HIGHER EDUCATION AND PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATIONS: THE COLLEGE COMPLETION AGENDA AND POSTSECONDARY POLICY NETWORKS By Nabih Haddad A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree o f Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education Doctor of Philosophy 2019 ABSTRACT HIGHER EDUCATION AND PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATIONS: THE COLLEGE COMPLETION AGENDA AND POSTSECONDARY POLICY NETWORKS By Nabih Haddad This dissertation investigates the policy stra tegies of major foundations in higher education , with a focus on the college completion agenda . R ecently, r esearchers have be gun document ing the pronounced role of philanthropic foundations in higher education policy making . P hilanthropists have long exerci sed influence in higher education, working to promote an array of social and political agendas throughout the sector . However, journalistic es to higher education ha ve shifted dra stically in recent years. Contemporary foundations, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Lumina Found ation , h ave introduced a high - leverage, policy - T he newer foundations not only adopt an ac tivist approach to higher education philanthropy but also stimulate grant recipients around college completion initiatives. Ad vocacy philanthropy is closely linked to the college completion agenda, a powerful reform movement that includes policymakers, pri vate foundations, business interests, educational nonprofits, think tanks, consultants, and membership entities. These groups have coalesced around the goal of increasing degree productivity nationally . One aspect of advocacy - focused philanthropy is a reli ance on intermediary organizations , which are translational entities that operate between funding agencies and the systems tha t they are attempting to influence. Despite th e growing significance of philanthropic f oundations in public policy making , little i s known regarding how this is operationalized. In fact, such processes are rarely examined in an empirical and robust manner , with many researchers simply tak ing the influence of philanthropy for granted or fail ing to notice active presenc e in the public policymaking process . This motivates the basic question of this dissertation: How do major philanthropic foundations interact with public colleges and universities, state and federal governments, and political and economic elites in raising awareness of completion and implementing their social agendas? This study utilizes a mixed - method research design, drawing on an original dataset of nearly 7,000 grants representing nearly $3 b illion in higher education - filtered dollars . Moreover, 40 semi - structured interviews were conducted with high - powered officials from the philanthropic, public policy, and higher education sectors that contextualize the grant analysis . This study demonstrates that philanthropic foundations regularly work to shape and influence public policies and organizational practices in higher education . In particular, this study find s that philanthropic organizations regularly mobilize policymakers, business representatives, and institutional leaders around college completion. In fact , o ver the course of a decade, the field of higher education philanthropy has shifted, with a decrease in traditional forms of philanthropic grant making and an increase in field - building efforts. Indeed , philanthropic dollars are elevating a network of intermediaries that now influenc e the field of higher education toward completion. M y analysis reveals that philanthropic foundations are becoming no t only more strategic in their grantmaking efforts but also influential coalition builders. More generally , t his study extends postsecondary policy analysis from a state - centric approach to one that considers the role of nonstate actors in policy advocacy and educational reform. Copyright by NABIH HADDAD 2019 v In memory of Dr. Samuel Gaft vi ACKNOWL EDGMENTS Throughout the writing and data collection process, I received substantial support from several individuals who generously contributed to this study. I first wish to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor and dissertation chair, Brendan Cantw ell, who p rovided continuous support, guidance, and academic advice from the beginning. His immense knowledge greatly informed the way I approached this study and my academic career . I am particularly indebted to Sarah Reckhow, whose support and encouragem ent was in strumental in shaping my thinking around organized philanthropy, educational politics, and research design. I would not have been able to tackle this research agenda without her support. I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to my two oth er committ ee members, Steven W ei land and Dongbin Kim, who provided informative comments, feedback, and advice. I am especially grateful for the support of Rubén Martinez, who always offered words of encouragement and feedback at every stage of writing. I a lso wish t o thank my colleagues at the Julian Samora Research Institute, who offered endless opportunities for stimulating discussions around research and community - engaged scholarship. I also had the great pleasure of working with John Burkhardt and Betty Overton - A dkins, who introduced me to this area of scholarship while I was a researcher at The National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good at the University of Michigan. I would like to extend gratitude to Larry Catá Backer, who provided early i ntellectua l support and opportunities to contribute to his research teams at the Pennsylvania State University . I also received support from a number of HALE faculty. I wish to extend my thanks to Marilyn Am e y, Ann Austin, Roger Baldwin, Leslie Gonzales, R iyad Shahjahan, William Arnold, vii and Emerald Templeton for their feedback on research and overall guidance. I would also like to thank my colleagues and friends who contributed to my academic success through ou t graduate school, including Sarah Fitzgerald, J eff Grim, Kyle Southern, Stephanie Aguilar - Smith, Sapna Naik, Kayon Hall, Rob Hill, Ahmed Hozain, Alex Gardner, Emiko Blalock, Lucas Hill, Nicole Jess, Dianey Leal, Keren Wang, Tomonori Teraoka, and many othe rs. Noah Drezner , who has al ways been generous with his time, provid ing valuable career and scholarly advice . I am also very appreciative of Megan Tompkins - Stange, Tony Reames, Jean Kayitsinga, Chase McNamee, Jameson Brewer, and o thers who provided thoughtful feedback on resear ch questions, literature reviews, and data collection strategies. There are many who also perspective on my analysis. In particular, I would like to thank Ismael Ahmed, Ann Serra, Marvin McKinney, Christop her Nellum, Christopher Tremblay, and others. I was also fortunate enough to present some of my early findings to participants at several academic events and conferences, whose in - depth feedback informed my analysis, most notably the Stanford PACS Junior S cholars Forum at the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, the Lilly Family S chool of Philanthropy SPI Annual Conference, the American Educational Research Association, and the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Of course, I would not have been able to complete my dissertation if it w as not for the financial assistance of the Richard Lee Featherstone Fellowship, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation through their support of a research assista ntship, the HALE Department, and the College of Education who provided the Dissertation Co mpletion Fellowship, providing valuable time needed to complete my dissertation. Moreover, I wish to thank the countless foundation officials and representatives who viii welcomed me into their world, agreeing to participate in this study and connecting me to t hose within their wider networks. I could not have completed this study without their help. Last but not least, I am extremely grateful to my parents, family members, and friends who continued to show kindness and emotional support throughout this journey. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... xi LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. xii CHAPTER 1: INTR ODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ 1 The College Completion Agenda ................................ ................................ ............................ 1 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 3 Philanthropic Fo undations as Political Actors ................................ ................................ ......... 5 College Completion as a Preferred Policy Preference ................................ .............................. 7 The Advocacy Philanthropists ................................ ................................ ................................ . 8 Research Purpose ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 9 Definitions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 11 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................... 13 Brie f History of Higher Education Philanthropy ................................ ................................ .... 13 Industria l Philanthropy ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 16 Higher Education Development ................................ ................................ ............................ 19 Limi ted Research on Philanthropic Foundations in Higher Education ................................ ... 21 Foundations and Policy Engagement ................................ ................................ ..................... 23 Contemporary K 12 Philanthropy Research ................................ ................................ .......... 25 Coalitio n Builders and Grantee Intermediaries ................................ ................................ ...... 32 Higher Education Accountability ................................ ................................ .......................... 34 Institutional Outcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 36 Philanthro py and Policy Advocacy in Higher Education ................................ ....................... 39 Current Empirical Postsecondary Philanthropy Research ................................ ...................... 41 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH STRATEGY ................................ ................................ .................. 45 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 45 Strategic Ac tion Fields ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 46 Challenger Incumbent Dynamic ................................ ................................ ........................... 47 Network Theory ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 48 Analytical Plan ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 51 Sampling Strategy ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 52 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 54 Social Network Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 57 Statistical Analysis of Grants ................................ ................................ ................................ 59 Model ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 60 Qualitative Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 62 Qualitative Coding Procedure ................................ ................................ ............................... 63 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 64 CHAPTER 4: SHIFTING GRANTMAKING APPROACHES ................................ .................. 67 x High - leverage Grantmaking ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 67 College Completion Investments ................................ ................................ ........................... 73 Mu ltiple Constituencies Increased Reliance on Intermediaries ................................ ........... 76 Intermediary Research Grants and Think Tanks ................................ ................................ .... 81 Government Partnerships ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 84 Informal Policy Associations and State - level Field Building Projects ................................ .... 87 CHAPTER 5: NETWORKED COALITIONS AND INF ORMATION SHARING ................... 91 Purposeful Collaboration ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 95 Formal a nd Informal Collaborative Efforts ................................ ................................ ............ 98 Social Investors ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 100 Issue Alignment across Sectoral Boundaries ................................ ................................ ....... 103 Scaling Reforms and Shared Grantee Networks ................................ ................................ .. 106 Grantee Information Sharing ................................ ................................ ............................... 110 Brokers in Shared Grantee Networks ................................ ................................ .................. 113 Externally Oriented Brokers ................................ ................................ ................................ 115 CHAPTER 6: FIELD - LEVEL CHANGES IN HIGHER EDUCATION PHILANTHROPY ... 122 Incumbent Vulnerability ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 122 Field - b u ilding Projects in Higher Education ................................ ................................ ........ 124 Overlapping Strategies ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 127 Grant Purposes and Strategic Differences ................................ ................................ ............ 138 New Philosophies in Higher Education Grantmaking ................................ .......................... 145 Prestige and Legitimacy ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 147 CHAPTER 7: D ISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................ ............................... 151 Increasing Trends for High - leverage Philanthropy ................................ .............................. 151 Growing Support to Noninstitutional Entities ................................ ................................ ...... 152 Network Builders ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 154 Knowledge Sharing Across Fields ................................ ................................ ...................... 155 The Field of Higher Education Philanthropy ................................ ................................ ....... 156 Literature Gaps ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 158 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 161 xi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 . Descriptive Statistics of Higher Education Grants ................................ ....................... 54 Table 2 . Coding Scheme ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 56 Table 3 . D escriptive Statistics of Total Grants, 2004 to 2014 ................................ .................... 57 Table 4 . Number of Foundation Informants ................................ ................................ ............... 63 Table 5 . Number of Intermediary Org anization and Policy Informants ................................ ...... 63 Table 6 . Statistical Trends of Intermediary Grants ................................ ................................ .... 77 Table 7 . Grant Purposes Directed to Intermedi aries ................................ ................................ .. 80 Table 8 . Research Grants Directed to Intermediaries ................................ ................................ 83 Table 9 . Grants Directed to Government Agencies ................................ ................................ .... 86 Table 10 . Information Centrality Measures, Figure 9 ................................ ................................ 94 Table 11 . Selected Grantees, Brokerage Statistics of Government Agencies ............................ 1 16 Table 12 . Selected Grantees, Brokerage Statistics of Advocacy Nonprofits .............................. 117 Table 13 . Selected Grantees, Brokerage Statistics of Membership Organizations ................... 117 Table 14 . Selected Grantees, Brokerage Statistics of Think Tanks ................................ .......... 117 Table 15 . Percent of Convergent Grants toward Intermediary Organizations ......................... 131 Table 16 . Centrality Measures, Figure 20 ................................ ................................ .............. 137 Table 17 . Fixed Effect Estimates ................................ ................................ ............................. 140 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. A directed line where (B) represents the broker in the directed triad. ......................... 49 Figure 2. ................................ ...... 50 Figure 3. brokers. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 51 Figure 4. Low - leverage investments. ................................ ................................ .......................... 69 Figure 5. High - leverage investments. ................................ ................................ ......................... 70 Figure 6. College completion investments. ................................ ................................ ................. 75 Figure 7. 2014 directed funding network. ................................ ................................ .................. 78 Figure 8. 2004 Philanthropic - sponsored intermediary organization network. ............................ 92 Figure 9. 2014 philanthropic - sponsored intermediary organization network. ............................ 93 Figure 10. Brokerage profiles of aggrega ted shared grantee networks. ................................ ... 114 Figure 11. Brokerage profiles of organizational types. ................................ ............................ 115 Figure 12. Selected grantees, grant coded purposes disaggregated, 2014. ............................... 118 Figure 13. Selected grantees, grant coded purposes collapsed, 2014. ................................ ...... 120 Figure 14. Old found ations, advocacy/policy and completion grants. ................................ ...... 129 Figure 15. Old and new funding trends of intermediaries. ................................ ....................... 130 Figure 16. Intermediary organization recipient network for older funders, 2004. .................... 133 Figure 17. Intermediary organization recipient network for newer funders, 2004. ................... 133 Figure 18. Intermediary organization recipient network for older funders, 2014. .................... 134 Figure 19. Intermediary orga nization recipient network for newer funders, 2014. ................... 135 Figure 20. Intermediary organization recipient network for new and old funders. ................... 136 xiii Figure 21. Random effects of advocacy and engagement purpose s. ................................ .......... 142 Figure 22. Random effects of policy purposes. ................................ ................................ ......... 143 Figure 23. Random effects of college completion purposes. ................................ ..................... 144 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION In the last decade, the primary goal of higher education policy has shifted from broadening postsecondary access to increasing the pro portion of young adults earning postsecondary credential s (AASCU, 2011; Bernstein, 2014; Callan, 2011; Kelly & Schneider, 2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ). Calls for increasing national attainment rates are amplified by project ed shortages of skil led labor (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013; Carnevale & Rose, 2011; Carnevale, Smith, & Strohl, 2013 ; Lumina, 2017 ). According to the National Center for Educati higher. Alth ough this is an increase from a decade ago, current estimates suggest that nearly two - thirds of all jobs in 2025 will require some form of post - high school creden tial (Lumina, 2017) . These findings, supported by other studies ( Carnevale & Rose, 2011a; Carn evale & Rose, 2011b; Carnevale et al. , 2013 ), indicate that if these trends persist, nearly 12 million jobs will be unfilled by 2025 (Lumina, 2017) . On a global scale, U.S. attainment rates lag behind other industrialized economies (OECD, 201 9 ). In particu lar, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ranks the U.S. 13th out of 36 in postsecondary attainment rates for working a dults (25 34 years of age) (OECD, 201 9) . Overall , these figures emphasize the need for more young adults to o btain credential s beyond high school (AASCU, 2011; Bernstein, 2014; Callan, 2011; Kelly & Schneider, 2012 ; Kelly & Strawn, 2011 ). The College Completion Agenda Given this context, it is not surprising that college completion has bec o me a n overriding concer n for policymakers and postsecondary leaders. In the early 2000s, college completion and student success predictably dominat ed policy discussions, with many state and national policymakers, major educational foundations, advocacy groups , think tanks, and b usiness 2 interests active ly engaging in brin g ing attention to higher education completion rates ( AASCU, 2011; Bernstein, 2014; Humphreys, 2012; Kelly & Schneider, 2012; Lederman, 2010; Merisotis, 2016 ). While politicians and state policymakers have led the implementation of completion - related policies, these priorities , at least as a preferred policy preference , originated within philanthropy ( Ashburn , 2010; Hebel, 2009). Most notably, t he Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Gates) and the Lumina Foundation ( Lumina) have long spearheaded completion efforts in higher education ( Bernstein, 2014; Hall & Th omas, 2012; Hebel, 2009). During the same period, a reform movement emerged premised up on promoting policies and practices incentiviz ing degree production thro ugh policy involvement and system s change what many journalists and observers have dubbed with many initiatives underwritten by private donors ( AASCU, 2011; Bernstein, 2014; Humphreys, 2012; Kelly & Schneider, 2012; Lederman , 2010). The college completion agenda rests on four assumptions : (1) increasing its prop ortion of degree holders will make the U.S. more globally competitive ; (2) a changing labor market requires an educated workforce to meet projected labor gaps ; (3) onc e enrolled, students should succeed in college in a satisfactory timeframe, typically four to six years ; and (4) s tudent outcomes are fundamentally the responsibility of postsecondary institutions ( i.e., colleges and universities ) ( Bernstein, 2014; Heller, 2011; Humphreys, 2012; Kelly & James, 2015; K elly & Schneider, 2012 ; Kelly & Strawn, 2011 ). Many analysts attribute the success of the college completion agenda to the strategic alignment of key interest groups , including philanthropic foundations (AASCU , 2011; Bernstein, 2014; Haddad & Reckhow, 2018; Hall & Thomas, 2012; Humphreys, 2012; Kelly & Schneider, 2012). In her book Funding the Future: Philanthropy s Influence on American Higher Education , Alison Bernstein (2014) writes , 3 Interestingly, a wide va riety of organizations came together with governors, business leaders, and other education reformers to adopt a college - completion agenda. With foundation support, they developed scores of programs and projects to increase significa ntly the number of tradi tionally aged and older adults who, once enrolled in community colleges offered . (p. 224) From this perspective, the college completion agenda in volves several instituti onal, political, and private players coalescing around a singular policy goal (Bernstein, 2014; Haddad & Reckhow, 2018; Hall & Thomas, 2012; Humphreys, 2012 ; Kelly & James, 2015 ; Miller & Morphew, 2017 ). Analysts credit philanthropi sts for much of the mome ntum behind the college completion agenda, as Hall and Thomas (2012) argue in their analysis on major funders and their policy agendas : sector, with a nu mber of foundations maki ng the goal of raising college completion rates the core 14). Popular reporting has offered similar arguments. According to a grant analysis conducted by The Chronicle of Higher Educa tion in 2013 , Gates spen t nearly $500 m illion , and Lumina nearly $240 m illion , championing their shared completion - related policy goals ( Parry et al. , 2013) . Indeed, major funders have been crucial in underwriting several initiatives and programs and even in launching new entitie s dedicated to promoting college completion policies and practices (Bernstein, 2014) . Problem Statement The existing K 12 and political science literatures demonstrate that major foundations are uniquely situated as policy entrepreneurs who, with relative freedom, can draw up on their affiliated grantee networks, host of researchers and consultants, and internal communications 4 arms to advance their political and social agendas ( Ferris, Hentschke, & Harmssen, 2008; F erris & Mintrom, 2009; Quinn, Tompkins - Stan ge & Meyerson, 2013 ; Reckhow, 2013; Scott, 2009; Scott & Jabar, 2014; Tompkins - Stange, 2016). Moreover, philanthropic foundations can galvanize support through field - building efforts, wh ich can be central in creat ing a political landscape conducive to a sp ecific goal (Bartley, 2007; Domhoff , 2005; Lubienski, Scott, & DeBray, 2011; Powell, 200 7 ; Reckhow & Tompkins - Stange, 2015 , 2018 ). According to Bartley organizations in the field - building 2 31). As such, recent work reveals that foundations are not only investing in networks of organizations linked to completion but also enrolling other funders to support similar causes (Haddad & Reckhow, 201 8). Scholars note that philanthropic foundations h ave acted as institutional entrepreneurs in educational politics ( Quinn et al. , 2014 ; Reckhow, 2013 ). In fact, this area of research finds that the power of organized philanthropy is based not only simply on their (admittedly substantial) philanthropic inv estments but also on their capacity to confer prestige, amplify policy voices, influence public and elite opinion, and build strategic relationships across diverse sectoral lines (Hess, 2005; Hess & Henig, 2015; Reckhow, 2013; Tompkins - Stange, 201 6 ). In pa rticular, foundations frequently work with a number of grantees who fill these boundary - spanning roles ( Dougherty & Natow, 2015 ; Hall & Thomas, 2012; Kezar, 2014; Lubienski et al. , 2011; Metcalfe, 200 8 ; Miller & Morphew, 2017; Reckhow & Tompkins - Stange, 20 18 ; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004 ). According to The Chronicle (2013) ry et al., 2013, para . 91). Beyond supporting traditional advocacy and policy organizations, foundations also employ their vast resources in agenda setting by sponsoring project - specific initiatives, such as research, networking events, media publications, and private 5 consultancies ( Blumenstyk , 2013; Hall & Thomas, 2012; Hess, 2005; Hess & Henig, 2015; Reckhow, 2013; Reckhow & Tom pkins - Stange, 2018). Philanthropic Foundations as Political Actors Overall, th e scholarly literature confirms the centrality of K 12 foundations in mobilizing intermediaries to promote policy reforms and influence educational discourse (Ferrare & Reynolds, 2016; Hess, 2005; Hess & Henig, 2015; Scott & Jabber, 2013; Tompkins - Stange, 2 016). For example, based on ten years of grant data, Reckhow and Snyder (2014) demonstrate that major foundations in K 12 were more willing to fund jurisdictional challengers (e ntities that offer alternatives to the public sector) in 2010 than they were in 2000 (also see, Mehta & Teles 2011; Reckhow, 2010, 2013). Shifting the focus back to higher education, commentators note that philanthropists are promoting college completion a s a preferred policy preference (Barnhardt, 2017; Russell, 2011) ; however, litt le is known regarding how this is operationalized. In fact, scholars in higher education have largely ignored the policy advocacy roles of major foundations more generally, asid e from a few recent studies ( Dougherty & Natow, 2015; Gándara, Rippner, & Ness , 2017 ; Haddad & Reckhow, 2018; Hall & Thomas, 2012; Kelly & James, 2015; Miller & Morphew, 2017). That p hilanthropic foundations promot e college completion as a preferred policy preference is no secret. The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Education have documented the growing role s of major foundations in complet ion - related educational reform. While helpful, this sort of re porting reveals very little about how fou ndations marshal support behind their agendas (Ness, Tandberg , & McLendon , 2015). In the field of higher education, private foundations are assumed to be passive patrons that are not involved in the policymaking pro cess ( Barnhardt, 2017; Ness et al, 2015) , y et recent 6 qualitative research demonstrates that foundations are working through intermediary organizations ( IOs ) to frame policy narratives ( Miller & Morphew, 2017; Ness & Gándara, 2014 ) , diffuse social agendas ( G á ndara et al., 2017), and support budget ing proposals (Dougherty & Natow, 2015). Unlike elected officials or for - profit firms, grantmaking foundations are not accountable to electoral politics or market forces ( Dowie, 2001; Reich, 201 6 , 201 8 ). As such, their legal forms allow foundations to enga ge in long - term activities that other entities could not justify ( Anheier & Hammack, 2010 ; Dowie, 2001 ; Reich, 2016, 2018; Simon, 1995 lumni, students, answer to ( Barnhardt, 2017; Simon, 1995, p. 245). unlike the existing literature in K 12 and political science ( Hess, 20 05; Hess & Henig, 2015; Reckhow, 2013; Reckhow & Snyder, 2015; Snyder, 2015; Tompkins - Stange, 2016), such processes are rarely systematic ally and empirical ly examined , and many simply tak e the influence of philanthropy for granted or fail to notice philant hropists active presence in policymaking. This mo tivates the basic question of this study: How do major philanthropic foundations interact with public institutions, state and federal governments, and political and economic elites to implement their social agendas? The goal of this analysis is to provide a window into how foundation - led policymaking is formulated, disseminated, and operationalized in higher education. Indeed, these findings contribute to the growing literature on not only found ations and intermediaries in public policy but also the role of informal actors involved in higher education reform (Ness et al . , 2015). Rather than examining traditional policymaking mechanism s that focus on state characteristics, this study emphasizes pr ivate actors and their hidden role s in public policymaking proc ess es (e.g., Miller & Morphew, 2017). 7 College Completion as a Preferred Policy Preference Advocacy groups and think tanks supported college completion and student success as a policy preference well before 2009 ; however, it was President Barack Obama who b rought completion to the national stage (AASCU, 2011; Bernstein, 2014). Specifically, in 2009, President Obama outlined his 2020 College Completion goal to Congress, highlighting his aim of pro ducing 10 million more graduates by 2020 ( Bernstein, 2014; Obam a, 2009). Presenting his commitments to Congress, President Obama said , necessary for all young Americans to complete college and meet a new goal: By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of colle President Obama emphasis on college completion elevated the goal of producing more graduates from a topic of discussion among policy wonks and res earchers in closed circles to one enjoying wider popular recogniti on (AASCU, 2011 ; Bernstein, 2014 ). Alene Russell (2011), a senior policy associate at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), writing in an influential policy br ief, notes , has helped to define a national problem a nd to stimulate activity around the nation, as evidenced by the frequency with which the 2020 goal has been cited by a wide range of individuals and 2). In fa ct, since 2009, leading postsecondary institutions, membership ass ociations, advocacy groups, business leaders, the U.S. Department of Education, and of course, Barack Obama have all championed college completion as an overriding policy priority for higher education ( AASCU, 2011; Bernstein, 2014; Hebel, 2009; Humphreys, 2012; Kelly & Schneider, 2012; McPhail, 2011; U.S. Department of Education., 2011). Speaking to the newly formed completion agenda in 2010, the editor of Inside Higher Ed , Doug Lederman (201 0) I n] [t]he last two years [we] have seen the emerge nce of the closest thing in 8 Likewise, in their edited volume, Getting to Graduation: The Compl etion Agenda in Higher Education , Andrew Kelly and Mark Schneider (2012) agree, stating , more than political talking points or an incremental shift in emphasis: they constitute a fundamental rethinking of priorities in higher educati 1). Many policy ideas linked to completion were inc ubated within the philanthropic sector ( Bernstein, 2014; Hebel, 2009). Most notably, Gates and Lumina have spearhead ed completion efforts for years (Hebel, 2009). For example, when Jamie Mer isotis became the CEO and President of Lumina in 2008, he introduc ed a policy - focused strategy for meeting the s by 2025 (Bernstein, 2014; Hebel, 2009; Kelly & James, 2015 ; Lumina, 20 08 ). Lumina began mobilizing a host of educational reformers aroun d this goal, including business representatives, policymakers, researchers, and institutional leaders and quickly bec a m e an influential policy actor in the process (Bernstein, 2014 ; Hall & Thomas, 2012 ). As such, federal policymakers took note. According t o reporting by Sarah Hebel (2009, May 1) on behalf of The Chronicle of Higher Education, perts the Education Department consulted when it sought to determine the right goals for education and the best numbers to use in measur ing . 10). President Obama would later introduce his 2020 College Completion goal to Congress . The Advocacy Philanthropists Gates and Lumina belong to the newly emerged group of advocacy philanthropists who are introducing a high - leverage, policy - field of higher education (Haddad & Reckhow, 20 18; Hall & Thomas, 2012; Kelly & James, 9 2015; Ness et al. , 2014; Parry et al. , 2013). In contrast to the hands - off approach es of older f oundations (Bernstein, 2014 ; Kelly & James, 2015 ; Snyder, 2015 ), the newer entrants are pushing for specific policy refo rms in more direct and obvious ways ( Haddad & Reckhow, 2018; Hall & Thomas, 2012 ). Not only do the newer philanthropists apply an activi st approach to higher education policy reform (Hall & Thomas, 2012; Kelly & James, 2015), they also stimulate grant reci pients around completion (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018; Miller & Morphew, 2017 ). These foundations enjoy close relationships with federal and state policymakers (Hall & Thomas, 2015) . In a special report published by The Chronicle et al., (2013) describe this dynamic in the following way , Gates s rise occurs as an unusual consensus has formed among the Obama Wh ite House, other private foundations, state lawmakers, and a range of policy advocates, a ll of whom have coalesced around the goal of graduating more students, more quickly, and at a lower cost, with little discussion of the alternatives (para . 8). Overal l, without the collective influence of Gates and Lumina, the White House may not have bee n as unified and single - mindedly committed to the completion agenda. Research Purpose T his study seeks to identify how policy ideas and initiatives from external actor s (in this case, philanthropic organizations) enter into state and federal policymaking, as well as into colleges and universities. Understanding how college completion has emerged as a preferred policy solution will help to illuminate how this new form of policy engagement is achieved. Interfacing resources with policymakers and institutional administrators generally require some type of intermediary linking together the worlds of philanthropy and higher education (DeBray, 10 Scott, Lubienski, & Jabbar, 2014; Honig, 2004; Lubienski et al. , 2011, July 22; Scott, & Jabbar, 2014 ). Intermediaries are defined as entities functioning as boundary - crossing organization s seeking to influence policies and practices on behalf of granting agencies (DeBray et al. , 2014; Ho nig, 2004; Lubienski et al. , 2011; Ness et al., 2015 ; Scott, & Jabbar, 2014 ). These boundary - spanners include regional or national organizations, policy institutes, research centers, consultancies, researchers, and representatives of businesses (Ness et al ., 2015). T he K 12 literature find s that major philanthropists have elevated interme diaries in educational politics, 2; see also, Reckhow & Snyder, 2014). One implication of this s trategy is the shifting of resources away from traditional actors and toward these j urisdictional challengers. Similar strategies are being employed in higher education. Following a similar sampling strategy as many political scientists and K 12 researcher s (Reckhow, 2013; Reckhow & Tompkins - Stange, 2018; Snyder, 2015; Tompkins - Stange, 20 16), I focus on the largest funders in higher education (Hall & Thomas, 2012; Kelly & James, 2015) . Furthermore , I draw up on a mix ed - method research design, including the s tatistical analysis of grantmaking (Greene, 2005; Greene, 2015; Reckhow, 2013), soci al network analysis ( McClure et al. , 2017 ; Haddad & Reckhow, 2018 ; Reckhow & Snyder, 2014 ), and in - depth interviews with foundation officials and policy elites ( Tompkins - St ange, 2016) , to address the following research questions: 1. What grantmaking strategies do philanthropic foundations employ in higher education policy? 