysis. Prior to examining the qualitative data secured, a priori codes were developed (see
Appendix B). The KMO influences served as the basis for establishing the a priori codes. A
priori codes assisted the researcher in testing the theory against empirical data. Creswell and
Creswell (2023) noted that the use of a priori codes serves to limit the analysis to the predetermined codes in contrast to codes emerging during the analysis. The researcher utilized the
qualitative interviews and transcribed interview notes to develop analytic codes. The researcher
coded and analyzed interview transcripts. Data analysis formed categories via coding and
repeated patterns derived from transcripts of interviews. Additional steps involved the sorting of
categories and data, the establishment of groups for each category, and the allocation of evidence
in alignment with the study and the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The study
also leveraged systematic and replicable quasi-statistical techniques to analyze the qualitative
data collected, further establishing the credibility and reliability of the study.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
The collection and use of unaltered data from interviews assisted in establishing
credibility and trustworthiness (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). In this study, verbatim transcripts of
the interviews provided an additional method for validating the trustworthiness of the data
collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Maxwell (2013) underscores the importance of addressing
challenges to the credibility and trustworthiness of a research project as an essential component
of the research design. Failing to address these challenges, according to Maxwell (2013), evokes
questions related to bias arising from an individual researcher’s interpretation of the research

57
findings and the failure to acknowledge possible alternative interpretations; however, bias does
not necessarily invalidate data if the researcher conducts the study with sincerity and integrity
(Maxwell, 2013). Documentation of potential bias and continuing the transparency of interest
throughout the interviews also enhanced credibility and trustworthiness.
Strategies utilized in this study to address these challenges to the credibility and
trustworthiness of the research included the collection of rich descriptive data, triangulation, and
the leveraging of quasi-statistics to help provide a more systematic and objective approach to
analyzing the qualitative data (Creswell & Creswell, 2023; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While the
limited number of research participants from just five philanthropic funders may affect the
credibility and trustworthiness of the study, strategies of triangulation of perspectives from a
diverse set of participants (geography, race, gender, and level of leadership) were utilized to
reduce the potential effects on credibility and increase the trustworthiness of the research data
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics
Qualitative research studies collect data from human subjects, which necessitates
working with participants in an ethical manner (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). When a research study
involves human participants, researcher responsibilities include informed consent, voluntary
participation (and stopping the interview if desired by the participant), confidentiality of data and
participation, and gaining permission to record, in addition to safe and secure storage of data
(Glesne, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). In compliance with the University of Southern California
IRB requirements, the researcher obtained informed consent from participants and ensured
voluntary participation, in addition to shaping an ethical approach as a foundation for the study.
According to Glesne (2011), potential participants need sufficient information to make informed

58
decisions about their participation in a research study. The researcher secured informed consent
from all study participants, with an information sheet which included detailed information
regarding the study. In addition, verbal request for permission to record at each of the video
interviews ensured voluntary participation.
The right of participants to privacy constitutes a second ethical consideration. Glesne
(2011) indicated researchers’ responsibility to protect participants’ anonymity and
confidentiality, which this study accomplished using pseudonyms for each participating
philanthropic funder and each participant (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A password-protected
laptop, with data available only to the researcher, safely stored video recordings and transcripts.
The researcher did not encounter issues related to power connected to formal positions or roles
because the researcher did not hold any authority over the participants or have any personal
connection to the philanthropic funders researched.
Limitations and Delimitations
Creswell and Creswell (2023) defined limitations as the “weaknesses in the study
acknowledged by the researcher” (p. 273). Limitations of this study include the truthfulness of
study participants. Bias also presents a potential weakness of the study. Utilizing the qualitative
study approach, I as the researcher brought my own biases as I conducted interviews and
reviewed artifacts. Interview data consisted of questions asked only.
The restricted research sample size may also be a limitation of the study which consisted
of case studies of five philanthropic funders identified as those who had successfully adopted
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. The restricted sample size of
participants resulted in limited types of philanthropic funder and geographical representation and
may affect both the credibility and transferability of the study. Even though the research

59
participants represented geographical diversity, the study is unable to research every part of the
United States. Furthermore, this research data and this study’s findings are specific to and
bounded by the sociocultural context of the United States. The study also focused on private
foundations within a range of annual grantmaking budget between $10 million to $250 million
and total net assets between $200 million to $15 billion; therefore, the data and findings of this
study may not be transferable to smaller or larger funders. The above factors may pose limits to
transferability. However, within the limits of the sample size, the researcher utilized the strategy
of triangulating between a diversity of participants (geography, race, gender, level of leadership),
and sought to improve the credibility and trustworthiness of this study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Other possible limitations include the authenticity and limited
perspectives of respondents.
Delimitations refer to the limitations specifically set in a research study that establishes
the framework within which the study takes place and restricts what is included (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). In other words, delimitations define intentional boundaries of the study. In
addition to the restricted sample size, geographical limits, study timeframe of 2023–2024,
methodological delimitation included utilizing the qualitative approach, with interviews as the
data collection method. A study exploring more foundations with additional participants may
yield different data. A mixed methods study adding a quantitative component may increase
sample size and provide ancillary data and surface more or different key factors. An additional
significant delimitation of the study is using the gap analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2008) as the
primary lens for analysis. The conceptual framework (Figure 1) presumes a connection between
KMO influences with key factors affecting successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-

60
driven grantmaking practices and is a delimiting consideration. A different theoretical framework
might yield other factors.

61
Chapter Four: Findings
This study aimed to uncover the key factors that lead to successful adoption of culturally
relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices in philanthropic funders. Utilizing a promising
practices approach and a qualitative interview design methodology, the study analyzed data from
interviews with staff from five philanthropic funders with a reputation for successful adoption of
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices, focusing on the evolution in
grantmaking practices, current grant proposal evaluation and grantmaking practices, and
impediments or improvements of these practices. Exploration focused on key factors related to
KMO influences associated with the gap analysis framework by Clark and Estes (2008). The
study focused on the following research questions:
1. What factors lead philanthropic funders to successful adoption of culturally relevant
and impact-driven grantmaking practices?
2. What KMO influences prevent philanthropic funders from successfully adopting
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices?
3. What KMO influences improve the successful adoption of grantmaking practices in
philanthropic funders?
The following section of this chapter provides a detailed overview of the participants
involved in the study, along with their demographic data. Subsequent sections examine findings
from the participants’ narratives regarding the evolution of grantmaking practices, actual
grantmaking and grant proposal evaluation practices, and barriers to improvements of these
practices at the five respective philanthropic foundations. These findings reveal the key factors
that lead to successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grant proposal
evaluation and grantmaking practices.

62
Participants
The participants of the study were 12 individuals, working at the time of the study as staff
at five philanthropic funders throughout the United States, organizations with a reputation in the
philanthropic sector for their culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices, as
named by several philanthropy support organizations and nonprofit leaders. Semi-structured
video interviews, scheduled to meet the participants’ availability, collected data. In October,
November, and December of 2023 and January of 2024, seven women and five men participated
in semi-structured interviews over Zoom, each lasting 45 to 60 minutes. Conducting interviews
via video conference allowed for greater reach of participants across the United States. Providing
participants with interview guidelines and interview questions prior to interviews allowed them
to reflect and prepare. Participants reflected a diversity of backgrounds regarding identity (race,
gender), geographic location, and professional context (number of years in philanthropy,
experience prior to philanthropy, and current level of leadership in the foundation). Six of the
participants identified as White, three as Asian, two as LatinX, and one as Black. Using a
pseudonym to designate each participant ensures anonymity throughout the findings in this
chapter.
Table 7 illustrates the general characteristics of the participants’ demographics, including
gender, number of years in philanthropy, prior experience and background, current role in
philanthropy and regional location of the place of work. To protect the anonymity of each
participant’s identifiable attributes, pseudonyms are used in place of actual names, and the table
does not reference racial identities of the participants.

63
Table 7
Participant Demographics
Participant Gender Years in
philanthropy
Prior, nonphilanthropy
experience/
background
Current role in
philanthropy
Location
Alexia Female 7.5 Nonprofit, public
policy
Staff New England
Alice Female 10.5 Higher education,
K–12 education
Executive staff New England
Beth Female 7 Government: analytics Executive staff Southeast
Bella Female 5 Government, FEMA Executive staff Southeast
Cathy Female 2.5 Nonprofits, arts,
administrator
Staff Midwest
Charles Male 2 Government Staff Midwest
Conner Male 15 Business Executive staff Midwest
Darla Female 20 Clinical social worker Staff Northeast
David Male 7 Philanthropy only Staff Northeast
Dan Male 40 Musician, government Executive staff Northeast
Ethan Male 25 Radio Executive staff West Coast
Ellen Female 20 Nonprofits Staff West Coast
Qualitative Findings Overview
The researcher collected data through about 12 hours of interviews with 12 staff from
five philanthropic funders throughout the United States. Data analysis of the 12 participant
interviews utilized a qualitative methodology. A priori (Appendix B) and posteriori coding
informed the subsequent analysis and findings from the collected data. The findings of this study
endorsed conceptual and metacognitive knowledge as key factors, determined that attainment
and utility value were particularly significant motivational influences, and showed that
leadership and policies as well as work processes and resources were salient organizational
influences that impacted successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grant
proposal evaluation and grantmaking practices. This chapter provides a detailed summary of

64
these findings, addressing the three research questions framed by the gap analysis conceptual
framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) by presenting categories and themes relevant to each research
question and identifying the critical factors that impacted successful adoption.
Factors Leading to Successful Adoption: Findings Research Question 1
Without a doubt, most, if not all, philanthropic funders want grantmaking that is effective
and makes a difference. The literature review in Chapter Two shows a general understanding that
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices contribute to effectiveness and lead
to more impactful grantmaking. While many philanthropic funders aspire to use culturally
relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices, not all succeed in adopting such practices.
The first research question focuses on the journey of initial adoption: What factors lead
philanthropic funders to successfully adopt culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking
practices? The interview participants’ narratives demonstrated that both external and internal
factors led to the successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking
practices. Among these external and internal factors, three broad categories emerged to address
this first research question: (a) leadership changes, (b) external influences from political and
societal events, and (c) internal pressures requiring an increase of grantmaking activity.
Leadership Changes
Leadership changes emerged as the most frequently and commonly cited category of
factors leading to the successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking
practices. All 12 participants, with 43 mentions, named changes in leadership as significant
contributors leading to the current grantmaking practices at their respective foundations.
Participants noted changes on multiple levels of leadership, including presidents and CEOs, vice
presidents and other directors, board presidents and board members, and staff. Three specific

65
themes in the leadership changes category include new executive leaders, existing leaders, and
new hires (non-executive level).
New Executive Leaders
Leadership changes led to commitments to make culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices a priority. Alexia said, “Our current president … was a big transition
moment. … [His] arrival here was a big turning point in terms of making that commitment [a]
personally embedded commitment.” Cathy noted her organization being “traditional funders …
and then the transition, I think that came with the CEO change.” Darla highlighted the new
leader’s work with the board as a key turning point:
Our president came on. … There are major practices that [he] brought in. He introduced
community board members. So, that opened up the board and term limits; … people used
to serve their lifetime. … If you want change, you want new people coming on. So, he
introduced term limits and then community board members who have brought a wealth of
experience and expertise that are issue related.
In addition to CEOs and presidents being important catalysts, Bella, and David both named
board members as key influences. Bella recounted, “One of our board members introduced the
book Outcomes Over Outputs, which led the organization towards more impact-driven
grantmaking practices” (Seiden, 2019). Similarly, David pointed to a new board member
bringing a new learning mindset to evaluation: “[He] came on the board, and he was interested in
learning. … That was a different kind of perspective than evaluation.” Over 83%, 10 out of 12
participants, mentioned specific changes in board composition, content, and expertise brought by
new board members. Overall, every interview with a staff participant, from all five philanthropic
funders, highlighted the significance of new leaders (staff and board) who brought new

66
perspectives, paradigms, and commitments that led to the prioritization and adoption of
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices.
Existing Leaders
Leadership changes also included shifts in strategic direction championed by existing
leaders, not just new leaders to the organization. Cathy noted, “She was the managing director,
and she played a big role as [the foundation] adopted as an organizational value.” Charles
indicated, “She was a part of the executive committee at that point, and so, she did get buy-in
along the way. By the time it was presented to the board, I believe that there was buy-in at the
organizational level.” David named a longtime staff member as a key leader in the change: “He’s
been here for a long time. And to have someone like that, to be able to deliver these messages
was very important.” Dan cited both the board and a new president as the catalyst for the change
from traditional grantmaking to what they had now:
I think, led primarily by our board, … they were pretty consistently asking, you know,
we’re spending millions of dollars every year. How can we feel confident that we’re
making a difference that there’s an impact to our work? … They were looking for
evidence.
That quest for impact led the board to seek and hire the new president, whom Dan named
as “the catalyst for everything that came after.” In each of these cases, shifts in values and
priorities brought by existing leaders contributed significantly to the evolving orientation of
organizational priority towards culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices.
New Hires (Non-executive Level)
In addition to executive-level and board changes, participants also noted non-executive
staff hires generating new paradigms and understandings. Ethan recounted,

67
We hired program directors. … One came right out of the nonprofit sector. The reason I
tell you this is because I … he had such an influence on the moment of change. I realized,
I really, it really hit me that I was building a strong culture of control. … It was like a
major crack went off inside my head like the veneer of this beautiful philanthropy I
thought we were doing. … I started going to more conferences.
As Ethan (a CEO) gained conceptual knowledge regarding culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices from the nonprofit leaders’ perspective and from peer funders, he made
staffing changes at the executive level and began to adjust the organization’s grantmaking
practices. Leadership changes at all five philanthropic funders led to grantmaking policy and
funding priority changes, which in turn led to revamped grantmaking processes and practices that
embraced culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices as the organizational
North Star.
External Influences
External influences from political and societal events emerged as a key category of
factors leading to successful adoption. More than 83% of the sample, 10 of 12 participants,
referenced external influences as the impetus for moving towards culturally relevant and impactdriven grantmaking practices. Participants named external political and societal events such the
killings of Trayvon Martin and George Floyd that prompted a broader reckoning with racial
injustice, and the economic collapse of certain cities, as impetus to pursue more effective and
impactful grantmaking to address these realities. David recounted, “The murders of Trayvon
Martin and Black bodies … kind of forced this to happen.” Alice named COVID as a significant
driver for the foundation to recognize organizational challenges that nonprofits face, and as a
result, to modify funding and adopt unrestricted operating funds: “In response to COVID, [the

