Giving Compass
  • Sign In
  • About Us
    About Giving Compass How We Choose Content and Organizations Annual Reflections Our Newsletter
  • Getting Started
  • Learn About Issues
    Topic Guides
    Animal Welfare COVID-19 Criminal Justice Democracy Disaster Relief Education Environment Health Homelessness Immigrants and Refugees Racial Equity Women and Girls
    Curated Articles
    Partner Collections Giving Compass Selections See All Articles
  • Give to Causes
    Issue Funds & Intermediaries Projects Nonprofits
  • Get Involved
    Philanthropy Resource Directory Events Volunteer Opportunities
  • Partner With Us
    Nonprofits Authors Use Our Content Services Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
Sign Up
  • Get the Newsletter
  • Sign In

A Place-Based Foundation Shifts its Approach Toward Community Inclusion

Johnson Center Dec 20, 2018
This article is deemed a must-read by one or more of our expert collaborators.
Click here for more.
A Place-Based Foundation Shifts its Approach Toward Community Inclusion Giving Compass
  •  Share
  •  Save
Share

Giving Compass’ Take:

• A place-based community foundation shifted its approach to support conditions for change by elevating and including community voices and feedback. 

• Why is it essential to be inclusive of community voice? Who best knows how to shape and serve a community better than the people who live there? Community foundations are good for accessing and utilizing capital but should orient themselves toward listening to communities needs, rather than telling them what they need.

• Discover how community feedback can impact a community foundation’s mission alignment. 


Grand Rapids Community Foundation has taken a different path in the past two years in terms of how we approach our role and our work in the community.

We realized that as the community continued to evolve and change, we needed to seek alignment around who we are, what donors and stakeholders expect of us, and how we can best serve and be in partnership with the community. In addition, we needed to ensure that we were and are making the best use of our resources. We wanted to preserve all the quality and accountability of past and current processes, while creating room for greater responsiveness to change going forward.

Working with FSG, a highly regarded mission-driven consulting firm, the Community Foundation embarked on a fascinating journey that has resulted in reimagining how we are distributing our resources and opening up to new audiences. As a place-based foundation, we are operating from the following premise: “Adaptive strategy is a fundamentally different way of thinking that requires shifting from driving change to supporting the conditions for change.”

We have reoriented the Community Foundation to relate to our community through a lens of equity. We took our North Star statement on the road and sought feedback from many people. One of our guiding principles is to listen to and magnify community voices, ensuring that multiple perspectives are represented.

Grand Rapids Community Foundation is shifting. We are moving from an arrogant approach to one where we are collaborating and listening to community voices to help create positive and sustainable change. We are excited to journey toward new prototypes, understanding that these iterative processes allow us to better engage with community.

Read the full article about place-based community foundation listens to feedback by Diana Sieger at Johnson Center

  •  Share
  •  Save
Share

Philanthropy is a complex topic, and others found these selections from the Impact Giving archive from Giving Compass to be good resources.

  • This article is deemed a must-read by one or more of our expert collaborators.
    Click here for more.
    The Opposing Mindsets of Business and Philanthropy