2. How have philanthropic foundations engaged with intermediary organizations to promote policy goals in high er education ? 11 3. How do major foundations in higher education promote information sharing through philanthropic - sponsored networks? A strong indication exists that foundations are actively supporting intermediaries to advance their policy agendas in higher ed ucation ; how ever, to this point, empirical research exploring this relationship is scarce. Barnhardt (2017) finds , 183). The same is true for IOs (Ness et al., 201 5). In a rec 702). In this study, I provide insight into the relationship between po stsecondary funders and IOs and the motivations behind this investment strategy. Definitions The following comprises a list of definitions that are commonly used in reports, popular and scholarly articles, and interviews throughout this study: Advocacy Ph ilanthropy : Advocacy philanthropy refers to a set of high - leverage, policy - inspired strategies seeking to influence higher education governance and practice (Hall & Thomas, 2012). Advocacy philanthropy is typically associated with the newer funders in high er ed ucation Gates and Lumina ( Bernstein, 2014; Kelly & James, 2015) . Attainment Completion : In a number of interviews, informants use d attainment and completion interchangeably. However, researchers note that differences exist between the t wo ( Kambhampati , 2015 ) . In particular, attainment denotes to the highest level of education an individual receives, whereas completion considers the number of individuals who completed their degree s once enrolled ( Kambhampati, 2015 ; National Center for Edu cation Statisti cs, 2018; U.S. Census, 2016). 12 Venture Philanthropy : Venture philanthropy is a grantmaking strategy that functions like venture capital, seeking to produce the greatest return on social investments (Snyder, 2015) . Similar to venture capitalists, venture phi lanthropists are characteristically more hands - on, holding grantees accountable to measurable outcomes (Tompkins - Stange, 2016). 13 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW The goal of this study is to systematically investigate how major foundat ions are advancing their policy agendas in higher education, with an emphasis on college completion. In the following sections, I begin by reviewing the relevant literature that informs the research questions stated above. I first provid e a brief history o f philanthropic foundati ons in higher education, which is followed by an overview of the existing literature on postsecondary philanthrop ists and the subsequent lack of analysis relating to their policy agendas. I then consider both the existing K 12 and r ecent higher education p olicy literature regarding foundations and their policy advocacy involvements. Next, I describe how the college completion agenda is linked to the broader political environment of postsecondary accountability, including outcome - base d policies supported by major philanthropists and affiliated grantees. Brief History of Higher Education Philanthropy Throughout the history of American higher education, philanthropy has played a central role in its development (Bernstein, 2014; Curti & N ash, 1965; Thelin, 2011; Thelin & Trollinger, 2014). Beginning in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, philanthropists supported the sector by commissioning system - wide evaluations, sponsoring novel areas of academic research, and establishin g entirely new colleges and universities (Bernstein, 2014; Thelin, 2011). As the historian Oliver 35). In fact, e arly mega - donors recogni p. 34). This is most evident by the number of academic instituti ons that bear the names of their 14 rich benefactors, including Carnegie, Cornell, Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, to name a few (Ris, 2017; Thelin & Trollinger, 2014; Yeakey, 2015). Throughout the history of U.S. higher education, philanthropists have supplemen ted traditional services offered by colleges and universities, usually by providing grants for general operating support, fellowships, scholarships, research, and capital projects. In other words, they have worked to expand higher education (Bernstein, 201 4; Thelin & Trollinger, 2015). They have also acted as institutional entrepreneurs, engaging in forms of experimentalism, from supporting academic initiatives to launching entirely new organizations to represent higher education (Reich, 2018; Thelin & Trol linger, 2015 ; Wheatley, 2010 ; Zunz, 2012 ). Early philanthropists, for example, contributed financial assistance to several nonprofit academic organizations that promoted the wellbeing of the sector, including the American Council of Education (ACE) (1918), the American Council of Learned Society (ACLS) (1919), and the Social Science Research Council (1923) (Bernstein, 2014; Wheatley, 2010). The principal foundations in American higher education are the Carnegie Corporation and the array of Rockefell er entities. Historians referen ce the Gilded Age industrialists, Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller Sr. in particular, as having pioneer ed organized philanthropy in the U.S., with the latter creating the first international foundation ( Bernstein, 2014 ; Chernow, 2013; Condliffe Lage mann, 1983, 1989; Nielsen, 1972; Ris, 2017; Thelin & Trollinger, 2014; amounts of wealth from the industrial sector, largely from steel and oil. Both contributed to higher education in meaningful ways. Alt eventually made substantial investments in higher education ( Bernstein, 2014; Ris, 2017). For example, one of his key achievement s was the creation of a free pe nsion system for aging faculty 15 members (Bernstein, 2014; Condliffe Lagemann, 1983; Thelin & Trol l inger, 2014 ; Zunz, 2012 ). In 1905, Carnegie endowed the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (CFAT) with a $10 m illion grant (over $250 million in today s dollars) to establish and manage the pension system for retiring faculty members, reaching nearly 100 universities and colleges in the process (Bernstein, 2014; Condliffe Lagemann, 1983; Ris, 2017). The president of Cornel l University at the tim e, Jacob Schurman, describe d Similarly, Rockefeller Sr. created the General Education Board (GED) in 1902 to ithin the United States of America, without distinction of race, sex, or The Rockefeller Foundation, n.d. ). Two years after its founding, Rockefeller gave the GED an additional $10 million for the purposes of encoura ; Ris, 2017 ). The GED focused heavily on medical education and increasing postsecondary access for African Americans, and it even launched a fundraising campaign for minorit y - serving institutions in the So uth (Bernstein, 2014; Chernow, 2013). In Philanthropy and American Higher Education, Thelin and Trollinger (2014) : The private foundation s represented unprecedented phil anthropic support as suggested by put these two bequests from a century ago int o context, each would be worth more than $10 billion in 2013 . (p. 67) Together, when establishing their foundations, the industrial philanthropists set the tone for future donors by introducing a scientific approach to wide - open philanthropy ( Zunz, 2012 ) . 16 Indeed, in the early part of the twentieth century, the concept of a philanthropic foundation was relatively new (Bernstein, 2014; Thelin, 2011). Historian Allison Bernstein (2014) notes , though individuals and organizations, especially religious ins titutions, have been giving away money for centuries, the creation of new organizations whose primary business is to donate funds is largely a twentieth - xv). In pa rticular, prior to the 1990s, relatively few foundations existed (Bar nhart, 2017; Harrison & Andrews, 1946), with Hollis (1938) estimating that only 22 were established before 1900. By the early 1900s, foundations creation of the great Trusts based on industrial (Thelin & Trollinger, 2014, p. 67). Industrial Philanthropy Undoubtedly, foundations are products of their time (Bernstein, 2014). Hence, the industrial philanthropists focused heavily on brick an d motor investments, as demonstrated by their grant portfolios (Berns tein, 2014; Gasman, 2012; Karl, 1985 ; Kohler, 1985; Ris, 2017 ; foundation had provided $4 million to college libraries, nearly $5 million to college buildings, and nearly $10 million for endowments (Gave $350, including university endowments, fellowships, scholarships, public school funding, and general operatin g support (Chernow, 2013; Thelin and Trol l inger, 2014). However, this does not suggest that the industrial philanthropists were not actively involved in systems change or broad - based reforms efforts. On the contrary, early mega - donors and other educational leaders associated with these philanthropies regarded higher educati on as a chaotic enterprise in need of drastic reform ( Barnhardt, 2017 ; Barrow, 1990 ; Bernstein, 2014; Clotfelter, 2007; Holis, 1938; Ris, 2017, 2018 ; Thelin & Trollinger, 2014 ; Zunz, 2012 ). 17 To address this apparent lack of standardization, philanthropists began working with 238). To do so, the industr ial philanthropists drew up teaching and research in the academy through incentives, directed mostly to faculty and campus leadership, to innovate and try new approache s at the campus level (Bernstein, 2014, p. xxi). One example is CFAT must agree to a series of conditions, such as increasing enrollment standards, employing at least six full - time faculty members, and becoming n onsectarian institution s (Bernstein, 2014; Ris, 2018 ; Zunz, 2012 ). Af program had the effect of secularizing much of the field of higher education ( Zunz, 2012 ) . Nonetheless, this investment strategy had its critics (Barrow, 1990; Ris, 2017 ; Thelin & Trollinger, 2014). For instance, Thorstein Veblen (1918), a leading intellectual at the time, warned of the growing influence of business principles in higher educatio n. In his book The Higher Learning in America: A Memorandum on the Conduc t of Universities By Business Men , mechanically standardized routine upon the members of the s of business principles in the univers ities goes to weaken and retard the pursuit of learning, and 224). More recently, other well - respected academics have echo ed For example, in March 2012, The Ch ronicle of Higher Education ran the headline Emeritus of the ACLS and Princeton historian. In his piece, Katz (2012) argues , The new strategic foundations behave as though they 18 are entitled to make . 16). He continues by noting , activist foundatio ns, and that dream has now substantially become a reality in the Obama Wh ite . 19). Following this publication, a stream of reports began detailing the growing centrality of activist - oriented foundations in higher education reform, such as The Gates Effect (Gose, 2013; Parry et al. , 2013 ; Ruark, 2013 ) (discussed in more detail below). Accordingly, observers took note of the stark differences between the industrial philanthropists of the past and the advocacy philanthropists of today (Bernstein, 2014; Hall & Thomas, 2009; Kelly & James, 2015). According to Gasman (201 O ne major difference specific policies and reforms. The industrialist phi lanthropists focused much of their efforts on 10). Similarly , Clotfelter (2007) contends that the newer foundations are 221) , and Rogers (2015) came to a similar conclusion, stating , - on, self - made donors of this magnitude in over 100 years and there has never been one with quite the same focus on leveraging public tax dollars to ultimately finance their projec 747). In many cases, the new philanthropists are men who have accumulated thei r wealth from the tech nology and financial fields. As a result, many donors apply the same strategies that led to their success in the corporate sector to their foundatio ns, such as strategic investments, top - down management styles, and measurable outcomes guiding investments (Tompkins - Stange, 2016). Furthermore, these newer foundations have little patience for bureaucracy or working through established networks , and they tend to rely on high - risk investments to maximize impact, or what can be described as an outcome - oriented approach (Hess, 2005). Despite th e growing discussion 19 in media outlets by commentators and educational journalists, empirical work on the policy activ ities of major foundations is scarce (Barnhardt, 2017) . In an interview with The Chron icle, the former editor of the Journal of Higher Education , Scott Thomas, highlighted this point, noting that - developed manuscript on the ro le of philanthropy in et al. , 2013 , para. 35 ) . Higher Education Develo pment Historically, research on higher education philanthropy was conducted to inform practitioners of their trade, by focusing on professional fundraising, institutional advancement, and development efforts ( Bloland, 2002; Caboni, 2003 , 2010 , 2012; Carbon e, 198 6 ; Iarrobino, 2006; Proper, & Caboni, 2014 ; T empel & Beem, 2002 ), with little scholarly attention given to the p olicy activities of institutional philanthropists (Barnhardt, 2017 ; Ness et al., 2015 ). In the last two decades, however, fundraising as a profession has experienced rapid grow th , due in part to shifts in the political economy of higher education. For exam ple, since the 1980s, state appropriations for public higher education ha ve significantly declined (Heller, 2011), with many institutions looking to voluntary donations to fill financial gaps (Cheslock & Gianneschi, 2008; Cheslock & Hughes, 2011; Speck, 20 10). This shift in economic policy has made individual contributions an important mechanism for the wellbeing of many postsecondary instit utions and motivated colleges and universities to enhance their institutional advancement and development efforts (Dre zner, 2011; Hearn, 2003). Indeed, this has elevated the study of institutional advancement as an important subfield in higher education fo r meeting the objectives of institutional leaders during times of economic austerity. Proper and Caboni (2014) define the field of institutional advancement and development as focusing on university fundraising efforts relating to alumni engagement, public relations, and 20 marketing (e.g., Bloland, 2002; Drezner, 2011; Payton et al. , 1991 ; Roland, 1986 ). Existing fundraising literature examines best practices regarding how universities can leverage their resources to identify potential donors, cultivate relat ionships with alumni, and draw up on communication strategies to raise awareness for capital camp aigns (Payton et al. , 1991 ; Rowland, 1983; Webb, 2002 ). One feature of the field is relationship building. In particular , this scholarship highlights strategies 2010, p. x). In fact, much of the existing literature is considered nontheoretical , or sociological. tudies deed , students from the fields of insti tutional advancement, where there is little to no incentive for publishing in scholarly outlets such as peer - reviewed journals or conferences , tend to obtain ad vanced credentials for promotional reasons (Kelly, 1991, 1995, 1998 , 2002 ; Proper & Caboni, 2014 ). Therefore, questions that dominate the , , ., & Weipeking, 2011; Grusec, 1982; Prince & File, 2001; Schervish, 2005). In recent years, the institutional advancement literature has become much more robust and theoretically grounded (Drezner, 2011). However, philanthropic foundations and their impact s on higher education remain all but absent (Bardhardt, 2017; Bernstein, 2014; Ness et al., 2015 ). For example, in a 2011 Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE ) reader, one of the most respected publications in the field regarding the state o f affairs for a topical area, the edition on higher education philanthropy focuses exclusively o n institutional advancement and fundraising, with little discussion on philanthropic foundations or educational nonprofits involved in policy advocacy or educat ional reform. 21 Limited Research on Philanthropic Foundation s in Higher Ed ucation Overall, media outlets have reignited a lively discussion regarding the role of major funders in postsecondary reform. Nonetheless, contemporary scholarship has not kept pace. and was surprised to learn that there was little scholarship in the field of philanthropy and higher 8). M any factors contribute to this lack of empiri cal inquiry. First, organizational research on philanthropy is difficult to condu ct due to professional norms of secrecy. Tompkins - Stange (2016) finds , in order to protect against legal and reputation 8). Indeed, many foundations officials do not discuss their trade with those outside of the field. Second, few, if any, transparency mechanisms exist to hold foundations accountable to external stakeholders (Reich 2016, 2018). Rob Reich (2016) d escribes contemporary foundations unaccountable, non - transparent, peculiar 67). For Reich (2016), foundations have no market or electoral accountability , other than payout rules. As a result, these entities operate reating additional barriers for organizational researchers seeking to examine their policy advocacy activities in the public sphere (Reich, 2016, p. 69). Likewise, higher educ ation historians Thelin and Trollinger (2014) highlight this point : Apart from ou tright fraud, embezzlement, or mismanagement of funds, most foundations are free to operate so long as they answer satisfactorily to their boards of trustees and file accurate , annual IRS reports. It also is difficult for external analyst from such discipl ines as sociology or history to gain access and full disclosure of foundation records and 22 operations that would tell the story of both the achievements and dysfunctions of var ious foundation program strategies. (p. 92). The third reason for a lack of organ izational research is accessible datasets. Bachetti (2007) contends , giving according t o reasonably well - 255). As such, no universal standard ex ists for measuring philanthropic impact , nor are there any legal requirement for foundation s to make evaluations or internal reports available to the public (Prewitt, 2006 ; Re ich , 2016 , 2018 ). This is further compounded by the existence of few, if any, universal accepted measurements or assessments on philanthropic activity or output (Sealander, 2007). Lastly, several scholars have pos i ted that a level of self - censorship occurs among educatio nal researchers, with many having close ties with philanthropy (Hess, 2005; Ravitch, 2011). For many, critical assessments of a field that is premised on promoting a public good are viewed as being in bad taste, particularly during a time of general auster ity for public expenditures (Thelin & Trollinger, 2014). Rogers 539). In higher education, for exampl e, several scho lars have expressed similar sentiments. The following statement by Thelin and Trollinger (2014) speaks to this issue : push hard on external accountability probably would be mistaken as it would jeopardize the overall good works and contributions the legal and customary arrangements for philanthropic foundations have contributed to the quality and access of American higher education (p. 255). 23 Overall, a cult ure of secrecy, a lack of accountability, a dearth of accessible datasets, and close relationships between academia and philanthropy ha ve created significant research gaps for scholars interested in the policy activities of major foundations . As a result, there are two p revailing tendencies in the field: 1) an exaggeration of foundations influence on postsecondary policies and practices and 2) a general failure to notice their policy advocacy efforts across the sector. Foundations and Policy Engagement The existing schol Condliffe Lagemann, 1992; Sealander, 1997), with little work focusing on theory building or the contemporary affairs of philanthropists in the public sphere ( Condliffe Lagemann, 19 83, 1999; Tompkins - Stange, 2016). In particular , Tompkins - Stange (2016) finds that only recently did scholars began to explore the role of educational philanthropists in policy deliberation and notes icy influence has pred ominately been historical, conducted via 9). As such, scholarly attention has emphasized the historical retellings of programs, initiatives, and foundation inte ntions in specific mom ents of time. For example, in an edited volume, Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism by Arnove (1980), Slaughter and Silva (1980) examine the influence of the progressive era (1900 1920) foundations and their role in promoting pro - ca pitalist ideologies in academic fields. For Slaugh t ideology of efficient, systematic social amelioration directed by trained social workers (p. 59). Specifically, through hi storical analysis, Sla ughter and Silva (1980) find that early philanthropists advanced the notion that societal ills are consequences of individual actions 24 rather than general social conditions. Therefore, professionals, such as social workers, should be t rained to address char acter issues, with little attention paid to social structures. By sponsoring hter & Silva, 1980, p. 78.). Interestingly, and despite their efforts, Slaughter and Silva (1980) contend that private philanthropy was not successful in pursui ng its pragmatic ideology formation had borne little 79). Since the 1970s, a growing area of scholarship has developed regarding the role of elite focused on elite theories of power ( Domhoff, 2005, 2010 ) , Roelofs (2003) exami ne s the role of philanthropist s in policy engagement, with an emphasis on ideological production. In her book Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism , she considers the influence of private philanthropists on ideological production and decisio n - making in public affairs. For Roelofs (2003), philanthropists can 1), primarily through their granting powers in the interests of corporate elites, who are able to appear di stant from their corporate origins and support, so they may claim a neutral image (Roelofs, 2003. p. 2). She contends that philanthropy is closely linked to knowledge - producing institutions universities, professional associations, and think tanks and by e xtension, the policy planning proc Alt hough foundations such as the Ford Foundation have a long h istory of supporting social justic e initiatives and civil rights movements (Domhoff, 2005; Teles, 2008), Roelofs (2015) later writes , more direct influence by co - 25 alterna tives (p. 662), w h ich some organiz ational and movement scholars refer to as the channeling strategy ( Jenkins, 1998 ; Jenkins & Eckert, 1986 ). Many in the philanthropic sector have questioned the conclusions put forth by sociologist s and other historians tha t are critical of philanthropic in terventions in public policy. Addressing the many of the critics of his day, Alan Pifer, the ninth president of the Carnegie Corporation, note d of 1983, p. 106). Likewise, in an analysis of philanthropists and their policy impact s : Consistently some analyst s have seen them as the driving force behind revolutions in human betterment. O thers, in direct contrast, have viewed them as evil threats to democracy: the sinister creation of the very rich. Both interpretations have always been grossly overdrawn . (p. 2) For S licy - making 8) , defenders of early - twentieth - century foundations have paid too much attention to stated goals 31). M any of these limitati ons are due to the lack of contemporary works investigating what foundations are doing in a measurable and quantifiable manner , linking grants to direct outputs. Contemporary K 12 Ph ilanthropy Research In the last decade, the K 12 literature experienced a surge of interest regarding the policy activities of institutional philanthropists (Carr, 2012; Quinn et al. , 2013 ; Hess, 2005; Hess & Henig, 2015 ; Reckhow & Snyder, 2014; Reckhow & Tompkins - Stange, 2015; Reckhow, 2009, 2013; Scott & Jabbar, 2014; Tompkin s - Stange, 2016 ; Wohlstetter et al. , 2011 ). More 26 significantly, this line of scholarship grounds its analysis by systematically investigating philanthropic strategies over time using unique datasets and diverse methods. Rather than focusing on individual fo undations or historical retellings of grant port folios, scholars are beginning to examine philanthropy using field - level perspectives. For example, Follow the Money: How Foundations Dollars Changed Public School Politics by Sarah Reckhow quantifies the soc ial agendas and activities of leading funders in K 12 education. Her study drew up on a mixed - method research design, relying on an original dataset of tax filings, survey analysis, and in - depth interviews to examine foundation - led reforms in urban areas. S imilarly, Megan Tompkins - Policy Pa trons: Philanthropy, Education Reform, and the Politics of Influence drew up on semi - structured interviews of high - power ed officials, secondary sources, and archival data to examine the management approaches o f four leading K 12 funders involved in educatio nal reform. These studies , among other s , are documenting the growing centrality of Gates, The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation (Broad) , and the Walton Family Foundation (Walton) in K 12 policy reform. Indeed, scholars demonstrat e that funders are increasing ly involved in policy advocacy efforts and are cultivating new ideas and establishing strategic alliances when engaging in system - wide reforms, typically by funding nontraditional actors who can challenge tra ditional educational sectors (Carr, 2012; Ferrare & Reynolds, 2016 ; Hess, 2005; Hess & Henig, 2015; Quinn et al. , 2013 ; Reckhow, 2009, 2013 ; Reckhow & Snyder, 2014; Reckhow & Tompkins - Stange, 2015 , 2018 ; Scott & Jabbar, 2014; Tompkins - Stange, 2016). Accord ing to this literature, entities that offer alternatives to the public sector to influence policy and reshape how public expenditure s are channele d (Mehta & Teles, 2011, p. 2; Reckhow, 2013; Reckhow & 27 Snyder, 2014; Scott, 2009 ; Teles, 2008; Thümler, 2011 ). These jurisdictional challengers include charter schools, charter management entities , advocacy groups, and teach ing and leadership training cent ers (Ferrare & Reynolds, 2016; Mehta & Teles, 2011) . This area of research provides support to the notion that major funders are shifting resources away from the educational establishment (e.g., public schools, school districts, etc.) and tow ard nontraditi onal actors (e.g., venture capital firms, charter management organizations, charter schools, nonprofit advocacy groups) (Hess, 2005; Hess & Henig, 2015; Reckhow, 2009, 2013; Tompkins - Stange, 2016). While this area of empirical research has be come more prod uctive, this was not always the case. For example, in 2005, as a response to the lack of organizational scholarship on K 12 philanthropy, the Director of Education Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Fredrick Hess, orga nized a confer ence addressing this emp i rical void, which accumulated into an edited volume, With the best of intentions: How philanthropy is reshaping K 12 education (2005). In the preface, Hess (2005) writes , could locate on educational giving. My research assistants and I had great trouble finding data on the national picture, detailing the role of givers in influential reforms, or documenting the role of funders in pa rticular initiatives or locales. (p. vii) In an attemp t to provide a more robust account of philanthropic activity in K 12 grantmaking, Hess (2005) convened scholars, researchers, and practitioners to examine the influence of major newer entrant s Gates, Broad, and Walton in particular [I] t is fair to say that the ranks and ambitions of these have grown in the past two decades dramatically so in the past five to ten 28 2). For Hess (2005), the differences between the older funders and the newer philanthropists lie in their strategies, and he defines newer foundations as those founded in the es, [and] traditional approaches to 6). In the same volume, and drawing up on an original dataset of tax filings, Greene (2005) estimates the amount of funding flowing from the top 30 funders to K 12 education. To do so, Greene (2005) examines applying an original coding schema to investigate granting purposes across the sector. A subsequent survey of the largest school districts in the country estimate s the amount of funding private philanthropists give to K 12 education. He finds that philant hropy comprises a small fraction of overall K 12 spending giving represents only one - third of one percent of total spending. T his led Greene (2005) to conceptuali on how public school systems function or operate. For philanthropy to be successful in driving system - wide reforms, Greene (2005) a rgues that limited investments shoul d be directed toward high - leverage grants intended to influence how public spending is directed. As Greene (2005) notes, K 12 funders have traditionally engaged in low - leverage forms of giving, such as curriculum develop ment and general operating support, allowing educational systems to continue veraged by redirecting future public 49 50). Such grants include charter school support, investments in voucher programs, and advocacy research. In contrast to low - leverage purposes, high - leverage investments are more likely to create las ting effects through policy change. 29 policy agendas of 15 major foundations in K 12 policymaking. Drawing on data from 2000 and 2005 in addition to survey analysis and in terviews with key policy actors and philanthropic officials, Reckhow (2013) demonstrates that over time, major philanthropists have increased investments in policy advocacy efforts. In particular , by surveying the largest school districts in the U.S., she finds that foundations chang e their strategies when engaging with the sector ; they provided fewer grants to traditional actors in 2005 (25%) when compared to 2000 (40%) (Reckhow, 2013). Moreover, these investments are more likely to flow to policy actors c hallenging public education , such as nonprofit intermediaries, charter schools, and charter management organizations (Reckhow, 2013). similar analytical techniques to assess philanthropic interventions in p ublic education. In particular, many scholars have beg u n to draw up on original datasets, in - depth i nterviews, and survey analys e s to examine the policy involvement of major foundations. The existing literature also applies a diverse set of methods, includi ng inferential statistics, trend analysis, social network analysis, and qualitative data analysis t o investigate policy strategies (Greene, 2005, 2015; Klopott, 2015; Reckhow, 2013, 2014; Reckhow & Tompkins - Stange, 2015 , 2018 Tompkins - Stange, 2016). One th eme that tie s together many empirical studies is the use of 990 tax forms. Recently, researchers have begun to utilize these forms to compare and contrast the strategies of several foundations in education. Until recently, 990 tax data were difficult to ac cess ( Barreto & Villin ski, 2019) . If, for example, researchers wish ed to use it for research, they had to send requests to the IRS or the foundations. When they did receive the forms, they were usually 30 scanned, requiring researchers to code and clean the d ata themselves, a labo r - intensive process ( Barreto & Villinski, 2019) . However, more online resources are now systematically collecting 990 forms that researchers can exploit. For example, the Foundation Directory Online (FDO) is a database managed by a s taff of researchers wh o collect and appl y filters relating to philanthropic giving. Those interested in examining specific sectoral trends can now apply unique filters while conducting a database search (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018; Kelly & James, 2015). 990 ta x forms provide a rich source of information on the activities of major foundations, particularly in education ( Barreto & Villinski, 2019) . Since foundations are legally required to file these forms each year, researchers can assume that this data source i s reliable, consistent , and honest. Indeed, 990 tax forms allow research ers to not only quantif y the social agendas of leading funders but also find what actors philanthropists have elevated based on granting trends (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018) . The use of su ch data sources is evi dent in recent K 12 philanthropy scholarship. In fact, Hess followed his 2005 book with an updated edition entitled The new education philanthropy: Politics, policy, and reform , coauthored with Jeffrey Henig, Professor of Political Sc ience and Education at Teachers College, which included more manuscripts that were data driven. In this updated volume, Greene (2015) expands on his 2005 chapter by analyzing nearly 1,600 grants from 2013 and finds that philanthropists have in fact taken h is advice, increasingly financing high - leverage - oriented purposes to create sustained reform. Greene (2015) f inds that nearly half of the grants sampled were allocated to programs consider ed self - sustaining beyond the duration of the grant. However, many o f these eff orts are undermined due to the lack of mobilized actors who have stakes in these policy reform efforts (Greene, 2015). In other words, when funders pull 31 out, mobilization ends. Greene (2015) offers additional advice, admonishing philanthropists to build na tural constituencies with shared political interests to uphold advocacy efforts and ensure that goals are maintained. In the same volume, using grant data from 2000, 2005, and 2010 and applying social network analysis, Snyder (2015) investigates whether ol der, more traditional funders (Annenberg, Carnegie, Kellogg, and Wallace) differ in their grantmaking strategies when compared to the newer philanthropists (Broad, Dell, Gates, Robertson, and Walton). Snyder (2015) finds that unlike traditional funders, th in venture - inspired strategies (Snyder, 2015). Snyder (2015) analysis reveals that older funders have embraced many of the advocacy policy strategies introduced by the newer foundations ; howe ver, they s till maintain some of their own funding priorities (Snyder, 2015). Reckhow and Tompkins - Stange (2015) employ a mix ed - method research design, using grant data from Gates and Broad for 2005 and 2010, Congressional testimonies, and in - depth intervi ews. They f ind that both Gates and Broad are increasingly funding national policy efforts, including investments to think tanks and advocacy groups. Moreover, they find greater issue alignment in 2010 when compared to 2005, with both funders investing in s imilar area s around standards and teacher quality. By focusing on foundation - funded Congressional testimonies, Reckhow and Tompkins - Stange (2015) also highlight a growing prevalence of grants given to groups invited to Congress (Reckhow & Tompkins - Stange, 2015). Thro ugh affiliation networks of shared references (reports and studies) cited by witnesses, they find a high frequency of studies with similar policy views with funders. Overall, they demonstrate that Gates and Broad are increasingly targeting feder al policy e fforts , in addition to funding more advocacy groups that align with their political agendas (Reckhow & Tompkins - Stange, 2015). 