68
board] trusting both the grantees and the staff … [gave] ability to modify funding and did a lot of
unrestricted funding.” Conner pointed to
an external context that created a need for foundations to step up, such as 2008 and 2009
[recession] and simultaneously a political crisis because the mayor had recently been
indicted, and then you had an economic crisis broadly across our country.
These external political and societal events brought more profound conceptual knowledge about
societal issues that philanthropy seeks to address and mitigate, in partnership with nonprofits,
and spurred philanthropic leaders to question existing grantmaking practices and seek change for
more culturally relevant and impact-driven approaches.
Internal Pressures
Participant interviews also surfaced internal pressures requiring an increase of
grantmaking activity as another impetus that led to the successful adoption of culturally relevant
and impact-driven grantmaking practices. In some cases, a philanthropic funder needed to scale
its giving due to growth in assets, which in turn required growth of its giving corpus to meet the
5% qualified distribution requirement. For example, Alice related the foundation anticipating
growth and consequently “anticipating the need to scale from $60 million in payout to $130
million in 10 years.” Similarly, Dan pointed to a need to scale grantmaking:
We were growing fast. Our endowment was growing like crazy. We’re adding staff and it
was getting more and more unwieldy. And so, we had a fairly large process of
reorganization, where we were trying to figure out how we wanted to focus ourselves.
In other cases, philanthropic funders chose intentionally to increase grantmaking
activity—some (such as Foundation E) electing to sunset the foundation by a determined
timeframe, and some (such as Foundation C) opting to give more than the 5% qualified

69
distribution required by law to address societal needs such as racial injustice and economic
collapse in the context noted in the above section. For other funders, political and societal events
prompted deep self-reflection about the impact of their grantmaking and catalyzed the pursuit of
more culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. Alexia related,
Since George Floyd, … a much more real understanding that we need to be even more
front-footed about this work. … We can’t do capacity building the same way if we really
want to serve historically underfunded, people of color led organizations. So, we have to
think about that differently.
These internal pressures contributed to intentional choices made by philanthropic funders to shift
from traditional grantmaking practices to more culturally relevant and impact-driven ones.
Table 8 summarizes the key factors, categories, and themes related to Research Question
1, pertaining to factors leading to successful adoption.
Table 8
Factors, Categories, and Themes Leading to Successful Adoption
Research Question 1 Categories Themes
Internal factors Leadership changes New executive leaders
Existing leaders
New non-executive hires
External factors External influences from
political and societal events
Internal factors Internal pressures requiring an
increase of grantmaking
activity

70
Discussion Research Question 1
Leadership changes, external influences from political and societal events, and internal
pressures requiring an increase of grantmaking activity emerged as the three significant factors
leading to successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices.
External influences from political and societal events may appear to be uncontrolled and
uncontrollable determinants; however, similar political and societal events do not and may not
prompt all funders to adopt culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices.
Similarly, internal pressures to increase grantmaking activity do not necessarily lead to the
successful adoption of such practices. In each of the five foundations researched, leadership
changes allowed for the emergence of new leaders or existing leaders who had the conceptual
and metacognitive knowledge to interpret these political and social events, to use their
understanding to catalyze action, and to direct resources (in the case of scaling grantmaking
activities) toward an organizational North Star of adopting culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices.
Participants from all five foundations noted that new leaders or existing leaders brought
their knowledge of systematic issues underlying political and social events to the task of leading
the organization towards more culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. In
the five foundations studied, leaders took the external influences of political and social events
and the internal influences of scaling grantmaking activities as evidence of the need to adopt
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. Alexia highlighted the importance
of leadership commitment:
The leadership of my previous foundation was so lukewarm. … The current president
was a big transition moment. [He] is a person of color himself, and his arrival here was a

71
big turning point in terms of making that commitment, personally embedded commitment
of leadership.
In each case, leadership changes brought perspective and knowledge above and beyond an
organization’s original grantmaking practices and generated organizational commitment to the
North Star of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices.
Barriers to Successful Adoption: Findings Research Question 2
Overall, organizational influences, along with the lack of motivation and knowledge,
emerged as clear detractors from successful adoption. Four broad categories emerged to address
the second research question: (a) lack of work processes and resources, (b) lack of motivation,
(c) lack of alignment, meaning the chasm between the board and the staff, and (d) knowledge
differential. These four categories surfaced from participant data as the most prominent factors
preventing successful adoption.
Lack of Work Processes and Resources
Eleven of 12 participants (91.7%) pointed to organizational work processes and resources
as obstacles to successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking
practices. Four themes surfaced as the most frequently mentioned impediments within the
category of work processes and resources: the lack of ability to gather honest feedback for
learning and improvement, the lack of systematic ways to manage that learning, the lack of
ability to gather and analyze good and usable data, and the cumbersome process of grant
approvals.

72
Lack of Ability to Gather Honest Feedback for Learning and Improvement
Participants from all five foundations noted the importance of candid feedback from
applicants and grantees, and Alexia highlighted the challenges surrounding the gathering of that
feedback:
We want to move towards implementing some kind of feedback system. … Had a lot of
conversations about when is the moment that we get the most candid feedback. Is it right
when we make the grant? We talk about how to measure success around working with
nonprofits that are culturally different, but I don’t think we define it or measure it.
In addition to the challenges of working cross-culturally, the power differentials between
the funder and the applicant/grantee impact the degree of honesty in, and hence the accuracy of,
the feedback. Beth said, “Everyone’s telling you this is the best thing since sliced bread.” Beth
also noted the importance of garnering feedback from diverse interest-holders, not just from
those already in the funder’s network: “Philanthropy can be an echo chamber … in [an] echo
chamber [in] that you’re talking to the same people who you’ve always talked [with], who keep
talking to themselves as well.”
Lack of Systematic Ways to Manage Learning
All 12 participants commented on the importance of having the time, the (capable and
qualified) staff, and the resources required to gather feedback. Participants noted the use of thirdparty consultants and vendors to assist in the effort to garner candid, accurate feedback. As Alice
noted, “This is expensive.” Other obstacles to successful adoption included not only garnering
feedback and learning, but also managing that information, as referenced by Alexia: “I think we
could do a better job of knowledge management and learning. … We can be more mindful and
intentional about reflecting on how we can change processes and make these processes more fair,

73
more equitable, more open.” Several participants mentioned the lack of an effective knowledge
management system to manage feedback and learning. David said, “I think the systems that
capture learning can be better. The systems themselves can be improved. … I don’t know what
the thing is.” Alexia noted, “We have to fix some of the knowledge management.” Participants
named garnering accurate and candid feedback and managing the learnings and information from
that feedback as essential to operationalizing culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking
practices, but often challenging to execute well.
Lack of Ability to Gather and Analyze Good and Usable Data
In addition to the challenges of garnering feedback from individual applicants and
grantees, effective learning and evaluation of organization-wide impact and processes present
another layer of challenges to successful adoption. Ten of 12 participants highlighted the
importance of learning or evaluation as key to culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking
practices. At the same time, participants from four of the five foundations indicated challenges in
the lack of accurate and easily usable and sharable data or data analytics. As Cathy recounted,
regarding the organization’s desire to improve on the cultural relevance of its grantmaking
practices to more diverse sets of interest-holders,
We learned that we didn’t have the data sufficient for some of the baseline measures that
we were interested in. … Some of the teams actually do have the data, but data was
collected in less centralized places, not in centralized, org-wide data.
Different program areas collected different types of data, using different methods, resulting in
siloed data that was not easily shareable and was not able to provide a bigger picture of
organizational impact.

74
Along with data collection issues, participants also spoke of the multiple challenges
involved in analyzing collected data. The staff time and expertise needed to do effective
evaluation of data surfaced repeatedly. Alice highlighted the financial and time costs, stating that
there were “not enough resources to spend on evaluation. … It’s expensive to add evaluation
with overtime and external evaluation.” Other challenges related to expertise in data analytics
and turnaround time. Beth noted,
Targeted analytics work is [challenging]. … Can we be more precise about the questions
that we’re asking and decisions that we’re making? And can we get access to faster data
to help inform strategy and grantmaking that doesn’t require waiting a year or 2 or 3 for
the results of a very big report to come out? … Getting results in 2 to 3 months or a
month, in terms of a question that you’re asking, so that you can actually pivot in a
particular direction.
Similarly, David commented, “Another piece that can be improved is the speed at which
we get our learning, our synthesized learning from the reports to our grantees.” Participants also
called out technology challenges related to data collection and analytics. Alice spoke of a
commonly used grants management system that does not allow for data analytics:
It kind of smushed under the grant not a helpful schema … until we have a visualization
or reporting that says we really care about these indicators and measures. Until we do
that, no one’s actually, really going to be scientifically looking at the underlying data.
Likewise, David referred to the specific challenges faced by midsized and large-sized
foundations like the five-foundation sample group in this study, which have some, but limited,
resources dedicated to data and analytics:

75
[In addition to using the grants management system], we have so many integrations but a
lot of, because we’re a pretty small shop, we don’t have all the bells and whistles. …
With someone like me on staff, you can take different approaches that are more cost
effective.
The same participant named the multiple pools of data that he must manage:
Candid, we use the publicly available data that’s on that platform to do our financial due
diligence and look at things like demographic data at the intersection of brand data, and
data from X [the grants management system]. We’re now exploring what AI might look
like.
The analysis, reporting, and sense-making of large amounts of collected data present
challenges. Four of the five foundations employ staff with job responsibilities focused on
learning and evaluation, ranging from a single staff to departments of three. Even with staff or
departments focused on learning and evaluation, participants from these four foundations still
named a lack of resourcing of expertise, both financial expertise and people expertise, and a lack
of the technology needed to collect, curate, and analyze data, as key hindrances to the successful
adoption of culturally relevant grantmaking practices.
Cumbersome Process of Grant Approvals
The fourth theme that emerged, among the obstacles mentioned in the category of work
processes and resources, centered on how long the grant approval process took. Participants from
all five foundations recounted how long the timeline used to take. Before the organizational
priority of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices took center stage, grant
application submission and processing could take up to a year, and board members had to
approve every single grant. Dan said,

76
I actually went through with a visual that showed exactly what all of the different steps
were in getting to a grant approval and how long it took for money to get into the hands
of grantees, and the big stumbling block was board approval.
To serve applicants and grantees better, to be more responsive to nonprofits’ urgent needs for
resources, and to seek more effective and impactful grantmaking, all five foundations shifted
from the board approving every grant to entrusting the staff and the CEO with grant approvals at
some level. In gradual transitions over 5 to 20 years, these foundations gradually increased staffand/or president-approval thresholds. As Darla recalled, “When I first started, [we] needed board
approval. … [Then], the president approved. It was $200,000. Now we’re at $500,000.”
Table 9 illustrates the thresholds for staff-approved grants. Where available, the table also
includes information on the years it took to evolve from board approval of every grant to the
current threshold approval level, where the staff has authority to approve grants.
Table 9
Participating Foundations’Grant Approval Thresholds and Years
Foundation Threshold dollar amount Number of years
Foundation A $300,000 Unclear
Foundation B $250,000 18 years
Foundation C $1,500,000 15 years
Foundation D $500,000 20 years
Foundation E $500,000 25 years

77
The shift towards giving staff the authority to approve grants reduced grant application
and approval timelines significantly and enabled the foundations to respond to nonprofits’
requests for funding much more quickly. Several foundations mentioned pending decisions, at
the time of the study, on raising those thresholds. In addition to obstacles in work processes and
resources as discussed above, the lack of motivation emerged as a second key impediment to
successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices.
Lack of Motivation
The lack of motivation emerged as the second category of hindrances to successful
adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. Within this category,
three themes surfaced as major obstacles:
• No need to change.
• Perceived risk and cost to change.
• Lack of effective change management.
No Need to Change
Participants from all five foundations mentioned the barrier of board and staff seeing no
need to change, at some point in the organization’s history. Conner said it well: “Inertia is a big
challenge.” Other participants recounted resistance from board members and executive staff.
David told the story of a senior leader who did not see a need to adopt more culturally relevant
practices: “The person that was leading that program, who is no longer at the foundation, was
very prescriptive and very forceful … [and] did not see need for change even though the system
themselves can be improved.” When the board and staff did not see a need for change, the
motivation diminished to adopt culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices.

78
Perceived Costs and Risks
In addition to the lack of perceived usefulness of adopting such grantmaking practices,
the perceived cost of adopting changes significantly impacted motivation. Conner identified the
risk of embracing changes: “So you have folks who think, ‘Why do you want to do this super
complicated thing? Seems a little risky.’” Similarly, Alexia stated,
There’s a reputation you can screw up, … [especially if you have a] culture of
perfectionism, … [if you] know there’s a problem, but you’re not ready to really do
anything about it … until you have a perfect plan.
The perceived costs of reputational risk and failure significantly affected the motivation for
adopting new grantmaking practices.
Lack of Effective Change Management
A third category of barriers to successful adoption centers around challenges related to
lack of effective change management. A number of participants specifically named the framing
and implementing the change from traditional grantmaking practices to culturally relevant and
impact-driven ones. Conner noted the importance of framing the need for change in a way that
demonstrates the complex problem(s) and change as attainable:
Problem definition. … Redefining problems is hard intellectual work. … You can’t
redefine the problem and complexify and scale it to a point that when people start
working on it, because they’re like, well now you just made it impossible.
In addition to framing the problem and the change initiative well, the pacing of change
can also be an obstacle. Charles noted the perception of pacing in Foundation C’s journey:
“From 2016 to 2021, … it’s a whole journey. And I think that for some folks, the pacing is too
fast. And for some folks, the pacing is way too slow.” When the pacing is perceived to be too

79
fast, motivation may be impacted, as people may not believe they can adopt the changes (selfefficacy), may perceive other goals or endeavors to be more worthy of attention and time
(perceived cost), or may question the usefulness of adopting changes at that pace (utility value).
A perception of the pacing being too slow impacted motivation, as people question whether the
organization prioritizes those changes highly enough, especially in comparison to other priorities
(attainment value and perceived cost).
Another theme participants mentioned that impacted the motivation for change, in
addition to pacing change well and framing the problem and change initiative well, was how the
change was led. Dan recounted efforts to make changes and move towards adopting culturally
relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices that failed at his foundation:
There were two efforts that happened way back which was really forced upon the staff.
[That] … was not well received, as a very top-down approach, sort of you know, you’re
going to do this. … It was such a contentious process that we really didn’t get any
traction from it at all. It just made a lot of people very unhappy.
Heavy-handed rollouts without a broad coalition to guide the change (Kotter, 2012) hamper
motivation, as people lack expectation for success (expectancy value) and do not see the
importance of doing well in the change adoption (attainment value). In dissecting those failures
post-mortem, Dan also noted, “One of the many problems was that the person (leading the
change effort) did not have a good working relationship with most of the staff. It was dead on
arrival.” The lack of a trusted leader for the change initiative, and the lack of a healthy
environment/culture for that change, damaged motivation and ultimately hampered the success
of the implementation. It is interesting to note that a leader who had credibility and trust with
both the board and the staff team successfully implemented similar changes, to adopt new

