People and partnerships: who can decide, and who must answer?
Founders, donors, trustees, executives, employees and grantees can all influence philanthropy, but they possess different powers. A useful organizational map describes each relationship precisely. It should show who supplied money, who approved its use, who implemented a project and who reviewed the result.
Reviewed 17 October 2026. Financial figures and professional roles retain the dates stated in their sources.
Separate influence from authority
A founder may establish an institution’s original mission without retaining power over every later grant. A donor can set conditions within a grant agreement without becoming the recipient’s employer. An executive may manage a budget while needing board approval for major commitments. These possibilities should be tested against governing documents rather than assumed from fame, wealth or a photograph at a shared event.
Schedule R to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 990 provides information about defined related organizations and certain transactions. It can help distinguish control relationships from ordinary cooperation. Its reporting limits mean absence from that schedule is not conclusive proof that no relationship exists. [1]
Examine conflicts and oversight
The IRS explains that a conflict can arise when an official’s charitable responsibilities compete with personal financial interests. Disclosure, independent consideration and exclusion from affected decisions are practical safeguards. A conflict policy is useful evidence of intended procedure; it is not proof that the procedure was followed, and adopting the IRS sample is not itself a universal condition of exemption. [2]
The Charity Commission’s trustee guidance for England and Wales places responsibility on trustees for managing a charity and its resources. It distinguishes mandatory duties from recommended good practice. It also recognizes that acting honestly and reasonably matters when evaluating mistakes. This is a specific regulatory framework, not a ready-made legal verdict about an American foundation. [3]
Match responsibility to the record
For a disputed partnership, ask what each party knew, what it could control, what warning signs arose and what response followed. Publicly available agreements, decision records, monitoring reports and findings can answer different parts of that question. A repeated failure to investigate credible warnings can merit criticism even when criminal liability has not been established.
Conversely, a grantee’s independent misconduct does not establish that every donor requested, knew about or approved it. Ethical criticism and legal liability should be explained separately. Accurate role descriptions make accountability more demanding: they identify an actual duty, a specific decision or omission and a measurable consequence, rather than treating everyone in a network as collectively guilty.
Continue learning
Across borders: grants, campaigns and different legal systems