32 Outside of this edited series, others have drawn up on grounded theory and qualitative inquiry to compare and contrast the granting behavior of leading foundations in K 12 education . In her book Policy Patrons: Philanthropy, Education Reform, and the Politics of Influence, Tompkins - Stange (2016) examines th e norms and values of four major foundations in K 12 education : Gat es, Broad, Kellogg, and Ford. In particular , she finds that the newer entrants Gates and Broad are outcome - oriented foundations that employ a top - down management style when dealing with g rantees. In addition, these philanthropists are more likely to fund elite organizations and experts and to use quantifiable metrics for accountability. In contrast, the older funders Kellogg and Ford - ottom - up approach to grantee management , and they are more holistic in assessing their goals. These funders also tend to be capacity builders and us e a mixture of data (quantitative and qualitative) to evaluate success. They also fund a more diverse group of nonprofit organizations than the field - oriented foundations. Coa lition Builders and Grantee Intermediaries A common theme in this literature is the reliance o n networks and coalitions to advance educational reform. Reckhow and Snyder (2014), Snyder (2015), and Ferrare and Reynolds (2016) all demonstrate that foundatio ns are central in establishing and maintaining national networks of intermediaries involved in p olicy advocacy. Scott and Jabber (2014) offer a widely uniquely sit as a fun 233). Indeed, through foundation investments, funders can 33 draw up on a network of recipients to share information and best practic es, typically through convenings, conferences, meetings, and partnerships. Likewise, many nonmajor foundations are emulating some of these same strategies as th e (2016) examine the policy advocacy strategies of 15 nonmajor funders in K 12 education . By d rawing up on grant data from 2010, and by applying social network analysis a nd geographic information systems mapping, they find that elite agendas from major foundations a re spreading to smaller funding agencies, al though some strategic differences exist . In particular , nonmajor funders are mimicking many of the strategies introd uced by the major foundations, investing in national advocacy organizations and other nontraditional actors. However, when compared to the larger foundations, the level of collaboration does not occur to the same degree. One interesting finding, in particu lar, is that the smaller funders in K 12 education are investing in organizations that are involved in college preparation and student enrichment, or what can be considered college completion - oriented purposes (Ferrare & Reynolds, 2016). This trend toward collaboration and collation building has created a robust organizational field of int ermediary activity. Indeed, intermediary grantees, in turn, can assist directly in have the potential to play a significant role in promoting diffusion through policy l earning, such as by dispersing policy information (e.g., through meetings and publications) or by sponsoring policy 05). In fact, foundations can cre ate shared trust between two grant recipients, creating channels for communications an d information sharing. For example, many foundations invite grant recipients to the same conferences, informal meetings, presentations, and site visits to share informati on, evaluation tools, and best practices. In other cases, they may 34 ask two distinct gr antees to collaborate on a specific project. Intermediary grantees, in turn, can assist directly in knowledge transfer. In higher education, this can include a variety of entities, including nonprofit organizations, think tanks, media outlets, membership a ssociations, for - profit firms, and government agencies (Kelly & James, 2015). Higher Education Accountability One theme that connects all of the contemporary K 12 literat ure is that philanthropic organizations should be assumed to be policy actors with the ability to influence fields and galvanize sectors around specific policy proposals and preferences (Reckhow & Tompkins - Stange, 2015, 2018; Tompkins - Stange, 2016). Moreov er, this literature reveals that venture philanthropists are increasingly providing su pport to charter school systems (Scott, 2009; Wohlstetter et al. , 2011), advancing educational reforms (Cohen, 2007; Ferris et al. , 2008), targeting national policy organ izations (Debray - Pelot, & McGuinn, 2009 ; Reckhow & Tompkins - Stange, 2015 , 2018 ), and investing in policy networks, both at the local and national levels (Ferrare & Reynolds, 2016 ; Reckhow, 2013 ; Reckhow & Snyder, 2014 ). This area of scholarship acknowledge s that informal actors are often influential policy entrepreneurs in the realm of education politics. Traditionally, higher education policy research focused on the role of states both federal and local and emphasized the influence of legislation on policy outcomes (McLendon, 2003a; McLendon, 2003b; McLendon, Deaton, & Hearn, 2007; McL endon & Hearn, 2003; McLendon, Hearn & Mokher, 2009; Ness & Tandberg, 2013; Nicholson - Crotty & Meier, 2003) . While these studies have provided valuable insights into the mecha nics of formal higher education policymaking and their consequences, few work s, o ther than a few book chapters or thought 35 pieces, have consider ed the involvement of informal and nonstate actors in policy advocacy and education reform (Miller & Morhew, 2017 ; Ness et al., 2015). Indeed, many higher education scholars are beginning to cit e the growing significance of The States and Public Higher Education Policy: Affordability, A ccess, and Accountability , Zumeta and Kinee (2011) discuss the growing prominence of educational foundations in higher education accountability : the Lumina Foundation for Education have recently taken an interest in postsecondary accountability. The Ga tes Foundation, with vast resources and influence never before seen in a philanthropic organization, has a stated goal of doubling the number of low - income young adults who ha ve obtained a post - secondary credential with a market value by age twenty - six. As a part of its strategy, the Gates Foundation believes that institutions should be held accountable for outcomes such as student retention and graduation rates and that instit utions much focus on completion as much as access (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundat ion, 2009). Similarly, the Lumina Foundation, the largest foundation focused primarily on higher education, is supporting efforts in several states to improve efficiency in in struction and to do a better job of tying state resources to student ou tcomes and success. (p. 176 - 77) As this quote suggests, college completion is tied to postsecondary accountability. Due to rising costs, colleges and universities now face growing press ures for greater accountability that is tied Kelchen, 2018), which shares many similarities to the reform efforts in K 12 education (Carey & 36 Schneider, 2010; Deming, & Figlio, 2016) . As such, t he new account ability movement assumes that postsecondary institutions should be measured by outputs linked to degree production and job placement (Burke, 2002; McLendon, 2003; McLendon, Hearn, & Deaton, 2006). McLendon and Hearn (2013) characterize this new policy envi ronment in the following manne r: to link campus funding levels to desired institutional performance outcomes in such areas as stud ent retention and graduation rates, unde rgraduate access, measures of institutional efficiency, student scores on licensure exams, job placement rates, faculty productivity, campus diversity and, increasingly, student learning . (para. 4) The rise in popula rity of outcome - based policies coincided Education found that 50 percent more graduates would need to attain degree s to meet th is goal (U.S ., Department of Education, 2011). Analy sis conducted by t he Integrated Post - Secondary Education Data System (2013) revealed that public four - year institutions graduated less than 60 percent of their undergraduates in a six - year span (Berkner & Choy, 2008; Nisar, 2015). From the perspective of r eformers, colleges and universities should be responsib le for producing more graduates to fill these gaps ( Zumeta & Kinee , 2011) . Institutional Outcomes One type of preferred policy mechanism for promot ing greater ac countability linked to outcomes is performance - based funding (PBF) models (Dougherty & Natow, 2015; Miller & Morphew, 2017). For public higher education, PBF ties state appropriations to outcomes relating to performance, degree production, stude nt retentio n, course completion, and job placement (Hillman & Corral, 2018; White House, 2015). Scholars note that PBF has occurred in two 37 waves ( Dougherty et al., 2014 ). The first generally lasted from 1978 to 2000, providing an additional layer of suppor t to public institutions that enrolled more students and thus rewarded access ( Dougherty et al., 2014; MecLendon, Hearn, & Deaton, 2006). The second wave emerged in 2007 and focused heavily on outcomes relating to degree attainment, retention, and outcomes (Dougherty , et al. , 2014). The latter version was more embedded than previous iterations and tied a greater share of state funding to outcomes, and it thus no longer acted as an additional layer of financial support (Dougherty, Jones, Lahr, Natow, Pheatt, & Reddy, 2 014; Hillman et al., 2014). Many state policymakers enacted PBF with the intent of aligning universities with state priorities (Dougherty et al. , 2014; Hillman et al., 2014). Since 2008, PFB has become popular among policymakers, with nearly 40 states impl ementing or enacting outcome - oriented funding model s (Dougherty & Natow, 2015 ; Li, 2018 ). The two newer foundations have been supported by PBF (Miller & Morphew, 2017) . Dougherty and Natow (2015) find that Gates and Lumina regularly fund intermediaries tha t are proponents of PBF. Likewise, in a content analysis of philanthropic organizations and nonprofits, Miller and Morphew (2017) demonstrate that nongovernmental enti ties supported by foundations export specific policy narratives around PFB. These entitie s include advocacy nonprofits and think tanks, who can frame policy debates, confer legitimacy around best practices, and promote specific bodies of research ( Miller & Morphew, 2017) . Overall, this literature confirms that major foundations are important p atrons in promoting policies that tie outcomes to completion at the state level (Ness & Gándara, 2014). Another feature of the new accountability movement is greater f ederal involvement in postsecondary education (Heller, 2011; Kelly & James, 2015). For ex ample, in his 2012 State of the Union address, President Obama placed 38 concerns (Kelly & James, 2015 ; Obama, 2012 ). In a later speech at Kno x College in 2013 , ve strategy to shake up the [higher education] system, tackle rising costs, and improve value for middle - (Obama, 2013). The speech w as followed by a number of federal attempts to promote greater accountability among colle ges and universities linked to performance (Lederman & Fain, 2017) . The Obama Administration also targeted community colleges, with t he American Graduation Initiative, providing support to enhance the sectors institutional productivity and outcome measures (Bernstein, 2014; Russell, 2011). During the same period, the Department of Education marshaled support behind outcome - based policies, most notably in its College Com pletion Tool Kit , published in March of 2011 (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). The to ol kit offered states best practices for increasing completion rates, as well as states in their college com 3). Beyond providing assistance , the Department of Education allocated $20 million for the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education initiative in support of evid ence for what works in addressing persistent and widespread challenges in postsecondary e ducation for students who are at risk for not persisting in and completing postsecondary an, 2014). From this context, the completion agenda did not emerge by accident, with stat e and federal policymakers making completion central in their higher education agendas (Lederman & Fain, 2017) . Alt hough federal and state policymakers did make completion a priority, the momentum was financed large l y by private philanthropists (Bernstein, 2014; Russell, 2011). At a 2010 ASHE conference, Lederman (2010, Nov 22) suggest ed 39 - profile foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the most visible foundation focused primarily on higher education, the Lumina Foundation for Education, have both thrust college completion to the top of their a In particular , Gates and Lumia both pre ssed completion as a preferred policy preference well before its Big Goal, which sought to inc rease the number of degree holders to 60 percent by 2025 (Lumina, 2017). Similarly, Gates annou nced its similar goal of doubling the number of low - income students earning credential s within the same period (Gates, 2017). B oth foundations subsequently gain ed close ties to the Obama Administration (Hall & Thomas, 2012) . According to reporting conduct ed by Sarah Hebel (2009, May 1) for The Chronicle, [where] Mr. Merisotis degree - attainment rates and urged the incoming administration t - capital development a cornerstone of U.S. conversations about economic and domestic - D eputy U nder S ecretary of Education, told The Chronicle (Hebel, 200 9, May 1). Philanthropy and Policy Advocacy in Higher Ed ucation In recent years, popular commentary has d rawn attention to the largest and newest foundations in higher education Gates and Lumina and their policy advocacy strategies in 40 promoting outcome - bas ed accountability in higher education. For example, in 2013, The Chronicle published a five - part series e ntitled The Gates Effect, reporting on the influence of Gates, Lumina, and even the Kresge Foundation (Kresge) in encouraging completion - linked public policy and systems change (Parry et al. , 2013) . According to a special report conducted by The Chronicle , . 6). As The Chronicle note s, philanthropy has created policy networks and a great deal of research, where similar individuals and policy elites share worldviews and information regarding higher education, as The Chronicle notes , effect is an echo chamber of like - minded ideas, arising from research commissioned by Gates and advocated by (para . 10). As such, recent research suggests that contemporary foundations and their affiliated advocacy groups have been instrumental in mobilizing support for college completion, in cluding PBF (Dougherty et al., 2014; Dougherty & Natow, 2015; Miller & Morphew, 2017). Through a series of qualitative case studies, Dougherty and Natow (2015) find that Gates and Lumina, along w ith intermediaries such as HCM Strategists, a for - profit cons ulting firm, and Complete College America, a national advocacy organization, have been central in advocating PBF to policymakers. In particular , Dougherty et al. (2014) credit these external poli cy groups for raising awareness of PBF models through researc [T]he strong influence of external policy organizations such as Complete College America and ordable, and College Productivity Initiatives in sparking i 42). Other scholars find similar philanthropic support for PBF. Miller and Morphew (2017) find that 41 both the advocacy philanthropists, includ ing affiliated organizations such as Complete College America , HCM Strategists, and Jobs for the Future, have framed policy debates, conferred legitimacy around best practices, and promoted specific bodies in support of PBF (Miller & Morphew, 2017). Curren t Empirical Postsecondary Philanthropy Research The notion of strategic philanthropy, was introduced by Hall and Thomas (2012) , who contend that the newer entrants (Gates and Lumina) are in troducing an advocacy - oriented strategy, dubbed phi advocacy philanthropists are promoting an array of college completion reforms through policy promotion and organizational change, unique in higher education philanthropy. According to Hall and Thomas (2012) , Gates and Lumina have altered how traditional philanthropy is practiced. These funders, they argue, unapologetically seek to influence the governance of h igher education by collaborati ng with advocacy groups, think tanks, state and federal policymakers, consultants, and governments. As Hall and Thomas (2012) share, foundation stra tegies to influence government action, policy, and legislation in their own words, foundations are taking on a leadership role, acting as a catalyst for change, identifying research areas, supporting best practices, engaging in public policy advocacy, enha ncing communications power, us ing convening power, fostering partnerships, building public will, and employing the bully pulpit (p. 23). Moreover, Hall and Thomas (2012) assert that th is strateg y established norms in higher e ducation philanthropy, norms t hat generally created a distance 42 23). One aspect of this policy - inspired philanthropy is a reliance on IOs to advance foundation - led agendas (Hall & Thomas, 2012; Kelly & James, 20 15) , which is caused by a gene ral distrust of traditional academic institutions enacting reforms themselves (Hall & Thomas, 2015). As Hall and Thomas (2012) argue, Over the past decade, there has been an increasing level of distrust that higher education i nstitutions can successfully e nact reforms that will result in meaningful changes to our postsecondary system; this distrust has led to an increasing reliance on internal foundation research and strategy teams and the funding of external and intermediary o rganizations, with philanthrop ies soliciting proposals from specific entities rather than According to several journalistic accounts, foundations have experienced a number of successes by applying this strategy of working with g rantee intermediaries in highe r education. Reporting for The Chronicle, Mangan (2013) writes , Working alongside the Lumina Foundation through intermediaries like Complete College America and another nonprofit, Jobs for the Future, the Gates Foundation has helped influence higher - educat ion policy at the state level to a degree that may be unprecedented for a private foundation. s (2012) analysis using 2012 grant data, Kelly and James (2015) note that the emergence of the newer f oundations has, in fact, intro duced a new form of grantmaking to the sector. Unlike traditional philanthropists, who allow colleges and universities to continue their traditional activities , advocacy philanthropists promote organizational change and policy reform through their grantmak ing. Strategies include supporting external groups (entities that operate outside of the university system), sponsoring research to impact or inform 43 policy discussions, and funding scalable technological innovations. According to Kelly and 2 012 grant analysis, the newer entrants Gates and Lumina had invested far less in colleges and universities when compared to older, more traditional foundations. In fact, other research demonstrates that older foundations are e mulating similar strategies. Similar to 12 foundations, Hadd ad and Reckhow (2018) examine the grantmaking strategies of the newer Kresge) in higher education. Through socia l network analysis and grant analysis, they find that the older funders are aligning their strategic priorities with Gates and Lumina, funding similar purposes and grantees over time. In particular , between 2003 and 2012, they find that the older funders s who are dedicating a greater share of t heir portfolios toward college completion, policy advocacy, and action - oriented research. Overall, these reports and studies demonstrate the importance of intermediar ies for interfacing resources and knowledge between foundation administrators and the syst ems that they are attempting to affect ( Metcalfe, 2008; Ness & Gándara, 2014; Ness et al., 2015 ; Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). Indeed, while traditional philanthropists have always been prominent influencers and reformers (Bernstein, 2 0 14; Ris, 2017 ; Thelin, 2011; Thelin & Trollinger, 2014), this literature demonstrates a notable shift in recent years (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018; Hall & Thomas, 2012; Kelly & James, 2015). As Bernstein (2014) shares, contemporary philanthropists are more impatient with the the federal government to help develop public policies that reward and/or penalize colleges and universit xxi). Rather than using incentives to encourage change, newer philanthropists define problems from the onset, reaching out to specific grantees who share similar policy priorities, as well as drivi ng reform through 44 high - leverage policy strategies (Hall & Thomas, 2012; Haddad & R eckhow, 2018; Kelly & James, 2015), as the K 12 literature finds. 45 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH STRATEGY In the following section, I consider two works of literature that provide the conceptual underpinnings of my empirical design. A field - level perspective inform ed by a neo - institutional perspective emphasizes how major foundations, postsecondary institutions, and intermediaries interact in a dynamic and interdependent ecological env ironment. Moreover, insights from social network theory and structural hole theory , in particular, provide a framework to investigate how policy ideas are transmitted across sectoral boundaries. This work highlights the role of intermediaries in knowledge transfer and policy diffusion. I then provide an overview of my methodological app roach, detailing my sampling strategy, data collection techniques, and coding procedures. Theoretical Framework A field - level perspective informed by a neo - institutional lens emphasizes how elite entities mobilize resources for field - building efforts in or ganizational fields ( Bartley, 2007; Clemens, 2005; Cress & Snow, 1996; DiMaggio, 1991; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Powell & Meyer & Rowan, 1977). DiMaggio and Powell (1983) char acterize organizational fields as 148). Accordingly, higher education includes a diverse organizational field, such as college s and universities, philanthropic foundations, educational nonprofi ts, think tanks, membership organizations, and for - profit firms (Barnhardt, 2017; Miller & Morphew, 2017). T his theoretical framework allows me to conceptually frame my empirical findings fr om an open systems perspective, viewing fields as interconnected a nd interdependent organizational arrangements between colleges and universities and intermediaries and policymakers (Cantwell, 2015; Scott, 2001). 46 Strategic Action Fields In A Theory of Fie lds , Fligstein and McAdam (2012) synthesize perspectives from neo - competing segments jo c key for strategic advantage (Cantwell, 2015). According to Fligstein and McA dam (2012), strategic action fields (SAF) are socially constructed arenas within which members possess 2015; Fligstein & McAdam, 2011, 2012). In particular, Fligstein and McAdam (2012) describe these SAFs in the following manne r: a constructed meso - level social order in which actors (who can be individual or collective) are attuned to and interact with one another on the basis of shared (which is not to say consensual) understandings about the purposes of the field, relationships to others in t he field (i ncluding who has power and why), and the rules governing legitimate action in the field . (p. 9) In other words, field theory assumes that field - level dynamics are influenced by power, with social actors position ing themselves for strategic actio n ( Cantwell, 2015 ; Fligstein & McAdam, requires social actors to poss s , including the ability to engage with other social actors, understand field - level dynamics (the rules), and form strategic relationships (Fligstein & McAd am 2012, p. 17). Accordingly, s ocial skills are an important aspect of strategic action and field theory more generally, particularly for those involved in field - building efforts (Bartley, 2007; Fligstein & McAdam 2012). 47 Challenger Incumbent Dynamic Field theory assumes that SAFs are in constant flux, even when the landscape appears stable and firmly established (Fligstein & McAdams, 2012). This is due to constant contention between organizational actors playing the game. Contentions can occur at any time b ut are more likely to arise whe n fields are experiencing uncertainty, particularly from external shocks (Fligstein & McAdams, 2012). Therefore, in such organizational environments, astute social actors conte nd for influence through challenger incumbent dyn amics (Fligstein & McAdams, 201 2). In particular , SAF included three types of social actors: incumbents, challengers, and governance units (Fligstein & McAdams, 2012; McAdam & Scott, 2005 ). Incumbents are well established in their fields and possess the mo st symbolic and material resour ces at their disposal ( Fligstein & McAdams, 2012; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Hence, not only do they possess the most power, but the established rules in a field reinforce their influence and status as well (Fligstein & McAdams, 2012). In contrast, challengers do not receive the same level of benefits from established rules or norms. In fact, challengers are mor e likely to encounter asymmetries in field - level dynamics and offer alternative visions for a new social order (Fligstein & McAdams, 2012). Moreover, cha llengers regard disruption as beneficial to their strategic interests and wait for opportunities to cha llenged established norms. As Fligstein and McAdams (2012) emphasi ze , however, this does 13). Rather, they wait until such opportunities arise, adopting prevailing field nor ms while going along with the crowd. However , since contenders are not firmly established with in a field, they are not bounded by the same rules or norms . Lastly, governing units offer regulatory frameworks to guide field - level interactions, which ensures that systems run smoothly. From this lens, field - 48 level changes occur both slowly and during periods of punctuated contentions and shocks (Fligstein & McA dams, 2012). Field theory provide s a useful lens for examining organizational field dynamics in educati onal philanthropy (Ferrare & Reynolds, 2016). Moreover, a field - level analysis allow s me to assess how philanthropic foundations work to mobilize support ers across higher education through field - building efforts. In Bartley (2007) analysis of foundations and social movements, creating or structuring organizational fields that embed soci al movement activity in new inter - organizational networks and new standards of success, and enrolling s ocial movements in institution - (p. 233). Foundations such as Gates and Lumina have not only played an important patronage role in the college completion agenda but have also challenged established norms in higher education philanthropy ( Hall & Thomas, 2012). Accordingly, the newer philanthropists represent who contest how traditional philanthropy is practiced. In contr ast, the older funders are the incumbents, who benefit most from the status quo and established relatio nships with the sector (Bernstein, 2014; Haddad & Reckhow, 2018; Kelly & James, 2015). Thus, field theory allow s me to consider endogenous sources of cha nge while emphasizing the role of foundations as network entrepreneurs in the completion agenda. Networ k Theory Field theory provides valuable insights into the role of power i n field - level dynamics. A bl ind spot of field theory is how ideas 202). Therefore, to examine how ideas and resources are mobilized through interconnected fields, I draw on the notion of brokerage derived from social network theory (Burt, 1992, 2001 ; Gould & F ernandez, 1989 ; Fernandez & Gould, 1994 ). According to 49 Burt (1992), broker s linking two or more actors accumulate the greatest social advantage s due to their network position s (Burt, 2004 ; Figure 1; Gould & Fernandez, 1989 ). In particular , by filling des, in addition to gaining greater access to novel policy ideas (Burt, 1995, 2005 ; Gould & Fernandez, 1989 ; Powell & Oberg, 2017 ). Accordingly, the more structural holes a network has, the greater is the potential for brokerage (Burt, 1992, 2001 ; Gould & Fernandez, 1989 ). It must be noted, however, that brokers must decide to use their strategic positions in advantageous ways (Burt, 1995, 2004 ; Gould & Fernandez, 1989 ). Figure 1 . A directed line where (B) represents the broker in the directed triad. Gould and Fernandez (1989) provide a quantitative test to systematically measure the brokerage potential of nodes in networks. More importantly, this measuremen t is sensitive to established field boundaries , & Fernandez , 1989, p. 91). This distinction is crucial for higher education philanthropy, which includes several highly autonomous and interdependent subfields (Barnh ardt, 2017). From this point of view, this appr (Gould & Fernandez , 1989). Gould and Fernandez (1989) offer five classifications of how brokerage can arise : coordinator, i tinerant, gatekeeper, representative, and liais on ( see Figure 2). The coordinator scenario occurs when all actors involved belong to the same subgroup. Itinerant brokerage (also referred to as the consultant) involves an external actor link ing two nodes be longing to the same subgroup. The gatekeeper an d the representative are similar in their interactions, but in reverse gatekeepers restrict or allow information to flow to the rest of their group members , whereas the A B C 50 representative transfers information fro m their group s to external member s (Gould & Fer nandez, 1989). Lastly, the liaison brokerage occurs when every actor involved in the exchange belongs to separate subgroups. One critical note is that social actors can occupy multiple brokerage profiles (Goul d & Fernandez, 1989; Fernandez & Gould, 1994). Figure 2 . Gould and Fernandez (1989) also designate an insider outsider dynamic among their classifications. In particular hand, itinera nts and liaisons a only the broker comes from its own membership group. Lastly, while the Gould and Fernandez (1989) brokerage analysis is agnostic to the type of social ties it tests, their classifications are bas ed on the directionally of interactions (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002). However, the grant data analyzed is nondirectional. Therefore, I have collapsed the representative and gatekeeper roles , since they are separated based on their directionality, w hich is reflected in Figur e 3. 51 Figure 3 . brokers. Indeed, a brokerage perspective emphasize s the role s of foundation grantees involved in idea prom otion and diffusion. In a study on urban educational reform and political coalitions , on how public policy dynamics are influenced by people in a position to med iate between brokerage potential of boundary - spanning organizations and their impact s on the wider policy environment (e. g., Ness, 2010b ; Ness & Gándara, 2014 ; Ness e t al. , 2015 ). Therefore, I emphasize the structural positions of grantees and their potential for knowledge transfer based on granting ties. I can thus shed light upon the underlying processes of how higher educ ation policies and practices are established and diffused by informal networks. Analytical Plan To systematically investigate the policy agendas of major foundations in higher education, this study draws up on a number of analytical approaches to assess ph ilanthropic strategies ( Culleton Colwell, 198 0 ; Prewitt, 2006 ; Reckhow & Tompkins - Stange, 2015 ). Therefore, following the analytical strategies of Reckhow (2013) and Reckhow and Tompkins - Stange (2015), I utilize an in - depth, mixed - method research design to investigate philanthropic and intermediary a ctivity in higher education, using the statistica l analysis of grants (Greene, 52 2005), social network analysis (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018; McClure et al., 2017), and the qualitative analysis of documents and interviews (Tompkins - Stange, 2016). Sampling Strateg y This study focuses on private foundations , rath er than on community or corporate funders ( Barnhardt, 2017; Lawrence & Atienza, 2006; Parrish, 1973). The Foundation Center describes a philanthropic organization in the following manner : A nongovernmental, nonprofit organization with its own funds (usuall y from a single source, either an individual or a family, or a corporation) and program managed by its trustees and directors, established to maintain or aide educational, social, charitable, religious, or o ther activities serving the common welfare, prima rily by making grants to other nonprofit organizations . ( Lawrence & Atienza, 2006, p. X) Moreover, I decided to limit the analysis to the largest funders in higher education due to this cy advocacy and systems change (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018; Hall & Thomas, 2012; Kelly & James, 2015). In particular , scholars have identified that major foundations are more likely to engage in advocacy than smaller organizations ( Tompkins - Stange, 2016). Acco rding to Ostrander (2004), [L] arge foundations are nearly four times as likely to be To select the top funders in h igher education, I consulted the empirical literature on postsecondary philanthropy an d policy engagement (Hall & Thomas, 201 2 ; Haddad & Reckhow, 2018; Kelly & James, 2015) , education (Foundation Center, 2018). M y purposes require the explor ation of foundations seeking to influenc e the sector through policy advocacy investments. Thus, following the sampling strategy detailed by Kelly and James (2015), I examined the 14 funders outlined by 53 Hall and Thomas (2012) and then compared that list to the criteria outlined by Kelly and James (2015). I then inferred which foundations were most active in influencing the sector , based on coded grants and secondary material. In particular , I examined the grant data , as well as the mission statements and annual reports of each funder . I identified foundations that emphasi zed impacting or improving the sector, similar to the work of Kelly and James (2015). I then judged which foundations most active ly influenc ed the sector based on grant descriptions, secondary material, and peer debriefing. Finally , I cross - referenced this list with philanthrop ic officials and educational researchers , which resulted in the list presented in Table 1. 54 Table 1 . Descriptive Statistics of Higher Education Grants Foundation Sampled 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Alfred P. Sloan Foundation 211 210 179 186 219 207 Gates Foundation 44 44 71 135 164 165 Carnegie Foundation 42 40 63 32 48 62 Ford Foundation 128 152 119 94 123 92 Lumina Foundation 147 131 100 67 203 204 The Kresge Foundation 22 34 56 66 66 83 The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 196 236 341 267 229 235 The Starr Foundation 75 62 49 42 20 22 The Hewlett Foundation 77 64 60 50 58 63 W. K. Kellogg Foundation 65 76 81 83 81 74 Notes. Data collected and analyzed by the author using fo - 990 tax filings extracted from the Foundation Center Online. Represents higher education - filtered grants. Data Collection Current data on higher education grantmaking provides an incomplete representation of philanthropic activity (Prewitt, 2 006). To address this gap, I created a dataset limiting foundation giving to higher education. In particular , I used the Foundation Cent Directory , this on Center, 2018). The dataset , includ ing grants from 2004 to 2014, represents the most accurate data available at the ti me of this study (Kelly & 55 James, 2015). The 6,615 , which they are legally required to f ile each year (Zunz, 2012). This allowed me to empirically assess social agendas and policy networks across multiple fun ders (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018). In total, the dataset represented $2,904,208,994 in higher education - filtered grants. To empirically asse ss social agendas, each grant was coded based on a scheme developed by Kelly and James (2015), which is represented in T able 2. This coding schem e included purposes relating to advocacy, policy, research, college completion, general operating support, capi tal projects, and other areas pertinent to higher education philanthropy (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018). As with Greene (2005) and Kelly and James (2015), I w ished to examine whether philanthropic organizations employ ed low - or high - leverage granting strategies over time through a trend analysis . I also coded grants un - higher oses. Moreover, grant recipients were coded based on their institutional types For - p rofit Firm, Government Agency, Institution of Higher Education (colleges and universities), Media, Membership Organization, Nonprofit: Direct Service (educational nonprofit s), and Non p rofit: Research (think tanks) to identify intermediary funding patterns (Kelly & James, 2015), which is represented in Table 3. For the purposes of this study, organizations other than colleges and universities are considered IOs. 56 Table 2 . Coding Scheme Primary Codes Sub - Codes Advocacy & Engagement Capital Projects Direct Service Readiness, Access, Success Tech nology & Innovation Cost - effectiveness Curriculum Development Faculty Development Financial Aid Non - h igher Ed Other Policy General Operating Support Research Cost - e ffectiveness Financial Aid Non - h igher Ed Policy Readiness, Access, Success Tech nology & Innovation Notes. Adapted from Kelly and James (2015) . 