80
paradigms on how to measure success, at a later point in the organization’s history. This
demonstrated that while the change in grantmaking practices was similar in content, the framing
and implementation of the change greatly affected the motivation and ultimately the success of
the adoption.
Lack of Alignment
The lack of alignment between the board and the staff emerged as the third category of
barriers to successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices.
Eleven of 12 participants (91.6%) named obstacles in leadership and policies as impediments.
Within those obstacles, the lack of leadership alignment surfaced most frequently, mentioned by
seven of 12 participants from four of the five foundations. Dan pointed to the lack of alignment
between different levels of leadership:
Between program and leadership, and particularly the board, there had been a bit of a
chasm. … Board members on a different wavelength and trying to meet in the middle is
always a little tricky. … At that time, there was very little in the way of diversity on our
board.”
Alice recalled the boards she worked with that had a skeptical attitude towards the staff: “[They
were] skeptical, … telling the foundation staff what to do and trying to do their jobs for them.”
Darla highlighted the same lack of alignment between the board and the staff: “Board members
that served lifetimes, not professionalized … a continued tension. … [The staff did] not have
enough time or access to, or influence with, board members to affect policy-level changes.”
Likewise, Conner related the lack of ownership and alignment in the foundation: “So, it wasn’t
an uphill battle per se. But not everyone was bought in. … We had some of those challenges, and

81
just bringing the board along.” David also recounted the lack of alignment between different
levels of leadership in the staff:
He was the head of the foundation, and he wanted nothing to do with evaluation. It was
just kind of making grants and that was it. … The leadership team is no longer there.
Completely, they rejected this because they viewed it as an impediment to the grantees’
success, … and that was a point of divergence. We now believe that having a learning
framework can benefit our grantees, but there were some staff that just rejected it, and
they had power. They had real institutional power to stop it. So, that was hard … the
person that was leading that program, who is no longer at the foundation, was very
prescriptive, very forceful.
Misalignment between the board, executive leadership, and staff presented significant
challenges for each of the five foundations in its history and emerged as a critical barrier to
successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices.
Knowledge Differential
The fourth category, knowledge differential, contributed to the lack of alignment
described in the section above and emerged as a consequential impediment to successful
adoption in that it impacted leaders, who in turn determined grantmaking approaches and made
grantmaking decisions. Three themes emerged in this category of knowledge differential
including differentials between board and staff, between staff and knowledge required for
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices, and lack of usable data.
Participants highlighted the significant gaps of knowledge between board members and
staff. Dan pointed out, “[Board members] focused all their time on the [individual] grant
approvals, which caused them to sort of try and do due diligence for something that they know

82
nothing about.” Similarly, Alice noted that it was challenging “to have a group of people that
only meet once a quarter micromanage situations that they don’t understand because they don’t
have the time to dig in and understand.” Board members often did not have the field or content
expertise, or the conceptual or metacognitive knowledge that they needed to understand the
different sectors in which grants operated and the different problems that grant proposals sought
to mitigate. Yet, when tasked with approving individual grants, those board members had to
make decisions with real consequences for potential grant recipients, despite those knowledge
gaps. In all five foundations, over a period of 5 to 20 years, each board ultimately moved towards
putting these governance-level decisions in the hands of staff. They all entrusted staff with
individual grant approvals, adopted thresholds under which staff could make operating decisions,
and then increased those thresholds.
Knowledge differential as a barrier to successful adoption showed up not only between
board members and staff, but also among staff members themselves. Staff without the conceptual
and metacognitive knowledge to be able to implement culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices acted as hindrances to successful adoption. Dan recounted, “There was so
much distrust of measurement in the program staff, … so that effort didn’t go particularly well.
… We realized that no one had a common understanding of what we meant.” In the same vein,
David remembered, “Some staff rejected learning completely as a framework.” Beth named the
reality of the knowledge gap in philanthropic staff, and the conceptual and metacognitive needed
in staff:
In philanthropy in general there’s not really a professional class of funders. … There’s no
certification. … [It’s] different than being a lawyer or engineer or doctor. It’s not like you
go through this type of training. Ongoing challenge has been, how do you recruit and

83
retain people with a blend of that passion, interest, and care for community and the work,
and at the same time has the sharpness of quantitative analytical rigor and analysis.
Lack of usable data also contributed to the knowledge differential between the knowledge
needed for culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices and the existing level of
knowledge. Specifically, seven of the 12 participants from three of the four foundations named
the lack of usable data as an important contributor to that knowledge differential. Speaking to the
task of continuing to make grantmaking practices more culturally relevant and impact-driven,
Charles noted the gap in data and the resulting gap in knowledge needed to make revisions: “Our
VP of grants has intention of revising those things, but because the data were limited and
incomplete, I think there are things that need to happen before we can.” Cathy zeroed in on the
challenge of collecting data usable by the entire organization: “Some of the team’s collecting
data in less centralized places. Not in our centralized, org-wide data.” While a hallmark of
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking approaches is continuous improvement to
adapt to the needs of the nonprofits and the socio-economic and political context, continual
revisions presented challenges to garnering usable data for decision-making. Bella commented,
“There’s times when a program director came in for a few years they were doing all this
experimentation, but they sort of left before you can really learn the extent to which the
experiments had really worked.” Usable data, which contribute to the conceptual and
metacognitive knowledge needed to inform changes to the grantmaking approach, adds an
additional dimension to the knowledge differential barrier to successful adoption.
Table 10 summarizes the key factors, categories, and themes related to Research
Question 2, pertaining to barriers to successful adoption, including the lack of work processes
and resources, lack of motivation, lack of alignment, and knowledge differential.

84
Table 10
Factors, Categories, and Themes: Barriers to Successful Adoption
Research Question 2
factors
Categories Themes
Organizational influences:
work processes and
resources
Lack of work
processes and
resources
Lack of ability to gather honest
feedback for learning and
improvement
Lack of systematic ways to manage
learning
Lack of ability to gather and analyze
good and usable data
Cumbersome process of grant
approvals
Motivational influences:
attainment value, utility
value, perceived cost,
and self-efficacy
Lack of motivation No need to change
Perceived risk and cost
Lack of effective change management:
framing and implementation of
change, leadership
Organizational influences:
leadership and policies
Lack of alignment Misalignment between the board,
executive leadership, and staff
Knowledge influences Knowledge
differential
Differentials between board and staff
Differentials between staff and
knowledge required for culturally
relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices
Lack of usable data
Discussion Research Question 2
Research Question 2 explored barriers to successful adoption of culturally relevant and
impact-driven grant proposal evaluations and grantmaking practices in philanthropic funders.
The research revealed themes that align with the gap analysis conceptual framework (Clark &
Estes, 2008) and the symbiotic relationship between the KMO influences that hinder successful
adoption. The lack of effective work processes and resources, the lack of motivation, the lack of

85
alignment resulting in a chasm between board and the staff, and knowledge differentials emerged
from participant data as the most prominent factors preventing successful adoption.
First, the barrier of knowledge differentials aligns with conceptual and metacognitive
knowledge. Anderson et al. (2001) defined conceptual knowledge as the knowledge of
principles, models, and structures, and metacognitive knowledge as strategic thinking, selfawareness, and knowledge related to cognitive tasks (including appropriate contextual and
conditional knowledge). Interviews identified gaps—in the conceptual and metacognitive
knowledge of both board members and staff, and in the absence of usable, accurate data—that
hindered funders from successful adoption. Without the necessary knowledge, efforts to adopt
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices were at best stalled or delayed, and
at worst “dead on arrival,” as Dan noted.
Second, four motivational factors surfaced in the participants’ interviews: attainment
value (importance of doing well), utility value (perceived usefulness for future goals), perceived
cost (competition with other goals), and self-efficacy (belief in one’s capacity to execute
behaviors). Participant data showed that when the leadership and staff saw no need to change
(attainment and utility value) or perceived that the risk and cost of change were too great
(perceived costs), the inertia of the organization could not be overcome; motivation plummeted,
and this hindered successful adoption. When there was no support from leadership, self-efficacy
decreased (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
The framing and implementation of a change process around embracing new
grantmaking practices, when poorly executed, negatively impacted motivation. On the one hand,
people became skeptical and did not embrace the urgency or need for change if they perceived an
overly simplistic framing of the problem. They did not believe adopting culturally relevant and

86
impact-driven grantmaking practices to have value towards the widely agreed-upon future
objective of effective grantmaking and were less motivated (or not motivated) to actively choose
for and adopt such practices (Ambrose et al., 2010; Eccles & Wigfield, 2023; Elliot et al., 2017;
Raikes, 2017; Reich et al., 2019; Schunk & Usher, 2019; Sykes, 2017). On the other hand, if
people saw the problem as impossible, self-efficacy decreased, and motivation plummeted
(Rueda, 2011). Participants from all five foundations told stories from their foundation’s history
in which key leaders were not able to engender trust and gain ownership on multiple levels, did
not frame the need for change in a way that demonstrated the complexity of the problem(s) while
also framing the change as attainable, or simply were not motivated towards change themselves.
The poorly executed efforts of these leaders demonstrated the impact of the motivational factors
of expectancy value (the expectation of success in a task) and attainment value (the value placed
on the importance of the task).
Lastly, the lack of alignment in leadership and the lack of effective work processes and
resources demonstrated the impact of the key factor of organizational influences. Participants’
stories emphasized the critical role of leadership, ranging from leaders who outright squashed
change efforts with their power, to boards, executive leaders, and staff who were not on the same
page and had misaligned organizational priorities. Leader not on board negatively affected work
processes and resources that operationalized grantmaking practices. Moving towards more
culturally relevant and impact-driven practices necessitated the ability to gather honest feedback
for learning and improvement, systematic ways to manage that learning, accountability to
operationalize the learnings, the ability to gather and analyze good and usable data, and changes
to the cumbersome process of grant approvals, all of which required leadership buy-in and
initiative.

87
Interviews also revealed a symbiotic relationship between these key obstacles to
successful adoption, with one barrier reinforcing another. The lack of effective leadership and
lack of organizational commitment significantly impacted the motivation of staff. The lack of
conceptual and metacognitive knowledge influenced the motivation of staff, which led to a lack
of prioritizing culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. The lack of
organizational priority affected the amount of resources (staff, time, and money) spent. The lack
of resources impacted the availability of data and knowledge. As the next section on factors that
improve successful adoption will show, while each obstacle had the ability to amplify another
barrier, overcoming an obstacle also had significant leverage to address other barriers.
Factors That Improve Successful Adoption: Findings Research Question 3
Four categories emerged from the data to address the third research question regarding
factors that improve successful adoption: (a) operationalizing feedback and accountability, (b)
trust and authority delegation, (c) champions at multiple levels of the organization, and (d)
learning as a paradigm and as organizational culture. Participant data pointed to these four
categories as key to improving successful adoption.
Operationalizing Feedback and Accountability
Operationalizing feedback and accountability emerged as a key category for successful
adoption and improvement of culturally relevant impact-driven grantmaking practices. Themes
in this category included garnering feedback from interest-holders such as applicants and
grantees, examining the organization’s existing grantmaking practices, and operationalizing the
feedback. All 12 participants highlighted the importance of getting feedback and incorporating it
into grantmaking practices. Bella recounted,

88
There are things that we’ve really done differently, and us doing them differently is in
part because of the [grantee perception] survey. … There are changes we have made over
the last few years that are consistent with changes that were asked for in the survey.
We’ve gone through and changed applications, grant report, and grant form reforms in
my 5 years, … just either streamlining, simplification, being responsive to feedback.
Similarly, Alexia noted the organization’s response to grantee feedback: “We significantly
reduced internal requirements around how we make grants and streamlined various processes.
[We] view ourselves like partners with grantees, and grapple with the power dynamics inherent
in those processes.” Darla also described the feedback and the foundation’s response:
We did the [name of company] grantee perception report, and there were some eyeopening things. … We took a long time to answer emails, our processes were
cumbersome, things that really made us do deep reflection and consider our practices.
Conner stated,
We’ve adapted and evolved quite a lot. … We’ve changed our grantmaking backend in
the last 10 years, and some of it is just like process improvement. Like, how can we make
the work better … [and] serve our partners better.
Charles summarized: “It’s an iterative process that is very responsive to learning from the
grantee partners.” The four most repeated words from all 12 interviews regarding
operationalizing this feedback were responsive (to feedback), reflect (or consider), streamline,
and iterative, capturing the importance of not only garnering feedback once, but continually
listening to feedback, and continuously improving and adapting grantmaking practices in
response to that feedback.

89
While the mechanisms of garnering that feedback differed, all five foundations utilized
tools and embedded tools and processes to not only garner feedback but also facilitate
incorporating that feedback into learning, evaluation, and next-step actions and strategies. All 12
participants mentioned tools such as grantee perception reports, surveys and assessments
administered either internally and/or by external consultants, and regular conversations between
program officers and applicants/grantees. Several participants pointed to the accountability
needed to operationalize that information into actual grantmaking practices. Beth noted, “There
were many things that weren’t working, but we were already [aware]. … You really have to be
the one who’s most critical of the work.” Similarly, Alexia commented,
There’s internal accountability [for improvement] with regular strategy review processes.
[We] worked with a consulting partner. … Every year, we make some fine-tuning
adjustments. … I think we could do an even better job of holding each other accountable,
… be more mindful and intentional about reflecting on how we can change processes, …
make these processes even more fair, more equitable, more open. … Having it be more of
an intentional annual goal setting process.
The intentional annual goal setting process mentioned by Alexia was embedded in the structure
of foundations B, C, and D through learning and evaluation departments with multiple staff.
Beth, a learning and evaluation department staff member, stated, “[We] work closely alongside
program departments and we … go through each year.” Cathy described,
The partnership that we [learning and impact department and staff] provide to our
program colleagues. A lot of it is about asking questions … and also if a shift is needed to
shift some thinking, like, evaluation is not something that happens at the end. … Right
now I’m currently working with them to figure out their evaluation learning approach.

90
These learning and evaluation departments and staff not only brought their expertise in
evaluation to assist program officers in enhancing the quality of evaluation (such as improving
the questions used on surveys for feedback), but also functioned as built-in accountability to
incorporate that feedback and evaluation into operations. Four of the five foundations had fullscale review/evaluation cycles of each specific program or portfolio every 3 or 5 years, in
addition to their ongoing work of making continuous improvements. Cathy recounted,
People have been doing that [refinements] along the way as they’ve been thinking about
their work and as they’ve been looking at the field, what others have been doing, what is
needed at the moment, and so, folks have been in that iterative process and making those
refinements over time. … Also, assessing portfolios every 5 years, … this strategy isn’t
actually going the direction we want to go. … Directors are the ones who are on the
ground driving forward, … working almost regularly, doing what the SWOT looks like.
As Alexia summarized, “It’s a journey. … [There’s a] recognition it has to be iterative.” This
iterative journey of learning was operationalized by staff. David, a learning and evaluation
department staff member, noted that the learning evaluation department worked to create both
regularity and built-in accountability by
commissioning evaluations and seeing where we were successful, where we were not
successful. And then on a yearly basis, we tried to get a post-check as to whether or not
we’re living our values as grantmaking by looking [at] grantmaking trends data.
Overall, continually garnering feedback, regularly examining the foundation’s own grantmaking
practices and strategies, and operationalizing feedback and evaluation into next-step adaptations
emerged as a repeatedly mentioned key factor for successful adoption across all five foundations.

