PHILANTHROPIC AUTOBIOGRAPHY

While pursuing my bachelor’s degree in philanthropic studies at the Indiana

University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy students are asked to write a

philanthropic autobiography that traces their engagements with philanthropy. I wrote my

first philanthropic autobiography my first semester of undergrad, another during my

senior capstone course, and another while I was in graduate school at Bay Path

University. As I complete my PhD in Leadership Studies from the University of San

Diego, it only seems fitting that I write another philanthropic autobiography to trace my

experience in community philanthropy—and share why I am so passionate about

community.

I have been given the privilege to engage in philanthropic action and activities my

entire life, and it has provided me with a particular view and affinity to community and

community philanthropy that can be seen throughout this dissertation. I believe

communities, both geographic and otherwise, can be empowered, emboldened, and

entitled to petition and create change. One of my favorite quotes is “Be the change you

wish to see in the world” by Mahatma Gandhi, and I believe, and know from the

literature, that change is often not the result of a singular person or action, but a collective

effort to demand improvement to a current situation within society. For centuries groups

of individuals, large and small, have sought to live out the definition of philanthropy

defined by Robert Payton as “Voluntary action for the public good” (Payton & Moody,

2008, p. 6)—by collectively organizing for positive change.

Historically, my unit of analysis for philanthropy has been at the community level

—examining how participatory, collective forms of philanthropy have contributed to the

quality of life of a geographic region and the nonprofit sector located within it. While I

am aware that other types of community have emerged over the years, and particularly

within the field of philanthropy, I am not yet satisfied with what we know about

community philanthropy, what its limits are, and how it can push for creative changes at a

local level. Therefore, I invite you to read my philanthropic autobiography to learn more

about my positionality within this research and why I seek to understand how community

philanthropy can continue to live up to the slogan used by many community foundations

around the country—For Good. Forever.

My Philanthropic Autobiography – How I am Here Today

For me, philanthropy is not just a hobby or something that I do on occasion – it is

part of my identity and plays a large role in my life. It is not surprising since my family

has a long history of public service and community engagement. Both of my grandfathers

served in the military, my maternal grandmother was a nurse for the veteran’s

administration and highly involved in Daughters of the American Revolution, and

paternal grandmother has always been activity involved with her church and local

community projects. My paternal grandfather is the philanthropy radical that I strive to be

as he worked hard to get names added to the local veteran’s monument, raised thousands

of dollars for Habitat for Humanity and other local organizations, served on the boards of

numerous nonprofits, and was awarded the county’s citizen of the year award. While my

maternal grandfather passed early in my lifetime, his influence and memory are

constantly shared through family stories and when his life ended I, unknowingly at the

time, was introduced to the local community foundation.

When my grandfather passed away memorials from his funeral were set to the

newly established Wolcott Park Fund at the LaGrange County Community Foundation.

My grandfather grew up in Wolcottville, Indiana (my hometown), but moved around

throughout his lifetime and he met my Grandmother in Indianapolis, fell in love, got

married, and had three children. As the universe would have it, my mother met my father

who happened to not only be from Wolcottville but was best friends with her cousin—it

is Indiana, so this happens more often than not. My grandparents were constant forces for

good in my life, and while my maternal grandparents had lived in Marion, Indiana since

1965 they spent most of the summers in Wolcottville at the family lake cottage

entertaining grandchildren.

The love of community was passed down from my grandparents to my parents.

My father is a local businessman that gives back to the community, volunteers his time as

a benefit auctioneer, and has served on the County Council for over 20 years. My mother

expresses her love of the community through her service at church, being “room mother”

for my elementary classroom, chaperoning field trips, organizing the bookfair, shuttling

me and my brother to and from community activities, and a million other things that often

went unrecognized.

My introduction to giving back came through my family as well. When I was

younger my mom would take me to church to help with different dinners, we would go

through my clothes on an annual basis and donate to the items that no longer fit or that I

did not want to a local social services agency, and I participated in other activities. These

are my early memories of being involved in community, but instead of having it be

something that I did in life, my life became it.

During the summer between my seventh and eighth grade years, I saw an article

in the local paper about a nonprofit organization that accepted donations of old

computers, refurbished them, and then gave them to students to use for educational

purposes. Living in rural Indiana, it was hard for many individuals to make it to the local

library to utilize a computer and many teachers were requiring that students type their

assignments. With getting to the local library being a challenge for some and having the

school library close shortly after the school day, students were faced with the challenge of

completing their schoolwork on time.

The newspaper article told the story of the organization and stated that they were

in need of volunteers. I reached out to the organization to express my interest in

volunteering and shared some of the skills that I thought I could bring to the organization.

As a start-up nonprofit, like most startups, resources were limited, and it relied on

volunteers to contribute time and skills in order to keep the organization running. When I

first started with the organization, I became a member of the Board of Directors and

became the organization’s first Director of Marketing/Fundraising. I was tasked with

marketing the organization, creating relationships with schools, and raising funds to assist

in purchasing computer parts for the refurbishment of the machines.

At the age of 15, after being with the organization a little over a year, I was named

the Executive Director of the organization. Granted, this is a prime illustration that my

childhood was not really “normal” in the regular sense. While kids my age were likely

playing videos games, participating in a sport, or some other age-appropriate activity—I

was running a nonprofit organization that went from serving one county in Northeast

Indiana to serving seven counties in the region upon my exit of the organization five

years later.

In high school I also worked for the local Council on Aging as a development

staff member, served on a variety of local and regional boards and committees, and

consulted with various nonprofits on effective outreach and communication. Up until my

undergraduate education I was learning by doing and conducting research online. I was

often the youngest in the room, and I usually still am, however I made it a priority to

make sure that I knew what I was doing and working to run the organization to the best of

my abilities.

Going back to community philanthropy, I was first formally introduced to

community philanthropy by participating in a local youth philanthropy group sponsored

by the LaGrange County Community Foundation and a local private foundation, the

Dekko Foundation. Each year a group of students from the county’s four school districts

would come together once a month to learn more about the nonprofit sector, participate in

service projects, and distribute approximately $20,000 a year through grants to local

organizations working to improve education and youth development.

I was fortunate to have joined this organization as it helped me solidify my

interest in working in the nonprofit sector. The Dekko Foundation had a leadership team

made up of all the youth philanthropy groups it funded (13 in total) and I was fortunate to

have been selected to participate my junior and senior years of high school and freshman

year of college. When it came time to make the biggest life choice I had been faced with

to date – selecting where to go to college and what to study, I was told my mentor, Jenna

Ott at the Dekko Foundation, that I could pursuing a degree in philanthropic studies and

make my passion for philanthropy my actual profession.

My undergraduate experience was an amazing one. Throughout my undergraduate

program I was able to work for the Indiana Philanthropy Alliance, Youth Philanthropy

Initiative of Indiana, and consult with a variety of community foundations and private

family foundations. I had always dreamed of becoming a program officer at a community

foundation so I could continue the pursuit of strengthening communities through

philanthropic action. During my undergraduate career I had amazing professors and

realized that through research, teaching, and service that these individuals were helping to

change the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors. I made a commitment to myself to one

day walk in the footsteps of those faculty members, and I decided to pursue my graduate

education.

After graduating from IUPUI in 2015, I was hired as a program officer at a

community foundation in Indiana. In addition, I started my graduate education at Bay

Path University where I decided to pursue both a master’s in nonprofit management and

philanthropy and a master’s in higher education administration with a concentration in

online teaching and program administration, since I observed that academia was

launching more online and executive format degree programs.

Working at the community foundation was a wonderful learning opportunity for

me on an individual level, but it also taught me a lot about community foundations and

how they all operate in different ways. The more I researched community philanthropy

and community foundations in my graduate programs, the more gaps I identified.

Community philanthropy, and community foundations specifically, are underrepresented

in the academic literature. Unlike most public charities, community foundations are

unique since they raise and distribute funding in the community, and unlike private

foundations there are different rules on what a community foundation can and cannot do.

In 2016, as I was reaching the end of my graduate programs, I decided to start

looking into doctoral programs. After lots of investigation, I applied to a variety of

programs and ultimately selected the University of San Diego. Over the years I have

conducted research aimed on identifying how community foundations engage with their

local nonprofit sector through capacity building efforts, locating community foundations

in the United States and where they are serving, and seeking to understand how

community foundations are framing their mission statements.

The culmination of my upbringing and previous experiences shared within this

philanthropic autobiography, as well as the many unnamed experiences due to time and

space in this dissertation, have made me the person, practitioner, and researcher that I am

today. I am a firm believer that community philanthropy can redistribute power in

communities, be a participatory force for good, and empower local individuals to pool

assets to make investments that seek to improve the quality of life of a region.

In an effort to bring my positionality in this research to the forefront, I believe that

community foundations are amazing philanthropic institutions; however, I also believe

that there is a lot of work to be done in order for these institutions to successfully deliver

on their mission statements, properly play their roles in communities, and create positive

and lasting changing in society.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Community foundations claim to play an integral role in fostering philanthropy at

a community level all across the United States. Arguably the most identifiable form of

community philanthropy (Sacks, 2014), community foundations are often the institutions

sought after when it comes to mobilizing a community's resources to meet its needs

(Mazany & Perry, 2014). In the 1990s, the Council on Foundations created a variety of

tools and resources that explored the roles, responsibilities, and benefits of community

foundations. One result of this effort to better specify the roles of community foundations

was the introduction of "community leadership" as a new framework for the relations

between a foundation and its community.

Community leadership is often the role most neglected when it comes to research

on community foundations, yet it has the potential to be the most substantial role of the

foundation. Community foundations can leverage their community knowledge,

convening capabilities, and vast connections around particular issue areas to enact

community-wide change. While remaining neutral on community issues was an option in

the past, community foundations are now operating within a competitive market (Cantor,

2018; Ragey, Masaoka, & Peters, 2005); therefore, serving as a community leader can

provide a competitive advantage in terms of fundraising, but can also catalyze groups and

organizations to enact change by leaning into their role as a community leader.

The introduction of community leadership can be understood as a form of

normative isomorphic pressure on community foundations. As the leading membership

organization for community foundations in the United States at the time, the Council's

actions provided essential guidance by including community leadership as an integral

role in the community foundation operating model, and later including community

leadership in the National Standards for US Community Foundations process. Since the

Council shared this role in 1990 and later included it within its National Standards in

2000, one should expect that its membership adopts community leadership as a new

norm.

The purpose of this study was to further define community leadership in the

context of community foundations, examine if community foundations responded to

external pressures via field professionalization, and investigate how community

foundations are claiming and practicing the role of community leadership. An exploratory

research design was utilized to examine the purpose, practice, and leadership perspectives

of community foundations via the analysis of purpose statements and mission statements,

as well as interviews, utilizing institutional theory (Scott, 2010) and normative

isomorphic change (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) as the primary framing. The rationale for

the selection of these theories was based on the assumption that if the Council on

Foundations' recommendations to include community leadership as part of the

community foundation operating model would then illustrate community leadership as a

best practice (normative tendency) and central to the operational mission of a community

foundation—thus newer community foundations would be more likely to adopt

community leadership due to pressures from the professionalization field of community

foundations.

Community Foundation Roles

The concept of the community foundation was first conceived in 1914 by

Frederick Goff, who was instrumental in creating the first community foundation, The

Cleveland Foundation, and the concept then began to spread globally (Goff, 1919; Sacks,

2014; The Cleveland Trust Company, 1914). Community foundations are essential, local,

philanthropic institutions that can help advance various issues and causes in communities

to ensure all residents have a strong quality of life. Recent examples of community

foundation work include advancing the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals

(Community Foundations of Canada, 2020; McGill, 2020; Ross, 2018), responding to

COVID-19 (Sanford Institute, 2020; Soto et al., 2021), and taking on racial equity and

power-sharing/shifting initiatives (Community Wealth Partners, 2020; Hodson & Pond,

2018).

Community foundations are often cited as playing three district roles within their

communities: grantmakers, asset-builders (fundraisers), and community leaders. The

practitioner and academic literature often expand on these roles (See Council of Michigan

Foundations, 1992; Council on Foundations 1988; Philipp, 1999); however, within

practice, these roles are often the various categories that community foundations use to

segregate their work. To be considered a community foundation, all three roles must be at

play, illustrated as a three-legged stool (Figure 1). Without executing each category in

nearly equal measure, the stool may inadvertently lean to a specific role or may topple

altogether.

Figure 1

Roles of Community Foundations

Community foundations have claimed community leadership as part of the

foundation operating model as early as the 1990s. In a Council on Foundations (1990)

training manual for community foundations, the rationale for community foundations to

take up leadership are that (1) community foundations are created to serve the

community, (2) the board represents the community, (3) the community foundation is

impartial in political matters, (4) leadership grows out of grantmaking since the

community foundation is aware of community issues, and (5) unrestricted funds enable

the community foundation to put resources to use for new and creative community

solutions (p. 16).

CFLeads, a national network of community foundations committed to building

stronger communities through community leadership, has developed various guides,

assessments, and tools to assist community foundations in considering the community

leadership role it plays. According to CFLeads (2008), community leadership looks like

the following when it is enacted:

The community foundation is a catalyzing force that creates a better future for all

by addressing the community's most critical or persistent challenges, inclusively

uniting people, institutions and resources, and producing significant, widely

shared and lasting results (p. 2).

The above definition is focused on the outputs of implementing community leadership

and neglects to mention the inputs, activities, or outcomes. In an updated framework for

community leadership, the Council on Foundations and CFLeads (2009) stated that

community foundations could act as community leaders for the following reasons: (1)

Community foundations are nonpartisan, (2) Community foundations have wide-ranging

relationships, (3) Community foundations have convening power, (4) Community

foundations have flexible resources, (5) Community foundations can flex their

jurisdiction and tools, and (6) Community foundations have staying power. These items

are more in line with the current operating environment of community foundations;

however, it should be noted that other types of community foundations (faith-based and

identify-based) have been created over time since many community foundations were

created, due to the nature of wealth, by white individuals and are often still governed by

white individuals (BoardSource, 2018; Hamill Remaley, 2019)

While some research and practitioner reports examine the why behind community

leadership, very few offer insights into how community foundations can truly be

community leaders through various actions. Many of these reports are often single case

studies and with no generalizable, or even broad, findings. Community leadership can be

conceptualized in many different ways, which can sometimes translate into funding,

advocacy, convening, or even capacity building. The community leadership role can be

an important catalyst for community change. Additional research on this important role is

necessary for the field of community foundations to grow and develop into their

community leadership roles.

Contributions of the Study

Community leadership is a vital role for community foundations; however,

research on the topic is quite limited, and the vast majority of the literature stems from

practice. While community foundations' grantmaking and fundraising roles are often easy

to quantify or broadly measure, community leadership appears to have not had as much

attention within both practitioner and academics circles. To understand how community

foundations were conceptualizing and operationalizing community leadership, this study

sought to understand how community leadership may look differently in various

community foundations while connecting to a conceptual framework of community

leadership grounded in civic leadership, collective leadership, and community

engagement.

Community leadership, as presented in the conceptual framework, is consider a

process by which individuals and/or groups can strive to create positive community

change by collectively leading in an effort to achieve a civic outcome. Therefore, this

study has practical contributions for community foundations by providing a more detailed

description of what community leadership is for a community foundation based on both

practitioner and academic literatures. This reframing of community leadership provides

both an operational lens through which community leadership can be examined as well as

a connection to other leadership approaches that have been more thoroughly explored in

the academic literature. By providing parameters around what is and what is not

community leadership, the field can create space for evaluation to begin to occur in order

to understand what effective community leadership looks like within a particular

community context.

In terms of research, the framework for community leadership can be applied in

other contexts; however, the most noteworthy contribution for research is the research

design presented in Chapter 3 regarding the comparison of purpose statements and

mission statements of nonprofits. Upon extensive review of the literature it appears that

this methodology has not been the approach of others in the past, and it can identify

organizational value shifts over time. The methodology can be applied to other nonprofit

organizations to understand how other organizations with different missions (e.g.,

homelessness, workforce development, education) have altered their goals, priorities, or

stakeholders over time.

While the findings indicate that community foundations have continuously served

a defined geographic region to raise funds and distribute grants that seek to increase the

quality of life for a specified community—the strategies, stakeholders, and primarily

beneficiaries have appeared to change. Therefore, comparing purpose statements and

mission statement can provide insights, for both research and practice, into how

organizations may have altered or expanded from their original intentions, resulting in the

potential reframing of organizational priorities.