57 Table 3 . Descriptive S tatistics of Total Grants, 2004 to 2014 Organizational Code Total For - profit F irm N=19 Government Agency N=130 Institution of Higher Education N=5286 Media Organization N=27 Membership Organization N=313 Nonprofit: Direct Service N=587 Nonpr ofit: Research N=290 Notes. Data collected and - 990 tax filings . Social Network Analysis Next, social network analysis was applied to examine the relationships between philanthropic foundations and higher education (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018; McClure et al., 2017; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Political scientists and K 12 scholars note that major foundations rely on national networks to advance reforms. Recent works by Reckhow and Snyder ( 2014), Snyder (2015), and Ferrare and Reynolds (2016) all demonstrate that K 12 funders are influential network builders. Following this analytic approach, a 2014 affiliation network graph was created to examine the types of organizations foundations funde d (Ferrare & Reynolds, 2016). Grant data, as aggregated by the FDO, is a fo rm of relational ties between grant recipient, location, grant amount, year, and grant description. According to the recent literature on higher education philan thropy (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018; Hall & Thomas, 2012), foundations regularly share information among their grantees. Based on this assumption, network data can be created using 990 t ax forms to examine possible paths of knowledge and 58 resource transfer and m ethod s to examine whether multiple funders have shared policy goals (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018). I first drew on the 990 forms to create a two - mode network data set (foundations to gran tees), which I then collapsed in to one - mode network data (grantees to grant ees) (Reckhow, 2013). To examine strategies longitudinally, one - mode grant networks focused on two points in time 2004 and 2014. All grant recipients shared at least two funders and received at least $600 ,000 (Reckhow & Snyder, 2014). Information exchange is an important policy tool for advocacy groups ; since the 2014 network was denser , I calculated information centrality to assess the most central IOs regarding information flow ( St ephenson & Zelen, 1989; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Central IOs, therefore, h ave the greatest access to other funders, IOs, and information and resources due to their network positions (McClure et al., 2017; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). UCINET was used to creat e the networks and calculate centrality measures (Borgatti et al., 2002). T o identify the brokerage roles of foundation - funded entities, I applied Gould and Fernandez (1989) brokerage analysis to the 2014 grant network (Borgatti et al. , 2002). T his test offers a quantitative assessment , 123). This process calculates the number of times a grantee can act as a broker in each po ssible role. Total brokerages equ al the total number of times a grantee can occupy each profile. Gould and Fernandez (1989) analysis require s subgroups to be separated based on their activities and interests. T o create field boundaries that were separate d by their activities and interes ts, I relied on the organizational affiliations created by Kelly and James (2015). These organizational affiliations includ e institutions of higher education (colleges and universities), membership organizations, 59 government agencies, nonprofit entities, th ink tanks, for - profit firms, and media outlets ( see Table 3 ). By considering these organizational affiliations, I coded each grant based on these classifications. I then created a ttribute data based on each grantee s organi zational subgroup (Borgatti et al. , 2002). For example, think tank grantees would fall under the Nonprofit: Research category. Similarly, an organization such as ACE would be classified as a Membership Organization , since it comprise s university presidents . UCINET calculate s both relative and absolute brokerage scores for each of the five scenarios (Borgatti et al. , 2002). Statistical Analysis of Grants Following Klopott s (2015) analytical approach for K 12 grantmaking, I applied a mixed - effects logistic regression to evaluate the effects of grant purposes and grant year on the likelihood that a foundation w ould fund an IO (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Given that grants are nested within each foundation, this study examines the hierarchical structure embedded within the data. In particular , each foundation includes a series of grants for each year. The binary outcome is an investment to an IO (entities that are not defined as a university or college), which is coded as 1 , and 0 otherwise. Each grant is coded b ased on the organizational type to which it is directed (an intermediary or a college or university) and the grant purpose. Since the grant data is nested, with multiple grants within a year and multiple years within a foundation, a mixed - effect s analysi s is appropriate (McLean, Sanders & Stroup, 1991) because the random effects allow for differences among funding agencies to be accounted for. However, the effect for time is modeled as fixed at the first level , because this study aims to determine possibl e differences between what was occurring in 2004 and 2014. These years are not random ly chosen, and the fixed effect allows for comparisons of likelihood across years. The year 2004 is used as the reference for grant year since the college completion age nda had not 60 yet gained national prominence. For examining the effect s of grant purpose, the reference group is traditional philanthropic investments, including capital projects, general operating support, and scholarships , since this is broadly understood as a form of traditional philanthropy (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018; Kelly & James, 2015). It is reasonable to expect that the relationship between grant purpose and whether the grant goes to an IO would vary from foundation to foundation. To capture this variab ility, the effect of grant purpose is allowed to vary randomly at the second level (the foundation level). The variability in this effect is further examined graphically to visualize the differences in effect s across funders . Model The analytical model f or this study is given below: Level 1: Level 2: Combined model: 61 Where P ij is the probability of giving a grant to an IO . is the intercept or the log odds of a grant to an IO for capital grants, scholarships , and general operating support in 2004 . through represent the differences in log odds of a grant to an IO between the reference grant purpose and the respective grant purpose . through represent the differences in log odds of a grant to an IO between 2004 and the respective year . throu gh are the random effects for the intercepts and the grant purpose terms . The R statistical software was used to perform the analyse s (R Core Team, 2016) , along with the lme4 package for R (Bates, Mächler, Bolker & Walker, 2015). The unconditional mo del demonstrates a level two intercept variance of 2.059, suggesting that some variability exists across the foundations sampled, which is yet another piece of evidence to justify the need for a mixed - effect s model. Data includes grants from 2004 to 2014, with a total of 37,140 grant s 28,640 directed to colleges and universities , and 8,500 to intermediaries. Grants directed to for - profit fir ms, government agenc ies , media organizations, membership organizations, educational nonprofits, and think tanks are coded as IOs (Bates et al. , 2015). 62 Qualitative Analysis In the final stage of analysis, I conducted 40 semi - structured interviews with both foundation officials and representatives of IOs. These in - depth interviews triangulated the grant analysis . To select informants, a snowball method was used that relied on referrals from foundation informants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Informants were sel ected purposefully since they are part of a small circle, which ensured that all interviewee s were part of leading sampling is based on the assumption that the inve stigator wants to discover, understand, and gain insight and therefore must select a sample 96). In total, 25 informants were interviewed from the philanthropic sector ( see Table 4 ) , and 15 from the IO and p olicy sectors ( see Table 5 ). Interestingly, many philanthrop ic informants were former grant ees or possessed extensive experience in state and federal policymaking. Some informants, for example, worked at the U.S. Department of Education, t he White House, Congress, or prominent think tanks before joining philanthropy, entering the sector with extensive histor ies in crafting educational policies. The 15 IO informants came from the nonprofit and policy sectors and were selected to discuss the influence of phi lanthropists in higher education. As with many of the foundation officials, several IO informants worked on a national or regional stage, as well as at different levels of government. In particular , some worked in the Obama Administration during a time whe n the federal government considered completion a key policy priority. Others worked at leading membership organizations that assisted foundations in collaborative efforts. Nearly all IO informants were referred by foundation officials, who regarded these p articipants as knowledgeable insiders. 63 Table 4 . Number of Foundation Informants Title Total (N=25) CEO/Executive Vice President/Vice President/Chief Operating Officer 4 Office of the President 1 Managing Director 5 Deputy Direc tor 1 Strategy Director 4 Senior Program Officer 5 Program Officer/Strategy Officer 4 Communications Officer 1 Table 5 . Number of Intermediary Organization and Policy Informants Title Total (N=15) CEO/President 7 Seni or Vice President 2 Managing Director 5 Associate Director 1 Qualitative Coding Procedure backlash and ensure the reliability of the information. Intervi ews occurred between February 2016 and July 2019. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and lasted 30 90 minutes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interview questions focused on higher education policy advocacy efforts, with an emphasis on college completion. The interview questions built up on a 64 protocol for a study on K 12 philanthropy and adapted for higher education. I shared the final protocol with an external reviewer who had experience in philanthropy and policy research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2 016). During and after each interview, I to ok notes about the interview, the environment, and future interviewing strategies (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Q ualitative themes emerged from an inductive analysis of the interview data. After several readings of each interview, I develop ed thematic categ ories, comparing them to other interviews to examine whether themes emerged (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Miles, Huberman, & Salda na, 2014 ; Stake , 2005 ). During this open coding process, I created labels for specifi c categories and subsequently for subcatego ries (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Miles et al. , 2014). I then created a structural coding scheme in NVivo (2015) to systematically code concepts. I verified and triangulated the interview themes with the 990 tax form s, field notes, interview memos, informal c onversations, and annual organizational reports (Miles et al. , 2014 ; Stake, 2005 ). Limitations This study faces three major limitations. First, while the FDO is a widely used resource in philanthropy studies (Hadd ad & Reckhow, 2018 ; Kelly & James, 2015 ), the data is based up on self - reported documents (Foundation Center, 2018). This creates the possibility that some grants are excluded from the database. Therefore, FDO data was cross - referenced with the online datab ases of two of the largest foundations in the sample Gates and Kresge. In both instances, searches were limited to higher education and 2014 and compared to the FDO - generated data. According to the Gates (2018) database, 93 grants totaling $81,667,056 were awarded in their U . S . Programs and Pos tsecondary Success program. For Kresge, 63 grants totaling $23,323,500 were directed toward higher education (Kresge, 2018). I discovered a lower discrepancy for 65 Kresge ($8,766,724 and 20 grants) when compared to Gate s, whose differences were much greater ($45,405,161 and 10 grants) (Kresge, 2018). However, when I filtered out non - higher Therefore, non - higher education grant pu rposes were excluded from the trend ana lysis. Second, the process of grant coding includes levels of subjectivity. For example, a t o provide rigorous, quantitative analysis of the effects of outcomes - based finan ce models on student retention and comp letion in one or more either the policy or college completion category, depending on the coder. To address such limitations, I tested for interrater reliability (Greene, 2015). Another researc her and I independently coded a series measure interrater comparability (Landis & Koch, 1977). We received a Kappa score that represents a substantial level of agreement ( =0.715, P>0.001), sug gesting that the coding procedure was c onsistent. Lastly, qualitative research on elite officials introduces several hurdles, primarily around acquiring accurate data and accessing networks of influence (Harvey, 2010, 2011; Ostrander, 1995). Therefore, bef ore conducting interviews, I reviewed t he elite interviewing literature , which offers strategies for interviewing high - powered officials (Aberbach & Rockman, 2002; Harvey, 2010, 2011). This literature notes that researchers should gain trust, use open - ende d questions, and understand that respondents may not always be objective (Aberbach & Rockman, 2002; Berry, 2002). To address these concerns and to ensure trustworthiness (reliabi lity and validity), I preserved the anonymity of informant s to minimize potent ial risks and allow them to be candid (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Miles et al., 2014). Moreover, I was as transparent as possible, sending IRB f orms detailing the goal of this stud y, sharing research questions , previous 66 work, and interview questions and , in some cases, making data analysis available (Harvey, 2011). I also conducted off - the - record conversations with foundation presidents and directors, former Obama officials, execut ives at university development offices, directors at influential nonprofits an d think tanks, and higher education leaders regarding their experiences. I found that these conversations supported many of the descriptions detailed by the interview informants, and they became a form of peer debriefing (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Miles et al., 2014). In addition, I attended multiple meetings between foundation officials (presidents, directors, program managers, and program officers) and representatives of higher e ducation (faculty members , development staff, and administrators) regarding gr ant agreements. Together, these discussions and observations informed my interviewing techniques. In the following two chapters, I investigate the grantmaking strategies of ten m ajor foundations from 2004 to 2014. To address the three research questions, m y findings are presented around the following five themes: (1) a growing proportion of grant purposes (investments) being dedicated to high - leverage purposes, with an emphasis on college completion; (2) increasing support for constituencies that challenges the status quo, such as advocacy nonprofits and think tanks; (3) a mounting national strategy based up on network building and collaboration; (4) a reliance on policy networks that facilitate knowledge sharing among grantees ; and (5) the influence of elite patronage in shifting the field dynamics of higher education philanthropy. 67 CHAPTER 4 : SHIFTING GRANTMAKING APPROACHES In the last decade, philanthropic foundations have risen to prominence in higher education policymaking, with many referencing the newe r philanthropists as introducing an advocacy approach to the field (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018; Hall & Thomas, 2012; Kelly & James, 2015). In particular , traditional highe r education philanthropy focused on institutional building efforts, such as capital grant s, general operating support, and scholarships (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018). In fact, when foundations did engage in policy advocacy, it was subtle. O ne thought leader sta ted, F completion fro explained . High - l everage Gra nt m aking Contemporary philanthropists are concerned less with building the capacity of higher education than with employing high - leverage strategy linked to systemic r eform. Referring to an interview with an executive in higher education, one informant dis period in which foundations were involved in institution building in one form or another because eated. I would say there is a dramatic change in that d t hat many older funders, such as capital projects, bricks and mortar projects in nonprofits and in of a lot of colleges and - leverage form of grantmaking (Greene, 2005, 2015). Low - levera ge grants permit universities a nd colleges to engage in their traditional activities , producing more higher education (Kelly & James, 2015). These types of investments include capital grants, general operating support, and scholarships. 68 In contrast, high - leverage investments seek to al ter or change educational systems (Greene, 2005, 2015; Kelly & James, 2015). High - leverage grantmaking is a strategic form of sp ecific point of view of what we , T hey see it as an opportunity to get higher leverage of return on philanthropic s reso supporting constituencies advocating for alternative policies, shaping public or elite opinion, or influencing the flow of public expenditures in this case, state funding (G reene, 2005, 2015; Kelly & James, 2015). O ne foundation leader describ ed - leverage strategy in the following manner their funding of in stitutions, their oversight in accountability systems, and their regulatory ed this interpretation. O ne leader from a national advocacy group focused on completion stated, d to have reform, you can do a lot of good things, but inevitably, institutions that are going to bump up these high - leverage purposes include policy advocacy and tech nology and innovation grants that are intended to push the needle on completion through policy and systemic reform (Kelly & James, 2015). I assess this empirically by examining funding purposes from 2004 to 2014, limiting my analysis to capital pr ojects, general operating suppo rt, and scholarships. In particular , I was primarily interested in the strategic shifts that occurred when the college completion agenda was first introduced in 2009. The grant analysis reveals that the most prominent change to occur was 69 a decline in the proportion of capital projects and scholarship funding. As illustrated in Figure 4, capital projects represented nearly 18 percent of higher education directed grants in 2004 and peaked in 2006 (24 percent). Capital grant proj ects began to decline in 2008 (19.6 percent), ultimately representing less than four percent in 2014. In contrast to 2004, capital grants no longer represented a significant portion of aggregated budgets. In 2004, scholarships represented nearly 11 percent of total hig her education grants. Scholarship investments began to decline in 2006 (5.5%) , and by 2008, scholarships hovered just over three percent. There was a slight uptick in 2012 (5%), followed by a decrease in 2014 , to less than one percent . Spendin g for general operating support mirrored these trends; for example, in 2004, nearly 15 percent of grants were allocated for general operating support. By 2008, this decreased to six percent, with a slight uptick in 2014, when it represented nearly 14 perce nt of aggrega ted higher education budgets . Figure 4 . Low - leverage investments. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Grant Proportions Year Capital Projects General Operating Support Scholarships 70 I also wished to compare the trends between low - and high - leverage investments (Kelly & James, 2015). One of the most obvious findings was the preval ence of high - leverage grants for systemic reform. Overall, I found an inverse relationship between the two philanthropic granting strategies. In particular , I analyzed the proportion of higher education grants directed toward policy advocacy and tech nology and innovation purposes. For example, I f ound that prior to 2008, policy advocacy grants comprised a smaller portion of total grants. However, by 2010, policy advocacy purposes represented a greater share of overall budgets. I n 2004, policy advocacy grant s represent only 11 percent of postsecondary budgets , but b y 2010, this had increased to 30 percent ( see Figure 5). Fi gure 5 . High - leverage investments. I identified a similar trend occurring with tech nology and innovation purpo ses. Technology and innovation grants are projects designed to pilot and diffuse reform models from 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Grant Proportions Year Policy Advocacy Tech and Innovation 71 one college to another. Several interviewees asserted that such grants allow foundations to promote best practices across several institutions , or, a s one f ounda tion source described it, 2004, technology and innovation grant purposes represented only 4.5 percent of total higher education budgets, with a slight de cline in 2006 (3 % ). However, in 2012, these sorts of investments peaked at 11 percent ( see Figure 5). By 2014, tech nology and innovation grant purposes represented nearly ten percent of total budgets. Overall, rather than targeting investments for capital proj ects or general operating support, grant analysis demonstrates that over the span of a decade, more foundations began concentrating efforts on programmatic (high - leverage) projects intended to influence policy and diffuse reforms. Informants confirm t his s hift in strategy : h igher e d But we no longer see foundations investing routinely in building up the capacity of h igher e d i ed their strategy by noting that the majority of their work focuse s on grants that will impact percent Several phi lanthropy sources echoed this sentiment, stating , give people grants to do direct services the same give up scholarship [funding] . Indeed, interview data supports the notion that funding agencies are shifting from the traditional form of educational philanthropy, such as capacity building and funding single initiatives, to 72 high - leverage form s of grantmaking linked to policy advocacy and reform. One leader in philanthropy, who regularly collaborates with both Lumina and Gates, describe d how their organization changed over the years : I would say 2011 - ish, a lot of our funding was focused on spe cific initiatives, so for example emergency aid programs or internship programs where we really focused on helping an institution build their capacity around a single initiative, like emergency aid. What we learned very quickly is that sort of focus on wor king directly with let's say student support services often didn't prove effective, because there were so many other touch points within an institution that needed to be made and needed to be coordinated in e've made a pretty strategic and intentional shift away from grants really that are focusing on an initiative, and more on focusing on where an initiative might fit within an organization or an institutions overall Thi s notion of major funding agencies shifting their internal strategies was a reoccurring theme in the interview s . One leader at a national organization involved in college completion reform concurred with th is overall trend, stating , A lot of the philanthropic investment before was focused more on things like creating scholarship opportunities. I think now you see more investments in the institutions themselves in trying to build up the capacity within Higher Ed institutions to do things that are s tudent - focused and that are going to support students. Maybe less investment in brick and mortar and more investment in developing data capacity, developing leadership capacity, developing faculty, awareness and capa city to lead reform efforts. 73 In fact, ma ny informants argue d that this new strategic approach is an effective form of philanthropy. One source, an elected official working closely with major foundations on postsecondary reform, referenced this strategic sh Overall, th ese strategies are intended to promote g reater alignment around completion, particularly trying to shape the policymaking environment and shape what policymakers choose to foc us on, you know, governors, legislators , ed . Moreover, these investments n source stated . As such, major foundations are investing in policy advocacy and completion the same respondent reported . College Completion Investments Consist ent with my initial expectations, the policy priority of college completion dominates contemporary higher education philanthropy. Several informants noted that the field of philanthropy has adopted similar completion goals as have Gates and Lumina (e.g., H addad & Reckhow, 2018), al though not as explicitly. One interviewee, a high - level official from an advocacy organization, summarized this sentiment : I think that there are some foundations that are doing work, that a re completions goals, but 74 organizations that have a little bit more of a focus on workforce, foundations like Kresge, Skillman and that have a little bit more of like place - b ased focused and a little bit more of a workforce - people to be enrolling in and finishing programs. A similar perspective was shared by a number of sources, who suggest ed that several push ed back against with higher education. Not every high education funder works squarely on completion and not every funder who look Moreover, I was interested in examining the prevalence of completion - related purposes across foundations in the sample. Thus, I filtered grant data for college completion - related purposes ( see Figure 6). Through a grant analysis, I have found that completion has been the most salient issue underlining grantmaking strategies across all funders, particularly since 20 09. Grant data , as illustrated in Figure 6 , revea ls that since 2008, many funders have adopted goals of completion in one form or another. For example, in 2004, completion was an important strategic priority among major foundation s , representing 35 percent of higher education grants. Alt hough this was su bstantial, a considerable increase occurred in 2010, where completion grants represented over half (52%) of aggregated budgets. Even later, in 2014, completion - related purposes remained consistent across all funders, representing 47 percent of total fundin g purposes. 75 Figure 6 . College completion investments . I have also found that college completion grants greatly overlap with policy grants. An t o refine existing and dev elop new policy options with the central goals of simplifying the student aid system and promoting the $275 ,000 ). One foundation official describe d this nuance : think that policy is key to making progress toward attain ment because there are many policies in place actually going to hinder who has been able to make progress toward attaining a high quality through policy in the completion categ ory , since the intention was to promote attainment. It is clear that grantmaking strategies are converging toward completion. Overall, gr ant data analysis indicates that grantmakers are dedicating a larger share of their investments to completion - related p urposes (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018). One source, a thought leader at a prominent think tank, argue d that the overall field of higher education philanthropy is converging of, you know more focused on completion, more focused on system change so institutional design 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Grant Proportions Year Completion 76 s dynamics in higher education have shifted toward completion. Multiple Constituencies Increased Reliance on Intermediaries play an important role in adding the technical expertise, people connections, and overall legitimacy needed to advance and 19). I f ound similar themes in the interview data. For example, several interviewees from phila nthropy cited the importance of intermediaries in advancing their agendas. One foundation official explain ed their relationship with intermediaries , stating, e work with what we call intermediary organizations that work directly with colleges and univers Another foundation leader also reference d the importance of intermediaries to their internal Most of our grants are either to higher education institutions, or to rese archers, or to Foundations work with several intermediary types, depending on their goals. As the same foundation official stated includes advocacy organizations, think tanks, membership organizations, government agencies, media outlets, and even for - profit firms (Kelly & James, 2015; Miller & Morp hew, 2017; Ness & Gándara, 2014) . One respondent describe d this diversity in the following manne r stakeholders can be other foundations, it can be other grantees. It can be policymakers, and so then we think about based on what we have lear ned and based on this group, who could enact, Another interviewee, a think tank informant and 77 things, they fund progres sive organizations, they fund more conservative organizations, they fund schools, they fund nonp I was primarily interested in exploring the amount of funding directed to intermediaries over time. Hence, by relying on the grant dataset, I calculate d the proportion of grants dedicated to intermediaries. Overall, grant analysis reveals that intermediary - directed funding increased proportionally over the course of a decade. As illustrated in Table 6, in 2004, 19 percent of grant dollars were directed t oward intermediaries (entities that are not colleges or universities). I also identified an uptick in 2008 representing 27 percent of higher education directed dollars . Intermediary investments would peak in 2010 at nearly 40 percent eventually leveling ou t to just below 30 percent in 2014 ( see Table 6). Table 6 . Statistical Trends of Intermediary Grants 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Intermediary - d irected Grants 19% 24% 27% 38% 31% 27% Notes. Grants extracted and analyzed using t he Foundation Center Directory Online. Includes advocacy organizations, research centers, for - profit firms, membership entities, media outlets, and government agencies. For many philanthrop ic r are central to their advocacy efforts. This also includes iaries between large bodies of the people In some instances, respondents reported that several foundations targeted organizations that aligned with their policy agendas, irrespective of partisanship. One foundation Our federal policy priorities are about making sure that we continue to offer non - partisan expertise on issu es and also that we continue to educate policymakers, health staff, especially but generally on higher education attainment and higher education att ainment 78 d that their foundations fund both liberal a nd conservative groups: - tank on the right or the left or wherever, in DC, that is actually interested in the goal of acces funded we funded Brookings, we funded Urban, we funded America, we fu nded CAP, we Accordingly, I wish ed to extend the trend analysi s of intermediaries by investigating the type s of organizations philanthropist s supported in 2014. To do so, I created a directional affiliation gra ph ( see Figure 7) to examine funding relationships across foundations (Ferrare & Reynolds, 2016). Thicker ti es denote a larger quantity of grants, not grant amounts. The size of the nodes represents the number of investments received and distributed for 2014. Red circles denote organizational types , and blue squares represent individual foundations. Figure 7 . 2014 directed funding network. 79 As illustrated in Figure 7, the majority of grants flow toward colleges and universities, particularly among the older foundations , such as the Alfred Sloan Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation , and the Starr Foundation. For the advocacy philanthropi sts (Gates and Lumina), including Kresge, these funders are still clustered together. While all three foundations are investing in traditional higher education organizations, such as colleges and uni versities, they also fund a diverse group of organization al types, such as Nonprofit: Direct Service (educational nonprofits), membership organizations, media, government agencies, Nonprofit: Research (think tanks), and even for - profit firms ( see Figure 7) . During the interviews, I was interested in examining why major foundations choose to partner with intermediaries in the first place. Thus, for each foundation official I spoke to, I ask ed about their motivations behind this grantmaking strategy. Several philanthropy sources In particular , funders support ed a diverse According to one Gates source , So it reall y runs the g amut and we have to do that because when you are looking at the scale of impact that we are hoping to have, or at least catalyze through our work, you kinda have to triangulate it in a lot of different ways and that includes constituency - based and non - cons tituency based organizations. In fact, various foundation officials cited similar granting strategies. As one source from an older foundation explained say we have multiple approaches there. not one particular want strate Informants stressed the importance of partnering with ed . O ne philanthropy source stated , 80 So statewide organizations that touch an ent ire state, organizations that touch a regi on, organizations that touch multiple institutions at one time, organizations that have a broad and deep capacity for telling the story of the work that they do. We tend not to partner just one institution at a tim e, or one community at a time, or an entit y that has a narrow reach. We want entity organizations that have a broad reach. Moreover, I f ound that several foundation officials rely on IOs to target policymakers through policy associations. One respondent st ated , ng used as really informing some of our key partners that really serve policymakers national conference of state legislators or education commission of the state, that it feeds back into how the y present these issues to policymakers in their process of educating From this perspective, I wish ed to extend the interview themes highlighted above. Therefore, I drew up on the grant dataset t o examine the proportion of completion and policy advocacy grants (and therefore, social agendas) directed to IOs ( see Table 7). In particular, I wish ed to examine how funding priorities for intermediaries have changed over time. Table 7 . Grant Purposes Directed to Intermediaries 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Completion 64% 68% 60% 55% 47% 61% Policy Advocacy 26% 14% 29% 39% 29% 28% Notes. Grants extracted and analyzed using the Foundation Center Directory Online. Grants only inc lude investments to intermediaries (filtering higher education institutions out of the analysis). Direct and research grants are collapsed. 