91
Trust and Authority Delegation
Trust, and authority delegation, surfaced as a second important category that enabled staff
to adapt nimbly, which resulted in faster and more responsive grantmaking. Darla recounted,
When I started [20 years ago], the president went from board approval [of every grant] to
$200,000 as threshold. Now we’re at $500,000. That gave a lot more power to staff. It
kept our processes moving … because of that trust in the staff, because of all the work,
the board doesn’t have to get involved in decision-making.
Dan also referred to a similar evolution at his foundation:
In terms of the workload, it made sense to not have to wait on grants for board approval.
… [It] showed exactly what all of the different steps were in getting to a grant approval
and how long it took for money to get into the hands of grantees, … so that was a wakeup call that they needed to do something. … The most important element there is … trust.
So, when I heard that they really weren’t comfortable getting rid of grant approvals, I
came back to them with something they felt they could work with. … They thanked me
for listening to them, for coming up with a creative solution, built trust.
Participants from all five foundations told related stories of trust and authority delegation. Alice
commented that there were
cascading levels of trust from the board and leadership, … a learning board, curious, and
ask good questions. They want to learn, and they provide advice and wisdom. They have
a lot to offer, but they are not trying to tell the foundation staff what to do ... Not trying to
do their jobs for them.
Conner described,

92
Internal authority stuff, like delegated authority. … Our CEO has the delegated authority
from the board to a certain threshold. … [The board] believe in the work we’re doing.
And we provide clear rationale, and they trust us, and they are really thoughtful about
their role.
The board’s trust in the staff led to authority delegation, which, in turn, empowered continuous
improvements and adaptations to grantmaking practices.
Multiple Champions
Champions at multiple levels of the organization emerged as the third category that
improved the adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. Interview
participants named multiple champions at multiple levels of the organization—board chair, board
members, CEOs/presidents, executive staff, program officers—who led the organization to
successful adoption by utilizing multiple mechanisms including board meetings, teams, work
groups, task forces, ad hoc groups, initiatives, individual meetings, and conversations.
Participants from all five foundations named the CEO/president as a champion and a significant
contributor to successful adoption and improvement. Cathy commented on the CEO:
[We had] traditional founders and then the transition, I think that came with the CEO
change. … [The CEO] is a really strategic thinker who embraces complexity. And so, he
understands that solutions are not linear and has a lot of comfort with ambiguity, and he
gives people space and time to figure things out, and he thinks things through. … All of
this contributes, rather than, you know, a top-down linear approach, which is not going to
work. … Over the years, he made suggestions for board trustee, as the trustee seats
became available. … You know, we have quite a diverse board.

93
David pointed to a vice president, who had been at the foundation for 20 years and worked from
program officer up, as a key champion:
He’s kind of like a board whisperer type of person. … He was able to move the
institution, like calling [board members] up and just having these conversations. He was
able to get wins on behalf of the institution, to the point that we’re here now.
Charles spoke of a program officer who navigated multiple levels of leadership in the evolution
of the organization’s grantmaking practices:
She was a program officer in the education portfolio/team [and] brought with her [new]
perspective, and that was how she showed up, and she brought herself to any work that
she did. … She then became a part of the executive committee and got buy-in along the
way. By the time it was presented to the board, I believe that there was buy-in at the
organizational level. … Also, many of our board members are champions as well.
Champions also came with the hiring of staff from a diverse range of backgrounds
including various identities (e.g., racial), who brought experiential knowledge, and staff with
nonprofit experience who brought a value for culturally relevant grantmaking practices through
their leadership experiences. Dan named the need for diverse staff: “In order to do this work, we
needed to be more diverse, and so the hiring process changed.” Alexia remarked on the need for
“hiring people with different variables for staff diversity … with work experience or lived
experience.” Beth spoke of hiring local directors, with their knowledge of and access to local
communities, to make decisions on grants related to those communities. Conner commented on
changes in hiring:
In the last 10 years, I’ve seen us intentionally try to bias towards folks with a little more
experience, operating experience, nonprofit leadership experience, public sector,

94
leadership experience. And some of that is the experience in the content expertise, some
of it is getting folks who understand, have more implicit understanding of what it’s like to
be an executive director of the nonprofit, but also getting folks from the public sector
who have lived in those systems themselves.
Similarly, Cathy remarked on
hiring folks who have accomplished quite a bit within their specific discipline. … Even
just coming in as program officers, people have a pretty good knowledge depth of what
they’re doing, in terms of experience and networks. … People come in with a lot of
knowledge and experience.
As Conner pointed out, “We get people who are incredibly accomplished. … They’re doing their
life’s work and motivated.” Diverse staff who had field experience and expertise became
champions in the continued improvement of grantmaking practices.
Learning As Paradigm and Culture
The fourth category that emerged among factors that improve culturally relevant and
impact-driven practices was learning, both as a paradigm for impact evaluation and as a culture
in the organization that led to continuous improvement and adaptation. All 12 participants
pointed to learning as a paradigm for impact evaluation and/or as a culture of learning in the
organization.
Learning As Organizational Paradigm
Participants discussed the reframing of traditional evaluation and assessment into
learning as a paradigm. Cathy noted, “Evaluation for us is about learning about the system and
the ways that change can happen in the system and how we can support the conditions needed

95
for successful change, rather than [in] a punitive way, with grantee partners.” Likewise, Dan
commented,
Whatever the metrics might look like, we’re not judging you on whether you actually
meet the target or not. We’re really only interested in what can we glean from what
worked and what didn’t work? And is this metric still meaningful? Then, if you ran into
challenges, why did you run into those challenges, and what could we do to help you
overcome those challenges? And if there are successes, … if that’s a meaningful metric,
… is that something we should be doubling down on, and how to share all that with other
grantees?
Participants highlighted a posture of learning rather than punitive evaluation, an approach that
focused on partnering in evaluation and learning with nonprofits. Bella indicated,
What we’re focused more on is, like, doing a better job of learning from grants. … Our
CEO was very OK with like a poke-the-amoeba type of thing, and he would be fine with
an assessment that just told the story of what happened, even if it wasn’t like what we
intended to do.
In alignment with that posture of learning, and viewing nonprofits as partners, Dan noted the
foundation’s commitment to sharing that learning with nonprofits, saying “that learning is best
when it is shared.”
Speaking about the focus on learning with/from nonprofits and incentivizing learning in
the foundation grantmaking practices, Bella remarked,
We work hard to develop trusting relationships with our grantee partners. … Every
program area has its own strategy, and so they are also interested in learning based on
their own strategy, and that also influences their investment decisions. … We are very

96
diligent in our learning from the experiments. … We got new money added in, like
incentive money—if you will add on outcomes measurement, it will come with additional
dollars.
David specifically commented on how learning and evaluation work in tandem with trust and
trust-based philanthropy:
We’ve found this kind of middle ground … where we’re embracing tents of trust-based
philanthropy and this idea of sharing power. And we’re still holding on to rigorous
evaluation methods. … Whereas there was a time, especially at the advent of trust-based
philanthropy, where we were like, oh, so we have to throw evaluation out the window,
but that was not the case. They can coexist. We just have to do the work. … [For
example] our financial due diligence aspect is super, super streamlined because we use
publicly available data.
Dan shared how the foundation was continuing to live out that paradigm of learning:
We continue to learn and looking at operation use of [artificial intelligence] tools. …
We’re going to put it in the broader context of models for participatory grantmaking
across the country and take a more objective look at whether this actually makes for
better grantmaking.
Across the board, all five foundations adopted learning as the paradigm for evaluation and
framed adaptations and continuous improvements as a part of the learning process.
Learning As Organizational Culture
In addition to adopting learning as a paradigm, an organizational culture of learning also
surfaced as a repeated theme. Alexia noted an organization motto of “progress over perfection …
collective unlearning of a culture of perfectionism.” Conner named the ongoing nature of

97
learning by describing “continuous conversations about grantmaking and what is needed.” Beth
discussed the learning culture:
My 3 years here at the foundation, we’ve built up this culture where people feel
comfortable to say, hey, could we try something different, or maybe we can upgrade this
thing? And that bubbles up … changes to grant forms, vendor processes. … All of this
kind of bubbled up somewhere [from the staff and grantees] and then ultimately became a
process change.
David referenced ongoing modifications alongside scheduled, more intensive evaluations for
learning: “We’re always adapting every week, every month, but for those large changes, I would
say we meet with our programs once a year.” Alice described the culture of learning at the
foundation:
There’s always a certain amount of innovation happening, … iterative process. … [We]
added new resources to spend more on learning and evaluation work and also help
program officers make sure they are both doing learning work, where it’s focused on
improvement and understanding the grantee experience and refining their execution
approaches, and measurement work, focusing on making progress. … A significant
period of reflection based on the feedback from our grantees, including streamlined
processes … using technical tools, just cascaded a bunch of process changes that were
more technical in nature.
Darla also described a culture of learning that permeated multiple levels of the organization,
naming the “ability for staff to propose and push through changes at multiple levels. … Some
tweaks can be more organic than others, like going from 3-year grant cycles to 6-year grants”
(proposed by non-executive staff). Dan commented on that learning culture extending to the

98
board, not just staff: “We’re trying to take the more useful learning opportunities and have that
available to the full board.” All five foundations prioritized learning and exhibited an
organizational culture marked by learning.
Howard-Grenville et al. (2020) described culture as actions practiced by employees at all
levels. The job tasks and functions focused on learning and evaluation revealed that culture of
learning. Four of the five foundations employed staff, ranging from a single staff member or a
full department of two to three staff, with job roles devoted to learning and evaluation. Six of the
12 participants interviewed had some element of their job description focused on learning and
evaluation, either working with the organization or working with program officers on improving
that learning and evaluation. In addition to internal staff, each of the five foundations utilized
external vendors and consultants to assist with its learning. Alice noted,
The external folks [evaluators do] the heavy lifting, and then there’s an internal learning
and development team that helps prioritize what we spend money on, what we hire
people to do [which pieces of evaluation], … helping the program teams figure out what
their most important learning questions are and how best to develop [the] kind of
relationships and projects that answer those questions.
In summary, participants highlighted establishing meaningful metrics and what to report
on with consensus input from grantees, and getting this feedback not only after the fact but also
as metrics and reports were being designed. Focusing on evaluation as a part of the learning
process, with learning being the primary paradigm. Revisiting and continuously evaluating at
intentional intervals and along the way. Utilizing both internal staff and external consultants, to
garner feedback from applicants and grantees and to evaluate the grantmaking, to assist in the
learning process. Incorporating feedback and innovations along the way, exhibiting a culture of

99
learning and operationalizing feedback and learnings. Empowering champions across multiple
levels in the organization. Each reinforced the paradigm of learning and contributed to an
organizational culture of learning that led to continuous and iterative improvements. These were
the key factors that improve successful adoption that emerged from participant data.
Table 11 summarizes the key factors, categories, and themes related to Research
Question 3, pertaining to factors that improve successful adoption. Factors include KMO
influences.
Table 11
Factors, Categories, and Themes: Improve Successful Adoption
Research Question 3 factors Categories Themes
Knowledge
Motivation
Organizational influence
Operationalizing feedback
and accountability
Garnering feedback from
interest-holders.
Examining existing
grantmaking practices.
Operationalizing the
feedback.
Knowledge
Motivation
Organizational influence
Trust and authority
delegation
Knowledge
Motivation
Organizational influence
Champions at multiple levels
of the organization
Knowledge
Motivation
Organizational influence
Learning as paradigm and as
organizational culture
Learning as a paradigm.
Learning as an
organizational culture

100
Discussion Research Question 3
Research Question 3 explored the key KMO influences that improve the successful
adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grant proposal evaluations and grantmaking
practices in philanthropic funders. Four themes emerged from the research data: (a)
operationalizing feedback and accountability, (b) trust and authority delegation, (c) champions at
multiple levels of the organization, and (d) learning, both as a paradigm for impact evaluation
and as a culture of learning in the organization, leading to continuous improvement and
adaptation. Each of these themes aligned with the KMO factors.
Operationalizing feedback and accountability aligned with all three KMO factors.
Feedback and evaluation provided the knowledge that the foundation and staff needed to make
improvements. The accountability provided by the embedded tools, review, and evaluation
processes, and by the learning and evaluation department staff, provided enhanced motivation for
continuous improvement. The staff, tools, time, and resources devoted to feedback and
evaluation represented the organizational influences, including leadership and policies, as well as
work processes and resources.
Trust and authority delegation aligned with KMO factors. Growth of trust in multiple
levels of leaders (in multiple directions) led to delegation of authority and changing of policies,
with a clear connection to the organizational influence factor. Trust showed up not only in the
workplace/ organizational culture, but also as work processes. Higher thresholds of dollar
amount for grant approvals were an example of a work process and a policy, a result of authority
delegation from trust. The delegation of authority enabled the making of decisions by those with
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge. The trust in the staff enhanced motivation
through empowerment.

101
Champions at multiple levels of the organization aligned with all three KMO factors.
Leaders influencing and leading towards the North Star of culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices brought in the conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge
needed for these practices. Some leaders brought in experiential knowledge, others created and
curated procedural knowledge for those they led, and still others hired or encouraged the use of
metacognitive knowledge to move these practices forward. Organizational influences included
leaders who set or influenced organizational policies, and who championed the commitment of
resources such as funding, training, technology, staff, and other tools toward successful adoption
of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. In the above ways, champions
enhanced various types of motivation in the organization, enabled staff to believe in and be
confident in their ability and capacity to implement such practices (self-efficacy), increased the
expectation for success among those in the organization (expectancy value), reinforced the
importance of these grantmaking practices (attainment value), promoted the perceived usefulness
of such practices towards more effective grantmaking (utility value), and advocated prioritization
of these grantmaking practices when they competed with other goals (perceived costs).
Learning, as a paradigm for impact evaluation and as a culture of learning in the
organization, also aligned with all three KMO factors. Learning enabled the foundations studied
to iterate and continue to improve in the content, processes, and approach of their grantmaking
(conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge, respectively). A culture of learning
augmented motivation. Organizational influences of commitment from the leadership, as well as
work processes and resources supported the paradigm and culture of learning.

102
Chapter Summary
The two key factors emerging from the research that provided the most leverage for
successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices were
leadership and learning, both as a paradigm for impact evaluation and as a culture of learning in
the organization. Leadership surfaced as a consistent theme across all three research questions
and is a significant factor in leading to, preventing, and improving successful adoption. Changes
in existing leadership, and new leaders who embraced culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices as the organizational North Star, led to the initial adoption of such
practices. The alignment or lack of alignment between the board and staff regarding this
organizational priority and the implementation of that priority significantly impacted the success
of the adoption. The trust and authority delegation cascaded down through multiple levels of
leadership and enabled more culturally relevant and more nimble work with nonprofits, while the
presence of champions at multiple levels of the organization galvanized the organization towards
that organizational North Star. Prioritization by leadership also led to the commitment of
resources (funding, staff, processes, and time), operationalized through seeking regular feedback
through surveys and external vendors, staffing learning and evaluation functions and
departments, and hiring external evaluators.
The commitment of organizational resources towards the learning and evaluation
functions noted above contributed to an organizational culture of learning. Factors that surfaced
as key to successful adoption were “progress over perfection,” as noted by Alexia, and an
emphasis by all participants regarding an evaluation and impact framework under the paradigm
of learning, rather than a punitive assessment. Leaders set the tone and priority for learning from
nonprofit leaders, internal expertise and data, and external data and expertise. Through internal

103
accountability structures and resources, feedback and learnings were operationalized and thus
contributed iterative improvements to grantmaking practices.