Design and Methodology

This study utilized an exploratory research design that employ qualitative

methods. A conceptual framework of community leadership was developed in order to fill

in a gap with the current literature. The concepts of civic leadership, collective

leadership, and community engagement were combined in order to create a framework

for what it means to be a community leader. Historically, community leadership has not

been broadly applied to institutions in the past. Therefore, the framework for community

leadership was developed in order to apply the concept at the institutional level (i.e.,

community foundations).

The initial study analyzes purposes statements and mission statements utilizing a

four-step qualitative coding method. The findings from the initial study helped establish

the selection criteria for the interviews that were conducted with community foundation

leaders to understand how community foundations were conceptualizing and

operationalizing community leadership. The interviews utilized an interview guide, were

transcribed, and then were qualitatively coded.

Organization of the Study

The purpose of this study was to explore how community foundations were

claiming the role of community leadership via purpose statements and mission statements

and understand how some were operationalizing their community leadership role. This

study utilized an exploratory sequential design that is presented over five chapters.

Chapter 2 provides context for the study by exploring the literature on community

leadership broadly defined and the literature related to community foundations and their

roles as community leaders. Various studies on community leadership are presented,

followed by a conceptual framework of community leadership developed for this study.

The chapter concludes with various examples of how a community foundation could

practice community leadership.

Chapter 3 is considered the first of two studies within the dissertation. This study

examines California community foundations' purpose statements and mission statements

to understand how they are framing their goals, stakeholders, and roles as community

foundations. The findings presented in this chapter suggest that community foundations

may have gone from community-centered institutions to more donor-centric institutions

over time by altering their mission statement to include more mentions of donors rather

than the community-at-large. Furthermore, it appears the introduction of community

leadership in the 1990s had little to no effect on newer community foundations adopting

the "best practice," which was hypothesized due to normative isomorphic change. This

finding suggests that while community leadership is part of the community foundation

operating model, some community foundations may have been quicker to claim it than

others—or include it within their mission statements at least.

Chapter 4 is the second study of the dissertation that examines how various

community foundations in California are practicing their community leadership. To

understand the findings in Chapter 3, interviews were conducted with community

foundations claiming community leadership within their mission statements. In most of

the community foundations interviewed, it appeared that community leadership either

was based on funds available at the community foundation (i.e., assets held) or is what

led the fundraising efforts of the community foundation (i.e., community leadership

agenda influenced the types of gifts the community foundation sought).

Chapter 5 summarizes both of the studies presented in Chapters 3 and 4 and

provides additional discussion around the findings and how they intersect. The

implications for future research, as well as immediate next steps, are presented, followed

by a call to action for the community foundation field for those foundations that are either

interested in engaging in community leadership for the first time or for those that are

looking to deepen their existing community leadership work.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Community foundations are institutional forms of philanthropy designed to foster

philanthropy at a local level (Mazany & Perry, 2014). The community foundation concept

was first conceived in 1914 by Frederick Goff, who was instrumental in creating the first

community foundation, The Cleveland Foundation, and the idea began to spread globally

(Sacks, 2014). Created as an alternative to a trust company specifically designed to accept

and manage charitable contributions (The Cleveland Trust Company, 1914), the

community foundation model offered an alternative structure for individuals wishing to

make a long-lasting impact in their communities. The strength of the community

foundation model is its staying power and ability to provide "…practical, helpful

assistance for the portion of the community which at the moment stands most in need of

help" (as cited in Goff, 1919, p. 13). Historically, practitioner and academic literature has

explored the grantmaking and fundraising (asset building) roles of community

foundation, yet there has been a gap within the literature in regards to the role of

community foundation as community leaders – including how they serve as community

leaders, what it means to be a community leader, who decides the role of community

relationship, and why being a community leader is an integral role to the mission of

community foundations.

Additionally, the concept of community leadership has been explored throughout

the academic literature; however, there appears to be no consensus on whether

community leadership applies to single individuals ("Community Leader"), is a process

for which to accomplish things within a community, a collective of individuals working

together to create change (e.g., policy change, increase in quality of life), or simply the

leadership that is found within a particular community. These challenges are explored

throughout this literature review, and while there is a debate on the unit of analysis in

community leadership, it is clear that there are themes that link the varying definitions

and conceptions of what community leadership is, how it affects communities, and how it

can be a resource for community change.

This literature review and conceptual framework examines various works of

literature, both academic and practitioner, from a variety of disciplines and finds that

regardless of the framing, community leadership includes the themes of collaboration,

planning, and implementation—indicating that community leadership is not necessary a

role, but a process in which organizations must continuously participate in to the point

where it becomes an integral process that is institutionalized within the organization and

becomes an approach to leadership rather than a single incident. As community

foundations seek to deepen their engagement with their local communities, it is

imperative that a definition of community leadership be developed that can easily be

interpreted and implemented. Presently, many of the definitions of community leadership

are rather ambiguous, and a change in definition is needed to recognize that community

leadership is a collective process that should work towards a defined community goal,

rather than an individual position.

While the broad definition of community leadership is likely to continue to be

debated, the elements that make successful community leaders can be found within other

definitions of leadership within the literature, including the concepts of civic leadership,

collective leadership, and community engagement.

The following sections provide an overview of the purpose of community

foundations and their expansion, both in terms of numbers and roles within communities,

as well as conceptions of community leadership and how community foundations seek to

fill this role. The chapter concludes with a conceptual framework for community

leadership by a community foundation that incorporates the themes and findings from

previous studies on community leadership. The framework, and a resulting working

definition, presented in this chapter guides the research design utilized throughout the

dissertation.

Community Foundation Definition

The Council on Foundations (1988) defines a community foundation and its roles

as the following:

A community foundation is a publicly-supported philanthropic

institution governed by a board of private citizens chosen to be

representative of the public interest and for their knowledge of the

community.

Community foundations uniquely serve three publics: donors, the

nonprofit sector, and the community as a whole. Individual community

foundations may focus to some extent on one of these publics over the

other two (leading to considerable diversity in the field) but by structure

and by regulation the community foundation must always serve all

three.

Its purposes are to:

1. Professionally manage and distribute income, and portions of the

principal when permitted, from donors' charitable gifts and bequests

in a manner consistent with donors' specific and general interests;

2. Maintain and enhance the educational, social, cultural, health, and

civic resources of the community, through the support of qualified

nonprofit organizations, and;

3. Through the actions of board and staff, provide philanthropic

leadership and help create and promote efforts among the citizens to

improve the quality of life in the community.

(p. 3)

More concretely, community foundations are often cited as playing three distinct roles

within their communities: grantmaker, asset-builder (fundraiser), and community leader.

The practitioner and academic literature often expand on these three roles (see Council of

Michigan Foundations, 1992; Council on Foundations, 1988; Philipp, 1999) and these

roles are often the categories that community foundations use to segregate their work.

Expansion of the Community Foundation Model

According to the Community Foundation Atlas (2014), there were approximately

1,900 community foundations worldwide in the mid-2010s, referred to internationally as

"place-based foundations." These place-based foundations contribute billions in grants

annually to the global economy, each serving an average of 185,000

individuals in a specific geographic region, with nearly two-thirds established over the

past 30 years (Community Foundation Atlas, 2014).

Research focused on recounting and remapping community foundations in the

United States suggests that over 1,000 community foundations serve approximately 98

percent of the country—geographically speaking (Wu, 2019; Wu, Paarlberg, Strawser,

Ming, & Ai, 2019). These findings illustrate that what is often referred to as the

"community foundation movement" is alive and well in the United States. As the

community foundation field has evolved, so have the philanthropy support organizations

(PSOs) that provide specialized services to community foundations such as CFLeads

(Community Leadership), CFInsights (Data and Research), ProNet (Grantmaking),

AdNet (Fundraising), and CommA (Communications), among others. This growth

indicates substantial efforts toward professionalizing the field.

Conceptions of Community and the Role of Community Foundations

The word community evokes a multitude of meanings, especially in a globalized

world. Hillary (1995) describes 94 different variations of community, indicating a broad

spectrum of the concept's meaning. Wilkinson (1979, 1991) describes community as an

interactional approach where community is built on the principle that the community acts

as a whole within a social field and seeks to fulfill residents' needs. Milofsky's (2019)

various definitions include individuals who share the same profession (e.g., nurses or

teachers), seek emotional or spiritual connection (e.g., bible study or a church group),

belong to a specific user community sharing a similar product or service (e.g., video

games or a knitting circle), or elite groups of individuals (e.g., Nobel Prize winners or

UN Ambassadors). McMillian and Chavis (1986) identify four dimensions that create a

"sense of community": membership (feeling of belonging), influence (making a

difference), reinforcement (fulfilled needs), and emotional connection (sharing strong

bonds with others).

Sociologists often consider community to be bound within a geographic region,

such as neighborhoods, towns, or counties (Fisher, 1994; Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974;

Long, 1958; Sampson, 2012, 2015). While sociologists consider community to be a broad

term with multiple dimensions (McMillan & Chavis, 1986), numerous studies define it

geographically by examining various characteristics and disparities (Sampson, 2015;

Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley, 2002). For example, previous scholars have

examined differentiation within communities on the topics of crime (Kling, Ludwig, &

Kratz, 2005; Sampson, 1985), educational attainment (Garner & Raudenbush, 1991;

Patacchini & Zenou, 2011), poverty (Harding, 2003; South & Crowder, 1999), and health

(Larsen & Merlo, 2005; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2003).

Much of the literature on community leadership defines community in terms of

geography, specifically focusing on neighborhoods or spaces of influence. In this

literature, the extent to which an area is defined as a single community depends on the

geographic composition of the area in question; for example, a rural community resident

in the Midwest may consider community to exist at the county level, while a New York

City resident may consider their associated community to be their neighborhood (e.g.,

Brooklyn, Manhattan, or Queens), or even special districts, such as Chelsea, Chinatown,

or Greenwich Village. While other types of communities are explored in the social

science literature, such as communities of faith, identity, and other attributes (see Franz,

Skinner, & Murphy, 2018; McMillian & Chavis, 1986; Milofsky, 2019), the

conceptualization of community within nonprofit and philanthropic studies is

predominately geographical.

Following this line of thought, community foundations have historically defined

community at the county level (Council on Foundations, 1990). In some cases, multiple

community foundations serve a particular region of a county (e.g., San Diego Foundation,

Rancho Santa Fe Foundation, Legacy Foundation, Del Mar Foundation, and San Marcos

Community Foundation all in San Diego County, California), while others serve multiple

counties (e.g., Central Valley Community Foundation serving Fresno, Kings, Tulare,

Madera, Merced, and Mariposa Counties in California). Regardless of the particular

geographic boundary, the standard definition of "community" for a community

foundation is often place-based. However, other types of organizations use the title

"community foundation" to create similarly structured organizations focusing on identity

(e.g., Latino Community Foundation) or faith (e.g., Jewish Community Foundation or

Catholic Community Foundation).

As part of their business model, community foundations claim to exercise

leadership in their service area (Council on Foundations, 1988, 1990). While it appears

community foundations have determined their operational definition of community (i.e.,

geographic), there is a lack of agreement on their definition of "leadership" and how they

utilize leadership to achieve community-level outcomes—thus creating an operational

challenge within the field resulting in having no normative clarity on how a community

foundation is to pursue the community leadership role successfully.

Community foundations are unique organizations in their duality of roles

(Harrow, Jung, & Phillips, 2016): they both raise and distribute funds. Additionally,

community foundations are tasked with supporting nonprofits' needs while

simultaneously fulfilling donors' instructions and wishes. Therefore, the operating model

of community foundations is ideal if both the funding from philanthropists and the

community's needs align. However, if funds are unavailable to support specific

community needs, the community foundation can become stagnant and unable to address

a particular need due to a lack of resources (Murphy, 2017). One possible way out of this

dilemma is for community foundations to embrace and take on the role of community

leadership.

Community Leadership

Leadership can be found in all forms of communities, regardless of whether the

community is created along the lines of geography, identity, or other socially constructed

parameters (Milofsky, 2019). Some type of leadership is necessary for a functioning

community, whether held by a city council, a group of elders or distributed amongst

everyone in the community with a specific role for each individual. Sometimes this

leadership is formal (e.g., elected offices), and sometimes it is informal (e.g., someone

naturally arises to lead a collective), making it challenging to define who is a community

leader and what it takes to be a strong community leader.

The concept of community leadership has been explored and debated in a variety

of disciplines, including leadership studies (Bono, Shen, & Snyder, 2010; Hartley, 2002;

Watt & Ziegler, 2009), community development (Apaliyah, Martin, Gasteyer, Keating, &

Pigg, 2012; Wituk, Ealey, Clark, Keiny, & Meissen, 2005), business (Aref & Ma'rof,

2009; Bonjean & Olson, 1964), public administration (Feldman, 2006; Madden, 2010;

Purdue, 2005), and sociology (Bonjean, 1963; Fanelli, 1956, Lindeman, 1921). Yet, there

is no universally agreed-upon definition of community leadership and its characteristics.

Community leadership has been defined according to particular positions (Azzam &

Riggio, 2003; Fanelli, 1956), exercising particular powers (Langone & Rohs, 1995;

Purdue, 2005), or in some cases simply as a popularity contest (Fanelli, 1956). Scholars

have also referred to the work of community leadership as "integrative leadership"

(Winston & Patterson, 2006) as it often requires individuals to work with organizations to

solve community problems (Bono, Shen, Snyder, 2010; Fanelli, 1956; Purdue, Razzaque,

Hambleton, Stewart, Huxham, & Vangen, 2000). Table 1 displays the range of scholarly

definitions of community leadership.

Table 1

Definitions of Community Leadership

Definitions Sources

Community leadership is that which involves influence, power, and

input into public decision-making over one or more spheres of

activity

Langone, 1992

Developing community leadership begins with recognizing that both

the practice of leadership and the situation in which it occurs need to

be understood. We consider leadership as a collective relational

phenomenon. This collective relational phenomena is also 'cultured,'

that is, it is a phenomenon that grows out of, and is a product of its

setting.

Kirk & Shutte,

2004, p. 235

The pursuit of community wellbeing through strategic interventions

that would not otherwise have happened.

Sullivan &

Sweeting, 2005,

p. 22

Influenced largely by servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977),

community leadership is based on the notion that there are leaders

everywhere, including civic groups, boards of volunteer agencies,

neighborhood associations, interest groups, and self-help

organizations (Tropman, 1997).

Wituk, Ealey,

Clark, Heiny, &

Meissen, 2005,

p. 90

…community leadership emphasizes a collaborative, on-going,

influential process based on the relationships between people.

Wituk, Ealey,

Clark, Heiny, &

Meissen, 2005,

p. 90

Community leadership, common to all community development

projects, is the enabling of the relational capacity of community

members to initiate the creative and often hidden potential of the

community and turn it into initiatives driven by empowered

community members.

Nel, 2018, p.

839

A majority of the definitions of community leadership, including the ones listed in

Table 1, emphasize concepts of collaboration, influence, long-term planning, advocacy,

and mobilization as crucial characteristics of strong community leadership (Glidewell,

Kelly, Bagby, & Dickerson, 1998; Langone & Rohs, 1995; Nel, 2018; Whitney &

Trosten-Bloom, 2010). The emphases of definitions can be divided into those

highlighting how such leadership emerges and those focused on what such leadership

accomplishes. Based on the definitions listed in Table 1, community leadership is often

collective – resulting in both voluntary associations and community institutions playing

leadership roles within communities. Furthermore, the definitions indicate community

leadership is about being active in pursuing change to achieve a civic outcome—whether

the change be within the public policy arena, community development projects, or other

initiatives affecting the life of the community.

Another essential element noted in the literature on community leadership is an

argument that community leadership is not a style of leadership per se but may be more

of a context in which leadership operates (Fanelli, 1956; Kirk & Shutte, 2004; Ricketts &

Ladewig, 2008). For example, community leadership within the academic literature can

theoretically refer to leaders within a community (person) or a place within a community

where leadership is executed (e.g., an individual within a church, a principal within a

school).

The community leadership literature's overall challenge is its focus on identifying

leaders as individuals, a similar trend found in the literature in leadership studies. Yet,

many of these community leadership studies lack an overall definition of what success

looks like for a community leader and who decides who is a community leader.

