This repository type consists of private, non-profit organizations that exist to pursue a specific set of policy objectives. The Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF) states its mission as "to foster public policies, human service reforms, and community supports that more effectively meet the needs of today's vulnerable children and families." With a similar but somewhat broader mission, the Urban Institute states its purpose as, "to examine the social, economic, and governance problems facing the nation." The provision of information to policy makers and the various stakeholders in their respective domains is a central part of these missions. The Urban Institute’s mission statement is explicit, i.e., to provide "information and analysis to public and private decision makers to help them address these challenges and strives to raise citizen understanding of the issues and tradeoffs in policy making." Both organizations maintain Web-accessed repositories of information, including statistical data sets that can be used to advance their respective missions.

There are, however, important differences between these organizations, in terms of funding, overall operations, and relationships with other organizations. With respect to funding, the Urban Institute is supported to some degree through contributions and primarily through grants and contracts for specific policy-related research projects. The AECF is a private foundation with an endowment (approx. $4Billion), the income from which it uses to award grants and operate programs, including the Kids Count data sets and other data repositories. The Urban Institutes repository and research program related to Assessing the New Federalism is in fact supported in part by grants from the AECF. As a sponsor of that program, the AECF is in a position to influence the nature of the repository, including the kinds of information and research products it generates. Any of the Institute’s information programs, repositories, and research efforts reflect the merger of sponsor’s influences with the Institute’s mission and the expertise its staff. The relationships with government agencies differ as well. The AECF is independent of government, but directs much of its effort at influencing government policy and programs. The Foundation’s repositories draw heavily from government data sets as well (e.g., the US Census). The Institute is more directly connected to some Federal agencies through grants and contracts to operate repositories and conduct research on their behalf. Overall, then, the AECF is in what could best be called a patron-client relationship with its grantees, and in a community relationship with its users. The Urban Institute is in more of a client-patron relationship with its foundation and government sponsors.

In terms of access to stored information, the differences between these organizations have at least one major consequence. That is, access to AECF information is structured in a much more coherent and focused way on the core mission of the Foundation. There is a balanced mix of access to statistical data and analyses along with indirect access through research reports. By contrast, the Institute's repositories cover a much wider range of issues and are consequently less focused. There is much more indirect access to information through research reports created for sponsors, than direct access to the statistical data on which reports are based. The FJSRC databases are, of course, available directly for download. But the interactive analytical capabilities available directly through the repository are at a lower level and do not provide trend analysis.