104
Chapter Five: Recommendations
The purpose of this best practices study was to explore the key factors leading to
successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices in
philanthropic funders. Specifically, the study examined five philanthropic funders in the United
States known for their culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices and
investigated influences related to successful adoption of those practices. This chapter focuses on
recommendations that address the critical KMO factors related to successful adoption. The study
used Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework as the conceptual framework. The
following research questions guided the study:
1. What factors lead philanthropic funders to successful adoption of culturally relevant
and impact-driven grantmaking practices?
2. What KMO influences prevent philanthropic funders from successfully adopting
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices?
3. What KMO influences improve the successful adoption of grantmaking practices in
philanthropic funders?
Discussion
The findings of this study endorsed conceptual and metacognitive knowledge as key
factors; determined attainment value, utility value, perceived cost, and self-efficacy as
particularly significant motivational influences; and revealed leadership and policies, work
processes and resources, and workplace culture as crucial organizational influences that impacted
successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices.

105
Recommendations for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
This study examined the assumed KMO influences related to the successful adoption of
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices to determine the endorsed themes
and surface the key factors that contributed to successful adoption in five midsized philanthropic
funders. Endorsed themes consisted of those referenced by 50% or more of study participants,
from at least three out of the five foundations sampled. Each of the KMO influences, especially
each influence with endorsed themes, is considered a high priority for midsized philanthropic
funders aiming to successfully adopt such grantmaking practices. This chapter includes
discussion and recommendations related to each of the assumed KMO influences.
Knowledge Influence Recommendations
Conceptual and metacognitive knowledge influences emerged as the two critical
knowledge areas. All 12 participants, from all five foundations studied, discussed both
conceptual and metacognitive knowledge influences. In contrast, only five out of 12 participants,
from two of the five foundations studied, mentioned procedural knowledge, which therefore did
not appear to contribute to successful adoption as significantly as conceptual and metacognitive
knowledge influences did.
Table 12 lists the knowledge influences, the endorsed themes, the principles, and the
context-specific recommendations that surfaced from the interview findings. Conceptual and
metacognitive knowledge emerged as endorsed themes impacting successful adoption, while
procedural knowledge did not. A discussion of the recommendations and supporting literature
follows the table.

106
Table 12
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge influence Endorsed
theme
Principle Context-specific
recommendations
Staff need to know
concepts related to
culturally relevant
and impact-driven
grantmaking
practices, such as the
impact of racism and
the existence of
exclusionary access
and funding practices
that affect grant
funding decisions
and priorities
(conceptual)
Yes The understanding of
principles,
generalizations,
theories, models, and
structures in the
context of the field
leads to and improves
successful adoption
(Anderson et al.,
2001; Anft, 2020;
Dorsey et al., 2020;
McGill & Potapchuk,
2014; Reich et al.,
2019; Sykes, 2017).
Prioritize learning as an
organizational paradigm.
Invest in resources (people,
tools, systems) to bring
relevant knowledge into
the organization,
including new/diverse
board members and staff,
tools, and systems for
garnering, managing,
and operationalizing
feedback and learning
from diverse sources and
interest-holders.
Staff need to know how
to utilize methods
and procedures
already in place that
reflect culturally
relevant and impactdriven grantmaking
practices
(procedural)
No Knowledge of subjectspecific skills,
techniques, methods,
and use of appropriate
procedures (Anderson
et al., 2001; Anft,
2020; Dorsey et al.,
2020; Reich et al.,
2019; Sykes, 2017)
No recommendation
Staff need to be aware
of the bias and
positionality of
individuals and the
funder and
appropriately
incorporate
conceptual
knowledge into
specific contexts
(metacognitive)
Yes Self-knowledge, and
strategic knowledge
about cognitive tasks,
including appropriate
context and
conditional
knowledge (Anderson
et al., 2001; Anft,
2020; Sen &
Villarosa, 2019)
Prioritize learning as an
organizational paradigm.
Invest in resources (people,
tools, systems) to bring
relevant knowledge into
the organization,
including new/diverse
board members and staff,
tools, and systems for
garnering, managing,
and operationalizing
feedback and learning
from diverse sources and
interest-holders.

107
Conceptual and metacognitive knowledge influences emerged as key factors impacting
successful adoption. The Ford Foundation study (Reich et al., 2019) named four Es (evidence,
engagement, example, and easing adoption) as key factors. Evidence in the frame of the four Es
refers to clear evidence of the problem or gap. In the five foundations studied, leaders took the
external influences of political and social events and the internal influences of scaling
grantmaking activities as evidence of the need to adopt culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices. Sen and Villarosa (2019) emphasized the importance of growing
knowledge of root causes and systems and argued that this influences grantmaking decisions.
All 12 interview participants noted that a key factor for success was to seek feedback
intentionally and regularly from diverse interest-holders through multiple sources (such as
grantee perception reports from an external vendor, relational feedback from applicants and
grantees to program officers, surveys, external consultants, self-reflection, evaluation, etc.).
Candid feedback led to accurate assessment of the actual state of grantmaking practices.
Otherwise, the funder power dynamic led to “everyone telling you this is the best thing since
sliced bread,” as one participant said. As a result, funders needed to seek that feedback regularly
and intentionally, as a part of continuous learning.
In the determination of grantmaking criteria, approach, and practice, Anft (2020)
recognized the importance of incorporating knowledge and awareness of cultural relevance and
impact; appropriate frameworks and tools; and the bias and positionality of both individuals and
philanthropic funders. For 10 of the 12 interview participants, this metacognitive knowledge
came from garnering feedback, exercising self-reflection (individually, organizationally, and
operationally), learning through assessments and evaluations, and operationalizing the learnings
and knowledge into grantmaking practices.

108
Two context-specific recommendations related to conceptual and metacognitive
knowledge are
• Prioritize learning as an organizational paradigm.
• Invest in resources (people, tools, systems) to bring relevant knowledge into the
organization, including new/diverse board members and staff, tools, and systems for
garnering, managing, and operationalizing feedback and learning from diverse
sources and interest-holders.
Investments in the necessary resources follow the prioritization of learning as an
organizational paradigm. This may include growing the knowledge in existing leaders and
bringing in new board members and staff members with the knowledge and perspectives needed.
It may also include seeking out feedback and expertise from diverse interest-holders to bring
knowledge and awareness through multiple sources and avenues, including surveys; ongoing
conversations with nonprofit leaders; consultation with internal and external evaluators; and
investment in the time, funds, and tools (technology or systems such as learning or knowledge
management systems) to garner, manage, and build accurate and usable data (both qualitative
and quantitative), facilitate learning, and build internal accountability to grow self-awareness and
ability to operationalize the knowledge into changes to grantmaking practices.
Motivation Influence Recommendations
Table 13 lists the motivational influences, the endorsed themes, the principles, and the
context-specific recommendations that surfaced from the interview findings. Attainment value,
utility value, perceived cost, and self-efficacy emerged as endorsed themes impacting successful
adoption, while expectancy value (expectation of success) did not. Only five of the 12
participants, from four of the five foundations, mentioned expectancy value as a motivational

109
influence affecting the adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices.
All 12 participants from all five foundations discussed attainment value (the importance of such
grantmaking practices and the importance of doing well). Likewise, 100% of the participants
from all five foundations highlighted the importance of utility value (perceived usefulness for
future goals), for a total of 56 times, making this the most frequently mentioned motivational
influence. Nine of 12 participants, from four of the five foundations, noted perceived cost
(competition with other goals) as a key influence. Eight of 12 participants, from four of the five
foundations, referred to self-efficacy (belief in one’s ability to execute a given action at a certain
level of performance) as a salient factor.
Table 13 summarizes the motivational influences including expectancy value, attainment
value, utility value, perceived cost, and self-efficacy, the supporting literature of each
motivational influence and outlines the context-specific recommendations.
Table 13
Summary of Motivational Influences and Recommendations
Motivational influence Endorsed
theme
Principle Context-specific
recommendation
Philanthropic funders
(board and staff) need
to believe they can
succeed in
implementing
culturally relevant and
impact-driven
grantmaking practices
(expectancy value).
No Expectancy value:
expectation to do well
(McGill & Potapchuk,
2014; Sykes, 2017)
No recommendation
Philanthropic funders
need to understand
why culturally
relevant and impactdriven grantmaking
Yes Attainment value,
importance of doing
well (Ambrose et al.,
2010; Blackwell,
2017; D5 Coalition,
Establish culturally relevant
and impact-driven
grantmaking practices as
an organizational North
Star.

110
Motivational influence Endorsed
theme
Principle Context-specific
recommendation
practices are essential
and crucial to
impactful and
effective grantmaking
(attainment value).
2016; Daniel, 2019;
Eccles & Wigfield,
2023; Elliot et al.,
2017; Ferris, 2021;
McGill & Potapchuk,
2014; Pintrich, 2003;
Raikes, 2017; Reich et
al., 2019; Schunk &
Usher, 2019; Sykes,
2017)
Prioritize learning as an
organizational paradigm.
Invest in resources (people,
tools, systems) to bring
relevant knowledge into
the organization,
including new/diverse
board members and staff,
tools, and systems for
garnering, managing, and
operationalizing feedback
and learning from diverse
sources and interestholders.
Philanthropic funders
need to perceive the
usefulness of
culturally relevant and
impact-driven
grantmaking practices
towards future goals
(utility value).
Yes Utility value, perceived
usefulness for future
goals (Blackwell,
2017; D5 Coalition,
2016; Eccles &
Wigfield, 2023;
Pintrich, 2003; Raikes,
2017; Reich et al.,
2019; Schunk &
Usher, 2019; Sykes,
2017)
Establish culturally relevant
and impact-driven
grantmaking practices as
an organizational North
Star.
Prioritize learning as an
organizational paradigm.
Invest in resources (people,
tools, systems) to bring
relevant knowledge into
the organization,
including new/diverse
board members and staff,
tools, and systems for
garnering, managing, and
operationalizing feedback
and learning from diverse
sources and interestholders.
Philanthropic funders
need to perceive the
cost of employing
culturally relevant and
impact-driven
grantmaking practices
as worthwhile in
comparison to other
goals (perceived cost).
Yes Perceived cost,
competition with other
goals (Ambrose et al.,
2010; Eccles &
Wigfield, 2023; Elliot
et al., 2017; Raikes,
2017; Schunk &
Usher, 2019; Sykes,
2017).
Establish culturally relevant
and impact-driven
grantmaking practices as
an organizational North
Star.
Prioritize learning as an
organizational paradigm.
Invest in resources (people,
tools, systems) to bring
relevant knowledge into

111
Motivational influence Endorsed
theme
Principle Context-specific
recommendation
the organization,
including new/diverse
board members and staff,
tools, and systems for
garnering, managing, and
operationalizing feedback
and learning from diverse
sources and interestholders.
Philanthropic funders
(board and staff) need
to believe that they
have the competence
and ability to perform
culturally relevant and
impact-driven grant
proposal evaluations
and grantmaking
practices (selfefficacy).
Yes Self-efficacy: belief in
one’s capacity to
execute behaviors at a
certain level of
performance
(Bandura, 1982;
Buteau et al., 2017;
Chiaburu & Lindsay,
2008; Clark & Estes,
2008; D5 Coalition,
2016; Elliot et al.,
2017; Grossman &
Salas, 2011; McGill &
Potapchuk, 2014;
Pajares & Valiante,
2006; Reich et al.,
2019; Rueda, 2011;
Sykes, 2017)
Prioritize learning as an
organizational paradigm.
Invest in resources (people,
tools, systems) to bring
relevant knowledge into
the organization,
including new/diverse
board members and staff,
tools, and systems for
garnering, managing, and
operationalizing feedback
and learning from diverse
sources and interestholders.
Motivational influences of attainment value (importance of doing well), utility value
(perceived usefulness for future goals), perceived cost (competition with other goals), and selfefficacy (belief in one’s capacity to execute behaviors) emerged as key factors for successful
adoption. Participant data showed that when the leadership and staff saw no need to change
(attainment and utility value), or perceived that the risk and cost of change were too great
(perceived costs), the inertia of the organization could not be overcome; motivation plummeted,
and this hindered successful adoption. In contrast, when the board and staff of philanthropic

112
funders understood and believed successful adoption of culturally relevant and grantmaking
practices to be important and appreciated the importance of doing well, motivation increased in
relation to attainment value (Ambrose et al., 2010; Eccles & Wigfield, 2023; Elliot et al., 2017;
Schunk & Usher, 2019).
Similarly, the perceived usefulness (utility value) of such grantmaking practices towards
the goal of effective and impactful grantmaking was a key motivational factor (Dorsey et al.,
2020; Pintrich, 2003). When there was no support from leadership or when leaders were unable
to learn about examples of successful adoption, self-efficacy decreased (Bandura, 1982; Clark &
Estes, 2008; Reich et al., 2019; Rueda, 2011; Sykes, 2017). Participants from three foundations
recalled poorly framed and poorly implemented change processes in the past around embracing
new grantmaking practices that negatively impacted motivation; in particular, they named the
lack of alignment and ownership around culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking
practices as the organizational North Star, specifically impacting utility value, perceived cost,
and self-efficacy (Ambrose et al., 2010; Eccles & Wigfield, 2023; Elliot et al., 2017; McGill &
Potapchuk, 2014; Schunk & Usher, 2019; Sykes, 2017). In contrast, when organizational
leadership prioritized culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices and
established their importance as the organizational North Star, motivation increased. Sykes’s
(2017) study of the Annie E. Casey Foundation found similar themes, noting that the
foundation’s staff members and its CEO embraced such practices as an organizational priority
and as a part of their institutional purpose and goals. As the organization embraced the utility
value (perceived usefulness) of such grantmaking practices, this elevated engagement and
motivated performance of the task (Ambrose et al., 2010; Blackwell, 2017; D5 Coalition, 2016;
Eccles & Wigfield, 2023; Elliot et al., 2017; Raikes, 2017; Reich et al., 2019; Sykes, 2017).