81 I f ound that a majority of grants directed to intermediaries across all years fall within the college completion bu cket. For example, in 2004, completion represented 64 percent of intermediary grant purposes. This increase d in 2006 (68%) following a 20 - percentage point dip in 2012 (47%). By 2014, com pletion denoted over 60 percent of total postsecondary grants. Similar ly, policy advocacy grants also represented a significant portion of postsecondary funding, with a similar spike after the completion agenda was first introduced. For example, in 2006, p olicy advocacy purposes represented only 14 percent of overall interme diary - directed budgets. By 2010, these purposes increased to nearly 40 percent, eventually leveling out to just below 30 percent in 2014. Intermediary Research Grants and Think Tanks The existing literature on higher education philanthropy provides evide nce that foundations rely on research to influence policy (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018; Miller & Morphew, 2017; Ness & Gándara, 2014). To further explore this issue , I asked informant s about the expectations of how research would be used. In several cases, a hi gh frequency of informants describ ed a general expectation that research would be used to impact or inform public policy. In particular, several philanthropy staff members contended that research is central for advancing their policy preferences, described ction - research grants are very iew funding research that is going to sit on a shelf or reside in an ful t as this philanthropy leader explain ed . In addition, many policy informants cited the centrality of elite patronage in policy 82 research. One respondent who has conducted extensive work with major funders note d the research and policy development has been funded by philanthropy, and that certainly the case For many foundation leaders, think tanks are central partners in promoting a common set of ideas and policies. Resea proposals and recommendations. As one philanthrop ic source stated, We also worked with policy partners, New America, Center for American Progress, American Enterprise Institute, which are, you know, think tanks in a way, right? Which are, which have a verbal in higher education and different policy options, they are evaluating the implications of various Institute of Education Policy, IHAP know you begin to use to test really good, to test different policy options and what their implications would be with respect t o cost and benefits. Furthe regarding policy - related research exist. One interviewee, a director at a leading think tank, note d th exists that R esearch grants are intended to not only be picked up by policymakers but also challenge the status quo. O ne foundation source st ated , We also work with gro Why? Because the limitation of constituency - based groups is sometimes that they are not in the position to speak truth to hear it. So, we 83 fund thi nk tanks, we fund the Center for American Progress, we fund the American Enterprise Institute, we fund New America, because they help throw ideas into the mix To systematically investigate research rela ted funding , I examined the proportion of research grants directed to intermediaries from 2004 to 2014 . This analysis demonstrates that research grants intended to influence policy are a high priority. In particular , in 2004 and 2006, research funding repr esented 21 and 26 percent of intermediary portfolios , respectively . My analysis also identified an uptick in 2008, representing over 40 percent of total grant purposes. Overall, these figures leveled out in 2010 and 2012 , at 26 and 27 percent , respectively . Table 8 outlines this issue: Table 8 . Research Grants Directed to Intermediaries 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Research 21% 26% 43% 26% 27% 28% Notes. Grants extracted and analyzing using the Foundation Center Directory Online . Grants only include investments to IOs (filtering higher education institutions out of the analysis). Critics suggest that this form of grantmaking mirrors political lobbying. In Scott s here more dire ctly that has 163). Private foundations cannot legally lobby (Zunz, 2012). However, di stinctions e xist between l obbying and foundation advocacy. For example, foundations are permitted to educate policymakers on key issues. One philanthropy source explained that his foundation intends to educate policymakers ndeed, several philanthrop ic sources pushed back on the idea that 84 foundations are lobbying, with one same informant went further, describing th e following dynamic : Lobbying is asking people to go f or or asking members of Congress or people to support a speci fic bill, right? That is, Marco Rubio has this bill on college transparency and you should support Marco Rubio and call your Congressman and after that, just vote for that. We do no We have a s the net price which in college parents are more likely to see, and to see it and we can tell p eople what net pri ce is, and we can inform that. We like to use independent research and analysis. According to K 12 researchers, legislative output is not a leading concern for foundations (Tompkins - Stange, 2016). Rather, philanthropists seek to influence practices in education. I ntermedia ry entit i es provide foundations a forum to test and pilot innovations before bringing them to scale, with the intent of promoting systemic change (Hall & Thomas, 2012) . More importantly, IOs are integral in bridging the p olicy research divide regarding best practices (Ness, 2010; Slaughter & Leslie, 1997 ). Government Partnerships Through the grant analysis and in - depth interviews, I f ound that major foundations are increasingly partnering with government agencies, particularly in states without higher education coordinating board s . This Lumina grant to the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education provides is an illustrative examp organization for Adult Degree Completion program for a mechanism for effective 85 ,000 ). Indeed, informants highlight ed that during ti mes o f public austerity , officials regard philanthropy as an alternative revenue source to launch programs and initiative s . F oundations also allow policymakers to bypass traditional government bureaucracies that may slow project s down . One informant with e xperi ence in both state policymaking and nonprofit advocacy describes this relationship : So, when the governor needs something, it's hard to get funding out of the legislator for every specific project and sometimes you just need a little bit of money. You want to go through the whole appropriations process for just you know a relatively small amount of money. Being able to call on the foundations to say, what I and making that happen, is a beautiful thing. Thus, during times of politica l gridlock, government officials can launch new programs or initiatives with philanthropic support. Nevertheless, informants highlig ht ed that this is a - way In particular , such relationships provide philanthropists an to government offic ials, they can have the influence to say, are the things that are top of our mind, here are our priorities, things that we really need you to work on at a policy mechanism as one source notes. As I analyzed interview data regarding g overnment partnerships, I was also interested in the grant amounts directed to government agencies over time. Therefore, to extend the interview findings, I drew up on the grant dataset to examine grant dollars to government agencies from 2004 to 2014 , and I identified a growing trend in go vernment and philanthropic partnerships. In particular , in 2004, government - directed funding only comprised $1.9 m illion . However, this peaked in 2006 at $31 m illion , leveling out to just below $16 m illion in 2014. Table 9 illustrates this issue: 86 Table 9 . Grants Directed to Government Agencies 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Government Grants $ $1.9m $31m $7m $13.5m $22.7m $15.5m Notes. Grants extracted and analyzed using the Foundation Center Direc tory Online. From this really closely with elected official shared. This can materialize in a few ways. For example, I found instances where foundations financed entire positions dedicat ed to brokering relationships between philanthrop ists and state agencies. O ne source with direct knowledge of thi s process stated , when I was working for governor [redacted], I worked with the office of foundation college access strategy. In general, two foundations that would be i nterested, and Kresg e was one, that like immediately said this is our sweet spot and so they linked us up and non - profit] some start - up funding when we were just getting started to work on h elping to develop [redacted] which is our core strategy, helping establish these local college access networks very similar to what I described that Lumina did but within [redacted, the state referred]. Such relationships provide direct links between phila nthropist s and government agencies. As this same source explained government. One source from a membership organization confirm ed this affiliation, noting that ot of our policy wor 87 officials, foundation - led programs are legitimized to the rest of the policy and higher education co mmunities. Informal Policy Associations and State - l evel Field Building Projects Beyond working directly with governments agencies, foundations also support informal policy groups. In particular , several policy informants credit ed philan thropy for investing in membership organizations, affinity groups, and state - based student success i nitiatives. Many of these entities are supported by major philanthropist s through their active membership or their investments. In several cases, these info rmal groups allow foundations to align state and institutional leaders around specific priorities an d goals . One informant stated, T a variety of those networks, the affinity groups that have been supported by philanthropy that help states and some cases individual institutions within the states or between the numbers of states to improve their pe d that this can occur nationally : working with the national government association to facilitate a state netwo rk of states an elected state official who leads a higher education affinity group, described his leadership role in the following manner : ng together similar stakeholders to stash in in an updated blueprint for higher education attainment which you referenced, the [redacted] report so, I use my role as the [elected official] to try to promote policies and practices that increase higher educa tion attainment for more people and support policy legislative budgets and institutional changes tha t help promote that ideal. Often, these informal groups include influential political and economic elites who can provide input on policy proposals for high er education. For example, the same official share d that his 88 e responded with these allies from the Stated simply, these affinity groups are intended to mobilize diverse coalition aroun d specific policy priorities by providing input and creating buy - in in the process. One informant, a leader at a membership association who is also part of this affinity group, note d that s voluntary , but at times, they felt some repeated kind of nu dges or people kind of exploring whether or not Foundations also launch statewide associations and initiatives that promote completion - based policies, particularly in state s without high er education coordin a ting bod ies . O ne nation al leader at a completion organization stated , Jobs for the Future is also another organization that's been doing a lot of work at the policy level. Right now, you may be very f amiliar with what they're doing, but they are supporting the growth of student success centers which Kresge has been investing heavily in. In states where there's not a strong State Department on research base, they've been helping to create student succes s center offices, where there can be a presence inside the state that can both advocate for policy change that would help more students be successful as well as support spread of best practice. And working with individual colleges and institutions in that state , have been shown to be effective. Indeed, several informants credit Kresge for creating a state - based infrastructure around student success in places such as Michigan, one of its focus states. One example is a $100 ,000 Kresge 89 grant to Jobs for the Future meant t o provide technical assistance and strategic support to Student One staff member, a VP at a leading membership organization, explains this dynamic : ogram goals is that they who have higher Ed credentials i.e., a colle ge education. So, they actually created, or funded the creation of the Michigan College Access Ne twork and all of the local College more students in higher Ed so they would also tend to be worth looking at the programs and the s upporting program such as increasing staff by completion so that more students can get aid in order to be able to go to universities. In fact, foundations such as Kresge are important field builders around college completion, particularly in states that la ck formal postsecondary regulatory agencies. One Kresge official highlight ed their involvement in creating S tudent S uccess C enters across Michigan : no state higher educ would have this as a subset, some members of the association, it could advocate for pushing policies that it thought were more effective for student success. And the association could focu now have them all over the country and we are working with the Gates Foundation to hav e expanded them. Alt hough several of these interviewees referenced Michigan, a leader at one membership orga nization note d, 90 for years, primarily community colleges because of that Overall, such system - wide initiatives do not h old legislative authority over higher education governance ; however, they do have convening power to share best practices and lessons among members, who are typically postsec ondary institutions and policy leaders. Overall, foundations have worked with grantees to influence state an d federal policy through field - building projects. Philanthropists have launched advocacy organizations dedicated to similar agendas, forged strategic partnerships across the sector, and sponsored policy - oriented research. 91 CHAPTER 5: NETWORKED COALITIONS AND INFORMATION SHARING College completion coalitions are sustained i n large part by the patronage of major foundations. A growing number of foundations employ strategies to promote educational reform by funding networked coalition s (Haddad & Reckhow, 201 8). Likewise, interviewees cite d philanthropy as central in national n etwork - building efforts around completion. One policy official commented that have been a lot of interest from philanthropy, from the policy community, in supporting networks nati regard to closing education Similarly, foundation sou rces reveal ed that networks allow major funders to align diverse - level leaders from K 12, h igher e d , business, phil anthropy, the nonprofit sector and the government get together in the same room around one table to look at data, to define goals, to select priority areas, and to align When I asked one philanthro py leader the q uestion , portfolio, we are doing much more in collabor ation with othe rs in that the nature, and the form of To empirically assess collaborative grantmaking among foundations, I relied up on the 990 tax form data and constructed two affiliation ne twork diagrams of foundation - funded grantees one for 2004 and one for 2014. Figure 8 represents the shared grantee network in 2004 , and Figure 9 represents 2014. All grantee recipients are intermediaries and have received grants from at leas t two funders a nd at least $600 ,000 in investments. T he 2014 grantee network was much larger than 2004 network; in particular, for 2004, the grantee network represented nearly $30 m illion in postsecondary funding, while the 2014 network represented nearly $60 92 m illion . Mo reover, in 2004, less shared granting activity occurred than in 2014, with the majority of cofunding directed toward intermediaries that provide low - leverage investments su ch as scholarships. In particular, entities such as the United Negro College Fund, t he Hispanic Scholarship Fund, and the Thurgood Marshall College Fund all share d more than two funders in 2004 ( see Figure 8). Very few advocacy or research entities were re presented in the 2004 network, other than MDRC, the Higher Education Policy Institut e, and CFAT . Moreover, many organizations represented are traditional representatives of higher education, such as the American Association of Community Colleges and the Co uncil for Aid to Education. Figure 8 . 2004 Philanthropic - sponsored i ntermediary o rganization n etwork . In contrast, the 2014 grantee network was denser and included greater convergent grantmaking. Many reform - oriented entities tied to completion were also represented ( see Figure 9 ). For example, advocacy groups such as Achieving the Dream, Complete College America , and the Gateway to College National Network all received funding from multiple funders ( see 93 Figure 9 ). In addition, more research centers were represented, such as the Center for American Progress, th e New America Foundation, and EDUCAUSE. While t raditional higher education entities were also involved (American Council on Education), I found that foundations have increasingly cofunded entities engaged in educational reform. Figure 9 . 2014 philanthropic - sponsored intermediary organization network . I calculated i nformation centrality for the denser network, as ranked in Table 10 (Stephenson & Zelen, 1989). T he most central IOs are the Association of American Colleges and Univer sities (19.32), Achieving the Dream (18.72), Excelencia in Education (18.57), National College Access network (18.57), Institute for Higher Education Policy (118.57), and Complete College America (17.7) ( see Table 10). Many of these entities are active in promoting compl etion. 94 Table 10 . Information Centrality Measure s, Figure 9 Intermediar y Centrality Measure Association of American Colleges and Universities 19.32 Achieving the Dream 18.72 Excelencia in Education 18.57 Nationa l College Access Network 18.57 Institute for Higher Education Policy 18.57 Complete College America 17.7 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 17.7 Aspen Institute 16.96 Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education 16.7 EDUCAUSE 1 6.7 American Council on Education 16.7 Institute for College Access and Success 16.7 State Higher Education Executive Officers Association 16.7 New America Foundation 16.7 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices 16.7 Jobs for the Fut ure 16.28 Gateway to College National Network 16.09 Communities Foundation of Texas 15.36 Center for Community Change 15.36 New Profit 15.36 Public Agenda Foundation 14.85 95 Table 10. ( c Center for American Progress 13.42 Vera Institute of Jus tice 13.42 American Indian College Fund 13.11 Envision Education 4.5 Notes. Mean=16.029. Standard Deviation=2.863. Grants extracted and analyzing using the Foundation Center Directory Online. Grants analyzed are filtered for Purposef ul Collaboration Overall, I f ound a rise in philanthropic collaborations at the national level, with many leading funders enrolling other foundations in similar field - is very influential in getting other foundations to invest in ways that they see as important. I think Lumina is very influential. Kresge, Lumina, Casey and others tend to be good collaborators and they are willing to co - oup stated . Moreover, I f oun d that grantmaking is converging around similar intermediaries, particularly those involved in college completion and educational reform. For many, this strategy is donor driven. O ne leader from a national advocacy organization working to promote instituti onal reforms stated , I think it tends to be donor driven because most organizations are going to have a hard time putting in the amount of energy it takes to get co - unusual model as well, but we wen t out and jointly marketed a nd sold and tried to bring other investors on. Now, we were successful, I would say mostly because Lumina was out there putting themselves out there, saying they would put up so much money if somebody else would put up so much m oney. 96 Indeed, several ration ales for collaboration were mentioned stated . Interviewees argue d that collaboration is an effective strategy for reaching numerous grantees through single gra nting projects. In fact, one leader at a leading funding agency stress ed the substantial impact of collaborative funding : I think that this is much more power in the philanthropy space when you have multiple national funders sort of standing side by side s aying collectively, we agree that this thing is important, and not only do we agree that it is important, but we're all willing to commit funding to demonstrate h ow important we think that is. Rather than, I think that sort of alignment helps counter the . .. this is one organization wielding their power to change somebody's agenda, but again when it's multiple groups I think that just counters that argument, and I think it's important when you can counter that argument of one organization trying to change t he world. For many informants, collaboration provides funders a wider reach. One foundation official stated, W e typically partner with foundations to advance wid e - scale initiatives that involves was echoed by a number of gra nt recipients. O ne policy informant stated , through collaborative advocacy or coll Numerous respondents note d that collaborat other word the d . Another informant echoe d similar sentiments, 97 referencing Kresge, Hewlett, and USA F unds as frequent collaborations , since the issue - Moreover, several philanthrop ic informants note d that they collaborate due to capacity limits. In particular , foundation officials may have an idea for a project or proposal but not the capacity to launch or m anage it . Thus, officials regularly reach out to colleagues for support. As this foundation le ader describe d , have a co - funded program and an RFP and in that particular case, Lumina managed the RFP becaus e they had more capacity and staff than we did. But we sort of designed some of the questions and the selection proce ss, and we added, you know, we put money into it as a group and then we sold it, you know, we had a threshold of what we thought were succe ssful states and then we looked for potential donors who might then pick up states that otherwise would go unfunded b While many foundations have converged in their grantmaking strategies, frequently around completion, th one source explains , You know, foundations focused on different parts of the puzzle, whether its workforce and job training for hard - to - serve adults, you know, like where Kellogg and others have been wher e, or general broad scale high school and post - secondary attainment policies and practices. You know, the collective activities have attributed all forces, you know, similar targets of helping more people achieve higher levels of education skill and succee d at earning some and gaining employment. 98 Indeed, one grant recipient note d that funding an array of inter mediaries also addresses different parts of a broader goal. One policy informant describe d this dynamic : funded each one of us very generously to build up our capacity to do whichever piece of the puzzle. We had the policy work, the institutional c hange works, the mobilization work, the research work. We were all funded very Formal and Informal Collaborative Efforts I also found ev idence that collaboration occurs both informally and formally (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018). One foundation off icial note d tive Indeed , several foundations informants explained that they meet regularly through conferences, convenings, and working groups. O ne foundation leader , when asked about the process behind collaborations , responded , that we have at the other organizations is that we have developed great professional relationships but also good friendships as well. And so, we can pick up the phone and call each other or for e xample with [name redacted] and [foundation], he and I have a standing meeting every six weeks, where we Respondents note d that informally comparing notes is very common in philanthropy, where they reas of high - as the same official explained . A number of interviewees stressed that while many of these discussions are informal, they can be become highly formalized, particularly at the executive nd if there is something that we share that we think more and further conversation or that might lead to a more formal collaboration, when the conversation goes the next level 99 and we might think about how we reduce it to writing, whether or not we m ight need to get a memorandum of understanding in place to cl d . The following statement detail s this dynamic : phone calls and all of our reports are together with all of the fu nders, so that as a group we can learn about the status of the project, the challenges of the project, look for opportunities to help, and really have an understanding of what the other funders a re trying to do, and how each of our contributions are suppor ting the project, and not creating additional burden on the grantees. Additional burden meaning instead of them spending three hours in a month talking to three different funders and answering th e same questions and providing the same update and using each funders individual format, we're really looking for opportunities where we can collapse that down to one hour, where they can provide their update to all of the funders at the same time. Not sur prisingly, many note d the influence of Gates and Lumina as pr omoters of collaborations. These two foundations work closely. I asked several Lumina informants about their key partners in the realm of philanthropy, with many referencing Gates as a key collab orator. As one Lumina official note d , One for sure is the Gat es Foundation, also at that time is in DC. We work with them on a in DC is work, you know, moved them plus they have staff at the Gates Foundations that we knew in our own lives like it. Yeah, we go there, see the policy workings off the Gates Foundation, which used to be [name redacted] on the hill. I used to work with her in the Department of Education w hich is where she was the [redacted] . 100 Similarly, many Gates officials expressed an equally close relationship with Lumina staff. When surprisingly would be [the] Lu mina Foundation. We also are more engaged with USA Fund s, which is also based in Indianapolis. We cofunded work with Kresge and with the Hewlett However, as this quote reveals, Gates, Lumina , and Kresge are not the only found ations with close relationships. In fact, a number of i nformants cited several professional connections throughout the field who often cofund with one another. One Lumina informant describe d some of these engagements : Bill and Melinda Gates have a substant ial post - secondary education division. We worked with t hem quite a bit. We worked with lots of foundations that focus on workforce development, like the Joyce Foundation out of Chicago. We also have worked with Skillman. We worked a lot with the Kresge Fou with Ford Foundation . investments on Achieving the Dream, which is a community college accounts initiative and that was a Lumina - Ford endeavor. We worked with USA fu nd, which is a foundation also located here in Indianap olis that works a lot in postsecondary and a little bit in K - 12. We used to work with Kellogg which does mission - related relationships with Kauffman again, with that workforce development angle. Social Investors In several cases , f oundations are collaborating to establish and support entirely new organizations, such as Achieving the Dream, Complete College America, the University Innovation Alliance ( UIA ) . In fact, one reoccurri ng theme emerg ing from the interview data was the concept of contemporary foundations operating as venture capitalists. One policy informant 101 noted that major foundations are functioning how Likewise, a former fo undation official agree d w ith this argument, suggesting that contemporary turn on investment but wit foundation informant agreed with this assessment, noting , financial re y like to see a tiny bit of that but we can deal with it produce a business model that ultimately is going to get people into and through college w ith a quality degree. A fe ature of this social investment ethos is launch ing entirely new programs and even organizations. According to one intermediary leader, grant from Lumina Foundation back in 2003 to start creat One interviewee, a director at a newer foundation, contended that one of their tactics is based on One source explained this strategy in the following manner tead of having seven different organizations responsible and jointly making decisions, there would be one organization that was totally focused on that th , 2017, in Inside Higher Ed , where Paul Fain (201 7) describes a new DC - based advocacy group called Higher Learning Advocates, supported by Lumina to advance federal policies around completion. When I asked informants about this trend, one grant recipient argued , 102 You know, in other ca ses, I think it's int eresting that you see that the philanthropic role kind of occupy a little bit of the role that like venture capital might in another industry, so you know that would be like providing a startup funding for, you know, a new program to t ry something and real ly see if it actually works. What my understanding is like College for America, the Southern New Hampshire thing kind of got off the ground with support As with Lumina and Gates, older foundations are engagin g in similar investme nt practices. One director at an older foundation , regarding policy advocacy grants , stated, G enerally speaking, , older foundations s uch as Kresge are actively involved in field - building efforts, working alongside other funders in creating entirely new nonprofit organizations that can advocate for specific outcome - based policies and practices . Not only do foundatio ns launch entirely new organizations, but they are also investing in social actors that share a similar social investor s ethos, even individuals. One philanthropy venture capitalists, who are investing in education technology and investing in products that can help us boost attainment as the same respondent contend ed . Part of this social investor ethos is prescriptive grant agreements. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that foundations such as outset, work close ly with grantees, and 2013). I f ound similar observations in grantee interviews. One informant, who received grants from multiple foundations, note d re 103 perspective about, A philanthropy official from a newer foundation agreed with this statement, noting , foundation, we negotiate that and structure that into the grant agr he contracts in the business world, and we are not interested at Lumina in holding on to all the - Stange (2016), who demonstrates that the newer philanthropists in K 12 education are employi ng a prescriptive grantmaking when managing grantees. Issue Alignment across Sectoral Boundaries Several interviewees note d that funding collaboratives are effective ways for promot ing greater issue alignment and enrolling other entities into the cause. S everal informants, for example, highlight ed this point : W e identified the key stakeholders who had to be part of it tly work with other funders or IOs who are not necessarily focused on c ompletion and bring them into similar field - building projects . This source explain ed that when an external entity was brought in for a potential new analysis In other words, cofun ding and collaborations are strateg ies not only for channeling investments toward completion but also for creating greater issue alignment among other foundations and policy groups. T his grant recipient believe d that the Kellogg Foundation, an older founda tion, became involve d in completion reform in the following manner : Kellogg has got a longer history than many of our funders that we have at [redacted] . But we were able to bring Kellogg into funding for [redacted] early on. In fact, they came on board an d supported some colleges in Michigan and then more recently, they've invested 104 in a working student success network initiative, which was a three - year initiative with five funders. It was about building up a student support base for low - income students and students who had families, who were supporting kids and/or dependent members of their family. Kellogg has invested in h igher e d before, bu t they had invested primarily on leadership development and they came along and kind of joined the wave of investing in [redacted] colleges. That's one of the older foundations that got into a new area. This process extends to smaller, more regionally focu sed funders. Several foundation sources note d that by working with smaller, more locally based foundations, they can spread their agendas to local communities, a trend found in K 12 philanthropy (Ferrare & Reynolds, 2016). One foundation official described this strategy in the following manner : And, you know, the idea with that work was really about creating these partn erships where you know, you get community organizations, other non - profits, local institutions of higher education, the mayoral offices, loc al political offices, the K - 12 systems, you get them together in a room and basically get them aligned around a sing le goal that has a sort of an attainment focus to it. That is created specifically for your region, right. So that money, two hundred thousa nd dollars is actually not all that much money to do this kind of work, and so it really was about getting other phi lanthropies, other local community - based organizations and philanthropies also interested in this, too. And just literally putting the money out there so there will be an opportunity to get these different disparate groups together to really coordinate aro und a single goal and get some sort of actions toward that goal. This comment highlights the importance of working with not only foundation s but also postsecondary institutions, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and K 12 public 105 schools. In fac t, collaborations across different fields allow policy goals to become increasingly embedded within wider networks. Interviewees frequently stated that foundations want their projects to be replicated or picked up by other funders or government agencies. I n particular , several informants shared stories about how this process is becoming more common in higher education philanthropy, in addition to becoming a preferred strategy for sustaining momentum beyond the duration of a grant. One policymaker describe d this dynamic in the following manner : programs that disa ppear when their own funding disappears but to spend their money to brain research information and then to support p olicy, development processes with policymakers that change the way they, the real money, the public dollars are spent in education prior to hoping someone will replicate it to create conditio ns where a context in which real money can be re - erected or new money appropriated to help more people get a higher education degree. Accord ingly, several sources stress ed that although philanthropic investments represent large sums, they are dwarfed when compared to public expenditures (Greene, 2005; Reckhow, 2013). I f I were running the dissertation on philanthropy, I would want to come back to the fact that foundations, actually the amount of money they put into things, is relatively small compared to the whole investment structure for a college or university or for a s ystem of h igher e Several informants suggest ed that it i s not necessarily about money but about sparking interes t around specific policy concerns or proposals. Hall and Thomas (2012) argue , 106 26). I f ound evidence for this notion . Collaborating with national foundations signals prestige to the rest of the sector, particularly for smaller and more regionally focused funders. O ne former philanthropy official note d tha rather than Scaling Reforms and Shared Grantee Networks Diffusing policy ideas through networks is a cent ral strategy in scaling educational reform s across the sector . Kez networks for creating broader and scaled - u 115 16). In fact, several interviewees described th e importance of sharing data and best practices through grantee networks, with many including knowledge - sharing outcomes in to grant agreements. In particular , philanthropic - sponsored network s allow grantees and foundation officials to share data, information, and scientific reports for best practices regarding institutional transformation strategies. As such, these grant investments provide informal communicative channel s between program offi cers and their grant recipients, with many grantees repor ting regular check - ins with their foundation representative s . Through grant investments, philanthropic organizations can construct and sustain informal partnerships and communication channels through intermediaries, who can connect an array of social actor s. Several sources described a trend in funding systems that include s a network of colleges and universities. Unlike traditional advocacy groups, this strategy relies on working through t connect a number of postsecondary institutions around a common goal. One foundation official discusses his experiences with funding such projects, stating , 107 learnin g, and so those institutions received a grant from the fo undation to essentially scale a certain innovation or implement a certain innovation, undertake rigorous research, y with the field. These types of investments involve scal ing reforms. One philanthropy respondent elaborated by thinking about how we can work with institutions, , but sort of institutions leading to systems differently in the wa y they do the day to day business . ne philanthropy lead er involved in college completion reform provided the following rationale for funding such systems : I think that one of the reasons that has happened is because we as funders have realized that chang e is going to come through scaling. Change is going to co me, not at the initiative, by initiative, institution by institution level, but it's really going to come at the system level. Reform at the system level takes a huge amount of resources, and often m ore resources than any one funder can bring to bear. So I think as we all sort of come to that understanding of the need for system level reform, has pretty much almost forced I would say just resource needs, forced us to come together and collaborate with respect to the amount of funding that's necessary to exe cute the goal that we have of transformative change. One example is t he UIA, a consortium of 11 public universities relying on data sharing and best practices to promote system - wide change. One found ation official, who provided startup funding 108 to the UIA, note d Several investors regard the UIA as a networked system g rounded up on organizational transformation. One Gates informants highlighted this point , stating , We work with associations, we work with... the UIA, like those kinds of out the power of networks and how do we harness change am ongst a group of network institutions to enact that change at scale and leverage the power of networks. the president of Arizon lot of talk about disruption in higher education. We think that the real disruption will come through collaboration (para . 