Community Leadership vs. Leaders in Community

As previously mentioned, community leadership is complex and it has previously

been conceptualized as a position, an action, an individual, a group, a group of groups,

and other ways. In some instances, community leadership refers to individuals seeking to

enhance the quality of life of a community. In others, it refers to leadership within a

particular context (i.e., a "community"). While community leadership is not clearly

defined within the literature, the various definitions of community leadership have some

common themes—Working for the betterment of all and collaborating within and with

the community—all of which have been more strategically explored within the academic

and practitioner literature (e.g., community development, community engagement,

participatory action research). Therefore, the conceptions of community leadership can be

divided into two categories: (1) Community institutions seeking to create change within a

community (i.e., externally focused) and (2) individuals that enhance their leadership

skills to being competent leaders within community (i.e., internally focused)

In regard to the first category, community leadership requires action; therefore,

community foundations can serve as community leaders in a variety of ways that seek to

deliver on their overall goals and mission of enhancing the quality of life for a particular

region. Leadership requires action (or inversely, inaction may be considered poor

leadership); therefore, community foundations can serve as community leaders by

engaging in public policy, serving as resources for information within communities,

convening local organizations around a particular community issues, and a variety of

other actions that seek to create a positive change within their service region.

While developing individuals' leadership skills within communities is vital, there

is a difference between being a leader within a community and leading from within

communities. There are many programs that seek to equip individuals within a

community with leadership skills (i.e., individuals and internally focused) that can help

them become more effective leaders within their personal and professional lives. Many

community leadership programs focus on building skills needed for leadership

(Galloway, 1997), which can be necessary to create strong community leaders, yet many

of these programs are often focused on building individual capacity rather than increasing

community or organizational capacity. For example, these types of programs aid

individuals in understanding their leadership styles, instruct them on how to lead a team,

and identify ways in which individuals can be more aware of their leadership traits to be a

better leader (Galloway, 1997). What they fail to do is address leadership challenges

within the community, indicating the community leadership programs are more about

being leaders within a community, rather than leading a community forward by making a

positive societal changes.

Conceptual Definition of Community Leadership

As community foundations take on leadership roles to address some of society's

toughest challenges, it is clear that a very specific type of leadership is needed. Based on

a review of the literature and various theories related to the study of leadership and

change management, the following is a working definition of community leadership:

Community foundations act as community leaders when they engage individuals

or groups within a particular community to collectively establish goals and guide

them toward the achievement of those goals to achieve a civic outcome.

As defined in this section, community leadership is a process that a community

foundation can pursue to make positive changes in a community. Furthermore,

community leadership is also a spectrum in which all leadership expressions may not

look the same, yet the motivating principles are likely similar. For example, community

foundations with limited capacity (i.e., few staff members, limited assets) may have a

smaller leadership role in their community. In contrast, they could also be the primary

institution driving change in the community if they are the only organization in the

community providing strategic leadership. Thus, community leadership is very

contextual. As community foundations seek to enhance their community leadership role,

it is necessary to consider their leadership capacity, what they bring to the table, whom

they need to involve, and collectively decide how they wish to move forward.

Community Foundations:

Grantmaker to Community Leader

Although community foundations have existed since the early 1900s, the role of

the foundation as community leadership was first introduced in the practitioner literature

in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Council on Foundations, 1988, 1990). In a Council on

Foundations (1990) training manual for community foundations, the rationale for

community foundations to take up leadership within their communities were as follows:

(1) community foundations are created to serve the community, (2) the board represents

the community, (3) the community foundation is impartial in political matters, (4)

leadership grows out of grantmaking since the community foundation is aware of

community issues, and (5) unrestricted funds enable the community foundation to put

resources to use for new and creative community solutions (p. 18).

A report from Community Foundations of Canada (1996) established nine

community leadership principles (Table 2) that call for community leadership as an

integral role within the community foundation business model and suggest such activities

should be threaded throughout the operations of a community foundation.

Table 2

Principles of Community Leadership (Community Foundations of Canada)

1 Building Community

Capacity

We will nurture and build our community's strengths and

assets. Communities are strengthened by initiatives which

increase the capacity of organizations and individuals to

respond to challenges and opportunities, develop local

leadership, promote self-reliance, emphasize prevention

and mobilize civic participation and resources.

2 Understanding the

Changing Nature of

Our Communities

To be strategic in all our activities, we need to know our

communities well. This involved spending time in

community consultation, making ourselves available for

discussion, being active participants in the community,

monitoring local and national trends and being aware of the

impact of change in our communities.

3 Creating

Opportunities for

Dialogue

Because of our broad mandate to nurture a vital

community, we will bring together people with different

ideas and points of view to create opportunities for

respectful dialogue on issues of importance to our

communities.

4 Developing

Partnerships

Since more can be accomplished when acting together, we

will form, encourage and support partnerships among

individuals, neighbourhood and community groups,

service clubs, foundations, professional advisors,

businesses, governments, the media and others, based on

shared vision and mutual responsibility.

5 Reflecting Diversity We believe there is strength in diversity and that our

communities will be better served when we understand

different points of view and engage the broader community

in our deliberations and decision making

6 Establishing an

Effective and

Imaginative Grants

Program

We will strive to continually improve our skills as

grantmakers, making a visible and lasting difference in our

communities through a grant program that is balanced,

flexible, creative and responsive.

7 Evaluating and

Sharing Results

We will evaluate our activities to improve our skills and

knowledge and we will share key findings with others.

8 Implementing

Responsive and

Accountable Processes

We will engage in practices that are open and accessible,

fair and objective, flexible and timely with grant seekers,

donors, volunteers and others in the community. This is

essential to our role as credible and reputable stewards of

community resources.

9 Balancing Our Because our fund development, grantmaking, and

Resources community leadership activities are interdependent, we will

commit and balance our human and financial resources

among them.

(pp. 4-5)

In a Council on Michigan Foundations and Council on Foundations (1999)

training program for new community foundation trustees and staff, community leadership

was described as a unique role for community foundations. The following training

manual examples illustrate the rationale for community foundations to participate in

leadership and convening:

•The community foundation is neutral – The Foundation's program and

community advocacy activities are focus on community betterment.

•The community foundation is a bridge – The Foundation bridges the gap

between the community of affluence and the community of need.

•The community foundation does not compete with other area organization

in its fund raising activities.

•The community foundation has special insight – The Foundation's

grantmaking position allows it to understand community / organizational

capacity.

•The community foundation is isolated – Healthy isolation allows the

Community Foundation to operate free of community "politics."

Bernholz et al. (2005) state that community leadership is an important tool for

community foundations to succeed, and present three leadership tasks for community

foundations, including shifting the organizational focus from the institution to the

community, from managing financial assets to long-term leadership, and from

competitive independence to coordinated impact (p. 35).

In 2008, CFLeads released its first iteration of the Framework for Community

Leadership by a Community Foundation, with an updated version released in 2013 that

acknowledged the potential community foundations had to lead within their local

communities. According to CFLeads (2008), effective community leadership is the

following:

The community foundation is a catalyzing force that creates a better future

for all by addressing the community's most critical or persistent challenges,

inclusively uniting people, institutions, and resources, and producing

significant, widely shared, and lasting results (p. 2).

With the creation of the CFLeads framework for community leadership, the Council

on Foundations and CFLeads (2009) stated that community foundations are wellsuited

to act as community leaders as: (1) they are nonpartisan, (2) they have wideranging

relationships, (3) they have convening power, (4) they have flexible resources, (5)

they can flex their jurisdiction and tools, and (6) they have staying power. While these

points are more congruent with community foundations' current operating

environment, there is a lack of clarity on how community foundations become

community leaders since the definition is primarily focused on the result—or

"outcome."

Among the four rationales for community foundations (Table 3) to serve as

community leaders listed above, there appears to be little agreement on the reasoning

or approach for community leadership – other than many agreeing on the fact that

community foundations are neutral and/or nonpartisan. There appears to be a slight

adjustment in language over time that illustrates that community foundations may have

become more aware of their power – changing rationales around their grantmaking

being leadership and them being aware of community issues, to focusing more on

convening and taking a community-centered approach to be more responsive to

community issues. These alternations also appear within CFLeads most recently

iteration of its community leadership framework and recently publications.

Table 3

Positioning for Community Leadership

Organization Rationale

Council on Foundations (1990) Why?

•Serve the community

•Board represents community

•Impartial in political matters

•Grantmaking is leadership

•Aware of community issues

•Unrestricted funds provide

flexibility

Community Foundations of Canada

(1996) Commitments

•Building community capacity

•Understanding the changing nature

of our communities

•Creating opportunities for dialogue

•Developing partnerships

•Reflecting diversity

•Establishing an effective and

imaginative grants program

•Evaluating and sharing results

•Implementing responsive and

accountable processes

•Balancing our resources

Council of Michigan Foundations (1999)

Why?

•Community foundation is neutral

•Focus on community betterment

•Connects people with means to

issues of need

•Does not complete against other

organizations for funding

•Aware of community issues

•Operates freely from politics

Council on Foundations and CFLeads

(2009)

Why?

•Community foundations are

nonpartisan

•Expansive relationships

•Conveners

• Flexible resources

• Staying Power

Revised CFLeads Community Leadership Framework

In 2013, CFLeads issued a revised framework (Figure 2) with an updated

definition and outcome for community leadership by a community foundation that

included language to frame the community foundation as more of a partner for

bringing the community together with language that contains a more asset-based

approach to leadership and community change:

The community foundation is a community partner that creates a better future

for all by pursuing the community's greatest opportunities and addressing the

most critical challenges, inclusively uniting people, institutions, and resources

from throughout the community, and producing significant, widely shared, and

lasting results (p. 2).

In terms of defining community leadership's purpose or practice, the CFLeads

definitions lack specificity in how community leadership can be measured and

evaluated. The definition focuses on the "result" of implementing community

leadership and neglects to mention the inputs, activities, outputs, or outcomes

necessary to achieve the status of a community leader.

Figure 2

Framework for Community Leadership by a Community Foundation – Building Blocks

(CFLeads, 2013)

To assess how community foundations were approaching their community leadership

roles, CF Insights and CFLeads (2017) conducted a national survey to identify

community foundations' needs and future directions. The organizations reported five key

service need areas: (1) staff development, (2) collaboration/networking and peer

learning, (3) legal compliance and advisory services, (4) field positioning and

leadership, and (5) field knowledge. Both CF Insights and CFLeads committed to

creating metrics around community leadership, sharing information on critical

community issues, and assisting other philanthropy service organizations (PSOs) that

provide training and technical assistance.

As a result of the 2017 study conducted in collaboration with CFInsights,

CFLeads (2019) issued five elements of effective community leadership (Figure 3) that

include (1) engaging residents, (2) working across sectors, (commissioning and

disseminating local data), (4) shaping public policy, and (5) marshalling resources. While

these five competencies for the effective practice of community leadership help define

what it means for a community foundation to be a community leader, the literature

remains unclear as to how a community foundation would define or evaluate community

leadership for themselves.

Figure 3

Elements of Effective Community Leadership

The CFInsights and CFLeads (2017) report alluded that leadership within

community foundations did not quite have an evaluative component to it, which is

challenging to establish when an overall definition is lacking both potential outputs and

outcomes. Furthermore, the CFLeads framework lacks specific concepts that can be

implemented. In contrast, other frameworks for leadership, organizational change, and

community engagement such as Lewin's (1947) 3-Stage Change Model or Kotter's (1995)

8-Step Change Model provide both a specific definition for change as well as an

evaluative component that assists in ensuring a particular goal is pursued. Those pursuing

the goal are then held accountable for achieving the desired outcome.

In the CFLeads framework's (2013) current iteration, community foundations

have the opportunity to classify what they do as community leadership if it fits within one

of the five elements (engaging residents, working across sectors, commission and

disseminating local data, shaping public policy, marshalling resources); however, there

are no levels of effectiveness or impact that look at varying depths of engagement in

community leadership. For example, two community foundations could state they are

community leaders by indicating they strive to shape public policy. Community

Foundation A meets with elected officials once a year to provide them with an update on

the local nonprofit sector along with a copy of their annual report. Community

Foundation B is part of three local coalitions working to increase affordable housing,

advocates for additional funding from the state and federal government, and provides

grant dollars to help support a housing index study to supply lawmakers with additional

data. Both community foundations are engaging community leadership with public

policy, yet Community Foundation B is clearly more involved than Community

Foundation A, thus creating both an operative and evaluative dilemma for community

leadership.

When foundations are left to create their own frameworks for success it can be

somewhat arbitrary in the sense that foundations often hold the power in a grantmaking

relationship, and thus the rationale behind conducting evaluations must come from a

specific source to encourage performance measurement (Buteau et al., 2016). For

example, initial rationalizations of community leadership by a community foundation

focused on their power and connections to wealthy elites and ability to provide grants to

support causes that were identified as important community issues. However, over time

the rationale to be a community leader focused more on a community foundations ability

to bring people together to focus on community challenges. Albeit an important shift in

grantmaker power to implement more participatory practices, the community foundation

field still appears to struggle with putting parameters around community leadership and

identifying how it is implemented rather that what it looks like a result.

A Conceptual Model of Community Leadership

Contemporary community foundations are being forced to reconsider their value

proposition in a time of increased competition from both for-profit companies (e.g.,

Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab) and nonprofit entities (Ragey, Masaoka, & Peters, 2005) that

offer lower-cost alternatives for philanthropic investments (Bernholz, Fulton, & Kasper,

2005). Community leadership is both the value-add and unique role that community

foundations can play that provide benefit to both donors (e.g., knowledge about the

community, ability to track local trends) and the community-at-large by leveraging their

position in the community to raise awareness about various community issues (Bernholz

et al., 2005; Council on Foundations, 1990; Canada Community Foundations, 1996).

Community foundations have an inherent responsibility to serve as community

leaders since they are often the philanthropic powerhouses in a community (Council on

Foundation, 1988, 1990). As institutions of philanthropy, community foundations have

opportunities to convene conversations around particular issues within communities that

are sometimes challenging for other nonprofits or entities in a community to address.

While community foundations have been around for over 100 years, a majority of

community foundations are approximately 30 years old (Sacks, 2014)—indicating that

some community foundations may be farther along as community leaders than others.

Leadership is often a response to a particular context; therefore, community leadership

for community foundations will come in different shapes and sizes depending on their

service region and other internal and external factors. Therefore, the choice for a

community foundation is not whether they want to be a leader; it is a choice of how their

leadership is expressed since it is part of their operational framework.

While the CFLeads (2008) framework on community leadership for community

foundations is promising, it omits the various activities the literature provides as

examples of community leadership such as how to convene different groups, strategies

for collective impact, and other methods of participatory action within communities—

causing there to be a gap in defining community leadership which prevents a standard for

excellence in community leadership from being established. Upon extensive review of

the literature, the theories of civic leadership and collective leadership, along with the act

of community engagement, are likely the facets of community leadership that community

foundations are often referring to in their practices (Figure 4). As the name implies,

collective leadership is focused on achieving collectively defined goals that require

collaboration, civic leadership is focused on making a difference in communities and

enhancing the quality of life, and community engagement is an encompassing term

describing how organizations are actively working within the community. The following

subsections further describe civic leadership, collective leadership, and community

engagement.

Figure 4

Conceptual Framework of Community Leadership

Civic Leadership. Civic leadership is focused on actions rather than positions or

appointments (Couto, 2014; Kibbe Reed, 1996). Kibbe Reed (1996) argues followers can

often be considered as leaders in their own right since they are part of the community

where the leadership is executed and have agency as followers that authorize them to

follow or not. Civic leadership is defined as activities focused on empowering others to

contribute to the greater good of society. Historically, most community leadership

programs focus on building the leadership capacity of individuals for civic leadership:

they are focused on fostering skills needed to lead and make change within communities

(Azzam & Riggio, 2003). In order for such community leadership programs to be

successful, "programs must come to understand leadership through collective action,

where it is not confined to the individuals or established organizations" (Kibbe Reed,

1996, p. 103). Challenging the norms of traditional leadership, civic leadership is

intentional, without position and power, and followers can often be the leaders (Couto,

2014). Couto (2014) argues that nonprofit organizations provide civic leadership in

various ways, including offering cultural enrichment, social services, and other programs

that seek to improve the human condition and the broader community. Couto's argument

aligns with the definition of civic leadership developed by Kibbe Reed (1996):

Civic Leadership is defined as the 'art and science' of leading in the public arena

where one engaged in the affairs of society through public advocacy, debate,

education, and the fostering of dialogue and group reflection. Civic leadership

promotes critical thinking in the public arena and an examination of new

alternatives and paradigms. Participatory leadership is promoted to enhance

humanistic principles which prescribe and produce positive systemic change for

the good of all society, including the world at large (p. 100).

While civic leadership is different from civic engagement, civic engagement could be the

result or process of practicing civic leadership:

Civic engagement means working to make a difference in the civic life of our

communities and developing the combination of knowledge, skills, values and

motivation to make that difference. It means promoting the quality of life in a

community, through both political and non-political processes (Ehrlich, 2000, p.

iv).

