Cash for crazymaking: a tour through recent MacArthur Foundation grantees

In August 2024 the MacArthur Foundation sent a terse letter to the office of San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, informing her that they would be withholding $625,000 in previously-approved grant support because . . . she was putting too many people in jail. The letter also bemoaned the “racial and ethnic disparities” among the population Jenkins was locking up, not-subtly implying that the daughter of Latino and black parents was convicting too many of her own people. In an understandably irate response, Jenkins’s chief of staff told the philanthropy bureaucrats to keep their money, accused them of “structural racism,” and said MacArthur would no longer be permitted to treat the DA’s office “as sharecroppers to a Foundation’s vision of criminal justice reform.”

One of the wealthiest private foundations on Earth, with net assets of $8 billion, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation awards annual grants in excess of $300 million. A look at recent grants (those sent out since January 2024) demonstrates that the drama in San Francisco was a typical example of MacArthur purchasing crazymaking with cash.

Jailing more bad guys was precisely why Jenkins was appointed DA in 2022. Her predecessor, former DA Chesa Boudin, was recalled after his lenient approach to prosecutions had convinced the locals that their city had become a sanctuary for criminality. But keeping the jail population down is presumably what impressed MacArthur about Boudin. During his brief reign from 2020 to 2022, MacArthur approved $3.2 million in grants addressed to the “San Francisco District Attorney’s Office.”

According to the San Francisco Police Department, there were 54,702 total crimes—including 56 homicides—during 2022, the last year Boudin was in office. But for 2024, the year MacArthur began fighting with Jenkins over which reforms to fund, the city police reported total crimes had dropped to 36,879, with 35 homicides.

That was still too high, but it was a major drop from Boudin and his predecessor. There were more than 63,000 crimes and 56 murders in 2017, the year before MacArthur began sending criminal justice grants to the city’s DA office and three years before Boudin arrived.

Successful crime control has predictably helped Jenkins politically. With endorsements from California Gov. Gavin Newsom and a long list of other Democrats and labor unions, she cruised to reelection in November 2024. Police data through October 2025 showed the city on pace for an even lower crime rate this year.

To keep the MacArthur money flowing, the translucently pale Boudin, while locking up far fewer offenders overall, must have also been nabbing a higher ratio of white ones than Jenkins has been. The top of page on the MacArthur grants website for “Criminal Justice” lists locking up fewer people and reducing racial disparities as their only concrete policy objectives. The word “safety” isn’t in that mission statement.

Big Bets

***

MacArthur judges its criminal justice grantees not by these nuances, but by the size of the jail population and the colors of the people in the cages.

***

The United States imprisons a far larger percentage of its citizens than all other  rich western nations. Unless Americans are really one of the most dangerous societies on Earth, or the most repressive—such as Cuba—we are enduring a major policy failure. One of many obvious contributing factors is our reluctance to force mental health and substance abuse treatment on offenders who haven’t yet committed serious crimes. In the long run, counselors are less costly than cages.

But as the San Francisco dispute makes clear, MacArthur judges its criminal justice grantees not by these nuances, but by the size of the jail population and the colors of the people in the cages. “Criminal Justice” is one of four “Big Bets” identified by MacArthur as funding priorities. Grantees in this space have received at least $411 million since 2013.

Losing their partnership with the San Francisco DA’s office hasn’t ended MacArthur’s effort to influence crime policy in the region. A 2025 grant award of $307,500 was approved for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office. The grant award stipulated the money is to be used “to address overincarceration by reducing jail misuse and overuse and disparities in jail usage.” Variations of this language appear in many, if not most, of MacArthur’s recent criminal justice grant descriptions.

Many other big cities, local governments, and law enforcement groups have remained in good standing and have received millions in recent MacArthur criminal justice grants since January 2024. Here are a few examples:

• $700,000 for the Lake County State’s Attorney (this is a Chicago suburb).
• $500,000 for Multnomah County in Oregon (includes Portland).
• $500,000 for Clark County in Nevada (includes Las Vegas).
• $400,000 for the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
• $334,000 for County of Allegheny in Pennsylvania (includes Pittsburgh).
• $200,000 for the Mayor’s Fund to Advance New York City.
• $100,000 for Harris County in Texas (includes Houston).