113
Context-Specific Recommendations to Increase Motivation
Context-specific recommendations to increase motivation for successful adoption are
• Establish culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices as an
organizational North Star.
• Prioritize learning as an organizational paradigm.
• Invest in resources (people, tools, systems) to bring relevant knowledge into the
organization, including new/diverse board members and staff, tools, and systems for
garnering, managing, and operationalizing feedback and learning from diverse
sources and interest-holders.
For some participants, the importance and utility value stemmed from external or
contextual sources, such as racial violence spurring the organization to embrace social and racial
justice as a stated value and mission, or the decision to scale operations leading to a need to
pursue deeper understandings of impact. For other participants, the importance and utility value
originated internally, with the arrival of new leaders or new initiatives from organizational
leaders (board members, presidents, vice presidents, or department heads), or diverse staff teams,
that led the organization to re-evaluate its practices and adopt new lenses for marking
effectiveness and success.
Establish Organizational North Star
The determination of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices as the
North Star is a key factor in triggering motivational influences of attainment and utility value.
When philanthropic funders understand the importance of operationalizing funding practices that
do not exclude a diversity of voices and perspectives and understand how these practices
augment the effectiveness of foundations, motivation increases (Dorsey et al., 2020; McGill &

114
Potapchuk, 2014; Reich et al., 2019; Sykes, 2017). When philanthropic funders perceive the
tremendous risk to impactful grantmaking posed by the exclusion of grassroots organizations led
by leaders of color from funding due to a lack of culturally relevant and impact-driven
grantmaking practices, the utility value increases, and adopting culturally relevant and impactdriven grant proposals becomes a priority (Blackwell, 2017; D5 Coalition, 2016; Daniel, 2019;
Ferris, 2021; Foster et al., 2016; McGill & Potapchuk, 2014; Raikes, 2017; Reich et al., 2019;
Sykes, 2017). Participant data corroborated research from the literature review. The
recommendation to stimulate motivational influences is to clearly articulate and establish
culturally relevant and impact-driven grant evaluation practices as the organizational North Star.
Prioritize Learning as Organizational Paradigm
The second recommendation related to motivation is to prioritize learning as an
organizational paradigm. Participants from all five foundations discussed learning from feedback
and making iterative improvements from assessments and evaluations instead of using punitive
evaluations. Establishing learning as an organizational paradigm, and prioritizing it, reinforced
the importance of the adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices in
the organization, which augmented attainment value, utility value, and perceived cost
motivational factors (Ambrose et al., 2010; McGill & Potapchuk, 2014). In addition, as people
focused on learning and “progress over perfection” and unlearned perfectionism, as noted by
Alexia of Foundation A, self-efficacy as a motivational factor grew. The sharing of knowledge
and best practices produced positive outcome expectancies and more energy towards change
(Bandura, 1982; Reich et al., 2019; Rueda, 2011). While 100% of interview participants
remarked on feedback and operationalizing that feedback as a part of learning, both as a
paradigm and as an organizational priority, getting feedback does not necessarily lead to actual

115
learning or to incorporation of that feedback into grantmaking practices. Dubnick (2005) wrote
of the connection between accountability and the promise of performance. Bovens and
Schillemans (2014) acknowledged the need for meaningful accountability and the impact of
accountability on organizational performance. One accountability mechanism found in this
research was that four of the five foundations studied prioritized organizational learning by
devoting staff and other resources, ranging from a single staff member to a three-person
department, to learning and evaluation. This devotion of staff time and funding to learning and
evaluation clearly demonstrated and enhanced the perceived cost motivational factor, as each
organization attested that the payoff was worth the cost in comparison to other goals (Ambrose et
al., 2010; Sykes, 2017). This leads to the third recommendation to increase motivation, which is
to invest in resources for learning.
Invest in Resources for Learning
The third recommendation to increase motivation is to intentionally invest in resources
(people, tools, systems) to bring relevant knowledge into the organization, including new/diverse
board members and staff, tools, and systems for garnering, managing, and operationalizing
feedback and learning from diverse sources and interest-holders. Sykes’s (2017) case study of
the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and research findings from interview participants, reiterate the
narrative of how diverse board members and staff brought their experiences, backgrounds, and
perspectives into their organizations and increased understanding about the importance of
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices, which elevated attainment and
utility value motivational factors. Appropriate tools and systems, ranging from surveys to
internal and external evaluators to intentional and active use of these tools and systems to capture
accurate, accessible, and usable data and feedback, contributed to the learning paradigm and

116
endeavor, which in turn enhanced self-efficacy beliefs for more confidence and more transfer of
one’s ability to learn and apply culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices
(Chiaburu & Lindsay, 2008; Grossman & Salas, 2011; Reich et al., 2019; Sykes, 2017).
Organizational Influences Recommendation
Table 14 lists the organizational influences, the endorsed themes, the principles, and the
context-specific recommendations that surfaced from the interview findings. Organizational
influences of leadership and policies, work processes and resources, and workplace culture
emerged as endorsed themes of significant principles affecting the successful adoption of
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. Context-specific recommendations
include establishing culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices as the
organizational North Star, building a guiding coalition with members from multiples layers of
the organization, and prioritizing learning as an organizational paradigm and as a workplace
culture.
Table 14
Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Organizational influence Endorsed
theme
Principle Context-specific
recommendations
Philanthropic funders
must provide intentional
and competent
leadership dedicated to
the pursuit of culturally
relevant and impactdriven grantmaking
practices and must set
policies that reflect such
practices (leadership
and policies).
Yes Leadership and
policies: leadership
value and
endorsement
(Bolman & Deal,
2013; Clark & Estes,
2008; Dorsey et al.,
2020; Ferris, 2021;
McGill & Potapchuk,
2014; Reich et al.,
2019; Sykes, 2017).
Establish culturally
relevant and impactdriven grantmaking
practices as the
organizational North
Star.
Build a guiding coalition
with members from
multiple layers of the
organization (Kotter,
2012).

117
Organizational influence Endorsed
theme
Principle Context-specific
recommendations
Prioritize learning as an
organizational paradigm
and as a workplace
culture.
Philanthropic funders
must create work
processes and provide
materials and resources,
such as applications and
reporting templates, that
are culturally relevant,
and impact-driven
(work processes and
resources).
Yes Work processes and
resources: systems,
processes, materials,
and resources (Anft,
2020; Clark & Estes,
2008; Reich et al.,
2019; Sen &
Villarosa, 2019;
Sykes, 2017)
Establish culturally
relevant and impactdriven grantmaking
practices as the
organizational North
Star.
Invest in resources (people,
tools, systems) to bring
relevant knowledge into
the organization,
including new/diverse
board members and staff,
tools, and systems for
garnering, managing,
and operationalizing
feedback and learning
from diverse sources and
interest-holders.
Philanthropic funders
must create a workplace
culture that encourages
ownership of, and
values training for,
culturally relevant and
impact-driven
grantmaking practices.
(workplace culture).
Yes Workplace culture:
rituals, roles,
customs, practices,
expected behaviors,
values, thinking,
language, accepted
norms for
relationships,
interactions,
communication, and
decision-making
(Bandura, 1977;
Bolman & Deal,
2013; Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001;
Reich et al., 2019;
Sykes, 2017).
Establish culturally
relevant and impactdriven grantmaking
practices as the
organizational North
Star.
Invest in resources (people,
tools, systems) to bring
relevant knowledge into
the organization,
including new/diverse
board members and staff,
tools, and systems for
garnering, managing,
and operationalizing
feedback and learning
from diverse sources and
interest-holders.
Prioritize learning as an
organizational paradigm
and as a workplace
culture.

118
All three organizational influences—leadership and policies, work processes and
resources, and workplace culture—emerged as endorsed themes impacting successful adoption.
The organizational influences of leadership and policies, work processes and resources, and
workplace culture emerged as salient factors for the successful adoption of culturally relevant
and impact-driven grantmaking practices. Not surprisingly, leadership and policies significantly
shaped the beliefs, attitudes, and decisions of the organizational interest-holders (Bolman &
Deal, 2013); participants mentioned leadership and policies as an organizational influence over
110 times. Specifically, 100% of the interview participants, in a total of 54 mentions, indicated
that the organizational influence of leadership and organizational policies improved, or led to the
successful adoption of, culturally relevant and impact-driven practices. Participants cited CEOs
and presidents, board members, and managing directors—along with coalitions of different task
forces, ad hoc groups, and initiatives, all running in parallel—as a key factor for success. As one
participant said, “Everyone has to be a champion of it.”
Context-Specific Recommendations Related to Leadership and Policies
These research findings aligned with the guiding coalition as a key step for leading
change (Kotter, 2012). The guiding coalition must consist of a team that represents diversity in
levels of authority, cross-departmental functions, and length of tenure, but all members of the
coalition must commit to the change initiative at hand. Philanthropic leadership’s value for
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices, and the buy-in for change on
multiple levels of leadership (from the board to executives to all levels of staff), are crucial for
successful adoption (Ferris, 2021; McGill & Potapchuk, 2014; Reich et al., 2019; Sen &
Villarosa, 2019; Sykes, 2017). Therefore, the first key recommendation for philanthropic funders
or staff in pursuit of successful adoption is to build a guiding coalition across all levels, through

119
both leadership presence and leader-shaped organizational policies, with alignment across
leadership and authority levels. This guiding coalition will be pivotal to initiating and promoting
the two other recommendations related to leadership and policies: to establish culturally relevant
and impact-driven grantmaking practices as the organizational North Star, and to prioritize
learning as both an organizational paradigm and a workplace culture.
Context-Specific Recommendations Related to Work Processes and Resources
Work processes and resources are the second organizational influence in the KMO
framework. Eleven of 12 participants from all five foundations indicated that work processes and
resources were a salient factor impacting such grantmaking practices, with over 100 references.
The existing literature, along with the data of this study highlight that the presence or lack of
resources and appropriate work processes is key to achieving desired performance (Anft, 2020;
Buteau et al., 2017; Clark & Estes, 2008; Sen & Villarosa, 2019; Sykes, 2017). The two related
recommendations are to first establish culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking
practices as the North Star, which will then catalyze action on the second recommendation to
invest in resources (people, tools, systems) to bring relevant knowledge into the organization,
including new/diverse board members and staff, tools, and systems for garnering, managing, and
operationalizing feedback and learning from diverse sources and interest-holders. Investment in
people, tools, and systems impacts the organization’s ability to operationalize culturally relevant
and impact-driven ideals into its work processes and actual grantmaking practices (Reich et al.,
2019; Sen & Villarosa, 2019). In addition, the appropriate work resources and processes help
drive continuous improvement (Senge, 2006; Sykes, 2017). While the list of potentially helpful
resources is long, the lack of an effective learning and knowledge management system was
named by participants from three foundations as an impediment to adoption of culturally relevant

120
and impact-driven grantmaking practices, and the value of having both internal staff and external
contractors who are focused on learning and evaluation was discussed by participants from four
of the five foundations. Therefore, the two resources—an effective learning management system,
and funding of internal and external resources concentrated on learning and evaluation—
constitute specific recommendations.
Workplace culture is the third organizational influence in the KMO framework. One
hundred percent of the participants referred to the importance of workplace culture, a total of 33
times. Key words mentioned were “iterative,” “continuous improvement,” “unlearning
perfectionism,” “adapting,” “learning culture,” “innovation,” and “progress over perfection”
(Figure 2). Participants from all five foundations utilized these words to describe the iterating
and continuously adapting culture of the organization, highlighting the practices, expected
behaviors, values, thinking, language, accepted norms for relationships, interactions,
communication, and decision-making that demonstrate a learning culture (Bolman & Deal, 2013;
Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; McGill & Potapchuk, 2014; Sen & Villarosa, 2019; Sykes,
2017).

121
Figure 2
Workplace Culture Word Cloud
Context-Specific Recommendations Related to Workplace Culture
Three context-specific recommendations related to enhancing workplace culture for the
successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices are
• Establish culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices as the
organizational North Star.
• Invest in resources (people, tools, systems) to bring relevant knowledge into the
organization, including new/diverse board members and staff, tools, and systems for
garnering, managing, and operationalizing feedback and learning from diverse
sources and interest-holders.
• Prioritize learning as both an organizational paradigm and a workplace culture.
Howard-Grenville et al. (2020) described culture as actions practiced by employees at all
levels. Multiple levels of leadership that encourage the ownership of the organizational North
Star of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices contribute to the shaping of

122
that culture. A workplace with a clearly articulated goal in the organizational North Star will
focus actions and prioritize resources. Investing in appropriate and relevant resources will
support those actions and in turn enhance learning as both paradigm and culture (Ambrose et al.,
2010; Reich et al., 2019; Sykes, 2017). A workplace with appropriate resources (people, tools,
systems) with support from supervisors and peers through incentives and feedback, focused on
learning and iterative improvements rather than punishment, aiming for progress rather than
perfection, will help amplify a culture of learning.
In summary, findings from the study corroborate the literature review, leading to the
following four recommendations, which aligned with all three KMO factors from the gap
analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008):
• Establish culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices as the
organizational North Star.
• Prioritize learning as both an organizational paradigm and a workplace culture.
• Build a guiding coalition with members from multiple layers of the organization.
• Invest in resources (people, tools, systems) to bring relevant knowledge into the
organization, including new/diverse board members and staff, tools, and systems for
garnering, managing, and operationalizing feedback and learning from diverse
sources and interest-holders.
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings from this study delineate the key factors leading to successful adoption of
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. A delimitation of the study was the
time and scope as constraining factors. A broader study would include participants from
foundations beyond midsized philanthropic funders in the United States. Due to the significant

123
differences in business models, governance, and operating dynamics between midsized funders
and other funders such as community foundations and small private foundations, further research
is needed to determine whether the key factors for successful adoption found in this study apply
to other types and sizes of philanthropic funders.
A second area for further research relates to the tension between cultural relevance and
trust-based philanthropy, on the one hand, with impact-driven grantmaking practices and
rigorous learning and evaluation on the other. What are the best practices for integrating these
two viewpoints, often positioned as exclusive opposites, into a holistic approach? Conner from
Foundation C spoke about this tension: “It’s not just about being responsive. It’s also about being
thought leaders.” Further research focused on how to best blend these two important
characteristics of effective grantmaking, culturally relevant and impact-driven, is needed.
Similarly, David from Foundation D said,
We’re embracing trust-based philanthropy and this idea of sharing power. And we’re still
holding on to rigorous evaluation methods. … Whereas there was a time, especially at the
advent of trust-based philanthropy, where we were like, oh, so we have to throw
evaluation out the window, but that was not the case. They can coexist.
The philanthropic sector needs further research on the best practices in the field and how to best
incorporate trust, diligent learning, and evaluation into grantmaking practices.
The third area for potential future research relates to how to utilize artificial intelligence
(AI) to further enhance culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. David from
Foundation D noted,
AI will play a part in enhancing our ability to be more productive and be more nimble
with the data that’s coming to us. We are building an internal AI tool. … Large language

124
models that are trained on what we believe about the world and about how change
happens.
As AI continues to develop and philanthropic funders adopt AI into grantmaking practices,
further research is needed on how AI tools can be best utilized to decrease applicant, grantee, and
philanthropic staff burden in the due diligence process, and how they can contribute to curating
accurate and usable data for learning and evaluation for shared use by both nonprofits and
funders.
Conclusion
According to research, more than 65% of private and public change efforts fail (Beer &
Nohria, 2000; Kee & Newcomer, 2008). Included in these change effort fails are philanthropic
funders who tried to adopt more culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices, to
partner with nonprofits more effectively in addressing important societal issues but were not able
to do this successfully. Failed change efforts in philanthropy waste millions of dollars in human
and financial resources. Less effective grantmaking also means less efficacious engagement with
the alleviation of human suffering, and less productive efforts towards human flourishing. The
lack of culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices results in poor stewardship
of resources, while successful adoption of such practices will ultimately lead to better
collaboration and more successful change adoptions and will increase efficacy towards
alleviating human suffering and encouraging human flourishing. The findings from this study
can inform philanthropic funders and staff about the key factors that need to be in place as they
seek to adopt more culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices. As one
interview participant said, “I think this research will help you [and your foundation] and others
not have to take 20 years.”