Civic leadership provides an opportunity for community foundations to not only lead but

prepare other individuals and organizations to lead as well. While a civic leadership

approach may advocate for the greater collective, it is more often focused on achieving

outcomes by creating positive change through shifting thoughts and policies (Couto,

2014; Kibbe Reed, 1996).

Collective Leadership. Sometimes referred to as shared leadership, the concept

of collective leadership posits that leadership in groups is often a collective phenomenon

(Contractor, DeChurch, Carson, Carter, & Keegan, 2012). As communities often come

together to solve social issues, this framework notes that formal institutions that seek to

help guide this change, such as nonprofit organizations, cannot single-handedly solve a

social challenge. Compared to the more instrumental civic leadership concept, which

focuses on accomplishing tasks and goals to create improvement, collective leadership is

more expressive through its drive for inclusion and ensuring that everyone is heard.

The concept of collective impact, defined as a group of actors from different

sectors gathering around a common agenda to solve a specific social problem, illustrates

collective leadership in action. According to Kania and Kramer (2011), five conditions

must be met for collective impact to move beyond simple forms of collaboration: (1) a

common agenda, (2) shared measurement, (3) mutually reinforcing activities, (4)

continuous communication, and (5) backbone support. As community foundations seek to

lead in communities, they must recognize they cannot do it alone; it takes multiple

stakeholders from all sectors to create social change (Kania & Kramer, 2011).

Community Engagement. In its simplest form, community engagement is

focused on how community foundations engage with their community. Community

engagement is often considered a physical presence within a community, yet this does not

always transition to actionable leadership. Community foundations, and foundations in

general, have been accused of focusing solely on the intentions of donors (Buchanan,

2017; Healy, 2018; Somerville, 2013); therefore, community foundations have

intentionally sought to understand the challenges from a variety of stakeholder

perspectives through various participatory methods (see, for example, Fund for Shared

Insight; Gibson, 2017, 2018). As community foundations are often viewed as knowledge

hubs, they must be deeply embedded in various aspects of community conversations and

initiatives (Council on Foundations, 1988, 1990). In the field of higher education, The

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching's Elective Community

Engagement Classification, (n.d.) which recognizes institutions of higher education for

strong community engagement, provides a definition of community engagement that can

also be applied to the work of community foundations: "Community engagement is

shaped by relationships between those in the institution and those outside the institution

that are grounded in the qualities of reciprocity, mutual respect, shared authority, and

cocreation of goals and outcomes." As institutions consider becoming more engaged in

their communities, they must be aware of power dynamics to ensure respect and

reciprocity (National Center for Responsive Philanthropy, n.d.).

Leadership Approaches and Community Leadership

While leadership is often focused on the individual level (Burns, 2012; Heifetz &

Linsky, 2017; Walumbwa, Lawler, & Avolio, 2007), many community institutions are

collectively beginning to claim a leadership role to enhance the quality of life in their

service regions, yet there is a gap within the literature on particular definitions and

frameworks for institutional leadership. An example of this commitment is the work of

anchor institutions, defined as place-based institutions, often nonprofits, that invest in

capital and relationships within a defined area (Ehlenz, 2018; Webber & Karlstrom,

2009). According to Cantor, Englot, and Higgins (2013), anchor institutions are "…

placebased organizations that persist in communities over generations, serving as social

glue, economic engines, or both" (as cited on pg. 20). For example, many higher

education institutions have adopted an anchor framework (Birch, Perry, & Taylor, 2013;

Perry, Wiewel, & Menendez, 2009) dedicated to providing social, education, and

economic investment in the community in which the university has a physical presence.

Other institutions, such as hospitals (Norris & Howard, 2015; Reed, Göpfert, Wood,

Allwood & Warburton, 2019), public libraries (Goodman, 2013; Mersand, Gasco-

Hernandez, Udoh,

& Gil-Garcia, 2019), and community foundations (Harrow, Jung, & Phillips, 2016; Kelly

& Duncan, 2014; Mazany & Perry, 2014) have also been labeled as anchor institutions as

their endowments ensure their staying power (Bowman, 2007, 2011).

The field of leadership studies has examined leadership from a variety of angles,

including conceptualizing leadership as a process, as well as qualitative traits of

individual leaders (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Cartwright, 1965; Lipman-Bluemen, 2005;

Rost, 1991). Leadership theories can be valuable in considering how community

foundations may seek to lead in an effort to create change within communities, yet there

is an overall lack of empirical research on how nonprofit organizations serve,

institutionally, as leaders in their communities. While this trend is understandable given

that leadership theories predominately focus on one particular individual, a leader and

followers, or a group of leaders and followers, nonprofit organizations play distinct

leadership roles in communities that require further research and understanding.

Developing vs. Applying Community Leadership

Community leadership is not necessarily a theory of leadership – or at least it has

not been applied and tested empirically enough to have a solid theoretical grounding. Yet,

the act or desired outcome of community leadership can be found partially within existing

leadership theories. While not present in the current academic literature, the act of being a

community leader is most likely the amalgamation of multiple leadership theories and

frameworks to creating systemic community change; thus, a single theory is likely unable

to describe the leadership process of a community foundation seeking to improve the

quality of life for a particular region.

While useful leadership theories address what it means to be a community leader

individually, a majority of the research around community leadership analyzes

community leadership programs (for example, see Keating, 2011; Langone, 1992;

Langone & Rohs, 1995; Rohs, 1992). Community leadership programs have started for

various reasons, including efforts to bring a community together, seek to fill leadership

voids, and provide opportunities for individual leadership skill enhancement (Azzam &

Riggio, 2003). Furthermore, many community leadership programs seek to serve a

variety of individuals from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Thus, they may

inadequately prepare individuals for community leadership positions (Langone & Rohs,

1995; Wituk, Ealey, Clark, Heiny, & Meissen, 2005).

Particular studies around leadership programs are often single case studies or

involve examining one cohort's experience with a program on community leadership.

While some studies indicate the overall "outcome" of participation in community

leadership programming, there is a lack of evidence that completing a leadership program

helps an individual become a strong community leader. Though some of these programs

are focused on equipping individuals with leadership skills (i.e., having more leaders in

the community), the literature remains unclear about how these programs help individuals

create change within a community: leading the community rather than just being a

"leader" in a community.

Community leadership programs are often focused on developing individuals'

leadership capacity; while skill development is valuable, additional research is needed on

community leadership in an applied setting. One way to pursue this line of research is to

conceptualize community leadership as focused on building leadership in a community

through skills-based development aimed at increasing individual leadership capacity—

which is undoubtedly necessary to address leadership deficits and aid individuals in

becoming better managers, more empathic supervisors, and understanding how other

individuals work in a team environment. Another way to conceptualize community

leadership is the application of leadership skills in order to improve the community (see

Wituk et al., 2005).

Implementing Community Leadership

As community foundations seek to become more engaged in their communities

and create change at a systemic level, there needs to be a reframing around what it means

to be a community leader and how that leadership is evaluated (CFLeads & CF Insights,

2019). In responding to community needs, community foundations must be realistic

about their organizational capacities to serve in the role of a community leader.

Community foundations are unique in that they both raise and distribute funds, and

community leadership provides an opportunity for community foundations to create a

reason for individuals to donate towards specific initiatives in the community.

Community foundations' fund minimums (i.e., $10,000 to create an endowment fund)

may limit their engagement with all residents; therefore, community leadership is an

opportunity to engage the entire community in collectively creating change. In practical

terms, community leadership will look different for each community foundation;

however, adopting a community leadership mindset and strategic positioning will allow

community foundations to clearly define their value, raise their community profile, and

create positive change within their service regions. According to a report from CFLeads

(2020), 98-percent of surveyed community foundations indicated a desire to deeper or

expand their community leadership over the next few years—signaling a potential wave

of innovative approaches to community leadership and change.

Examples of Community Foundations as Community Leaders

The following three brief examples illustrate how a community foundation could

pursue the conceptual definition of community leadership presented in this chapter.

Early Childhood Education. The Community Foundation of the Sunshine Valley

has been a local champion for education since its founding in 1994. The foundation holds

numerous scholarship funds, approximately 30% of its assets, about 45% of assets are

donor-advised funds, and the remaining 25% are a blend of fields of interest and

discretionary funds that the board has oversight over. The superintendent of the local

school district, who serves on the education advisory council of this community

foundation, recently shared that there has been a drastic decrease in kindergarten

readiness at the school corporation, and something must be done. The community

foundation decides that early childhood education could be a leadership initiative in its

upcoming strategic plan, and they set the goal of increasing the number of students ready

to learn when entering school to 85% by 2025. As the foundation has limited funding

available, it works with other local funders to help support the efforts of local childcare

centers to integrate a stronger curriculum, and it works with its scholarship donors who

have historically focused on providing scholarships to college to create scholarships for

local preschool spaces for families who cannot afford to send their children to preschool.

The foundation also collaborates with local funders to create a special initiative to

educate the public, and more importantly, parents, on various milestones that young

children should meet before entering school. As a result, the community foundation

creates three task forces to support the initiative: one for parents, one for educators, and a

data collaboration comprised of local experts and funders.

Homelessness and Affordable Housing. Since the 2008 recession, River County

has seen an unprecedented spike in homelessness. While the Community Foundation of

River County has supported grants to the local homeless shelter in the past, the numbers

of people in need are only increasing. Jane Smith reached out to the community

foundation since she and her husband, John, are local business owners and have noticed a

significant increase in the number of individuals experiencing homelessness downtown

on Main Street. The Smiths have always offered food to locals, but it is just not enough.

Jane has also noticed increased housing developments downtown, but all the rents are

well over $2,000 a month for these luxury apartments. After conducting some research,

she found that local developers can simply pay a minor fine to avoid building the

statemandated number of affordable housing units, thereby selling only to individuals

who can pay the full asking price. Jane has been a donor at the community foundation for

many years, so she shared her findings and asked what could be done to address these

issues.

In response to this query, the community foundation convened all the local

homelessness and housing agencies to identify the underlying problems that caused

homelessness to increase within the community. As the community foundation expected,

one of the major issues was the developer fine that prevented the addition of affordable

housing. Another major issue was the overall lack of funding support for those at-risk of

homelessness, meaning that many agencies did not have the programs or services to help

individuals until they lost their homes. As a result of this convening, the community

foundation and other nonprofit agencies wrote a joint letter presented to the housing

commission to (1) advocate for changing the fine program and (2) illustrate how new

developments were increasing surrounding rents and not supporting all residents. After

numerous council meetings and defending property from the local upscale developers, the

county elected to keep the developer fee but agreed to raise it to generate funding for the

construction and support of a local housing development equipped with wraparound

support services.

Environment. Tourists arrive from around the world to visit the amazing nature

trails and parks in Cathedral County. The county is well known for its green space and

residents and visitors who love the outdoors. The Cathedral Community Foundation was

recently contacted by a local business owner, Nancy Jones, about creating a fund at the

community foundation. Nancy has been a lifelong lover of the outdoors and is very

concerned about climate change. Over the years, Cathedral County's population has been

increasing due to the growth of a local university and additional manufacturing

companies building factories and creating jobs. Nancy wants to do something but is

unsure how to begin. A program officer at Cathedral Community Foundation let Nancy

know that they would research meaningful ways to pursue her goals. After contacting the

local Department of Natural Resources, the program officer learned about a state grant to

support communities in purchasing land for conservation purposes, but the grant requires

matching funds. The program officer thought this could be a perfect opportunity to

leverage the support of individuals in the community, like Nancy, to support conservation

efforts so that future generations can enjoy natural spaces. Nancy created a field-

ofinterest fund to support environmental initiatives in the community, and her friends

joined to raise the required matching funds. Subsequently, the county secured a $1

million grant from the state, which was matched with $100,000 from local donors. The

community foundation then purchased 100 acres of land to be put into a land trust as a

protected green space in perpetuity. Since the community foundation is endowed and

established to be permanent, Nancy was thrilled that her investment in the community

foundation leveraged other funds to support local environmental efforts. She and her

friends are already working on fundraising ideas for the next round of state grants.

Examples Review

Each of these examples illustrates how community foundations can lead in many

ways. In the first example, the community foundation simply considered what types of

funding it had and how it could strategically position that funding to create community

change. In the second example, the community foundation elected to utilize its convening

power by bringing together a coalition of organizations around a common issue and

amplifying their voices to ensure that local elected officials and policymakers heard them.

The final example illustrates how community foundations can be local hubs of

knowledge and increase donors' impact by educating them and connecting them to the

right opportunities to make the most significant impact.

The three hypothetical examples illustrate the spectrum of community leadership for

community foundations ranging from comprehensive strategic initiatives, and in some

cases, the everyday work of a community foundation that is well connected and able to

leverage those connections to improve the quality of life in the community. Community

leadership provides an opportunity for community foundations to engage the local

community in driving community change; this transforms a community foundation from

a simple grantmaking institution to an anchor institution that genuinely enhances the

quality of life within a defined service region—which is a unique value-add for

community foundations (Mazany & Perry. 2014).

Conclusions

Community leadership is important for any community to thrive, and community

foundations are clearly in a unique position to provide leadership on a variety of issues

within communities due to their access to funds and awareness of community issues.

While community foundations claim the role of community leadership, there is still a lack

of evidence on the process of being a community leader. Many organizations such as the

Council on Foundations (1990) and CFLeads (2008, 2013) have provided a strong

rationale for why community foundations should be community leaders, and CFLeads

has shared what the result should look like, but the components necessary to be a strong

and effective community leadership have often been excluded from the conversation.

While community leadership will differ in various contexts, there must be some

approaches or underlying strategy that community foundations can enact o be effective

community leaders.

Many community foundations, likely find themselves at the tables where

decisions are being made within communities, which raises questions regarding power

dynamics, privilege, and position: Are institutions that are identified, or self-identified, as

community leaders branded as such due to their wealth, power, and prominence—or are

they rightfully seated at the table due to a proven history of community leadership? In an

effort to bridge this gap within the literature, the definition used to guide this dissertation

focuses in on civic leadership, collective leadership, and community engagement to build

upon the idea that community leadership is a collective phenomenon that seeks to work

with communities to create positive.

As community foundations consider their role as a community leader, it is crucial

to fill various knowledge gaps to better understand the rationale behind engaging in

community leadership activities. For proper assessment of community leadership to

occur, additional research surrounding the definition of community leadership, both

practical and aspirational, is necessary in order to measure it properly. As a definition is

further developed, measurements can then be applied to the work of community

leadership to ensure that community foundations are realizing intended outcomes for the

community. Moreover, additional questions regarding who assesses the impact of

community leadership (e.g., the community foundation, grant recipients, or communityat-

large) will need to be explored as well. As the literature suggests. community leadership

is one of the core operating activities of a community foundation; therefore, this

dissertation seeks to understand how community foundations conceptualize their role as

community leaders and pursue a community leadership agenda to enhance the quality of

life in their communities.

CHAPTER THREE

MISSION STATEMENT ANALYSIS

Community foundations have three operational functions include (1) fundraising,

(2) grantmaking, and (3) community leadership. Fundraising and grantmaking are

relatively basic concepts in the nonprofit sector – fundraising is often soliciting monetary

contributions from individuals, corporations, or foundations. In contrast, grantmaking is

the distribution of funds to support a particular purpose. On the other hand, community

leadership has yet to receive a clear definition within the community foundation field,

resulting in a lack of effective measures. As explored in the previous chapter, community

leadership has historically been applied at the individual level; therefore, in order to

examine the community leadership of institutions, a clearer definition had to be

introduced. Community foundations, and philanthropic institutions, are not immune for

external pressures, and this chapter examines how community foundations may have

altered their operational roles, goals, and strategies over time.

Community foundations are an institutional form of philanthropy that have

historically pooled community assets to enhance the quality of life in a particular

geographic region (Council on Foundations, 1988). As public charities independent of the

state, community foundations are public foundations funded with private money—often

with funding from wealthy individuals or families—for the public good (Goff, 1919).

With over 1,000 community foundations serving a major of the United States, community

foundations often serve as catalysts for community change.

As philanthropic institutions, community foundations are susceptible to various

institutional pressures from stakeholders. The purpose of this study is to examine how

community foundations identify their organizational values via purpose statements and

mission statements. Furthermore, the study seeks to identify community foundations’

goals, with a particular focus on community leadership, in both founding purpose and

current mission statements and how these statements have evolved.

The following sections provide an overview of additional literature on mission

statements and their various uses in practitioner and academic settings, followed by

literature related to institutional theory and isomorphism and how these theories have

been applied to nonprofit research. Next, the study’s methodology is presented, followed

by the results of a mission statement analysis of community foundations. Further

discussion of the findings appears in Chapter 5 of the dissertation.