This is a representative list of recent grants of this type, not a full one. In addition to subsidizing local governments and law enforcement associations that side with MacArthur’s vision of criminal justice vision, the foundation has also invested heavily in policy research and advocacy.

The University of Michigan School of Social Work’s Center on Wellbeing received a $500,000 grant for 2024. The race-obsessed grant description ends with a DEI objective: “The Center will provide technical assistance to the racial equity cohort to assess aspects of diversity and inclusion in their communities and develop strategic plans for implementation that address racial inequities in their communities.”

The Urban Institute, a left-leaning think tank, has received $2 million from MacArthur since January 2024, half of which was for a homelessness project to provide “an array of housing solutions that can permanently end the use of jails and prisons as ‘housing of last resort.’”

There is an obvious correlation between homelessness and criminal conduct, but it is usually due to mental illness and substance abuse, not due to the lack of a permanent residence for the perpetrators. Just giving people a reliable address, the stated purpose of the MacArthur grant to the Urban Institute, makes homelessness the issue rather than mental health and substance abuse being the core cause.

Similarly, the Vera Institute of Justice, another lefty policy advocacy NGO, has been awarded $1.5 million from MacArthur since 2024. In a $1 million grant description, MacArthur praises Vera as the “premier national organization committed to ending the overcriminalization and mass incarceration of people of color, immigrants, and people experiencing poverty.”

A recent $500,000 Vera grant was for public relations research to “counter the fear mongering and weaponization of crime statistics that incorrectly and misleadingly claim justice reform has jeopardized community safety.” Perhaps not coincidentally, this 2024 grant coincided with the recall storm that took out Chesa Boudin because he was following MacArthur’s “justice reform” advice.

Anti-energy grants

***

Since January 2024, MacArthur has approved at least $15 million for seventeen grantees that have opposed the use of nuclear power, or have parent firms and partner nonprofits that have done so.

***

Wrongheaded though they are, MacArthur’s criminal justice grants at least aim at real policy challenges. The same cannot be said of those sent from the “Climate Solutions” bucket—another of the foundation’s “Big Bets” priorities.

“Ensuring that the Earth stays well below a two-degree Celsius temperature increase to avoid catastrophic global effects,” claims the MacArthur mission statement for the Climate Solutions program. “Globally, we must halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and balance carbon emissions and removal by 2050,” they assert.

None of this is going to happen because none of it needs to happen. None of it should happen. Cutting emissions by half by 2030 would require severely restricting our use of energy, and that would sharply cut the standard of living enjoyed by billions of people. And it would likely kill multiple millions of us in the process.

It is easy, but beyond the scope of this report to debunk the claim that we are facing “catastrophic global effects” because of slightly warmer temperatures, let alone that we can even do anything to prevent the warming. But even buying their fearmongering, MacArthur is reliably writing checks to NGOs that oppose the strongest solutions.

Nuclear power emits no greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide or otherwise. It is one of the very safest electricity sources we have and the most reliable. It is also the cleanest energy option, and functionally limitless. No other energy source we have checks all of those boxes. Nuclear also imposes the smallest land use footprint, which means it chews up less of the “environment” than any other energy option.

Since January 2024, MacArthur has approved at least $15 million for seventeen grantees that have opposed the use of nuclear power, or have parent firms and partner nonprofits that have done so:

• Partnership for Southern Equity ($3 million from MacArthur).
• NDN Collective ($2 million).
• Free Press ($9 million).
• Southern Environmental Law Center ($7 million).
• Earthworks ($1million).
• Environmental Defense Fund ($1 million).
• Demos ($1 million).
• Alliance for a Just Society ($750,000).
• U.S. Climate Action Network ($600,000).
• Environmental Law and Policy Center of the Midwest ($500,000).
• Illinois Environmental Council ($500,000).
• Labor Network for Sustainability ($500,000).
• Climate Policy Initiative ($400,000).
• Movement Strategy Center ($250,000).
• Hip Hop Caucus ($100,000).
• Texas Campaign for the Environment Fund ($50,000).
• Institute for Policy Studies ($50,000).

The timing of some of these awards betrays the severity of MacArthur’s crazed agenda.