125
Many philanthropic funders have embarked on this journey towards adoption of more
culturally relevant and impact-driven grantmaking practices, motivated by the desire for more
impact from its grantmaking, to contribute to human flourishing more efficaciously, strategically,
and systemically. Yet, while broad consensus exists on the need to address upstream, multidimensional systems-level issues that escalate human suffering and detract from human
flourishing (Kania et al., 2018), voices also rising with legitimate critiques of strategic and
systems philanthropy, with its focus on tackling the root causes of systemic social issues and
challenges, for results in population-level or systems-level impact (Fulton, 2018; Starr, 2021).
Critiques range from the incredibly difficult task of measuring systems change (on what is
actually happening or not happening) and attribution for what specific efforts led to the changes,
to the challenge of some root causes like dysfunctional government not being easily or quickly
fixable, in addition to the power dynamics of funders orchestrating and dictating the direction of
solutions for systems change that focus on short-term effect and accountability in relation to
long-term, complex, and intractable issues (Fulton, 2018; Madhavan, 2024; Starr, 2021).
Philanthropic funders must grapple with the persistent reality of complex problems such as
poverty and failures in educational systems that appear humanly intractable, despite billions of
financial and human resources that have sought to solve these issues over decades.
The paradigm of learning and culture of learning that emerged as a central theme from
this research study offers a pathway forward for further action and exploration in the face of
intractable problems. Madhavan (2024) calls these intractable issues that are difficult to solve or
manage “wicked problems with vexing staying power” and proposes that a “solution can be
within a resolution, and a dissolution might contain resolutions and solutions.” In other words,
solutions to these complex issues may not necessitate the classic solution of identifying root

126
causes and eliminating the problem, recognizing that solutions can potentially generate other
problems, nor do solutions necessarily require the complete dissolution of a problem and its
environment through a complete redesign with an ideal solution for an ideal system (Ackoff,
1991; Madhavan, 2024). Through learning paradigms in cultures of learning, funders can seek
resolution (going into the root of a problem similar to one that was previously resolved and apply
the same treatment), which can address issues adequately but not innovative enough to solve
issues in a revolutionary way but nevertheless, offer bright spots of change, offer hope, and
inform future efforts. Likewise, philanthropic funders with paradigms and cultures of learning
offer brave and safe spaces to view unsuccessful attempts as opportunities for learning. The
challenges of achieving full systemic solutions dissolutions need not lead to throwing out the
evaluation of the impact of grantmaking in its entirety, or employing absolution as the pathway
forward, hoping the problem will solve itself or simply ignoring the complex problems. Instead,
a learning paradigm frames failures as possibility for the future, and incomplete solutions and
dissolutions as opportunities for small ongoing positive changes to reap significant
improvements towards human flourishing.

127
References
Ackoff, R. (1991). The art of problem solving: Accompanied by Ackoff’s fables. Wiley.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works. Jossey-Bass.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich,
P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (1st. ed.). Pearson.
Anft, M. (2020, January 7). Inching toward equity. The Chronicle of Philanthropy.
https://www.philanthropy.com/article/inching-toward-equity/
Anheier, H. (2007). Strategic giving: The art and science of philanthropy. American Journal of
Sociology, 113(3), 907–909. https://doi.org/10.1086/524801
Bach-Mortensen, A. M., & Montgomery, P. (2018). What are the barriers and facilitators for
third sector organizations (nonprofits) to evaluate their services? A systematic review.
Systematic Reviews, 7(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0681-1
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. The American Psychologist,
37(2), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 1(2), 164–180.

128
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000, May–June). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business
Review, 78(3).
Behrens, T. (2020). Why do foundations struggle with evaluation? PEAK Grantmaking.
https://www.peakgrantmaking.org/insights/why-do-foundations-struggle-with-evaluation/
Biemesderfer, D. (2017). The nonprofit sector’s board diversity problem. The Center for
Effective Philanthropy. https://cep.org/nonprofit-sectors-board-diversity-problem/
Blackwell, A. G. (2017, Winter). The curb-cut effect. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_curb_cut_effect
Blau, A. (2005). Why donors are not investors. Global Business Network and Monitor Institute,
Members of the Monitor Group.
https://www.nonprofitjourney.org/uploads/8/4/4/9/8449980/_why_donors_are_not_invest
ors.pdf
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational
goals (1st ed.). Longman Group.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(5th ed.). Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.
Bovens, M., & Schillemans, T. (2014). Meaningful accountability. In M. Bovens, R. Gooden, &
T. Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 673–682).
Oxford University Press.
Brest, P. (2012). A decade of outcome-oriented philanthropy. Stanford Social Innovation Review,
10(2). http://www.ssireview.org/pdf/Spring_2012_A_Decade_of_OutcomeOriented_Philanthropy.pdf

129
Brest, P. (2014). Response to strategic philanthropy for a complex world. Stanford Social
Innovation Review. https://ssir.org/up_for_debate/strategic_philanthropy/paul _brest
Brest, P., & Harvey, H. (2018). Money well spent: A strategic plan for smart philanthropy.
Stanford Business Books.
brown, a. m. (2017). Emergent strategy: Shaping change, changing worlds. AK Press.
Bryan, T. K., Robichau, R. W., & L’Esperance, G. E. (2020). Conducting and utilizing
evaluation for multiple accountabilities: A study of nonprofit evaluation capacities.
Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 31(3), 547–569. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21437
Buteau, E., Glickman, J., Leiwant, M., Ilegbusi, T., & Alexander, Z. (2017). Benchmarking
program officers. The Center for Effective Philanthropy. http://cep.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/06/CEP-Benchmarking-Program-Officers.pdf
Chang, A. M. (2018). Lean impact: How to innovate for radically greater social good. Wiley.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Lindsay, D. R. (2008). Can do or will do? The importance of self-efficacy
and instrumentality for training transfer. Human Resource Development International,
11(2), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860801933004
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age.
Clemmons, M. (2016, October 5). Beyond basketball: Ballmer family invests in data-driven
social change. The Imprint: Youth and Family News.
https://imprintnews.org/tech/beyond-basketball-ballmer-family-invests-data-drivensocial-change/21774

130
Coffman, J. (2016, April). Oh, for the love of sticky notes! The changing role of evaluators who
work with foundations. Medium. https://medium.com/@jcoffman/oh-for-the-love-ofsticky-notes-the-changing-role-of-evaluators-who-work-with-foundations-66ec1ffed2e4
Coffman, J., Beer, T., Lopez, A., Athanasiades, K., & Gantz, M. B. (2020). Benchmarking
foundation evaluation practices 2020. Center for Evaluation Innovation.
https://www.evaluationinnovation.org/publication/cei_benchmarking2020/
Coffman, J., Beer, T., Patrizi, P., & Heid Thompson, E. (2013). Benchmarking evaluation in
foundations: Do we know what we are doing? The Foundation Review, 5(2).
https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1155
Consuegra, M. B., Behringer, C., & Nguyen, J. (2022). What we learned from Black and Latino
nonprofit leaders about countering racial bias in our grantmaking. The Center for
Effective Philanthropy. https://cep.org/what-we-learned-from-black-and-latino-nonprofitleaders-about-countering-racial-bias-in-our-grantmaking/
Council on Foundations. (2020). 2020 Grantmaker salary and benefits report.
https://www.cof.org/content/2020-grantmaker-salary-and-benefits-report
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
Cyril, M. D., Kan, L. M., Maulbeck, B. F., & Villarosa, L. (2021). Mismatched: Philanthropy’s
response to the call for racial justice. https://racialequity.org/mismatched/
D5 Coalition. (2016). Final state of work. https://www.d5coalition.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/D5-SOTW-2016-Final-web-pages.pdf

131
Daniel, V. (2019, November 19). Philanthropist bench women of color, the M.V.Ps of social
change. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/opinion/philanthropy-black-women.html
Despard, M. R. (2016). Challenges in implementing evidence-based practices and programs in
nonprofit human service organizations. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work,
13(6), 505–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/23761407.2015.1086719
Dorsey, C., Bradach, J., & Kim, P. (2020, May 7). Disparities in funding for leaders of color
leave impact on the table. Giving Compass.
www.givingcompass.org/partners/bridgespan/disparities-in-funding-for-leaders-of-colorleave-impact-on-the-table
Doyle, B., Sakaue, L., & Shaughnessy, L. (2023, January 24). Philanthropic sourcing, diligence,
and decision-making: An equity-oriented approach.
https://www.bridgespan.org/insights/philanthropic-sourcing-diligence-and-decisionmaking-an-equity-oriented-approach
Dubnick, A. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of the
mechanisms. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(3), 376–417. Taylor &
Francis. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3381159
Ebrahim, A. (2016). The many faces of nonprofit accountability. In D. O. Renz & R. D. Herman
(Eds.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (4th ed., pp.
102–123). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119176558.ch4
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2023). Expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value
theory: Reflections on the legacy of 40+ years of working together. Motivation Science,
9(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000275

132
Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. (2024). Capital aggregation. https://www.emcf.org/capitalaggregation/
Eisenberg, P. (2006). Review: Strategic giving. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(1), 75–77.
https://doi.org/10.48558/1HEJ-H468
Elers, P., Dutta, M. J., & Elers, S. (2021). Engagement and the nonprofit organization: Voices
from the margins. Management Communication Quarterly, 35(3), 368–391.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189211001883
Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2017). Handbook of competence and motivation.
Guilford Press.
Ferris, J. M. (2021). A generation of impact: The evolution of philanthropy over the past 25
years. The Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy. https://cppp.usc.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2021/03/A-Generation-of-Impact.pdf
Foster, W., Perreault, G., Powell, A., & Addy, C. (2016, Winter). Making big bets for social
change. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/making_big_bets_for_social_change
Frierson, H. T., Hood, S., Hughes, G. B., & Thomas, V. G. (2010). A guide to conducting
culturally responsive evaluations. In J. Frechtling (Ed.), The 2010 user-friendly handbook
for project evaluation (pp. 75–96). National Science Foundation.
https://www.purdue.edu/research/oevprp/docs/pdf/2010NSFuserfriendlyhandbookforprojectevaluation.pdf
Frumkin, P. (2006). Strategic giving: The art and science of philanthropy. University of Chicago
Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226266282.001.0001

133
Fulton, K. (2018). The predicament of strategic philanthropy. The Center for Effective
Philanthropy. https://cep.org/predicament-strategic-philanthropy/
Gallimore, R. G., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gamboa, G. (2022, May 16). Nonprofit leader wants giving circles to be as well-known as
crowdfunding. The Chronicle of Philanthropy.
https://www.philanthropy.com/article/philanthropy-together-ceo-talks-about-givingcircles
Gibson, C. (2017). Participatory grantmaking: Has its time come? Ford Foundation.
fordfoundation.org/media/3599/participatory_grantmaking-lmv7.pdf
Gibson, C. (2018). Deciding together: Shifting power and resources through participatory
grantmaking. GrantCraft. https://doi.org/10.15868/socialsector.32988
Gienapp, A., & Hostetter, C. (2022). Overview of theory of change concepts and language.
Annie E. Casey Foundation. https://assets.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-theoryofchangeguidance-2022.pdf
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Gregory, A. G., & Howard, D. (2009). The nonprofit starvation cycle. Stanford Social
Innovation Review, 7(4), 49–53. https://doi.org/10.48558/6K3V-0Q70
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2419.2011.00373.x

134
Hall, P. D. (2004). A historical perspective on evaluation in foundations. In M. T. Braverman, N.
A. Constantine, & J. K. Slater (Eds.), Foundations and evaluation: Contexts and
practices for effective philanthropy (pp. 27–50). Jossey-Bass.
Harold, J. (2023). The toolbox: Strategies for crafting social impact. Wiley.
Hood, S., Hopson, R. K., & Kirkhart, K. E. (2015). Culturally responsive evaluation. In K. E.
Newcomer, H. P. Hatry, & J. S. Wholey (Eds.), Handbook of practical program
evaluation (4th ed., pp. 281–317). Jossey-Bass.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch12
Howard-Grenville, J., Lahneman, B., & Pek, S. (2020). Organizational culture as a tool for
change. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 18(3), 28–33.
https://doi.org/10.48558/QT3W-NA41
Kania, J., Kramer, M., & Russell, P. (2014, June 16). Up for debate: Strategic philanthropy for a
complex world. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
https://ssir.org/up_for_debate/article/strategic_philanthropy
Kania, J., Kramer, M., & Senge, P. (2018). The water of systems change.
https://www.fsg.org/resource/water_of_systems_change/
Kee, J. E., & Newcomer, K. E. (2008). Why do change efforts fail? Public Manager, 37(3), 5-12.
Koob, A. (2021, June 17). Key facts on U.S. nonprofits and foundations. Candid.
https://search.issuelab.org/resource/key-facts-on-u-s-nonprofits-and-foundations2021.html
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
Kramer, M. R. (2009). Catalytic philanthropy. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 7(4), 30–35.
https://doi.org/10.48558/YKDQ-NS59

135
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers
College Record, 97(1), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819509700104
Letts, C. W., Ryan, W. P., & Grossman, A. S. (1997, March 1). Virtuous capital: What
foundations can learn from venture capitalists. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/1997/03/virtuous-capital-what-foundations-can-learn-from-venturecapitalists
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Long, M., & Nolan, C. (2017). The keys to true social sector impact? Evaluation and continuous
learning. The Center for Effective Philanthropy. https://cep.org/keys-true-social-sectorimpact-evaluation-continuous-learning/
Madhavan, G. (2024, March 6). Engineering our wicked problems. NAE Perspectives.
https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2024/03/engineering-our-wicked-problems
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
McCarthy, J. (2020, December 16). Philanthropy: What actually is it, and why is it so important
in achieving a world that’s equitable? Global Citizen.
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/what-you-need-to-know-about-philanthropy/
McGill, L., & Potapchuk, M. (2014, June). Paths along the way to racial justice: Five foundation
case studies. Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity: Critical Issues Forum, 5, 48–77.
https://racialequity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/CIF5-Casestudies.pdf
Mensah, F. M. (2021). Culturally relevant and culturally responsive: Two theories of practice for
science teaching. National Science Teaching Association, 58(4).

