Who Funds What. Who Watches. What Works.
2,466 Australian foundations scored on transparency, need alignment, evidence-backed funding, and geographic reach. $11.8B in annual giving — but how much of it reaches communities that need it most?
Source: ACNC Registry × Foundation Grantee Scraping × ACNC AIS × ALMA Evidence Database × Funding Deserts Index.
Foundation Scorecard
Composite score from four dimensions: transparency (do we know who they fund?), need alignment (do they reach disadvantaged areas?), evidence (do grantees have proven interventions?), and geographic reach (how broadly do they fund?).
The Transparency Gap
Most foundations operate as black boxes. Of 2,466 scored, only 254+ have any publicly traceable grantee data. The largest invisible foundations control billions in annual giving with zero public accountability for where the money goes.
Largest Foundations With Zero Transparency
| Foundation | Annual Giving | Type |
|---|---|---|
| World Vision Australia | $514.1M | service delivery |
| The University of Sydney | $340.7M | university |
| Catholic Education Centre | $281.5M | religious organisation |
| Monash University | $273.7M | university |
| Australian Red Cross Society | $265.7M | service delivery |
| Ecumenical Schools Australia | $245.4M | religious organisation |
| Lutheran Education South Australia, Northern Territory and Western Australia Incorporated | $211.4M | religious organisation |
| Alice Springs Youth Accommodation & Support Services Inc. | $196.0M | service delivery |
| Latter-day Saint Charities Australia | $185.7M | religious organisation |
| Victoria Legal Aid | $156.0M | legal aid |
The Philanthropy Revolving Door
25 foundation trustees also sit on the boards of organisations their foundation funds. 84 trustee–grantee overlaps across 8 foundations. This isn't necessarily corruption — small sectors have small talent pools — but it warrants scrutiny.
Evidence-Backed Funding
Foundations whose grantees have interventions documented in the Australian Living Map of Alternatives (ALMA) evidence database. 96 grantees across191 interventions.
| Foundation | Grantee |
|---|---|
| THE TRUSTEE FOR THE IAN POTTER FOUNDATION | Children's Ground Limited |
| Foundation For Rural And Regional Renewal | Tangentyere Council Aboriginal Corporation |
| The Trustee For The Snow Foundation | Oonchiumpa Consultancy & Services |
| THE TRUSTEE FOR THE IAN POTTER FOUNDATION | Tangentyere Council Aboriginal Corporation |
| THE TRUSTEE FOR THE IAN POTTER FOUNDATION | Tangentyere Council Aboriginal Corporation |
| THE TRUSTEE FOR THE IAN POTTER FOUNDATION | Alice Springs Youth Accommodation & Support Services Inc. |
| Foundation For Rural And Regional Renewal | Gap Youth and Community Centre Aboriginal Corporation |
| The Trustee For The Snow Foundation | Oonchiumpa Consultancy & Services |
| The Trustee For The Snow Foundation | Oonchiumpa Consultancy & Services |
| The Trustee For The Snow Foundation | Oonchiumpa Consultancy & Services |
| Gandel Family Foundation | Children's Ground Limited |
| Foundation For Rural And Regional Renewal | Tangentyere Council Aboriginal Corporation |
| THE TRUSTEE FOR THE IAN POTTER FOUNDATION | Create Foundation Limited |
| Foundation For Rural And Regional Renewal | Deadly Inspiring Youth Doing Good (DIYDG) Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Corporation |
| Foundation For Rural And Regional Renewal | Jabalbina Yalanji Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC |
| THE TRUSTEE FOR THE IAN POTTER FOUNDATION | Create Foundation Limited |
| THE TRUSTEE FOR THE IAN POTTER FOUNDATION | Create Foundation Limited |
| THE TRUSTEE FOR THE IAN POTTER FOUNDATION | Create Foundation Limited |
| THE TRUSTEE FOR TIM FAIRFAX FAMILY FOUNDATION | Yiliyapinya Indigenous Corporation |
| The Trustee For The Snow Foundation | Oonchiumpa Consultancy & Services |
Methodology
Transparency score (25% weight): Based on the number of publicly identifiable grantees. 5 points per grantee, capped at 100. Grantees are traced through ACNC annual reports, foundation websites, and public grant announcements.
Need alignment score (30% weight): How much funding reaches disadvantaged areas. Based on the average desert score of LGAs where grantees are located. Higher score means more funding flows to higher-need areas.
Evidence score (25% weight): Percentage of grantees that have interventions documented in the Australian Living Map of Alternatives (ALMA) evidence database. Doubled and capped at 100.
Geographic reach (20% weight): Diversity of funding across states (10 points each), remoteness categories (10 points each), and unique LGAs (1 point each, capped at 50). A foundation scoring 100 funds across multiple states, all remoteness categories, and 50+ LGAs.
Governance (supplementary): Trustee–grantee board overlaps are flagged but not included in the composite score. These indicate potential conflicts of interest but also reflect the reality of small professional networks.
Limitations: Transparency scores heavily favour foundations whose grantee data CivicGraph has been able to scrape or trace. Smaller foundations may be highly transparent through direct reporting but invisible to automated collection. Need alignment only measures where grantees are located, not where services are delivered.
Explore Foundation Networks
See how foundations connect to grantees, government programs, and evidence-backed interventions on the interactive graph.
Download: Foundation Intelligence
Get the complete report as a formatted PDF with all charts, tables, and data — ready to attach to board papers or share with colleagues.
Free for researchers, journalists, and community organisations. No spam, ever.