Philanthropy and community development: the vital signs of community foundation?

Abstract

Increased funding pressures on community development and reductions in governmental funding for community support suggest potent roles for philanthropy as a funding source, and the possibility of changing relationships between community development and philanthropy.Focusing on English community foundations and their implementation of the Canadian Vital Signs initiative, which is geared towards assessing communities' vitality and social priorities, our article explores whether, and how, such changes may be occurring.Using the literature on the respective value of 'unsettling' and 'settled' third sector organisations to community development, we reflect on the roles and contributions of community foundations to community development through community philanthropy. Vital Signs reports' content indicates donor-led community philanthropy associated with ameliorative rather than fundamental social change positions, as well as uncertainty surrounding community leadership in this context. We identify community foundations as 'settled' organisations within the community development spectrum and as reflecting the 'directed' community development form. In this instance, it appears that the philanthropycommunity development gap that we suggest is at best being partially bridged. Nevertheless, and paradoxically, these organisations' achievement of financial security through community donorship could also strengthen their community leadership roles in 'unsettling' ways, so doing more to lessen philanthropy and community development's separation.3

Place and corporate philanthropy: A systematic review

“…Our interest in developing this review paper was raised by the notion of ‘place‐based philanthropy’ in research (Fehler‐Cabral et al., 2016; Glückler & Ries, 2012; Harrow & Jung, 2016; Mack et al., 2014; Phillips & Scaife, 2017) and practice (Council on Foundations, 2014; Easterling et al., 2019; The Aspen Institute Forum for Community Solutions, 2020), which has generated a new rhetoric that affects what, where, how and with whom firms engage in corporate philanthropy (Glückler & Ries, 2012; Harrow & Jung, 2016). A sociological understanding of place stresses three combined features: geographical location, material form and investment with meaning and value (Castree, 2003; Cresswell, 2004; Gieryn, 2000).…”

“…On the one hand, there is an increasing emphasis on community‐based approaches rooted in local norms and values. As corporate philanthropy directly affects the quality of life and provides economic opportunities to particular locations (Crane & Manville, 2008), embedding philanthropic endeavours in concrete locales is essential (Backer & Smith, 2011; Harrow & Jung, 2016; Jung et al., 2013). On the other hand, globalization and digitalization are reducing the trace of place and geographical differences.…”

The community philanthropic foundation: A new form of independent public service provider for China?

“…It is a more neutral term in which philanthropy tries to address root causes and advocates for policy and social change. For example, Harrow and Jung (2016) reflect on the roles and contributions of community foundations to community development through community philanthropy. Differentiated from either individual giving or endowed private foundations, the community foundation presence in organized philanthropy offers a distinctive opportunity to see philanthropy in the round: from the perspectives of multiple donors, “community” and recipients (Harrow et al., 2016: 308).…”

Urban Redevelopment, Cultural Philanthropy and the Commodification of Artistic Authenticity in Toronto

“…Like many other North American and European urban centers, Toronto has a long philanthropic history of wealthy citizens affirming their differential social status by providing the financial and material resources to found social, cultural, educational, medical, and charitable institutions (Adam 2004). Over the last two decades, however, shrinking welfare budgets, economic austerity, and a neoliberal agenda to decrease the size of government have prompted a resurgence in "modern philanthropy" (Schuyt 2010), with private and corporate patrons volunteering money, goods, time, and expertise for public benefit (Harrow and Jung 2016). Such philanthropy can be contradictorily both individualistic and public, as it allows people to use their resources and leverage to intervene in areas of personal concern with no real public accountability (Frumkin 2008).…”