    Giving Compass' Take: • David Campbell evaluates the negative side of using a business mindset in philanthropy. While businessmen and women making enormous charitable donations is undeniably positive in many ways, they may be limiting their positive impact if they are unwilling to affect changes that would jeopardize their hyper-wealthy status. • Campbell highlights the negatives of using a business-like approach to philanthropy, but there are also positives of employing a results-focused mindset. How can donors effectively use their business knowledge to make decisions regarding charitable giving? • Learn about impact investing and how it can change the way we think about philanthropy. Billionaires made some eye-popping donations in 2018. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos announced plans to spend US$2 billion to help the homeless and create a network of free preschools. Media mogul and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg pledged $1.8 billion to Johns Hopkins University, his alma mater. Those were just the biggest of the nearly 800 donations of $1 million or more from very rich people over the course of the year, the Chronicle of Philanthropy reports. While it might seem ungrateful for the rest of us to do anything but cheer about boatloads of money being given away, there are legitimate reasons for concern, as the journalist Anand Giridharadas raises in his provocative new book “Winners Take All.” In particular, he makes a compelling argument against the increasingly dominant way of thinking about philanthropy that emphasizes the impacts that givers expect from their donations. When the winners take all Learning whether their giving achieves the results they want is front and center for charities and their funders, as many scholars of philanthropy, including me, have found. Many of the largest givers are increasingly reporting results information on their websites and sharing what they’ve learned. But perhaps all the focusing on data misses a larger point. Giridharadas questions whether these well-intentioned donors have diagnosed the problems correctly. If what he calls “solutions peddling” is focused on the wrong thing, he suggests, the results they seek will inevitably fail to address the most pressing issues of our times. Giridharadas contends that the wealthy philanthropists and other prominent social change leaders co-exist in a parallel universe he calls “MarketWorld,” where the best solutions to society’s problems require the same knowhow used in corporate boardrooms. That is because MarketWorld, as he sees it, ignores the underlying causes for problems like poverty and hunger. Its virtual inhabitants do this, he argues, because inequality causes many of these issues. And taking on inequality directly threatens the status and power of elite donors. Paradox of privilege “Winners Take All” is one of several recently published books raising difficult questions about how the world’s biggest donors approach their giving. As someone who studies, teaches and believes in philanthropy, I believe these writers have started an important debate that could potentially lead future donors to make make a bigger difference with their giving. Giridharadas to a degree echoes Ford Foundation President Darren Walker, who has made a stir by denouncing a “paradox of privilege” that “shields (wealthy people) from fully experiencing or acknowledging inequality, even while giving us more power to do something about it.” Like Walker, Giridharadas finds it hard to shake the words of Martin Luther King Jr., who spoke of “the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.” To avoid changes that might endanger their privileges, mega-donors typically seek what they call win-win solutions. But however impressive the quantifiable results of those efforts may seem, according to this argument, those outcomes will always fall short. Fixes that don’t threaten the powers that be leave underlying issues intact. Avoiding win-lose solutions In Giridharadas’s view, efforts by big funders, such as The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation, to strengthen public K-12 education systems by funding charter schools look past the primary reason why not all students learn at the same pace: inequality. As long as school systems are funded locally, based on property values, students in wealthy communities will have advantages over those residing in poorer ones. However, creating a more equal system to pay for schools would take tax dollars and advantages away from the rich. The wealthy would lose, and the disadvantaged would win. So it’s possible to see the nearly $500 million billionaires and other rich people have pumped into charter schools and other education reform efforts over the past dozen years as a way to dodge this problem. Charters have surely made a difference for some kids, such as those in rural Oregon whose schools might otherwise have closed. But since the bid to expand charters doesn’t address childhood poverty or challenge the status quo – aside from diluting the power of teacher unions and raising the stakes in school board elections – this approach seems unlikely to help all schoolchildren. Indeed, years into the quest to fix this problem without overhauling school funding systems, most public schools in poor communities have less money than those in wealthier ones. Paying for tuition Bloomberg’s big donation raises a similar question. He aims to make a Johns Hopkins education more accessible for promising low-income students. When so many Hopkins alumni have enjoyed success in a wide range of careers, what can be wrong with that? Well, paying tuition challenges millions of Americans, not just the thousands who might attend Hopkins. Tuition, fees, room and board at the top-ranked school cost about $65,000 a year. Only 5 percent of colleges and universities were affordable, according to the Institute for Higher Education Policy, a nonpartisan global research and policy center, for students from families earning $69,000 a year or less. Like Giridharadas, the institute argues paying for college is “largely a problem of inequity.” Bloomberg’s gift will certainly help some people earn a Hopkins degree. But it does nothing about the bigger challenge of making college more affordable for all in a country where student debt has surpassed $1.5 trillion. One alternative would be to finance advocacy for legislative remedies to address affordability and inequity. For affluent donors, Giridharadas argues, this could prove to be a nonstarter. Like most of what he calls “win-lose solutions,” taking that route would lead to higher taxes for the wealthy. Subsidies for gifts from the rich Similarly, who could quibble with Bezos spending $2 billion to fund preschools and homeless shelters? Although he has not yet made clear what results he’s after, I have no doubt they will make a difference for countless Americans. No matter how he goes about it, the gesture still raises questions. As Stanford University philanthropy scholar Rob Reich explains in his new book “Just Giving,” the tax break rich Americans get when they make charitable contributions subsidizes their favorite causes. Or, to phrase it another way, the federal government gives initiatives supported by Bezos and other wealthy donors like him preferential treatment. Does that make sense in a democracy? Reich says that it doesn’t. The elected representatives in democracies should decide how best to solve problems with tax dollars, not billionaires who are taken with one cause or another, the Stanford professor asserts. That’s why I think it’s so important to ask the critical questions that Giridharadas and Reich are raising, and why the students taking my philanthropy classes this semester will be reading “Winners Take All” and “Just Giving.” Editor’s note: Johns Hopkins University Press provides funding as a member of The Conversation US, which also has a grant from the Walton Family Foundation. The Gates Foundation is a funder of The Conversation Media Group. David Campbell, Associate Professor of Public Administration, Binghamton University, State University of New York. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Looking for a way to get involved?

Learning with others and benchmarking are key steps towards becoming an impact giver. If you are interested in giving with impact for Civil Society, take a look at these events, galas, conferences and volunteering opportunities to connect with individuals like you.

Loading...
Learn More

Are you ready to give?

In addition to learning and connecting with others, taking action is a key step towards becoming an impact giver. If you are interested in giving with impact for Civil Society take a look at these Giving Funds, Charitable Organizations or Projects.

Loading...
Learn More
Connect

Loading...

Loading...

Learn More
Take Action

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Learn More
More from
Giving Compass
  • This article is deemed a must-read by one or more of our expert collaborators.
    Click here for more.
    Local Action: How Philanthropy Can Connect to Communities
  • This article is deemed a must-read by one or more of our expert collaborators.
    Click here for more.
    Whose Needle Are You Trying to Move In Philanthropy?
  • This article is deemed a must-read by one or more of our expert collaborators.
    Click here for more.
    Reflections on MetroWest Health Foundation’s Strategic Planning Process
Follow Us
Newsletter

Become a newsletter subscriber to stay up-to-date on the latest Giving Compass news.

About Us
  • About Giving Compass
  • In The News
  • Contact Us
  • Content at Giving Compass
  • Partner With Us
Trending Issues
  • Environment
  • Homelessness
  • STEM Education
  • Equal Pay Act
  • Gender Equality

Copyright © 2021, Giving Compass, LLC

•
  • Privacy Policy
  • User Agreement

Sign in

Your personal information is confidential at Giving Compass. For more information, please visit our privacy policy. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use.