In 2023, Illinois Gov. J.D. Pritzker (D) vetoed legislation that would have lifted a moratorium on building new nuclear power in the state. To even arrive at the governor’s desk, this sensible proposal had to navigate past a legislature controlled by Pritzker’s fellow Democrats. His veto was politically needless and thus exceptionally hostile to energy production.

The Illinois Environmental Council issued a news release praising Pritzker’s strident anti-nuclear position. The MacArthur Foundation is based in Chicago and sent half a million bucks to the Illinois Environmental Council in 2020—before the veto—and another $500,000 in 2024—after the veto.

Similarly, the Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center of the Midwest has received at least $9.5 million from MacArthur since 2015. Environmental Progress awarded ELPC the distinction of being the “most influential anti-nuclear environmental organization in Illinois.”

Unless the MacArthur grant officers, most of whom presumably live in Illinois, are paying no attention to local policy, then it’s difficult to argue that MacArthur isn’t as stridently anti-nuclear as its local grantees.

Next to nuclear, natural gas is the cleanest burning fuel we have. Due to the abundance of it in the United States, and its low cost, we began replacing coal with natural gas in our electricity generation mix after 2007. By 2023, this switch alone had reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 893 million metric tons per year.

In practical terms, this means annual American carbon emissions from electricity production alone had fallen by an amount equal to the combined annual CO2 emissions of Germany and France. That’s not just their electricity emissions—that’s all of the emissions generated by two of the world’s ten largest economies.

If MacArthur really believes lowering CO2 emissions is critical for our survival, then promoting natural gas—methane—should be a major funding priority. Instead, since 2021, MacArthur has awarded grants totaling $20 million just for the Windward Fund’s “Global Methane Hub,” which—among other obtuse objectives—proposes a “methane fee” on energy firms.

Most of MacArthur’s Climate Solutions have been grants to NGOs and donor foundations that oppose all hydrocarbon energy and nuclear power. This places MacArthur’s money in opposition to 85 percent of the

Our survival and prosperity are deeply entwined with these fuels. The MacArthur Foundation is funding a mad war against all of that.

“Civic engagement”

***

MacArthur has been funding what appears to be a partisan get-out-the-vote program with the intent to favor Democrats.

***

As with the Criminal Justice grants, MacArthur also tries to fund lawyers to implement its supposed “Climate Solutions.” The Tides Foundation was awarded a $750,000 grant in 2024 for Tides’s “Local Environmental Accountability and Defense Fund.” The purpose of this program is to park anti-energy litigators within state attorneys’ general offices, where they can leverage the resources of state governments against their climate enemies.

Another project of the Windward Fund that is supported from the MacArthur Climate Solutions fund is the “Hive Fund for Climate and Gender Justice.” The Hive Fund been awarded at least $6 million from MacArthur since 2020, including $3 million in 2024.

If the phrase “climate and gender justice” doesn’t sufficiently convey that MacArthur is purchasing a smorgasbord of left-wing DEI babble speak, then the full grant description MacArthur provides makes this abundantly clear:

The award supports the Windward Fund’s Hive Fund for Climate and Gender Justice, which helps organizations and networks on the frontlines work to address the climate crisis in the American South. Without an equity and racial-justice orientation, climate solutions risk perpetuating and exacerbating previous unjust patterns, thus undermining the broad public support needed for rapid progress on the climate crisis. The Hive Fund supports organizations that advocate for women, people of color, and under-invested communities participating in developing and implementing climate solutions.

The “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” DEI movement thrived because of programs just like this that encouraged racial and gender grievance collecting. When DEI began to fall out of favor, MacArthur began opening the vault to save it.

The Independent Sector’s “DEI Retrenchment Program” was awarded a $250,000 MacArthur grant in 2024. According to the grant description, the program was to use the money to “commission research that documents the costs to nonprofits if funders and companies backslide on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI); provide tracking of lawsuits and legislation targeting DEI; and educate the sector about countering DEI backlash.”

The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law was awarded $1 million in 2025 to protect DEI and other MacArthur priorities: “Through legal action, advocacy, and public education, the Lawyers’ Committee is challenging the rollback of critical civil rights protections: the dismantling of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility initiatives, the weakening of criminal justice reforms, and the restricting of voting rights.”