Mission Statements

In the United States, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires mission

statements to be submitted in applications for charitable status as an exempt entity (i.e.,

nonprofit organization); this ensures the organization’s intended purpose is covered under

the specific provisions of the tax code for 501(c) charitable organizations. According to

the Foundation Center (n.d.), “The mission statement communicates the nonprofit’s

purpose, what groups it serves, and how it plans to do so,” noting that “…developing the

mission statement is a critical first step in defining what the organization plans to do and

what makes it different from other organizations in the same field.” If a mission statement

does not align with an exempt purpose, the IRS may deny the application for exemption

or request that alterations be made to the mission statement before approving the request

for exemption. To officially be recognized as a nonprofit entity, organizations must also,

at a minimum, register with the IRS Exempt Organizations Division by filing IRS Form

1023. This form provides the IRS with an overview of the structure and purpose of a

proposed organization. Mission statements provide a variety of insights into an

organization and they are helpful in both practitioner and research settings.

Mission Statements in Practice

Mission statements in the nonprofit sector are used both as a guide for an

organization and as an indication to society of what it seeks to accomplish: essentially,

the purpose of an organization. According to BoardSource (2016), strong mission

statements include nine characteristics: (1) bold, clear, and memorable language; (2)

explicit and implicit statement of the organization’s values; (3) emotional and rational

impact; (4) active, not passive verbs; (5) combined “why” with a “what” statements; (6)

description of the need being met in positive, not negative terms; (7) succinct mission

summary; (8) language adaptable for both marketing and development; and (9)

inspiration to act, give, join, serve, and learn more. Mission statements should be

inspirational, impactful, and memorable.

As a statement of values, mission statements can be amended over time to allow

an organization to express changes in programs, services, goals, and overall purpose.

Therefore, mission statements provide a unique understanding of organizational values

and their changes over time. For example, the March of Dimes was originally established

to find a cure for polio, and once that mission was practically achieved, the organization

shifted its focus to improving the health of mothers and babies (March of Dimes, n.d.).

Mission Statements in Nonprofit Research

Mission statements often provide a statement of what an organization was created

to do and how it plans to achieve its goals; therefore, they provide unique insights into

why an organization was created and what it seeks to accomplish (Bart, 2007; Berlan,

2018; Kirk & Nolan, 2010). Although mission statements are merely descriptive words

with no exact measurements or accountability standards, research on mission statements

indicates their potential to provide further understanding into the real purpose of an

organization, rather than only understanding organizational identity by examining the

programs or services offered. Mission statements can be utilized in a variety of strategic

ways within organizations (Desmidt, Prinzie, & Decramer, 2011) and are critical in

helping an organization to focus on specific actions to achieve goals (Drucker, 1989).

While nonprofit mission statements are often vague (Moore, 1995; Oster, 1995; Sawhill

& Williamson, 2001), they are generally more specific than the mission statements of

their for-profit counterparts (Moore, 2000). Unlike many businesses with a clearly

defined focus on a financial bottom line, nonprofits rely on mission statements to attract

supporters and justify their existence.

Researchers have investigated the link between mission statements and issues

such as formulating strategy (Brown & Iverson, 2004; Krug & Weinberg, 2004; Oster,

1995), measuring organizational performance (Kirk & Nolan, 2010; Krug & Weinberg,

2004; Pandey, Kim & Pandey, 2017), motivating employees and volunteers (Bart, Bontis,

& Tagger, 2001; Brown & Yoshioka, 2003; Handy & Srinivasan, 2005; Kim & Lee,

2007), and establishing and solidifying organizational identity (Desmidt, Prinzie, &

Decramer, 2011; Fyall, Moore, & Gugerty, 2018; Min, Shen, Berlan, & Lee, 2019;

Scherer, 2017). The following subsections further highlight the use of mission statements

in nonprofit research.

Strategic Planning. Mission statements can be utilized to define strategic

orientations, and those with strong conceptualizations can also provide strategic direction

(Brown & Iverson, 2004). Brown and Iverson (2004) observed that while some nonprofit

leaders viewed mission statements as a starting point for formulating strategy, others

believed their mission statements to be the boundaries within which the organization

must operate: “different perceptions of organizational mission statements indicate that

mission statements are not deterministic but are instead interpreted through a frame of

understanding that includes strategic orientation” (p. 395). Furthermore, Krug and

Wineberg (2004) argue that mission statements can also be used to understand the

strategic purpose of an organization, but more importantly, can clarify whom an

organization seeks to serve and what it aims to accomplish. Oster (1995) adds that

“because so many nonprofits are born out of monitoring and trust problems in hard-

toevaluate services, a clear mission is essential to create focus and trust among clients

and donors” (p. 21). Oster (1994) argues that mission statements for collective goods are

needed to attract revenue, while organizations that produce products and services require

a clear mission statement to attract staff members and volunteers (p. 21).

Performance Measurement. Mission statements can affect organizational

performance in a variety of ways. Kirk and Nolan (2010) found that mission statements

with a more geographic scope also had lower overhead ratios for the organization, while

those that identified more target client groups had significant one-year increases in

contributions. Krug and Weinberg (2004) argue that utilizing mission statements in the

evaluation of programs can help ensure that programs are an appropriate fit. Meanwhile,

Pandey, Kim, and Pandey (2017) found that listing activities within mission statements

improved the performance of both the instrumental and expressive functions of arts

organizations.

Motivating Individuals. Bart, Bontis, and Tagger (2001) found that mission

statements affect the financial performance of organizations. These researchers also

determined that more specific mission statements led to higher employee satisfaction

with the mission, and mission statements that clearly specified an ends and means led to a

greater acceptance of the organizational mission. Brown and Yoshika (2003) have argued

that mission statements can serve as a management tool to motivate employees and focus

them on organizational goals while also aiding employee retention; yet, their findings

also indicated that dissatisfaction with employee compensation tended to overshadow the

value staff derive from a mission statement. In 2007, Kim and Lee replicated the study of

Brown and Yoshika (2003) and collected similar findings, indicating that mission

statements motivate employees; however, if working conditions are not satisfactory,

employee retention may still decline. In terms of volunteers, Handy and Srinivasan

(2005) argue that mission statements can serve as a goal for volunteers and as a proxy for

organizational culture (p. 500). In their analysis of hospital mission statements, they

found that volunteers are often needed or included in strategies utilized by hospitals to

achieve their missions.

Organizational Identity. Desmidt, Prinzie, and Decramer (2011) conducted a

meta-analysis on 20 years of mission statement research and found that, while there were

small positive relationships between mission statements and organizational performance,

the positive differences in performance were associated with mission statements with no

financial goal, and which instead were short statements that identified an organization’s

values/beliefs/purpose(s), unique identity, and distinctive competence/strength (p. 478).

Utilizing machine-learning technology, Fyall, Moore, and Gugerty (2018) found mission

statements to be better at classifying organizations compared to the limited scope of

NTEE codes. Min, Shen, Berlan, and Lee (2019) explored the use of mission statements

as a tool for portraying organization identity and found that the language surrounding the

cost, quality, or unique values of hospital mission statements influenced performance

metrics and that volunteers were often included in mission statements as an integral part

to provide high-quality services.

Institutional Theory and Isomorphism

Institutional theory offers a framework to study the significance of mission

statements as indicators of institutional change. Institutions are important pillars of social,

political, and economic life, they are often products of their environments (Scott, 2010).

According to Scott (2010), “Institutions are social structures that have attained a high

degree of resilience [and are] composed of cultural-cognitive, normative, and regulative

elements that, together with associated activities and resources, provide stability and

meaning to social life” (Scott, 2010, p. 6). Institutional theory examines the resilience of

social structures and how norms, rules, and routines become embedded within social

behavior (Scott, 2005). Scott (1995) identifies three defining characteristics of

institutions: the cultural-cognitive, normative, and regulative dimensions.

Cultural-Cognitive. Socially constructed cultural elements of organizations such

as beliefs and values drive organizational behavior (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Meyer,

Rowan, & Scott, 1983). Values, beliefs, and assumptions are interconnected with

normative prescriptions and regulative controls because an organization’s operating

environment has the potential to influence organizational behavior; thus, the legitimacy

of an institution is extracted from the cultural systems, resulting in drivers of change

being the internal values of an organization with the change being sustained via the

organization’s identity and personal desire (Palthe, 2014; Scott, 2010).

Normative. Institutions often have common-practices or “best practices” that

establish working norms or habits and emphasize the social embeddedness of political

and economic behavior (Granovetter, 1985; Scott, 2010), as well as the social obligations

created as a result of the institutional environment (Selznick, 1948). In this context,

institutions gain legitimacy via moral and ethical systems, and thus change is motivated

via moral obligations and occurs out of duty and responsibility (Palthe, 2014). Normative

elements, while constraining certain behavior (Meyer, Rowan, & Scott, 1983; Scott,

1981), often create opportunities to empower and enable change to create stronger

organizations (Palthe, 2014).

Regulative. The regulative elements of institutions include an environment

focused on policies, rules, and clear directives (Scott, 2010). Legitimacy within the

organization is derived from its regulatory system, and change is created through

obligations that affect overall systems change through fear and coercion tactics (Barnett

& Caroll, 1993; Palthe, 2014). Organizational behavior is thus regulated and constrained

in an effort to operate within particular parameters (Meyer, Rowan, & Scott, 1983; Scott,

1981). Furthermore, organizations often create means-ends relationships—implementing

the fastest solution to adequately address a problem (Meyer & Bromley, 2013).

Surveillance systems are used to maintain a regulated environment in which

organizations comply to rules and policies that inhibit or expand control (Moe, 1984;

Scott, 2010).

Institutional Theory: Pressures and Isomorphic Change

Scholars have provided theoretical explanations as to why organizational heterogeneity

exists (Popaduik, Rivera, & Bataglia, 2014), including structural contingency (Burns &

Stalker, 1961), neoclassical (Caves & Porter, 1977), organizational ecology (Hannan &

Freeman, 1977), resource dependency (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003), and resource- and

capabilities-based approaches (Wernerfelt, 1984). Furthermore, scholars have taken on

theoretical perspectives that review the field in which organizations operate as the totality

of relevant actors, functionally specific arena, center of dialogue and discussion, arena of

power and confliction, institutional sphere of interests under dispute, and structured

network of relationships (as cited in Popaduik et al., 2014, pg. 529).

Employing the theoretical perspective that a field is the totality of relevant actors

provides an opportunity to examine the meaning and relationship elements of institutions.

This perspective describes institutions as a sum of its various parts: “Organizations that

share common meaning systems and which interact more frequently with each other than

with actors outside the field, thus making up a recognized field of institutional life” (as

cited in Popaduik et al., 2014, pg. 529). Institutional theory’s early stages focused on an

understanding of how organizations took on specific forms (Meyer & Rowan, 1977) as

well as how they were similar within particular professional fields (DiMaggio & Powell,

1983).

Institutional theory proposes that organizations pursue legitimacy by conforming

to isomorphic pressures in their environment (Ashworth, Boyne, & Delbridge, 2007);

these pressures from key stakeholders can cause organizations to homogenize and

become similar to organizations with similar purposes (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). As a

result of these pressures, organizations conform either due to compliance or convergence

(Ashworth, Boyne, & Delbridge, 2007; Frumkin & Galaskiewicz, 2004). DiMaggio and

Powell (1983) identified three types of pressure that explain why organizations conform

to shifts within the institutional environment: coercive, mimetic, and normative

isomorphism.

Coercive Isomorphism. Regulations, and potential ramifications of not

complying with regulations, apply coercive forces to organizations. Often stemming from

governmental policy shifts, or the action of some other regulating body, organizations

may change their practices in order to conform to rules and laws, and avoid penalties

(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Regulators have the power to mandate organizational

change; however, institutions’ potential to advocate for particular regulations provides an

opportunity for an alteration in power relations between regulators and institutions

(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, Ritti & Goldner, 1981).

Mimetic Isomorphism. External pressures cause organizations to copy other

organizations that appear to be more successful (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), resulting in

organizations adopting the same or similar practices with no particular concern for the

effectiveness of such practices (Abrahamson, 1996; Ashworth, Boyne, & Delbridge,

2007). In response to ambiguity, an organization may attempt to imitate an organization

that is perceived as more legitimate or successful (Sacomano Neto, Truzzi, &

Kirschbaum, 2013); hence, new organizations may establish practices based on the

practices of other organizations in an effort to conform to a pre-established operating

condition (Meyer, 1981).

Normative Isomorphism. As fields become more professionalized through

accreditation, credentialing, and advancements in education, organizations adapt by

conforming with field advancements in an effort to remain legitimate. Grounded in

theories from education, normative isomorphism involves pressures to legitimize the

knowledge of a particular field via formal education (e.g., degree programs,

certifications) and establishing networks or communities of practice in which

organizational models and strategies are exchanged (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). In an

effort to conform with the “best practices” of a specific field, an organization may adopt

particular policies based on the trends, or norms, of a particular profession—often turning

to professional or accrediting organizations for guidance (Sacomano Neto, Truzzi, &

Kirschbaum, 2013).

Institutional Environments and Change

When considering the works of Scott (institutional theory) and DiMaggio and

Powell (institutional isomorphism) as a whole, connections appear between the

environmental surroundings and changes that occur within organizations (Figure 5). The

cognitive, regulative, and normative elements articulated by Scott (2005, 2008, 2010)

respectively connect to the mimetic, coercive, and normative isomorphism elements

presented by DiMaggio and Powell (1983). Thus, institutional environments (Scott) are

established and remain resilient amidst a variety of shifts within operating environments

(DiMaggio & Powell).

Figure 5

Three Institutional Isomorphic Pressures

(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Scott, 2005, 2008, 2010)

Theoretical Challenges

While DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983, 1999) theories on organizational adaptation

as a result of external pressures are cited widely, scholars have written that utilizing the

isomorphic change lens requires longitudinal data (Slack & Hinings, 1994) and lacks

definitive evidence that separates one type of isomorphic change from another

empirically (Beckert, 2010), which results in challenges to operationalize institutional

isomorphism (Mizruchi & Fein, 1999).

While institutional isomorphism is a framework designed to examine an

institution’s reaction and adaptation to external pressures, focusing on a single form of

isomorphism may lead to a causal fallacy, as illustrated by Mizruchi and Fein (1999):

The problem arises in cases in which authors stipulate only one type of

isomorphic process while ignoring equally plausible alternative accounts. When

authors assume that only voluntary mimicry accounts for an organization’s

behavior, without considering alternative explanations, including coercion, then

one may be providing a limited picture of a phenomenon. If one fails to consider

alternative accounts provided by the authors of one’s source, then one’s distortion

of that source is not only misrepresenting the theory on which one’s analysis is

based, but it is providing a limited and biased picture of the processes one is

trying to describe (p. 16).

Therefore, it is imperative that nonprofit researchers include multiple forms of

institutional isomorphism in their analysis while also considering other possible

explanations for the phenomenon under study.

Institutional Theory and Nonprofit Management Studies

Institutional theory has been used in the fields of nonprofit management and

philanthropic studies to explain the behavior of organizations (DiMaggio & Anheier,

1990; Miller-Millesen, 2003; Powell & Colyvas, 2008; Townsend, 2007; Witesman,

2016); institutional isomorphism has also been used to examine and explain institutional

shifts in nonprofit organizations (Frumkin & Galaskiewicz, 2004; Leiter, 2005;

Verbruggen, Christiaens, & Milis, 2011). To date, there have been no studies that have

specifically utilized isomorphism and the change of external statements such as mission

statements from nonprofit organizations.

Scholars have argued that change can occur within organizations for a variety of

reasons and can cause a range of outcomes based on elements such as organizational size

and employment (Leiter, 2005, 2008, 2013). Studies have also examined institutional

changes designed to gain legitimacy (Verbruggen, Christiaens, & Milis, 2011), in addition

to how communities collectively apply pressure to organizations to change or have a

community-focused mindset (Marquis, Glynn, & Davis, 2007). While a limited number

of articles have examined how isomorphism can be applied to philanthropy (Harrow,

2011; Rey-Garcia & Puig-Raposo, 2013), previous research indicates that the use of this

theory can be helpful in examining how community foundations change over time as a

response to external pressure.

Community Leadership: A Normative Isomorphic Change Perspective

Based on the work of Milofsky (2019), community foundations can be understood as

embedded, contingent, participatory, and existing within an interorganizational field. It

follows that community foundations are often place-based funders embedded within

communities, contingent on the funding they receive, inherently participatory due to the

collective giving that often establishes and sustains them over time, and exist in an

interorganizational field given their connections to various nonprofit organizations; yet,

they are also not the only organization providing particular services (e.g., endowments or

donor-advised funds).

In utilizing Milofsky’s (2019) framework for examining associations—being

embedded, contingent, participatory, and existing within an interorganizational field—are

all present when examining behaviors and change within community foundations creating

various types of pressures. There are donors (contingent), communities (embedded and

participatory), and there is the interorganizational field (Council of Foundations).

When examining community foundations through an institutional isomorphic

lens, they could hypothetically change for several reasons: donors’ gift restrictions and

specifications (coercive), adoption of the practices of other organizations that appear to

be more successful (mimetic), or adaption based on the professionalization of the staff or

the field itself (normative). Furthermore, as an institutional model of philanthropy,

community foundations often look similar to one another since they are established using

a particular business model (Council on Foundation, 1988, 1990) which can lead to some

entities attempting to create one-size-fits-all approaches to foundation management.

Various organizations focused on building the capacity of community foundations

have increased over the years with the creation of organizations serving affinity needs,

such as CFLeads (Community Leadership), CFInsights by Candid (Data Management

and Research), ProNet (Community Foundation Grantmaking), AdNet (Community

Foundation Advancement), CommA (Community Foundation Communications). In

addition, statewide community foundation associations (e.g., League of California

Community Foundations, Giving Indiana Funds for Tomorrow, Kansas Association of

Community Foundations) and statewide/regional grantmaking associations (e.g., Indiana

Philanthropy Alliance, Philanthropy Southwest, and San Diego Grantmakers Alliance)

were established to provide services to funders within specific geographic regions.

National entities have also been created to represent foundations across the country (e.g.,

United Philanthropy Forum, Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, Council on

Foundations).

Over the past 30 years, community foundations have been encouraged to shift

their roles from being community grantmakers to becoming community leaders (Council

on Foundations, 1998; Council on Foundations & CFInsights, 2017; Community

Foundations of Canada, 1996). This shift can be traced to three past developments. First,

the Council on Foundations introduced the role of community foundations as community

leaders in a training manual dating back to 1990, which could have prompted a new

community foundation to include this as part of its operational model, or convinced

community foundations created before 1990 to join in this new charge. Second,

organizations focused solely on community foundations have provided additional tools

and frameworks for community leadership (e.g., CFLeads and CFInsights), thereby

providing community foundations with the resources they may need to effectively pursue

a leadership role within their communities. Third, the Council on Foundations adopted

the National Standards for U.S. Community Foundation (“National Standards”) in 2000,

thus furthering the professionalization of the field and creating pressures for community

foundations to comply with shifts in the community philanthropy landscape.

These measures have created some incentives for community foundations to move

toward community leadership, although it remains a weak standard. For example,

community leadership is included in the National Standards but focuses solely on the fact

that a “community foundation identifies and addresses community issues and

opportunities,” yet the standard lacks a true measurement of impact and is broadly

defined. This trend aligns with research suggesting that since organizations often strive

for legitimacy, they may adopt new practices without evidence that they increase

effectiveness (Abrahamson, 1996; Ashworth, Boyne, & Delbridge, 2007).

Community foundations have the opportunity to create unique value in their

communities by utilizing these new resources (e.g., best practices handbooks from

Council on Foundations, National Standards) and their knowledge of their community to

become community leaders. This increases their legitimacy while also setting them apart

from potential competitors, such as financial firms (e.g., Fidelity, Vanguard, or Schwab)

and other philanthropic entities (e.g., United Way) that create more cost-effective

solutions to wealth distribution and philanthropic giving. Therefore, community

foundations must consider how they can utilize and leverage their connections to a

donor’s local community to their advantage.

Since a majority of community foundations were created after the Council on

Foundations issued their best practices in community foundation management in 1990,

one would expect the concept of community leadership to become widely adopted as a

result of normative isomorphism through the professionalization of the field. Even for

foundations created before 1990, this normative pressure could potentially lead to

changes in mission statements, grantmaking practices, and community engagement.

While the operating model of the community foundation was established over 75 years

before community leadership was formally introduced in 1990, these new standards have

created normative pressures to adopt community leadership as a framework for local

engagement. While local environments may influence how philanthropic institutions

enact change (Paarlberg & Meinhold, 2012), community foundations do not face

numerous external pressures since they are endowed institutions and are not overly

regulated in terms of their operations; therefore, conformity with industry norms (i.e.,

adopting community leadership) is likely a result of wanting to follow best practices

(normative) rather than a result from stakeholder pressures (coercive), or from

implementing practices borrowed from apparently successful organizations (mimetic).

While the various external pressures that affect different community foundations is

challenging to isolate, mission statements can be tools to examine organizational

behavior from an institutional perspective since all nonprofit organizations must have

them.

Mission Statements and Institutional Isomorphism

The evolution of organizational mission statements can be indicators of the types

of external pressures faced by nonprofits (Berlan, 2018). Changes in mission statements

may be reflective of resource dependence or shifts in the normative environment.

Institutional theory posits that organizations often adapt to pressures from external

environments to remain legitimate and relevant (Scott, 2005). Organizational mission

statements can then serve as a critical signaling device to external audiences providing

resources and legitimacy to an organization (i.e., foundations, donors).

Isomorphic Change and Community Foundations

Community foundations have been in existence for over 100 years, but the

number of foundations has significantly increased in the past three decades (1990–2020).

With the growth of the field and the emergence and diffusion of best practices,

isomorphic pressures may affect the behavior of these organizations. For example, the

first robust field-wide resources on managing and operating local community foundations

were issued by the Council on Foundations around 1990. In 2000, the National Standards

for U.S. Community Foundations were established, which created a solidified set of best

practices and operating guidelines for the field.

Mission statements of community foundations could hypothetically change due to

coercive influences from regulators or donors. Potential donors often have many options

to choose from when they give through a community foundation, including creating

restricted funds (i.e., money goes to the same organization each year), field of interest

funds (i.e., money is spent on a particular issue area such as education, youth, or

homelessness), as well as donor-advised funds (i.e., donors make recommendations for

grants that are then reviewed and approved by the board of directors). While community

foundations were initially started as local resources for community philanthropy and

change, the growth of donor-advised funds (Cantor, 2015; Giving USA, 2018; Hurtubise,

2017) and other giving vehicles may have put coercive pressures on community

foundations to change the focus of their missions.

Mission statements may also change during times of uncertainty, such as when

community foundations face increased competition from other philanthropic entities such

as United Way, Fidelity, and Vanguard (Ragey, Masaoka, & Bell Peters, 2005) and elect

to adapt to gain a competitive advantage. This increase in competition may lead to

mimetic isomorphism as organizations alter their mission statements to mirror those of

seemingly more successful organizations.

Finally, mission statements can be subject to normative isomorphism due to the

establishment of “best practices” by accreditation agencies (National Standards) or the

professionalization of nonprofit training opportunities in higher education (i.e., certificate

and degree programs). Therefore, the adaption of community foundations is could be due

to industry norms and advancements.

With the professionalization of the field of community foundations in the 1990s

and the significant expansion of community foundations due to national funders

supporting local initiatives (e.g., James Irvine Foundation, Lilly Endowment, and W.K.

Kellogg Foundation), it is hypothesized that normative isomorphic pressures will cause

newer organizations to align their mission statements with best practices defined by the

existing field of community foundations. Specifically, community foundations created

post-1990 should focus more on the role of community leadership since it was introduced

within the same period and illustrated in the guidebooks created by both the Council on

Foundations (1990) and Council of Michigan Foundations (1998).

When it comes to community foundations including “community leadership”

within their mission statements, coercive isomorphism is unlikely to occur since

community leadership is not dependent on grantmaking and fundraising (i.e., money is

not necessary a prerequisite to community leadership); however, pressure from donors

could explain why some community foundations choose to adopt community leadership

into their mission statements. Similarly, mimetic isomorphism could be a potential

explanation for change, yet is often difficult to measure historical data regarding

changing of mission statements over time—including the exact years that mission

statements were altered—is unavailable, thus making it challenging to determine how

community foundations rationalized alterations to their missions. Due to best practice

guidelines developed by community foundation executives with the Council on

Foundations in 1990—during the same period of exponential growth of community

foundations throughout the United States—normative isomorphic pressure is a potential

explanation because community foundations are potentially exposed to this type of

pressure by the Council on Foundations and other regional associations adopting and

advocating specific best practices. For example, in order to be a member of the California

League of Community Foundations, an individual community foundation must be

accredited by the National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations. Thus, community

foundations may have elected to change in an effort to remain relevant and adhere to the

standards set forth by the field.

Methodology

This study utilized an exploratory research design by employing content analysis

(Bowen, 2009) in relation to both current and historical documents to understand the

social and historical narratives of California community foundations. The purpose of this

study was to identify how community foundations have shifted their focus over time and

to what extent community leadership appears to be part of the focus of community

foundations.

Community Foundations in California

The Community Foundation Atlas, a national database tracking community

foundations worldwide, was used to select potential foundations for this study. The

publicly available Atlas is the most comprehensive database of mission statements and

locations of community foundations from around the world; however, the integrity of the

data is questionable since preliminary research has found that some organizations

included in the database are not truly community foundations (e.g., faith-based

foundations/funds, United Ways, or private foundations). Therefore, all the organizations

from the Atlas dataset were required to meet the definition of a community foundation set

forth by the Council on Foundations (1988) in order to be included in the study.

California community foundations were selected for this study due to variation in

geographic regions (rural, suburban, major metropolitan) and large variation in asset size,

including some of the largest community foundations in the United States (e.g., Silicon

Valley Community Foundation, California Community Foundation, and San Francisco

Foundation). Furthermore, California was selected out of convenience due to the

researcher have access and being located within California. The list of community

foundation in California was pulled in June 2019.

In addition to meeting the definition of a community foundation (Council on

Foundations, 1988) to be included in this study, a nonprofit organization claiming to be a

community foundation was required to meet the following additional criteria:

•Be officially recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) and

pass the public support test as a public charity under sections 509(a)(1) and

170(b)(1)(A)(6).

•Operate primarily as a grantmaking institution and optionally also provide direct

charitable services.

•Be categorized under the NTEE Area Code (T, Philanthropy, Volunteerism, and

Grantmaking), and be subcategorized under one of the following subclause code

areas:

o T12—Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution o T31—Community

Foundations o T50—Philanthropy / Charity / Volunteerism Promotion

(General) o T70—Fund Raising Organizations that cross categories,

including Community Funds/Trusts and Federated Giving Programs (e.g.,

United Way).

•Focus on a variety of community-related issues, rather than a single population

(e.g., youth or seniors) or single issue (e.g., education or recreation)

Additional community foundations were located and confirmed via detailed

queries on GuideStar utilizing NTEE codes and keyword searches, as well as referencing

lists available from various regional grantmaking associations. For a foundation to be

considered an active community foundation, it must have filed a Form 990 within the

past three completed fiscal years (2016-2018). Upon applying the selection criteria to the

list of potential organizations, a total of 81 community foundations were identified in

California as of June 2019 (Appendix A).

Data Sources

The documents used for content analysis consisted of both the purpose statements

from founding documents (i.e., articles of incorporation) and the current mission

statements of California community foundations. These documents were used to

determine the extent to which their current missions aligned with their founding purposes.

Articles of Incorporation. When establishing a nonprofit organization, articles of

incorporation must be drafted the illustrate the intent of an organization, either through a

set of bylaws or other governing documents that serve as the rules that will govern the

nonprofit entity. As part of these requirements, organizations must indicate a specific

purpose to justify the incorporation of the organization and associated charitable activity.

The California Attorney General and California Secretary of State’s websites contain

databases the public can utilize to access the founding documents of nonprofit

organizations. Attempts were made to pull all founding documents via these databases;

however, if the founding materials for a particular community foundation were not

available online, a Freedom of Information Act request was filed with the state to secure

these documents. In addition, any community foundation that did not have their

documents uploaded with the state were contacted directly to exhaust all options to gather

the data.

Mission Statements. While nonprofit organizations are required to submit their

mission statements as part of IRS Forms 1023 and 990, the mission statements provided

on the community foundations’ websites were collected given the limited character-space

on IRS forms. If a mission statement could not be secured from the community

foundation’s website, it was instead taken from the organization’s most recently filed IRS

Form 990.

Data Collection

The primary means of data collection was the analysis of articles of incorporation

and mission statements of California community foundations. Mission statements were

collected for all 81 California community foundations, and the founding documents were

secured for 73 of the 81 (90.1%) community foundations. In some instances, there was no

apparent purpose statement included in the founding documents. In other cases, the state

did not have founding documents available on file for older community foundations or

those that had restructured into different entities.

Data Analysis

The purpose and mission statements were coded through a four step process. The

results from the coding process were then segmented and clustered in order to compare

various characteristics of the community foundations included in the study (e.g., age,

accreditation status).

Qualitative Coding Process. Four different types of qualitative coding (Saldaña,

2015) were utilized to understand how community foundation mission and purpose

statements may have altered over time. Based on a review of existing literature, the first

round of coding included provisional coding to produce a set of codes based on what was

expected to emerge from the data. The second round of coding included hypothesis

coding that created codes based on the assumption that many community foundations

likely implement practices in line with the historical model of community foundations

(e.g., fundraising or grantmaking). Finally, rounds three and four of the qualitative coding

processes involved in vivo and structural coding to capture both direct statements, such as

“quality of life,” as well as indirect statements related to the same topic (e.g., “brighter

future,” or “enhanced wellbeing”). The coding was completed via computer-assisted

qualitative data analysis (CAQDAS) software, specifically utilizing the MAXQDA

software package.

Purpose Statement Analysis and Mission Statement Analysis. The purpose

statements and mission statements were treated as two unique datasets. They were coded

separately utilizing the same method described above and were subsequently compared

with various data segmentation methods. Both datasets used codes that emerged from the

process of provisional and hypothesis coding but were coded separately with in vivo and

structural coding.

Data Segmentation and Clustering. In order to identify specific themes in the

coding process, the data were segmented into distinct groups to surface and identify any

particular phenomena. For example, community foundations created before 1990 and

after 1990 comprised two analysis groups to determine if the introduction of particular

language from the Council on Foundations altered the founding purpose. Furthermore, a

cluster analysis (Woolf & Silver, 2018) was conducted to identify similarities within

particular attributes.

Comparative Analysis. In addition to segmenting and clustering the data into

different groups, a comparative analysis was conducted to determine whether community

foundations had made major, minor, or no changes regarding the purposes identified

within their present-day mission statements compared with their founding purpose

statements.

Hypotheses

Based on developments in the community foundation field, this exploratory study

was designed to test two hypotheses related to community foundation age and affiliation

with the Council on Foundations.

Hypothesis 1 Community foundations created after 1990 will be more likely to

mention community leadership than those created before 1990.

Hypothesis 2

Community foundations nationally accredited by the National

Standards for U.S. Community Foundations will be more likely to

mention community leadership in their mission statements than those

community foundations that are not accredited

The rationale for hypothesis 1 is based on the introduction of the concept of

community leadership in 1990, which was 76 years after the creation of the first

community foundation (Cleveland Community Foundation – 1914). Normative

isomorphic change is expected as a result of a national entity seeking to promote the

work of community foundations by working to professionalize the field. While the

Council on Foundations is a membership association, and membership is optional, it is

hypothesized that newer community foundations would seek the guidance and best

practices of the Council on Foundations in order to establish effective organizations.

Hypothesis 2 is similar to hypothesis 1 in its focus on community foundations that

are accredited by the National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations. Community

foundations may voluntarily undergo the accreditation process via the Council on

Foundations to indicate that they meet a number of standards or best practices.

Community leadership is identified as one of the National Standards; therefore, it is

hypothesized that community foundations accredited by the Council on Foundations are

more likely to identify community leadership in their missions than those community

foundations that are not presently accredited by the Council on Foundations.

Limitations

Many findings of this exploratory study warrant additional research; however,

there are a few limitations of this initial review of how mission statements can be

reviewed from an institutional theory perspective. First, the study only utilizes California

community foundations in examining purpose and mission statements, leading to a small

sample from a single state. There are over 1,000 community foundations in the United

States and this particular study investigated less than 10% of community foundations in

the country.

Furthermore, the coding of the purpose and mission statements utilized styles of

qualitative coding that examined the public statements. This study did not test whether

community foundations that mentioned “community leadership” in their statements

actually practiced community leadership, nor did it seek to measure the effectiveness of

such community leadership.

Results

This section begins with initial findings related to the coding of purpose

statements of California community foundations, continues with the results of the mission

statement coding, provides a comparative analysis between the two, and concludes with a

summary of findings related to the hypotheses presented earlier.

Founding of California Community Foundations

An analysis of the ruling years of California community foundations (Figure 6)

indicated that the majority of community foundations (32.1%) were created between

1991 and 2000. On average, most foundations have existed for 30 years, which is

consistent with the national growth of community foundations (Community Foundation

Atlas, 2014).

Figure 6

Founding Years of California Community Foundations by Decade

Purpose Statement Analysis

To investigate the founding purpose of community foundations in California,

incorporating documents were obtained for 73 of the 81 community foundations (90.1%).

The average length of the analyzed purpose statements was 59 words, with the shortest

being 13 words and the longest being 332 words. Table 1 illustrates the various

stakeholders and goals of the community foundations mentioned in purposes statements

within its founding documents.

Table 4

Community Foundation Purpose Coding Frequencies

Geography

Frequency a

Percentage of

Community

Foundations

63 86.3%

Stakeholder

Community At-Large

37%

Philanthropist/Donor 12 16.4%

Nonprofit Organizations 7 9.6%

Goals

Raise Funds

45.2%

Grantmaking 31 42.5%

Quality of Life 18 24.7%

Inspire/Promote Giving 16 21.9%

Community Leadership 7 9.6%

Invest for the Future 6 8.2%

Community Engagement 4 5.5%

a n = 73

Most community foundations were created to serve a defined geographic region (86.3%),

to raise funds (45.2%), and distribute grants (42.5%) to increase the quality of life

(24.7%) for a specified community. The majority defines the overall community (37%) as

the main stakeholder/beneficiary, indicating that community foundations are created by

and for the community as a whole. Table 2 illustrates how purpose statements were

qualitatively coded with geography and stakeholder groups listed in the left column and

various goals listed in the right column.

Table 5

Samples of Purpose Statement Coding

The following purpose statements are from five community foundations, selected

to illustrate variation in the dataset. A full listing of purpose statements can be found in

Appendix B.

Coding Community Foundation for Monterey County

(1945) Coding - Goals

Geography

Community

The specific purpose of this corporation is to

receive, distribute, and provide funds and services

to charitable organizations for the benefit of persons

and communities within Monterey County,

California.

Raise Funds

Grantmaking

Coding Orange County Community Foundation (1989) Coding - Goals

Geography

The specific purpose of this corporation is to

engage in, conduct, and promote charitable,

religious, educational, scientific, artistic,

environmental and philanthropic activities in

Orange County, California.

Promote /

Inspire

Philanthropy

Coding Belvedere Community Foundation (1991) Coding - Goals

Geography

Community

(1) To provide financial assistance for park,

recreational and educational facilities or services,

to supplement essential city services, and to

augment such other activities or investments as

may broadly benefit Belvedere residents; (2) To

receive gifts of financial assets and to invest such

assets so as to provide an ongoing cash flow, with

the proceeds to be allocated by the officers and

directors for the benefit of Belvedere residents. (3)

To receive real or personal property and to

manage such property and invest proceeds for the

benefit of Belvedere residents.

Raise Funds

Grantmaking

Coding Tustin Community Foundation (1994) Coding - Goals

Geography

Community

The public and charitable purposes for which this

corporation is organized are to lessen the burdens

of government and to promote and support the

cultural, recreational and human services needs of

the City of Tustin.

Coding Saratoga-Monte Sereno CommunityCoding - Goals

Foundation (2005)

Geography

Community

Nonprofits

The Saratoga-Monte Sereno Community

Foundation is dedicated to charitable purposes.

The mission is to build community through

Raise Funds

Grantmaking

Promote /

philanthropy. The foundation exists for the raising Inspire and

distribution of funds in order to benefit Philanthropy

community, charitable, and public non-profit entities.

Mission Statement Analysis

All mission statements were qualitatively analyzed utilizing the same method of

analysis as the purpose statements. The average length of the mission statements was 38

words, with the shortest being eight words and the longest being 170 words. A full list of

the codes, frequencies, and percentages can be found in Table 3, followed by examples of

mission foundation coding. The codes were consolidated into three categories:

geography, stakeholder focus, and goals.

Table 6

Mission Statement Coding Frequencies

Geography

Frequency a

Percentage of

Community

Foundations

69 85.2%

Stakeholder

Philanthropist/Donor

21%

Nonprofit Organizations 15 18.5%

Community At-Large 9 11.1%

Local Government 3 3.7%

Other Stakeholders 1 1.2%

Goals

Quality of Life 38 46.9%

Grantmaking 33 40.7%

Raise Funds 27 33.3%

Inspire/Promote Giving 27 33.3%

Community Leadership 25 30.9%

Invest for the Future 14 17.3

Create Partnerships 10 12.4

Capacity Building 3 3.7%

Community Engagement 2 2.5%

a N = 81

The analysis of mission statements indicates that California community foundations

primarily exist to serve a defined geographic region (85.2%), to raise funds (33.3%), and

to distribute grants (40.7%) that seek to increase the quality of life (46.9%) for a specified

community. The majority (21%) identified donors as the primary

stakeholders/beneficiaries. Table 4 provides examples of how mission statements were

coded.

Table 7

Samples of Mission Statement Coding

The following mission statements are from five community foundations, selected

to illustrate variation in the dataset. A full listing of purpose statements can be found in

Appendix C.

Coding Calaveras Community Foundation Coding - Goals

Geography

Nonprofits

Donors

Community

Leadership

The Calaveras Community Foundation is

dedicated to improving Calaveras communities

by providing grants to partner organizations,

assisting donors, and providing leadership in

addressing charitable causes.

Grantmaking

Coding Community Foundation of San Joaquin Coding - Goals

Geography

Community

Leadership

The Community Foundation of San Joaquin

provides leadership, promotes a culture of giving,

and cultivates resources that address the needs of

our community.

Promote /

Inspire

Philanthropy

Raise Funds

Quality of Life

Coding Marin Community Foundation Coding - Goals

Current /

Future

Generations

Encourage and apply philanthropic

contributions to help improve the human

condition, embrace diversity, promote a

Raise Funds

Grantmaking

DEI

humane and democratic society, and enhance Quality of Life the

community’s quality of life, now and for future generations.

Coding Rancho Santa Fe Foundation Coding - Goals

Donors

Community

Leadership

To connect donors with regional and global

needs through visionary community leadership,

personalized service and effective grantmaking.

Grantmaking

Coding The San Diego Foundation Coding - Goals

Geography

Community

Leadership

The San Diego Foundation improves the

quality of life in all of our communities by

providing leadership for effective philanthropy

that builds enduring assets and by promoting

community solutions through research,

convenings and actions that advance the

common good.

Quality of Life

Raise Funds

Comparative Analysis: Original Intent and Current Mission Statements

In order to determine whether community foundations were shifting as a result of

isomorphic pressures, the original purpose statements listed in the community

foundation’s articles of incorporation were compared with their most recent mission

statement. The comparisons were categorized as “no change” (meaning that all elements

in both statements were the same), “minor change” (meaning that the elements in both

statements were closely aligned with a few items being added or removed), or “major

change” (indicating a shift in purpose and/or strategy).

The comparative analysis (Table 5) revealed that the majority of community

foundations’ mission statements (95.7%) were closely aligned with the original intentions

stipulated in the original purpose statement. Three community foundations had current

mission statements that demonstrated major changes from their original purposes to their

most recent mission statements.

Table 8

Articles of Incorporation vs. Mission Statements (Matched Pairs) a

No Change Minor Change Major Change

(40%)

(55.7%)

(4.3%)

a n=70

The three community foundations with major changes are particularly instructive for

further analysis. They include the East Bay Community Foundation, Marin Community

Foundation, and Mission Viejo Community Foundation—all of which had a noteworthy

shift.

East Bay Community Foundation (1928). The East Bay Community

Foundation’s mission statement differed drastically from other community foundations in

the study (Table 6): it explicitly seeks to create community transformation for

underserved and underrepresented people. Nearly all of the analyzed community

foundation mission statements remained relatively neutral. At the same time, the East Bay

Community Foundation specifically named social inequalities and sought to leverage

local resources to create community transformation.

Table 9

East Bay Community Foundation: Purpose and Mission Statements

Purpose Statement Mission Statement

Administration of income producing trusts

and distribution of income thereof for

charitable, educational, and medical

purposes. The purposes for which this

Corporation is formed are: charitable;

educational; scientific; medical; surgical;

hygienic; musical; artistic; the preservation

of art, historical records and relics; public

welfare; housing; civic improvement; the

care of the aged, sick, helpless, poor,

incompetent, dependent, children and of

those needing rehabilitation; and support of

agencies for the improvement of moral,

mental, social and physical well-being, all

of the foregoing of or with respect to

primarily the inhabitants of either or both

of the Counties of Alameda or Contra

Costa, California, and such other

geographic areas as from time-to-time

approved by the Board of Trustees of this

Corporation.

East Bay Community Foundation is the

choice for philanthropy in the East Bay

through leadership in leveraging all assets

in our communities to speed the

transformation of low-income,

disadvantaged, impoverished, underserved

and underrepresented people.

Marin Community Foundation (1986). The Marin Community Foundation’s

articles of incorporation were straightforward and were similar to the statements of

other community foundations. The current mission statement included items not found

in other mission statements of community foundations, including seeking to improve

the human condition, embrace diversity, and promote a humane and democratic society

(Table 7).

Table 10

Marin Community Foundation: Purpose and Mission Statements

Purpose Statement Mission Statement

Encourage and apply philanthropic

The specific purpose of this corporation is contributions to help improve the human

to engage in, conduct, and promote condition, embrace diversity, promote a

charitable, religious, educational,

humane and democratic society, and

scientific, artistic, and philanthropic

activities in Marin County, California. enhance the community’s quality of life,

now and for future generations.

Mission Viejo Community Foundation (2005). The Mission Viejo Community

Foundation was initially created as the equivalent of a park’s foundation. Over time, it

appears to have taken on roles more closely aligned with a community foundation

(Table 8). The current mission statement listed a variety of additional areas of interest

that were not included in the founding documents of the organization.

Table 11

Mission Viejo Community Foundation: Purpose and Mission Statements

Purpose Statement Mission Statement

This corporation is organized exclusively

The mission of the Mission Viejo

for the following public and charitable

Community Foundation is to provide

purposes: (1) To develop wider public services and funding resources through

interest and participation in parks, public/private partnerships for social, recreation

and community services in the cultural, recreational, patriotic, military

City of Mission Viejo.; (2) To establish and educational needs that will enhance

and support parks, recreation and the quality of life for the community of

community services in the City of Mission

Mission Viejo.

Viejo.

The three cases presented above illustrate that community foundations have the

capacity to make important shifts. Yet, a vast majority (95.7%) have appeared to make

little to no changes to their organization’s mission statement when compared to the

original purpose statement.

Coding Comparison: Purpose and Mission Statements

While purpose statements and mission statements are not technically the same, the

primary aim of an organization is often found in its mission statement. Mission

statements provide insight into why an organization exists and what it seeks to provide

to a community, and similar language must be included when starting an organization

through a purpose statement. The comparison of change over time illustrates that

purpose statements and mission statements are closely aligned with nearly all

community foundations having their current mission statement being very similar to

their founding purpose statement (40%), or a slightly altered version of the original

purpose statement (55.7%).

When comparing the coding results from all community foundation purpose

statements and mission statements, there were indications that the purposes of

community foundations have shifted since the foundations were founded (Table 9). The

average length of community foundation purposes statements was 59 words, while the

average length of the mission statements were 38 words. Community foundations are

often established to serve a specific geographic region, and this remained consistent

between the purpose statements and mission statements of the community foundation

sample. Many of the original purpose statements (86.3%) identified a specific

geographic region, and a relatively similar percentage (85.7%) indicated it in their

mission statement.

Table 12

Purpose Statement and Mission Statement Coding Matrix (Matched Pairs)

Purpose

Statement

s a

Mission

Statement

s a

Percent

Difference

Constan

Presenc

Later

Addition

Geography 63 60 (4.76%) 54 6

Stakeholder

Nonprofit Benefit

114.3%

Community Benefit 27 7 (74.0%) 2 5

Donor Benefit

Goals

Community

Leadership

15 25% 3 12

171.4%

Inspire Giving 16 24 50% 10 14

Fundraising 33

Grantmaking 31

Quality of Life 18

Future Building 6

a n = 70

Purpose and mission statements differ regarding the importance of local nonprofit

organizations benefiting from community foundation investments. While nonprofits are

mentioned in only seven out of 70 (10%) purpose statements, they appear in 15 out of

70 mission statements (21.4%). In addition, community leadership seems to have been

an increasingly claimed role for community foundations, moving from seven

community foundations at the time of incorporation (10%) to 19 community

foundations (27.1%) claiming a leadership role in their current mission statements.

Finally, considerable variation is seen in the category of quality of life: 18 community

foundations (25.7%) identify it as a priority in their purpose statements, and 34

community foundations (48.6%) state it as a role in their mission statements. In

comparison, the idea of investing and building the future becomes more frequent, with

six community foundations (8.6%) mentioning it in their purpose statements to 12

community foundations (17.1%) including it in their mission statements.

A few categories shifted when comparing purpose statements with mission

statements, including many community foundations articulating the goal of benefitting

the entire community. Twenty-seven community foundations (38.6%) included remarks

related to benefiting the entire community in their purpose statements, while only seven

22 (33.3%) 14 8

29 (6.45%) 14 15

34 88.9% 11 23

12 100% 1 11

(10%) included such remarks in their present-day mission statements; this indicates that

community foundations appear to have shifted their focus from the community at large

to other priorities or stakeholders. Furthermore, the number of foundations with a stated

goal of fundraising varied from 33 (47.1%) to 22 (31.4%), as well as grantmaking,

which changed from 31 (44.3%) to 29 (41.4%) community foundations when examining

purpose statements and mission statements.

Qualitative coding was also used to compare whether a community foundation

retained an item in its mission statement that had been included in its original purpose

statement. Table 9 consists of two categories, “constant presence,” which indicates a

community foundation retained the same item in its original purpose and mission

statement, along with “later addition,” identify that a community foundation added a

particular goal or strategy in their mission statement that was not included in its original

purpose statement. For example, fewer than 10% of community foundations that

claimed the community-at-large as a primary stakeholder beneficiary in their purpose

statements used similar language in their mission statements. Furthermore, while some

categories, such as nonprofit benefit, community benefit, and future building, saw

increases in language adoption, the number of community foundations that included this

in their original purpose statements and kept it in their mission statement was less than

20% in both instances.

Emerging Themes

A mission statement is a promise to the public about what an organization will

provide. In analyzing the mission and purpose statements, three overarching themes

emerged: (1) community foundations are often explicit about who and where they serve,

(2) there are challenges associated with definitions in mission statements that likely

result in challenges to operationalizing mission statements, and (3) it is not clear to

whom community foundations are accountable.

Beneficiaries and Service Region. Overall, community foundations identified

donors and services to donors as the primary-stakeholder focus of their mission

statements. In stating that the primary purpose of a given community foundation is to

build assets/fundraise (33.33%) and serve donors (20.99%) as opposed to nonprofits

(18.52%) and the community-at-large (11.11%), a community foundation is making a

definitive choice about whom it seeks to help.

Definitional Challenges. Many mission statements in the sample mentioned

“quality of life” (46.91%); however, it was unclear how community foundations defined

this term, as well as how they measured it. Quality of life can refer to the overall health

of a community, economic wellbeing, and many other factors that a single entity cannot

be solely responsible for maintaining, improving, or advancing.

Community Foundation Accountability. While mission statements do not

generally include information on how an organization will be held accountable, one

question that arose during the coding process was how community foundations would

be held accountable for the tasks they take on, or even how they define success in

general.

Amorphous items such as “community wellbeing,” “quality of life,” “addressing

community needs,” and other components of community foundation mission statements

can theoretically be measured, though not easily or realistically by a single organization.

Hypothesis 1

Community foundations created after 1990 will be more likely to mention community

leadership than those created before 1990.

In 1990, the Council on Foundations issued a set of manuals to assist community

foundations in developing and implementing best practices in the field. Many

community foundations in the United States were established in the early 1990s, and

with the Council on Foundation seeking to professionalize the field with best practices

resources in both 1990 and 2000, community foundations entered a new

professionalized era. To further understand the effect of this drive toward

professionalization in the field, the purpose and mission statements of those foundations

created before the exponential growth of community foundations in the 1990s were

compared with those community foundations founded in 1990 or later (Table 10).