3). Many of these collaboratives have a wide reach, operating outside of thei r grantee networks. One leader describe d inviting other leaders to showcase what their networks ha ve accomplished : And we invited twelve campuses from outside the [redacted] ... we didn't advertise this because the lists that people based on physical or re gional, or if they were apart from the collaborative .. . so our strategy is not, "Hey everyone, join the Alliance." Ours is "We know we have something positive here. We want to actually be sure it really works. But while we are gathering together, let's us e whatever we can in a way that doesn't disrupt or chan ge things. But let's use this to spread some light around and see who else can benefit." Moreover, at times , grantees lead the convening efforts. For example, they sometimes sponsor venues to share les sons learned, inviting potential and current funders, g rantees, policymakers, 109 institutional leaders, and possible partners. O ne leader engaged in networked collaborations provided the following overview : W e hold our convenings that are just [redacted] - onl y they re about a hundred people, there s a team from e ach campus coming together. We invite our funders to come to that to observe. We don t introduce them. They just kind of interact. And we evolved over time to finally hold a convening. We invited any c ampus in the country, including all of the grantees of our shared funders. And that was the [redacted] national summit. Such events allow grantees and foundation officials to share data, information, and technical reports regarding institutional transforma W e designed this event in a way that was scaling our model and trying to expose oth ers to it. And then at that event, we raised some money from one of our funders to fund some collaborative that would form at that event Another example of a networked consortium is the Frontier Set , e stablished in 2017 by the Gates Foundation as [that] is currently engaged in a multi - year effort to develop , execute, and share institutional . 5). The Frontier Set brings togethe r colleges and universities, advocacy organizations, membership associations, and think tanks to . 7). Such in terorganizational collaborative s sponsored by philanthropists represent an underlying trend in higher education policymaking. As with the UIA, several Frontier Set members highlighted the importance of networks for organizational change. One interviewee, a leader at a membership organization, 110 has Unlike the UIA, however, the Frontier S et relies on external intermediaries to assist with its institutional change efforts. O ne Frontier Set member stated , mediary between the foundation and the institutions, really. Every organization is an intermediary to their membership. For us, we are the conveners of our six different institutions through Frontier Set. We will be the conveners for our future cohorts to do our center for student success. We know our members and I think every institution that works with their own institutions will know their members as well. I think our approach to be an intermediary is that we work with our institutions where they are. A s with the UIA and t he Frontier Set, foundations frequently invoke the power of networks in framing policy proposals, diffu sing ideas, and providing technical assistance across multiple universities and colleges. While a number of philanthropic - sponsored c onsorti a in higher education exist , what differentiates the UIA and the Frontier Set is that it these systems are performance - driven or so tightly aligned to source argue d student outcomes and student Grantee Information Sharing Increasingly, philanthropists mak e g rant investments intended to facilitate knowledge transfer within the broader field of higher education policy. For d provided this grant to one For Strive Together to act as national co - intermediary to create networks, convene stakeholders and educate policymakers around college completion in the Corridors of College 111 ,000 ). One leader at a regional funding agency describe d how information sharing is put into grant agreements : Sometimes of course you can't agree on wh at you're going to share, because you haven't loaned it yet, but most national funders, you go into a project, agai n, through that scaling lens and thinking about the only way things can scale is if you share the knowledge that you've learned. That could b e through papers, that could be through conferences or convenings that could be through the production of a play bo ok. It could be through more specific policy play in terms of supporting outreach to federal or state agencies with the information. The diss emination strategy can differ depending on the work that's being done, but it's definitely a part of the grant work . For many foundations, dissemination is a crucial function of their advocacy work. T he same informant stated that , a funder is going to have a desire to think about how that information and learnings can be shared. Maybe the lea rnings have to be shared by the specific grantee, but the funder might work with another organization to help disseminate ic respondent said , We can convene people to come around the table that may have very different perspectives on an issue, whether it is aroun around how to close equity gaps, or even something as technical as rewritin g student financial aid. And we can build that big tent where people will come to whether or not we are giving them grants and really promote that exchange of ideas and that drive or movement towards a consensus to say, you know, is there really a shared s ense of which 112 way we should go on student aid or on data? So, there is a real convening power in the consensus building function that we can and often are called upon to fill. Beyond sponsoring formal venues, foundations also rely up on their networks of gr antees to spread policy ideas. One policy entrepreneur contend ed that supported by philanthropy help institutions learn from each other, learn from best practice Another foundation respondent agreed with this sentiment, noting that philanthropists are actively working to bring in grantees to transmit ideas: We bring grantees together to inform each othe r. We have other conferences that are held in which they participate. d . During these ve as peer same interviewee noted . Referencing the UIA, this philanthrop ic leader descri bed this process of knowledge sharing in the following manner : the U niversity Innovation Alliance for example, we have a grant that we're co - funding with the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation around completion grants, and part of that work includes conven ing the 11 institutions, bringing them together along with the funder s and the evaluator, where we're all in a room at the same time talking about the project, learning from each other, so those are convenings of grantee evaluator and funder happen regular ly. As such, within these broader philanthropy networks exist subnetw orks. O ne grant recipient stated, like a sub - convener in some way, because Gates convenes all of the solution networks and the solution areas and those that are acting as intermedia ries between the 113 institutions working with, the 23 institutio ns, but at the same time, also sub - Alt hough referenc ing s strategy, this informant also note d that other funders engag e think Lumina do Brokers in Shared Grantee Networks Interviews data suggests that grantees are in regular contact with one other another due to shared funding relationships. Often, these networked relationships require grante es to act as broker s or boundary spanner s to connect two ot herwise unlinked actors (Hall & Thomas, 2012; Ness, 2010; Ness & Gándara, 2014). Indeed, networks provide formal and informal platforms to diffuse and direct academic innovations across sectors. In the context of higher education philanthropy, formal netwo rks could be part of grant agreements that include information sharing that are highly organized and centrally determined. In contrast, informal networks emerge when information flows among grantee s due to shared funding ties. This can occur through commun ication s initiated by funders, grantees, or members of a broad - based coalition s . As such, grantees have the opportunity to learn about new policy proposals and solutions based on these shared fundi ng connections . In fact, grantees have the potential to broker relationships with other grantees based on these shared funders. Brokerage arises when social actors fu nction as conduits between two otherwise unconnected groups (Burt, 1995, 2005). Actors who bridge these connections in particular are at a strategic advantage due to their network positions (Burt, 1995, 2005; Fernandez & Gould, 1994; Gould & Fernandez, 198 9). Therefore, b y emphasizing the informal links based on shared funding ties, grantees ca n play a brokerage role in knowledge sharing (Hall & Thomas, 2012; Kelly & James, 2015; Miller & Morphew, 2017; Ness, Tandberg, & McLendon, 2015). 114 The Gould - Fernandez (1989) brokerage test provides a means for identifying the brokerage roles of grantees in philanthropic - sponsored networks ( see Figure 10). Th is addresses entities that can cut across formal field boundaries in higher education based on their organizational types . Overall, the most representative brokers are coordinators (41%) (brokers connect ing two actors from their own subgroup s ), followed by g atekeepers or representatives (entities that transmit or restrict information to and from external actors) (27%), liaisons (external broker s who connect two actors from two outside groups) (20%), and c onsultants (external actors who connect two nodes from the same subgroup) (12%). As such, nearly 70 coordinators, representatives, gatekeepers), tants and liaisons). Figure 10 . Brokerage profiles of aggregated shared grantee networks. I also examined the brokerage profiles of the organizational types represented. I f ound that colleges and universities are highly represent ed in the coordinator and gate keeper or representative roles ( see Figure 11). In contrast, government agencies, membership 41% 27% 12% 20% Coordinator Gatekeeper / Representative Consultant Liaison 115 organizations, nonprofits, and think tanks all fall within the consultant and liaison roles ( see Figure 11). These externally oriente d brokers can d . frameworks an d tool - Figure 11 . Brokerage profiles of organizational types. Externally Oriented Brokers Outsiders are also important for philanthropists seeking to influence multiple fields . Indeed, organizations that can cut across trad itional sectoral lines are important for broadcasting and embedding similar policy agendas beyond one field T heir role is to make the world a better place and do it transcending government or any other kind of si loed 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Brokerage Profiles Organizational Types Coordinator Gatekeeper/Representative Consultant Liaison 116 Indeed, many foundation strategies are based on bypassing these traditional field boundaries in higher education as a form of coalition building. I have provide d a selection of grantees that scored high as outsiders (consultants and liaisons) and that are also frequently mentioned by informants ( see Tables 11 14). Government agencies such as the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education and the Universit y System of Geor gia tend to function as consultants and liaisons ( see Table 11). Similarly (and not surprisingly), advocacy organizations such as the Aspen Institute, Complete College America, and Excelencia in Education all score high as consultants and liaisons ( see Tab le 12). Moreover, a breakdown of granting purposes for each one of these entities is included in Figure 12 . Table 11 . Selected Grantees, Brokerage Statistics of Government Agencies Government Agenc y Coord G/Rep Conslt. L Western In terstate Commission for Higher Education 0% 6% 35% 52% University System of Georgia 0% 5% 41% 48% Notes. Grants extracted and analyzing using the Foundation Center Directory Online. Grants 117 Table 12 . Selected Grantees, Brokerage Statistics of Advocacy Nonprofits Advocacy Nonprofit Coord G/Rep Conslt. L Aspen Institute 1% 7% 35% 34% Complete College America 3% 14% 35% 34% Excelencia in Education 4% 18% 28% 31% Notes. Grants extract ed and analyzing using the Foundation Center Directory Online. Grants Table 13 . Selected Grantees, Brokerage Statistics of Membership Organizations Membership Organization Coord G/Rep C onslt. L Achieving the Dream 0% 7% 35% 51% Association of American Colleges and Universities 0% 6% 38% 49% American Association of Community Colleges 1% 7% 39% 46% Notes. Grants extracted and analyzed using the Foundation Center Directory Online. Grant s Table 14 . Selected Grantees, Brokerage Statistics o f Think Tanks Think Tank Coord G/Rep Conslt. L Center for American Progress 1% 9% 27% 53% New America Foundation 1% 8% 35% 48% In stitute for Higher Education Policy 1% 8% 32% 52% Notes. Grants extracted and analyzed using the Foundation Center Directory Online. Grants 118 Figure 12 . Selected grantees, grant coded purposes disaggregated, 2014. Advocacy organizations that cut across traditional field boundaries have attracted media attention. In 2013, The Chronicle noted the liaison role Complete College America plays in postsecondary policy ege America has persuaded 32 states, plus the aggressive state and campus - - 2013). As of 2017, Complete Co llege America ha d expanded to 40 states and has worked regularly with policymakers and institutions to push the needle on college completion. As one philanthropic official stated , mportantly at th e institutional level to identify, elevate, and demystify things, policies and practices at the institutions that are disproportionately impactful for the students that we mentioned $- $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 Achieving the Dream American Association of Community Colleges Aspen Institute Association of American Colleges and Universities Center for American Progress Complete College America Excelencia in Education Institute for Higher Education Policy New America Foundation University System of Georgia Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education Millions Advocacy & Engagement College Completion General Operating Support/Capital Projects/Scholarships Policy Tech & Innovation 119 them and I like how clear the things are. Likewise, m embership organizations such as Achieving the Dream, the American Association of Community Colleges, and the Association of American Colleges and Universities all score high as outsiders. Sources note d t hat foundations rely on membership organization s to intermediaries between large bodies of the people that they represent , ed . Likewise, think tanks such as t he Center for American Progress, the Institute for Higher Education Policy, and New American Foundation are highly represented in the liaison profile, hovering at the 50 percent mark. When drawing on the coding scheme and combining these portfolios togethe r ( see Figure 13 ), over 60 percent of grant amounts are directed to college completion. This is followed by tech nology and innovation grants (16%), advocacy and engagement (12%), policy (9%), and general operating support, capital projects, and scholarship s (0.16%) ( see Figure 1 3). 120 Figure 13 . Selected grantees, grant coded purposes collapsed, 2014. Foundations identify themselves as knowledge brokers, actively drawing up on their networks of grantees to promote policy ideas and solu tions. For policy promotion, foundation s tend to work with entities that can broker connections between the same subgroup , with many informants referencing university - based collaboratives as preferred ways to share redesign strategies around student succes s . Foundations rely on externally oriented intermediaries government, membership entities, advocacy nonprofits, and think tanks to broadcast and transmit policy proposals and solutions across subfields, thus ensuring that multiple actors are reinforcing si milar policy proposals, typically around college completion. Moreover, these externally focused grantees can elevate spec ific notions about higher education reform, channeling greater collective support . Overall, I f ound evidence that grantees who cut acro ss formal field boundaries are the most impactful social actors for knowledge transfer. Moreover, these externally focuse d grantees can elevate specific notions about higher education reform, channeling greater collective support around these causes . E xter nally oriented brokers comprise Advocacy & Engagement 12% College Completion 63% General Operating Support/Capital Projects/Scholarships 0% Policy 9% Tech & Innovation 16% 121 a smaller proportion of grantees ; however, they still act as influential policy actors in higher education. 122 CHAPTER 6: FIELD - LEVEL CHANGES IN HIGHER EDUCATION PHILANTHROPY Higher education grantmaking has shift ed away from the traditional fund model of philanthropy to one that emphasizes policy advocacy and systems change . In fact, s everal policy informants revealed that Gates and Lumina were central i n driving the conversation away from postsecondary access and toward coll ege completion (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018). One interviewee with experience in DC policymaking note d bee n going on for a while , In particular , I found a high freq uency of informants crediting the newer philanthropists for creating a policy environment conducive to completion. O ne former Obama official observed Lumina has been a big player in this stage that has really helped shape the conversat ions around completion, you know, President Obama talked about the 2020 goal, which would have been ent. The Ga tes F oundation did that Lumina in particular, I think by esta blishing th eir big goal, I think that was really impactful, because it focused attention on the need to increase the number of individuals in the country with a degree. So, I think the fact that they put a stake in the ground and said this is our big goal and w Incumbent Vulnerability when maneuvering for strategic power (p. 14). In 200 9, college completion gained national 123 nts cited t his speech as elevating completion to being an official no te d . At the time, discussion was growing regarding the crisis of higher ed ucation , with many citing affordability and job placement concerns (Kelly & James, 2015). Respondents from Gates and Lumina both shared these views. In a 2013 op - ed entitl Greenstein, the former director of the postsecondary success strategy at the Gates Foundation, , That college you have your eye on for your teenager? It may be going out of busine ss. Your al nothing like it does today, except perhaps at a few ivy - covered, well - endowed institutions. Several foundation sources echoed this sentiment. One philanthropic informant, wh en I asked how completion became such a dominant issue for the newer philanthropists, respond ed by a growing disenchantment between the public and employers and hi gher education , ars is dramatically different from Indeed, several interviewees from the newer organizations cited this growing disillusionment , which require s - driven tes leader explained . The same official highlighted some of the pressures that make reform p ossible : 124 It assumes that higher education, colleges, and universities are so much pressure, financial pressure, political pressure, consumer pressure, really driven mostly by crises, that if solutions come along that enable them to be responsive to those p ressures, to deliver more affordable education, they will adopt those solutions, right? s and Lumina s strateg ies as being hands - hilanthropy, as one former Obama official described it. One grant recipient discusse d s strategy : The Gates Foundation has more resources than a lot of other foundations have, most of the foundations in fact. They are such a big complex organization. They're a young foundation. They have had a lot of internal things that they've had to figure out. This had a lot of turnover and change. They came in with a philo sophy that they knew how to fix things and they would come in. They started at the high school level, and they just started To address these gro wing concerns, the newer philanthropists began to challenge the sector, pushing for spec ific reforms that address ed ttle Field - b uil ding Projects in Higher Education When the completion agenda was initially introduced, Gates and Lumina launched a series of initiatives, programs, and organizations th at advocated for policy change intended to incentivize outcomes (Hall & Thomas, 2012). O ne grant recipient referenced the emergence of Complete College America as a defining moment in higher education In 2009, there was 125 online at that point and becom ing a larger voice, and the Achieving the Dream, the national Complete College America and Achieving the Dream both received startup support from philanthropy . For the newer p hilanthropists, investing in intermediaries was an effective strategy for policy engagement (Kelly & James, 2015). For many sources, Gates and Lumina are credited for g alvanizing the field around kind of the policy environment shifting dramatically to start talking about college completion issues and then you had philanthropic funding to sort of free up time an d bring in personnel that could grapple with that hat if it were not for philanthropic dollars, the policy community would not have been able to focus on completion as intensely as it has : are currently major funders of higher education policy deciders didn't think that that i ssue mattered anymore, I don't think that the kind of nonprofit community could sustain itself at the size that it does right now, you know? It's obviously a risk but I worth tackling. In deed, the intermediaries founded by the newer philanthropists were crucial in this policy environment shift. One intermediary, Achieving the Dream, was created through a Lumina grant and has experience d significant success as an independent nonprofit. One source detail ed the : Achieving the Dream, I think was one of the major players in those days that helped switch the conversation from one that was m ostly about how to do more outreach to 126 populations that maybe weren't yet taking advantage of Higher Ed. In addition to start pay ing attention to whether or not those folks actually got credentials and start addressing Now, our conversation is shifting and we're starting to talk, and we start seeing other people in the field talk more about; what besides completion is im portant. We're trying to get people to say, to feel responsibility for what happens after completion. Similarly, Complete Colle ge America is another entity that is described as not only successful but as impactful at advocating for state policies for compl etion reform. One intermediary leader assess e d its influence in the following manner : Complete College America was one of the b ig entities that was created initially by the Gates Foundation, and then they've subsequently got another foundation investments as well as the investments from states. They were created to work at the state level and to create a sense of urgency in the Go vernor's Office for investing in strategies that would help students stay in college and complete. So, they've had a tremendous i nfluence on the conversation. Unlike traditional grantmaking, this form of investment is based on shifting policy discussions a nd raising awareness of completion, typically by establishing entirely new advocacy organization s that can target state and feder al policymakers as well as institutional leaders in higher education, or by making high - leverage investments. Nonetheless, thes e policy strategies are not uniform across funders. As the same informant note d , In philanthropy, to be honest, I think they've b een kind of a mixed in their views about what to do. Under one level, there's a number of philanthropic organizations that want to invest in policy because they see that as a stronger level for change. They see where if you get whole states or whole govern ments changing the way things are supposed to be 127 done, then theoretically, everybody is going to be following suit and then you 're going to make a lot of changes across a lot of higher ed institutions. Moreover, several interviewees discussed pushback from older, more traditional grantmakers. According to Fligstein and McAdams (2012), incumbents , who are bounded by traditional fie ld norms , are more conservative than contenders . Accordingly, a number of informants cited apprehension from the older philanthro pists regarding policy advocacy. One interviewee, a T here was some trepidat ion about a foundation the old scho , of Grantmakers for Education , contends [m] ost grantmakers traditionally have es (para . 13). Unlike the old school foundations, the newer philanthropists are al explained signals that the status quo should not be the ed . This is consistent with the K 12 research that demonstrates that newer funders are more will ing to challenge established norms in education (Hess & Henig, 2015; Reckhow, 2013; Reckhow & Snyder, 2014; Snyder, 2015) . Overlapping Strategies Despite this initial unease, several foundations have beg u n to adopt the policy advocacy strategies introduce d by Gates and Lumina (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018). According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, t singular but rather reflects broader changes within philanthropy (Gose, 2013). One foundation grantee who worked with multiple funde rs agreed with this interpretation, stating , 128 Similarly, one source from an older foundation echoed these claims, noting that dations took notice of is the need to get much more focused in their grantmaking; much more intentional, much more delibe , one official from an older foundation describe d ght fund To examine this empirically, building upon the findings of Haddad and Reckhow (2018), I investigated th e advocacy policy and completion trends of the older fund ers , excluding Lumina and Gates from the analysis to determine whether older f oundations are emulating the advocacy strategies introduced by these newer philanthropists . According to the grant data i n Figure 1 4 , in 2004, completion purposes represented only $16 m illion in higher education direct ed grants. However, these purposes increased in 2006, spiking significantly after the completion agenda gain ed national prominence and representing over $50 m i llion in 2010. Similarly, older foundations increased their advocacy policy spending over the sam e time frame. In particular , in 2004, advocacy and policy purposes represented nearly $14 m illion . By 2008, this increased to $21.7 m illion , and by the time th e completion agenda was introduced, it represented over $30 m illion in higher education grants. O verall, older foundations are emulating the strategies introduced by the advocacy philanthropists, funding more grants around policy advocacy and completion. 129 Figure 14 . Old foundations, advocacy/policy and completion grants . One strategy newer philanthropist employ is funding external entities to promote reforms. According to one philanthropy source who frequently collaborates with the advocacy foundations , And then they did, both the Gates Foundation and Lumina did help seed a number of those intermediaries that we talked about that have really grown over time. You're looking at Achieving the Dream, Jobs for the Future, Complete Colleg e America to really help move the field to intermediaries where you can do that constant iteration and learning and scaling ra ther than funding one idea or one institution at a time. I wish ed to compare funding strategies between the older foundation and t he newer philanthropists to determine whether older funders were employing similar grantmaking strategies as Gates and Lumina regarding investing in intermediaries. Therefore, I drew up on the grant dataset and examined funding trends for intermediaries, as illustrated in Figure 1 5 . $- $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Title Millions Advocacy/Policy Completion 130 Figure 15 . Old and new funding trends of intermediaries. I f ound that early on, the newer philanthropists provided a substantial amount of grants to intermediaries. For example, the newer philanthropist s gave 125 grants to intermediaries, while the older funders only gave 70 grants (collectively) to external entities. Over a ten - year span, Gates and Lumina provided a high frequency of grants to intermediaries. However, by 2012, the older foundations bega n to fund more intermediaries, with 122 in 2012, representing nearly a 60 percent increase from 2014. Overall, this su ggests that older founders have followed suit, increasingly funding more intermediaries than in the past. To examine this different ly , I d rew up on granting data to examine the level of convergent grantmaking among the two group s , following the analytical s trategy of Snyder (2015). Table 15 provides the proportion of convergent grantmaking (one grantee receiving grants from two or more funder s) among older and newer foundations (Snyder, 2015). In particular , older foundations that shared more than two funders in 2004 represented only 12.9 percent of total grants directed to IOs (excluding colleges and universities), with nearly $3.5 m illion of total 0 50 100 150 200 250 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Number of Grants to IOs Old New 131 funding ( see Table 15). Such organizations include d America n Association for Higher Education ( $ 69 ,000 ), Council for Aid to Education ( $ 700 ,000 ), and the National Academy of Sciences ($95 ,000 ), all very traditional and older higher ed ucation IOs. In the same year, the newer foundations had the same levels of conve rgence as the traditional foundations ( see Table 15). In particular, 13.3 percent of overall funding went toward IOs (again, excluding colleges and universities) ( see Table 15). The newer fo undations also funded tradition IOs, such as American Council on E ducation (41 ,000 ) and the United Negro College Fund ($2 m illion ), as well as organizations involved in college completion, such as College Success Foundation ($95 ,000 ) and Jobs for the Futur e ($3.6 m illion ). Table 15 . Percent of Convergent Grants toward Intermediary Organizations Old Foundations New Foundations 2004 2014 2004 2014 More than one funder 13% 21% 13% 47% Notes. Grants extracte d and analyzed using the Foundation Center Directory Online. Grants examined are filtered for IOs, excluding colleges and universities. By 2014, shared funding among older foundations increased to over 20 percent, representing $8,518,500 in intermediary - di rected funding. In 2014, grantees that rece ived funding from multiple funders included completed - reform organizations such as Achieving the Dream ($2.6 million ), Gateway to College National Network ($975 ,000 ), and Jobs for the Future ($550 ,000 ). An example of such grants is a $1.5 m illion Kellogg Grant for Achieving the Dream [i] ncrease economic stability and college retention, completion, and credentials for low income college students through scaling and expanding the bundled services mod el at select 132 In the same year, the newer foundations provided 47 percent of intermediary - directed grants to recipients that shared more than one funder, representing nearly $40 m illion . Similarly, the newer entran ts also incre asingly cofunded the same grantees, including intermediaries such as Achieving the Dream ($3 m illion ), Complete College America ($4.55 m illion ), and the Institute for College Access and Success ($1.55 m illion ). Priorities that comprised a subs tantial among of grants were focused on college completion and advocacy purposes. An example of [t] o mobilize post - secondary institutions in Georgia, Indiana, and Tennessee to adopt the guide d pathways mo del to increase ,000 , 2014). Overall, these figures demonstrate that older foundations are emulating the collaborative efforts of the newer funders. To visualize convergence in another way, I create a serie s of social n etworks , provided below. This data is limited to recipients who received grants from multiple foundations (both newer and older). Links represent a grantee with shared funders , and the larger nodes represent grant amounts (Snyder, 2015). For 2 004, the gran tee network for the newer funders was twice as large (dollar amounts) when compared to the older foundation s , even though the former only include d two foundations ( see Figure s 1 6 and 1 7 ). In particular , the 2004 grantee network for the older foundations re present ed $3,481,725 , while the grantee network for the newer funders was $6,435,628.00. 133 Figure 16 . Intermediary organization recipient network for older funders, 2004. Figure 17 . Intermediary organ ization recipient network for newer funders, 2004. The grantee networks for 2014 are denser and represent more funding ties with intermediaries. Not only was there an increase in convergent grantmaking among both older and newer 134 foundations (21% and 46.8%) , but both networks were also larger, representing $8.5 m illion for the old funders and nearly $40 m illion for the new entrants ( see Figure s 1 8 and 1 9 ). The 2014 grantee networks of the older foundations demonstrate some overlap in strategies with the advo cacy philanthropists ( see Figure 1 8 ). In particular , many entities that were actively involved in policy advocacy and college completion are represented in the older grantee network ( see Figure 1 8 ). As with the grantee network of the older funders, a numbe r of entities involved in policy advocacy and refor m linked to the college completion agenda were represented in the new funder network ( see Figure 1 9 ). Figure 18 . Intermediary organization recipient network for older funders, 20 14. 135 Figure 19 . Intermediary organization recipient network for newer funders, 2014 . The final social network analysis includes both groups of foundations to assess field - level interactions, focusing on the denser networks (2014). In Figure 20 , the 2014 network represent ed over $60 m illion , and all nodes have share d at least two grants fro m two different foundations. Red squares denote that that at least one older funder was cofunding with at least one newer funder. In other words, if Gates (a newer foundation) cofunded with Kresge or Ford (older foundations), or vice versa, then the node w ould be coded r ed. Conversely, the blue nodes represent cofunding by similar funders. For example, if one grant recipient only received investmen ts from Gates and Lumina, they would be coded as b lue. This social network analysis reveal s that a high level o f cofunding occurred between the two groups (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018). In total, 22 grant recipients received at least one grant from one older an d one newer foundation, representing nearly 60 percent of total shared funding. According to this analysis, the intermediaries that received the most funding include d the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, EDUCAUSE, Achieving the Dream, Co mplete College America, and Jobs for 136 the Future. Overall, this demonstrates that the field of philanthropy is c onverging around similar funding priorities, primarily organizations active in policy advocacy and completion reform. Figure 20 . Intermediary organization recipient network for new and old funders. In Table 1 6 , centrality measures for degree, closeness, Eigenvector, and betweenness were calculated. Using betweenness to rank IOs (a centrality measures that measures the sh ortest path), the AACU, Aspen Institute, CFAT, CCA, Gateway to College National Network, and Jobs for the Future ranked the highest. All of these entities are national policy actors involved in college completion reform. 