"The Foundation Review," publication by the Dorothy A. Johnson Center, Volume 17, Issue 1. Photo AI
These emergent strategies emphasize local leadership, fluid planning, and foundation staff as on-the-ground catalysts, rather than distant funders.
A detailed review by Dr. Douglas Easterling of Wake Forest University School of Medicine explores this shift, drawing from evaluation data on initiatives by The California Endowment, Clinton Foundation, Kate B. Reynolds Charitable Trust, The Ford Family Foundation, The Colorado Trust, and The Colorado Health Foundation.
Together, these foundations are challenging the long-standing comprehensive community initiative (CCI) model that has dominated place-based philanthropy for decades.
Moving Away from Rigid Plans
Traditional CCIs have often followed a linear, top-down model: centralized planning groups, extensive front-end strategy development, and transactional grantmaking.
While these efforts produced new services and some local leadership development, evaluations frequently found they fell short of the transformative change funders had envisioned.
Some initiatives even disrupted existing relationships and excluded marginalized community members.
The six foundations in Easterling’s review are taking a different route. Rather than prescribing what change should look like, they allow community work to emerge over time.
This “emergent model” of philanthropy supports initiatives that evolve through experimentation, relationships, and local insight.
Foundation staff act as cultivators—building connections, encouraging ideas, and helping communities move from vision to action.
Inside the Six Initiatives
Each of the foundations implemented its version of this emergent approach:
The California Endowment (2009–2020): Its Building Healthy Communities initiative shifted from health outcomes to a stronger focus on racial justice and power-building.
Clinton Foundation (2011–2019): The Clinton Health Matters Initiative aimed to strengthen local systems for community health improvement.
Kate B. Reynolds Charitable Trust (2012–2023): Healthy Places North Carolina evolved from health-focused strategies to more explicit goals around equity and power dynamics.
The Ford Family Foundation (2014–present): Its Rural Community Building initiative encourages inclusive, long-term community problem-solving.
The Colorado Trust (2016–2022): Through Community Partnerships for Health Equity, the foundation worked to build grassroots power.
Colorado Health Foundation (2017–present): Its Locally Focused Work initiative supports equity-oriented groups in Colorado communities.
While each initiative varied in scope and geography, all six moved away from the standard CCI playbook. Most did not require upfront strategic plans.
Instead, they prioritized activating local actors and responding to evolving community needs.
Foundation Staff as Catalysts
A unifying theme across the six initiatives is the expanded role of foundation staff.
Rather than reviewing proposals from a distance, staff were embedded in or closely connected to the communities. Their job wasn’t to direct the work, but to activate, connect, and support it.
Staff roles included:
- Activation: Encouraging residents to take initiative and pursue new ideas.
- Brokering connections: Linking people and organizations with shared interests.
- Facilitation: Creating spaces for collective problem-solving.
- Information-sharing: Providing relevant data and research.
- Capacity-building: Offering training and technical support.
- Enhancement: Boosting the reach and effectiveness of local projects.
In nearly all cases, staff avoided taking over or leading the work directly.
One exception was the Clinton Foundation, where regional directors often helped manage projects due to the foundation’s non-grantmaking model.
Some foundations positioned staff within the communities they served. Others worked regionally or from central offices.
While grantmaking authority differed, the expectation to build trust and support local leadership was consistent.
Outcomes: From Projects to Systems Change
The results of these emergent models, while varied, point to broader outcomes than those typically associated with CCIs.
1. Activating New Work
All six initiatives stimulated new local projects tailored to community-identified priorities. These included efforts to address food insecurity, youth development, healthcare access, and more.
Evaluations confirmed that many of these initiatives would not have launched—or would have operated on a much smaller scale—without foundation support.
2. Driving Systems Change
The foundations aimed to go beyond isolated programs. They sought to change how local systems—healthcare, schools, law enforcement—operate. Notable achievements include:
- 345 policy wins and 495 systems-change outcomes reported by The California Endowment.
- A 49% increase in HIV testing in California’s Coachella Valley through coordinated institutional effort supported by the Clinton Foundation.
- Reforms to school discipline policies that previously disproportionately affected students of color.
Four foundations paired their grassroots work with policy advocacy, while others offered grants to institutions that agreed to shift practices. T
his included incentives to serve marginalized communities more equitably.
3. Shifting Power and Culture
Some initiatives began to influence local norms and power dynamics. Residents engaged in grassroots work gained leadership roles, including elected positions. In North Carolina, a quarter of grantees reported helping to shift power dynamics in their communities.
Increased civic engagement—especially among underrepresented groups—was another outcome. In communities most engaged with The California Endowment, voter turnout rose during the initiative. Communications strategies helped shift narratives around equity and health, laying the groundwork for longer-term cultural change.
4. Building Local Capacity
Participants across the initiatives reported improved leadership skills, greater confidence, and stronger networks.
Evaluations showed that nonprofit and resident groups became more strategic, inclusive, and resilient. Some communities demonstrated greater adaptability in responding to crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic and wildfires.
Why Some Communities Thrive More Than Others
While the overall model proved more inclusive and dynamic than CCIs, results varied widely by community. Success was influenced by several factors:
- Local infrastructure: Communities with stronger nonprofit sectors and active grassroots leaders saw more ambitious and strategic work.
- Community size: Mid-sized communities often struck the right balance—small enough for tight networks, large enough to sustain initiatives.
- Staff skill: The impact often depended on the ability of foundation staff to think critically, analyze strategically, and build genuine relationships.
Foundations that provided larger grants and additional resources, like leadership development and advocacy training, also saw more impactful outcomes.
The Limits of Place-Based Philanthropy
Despite the progress, none of the six foundations demonstrated widespread population-level change. The most significant effects were felt among specific groups or systems, not entire cities or counties.
These limits reflect both the complexity of structural change and the challenge of measuring long-term impact in community settings.
As Easterling notes, community transformation is ultimately a local endeavor. Foundations can support and strengthen efforts, but sustained change depends on the leadership and mobilization of local actors.
Conclusion: A Shift Toward Humility and Adaptation
The emergent model of place-based philanthropy signals a shift in how funders approach community change.
By letting go of rigid strategies and embracing community leadership, these six foundations are setting a new standard for responsiveness, inclusivity, and shared power.
Their experience suggests that real change comes not from tightly controlled plans, but from trust-based relationships, adaptive support, and a willingness to follow the community’s lead. For funders seeking to deepen their local impact, the message is clear: cultivate, don’t command.
*Editor’s Note:
This story has been generated from “The Foundation Review,” a publication of the Dorothy A. Johnson Center, Volume 17, Issue 1.* ). While the study focuses on six US foundations, it provides valuable lessons for foundations with philanthropic initiatives in Africa.
