Maximizing the Value of Philanthropic Efforts through Planned Partnerships between the U.S. Government and Private Foundations

Long Descriptions for Graphics

[ Main Page of Report | Contents of Report ]

Figure IV.1

Figure IV.1 presents the conceptual framework for USG-Foundation Decision Making, Implementation, and Interaction around Philanthropic Initiatives.

At top it has an Initiative Life Cycle comprised of: Formulation (Identify need or problem; gauge importance) leads to Planning (Select intervention approach, technology) leads to Implementation (Role of providers, advocates, government) leads to Evaluation (Define outcomes and impacts, develop or select metrics) leads to Renewal/Termination (Wind down sustain, or scale up).

Next is a three part graphic presentation of the interaction typology, with "supplemental action" and "adversarial / advocay action" to the left with a recprical interaction. Both these boxes have arrows leading to "complementary action" which has an internal breakdown of "communication" leading to "coordination" leading to "collaboration."

A third row is a list of components characterized as Characteristics of Decision Making, Implementation, and Interaction.

• Communication
  • How much communication takes place and at what level of the organization?
  • What is the nature of communications:  direct/indirect; collegial/ adversarial; etc.
• Resources
  • How much is each party committing?
  • What is the relative size of each organization’s contribution?
  • What proportion of total program cost are covered?
• Priorities
  • To what degree is the initiative an organizational priority?
  • To what extent do the priorities of the different organizations match up
• Decision Making
  • To what extent is decision making shared or not?
  • At what level and on what content are the different parties making decisions?

Return to text

FIGURE D.1: DISTRIBUTION OF FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL SPENDING BY SECTOR IN 2006

This bar chart shows 53% on health, 8% on environment, 7% on education, 4% on human services, 23% on development, and 4% on relief.

Return to text

FIGURE D.2: DISTRIBUTION OF FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL SPENDING BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION IN 2006 (IN MILLIONS 2006 $)

This bar chart shows 18% on health, 5% on environment, 2% on education, 6% on human services, 48% on development, and 12% on relief.

Return to text

FIGURE D.3: DISTRIBUTION OF FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL SPENDING BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION IN 2006 (IN MILLIONS 2006 $).

This bar chart shows 14% on East Asia and the Pacific, 2% on Eastern Europe and Central Asia, 17% on Latin America and the Caribbean, 4% on the Middle East and North Africa, 13% on South Asia, and 50% on Sub-Saharan Africa.

Return to text

FIGURE D.4: DISTRIBUTION OF USG INTERNATIONAL SPENDING BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION IN 2006 (IN MILLIONS 2006$).

This bar chart shows 4% on East Asia and the Pacific, 7% on Eastern Europe and Central Asia, 11% on Latin America and the Caribbean, 33% on the Middle East and North Africa, 13% on South Asia, and 32% on Sub-Saharan Africa.

Return to text

FIGURE D.5: DISTRIBUTION OF FOUNDATION DOMESTIC SPENDING BY SECTOR IN 2006 (IN MILLIONS 2006$).

This bar chart shows 25% on health, 6% on environment, 39% on education, 18% on human services, 11% on development, and 1% on relief.

Return to text

FIGURE D.6: DISTRIBUTION OF USG DOMESTIC SPENDING BY SECTOR IN FY 2006 (IN MILLIONS 2006 $)

This bar chart shows 6% on health, 3% on environment, 16% on education, 40% on human services, 32% on development, and 3% on relief.

Return to text

Top of Page
Main Page of Report | Contents of Report

Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)