137 Table 16 . Centrality Measures, Figure 20 Intermediar y Degree Closeness Eigenvector Between Association of American Colleges and Universities 34 37 0.19 38.18 Aspen Institute 34 37 0.19 20.05 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 33 38 0.19 13.01 C omplete College America 33 38 0.19 13.01 Gateway to College National Network 30 41 0.17 10.91 Jobs for the Future 33 38 0.19 10.62 Vera Institute of Justice 30 41 0.17 8.83 Center for American Progress 30 41 0.17 8.83 American Indian College Fund 28 4 3 0.16 7.11 Campaign for College Opportunity 28 43 0.16 7.11 ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career 11 60 0.04 5.26 Achieving the Dream 31 40 0.19 3.94 American Association of Community Colleges 31 40 0.19 3.94 National Academy of Sci ences 15 56 0.07 3.91 Envision Education 10 61 0.04 3.53 Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education 30 41 0.19 0.89 American Council on Education 30 41 0.19 0.89 EDUCAUSE 30 41 0.19 0.89 Excelencia in Education 30 41 0.19 0.89 Institute for C ollege Access and Success 30 41 0.19 0.89 Institute for Higher Education Policy 30 41 0.19 0.89 National College Access Network 30 41 0.19 0.89 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices 30 41 0.19 0.89 138 Table 16 (cont d) New America Fou ndation 30 41 0.19 0.89 Research for Action 30 41 0.19 0.89 State Higher Education Executive Officers Association 30 41 0.19 0.89 National Council for Workforce Education 11 60 0.06 0.47 Asian and Pacific Islander American Scholarship Fund 28 43 0.18 0 .43 Center for Community Change 28 43 0.18 0.43 Communities Foundation of Texas 28 43 0.18 0.43 New Profit 28 43 0.18 0.43 Public Agenda Foundation 27 44 0.17 0.35 Yes We Must Coalition 27 44 0.17 0.35 Business - Higher Education Forum 4 67 0.01 0.11 University System of Georgia 24 47 0.15 0.00 Posse Foundation National Office 8 63 0.04 0.00 Notes. - 990 tax filings extracted from the Foundation Center Online. Represents higher education - f iltered grants and raw scores. Grant Purposes and Strategic Differences The social network analyses presented provide s evidence that major foundations are converging toward intermediaries, particularly at the national level. Variations in grantmaking tren ds offer insight into t he changing field of higher education philanthropy. However, this does little to investigate relationships between granting purposes and organizational types. To explore strategies in a different way, I dr e w up on a mixed - effects logi stic regression, allowi ng me to model fixed effects and random effects in the grant dataset (Bates et al. , 2015; Klopott , 2015; 139 McLean et al., 1991). This model explores the relationship between funding purposes, organizational types, and strategic differe nces between foundations. 140 Table 17 . Fixed E ffect E stimates Coefficient Odds Ratio Standard Error Z - Value P - Value (Intercept) 3.201 0.041 0.494 6.474 <0.001 Grant Purposes Adv & Engagement 4.125 61.879 0.524 7.87 2 0.000 Cost - Effectiveness 3.987 53.890 0.761 5.237 0.000 Curriculum Dev 0.910 2.483 0.829 1.097 0.273 Faculty Dev 1.376 0.253 2.765 0.497 0.619 Financial Aid 5.955 385.797 1.859 3.203 0.001 Non - Higher Ed 0.185 1.203 0.518 0.357 0.721 Policy 3.373 29.157 0.526 6.407 0.000 College Completion 3.235 25.417 0.455 7.113 0.000 Tech & Innovation 2.439 11.460 0.456 5.354 0.000 Year Authorized 2006 0 .215 0.807 0.166 1.296 0.195 Year Authori zed 2008 0 .066 0.936 0.164 0 .399 0.690 Year Authorized 2010 0 .087 0.916 0.162 0 .538 0.591 Year Authorized 2012 0.146 1.157 0.154 0.945 0.345 Year Authorized 2014 0 .300 0.741 0.155 1.928 0.054 Notes. Overall model is significant (Chi - square=1251.4 df 68, P<0.001). Reference group; c apital projects, general operating support, and scholarships; year , 2004. Fixed effect estimates from the model are displayed in Table 1 7 . Estimates of the random effects are available in the appendix. The results in Ta ble 1 7 demonstrate that when compared to capital projects, general operating support, and scholarship coded purposes, grants directed to 141 advocacy and engagement (OR=61.879, P<0.001), policy (OR=29.157 , P=<0.001), and college completion (OR=25.417, P=<0.001 ) are all statistically significant and more likely to go to intermediaries than colleges or universities, when holding the effect of grant year constant. For grant years, investments in 2014 were les s likely to go to intermediaries than 2004 (OR=0.741, P= 0.054), when controlling for the effect of grant purpose ( see Table 1 7 ). For traditional philanthropic purposes, the odds of an intermediary getting a grant in 2004 was 0.041. T o explore where the fi eld of philanthropy stood comparatively, random plots as sess ed differences in the effect of advocacy and engagement grants, policy grants, and college completion grants across funders. In particular , these are examined , since they are intended to influence or impact higher education policy (Kelly & James, 2015) . Advocacy and engagement investments are intended to influence public opinion or public will. An example is a $100,000 Lumina grant to [t] o support the MSI - Models of Success Program by adding a communications fir One Lumina official watching ntended to raise awareness on policy issues. 142 Figure 21 . Random effects of advocacy and engagement purposes. Overall, foundations have higher odds of funding for advocacy and engagement grants in relation to the baseline ( see Tab le 1 7 ). T he random effect s plots demonstrate that Kresge has significantly higher odds of investing in intermediaries for such purposes when compared to the average ( see Figure 2 1). On the other end, Kellogg and Lumina have lower odds of investing in intermediaries for similar purposes when compared to the baseline ( see Figure 2 1). Overall, this demonstrates that strategic differences exist , particularly between older (Kellogg and Kresge) and newer foundations (Lumina) when investing in advocacy and engagement grants. 143 Figure 22 . Random eff ects of policy purposes. Philanthropic organizations also have higher odds of funding intermediaries for policy grants when compared to the baseline ( see T able 1 7 ). In particular , based on the random effect s plots, Kresge again has higher odds of investing in intermediary organization for policy purposes when compared to the other funders in the sample ( see Figure 2 2 ). On the other end, Kellogg and Hewlett have lower odds of investing in intermediaries for si milar purposes when compared to the baseline ( see Figure 2 2 ). This demonstrates that there are strategic differences when investing in intermediary - directed policy grants. Completion emphasizes the attainment agenda more explicitly than advocacy and policy purposes. For instance, a $300,000 Kresge grant was [t] o improve student success rates at ten community colleges 144 in Michigan by supporting the continuation of a comprehensive suite of institutional change services. Figure 23 . Random effects of college completion purposes . Philanthropic organizations also have higher odds of funding intermediaries for college completion grants (Readiness, Access, Success) when compared to the baseline ( see Tab le 1 7 ). As with advocacy engagement and policy grants, Kresge again has higher odds of investing in intermediary organization s for completion purposes when compared to the baseline. On the other end, Kellogg and Lumina have lower odds of investing in inter mediaries for college completion purposes when compare d to the baseline. While foundations do leverage their relationships with intermediaries for policy promotion and systemic change, they also target universities and 145 colleges to promote institutional ref orms. As such, this varies based on the foundation and the granting type. New Philosophies in Higher Education Grant m aking One reoccurring theme in the qualitative data is an increasing reliance on data and measurable outcomes when assessing success. One informant from an older foundation noted the newer foun measurements. As this informant from an older funder note d , I think the shift is about the new players at the foundation and a new philosophy. So the days of the philosophy that I came in to the foundation, you know, people have ideas, and then for that people will have the ideas as we need to help also genera te the ideas out there about what we want. Tell them and then solicitations much more of call for proposals now than in the past. But if you go look at their website, and I hope you will, One aspect to this cultu ral shift is the influence of newer foundations, where data, metrics, and evaluations have become central tools to assessing impact. As one informant from an older philanthropy suggested, nineti es in earnest of closer, a more sophisticated analysis of outcomes has had a huge influence on smaller and new foundations, because the research suggest that younger people creating founda tions, think of them less as charities and more as investment vehicl es, not with the intention of personal As this high - All of us have metrics that are related to goal 2025 and in terms of our inte 146 - ranking Gate informant, their foundation also relies on a similar app roach : And we have a whole array of those things and then we also wo rk on you know what are the enabling environments that encourage colleges to adopt those solutions, right, and environments, because you know, at the end of the day, policy is all about money a nd metrics, money and to the institution, at the federal level through students, fed eral financial aid and other title funds, entitlement funds. Indeed, as one grant recipient stated need to be able to say that impacting large numbers of students. So they have to look for places to invest where they can get some numbers because what their board i Traditionally, foundations did not focus solely on evaluation for assessing their philanthropic impact ( al though there were cases when they did). Rather, foundation s would fund an array of projects and initiatives and wait to see what develop ed , referred to by one informant as the , They [newer funders] judge their decisions on the basis of efficacy , well this is something that the major foundations adopted maybe 20, 25 years ago , along with the tools needed to measure investments that are made in very complex problems that may take a very long time to show results and all of that work has been very influential in the new foundations, taking on things and measuring them more caref ully and anticipating real change with the use of metrics and accountability mechanisms that were not in use in the 147 1950s and 60s and 70s in the major foundation. So, their influence has been important but indirect. In fact, this indirect influence has impacted the strategic approaches of many of the older foundations. As one strategic effect. Althou , too. We had a mi ssion, you know, we had yeah, but they were metrics in higher education philanthropy, therefore promoting a cultural shift in the field. Prestig e and Legitimacy Hall and Thomas (2012) find defining what it means to be an influential higher education foundation in the twenty - first 2). Similarly, several interviewees described Lu s effectiveness as a rational So, I would say that these younger foundations have had a stated . In fact , Gates and Lumi explained . Other respondents noted that Lumina established itself as a leader despite its endowment being relatively small compare d to other foundations, citing its sole focus on higher educati on issues. One interviewee noted , [higher education] is the only thing that Lumina focuses on, so their president Jamie Merisotis is just a very, a very well - respected player and I think they have really lead a charge in defining the movement, I think peop le really look to Lumina foundatio n for definitional what we think of as completion. How do we measure completion? What is 148 post - secondary educational attainment, we use tho se two terms interchangeably, but perhaps the biggest player in this arena. Gates Indeed, one grant recipient note d , conversation. They're driv ing the conversation, so are their program officers, I think, who have the opportunity to do more things than some of these other newer places might have. It's just a sense I have. I don't know. I know a little bit about Kresge's board. They're pretty prog ressive thinking , but a lot of the se boards are made up of people who come from the business world and have a particular lens that they're looking at this. It gets back to this idea of : W hat is the return on investment? And how many widgets or students or colleges? Or whatever the metric i s they're measuring. [E] ffective patrons need to share with the groups they fund an s underlying vision on c eally had a vision that Lumina would be more engaged in federal policy , one Lumina employee stated . One f ormer Kellogg director and former Lumina consultant agreed with this statement, noting , the big bodacious goal of increasing the participation of U .S. citize ns with degrees to 60 149 percent by 2025 , which As such, this vision has seeped into the higher education and policy community. Indeed, Reckhow and Tompkins - Stange (2018) note , variety of interest g roup s can catalyze a field around a common issue position, by both igniting a 261). Several sources cited the newer foundations and the advocacy organizations they support ed a s central in catalyzing the field around completion. Gates and Lumina both use strategic action to s social skills for navigating complex political environments. Sev eral informants from both Gates and Lumina acknowledge d that the field frames have changed, making prospects for outcomes - based reforms more likely. One reason several sources cite d was kind of the urgency on the foundati on s ide, but you also have to take into consideration that the ed . Together, I have shown the similarities and differences between advocacy philanthropists and traditional funders and changes within the field of h igher education philanthropy. In particular, longitudinal trends demonstrate that older funders were more likely to draw on the grantmaking strategies of the newer funders, similar to the findings of Haddad and Reckhow (2018). While there is much conve rgence in strategies, crucial differences still exist between groups. Many older foundations, for example, are more willing to take a back seat, focusing on their role s as capacity builder s and convener s of higher education, a trend found in K 12 research ( Tompkins - Stange, 2016). Nevertheless, these funders still provid e significant gr ants for college completion purposes. While the tactics may differ, they have still been influenced by the dominance of college completion and have provided large investments for these purposes, 150 following the lead of the advocacy philanthropists. According ly, the newer foundations, along d . Overall, the newer philanthropists have shifted the field frames in postsecondary education to focus on outcomes - based policies a nd college completion. One Gates official note d , [T] he fact that higher education reform is now part of the national political discourse does make it, yeah, it makes it poss 151 CHAPTER 7: DISC USSION AND CONCLUSION The purpose of this study has been to systematically investigate the policy involvement of major foundations in higher education. The analysis has reveal ed that nongovernmental actors regularly work to shape and influence policies and practices in higher education. Increasingly, scholarly o utlets are noticing the policy activities of nonstate actors, including philanthropists. For example, Barnhardt (2017) conclude that (p. 232). Rather than being disinterested patrons, philanthropic organizations resemble interest groups, mobilizing policymakers, business represen tatives , and institutional leaders around college completion. My analysis has reveal ed that major postsecondary funder s are mirroring many of the reform strategies found in K 12 philanthropy ( Ferrare & Reynolds, 2016 ; Reckhow, 2013; Reckhow & Snyder, 2014; Tompkins - Stange, 2016), where philanthropic organizations rely up on intermediary groups to shape and influence public policies and practices through high - leverage strateg ies . Moreover, over the span of a decade, I f ound greater issue alignment around fund ing strategies across fields in higher ed ucation . In particular, major foundations have galvanized a field of policy a ctors, including advocacy groups, think tanks, public officials, private businesses, institutional leaders, and other funders , around outc ome - based policies . I discuss major themes derived from my qualitative and quantitative analysis below. Increasing Tre nd s for High - l everage Philanthropy Since 2009, major funders have increasingly dedicated a greater proportion of their higher education portfolios to high - leverage purposes with an emphasis on college completion. Moreover, the grant analysis has demonstra te d that the field of higher educati on philanthropy is 152 converging around this high - leverage strategy, where funding strategies have shifted since the introduction of the college completion agenda. For example, funders are less concerned with institutional building efforts such as capital gra nts and general operating support and are increasingly focusing on high - leverage strategies linked to policy advocacy and tech nology and innovation. Foundation officials argue that high - leverage investments yield the gre atest return on social investments. From this perspective, foundations can leverage relatively limited grant dollars to produce the greatest social impact. Indeed, many foundations , such as Kresge , are involved in infrastructure building around completion, particularly in states without high er education coordinating bod ies . This is most evident with the Student Success Centers established by Kresge across the country. Foundations point to projected labor shortages as rational e s for this high - leverage strate gy. In particular , high - leverage grants are designed to promote initiatives that hold colleges and universities accountable to degree production and student success (Dougherty & Natow, 2015; Hillman et al., 2015). Nonetheless, foundations have not complete ly abandoned low - leverag e grantmaking, such as capital grants and general operating support. In fact, p hilanthropists still provide substantial support for such purposes ; however, a greater proportion of grants are being directed toward high - leverage inves tments . Growing Support to Non i nstitutional Entities I have also found evidence that philanthropists are relying on external constituencies that can challenge the status quo, such as advocacy nonprofits and think tanks ( G á ndara et al., 2017; Honig, 2004; Lubienski et al. , 2011; Miller & Morphew, 2017; Scott & Jabbar, 2014) . These noninstitutional entities act as boundary - spanners, advocating on behalf of major funders. As Hall and Thomas (2012) note , 153 These higher education policy organizations take on a nu mber of different roles in the foundation initiative and grantmaking process; they produce policy reports, conduct research projects, put on conferences and summits, and engage in various implementation activities such as providing consultations, setting u p data s ystems, and writing and editing legislation . (p. 19) Indeed, these strategies allow philanthropists to forge strategic partnerships across traditional field boundaries, diffusing policy initiatives across multiple sectors. They also allow foundatio ns to cr eate informal governing networks that promote greater institutional harmonization around completion policies and practices, as represented by the UIA and the Frontier Set. With philanthropic support, these systems are shaping the higher education i nstituti onal landscape by directly targeting a collection of universities and colleges. Moreover, my findings have demonstrate d that foundations are organizing broad - based coalitions around degree production that are targeting state and federal policymake rs. Seve ral policy respondents, for example, cite d organize coalitions to advance agendas to improve post - Indeed, advocacy organizations and think tanks receive a s izable p ortion of advocacy, policy, and completion grants for such goals. For many foundations, these entities function as political actors that can mobilize diverse constituencies around specific goals. As one policy expert stated , philanthropic funding .has led me to focus a lot of energy on how we can increase educational attainment and higher education attainment and work with the governors, legislators, the higher education, business leaders, philanthropy, on developing and promoting agendas to help m ore people achieve higher education success as the central driver of economic activity. 154 Moreover, the most influential IOs in the college completion agenda are those create d and supported by major philanthropists. In fact , interview sources discuss ed the i mportance of advocacy organizations such as Achieving the Dream and Complete College America in shifting higher education policy discourse and influencing the field norms in the process . What makes these new er intermediaries effective is that they are si ng le - purpose advocacy groups , dedicated to singular issues, typically around the college completion agenda . Network Builders I have also found evidence that philanthropic foundations are building networked coalitions grounded o n college completion . B y appl ying social network analysis (Biancani & McFarland, 2013), I have identified a growing trend of convergent grantmaking in higher education philanthropy, with a greater number of funders providing support to reform - oriented entities . In particular , I have f ound that o ver the course of a decade, foundations increasingly cofunded inte rmediaries that can frame policy discussions, provide action - oriented research, and consult legislators on key issues. Interview data has also revealed that this form of collabora tion is intended to produce the greatest impact with limited funding. Further more , many national funders encourage purposeful collaborations across the field of higher education philanthropy , where s everal sources argue d that this new form of collaboration is a donor - driven strategy. I have also found evidence t hat collaboration occurs in a variety of way s . For example , many of the interview informants note d that collaboration happens informally through email, conferences, events, phone call s , or meeting s o r formal ly , through reoccurring meetings and visits, particularly at the highest leadership levels , where foundation leaders are in regular contact with one another . These exchanges allow foundation leaders to share updates on their portfolios and the stat us of grant s, as well as discuss key concerns (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018) . 155 Alt hough informants did not mention a single individual pushing the field toward collaborati ve grantmaking (many did, however, reference the collective influence of G ates and Lumina) , in 2009, The Chronicle is responsible for The Chronicle further added, He and officials of the Bill & Melinda G ates Foundation and the Ford Foundation are discussing, for instance, how the groups might collaborate to help the nation meet Generally , the interview data and the social ne twork analysis have reveal ed that since 2009, philanthropic foundations have become more collaborative in higher education philanthropy to promote systems change . Through grant investments, philanthropic organizations can construct and sustain informal p ar tnerships and communication channels through intermediaries who can connect an array of social actors through knowledge sharing, convenings, informal meeting s , and cofunding opportunities ( Haddad & Reckhow, 2018 ). Knowledge Sharing Across Fields Major po stsecondary foundations frequently fund intermediaries to act as knowledge brokers. In higher education, philanthropic organizations increasingly rely on informal networks for policy promotion and organizational change. D iffusing po licy ideas is a central strategy in scaling educational reform across higher ed ucation . In fact, several i nterview ee s described the importance of sharing data and best practices through grantee networks , with many writing knowledge - sharing strategies in to grant agreements . In par ticular , p hilanthrop y - sponsored networks allow grantees and foundation officials to share data, information, and scientific reports for best practices regarding institutional transformation strategies . As such, these grant investments provide an informal c ommunicative channel between program officers and their grant recipients , 156 with many grantees reporting regular check - ins with their foundation representative s . One policy respondent, a leader at a national membership association, describe d the frequency of these - in. So, every Friday, one M oreover, I have also found evidence that major foundations regularly sponsor events to convene gr antees , whether through conferences, working groups, presentations, or other networking events. In addition, s everal informants note d that foundations even pus h for collaboration among grantees. According ly , I have f ound that foundations regularly rely on grantees who can function as brokers linking a diverse group of policy actors across subfields. The most represented liaisons are think tanks , a dvocacy groups , membership organizations, and government agencies . I nterview data provides evidence that founda tions invest in entities that can cut across these formal boundaries and broad cast ideas to diverse groups . This strategy is based on targeting multiple institutions at once by scal ing policy ideas from one sector to another . Overall, t his demonstrates tha t philanthropic grant s are used by major funders to promote knowledge sharing within grantee networks . By emphasizing the informal, and at times hidden , communicative channels supported by philanthropists, these findings reveal that networks sustained thro ugh shared grantees allow reformers to formulate, transfer and promote policy ideas within and across diverse fields. The Field of Higher Education Phil anthropy attem pt to build new arenas of social life p. 231). Through this analysis, I have f ound that the organizational field of higher education philanthropy has shifted its focus from postsecondary access to college completion. College completion has dominated the elite higher education discourse in the last decade , with many sources referencing the newer foundations for channeling 157 investments and legitimacy for these granting purposes. In particular, f oundations have driven the cultivation of ideas and galvanized policy groups around outcome - based policies in highe r ed ucation . Furthermore, contemporary foundations have been influential in shaping field dynamics i n postsecondary philanthropy. Several policy informants , including former Obama officials , for example, cited the newer foundations Gates and Lumina as cent ral policy actors in shifting the discourse from access to ward completion. Investments from Gates and Lumina also allow policy researchers and advocates to focus on outcome - oriented policies. This has no t only ignited interest around completion but also created lasting support across the broader policy community . is most likely to endure when it can make its ideas seem natural, appropriate, and commonsensical, consigning i 16). Accordi ngly, many older foundations are increasingly funding intermediaries and researchers for completion - oriented projects. Moreover, the field of higher education philanthropy has also changed. Several interview in formants claimed that older funders are embrac ing many of the strategies introduced by the advocacy philanthropists, such as policy advocacy engagement. O ne interview ee, a former Obama official, stated, d Lumina Indeed, evidence reveals that over the course of a decade, foundations have increasingly cofund ed completion - oriented initiatives with Gates and Lumina, in addi tion to funding similar purposes relating to p olicy advocacy and research (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018). According to Fligstein and McAdams (2012), incumbents are always more conservative when compared to challengers, and changes challenger group (p. 18). According to Kelly and James (2015), and others have employed a more 158 86 ). In fact, many interview participants suspect ed that the completion agenda would not have bec ome such an overarching issue if not for elite patronage. By invoking the challenger incumbent framework, I have f ound evidence that the newer foundations introduced a new field frame in higher education philanthrop y , with many traditional funders following suit (Haddad & Reckhow, 2018) . Together, these findings contribute to the growing literature on foundations and intermediaries. Rather than focusing on traditional policymaking mechanism s related to state charact eristics, my study has emphasized private actors and their role s in the public policymaking process (e.g., Miller & Morphew, 2017). Philanthropic foundations have engaged with IOs to promote college completion in novel ways. M y grant analysis and interview s have reveal ed that the power of organized philanthropy stems from not only its (admittedly substantial) investments but also its capacity to confer prestige and amplify voices in policy networks (Reckhow & Snyder, 2014). As a result, philanthropic founda tions should be understood not as disinterested patrons in higher education but rather as influential policy actors. Literature Gaps I have identified several literature gaps regarding the policy activities of major funders in higher education. For exampl e, future resea rch still must be conducted to examine the impact of major funders on nonmajor foundations in higher education . For example, t hroughout the interviews, I f ound a recurring theme that major foundations are engaging with smaller and more regio nal ly focused funders around completion and reorienting them to focus on completion. In a study on nonmajor foundations in K 12 education, Ferrare and Reynolds (2016) find that major foundations are spreading their agendas to smaller and more regionally fo cused philanthropi sts . 159 They also find that nonmajor foundations are also converging around college readiness and enrichment organizations , which r epresent more total funding than other organizations sampled (Ferrare & Reyno l ds, 2016) . They argue re research should examine these college readiness and student enrichment organizations in more detail, and whether foundations have Ferrare & Reynolds, p. 163). In terms of higher ed ucation, i nterviewee s frequently cite d examples of major funders working with local foundations to implement place - based projects . However , no existing analysis examin es whether major foundations have spread to nonmajor funders. Such an analysis would illum inate the role s of smaller and more regionally focused foundation s on higher education policy making . Moreover, I have f ound evidence that foundations fund research intermediaries to advance their agendas and diffuse ideas at the state a nd federal level s . H owever , philanthropic - funded think tanks are underexamined in the higher education policy literature (Ness & Gándara, 2014) . The existing literature focuses heavily on how information is used by policymakers (Ness, 2010) , with little attention on the role of elite patronage on policy diffusion . M any informants were quick to note the importance of foundation funding for their policy research , with the goal of having policymakers adopt these proposals and us e them to craft p olicies . However , little research h as examine d how funders use intermediaries to diffuse policy ideas. Recent empirical research in K 12 education demonstrates that foundation - funded interest groups are increasingly invited to provide C ongressional testimon y regarding teacher quality and va lue - added evaluations (Reckhow & Tompkins - Stange, 2015 , 2018 ). Reckhow and Tompkins - Stange (2018) find that Gates and Broad , rather than promoting top - down change, amplify specific policy groups based on shared policy goals . Similar phenomena are occurring in 160 higher education . I nterview data reveal s that action - oriented research is a high priority for postsecondary funders. Moreover, many research informants discuss ed the informal assumption that resear ch should be used to inform lawmakers . However , no empi rical research has assessed how foundation - funded research is entering the policy arena. Examining how policymakers rely on such research w ould extend this area of work . 161 REFERENCES 162 REFERENCES AASCU State Relations and Policy Analysis T eam. (2011). A Guide to Major U.S. College Completion Initiatives. Retrieved from http://www.aascu.org/policy/ publications/policy - matters/Top10StatePolicy Issues2015.pdf Aberbach J. F., Rockman B. A. (2002). Conducting and coding elite interviews. Political Science and Politics , 35, 673 - 676. Anheier, H. K., & Hammack, D. C. (2010). American foundations: Roles and contributions . Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press. Ansell, C., Reckhow, S., & Kelly, A. (2009). How to reform a reform coalition: Outreach, agenda expansion, and brokerage in urban school reform. Policy Studies Journal, 37 (4), 717 - 743. Arnove, R. F. (1980). Introduction. In R. F. Arno ve (Ed.), Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad (pp. 1 - 23). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. bucks turn students into graduates? Chronicle of Higher Educati on, Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Can - Gates - Foundations/123824/ Bachetti, R. (2007). Many motives, mixed reviews. In R. Bachetti & T. Elhrlich (Eds.), Reconnecting ed ucation and foundations: Turning good intentions into educational capital (pp. 251 281). San F rancisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Higher Education. In M. B. Paulsen (Eds.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory & Research . pp. 181 - 257. Springer. Barreto, H., & Villin ski, M. (2019). Accessing IRS Form 990 Data with Excel. Philanthropy & Education, 2 (2), 95 - 110 Barrow, C. W. (1990). Universities and the capitalist state: Corpo rate liberalism and the reconstruction of American higher education, 1894 - 1928 . Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin Press. Bartley, T. (2007). How foundations shape social movements: The construction of an organizational field and the rise of forest ce rtification. Social Problems, 54 (3), 229 - 255. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed - effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1 - 48. 163 Bekkers, R., & Weipeking, P. (2011). A Literature Review o f Empirical Studies of Philanthropy: Eight Mechanisms the Drive Charitable Giv ing. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, (5), 924 - 973. Berkner, L., and Choy, S. (2008). Descriptive Summary of 2003 04 Beginning Postsecondary Students: Three Years Later (NCES 2008 - 174). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Bernstein, A. R. (2014). Funding the future: Philanthropy's influence on American higher education . Lanham, Mar yland: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Berry, J. M. (2002). Validity and reliability issues in elite interviewing. PS: Political Science and Politics, 35 (4), 679 - 682. Biancani, S., & McFarland, D. A. (2013). Social networks behavior in higher education. In M. B. Paulsen & J. C. Smart (Eds.), Higher educati on: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XXVIII, pp. 151 215). New York: Springer. Bloland, H. G. (2002). No longer emerging, fundraising is a profession. The CASE International Journal of Education Ad vancement, 3 (1), 7 - 21. Blumenstyk, G. (2013, July 14 ). 'Next generation' grant program reveals hands - on, corporate approach. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from ht tps://www.chronicle.com/article/Next - Generation - Gran t/140301 Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). Overview of projections to 2022. Monthly Labor Review , December 2013. Burke, J. C. (2002). Performance funding: Easier to start that sustain. In J.C. Burke (Ed.), Funding public colleges and universities: Popularity, problems and prosp ects (pp. 219 242). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Burke, J. C., & Minassians, H. (2003). Perform a The seventh annual survey . Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute of Government. Burt, R. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology , 110(2), 349 - 399. 164 Burt, R. S. (1995). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Caboni, T. C. (2003). Toward professionalism: Norms and fund raising, The CASE International Journal of Educational Advancement, 4 (1), 77 - 91. Caboni, T. C. (2010). The normative structure of col lege and university fundraising behaviors. The Journal of Higher Education, 81 (3), 339 - 365. Caboni, T. C. (2012). Toward professionalization: Fundraising norms and their implications for practice. In Found in ASHE, Philanthropy, volunteerism & fundraising in higher education (pp. 725 746). New York City, NY: Pearson Learning Solutions. Caboni, T. C. (2010). The normative structure of college and university fundraising behaviors. The Journal of Higher Education , 81(3), 339 365. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0094 Cabo ni, T. C., & Proper, E. (2007). Dissertations related to fundraising and their implications for higher education research. Louisville, KY: Association for the Study of Higher Educ ation (ASHE) Annual Conference. Callan, P. M. (2011). Reframing access and o pportunity: public policy dimensions. In D. Heller (Eds.). The States and Publi c Higher Education Policy: Affordability, Access, and Accountability (2nd Edition) . (pp.87 - 105). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Cantwell, B. (2015). Laboratory management, academic production, and the building blocks of academic capitalism . Higher Education, 70 (3), 487 - 502. Carbone, R. F. (1986). An Agenda for Research on Fundraising . College Park: University of Maryland, Clearinghouse for Research on Fundraisin g. Carey, K., & Schneider, M. (2010). Accountability in American higher educat ion . New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Carnevale, A. P., & Rose, S. J. (2011). The Undereducated American . Washington, D.C.: Carnevale, A. P., & Rose, S. J. (2011a). Help wanted: Projections of job and education requirements through 2018. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce . Carnevale, A. P., & Rose, S. J. (2011b). The undereducated American. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce . Ca rnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2013). Recovery: Job growth and education requirements through 2020. Georgetown University Center on Education and the 165 Workforce . Retrieved from https://cew - 7632.kxcdn.com/wp - content/uploads/2014/11/Recovery2020.FR_.Web_.pdf Carr, P. J. (2012). Private voices, public forces: Agenda setting and the power of foundations in the NCLB era . (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved f rom ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3504150) Chernow, R. (2013). Titan: The life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr . New York: Vintage Books. Cheslock, J. J., & Gianneschi, M. (2008). Replacing State Appropriations with Alternative Revenue S ources: The Case of Voluntary Support. The Journal of Higher Education . 79, (2), pp. 208 - 229. Cheslock, J. J., & Hughes, R. P. (2011). Differences across states in higher educ ation finance policy. Journal of Education Finance, 36 (4), 369 - 393. Clemens, E. S. (2005). Two kinds of stuff: The current encounter of social movements and organizations. In G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, W. R. Scott, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Social movements and organization theory (pp. 351 366). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Clo tfelter, C. T. (2007). Patron or bully? The role of foundations in higher education. In R. Bacchetti & T. Ehrlich (Eds.), Reconnecting education and foundations (pp. 211 248). Stanford, CA: Jossey Bass. Cohen, R. (2007). Strategic grantmaking: Foundations and the school privatization movement . Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. Condliffe Lagemann, E. (1983). Private power for the public good: A hi story of the Carnegie foundation for the advancement of teaching . Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Condliffe Lagemann, E. (1999). Introduction: Foundations in history; new possibilities for scholarship and practice. In E. Condliffe Lagemann (Ed. ), Philanthropic foundations: New scholarship, new possibilities (pp. ix xviii). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Cress, D. M., & Snow, D. A. (1996). Mobilization at the margins: Resources, benefactors, and the viability of homeless social movem ent organizations. American Sociological Review, 61 (6), 1089 1109. Culleton Colw ell, M. A. (1980). The foundation connection: Links among foundations and recipient organizations. In R. F. Arnove (Ed.), Philanthropy and cultural imperialism: The foundations at home and abroad (pp. 413 452). Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univers ity Press. 166 C urti, M. E., & Nash, R. (1965). Philanthropy in the shaping of American higher education . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. DeBray, E., Scott, J., Lubienski, C., & Jabbar, H. (2014). Intermediary organizations in charter school pol icy coalition s: Evidence from New Orleans. Educational Policy, 28 (2), 175 206. Debray - Pelot, E., & McGuinn, P. (2009). The new politics of education: Analyzing the federal education policy landscape in the post - NCLB era. Educational Policy , 23 (1), 15 42. Deming, D. J., & Figlio, D. (2016). Accountability in US education: Applying lessons from K - 12 experience to higher education. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30 (3), 33 - 55. DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). Constructing and organizational field as a professional projec t: U.S. art museums 1920 1940. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 267 292). Chicago, IL: University of Chic ago Press. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institut ional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48 , 147 160. Domhoff, G. W. (2005). The Ford Foundation in the inner city: Forging an alliance with neighborhood activists. Who rules America? Power at th e local level. Retrieved from http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/local/ford_fo undation.html Domhoff, G. W. (2010). Who rules America? Challenges to corporate and c lass dominance (6 th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill Higher Education. Dougherty, K. J., & Natow, R. S. (2015). The politics of performance funding for higher education: Origin s, discontinuations, and transformations . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Dougherty, K. J., Jones, S. M., Lahr, H., Natow, R. S., Pheatt, L., & Reddy, V. (2016). Performance funding for higher education . Johns Hopkins University Press. Dougherty, K. J., Jones, S., Lahr, H., Natow, R., Pheatt, L., & Reddy, V. (2014). The Politic al Origins of Performance Funding 2.0 in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee: Theoretical Perspectives and Comparisons With Performance Funding 1.0 . CCRC Working Paper (C CRC Working Paper No. 68). Dougherty, K. J., Natow, R. S., & Vega, B. E. (2012). Popular but unstable: Explaining why state performance funding systems in the United States often do not persist. Teachers College Record , 114(3), 1 42. 167 Dougherty, K. J., Natow, R. S., Bork, R. H., Jones, S. M., & Vega, B. E. (2013). Accounting for higher education accountability: Political origins of state performance funding for higher education. Teachers College Record, 115 , 1 50. Dougherty, K., Jones, S., Lahr, H., Natow, R., Pheatt, L., & Reddy, V. (2014). Performance Funding for Higher Education: Forms, Origin s, Impacts, and Futures. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 655 , 163 - 184. Dowie, M. (2001). American foundat ions: An investigative history. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Drezner, N. (2011). Philanthropy and fundraising in Am erican higher education . San Francisco, C A .: Jossey - Bass. Drezner, N. D. (2017). Philanthropy & e ducation: Setting the m ission and v ision for a n ew j ournal within the l andscape of o ur f ield. Philanthropy & Education, 1 (1), V - Xii. doi:10.2979/phileduc.1.1. 01 Fain, P. (2017, March 15). New higher education policy group forms. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/03/15/new - high er - education - policy - group - forms Ferrare, J. J., & Reynolds, K. (2016). Has the elite foundation agenda spread beyond the gates? an organizational network analysis of nonmajor philanthropic giving in K 12 education. American Journal of Education, 123 (1), 137 - 169. Ferris, J. M., & Mintrom, M. (2009). Foundations and Public Policymaking: A Conceptual Framework. In J. M. Ferris (Ed.), Foundations and public policy: Leveraging philanthropic dollars, knowledge, and networks for greater impact (pp. 9 - 40). New York: Foundation Center. Ferris, J. M., Hentschke, G. C., & Harmssen, H. J. (2008). Philanthropic strategies for school reform: An analysis of foundation choices. Educational Policy , 22 , 705 - 730. Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2011). Toward a general theo ry of strategic action fiel ds. Sociological Theory, 29(1), 1 26. Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012). A theory of fields . New York: Oxford University Press. G á ndara , D., Rippner, J., & Ness, E. (2017). Exploring the 'how' in policy diffusion: National int ermediary organizations' ro les in facilitating the spread of performance - based funding policies in the states. Journal of Higher Education, 88 (5), 701 - 725. Gasman, M. (2012). What's new is old? Philanthropic influence on education. The Phi Delta Kappan, 93 (8), 8 - 11. 168 Gates (2018). Awarded Grants. Retrieved from https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How - We - Work/Quick - Links/Grants - Database Gates, B. (2017, October 2017). Putt ing students f irst. [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.gatesnotes.com/Education/Georgia - State - University Gates, G. A. (1905, July 13). Letter to Henry S. Pritchett. New Yor k, NY: Box 49, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Records (Columbia University Rare Book and Manuscript Library). Gave $350,695,650 of fortune away. (1919, August 12). New York Times , p. 1. Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforc e (2013). Recovery: Job growth and education requirements through 2020. Retrieved from https://cew - 7632.kxcdn.com /wp - content/uploads/2014/11/Recovery2020.FR_.Web _.pdf Gose, B. (2013, July 14). Strategic philanthropy comes to higher education. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/St rategic - Philanthropy - Comes/140299 could. In F. M. Hess (Ed.), With the best of intentions: How philanthropy is reshaping K - 12 education (pp. 49 56). Cambridg e, MA: Harvard Education Press. Greene, J. P. (2015). Buckets into another sea. In F. M. Hess & J. R. Henig (Eds.), The New Education Philanthropy: Politics, Policy, and Reform (pp. 11 - 28). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Grusec, J.E. (1982). The Socialization of Altruism. The Development of Prosocial Behavior. N. Eisenberg (Ed.). New York, NY: Academic Press, 1982. 139 - 166. Haddad, N., & Reckhow, S. (2018). The shift ing role of higher education philanthropy: A network analysis of philanthropic policy strategies. Philanthropy & Education , 2(1), 25 52. doi: 10.2979/phileduc.2.1.02 Hall, C., & Thomas, S. (2012, April). Advocacy philanthropy and the public policy agenda : The role of modern foundations in American higher education. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association, Vancouver, BC. Harrison, S. M., & Andrews, F. E. (1946). American foundations for social welfare . New York, NY: Russell Sage Fou ndation. Harvey, W. S. (2011). Strategies for conducting elite interviews. Qua litative Research , 11, 431 - 441. 169 Harvey, W. (2010). Methodological approaches for interviewing elites. Geography Compass 4 (3), pp. 193 205. Hearn, J.C. (2003). Diversifying campus revenue streams: Opportunities and risks . Washington, D.C.: American Counci l on Education. Chronicle of Higher Education , Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/ar ticle/Luminas - Leader - Sets - Lofty/28674/ Heller, D. E. (201 1). The States and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hess, F.M. (2005). Preface. In: Hess, F.M. (ed.): With the best of intentions: How philanthropy is reshaping K - 12 education. (pp. vii - viii.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Hess, F.M. (E d.) (2005). With the best of intentions: How philanthropy is reshaping K - 12 education . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Hess, F. M., & In Henig, J. R. (Eds.). (2015). The new education philanthropy: Politics, policy, and reform . Cambridge, MA: Harv ard Education Press. Hillman, N. W. & Tandberg, D. A. & Gross, J. P. K. (2014). Performance Funding in Higher Educatio n: Do Financial Incentives Impact College Completions? The Journal of Higher Education 85(6), 826 - 857. funding in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Polic y Analysis (37), 501 591 Hollis, E. V. (1938). Philanthropic foundations and higher education . New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Honig, M. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educati onal Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26 (2), 65. Humphreys, D. (2012). What's wrong with the complet ion agenda -- and what we can do about it. Liberal Education, 98 (1), 8. Iarrobino, J. (2006). Turnover in the advancement profession. International Journal o f Educational Advancement, 6 (2), 141 - 169. Jenkins, J. C. (1998). Channeling social protest: Foundation patronage of contemporary social movements. In W. W. Powell & E. S. Clemens (Eds.), Private action and the public good (pp. 206 216). New Haven, CT: Yal e University Press. 170 Jenkins, J. C., & Ecke rt, C. M. (1986). Channeling Black insurgency Elite patronage and professional social - movement organizations in the development of the Black movement. American Sociological Review, 51 (6), 812 829. Kambhampati, S. (2015, May 4). Attainment, Completion, a nd the Trouble in Measuring Them Both. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/da ta/2015/05/04/attainment - completion - and - th e - trouble - in - measuring - them - both/ Karl, B. D. (1985). Philanthropy and the social sciences. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 129 (1), 14 19. Katz, S. N. (2012, March 25). Beware Big Donors. The Chronicle of Higher Education . Retrieved fr om http://chronicle.com/article/Big - Philanthropys - Role - in/131275/ Kelchen, R. (2018). Higher education accountability . Baltimore: Jo hns Hopkins University Press. Kelly, A. P., & Schneider, M. (2012). Getting to graduation: The completion agenda in higher education . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Kelly, A.P., & James, K. J. (2015). Philanthropy goes to college. In Hess, F. M., & In Henig, J. R. (Eds.). The new ed ucation philanthropy: Politics, policy, and reform (pp. 79 - 104). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Kelly, K. S. (1991). Fundraising and public relations: A critical analysis . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kelly, K. S. (1995). The fund - raising behavior of U.S. charitable organizations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7 (2), 111 - 137. Kelly, K. S. (1998). Effective Fund Raising Management. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, N.J. Kelly, K .S. (2002). The State of Fund - Raising T heory and Research. In M.J. Worth (Ed.), New Strategies for Educational Fundraising. Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger Publishers. Kelly, P., & Strawn, J. (2011). Not just kid stuff anymore: The eco nomic imperative for more adults to complete college . Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. Kezar, A. (2014). Higher Education Change and Social Networks: A Review of Research. The Journal of Higher Education 85(1), 91 - 125. The Ohio State University Press. 171 K lopott, S. M. (2015). Funding for change: Factors affecting foundation funding of pre - collegiate education policy in the United States following the Charlottesville summit and no child left behind. (Doctoral dissertation ). Kluttz, Daniel N., & Fligstein, Neil. (2016). Varieties of sociological field theory. In Seth Abrutyn, Handbook of contemporary sociological theory (pp. 185 204). Berlin: Springer International Publishing. Kohler, R. E. (1985). Philanthropy and scienc e. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 129 (1), 9 13. Kresge (2018). Grants Awarded. Retrieved from https://kresge.org/grants Condliffe Lagemann , E. C. (1992). The politics of knowledge: The Carnegi e Corporation, philanthropy, and public policy . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33 (1), 159 - 174 Lawrence, S., & Atienza, J. (2006). Fou ndation yearbook: Facts and figures on private and community foundations . New York, NY: The Foundation Center. Lederman, D. (2010, March). The completion cacophony. Insider Higher Ed . Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/03/03/complete Lederman, D. (2010, Nov 22). Consensus or groupthink? Inside Higher Ed, Retrieved from http://www.insidehigher ed.com/news/2010/11/22/foundations Lederman, D., & Fain, P. (2017, January 19). Assessing President Obama's far - reaching impact on higher education. Retrieved f rom https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/19/assessing - president - obamas - far - reaching - impact - higher - education Lee, Y., & Chang, C. (2008). Intrinsic or extrinsic? Determinants affecting donation behaviors. Internation al Journal of Educational Advancement, 8 (1), 13 - 24. Li, A. Y. (2018). Lessons learned: A case study of performance funding in higher education . Washington, DC: Third Way. Lindahl W.E . (2010) Principles of Fundraising. Theory and Practice . Sudbury, MA: Jo nes and Bartlett. Lubienski, C., Scott, J., & DeBray, E. (2011, July 22). The rise of intermediary organizations in knowledge production, advo cacy, and educational policy (ID Number: 16487). Teachers College Record . 172 rategic plan: Goal 2025. Indianapolis, IN: Author. Retrieved from https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/wp - content/uploads/2011/02/Lumina_Strategic_ Plan.pdf Lumina Foundation. (2008). Going for the Goal: Lumina Foundation for Education 2008 Annual Report. Indianapolis, Indiana: Lumina Foundation for Education. Lumina Foundation. (2017). Goal 2025 . Retrieved March 6, 2017, from https://www.luminafoundation.org/goal_2025 Mangan, K. (2013, July 14). How Gates shapes state higher - education policy. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/How - Gates - Shapes - State/140303 . McClure, K. R., Frierson, L., Hall, A.W., & Ostlund, K. L. (2017). Philanthropic giving by foundations to higher education institutions: A state - level social n etwork analysis. Philanthropy & Education , 1 (1): 1 - 28. McLean, R. A., Sanders, W. L., & Stroup, W. W. (1991). A unified approach to mixed linear models. The American Statistician, 45 (1), 54 - 64. McLendon, M. K. (2003a). State governance reform of higher e ducation: Patterns, trends, and theories of the public policy process. In Higher educatio n: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XVIII, pp. 57 144). London: Kluwer. McLendon, M. K. (2003b). The politics of higher education: Toward an expanded research ag enda. Educational Policy, 17 (1), 165 191. McLendon, M. K., & Hearn, J. C. (2003). Introd uction to the politics of higher education. Educational Policy, 17 (1), 3 11. McLendon, M. K., & Hearn, J. C. (2013). The resurgent interest in performance - based fundi ng for higher education. Academe, 99 (6), 25 30. McLendon, M. K., & Mokher, C. (2009). Th e origins and growth of state policies that privatize public higher education. In C. Morphew & P. Eckel (Eds.), Privatizing the Public University: Perspectives from ac ross the Academy (pp. 7 32). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. McLendon, M. K., Deaton, R., & Hearn, J. C. (2007). The enactment of reforms in state governance of higher education: Testing the political - instability hypothesis. Journal of High er Education, 78 (6), 645 675. McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Deaton, R. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance - accountability policies for higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28 (1), 1 - 2 4. 173 McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Mokher, C. (2009). Partisans, professionals, and powe r: The role of political factors in state higher education funding. Journal of Higher Education, 80 (6), 686 713. McPhail, J. C. (2011). The Completion Agenda: A Call to Action 2011. Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Publications/Reports/Documents/CompletionAgenda_report.p df Mehta, J. & Teles, S. (2011). Jurisdicti onal politics: A new federal role in education. In F.M Hess & A. P. Kelly (Eds), Carrots, sticks, and the bully pulpit: Lessons from a half century (pp. 197 - 216). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press Meris otis, J. (2016). A stronger natio n. Lumina Foundation for Education . Retrieved from: https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/publications /stronger_nation/2016/A_Stronger _ Nation - 2016 - Full.pdf Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey - Bass. Metcalfe A. S. (2008). Theorizing research policy: A fra mework for higher education. In S mart J. C. (Ed.), Higher education, Handbook of theory and research (pp. 241 - 276). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and cerem ony. The American Journal of Soci ology, 83 (2), 340 363. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Salda na, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (Third edition.). Thousand Oaks, California : SAGE Publications, Inc. Miller, G. N. S., & Morphew, C. C. (2017). Merchants of optimism: Agenda - setting or ganizations and the framing of performance - based funding for higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 88 (5), 754 - 784. National Center for Education Statistics. (2017a). Educational attainment of young adu lts. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_caa.asp National Center for Education Statistics. (2017b). Fast facts . Retrieved from https://nces.ed. gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=27 National Center for Education Statistics. (2017c). The Condition of Education 2017 (NCES 2017 - 144). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator _caa.asp . National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Educational attainment of young adults. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_caa.asp 174 Ness E. C. (2010). The role of information in the policy process: Implications for the examination of research utilization in higher education policy. In Smart J. C. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 25, pp. 1 - 49). New York, NY : Springer. Ness, E. C., & Gándara, D. (2014). Ideological think tanks in the states: An inventory of their prevalence, networks, and higher education policy activity. Educational Policy, 28 (2), 258 - 280. Ness, E. C., & Tandberg, D. A. (2013). The determi nants of state spe nding on higher education: How capital project funding differs from general fund appropriations. Journal of Higher Education, 84 (3), 329 357. Ness, E.C., Tandberg, D. A., & McLendon, M.K. (2015). Interest groups and state policy for high er education: new conceptual understandings and future research directions. In Paulsen, M. B. (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research 30 (pp. 151 - 186). DE: Springer Verlag. Nicholson - Crotty, J., & Meier, K. J. (2003). Politics, structur e, and public poli cy: The case of higher education. Educational Policy, 17 (1), 80 97. Nielsen, W. A. (1972). The big foundations . New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Nisar, M. A. (2015). Higher education governance and performance based funding as an ecology of games . Higher Education, 69 (2), 289 - 302. NVivo qualitative data analysis Software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 11, 2015. OECD (2019), Population with tertiary education (indicator). doi: 10.1787/0b8f90e9 - en (Accessed on 0 5 January 2019) Ostrander, S. (1995). interviews in three studies of elites. In Hertz, R., Imber, J. B. (Eds.), Studying elites using qualitative methods (pp. 133 - 150). Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE. Parry, M., Field, K., & Supiano, B. (2013, July 14). The Gates effect. Chronicle of Higher Education . Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The - Gates - Effect/140323/ Payto n, R. L., Rosso, H. A., & Temp el, E. R. (1991). Toward a philosophy of fund raising. In D. E. Burlingame & L. J. Hulse (Eds.), Taking fundraising seriously: Advancing the profession and practice of raising money (pp. 3 - 17). San Francisco: Jossey - Bass. Perna, L. W., & Finney, J. E. (20 15). The attainment agenda: State policy leadership in higher education . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 175 Pifer, A. J., & Carnegie Corporation of New York. (1983). Annual report essays, 1966 - 1982 . New York, N.Y.: The Corporation. Prewitt, K. (2006). American foundations: What justifies their unique privileges and powers. In K. Prewitt, M. Dogan, S. Heydemann, & S. Toepler (Eds.), The legitimacy of philanthropic foundations: United States and European perspec tives (pp. 27 48). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation Prince, R. A., & File, K. (2001). The seven faces of philanthropy: A new approach to cultivating major donors . San Francisco: Jossey - Bass. Proper, E., & Caboni, T. C. (2014). Institutional advancement: What we know . New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137374288 , Studies, Sage Publishers. Powell, W. & Oberg, A. (2017). Networks and institutions. In R. Greenwood,C. Oliver & T. B. Lawrence The SAGE Handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 446 - 476). 55 City Road, London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Pullman, J. (2013, February 11). Education policies led by Gates, not states? Heartlander Magazine. Retrieved from http://news.heartland.org/newsp aper - article/2013/02/11/educationpolicies - led - gates - not - states Quinn, R. E., Tompkins - Stange, M., & Meyerson, D. (2014). Beyond grantmaking: Philanthropic foundations as agents of change and institutional entrepreneurs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43 (6), 950 968. R Core Team (2016). R: A language and en vironment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Ravitch, D. (2011). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education . New York: Basic Books. Reckhow, S., & Tompkins - Stange, M. (2018). Financing the education policy di scourse: Philanthropic funders as entrepreneurs in policy networks. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 7 (3), 258 - 288. Reckhow, S. & Tompkins - Stange, M. (2015). Singing from the same hymn policy advocacy at Gates and Broad. In Hess, F.M. & Henig, J.R. (Eds.) The new education philanthropy: Politics, policy, and reform . (pp. 55 - 77). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. 176 Reckhow, S. (2009). Follow the money: How foundation dollars change public school politics. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved f rom ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3369128.) Reckhow, S. (2010 ). Disseminating and legitimating a new approach: the role of foundations. In Bulkley, K.E., He nig, J.R., & Levin, H. M. (Eds.), Between Public and Private: Politics, Gove rnance, and the New Portfolio Models for Urban School Reform (pp. 277 - 304). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Reckhow, S. (2013). Follow the money. How foundation dollars c hange public school politics . Corby: Oxford University Press. Reckhow, S., & Snyder, J. W. (2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics. Educational Researcher , 43 (4), 186 - 195. Reich, R (2016). On the role of foundations in Democracies. (pp.64 - 86) In Reich, R., In Bernholz, L., & In Cordelli, C. (2016). Phila nthropy in democratic societies: History, institutions, values . Chicago; London : The University of Chicago Press. Reich, R. (2018). Just giving: Why philanthropy is failing democracy and how it can do better . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press . R emler, D. K., & Van, R. G. (2011). Research methods in practice: Strategies for description and causation . Thousand Oaks, C A : SAGE Publications. Rhod es, F. H. T.(1997). Successful fund raising for higher education: The advancement of learning . Phoenix, A riz: Oryx Press. Richards, D. Politics 19 (3), pp. 199 204. Ris, E. W. (2017). The education of Andrew Carnegie: Strategic philanthropy in American higher education. The Journal of Higher Education , 88 (03), 401 - 429. Ris, E . W. ( 2018). The Origins of Systemic Reform in Americ an Higher Education, 1895 - 1920. Teachers College Record 120 (10 ). Roelofs, J. (2003). Foundations and public policy: The mask of pluralism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Roelofs, J. (2015). How foundations exercise power. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 74 (4), 654 - 675. Rogers, R. (201 5a). Making public policy: The new philanthropists and American education. American Journal of Economics and Sociology , 74 (4), 743 774. 177 Rowland, A. W. (1983). Research in institutional advancement: A selected, annotated compendium of doctoral dissertations. Washington, D.C.: Council for the Advancement and Support of Education. Rowland, A. W. (1986). Handbook of institu tional advancement: A modern guide to exec utive management, institutional relations, fundraising, alumni administration, government relations, publications, periodicals, and enrollment management . San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Ruark, J. (2013, July 14). To shape the national conversation, Gates and Lumina support journalism. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/To - Shape - th e - National/140297?cid=cp14 Russel, A. (AASCU State Relations and Policy Analysis Team). (2011). A Guide to Major U.S. College Completion Initiatives. Retrieved from http://www.aasc u.org/policy/publications/policy - matters/Top10StatePolicyIssues2015.pdf Schervish, P. G. (2005). Major donors, major motives: The people and purposes behind major gifts. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 2005 (47) , 59 - 87. Schurman, J. (1905, April 18). Letter to AC, telegram. Box 115, ACP. Scott, J. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy , 23(1), 106 136. https://doi. org/10.1177/0895904808328531 Scott, J., & Jabbar, H. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy , 28(2), 233 257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515327 Sealander, J. (1997). Private wealth & public life: Foundation philanthropy and the reshaping of American social policy from the progressive era to the new deal . Balti more, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Sears, J. B. (2010). Philanthropy in the history of American higher education . Charleston: Nabu Press. Simon, J. G. (1995). The regulation of American foundations: Looking backward at the Tax Reform Act of 1969. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 6 (3), 243 254. Slaughter S., Leslie L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: P olitics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaugh ter, S., & Silva, E. T. (1980). Looking backwards: How foundations formulated ideology in the progressive period. In R. F. Arnove (Ed.), Philanthro py and cultural imperialism: 178 The Foundations at home and abroad (pp. 55 - 86). Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univers ity Press. Slaughter, S., Thomas, S., Johnson, D., & Barringer, S. (2014). Institutional conflict of interest: The role of interlocking directorat es in the scientific relationships between universities and the corporate sector. Journal of Higher Education , 85 (1), 1 35. Snyder, J. (2015). How old foundations differ from new foundations. In Hess, F.M. & Henig, J.R. (Eds.) The new education philanthropy: Politics, policy, and reform . (pp. 29 - 54). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Speck, B. W. (2010). The Growing Role of Private Giving in Financing the Modern University. New Directions for Higher Education , pp. 8 - 16 Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies . Sage. Stephenson, K., & Zelen, M. (1989). Rethinking centrality: Met hods and examples. So cial Networks, 11 (1), 1 - 37. Teles, S. (2008). The rise of the conservative legal movement: The battle for control of the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Tempel, E.R. & Beem, M.J. (2002). The State of the Profession. I n M.J. Worth (Ed.), N ew Strategies for Educational Fundraising . Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger Publishers. The Foundation Center. (2014). Key Facts: U.S. Foundations 2014 Edition. Retrieved September 10, 2017, from http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/keyfacts2014/pdfs/Key_Facts_on_U S_Foundations_2014.pdf The Foundation Center. (2018) . Foundation States: Education. Retrie ved September 5, 2018, from http://data.foundationcenter.org/#/fc1000/subject:education/all/top:foundations /list/2012 The Rockefeller Foundation (n.d.). Retrieved from https://rockfound.rockarch.org/general_education_board Thelin, J. (2011). A History of American Higher Education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. Thelin, J. R., & Trollinger, R. W. (2014). Philanthropy and American higher education . New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Thümler, E. (2011). Foundations, schools, and the state: School improvement partnerships in Germany and the United States as legitimacy - gener ating arrangements. Public Management Review , 13 (8), 1095 1116. 179 Tompkins - Stange, M. E. (2016). Policy patrons: Philanthropy, education reform, and the politics of influence . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. U.S. Census (2016). Educational Attainmen t in the United States: 2015. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20 - 578.pdf U.S. Department of Educa tion. (2011). College Completion Tool Kit. Wash ington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/collegecompletion/governing - win U.S. Department of Education. (2015, January). to the Middle Class | ED.gov Blog. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/blog/ 2015/01/americascollege - promise - a - ticket - to - the - middle - class/ University Innovat ion Alliance (2016, March). Research universities beating graduation rate expectations as foundations double down on alliance. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.theuia.org/blog/post/research - universities - beating - graduation - rate - expectations - foundations - double - down Veblen, T. (1918). The highe r learning in America: A memorandum on the conduct of universities by business men . New York, NY: B. W. Huebsch. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Webb, C.H. (2002 ). The Role of Alumni Relations in Fund Raising. In Worth, M.J., Ed. New Strategies for Educational Fundraising . Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger Publishers. Wheatley, S.C. (2010). The partnerships of foundations and res earch universiti es. In Anheier, H. K., & Hammack, D. C. (Ed.), American foundations: Roles and contributions . Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press (pp 73 - 97). Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press. Wohlstetter, P., Smith, J., Farrell, C., Hentschke, G., & Hirman, J. (2011). How funding shapes the growth of charter management organizations: Is the tail wagging the dog? Journal of Education Finance , 37 , 150 - 174. Yeakey, C. C. (2015). Education for the public good? The influence of privatization in American h igher education and society. In R. T. Teranishi, L. B. Pazich, M. Knobel, & W. R. Allen (Eds.), Mitigating inequality: Higher education research, policy, and practice in an era of massification and stratification (Vol. 11, pp. 85 125). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 180 Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Sage Publications . Zumeta, W., & Kinee, A. (2011). Accountability policies: Directions old and new. In D. E. Heller (Ed.) , The states and pub lic higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability (2 nd ed., pp. 173 - 99). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Zunz, O. (2012). Philanthropy in Americ a: A history. Princeton.