This and a lot of the MacArthur grants from 2024, not coincidentally a presidential election year, carry the stench of partisan electioneering rather than charitable education.

A $750,000 award for 2024 was granted to the Voter Participation Center. VPC, according to MacArthur, is a “civic engagement organization that works to ensure the New American Majority (NAM)—people of color, young people, and unmarried women—engage in democracy equal to their presence in society through voter registration, mobilization, and education.”

In September 2024 the Washington Free Beacon revealed that VPC was skewing its social media posts to encourage “civic participation” by everyone but likely Republicans:

Facebook ad library data indicate the Voter Participation Center’s ad campaign is deployed with partisan intent. The group has instructed Facebook to exclude from the reach of its ads anyone with expressed interests in 26 categories typically associated with Republican men, including the “PGA Tour,” “Indianapolis 500,” “Daytona 500,” “Tom Clancy,” “Modified Jeeps,” “Duck Dynasty,” and others. [ . . .] On the other hand, the Voter Participation Center has instructed Facebook to ensure its ads target audiences interested in a wide variety of topics typically associated with liberal audiences, including “African-American Literature,” “Jordan Peele,” “Taylor Swift,” “Patagonia,” and “hot yoga.”

Legally, VPC is supposed to be an educational charity providing nonpartisan voter information. In practice, MacArthur has been funding what appears to be a partisan get-out-the-vote program with the intent to favor Democrats.

Knowing what MacArthur was really trying to accomplish during the 2024 election makes it easier to decode the grant language they used. The aforementioned $1 million grant for Demos in 2024, was to further the “progressive” group’s mission “to build a just, inclusive, multi-racial democracy and economy.” Similarly, the stridently left-wing African American Policy Forum received a $500,000 award in 2024 to bring about the “multi-racial democracy.”

MacArthur is getting its multi-racial democracy they paid for, but it doesn’t look like the one they wanted. According to the Pew Research Center, the black vote for Trump in 2024, relative to 2020, doubled from 8 percent to 15 percent. And this was despite a black woman leading the Democratic ticket.

Similarly, Pew reported the Hispanic vote for Trump went from 28 percent in 2016, to 36 percent in 2020, and then to 48 percent in 2024. Relatively soon, those insubordinate Hispanics may become a solidly Republican demographic. At that point, the MacArthur bureaucrats will probably declare them to be simply “white” and cease funding programs to encourage “civic engagement” by Hispanic Americans.

The “Big Bet” on media

***

The Atlantic has since devolved into an asylum for writers such as Jonathan Chait, who used his previous post at New York magazine to serially promote the most bat guano crazy claims from the Russiagate hoax.

***

In addition to funding election manipulation masqueraded as “civic engagement,” MacArthur has also been investing big to influence media coverage. Since January 2024 they have given out grants totaling almost $100 million for projects labeled “Journalism & Media” or “Local News.” The latter is listed alongside “Climate Solutions” and “Criminal Justice” as one of MacArthur’s “Big Bets” funding priorities.

That equals $150,000 per day, every day, weekends included, spent just on media by MacArthur’s left-wing bureaucrats. Not surprisingly, the grants are frequently aimed at creating favorable coverage for MacArthur’s other funding priorities.

For example, the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) was approved for $1 million this year to provide “in-depth investigative reporting on government and democracy, race and economic justice, climate solutions, and reproductive health issues.” Last year, CIR merged with Mother Jones. The stridently left-wing journal is infamous for helping Christopher Steele kick off the Russiagate hoax in October 2016. That fiasco caused the FBI to terminate Steele as a source.

MacArthur clearly loves this fake news. In 2016, the year Mother Jones first published Steele’s fables, MacArther sent a $1.5 million grant to the magazine, writing in the description that “Mother Jones . . . conducts in-depth investigative reporting.” MacArthur sent another $400,000 to the magazine in 2021, well after the credibility of Steele had been obliterated, and then $725,000 more in 2023. The ironic MacArthur grant description attached to the 2021 award claimed “Mother Jones has conducted deep investigations into the wrongdoings of corporations and public officials . . .”