136
https://www.nsta.org/science-and-children/science-and-children-marchapril2021/culturally-relevant-and-culturally
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Norton, D. P., & Kaplan, R. S. (1992, January–February). The balanced scorecard: Measures that
drive performance. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/1992/01/the-balancedscorecard-measures-that-drive-performance-2
Oxford English Dictionary. (n.d.). Philanthropy. In Oxford English dictionary. Retrieved July 10,
2023, from https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/142408?redirectedFrom=philanthropy#eid
Page, S. (2019). The diversity bonus: How great teams pay off in the knowledge economy.
Princeton University Press.
Page, S. E. (2008). Difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools,
and societies. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400830282
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing development.
In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research
(pp. 158–170). The Guilford Press.
Pandit, V., & Tamhane, T. (2018). A closer look at impact investing. McKinsey Quarterly.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/private-equity-and-principal-investors/ourinsights/a-closer-look-at-impact-investing
Patrizi, P., & Heid Thompson, E. (2011). Beyond the veneer of strategic philanthropy. The
Foundation Review, 2(3), 52–60. https://doi.org/10.4087/FOUNDATIONREVIEW-D10-00022
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

137
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Evaluation flash cards: Embedding evaluative thinking in organizational
culture. Otto Bremer Trust.
Patton, M. Q., & Campbell-Patton, C. E. (2021). Utilization-focused evaluation (5th ed.). SAGE.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Achievement emotions questionnaire
(AEQ) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t21196-000
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Raikes, J. (2017, June 28). Color-blindness is a cop-out. The Aspen Institute.
https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/color-blindness-cop-out/
Reich, K., Milway, K. S., & Cardona, C. (2019). What it really takes to influence funder
practices. Ford Foundation. https://www.fordfoundation.org/media/4915/build-influencefunder-practice-report-121719.pdf
Reidy, M. J. (n.d.). Culture eats strategy for breakfast … and what to do about it. Interaction
Associates. https://www.interactionassociates.com/resources/blog/culture-strategy
Rock, D., & Grant, H. (2016, November 4). Why diverse teams are smarter. Harvard Business
Review. https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. (2017). Assessing impact. https://www.rockpa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/08/Assessing-Impact.pdf
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
SAGE.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College Press.

138
Schambra, W. A. (2003). The evaluation wars. Philanthropy Roundtable.
https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/magazine/the-evaluation-wars/
Schorr, L. B., & Schorr, D. (1989). Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage.
Doubleday.
Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In R. M. Ryan
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (2nd ed., pp. 10–26). Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190666453.013.2
Scriven, M. (1991). Pros and cons about goal-free evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 12(1), 55–62.
https://doi.org/10.1177/109821409101200108
Seiden, J. (2019). Outcomes over output: Why customer behavior is the key metric for business
success. Sense & Respond Press.
Sen, R., & Villarosa, L. (2019). Grantmaking with a racial justice lens: A practical guide.
Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Random House Books.
Shadish, W. R. (1994). Need-based evaluation theory: What do you need to know to do good
evaluation? Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 347–358.
https://doi.org/10.1177/109821409401500315
Sievers, B. (1997). If pigs had wings: The appeals and limits of venture philanthropy.
Foundation News & Commentary, 11(12).
Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society Guide. (2017). Designing for philanthropy
impact: The giving compass. https://pacscenter.stanford.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/Designing-For-Philanthropy-Impact-The-Giving-Compass.pdf

139
Starr, K. (2021, April 8). We’re beating systems change to death. Stanford Social Innovation
Review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/were_beating_systems_change_to_death
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (1985). Systematic Evaluation: A self-instructional guide
to theory and practice. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5656-8_6
Sykes, N. (2017). Operationalizing equity. Annie E. Casey Foundation.
https://assets.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-OperationalizingEquity-2017.pdf
Walker, G., & Grossman, J. (1998). Philanthropy and outcomes: Dilemmas in the quest for
accountability. Princeton.
https://www.princeton.edu/~jgrossma/reports/philanthropyandoutcomesrevisedjune1998.
pdf
Whitman Institute. (2022). Principles of trust-based philanthropy.
https://thewhitmaninstitute.org/wpcontent/uploads/TBP-7-principles-1.pdf
Word, J. (2020). The Goldilocks challenge: Right fit evidence for the social sector by Mary Kay
Guegerty and Dan Karlan, New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 2018, 309 pp.,
$38.95 (hardcover), ISBN 978-0199366088. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 27(3),
386–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2020.1839372

140
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
The following sections present the interview protocol used in this paragraph.
Research Questions
1. What factors lead to philanthropic funders to successful adoption of culturally
relevant and impact-driven philanthropic grantmaking practices?
2. What knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences prevent
philanthropic funders from successfully adopting culturally relevant and impactdriven grantmaking practices
3. What KMO influences improve the successful adoption of grantmaking practices in
philanthropic funders?
Respondent Type
Type of persons to be interviewed: staff members of institutions providing philanthropic
grant funding.
Participant Name Pseudonym
Interviewer Pauline Fong
Date Month/Day/Year
Introduction to the Interview
Thank you for taking the time to participate in my study. Your time and attention to
answer my questions are much appreciated. As I mentioned when we connected via email, the
interview will take about an hour, does that still work for you?
Before we start with the interview questions, I would like to provide a few important
reminders about this study, the overview of which was given to you in the study information
sheet. I can also answer any questions that you might have about participating in this interview
or study. First, I am a student at the University of Southern California, and I am conducting a

141
study on the factors leading to philanthropic funders successfully adopting culturally relevant
and impact-driven grant funding evaluation practices. My interest is to find out which factors are
key in leading to the adoption of this kind of grant funding evaluation. I will be interviewing the
staff members of five philanthropic funders throughout the United States.
I would like to assure you that my role is researcher today. This means that my questions
are not meant to be evaluative, and I will not be making any judgments on how you or your
organization conduct grant funding evaluations. My goal is to understand your perspective. I
want to emphasize that this interview is confidential. I will not be sharing your name with
anyone outside of the research team. The data for this study will be compiled into a report. While
I do expect to use some of what you say as direct quotes, none of it will be attributed directly to
you. A pseudonym will be used to protect your confidentiality, and I will do my best to deidentify any data I gather. I would be glad to provide a copy of my final paper to you if you are
interested.
As stated in the study information sheet, I will keep the data in a password-protected
computer, and all data will be destroyed after 5 years. Do you have questions I can answer before
we get started? The video recording is solely for my purposes to best capture your perspectives
and will not be shared with anyone outside the research team, and you will be identified with a
pseudonym. May I have your permission to record our conversation?
Setting the Stage
So grateful for your taking the time to share your perspective and expertise. I would like
to start by asking you some background questions about you.
1. First, please tell me about your background in philanthropy.
• How did you become interested in the field of philanthropy?

142
• How long have you worked in the sector?
• What roles or positions have you held?
• How long have you been in your role?
2. Briefly, what responsibilities does your current role entail?
Heart of the Interview
I would like to start by asking about your organization’s grant funding evaluation
practices (focusing on the front end of the process—when nonprofits apply—how do you
evaluate to decide on funding or not).

14
3
Table A1
Interview Protocol
Interview questions Potential probes RQ Key concept Question focus
In your opinion, what would you
say are the strengths of your
organization’s current grant
funding evaluation practices?
Can you give me an example of
that strength?
Can you describe how this strength
plays out?
RQ1 Motivation (self-efficacy
and expectancy value)
Opinion/values
How have those grant funding
evaluation practices evolved and
changed over the history of your
organization?
Tell me more about that.
Can you give me an example?
Can you describe what this looks
like?
RQ1
RQ2
RQ3
Knowledge (conceptual
and procedural)
Knowledge
In your opinion, what led to these
changes?
Can you say more?
Can you tell me what you mean by
…?
RQ1
RQ3
Organizational influences
Knowledge
Motivation
Opinion/values
What challenges did your
organization encounter in trying
to adopt these new grant funding
evaluation practices?
Can you give me an example of
that?
Can you describe what this looks
like?
Can you walk me through that?
RQ2 Knowledge
Motivation
Organizational influences
Experiences/
knowledge
From your experience, what have
you heard from nonprofit staff
(who have applied for a grant
with your organization) about
your grant funding evaluation
practices?
How do you receive this feedback?
(How often, what method or
context?)
RQ1 Knowledge
Motivation (expectancy
value)
Organizational influences
Experiences
Imagine you are hiring new staff to
work on grant funding
evaluations. What are you
looking for in the new hire?
Can you say more?
Can you describe that in more
detail?
Can you say what you mean?
RQ1
RQ2
Knowledge (conceptual
and procedural)
Organizational influence
Values/knowledge

14
4
Interview questions Potential probes RQ Key concept Question focus
For the staff working on grant
funding evaluations, what do you
train them on?
Can you give me an example?
Can you describe that in more
detail?
How do you train them?
RQ1
RQ2
RQ3
Knowledge (conceptual
and procedural)
Organizational influences
Behaviors/knowledge
For the staff working on grant
funding evaluations, what are
they evaluated on in their job
performance?
How are they evaluated?
Let’s say a staff is working with
five diverse nonprofits (racially;
geographically rural vs. urban …
etc.)
What demonstrations of capacity to
work with diverse nonprofits do
you look for?
How do you measure that?
How do you signify what is
culturally relevant?
RQ1
RQ2
Organizational influences
Motivation (self-efficacy
and expectancy value)
Knowledge (conceptual
and procedural)
Behaviors
How do you evaluate or measure
the success of your
organization’s grant funding
evaluation practices?
Who informs how you are doing?
(communities of accountability)
How do you signify what is
culturally relevant?
How do you define or measure
success when working with
nonprofits that may be culturally
different from the nonprofits that
you typically work with?
RQ1 Culturally relevant
Motivation (self-efficacy
and expectancy value)
Feelings/emotions
How does a staff doing grant
funding evaluation cooperate or
partner with the nonprofit staff in
the process?
Can you give me an example?
Can you describe that in more
detail?
RQ3 Organizational influences
Knowledge (procedural)
Behaviors
In the process of doing grant
funding evaluation, when a staff
assesses impact, what do they
evaluate?
What specific categories are used
to assess impact?
Can you give me an example?
How do they do this evaluation?
RQ1 Impact-driven
Knowledge (conceptual
and procedural)
Behaviors

14
5
Interview questions Potential probes RQ Key concept Question focus
In your opinion, what part(s) of
your organization’s grant
funding evaluation practices can
be further improved?
How would you improve them if
you were in charge?
Can you describe that in more
detail?
RQ1
RQ3
Knowledge
Motivation
Opinion
How and how often does your
organization adapt and change
your grantmaking processes and
approaches?
When are changes to grantmaking
processes and approaches made?
How are decisions for changes
made?
RQ2
RQ3
Organizational influences
(policies, processes,
workplace culture)
Behaviors

146
Conclusion to the Interview
Are there any other insights that you would like to share in our conversation about
philanthropic funders’ successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grant funding
evaluation and grantmaking practices? Any that I might not have covered or that we might not
have yet discussed?
Closing Comments
Thank you so much for sharing your insights with me today. I deeply appreciate your
time and willingness. What you have shared is really helpful for my study. If I find myself with a
follow-up question, can I contact you, and if so, would an email be acceptable? Again, thank you
for participating in my study. As a thank you, please accept this gift card as a small token of my
appreciation.

147
Appendix B: Qualitative Codebook for Interviews
Codes RQ/
description
Participant/
files
References and
quotes
Knowledge (conceptual) KC
Knowledge (procedural) KP
Knowledge (metacognitive) KM
Motivation (self-efficacy) MSE
Motivation (expectancy value) MEV
Motivation (attainment value) MAV
Motivation (utility value) MUV
Motivation (perceived cost) MPC
Organizational influences
(leadership and policies)
OILP
Organizational influences
(work processes and
resources)
OIWPR
Organizational influences
(workplace culture)
OIWC
Appendix B: Qualitative Codebook for Interviews

148
Appendix C: Information Sheet Recruitment Email
My name is Pauline Fong, and I am a student at the University of Southern California. I
also hold the role as chief program and impact officer at the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust.
I am conducting a research study to understand and identify the key factors leading to
successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact-driven grant proposal evaluation practices
in philanthropic funders. The name of this research study is “Key Factors for Successful
Adoption of Culturally Relevant and Impact-Driven Grant Proposal Evaluation Practices.” I am
seeking your participation in this study.
Your participation is completely voluntary, and I will address your questions or concerns
at any point before or during the study.
You may be eligible to participate in this study if you meet the following criteria:
1. You work as a staff member for a philanthropic funder.
2. You work for a philanthropic funder with annual grantmaking disbursement between
$10 million to $250 million and net assets between $200 million to $15 billion.
3. You are over 18 years old.
If you decide to participate in this study, you will be asked to do the following activities:
1. Participate in an interview, via Zoom, for 45–60 minutes.
2. Review your interview transcript via email for 10–15 minutes.
I will publish the results in my dissertation. Participants will not be identified in the
results. I will take reasonable measures to protect the security of all your personal information.
All data will be anonymized prior to any publication or presentations. I may share your data,
anonymized, with other researchers in the future.

149
If you have any questions about this study, please contact me: pcfong@usc.edu. If you
have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of
Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email hrpp@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Reducing the environmental impact of mining - a promising practice study

PDF

Procedural justice and the impact on African Americans: an evaluation study

PDF

Data-driven culture in the consumer goods industry

PDF

Understanding the reason for variation in high school graduation rates of Latino males

PDF

A qualitative study that examines the transformational factors that prevent cybersecurity from being a funding priority in healthcare organizations

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

Identification of barriers to mentoring and their impact on retention and advancement of underrepresented populations in the federal government

PDF

Understanding cross-cultural knowledge sharing in Ghana’s energy sector: an exploratory study

PDF

IT belongingness: from outcasts to technology leaders in higher education – a promising practice

PDF

Leadership in turbulent times: a social cognitive study of responsible leaders

PDF

Theory-practice gap: MBA curricula as preparation for business practice in marketing

PDF

Elevating mentees leads to organizational success

PDF

I love you, too: interventions for secondary teachers to critically self-reflect on, create, and solidify a loving and culturally relevant classroom culture

PDF

“Black” workplace belonging: an examination of the lived experiences of Black faculty sense of belonging factors in community colleges

PDF

Sticks and stones: achieving educational equity for Black students through board advocacy: an innovation study

PDF

The importance of teacher motivation in professional development: implementing culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

The continuous failure of Continuous Improvement: the challenge of implementing Continuous Improvement in low income schools

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development: a study of a business unit in a prominent technology company

PDF

Belonging matters: exploring the impact of social connectedness on the academic success of immigrant and refugee children in the American school system

PDF

Latina superintendents take center stage in California's rural school districts: a model for culturally responsive school leadership

Asset Metadata

Creator Fong, Pauline C. (author)

Core Title Key factors for successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact driven grantmaking practices

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-08

Publication Date 07/12/2024

Defense Date 04/30/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag culturally relevant,evaluation,gap analysis framework,grantmaking practices,impact-driven,KMO,knowledge,Learning,motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational influences,philanthropy

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Pritchard, Marc (committee member)

Creator Email paulinechenfong@gmail.com,paulinechenfong@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113997L9M

Unique identifier UC113997L9M

Identifier etd-FongPaulin-13196.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-FongPaulin-13196

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Fong, Pauline C.

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240712-usctheses-batch-1179 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu