Necessary but Not Sufficient

Abstract

Despite normative claims that elite foundation boards select elite nonprofits, foundations increasingly use community volunteers to allocate grants. There is an assumption that community involvement in grant making leads to better grant decisions. However, no one has tested this assumption and explored whether community members are even making different grant decisions than traditional boards. Drawing on a sample of six funders who use a community and traditional board, their 616 grantees, and 955 nongrantees, this paper empirically tests anecdotes replete in literature, identifying the organizational and financial determinants that influence community boards grant decisions versus those that influence traditional board decisions.

Putting the ‘Community’ in Community-Based Human Service Funding: Recruitment, Motivation, and Role Negotiation of Granting Committees

“…This study surfaced several themes that both connect to and add to the literature. First, as suggested by Johnson (2016), recruitment methods for CGCs appeared to take a multitude of forms, including open calls, word of mouth, and deliberate recruitment. Despite arguments that such an approach would enhance diverse perspectives into grantmaking, most interviewees were older, white, highly educated, and female.…”

“…A primary aim of this study was to understand the recruitment mechanisms and general representativeness of CGCs, as literature suggests that narrow processes in the former lead to homogeneity in the latter. Consistent with Johnson's (2016) assertion that community boards were more likely to employ a variety of methods in recruiting community grantmakers than traditional boards, there was no overwhelmingly popular recruitment method for positions on CGCs, although there were some themes that emerged in certain sites. For example, many United Way community grantmakers had previous exposure to the organization, usually as a volunteer (e.g., for the free tax preparation campaign or on another committee).…”

“…For example, Hart, Faller, Nepon, and Schmitt (2014) write that "decision-making participation of people impacted by the fund's programs will guarantee that grants are allocated to those most deserving" (p. 8). In sum, public participation in philanthropic grantmaking should increase transparency and trust (Bourns, 2010), reduce power imbalances between funders and communities (Enright & Bourns, 2010), and, perhaps most importantly, ensure grant dollars are deployed to those organizations best able to address community needs (Johnson, 2016).…”

“…History suggests many funders have incorporated some version of community engagement into their granting decisions. For example, government funders have long used community-based committees in human services funding processes, a practice popularized in the 1970s with Community Development Block Grants (Johnson, 2016;O'Connor, 2001;Roberts, 2004). Comparably, since the 1970s, United Ways have employed a version of a "citizen review" process, where community members participate in the funder's service planning and resource allocation efforts (Brilliant, 1990;Brilliant & Young, 2004).…”