In MacArthur world, “fabricated” is a synonym for “conducted.”

Similarly, Atlantic Monthly Group, publisher of The Atlantic, was awarded a $700,000 “criminal justice” grant from MacArthur in 2024. The Atlantic, which has existed since before the Civil War, was purchased in 2017 by the Emerson Collective, a grant maker funded by Laurene Powell Jobs, widow of Apple Computer’s Steve Jobs.

A serious ideas journal until a decade ago, The Atlantic has since devolved into an asylum for writers such as Jonathan Chait, who used his previous post at New York magazine to . Before that, Chait was writing “Intelligencer” essays wherein he boldly predicted (based on being born and raised in Michigan) that Trump could not win the state in 2016.

Perhaps media malpractice is prized by MacArthur and The Atlantic. Darryl Rogers, the late Detroit Lions head coach, was just as inept as Chait, yet more self-aware. Rogers once asked: “What’s a guy have to do to get fired around here?”

Another hard left turn for MacArthur’s media money was the $600,000 sent this year to the TYPE Media Center. Formerly known as the “Nation Institute,” TYPE is a donor vehicle for The Nation, another very old and sharply left-wing news journal.

Similarly, the Reader Institute for Community Journalism has been approved for three MacArthur grants totaling $825,000 since January 2024. This is the publisher of the Chicago Reader, which (according to Grok) “. . . leans progressive and left-leaning in its ideology. . .”

Then there’s the Daily Kos, a news and opinion website that sprung up in 2002 as yet another home for those anxious to drive the Democratic Party even further left. Daily Kos wrapped a charitable bow around the journalism part of the mission when it begat the Daily Kos Education Fund, which has since been rebranded as Prism Reports. Prism was awarded $200,000 from MacArthur in 2024 so it could continue “producing in-depth and thought-provoking journalism on workers’ rights, racial justice, disability justice, environmental justice, health, gender and LGBTQIA+ issues.”

Funding misinformation

***

The NGO’s guidelines stipulate the following: “To combat journalism’s history of paternalism and white supremacy, often dressed as objectivity, we must unlearn the notion of a singular truth.”

***

And these big grants prominent names from the lefty media sphere are only part of the loot flowing from MacArthur to lesser-known, yet just as ideologically slanted media efforts.

Free Press, for example, was approved for $1.9 million in MacArthur grants for 2025. This is not to be confused with The Free Press, the successful independent media empire founded by journalist Bari Weiss and recently purchased by Paramount for $150 million. Indeed, Free Press is so NOT The Free Press that the former released a blog criticizing the latter for becoming “part of the billionaire-controlled media establishment that is capitulating to an authoritarian administration.”

That statement is a fair representation of the ideological spin and hyperbole that is promoted as journalism by the MacArthur-funded Free Press.

Another vector for misinformation is the Charlotta Bass Journalism and Justice Lab at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communications and Journalism. The Bass Lab was awarded grants totaling $2.2 million in 2024.

A trained eye looking just at the homepage will swiftly spot the prominent image of Nikole Hannah -Jones, who was the featured speaker at the “inaugural event of the Charlotta Bass Media Trailblazer Speaker Series” in 2023. The announcement for the event noted that Jones was the creator of the New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project. One bit of evidence for her “trailblazing” is that Jones conceded ‘1619’ was intended to grease the policy skids for passage of slavery reparations. Jones didn’t get that yet, but the project did win her a Pulitzer Prize. Winning journalism’s top prize was also trailblazing because ‘1619’ was roundly criticized by prominent historians for multiple and serious inaccuracies. The list : Gordon S. Wood, James M. McPherson and Sean Wilentz.

But misinformation is what MacArthur’s grant makers clearly desire. In 2017, before producing the 1619 Project, Jones was the recipient of a MacArthur Fellows award. Colloquially known as “genius” awards, these are unrestricted prizes of $625,000 doled out annually by the MacArthur Foundation. At least two of Jones’s 1619 Project contributors were also MacArthur Fellows.

While far from a complete list, here are additional examples of recent media awards from MacArthur to projects with clear ideological agendas:

• Grist magazine ($840,000 in grant awards since 2024). This is an anti-energy, climate-catastrophizing media nonprofit.
• Puente News Collaborative ($450,000 grant award for 2025). The main page stories are unabated criticism of the Trump administration’s border security and trade policies.
• City Bureau ($350,000 for 2024). The NGO’s In practice, that means covering the 2020 Chicago city budget process from the perspective that an $80 million proposed cut to the Chicago police budget wasn’t doing enough to defund the police.
• Coda Media ($175,000 for 2025). A March 2025 essay explored the alleged similarities between President Trump and Vladimir Putin. The author claimed “the parallels between them are unmistakable. . .”

The strong hints of left-wing ideological and partisan bias with so many of MacArthur’s grants casts doubt on the objectivity of the awardees where the bias isn’t advertised so clearly. And some of the biggest money from MacArthur is headed in this direction.

For example, MacArthur has sent more than $3 million in combined grants to Press Forward since January 2024 to local projects in Florida, Minnesota, Texas and Alaska. Press Forward is a massively capitalized, $500 million project managed through the Miami Foundation. MacArthur alone has sent at least $58.5 million in Press Forward since 2023.

And MacArthur is not alone. The list of the other major contributors to Press Forward includes the Ford Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Heising-Simons Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. This reads like a roll call of the largest left-wing grantors in America, and it’s not even an exhaustive list of the Press Forward donors. In their most recent IRS filing, just those six foundations (including MacArthur) reported combined net assets of more than $53 billion (yes, with a “b”) and annual revenue of $3.1 billion.

There were no right-of-center contributors on the Press Forward donor list. Press Forward claims it is “working to strengthen local news so communities stay informed, connected and engaged.” Maybe Press Forward, unlike MacArthur’s other grantees, isn’t in the media misinformation business. Perhaps objective, local news, is all they’ll be promoting with that half a billion bucks coming their way.

But that’s not the agenda of their benefactors.

Benefactors

***

“What the foundation does would likely come as a surprise to the man for whom it is named.” — Chicago magazine profile

***

The benefactors are obvious from the full name: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. But he died in 1978 and she in 1981. They haven’t been donating the money for nearly half a century.

Philanthropy bureaucrats have been spending it ever since.

In the most recently available IRS report (covering 2023) the MacArthur Foundation listed seven employees whose base salary exceeded $1 million and total compensation exceeded $1.3 million. MacArthur president John Palfrey wasn’t even the highest paid. That honor went to MacArthur’s chief investment officer, whose total listed compensation was in excess of $3.3 million.

There may be other millionaires at MacArthur, as the IRS requires a list of only the highest paid staff.

In August 2015, Chicago magazine produced a profile of the MacArthur Foundation, which it referred to as “Chicago’s biggest philanthropy.” The report included a brief digression regarding the benefactors and identified John D. as a “politically conservative” man who established the eponymous foundation “on the advice of his lawyer, mainly as a way to avoid estate taxes.”

The MacArthur Foundation wasn’t filled up with funding until after John D’s death in 1978. At that point, the loot fell into the hands of philanthropy bureaucrats such as Palfrey.

The Chicago profile also examined how “…the interests of the foundation have tended to be fairly liberal, in every sense of the word.” That led to this obvious conclusion: “What the foundation does would likely come as a surprise to the man for whom it is named.”

The modern MacArthur Foundation steers far clear of this. The MacArthur website has profiles of its history and specific profiles of John and Catherine, but neither makes any mention of John D’s conservative politics.

Between them, those two pages of MacArthur history have nearly 1300 words. But only 16 of those words are deemed worthy of a pull quote. On the “Our History” page, in giant letters at the top, are these words from John D. MacArthur:

I made the money; you guys will have to figure out what to do with it.

Mr. and Mrs. MacArthur surely said much more profound things during their lives that warranted such special attention from the lucky millionaires now spending their money. But for the modern MacArthur Foundation executives, no words from their benefactors could be more important. If the MacArthur millionaires were being a bit more transparent, then they might have attached this to their favorite quote: “This means the loot is ours, that we’ll spend it as we see fit, and none of it will go to things that crazy old conservative would have approved of.”

Source: https://capitalresearch.org/article/cash-for-crazymaking-a-tour-through-recent-macarthur-foundation-grantees/