VIEWPOINT
By Phil Hall

Is Geography a Blind Spot in Philanthropy?

Local geography is one of the great drivers of philanthropic mission. There is a paradox here in that 1) most foundations are oriented in some way around a local geography, but 2) express themselves in terms of program.

Why is this? Certainly standard giving taxonomies are structured by program rather than location, but there are other reasons. These include the newsworthiness of large national foundations with a wide geographic range, the topic-oriented national political agenda (of any political stripe), the “flattening” of the world through the information revolution, and the rise of socially entrepreneurial solutions, which are often presented programmatically. But which comes first, the program or the geography, the field of interest or the field?

We recently reviewed our list of nearly 40 regular foundation clients, which collectively make grants of $25-$35 million a year. Our services for these very independent-minded funders are tailored, running in some combination from grantmaking to administration and bookkeeping. Our unscientific study found all but three to be driven in large part by geography, mostly at a local level.

Some recurrent “personality types” emerged:

Small Fund/Small Geography: This is a version of hitting the ball where the fielders are not: a small grants budget goes a long ways in a small neglected city, in a rural area, or in a small subset of a large city.

Big Fund/Small Geography: Even large foundations gain impact by narrowing their geography. A national model would be the grant-supported Harlem Children’s Zone, which began with just 24 city blocks, but there are numerous examples of funding initiatives operating within very restricted geographic bounds.

Small Fund/Big Geography/Distinctive Focus: By focusing on program areas outside the mainstream, such as elder services or the needs of women and girls, even a small player can achieve distinction in a large city or region.

Any Size/Regional Focus: Regional funding, covering a metropolitan, state or larger geographic area, is probably the least common type of framing, but not for want of need. The fields of environment and economic development, for example, are areas that operate most coherently within a regional context. The Suburbanization of Poverty, a haunting recent report of the Brookings Institution, documents a national shift in poverty in the past decade from the inner cities to the suburbs. The suburbs may be where the action is, but there aren’t many funders there.

Any Size/Family Loyalty: The place of origin is hugely important for many donors, and a focus on that place has a shared payoff for grant recipients and givers, including their children and grandchildren. One of the common challenges for this type of giving is generational spread, as it doesn’t take long for a family to multiply and scatter to different corners of the country or the world. Is a giving program made stronger by distributing funds to areas where current family members live, encouraging hands-on participation, or is more achieved by concentrating on one city or region? There’s no right answer to this question, but it begs a considered response.

Clearly, our sense of place is powerful and satisfies some basic psychological needs:

Identity: We tend to identify ourselves by where we live, and many donors are motivated to honor their local heritage.

Community: Almost every locality has a small community of funders and nonprofits who can become valued colleagues and friends.

Wholeness: Even the most localized geographies can be separated by class, language, race and ethnicity or weak civic engagement; focus on a local geography allows for a crossing of lines and a sense of wholeness—one of the great rewards of philanthropy.

Responsibility: As any small fund/small geography person will tell you, giving locally promotes a sense of responsibility: if something bad or good happens in your area, you tend to take ownership.

Look for me on October 12 at the Association of Small Foundations Conference in Austin, Texas. I will be hosting a discussion table on this subject: “The World is Not Flat: The Importance of Local Geography to Philanthropy.” I’d like to hear your story, and to test mine.