Table 13

Pre-1990 and Post-1990 Comparison

Purpose Statements a Mission Statements b

Pre- 1990 – Pre-1990 1990 –

1990 c Present d e Present f

Geography 88.7% 80.0% 81.5% 85.2%

Community Foundation

Roles

Grantmaking

45%

41.5%

37.0%

42.6%

Fundraising 45% 45.3% 33.3% 31.5%

Community Leadership 10% 9.4% 37.0% 27.8%

Stakeholder Benefits

Nonprofit Organizations

10%

9.4%

11.1%

22.2%

Community At-Large 25% 41.5% 11.1% 11.1%

Donors/Philanthropists 10% 18.9% 18.5% 22.2%

Quality of Life 15% 28.3% 40.7% 50.0%

a n = 73. b N = 81. c n = 20. d n = 53. e n = 27. f n = 54.

Although community leadership could have been a community foundation role

before the Council on Foundation issued their guides in 1990, and subsequently the

National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations in 2000, normative isomorphic

change would suggest that those community foundations created after 1990 would

feature community leadership in their mission as it is one of the main three roles of a

community foundation (i.e., grantmaking, asset building/fundraising, and community

leadership) defined by the Council on Foundations (1990, 2000). However, community

leadership was mentioned more frequently in both the purpose statements and mission

statements of community foundations created before 1990 (Figure 7) when the field

became more professionalized.

Those community foundations created before 1990 mention the three roles of

community foundations in near equal measure, with a slightly lower percentage

mentioning fundraising. Community foundations established in 1990 and beyond appear

to have a stronger emphasis on grantmaking, followed by fundraising, with community

leadership coming in at the lowest number of mentions in the mission statements.

Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is rejected. This hypothesis could have been proved untrue for

a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, newer community foundations

focusing on raising money initially before pursuing community leadership, community

leadership being a core component of the community foundation’s purpose which may

not be reflected within its mission statement, or potentially could be that newer

community foundations may not be as concerned with community leadership as

community foundations that have been around longer.

Figure 7

Roles of Community Foundations Identified in Mission Statements

Hypothesis 2

Community foundations nationally accredited by the National Standards for U.S.

Community Foundations will be more likely to mention community leadership in their

mission statements than those community foundations that are not accredited

The Council on Foundation’s National Standards for U.S. Community

Foundations (“National Standards”) is the only accreditation offered for community

foundations to confirm that they are following best practices of foundation management

as defined by National Standards. Initially, the National Standards committee was

external to the Council on Foundations, but the Council on Foundations now serves as

the fiscal sponsor for the National Standards Committee. A total of 24 of 81 community

foundations are accredited (29.6%). Of the community foundations accredited by

National Standards, 13 of the 24 (54.2%) mentioned community leadership in their

mission statements, while 12 of the 57 (21%) of the unaccredited community

foundations mentioned community leadership in their mission statements (Figure 8).

37.0%

%42.6

%33.3 %31.5

37.0%

27.8%

%0.0

10.0%

%20.0

30.0%

%40.0

50.0%

Pre-1990 Community Foundations Present Community Foundations1990-

Community Foundation Roles

Grantmaking Fundraising Community Leadership

There appears to be a stronger relationship between community foundation

accreditation and inclusion of community leadership as part of the community

foundation mission. Since a majority of those community foundations accredited by

National Standards mentioned community leadership in their missions, it is likely that

following the best practices of the Council on Foundations and National Standards is a

predictor of whether community foundations identify community leadership as a central

role of their mission. Therefore, the results of the analysis partially support hypothesis

2; however, there is no clear significance that can be determined. While it appears that

National Standards accreditation may be a motivating factor for community foundations

to include community leadership in their mission statements, as it one the defined

standards that a community foundation must meet through the accreditation process, the

difference between accredited community foundations stating community leadership

within their mission statements and unaccredited community foundations stating

community leadership within their mission statements was one community foundations.

While the majority of community foundations (54%) of accredited foundations

mentioned community leadership, it is important to note that the difference in numbers

of accredited and unaccredited community foundations may not be substantial.

Normative isomorphism is one explanation for why accredited community foundations

are more likely to mention community leadership within their mission statements, as if a

community foundation wishes to implement the “best practices” defined within

“National

Standards” it may elect to follow the industry norms in hope of gain legitimacy.

Furthermore, coercive isomorphism may be a factor as well since the accreditation

requires that the community leadership element must be met and in some states

community foundations must be accredited by National Standards in order to be part of

membership associations of community foundations—for example, a community

foundation in California must be accredited by National Standards in order to be a

member in the League of California Community Foundations.

Figure 8

National Standards and Community Leadership

Conclusions

This chapter has found that while mission statements evolve, they remain

consistent with the organization's founding purposes in most cases. Institutional theory,

and more specifically isomorphic change, would predict that community foundations

created after the adoption of community foundation management best practices in 1990,

established by the Council on Foundations, would pressure (coercive) or encourage

13 12

Accredited Community Foundations Unaccredited Community Foundations

National Standards and Community Leadership

Community Foundations Community Leadership

(normative) them into adopting community leadership and including within their

mission statements—yet, neither appeared to be the case.

While the year established did not appear to be a contributing factor for

community foundations adopting community leadership, those community foundations

that were nationally accredited by the National Standards for U.S. Community

Foundations appeared to be more likely to include community leadership within their

mission statement than those that were less affiliated with the Council on Foundation

(i.e., unaccredited community foundations).

The adoption of new standards by the Council on Foundations has appeared to

have little effect on community foundations' operations. Furthermore, while 13

accredited community foundations (54.2%) mentioned community leadership in their

mission statements, 11 accredited community foundations (45.8%) did not.

These findings indicate that institutional theory appears to be an applicable

framework when comparing original purpose statements with current mission

statements. In this study, normative isomorphism appears to be the most likely

explanation as to why community leadership is included within community foundation

mission statements, particularly for those aligning themselves with the National

Standards. In this case, the findings speak against mimetic isomorphism due to

accreditation being a standard of change. Coercive isomorphism does not appear to be a

factor as the accreditation process is voluntary, with most community foundations in

California electing not to be accredited.

To further understand the adoption and development of community leadership

within California community foundations, the next chapter presents the findings from

interviews with community foundation leaders across the state to indicate the purpose,

practice, and presence of community leadership within their community foundations.

CHAPTER FOUR

DEFINING AND IMPLEMENTING COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP

Various examples of community leadership by community foundations have

appeared in academic (Easterling, 2011; Harrow & Jung, 2016; Ranghelli, Mott, &

Bandwell, 2006) and practitioner (Bernholtz, Fulton, & Kasper, 2005) literature, yet the

underlying definitions of community leadership, the journey to becoming a community

leader, and the metrics by which community foundations define successful community

leadership have not been investigated adequately. Chapter 2 provides a conceptual

framework of community leadership that indicates that is it involved more than simply

community engagement, but working collectively with others to achieve a civic

outcomes (i.e., enhance the quality of life of a region). The findings in Chapter 3

indicate that community foundations are claiming community leadership more

frequently in their mission statements compared to their original purpose statements;

however, there has been a lack of evolution within the field on what exactly community

leadership is and what is represents for a community foundation.

While CFLeads has published various resources related to a framework for

community leadership by a community foundation (2008, 2013), there have been few

evaluative components associated with the definitions. The only resource produced to

date is the Community Leadership Assessment Tool (CLAT) by CFInsights (2020) that

aims to evaluate the CFLeads framework (2013) primarily on a seven-point scale. A

flaw within the assessment is that it does not tabulate results nor provide

recommendations for improving community leadership (i.e., there is a scale, but it lacks

measurements of what is considered adequate and not considered adequate).

Furthermore, since community foundations often approach community leadership in

various ways, it would be challenging for such a tool to assess community leadership

accurately. A community foundation may not see activities, such as engaging in public

policy, as part of their role. In contrast, another community foundation may see it as

central to their mission. In addition, there are no levels of community leadership

“effectiveness” such as basic, emerging, and exemplary as a result of the CLAT items

having points on a scale but no values.

The community leadership role is ostensibly one of the main pillars of the

community foundation operating model, yet only 30.9% of community foundations

included in the mission statement analysis presented in Chapter 3 mentioned community

leadership in their mission statement. However, when examining mission statement

changes over time, the mentions of “community leadership” had a 171.4% increase,

while “grantmaking” and “fundraising,” the two other roles in the operating model, saw

a decrease of 6.45% and 33.3%, respectively. This finding indicates that community

leadership may be becoming more prominent in their activities. Nevertheless, the

community foundation field as a whole has challenges in articulating a definition of

community leadership, the process of becoming a community leader, and identifying the

various components of such leadership that can apply to various community

foundations.

To address this definitional gap and better understand community leadership as a

process, this dissertation’s second study sought to understand how community

foundations throughout California define their community leadership role and pursue it

within their service regions; therefore, this chapter only includes community

foundations that included community leadership within their mission statements. This

Chapter outlines the methodology and findings from the second study of the

dissertation, while

Chapter 5 shares additional discussion in relation to the findings presented in Chapter 3.

Methodology

This chapter explores the perceptions of community foundation leaders

regarding their community ‘foundation’s role as a community leader. As an

exploratory research design, this study investigated how 11 community foundations in

California have conceptualized and practiced community leadership. An exploratory

approach was selected based on the findings in Chapter 3 to further understand how

community foundations are defining their community leadership roles. A key finding

of chapter 3 was that 26 of 81 (32.1%) of community foundations in California

included “community leadership” within their mission statements. In order to provide

additional insights to understand how community foundations are actually

operationalizing the work of community leadership in the context of their own

communities interviews with key informants at community foundations were

conducted to see how community foundation leaders were implementing a

community leadership agenda.

Participant Selection

This study employed a combination of purposeful sampling (Patton, 2015, p.

46) to produce diverse cases of California community foundations practicing

community leadership. The sampling was purposeful as only officials from

community foundations that claimed a community leadership role in their mission

statements were recruited. The benefit of using purposeful sampling was that it

allowed for a selection of diverse community foundations in different geographic

regions (Northern California and Southern California) as well as a range of asset

sizes.

Participants were also purposefully recruited from two different geographic

regions of California (Northern California and Southern California) to investigate

how community foundation executives contextualize community leadership in

various locations. Variation in community foundations’ assets (low, medium, and

high dollar amounts) and the types of assets (unrestricted, temporarily restricted,

and permanently restricted) were also considered when selecting the potential

cases for the interviews.

The participants were selected from the 81 California community

foundations identified in the study presented in Chapter 3. The selection criteria

yielded a total of 26 community foundations (32.1%) as potential cases to be

invited to participate in the study. The community foundation executives invited to

participate in the interviews were emailed an invitation that explained the study’s

purpose (Appendix D).

After applying the selection criteria, 26 community foundations qualified

for an interview based on their mission statements’ reference to community

leadership elements. A majority of these foundations (21) were contacted to

participate in an interview; 16 community foundations agreed to participate in the

study. The ‘study’s goal was to conduct all interviews in person; therefore, five

community foundations were eliminated due to their remote rural locations and

lack of access to public transportation. Though 16 interviews were scheduled, a

total of 11 interviews were conducted as the other interviews were either canceled

or indefinitely postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In-person interviews

accounted for nine of the interviews, and the remaining two were conducted via

videoconferencing (Zoom). The community foundations represented a range of

sizes and locations in California (Appendix E).

The Sample

The median age of the community foundations in the study was 37 years, with an

average age of 45 years. A total of seven (63.3%) community foundations were

established before 1990 (before the Council on Foundations established field-wide best

practices for community foundations), and the remaining four (36.7%) were founded in

1990 or later. Out of the 11 community foundations selected for interview nine of them

(81.8%) were accredited by the National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations. A

total of 14 individuals, including 12 staff members and two board members, were

interviewed (Table 1). The median number of years in their role was seven-and-a-half

years. A majority were female (71.4%), and many had a background in public service or

35-44

45-54

65+

45-54

had worked at a different nonprofit organization before taking on their current role at

the community foundation.

Table 14

Interviewee Demographics

Community

Foundation Role Role

Tenure Gender a Age b, c Professional Background

CF 1 Staff 3 Male Public Service

CF 2 Staff 8 Female Nonprofit

CF 3 Staff 6 Male Law/Nonprofit

CF 4 Staff 16 Female Nonprofit Board N/A Male 65+ N/A

CF 6 Staff 7 Female Nonprofit

CF 5 Staff 13 Female Public Service/Education

CF 7 Staff 16 Female 65+ Law/Nonprofit

CF 8 Staff 3 Female Public Service

Board N/A Male 65+ N/A

CF 9 Staff 2 Female 45-54 Nonprofit

CF 10 Staff 5 Female 55-64 Education

CF 11 Staff 23 Female 65+ Nonprofit

Staff 14 Female Nonprofit

a Gender was based on identifying pronouns listed on the community ‘foundation’s website or

other materials. b Utilized a range of 18-25, 26-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65+.

c Age calculated based on LinkedIn profile information. d

Identified within interview and LinkedIn profile

information.

Data Collection

The primary data collection method included semi-structured interviews with

community foundation executives. The interviews were also supplemented with

document analysis, including 10 years of financial records (IRS Form 990) from

20082017, annual reports from 2016-2018, as well as any other supporting

documentation provided by the community foundations that illustrated their role as

community leaders (e.g., reports, brochures, flyers, website links).

Interviews. The study was designed to include in-person interviews to

capture possible nuances absent when conducting interviews via telephone or

videoconferencing. California was selected as the site for this study as it has a

variety of different community foundations (age, geography, size), but primarily

because it was the state where the researcher resided and had access and

opportunity.

To understand California community foundations’ community leadership

practices, interviews were conducted with the foundation executive who oversaw the

community ‘foundation’s community leadership efforts—most often the chief

executive officer. The interviews followed the seven stages of interview inquiry, as

outlined by Brinkmann and Kvale (2015): (1) thematizing, (2) designing, (3)

interviewing, (4) transcribing, (5) analyzing, (6) verifying, and (7) reporting (pp.

128129). The semi-structured interviews used an interview guide (Appendix F) to

ensure the data was collected consistently. The interviews were recorded and

professionally transcribed per IRB protocol and participant consent procedures

(Appendix G). Conversation cards (Appendix H) were utilized to guide the interviews.

During the interview, interviewees were asked to sort these conversation cards by

order of importance, areas of strength, and areas for improvement.

Each interview lasted approximately 90 minutes, primarily focusing on the

community leadership role of community foundations by examining how these

foundations began serving as community leaders, shifted their strategies toward

creating systemic change, engaged donors in their new approaches, and explored the

various challenges associated with pursuing a community leadership agenda.

Additional Documentation. The interview findings were supplemented by

additional documents that included financial data, annual reports, and other materials

highlighting the community foundations’ community leadership functions. These

additional documents were analyzed to supplement the interview data (Bowen, 2009;

Denzin, 1970; Yin, 1984). The annual reports of each community foundation were

collected from 2016 through 2018, 990 filings from 2008 through 2017, and any other

special publications concerning their role as a community leader.

Data Analysis

Interview Analysis. After all the interviews were conducted and transcribed,

each participating community foundation was treated as a case. An inductive process

was utilized to analyze the interview transcripts as well as interview field notes for

each case (Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2012). This analysis process focused on

identifying emergent themes and patterns, extracting categories from the data, and

assigning a code to each category (Saldaña, 2015). The coding was completed via

Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis (CAQDAS) software, specifically the

NVivo software package. Due to the large amount of data gathered, NVivo was used

to examine multiple transcripts and associated secondary materials from the

community foundations.

Coding Process. As a result of the study utilizing an interview guide, the first

round of qualitative coding included provisional coding (Saldaña, 2015) to link back

participant responses to the particular questions being asked from the interview guide

(i.e., grantmaking strategies, community leadership approaches). As additional

themes emerged, descriptive coding was utilized to group various topics (e.g.,

diversity, equity, and inclusion comments), along with in vivo coding to group

various dimensions of categories around topics such as capacity building,

homelessness, and housing. The in vivo coding process was also utilized to identify

participant quotes that might be of interest in including in a results section or future

practitioner report.

Findings

The role of community leadership looked different at each community

foundation. Yet, for a vast majority of community foundations, their leadership

approaches or initiatives were a result of one of two motivating factors (Figure 9): (1)

what the community needed (C.F. 2, 3, 7, 8) and (2) the types of funding the community

foundation had available (C.F. 1, 4, 5, 6, 10). In all the selected cases, the community

foundation’s leadership work indeed appears to be in the community’s best interest.

Still, as nonprofits themselves, community foundations only have so much control over

the funds they have available and whether they can match the community’s evolving

needs. In terms of community leadership, many community foundation leaders stated

that they lean into their mission statement when it comes to community leadership.

Many of those interviewed expressed that community leadership sets community

foundations apart compared to other philanthropic investment opportunities.

Figure 9

Operational Approaches to Community Leadership

1 – Community need drives grantmaking and 2 – Grantmaking and fundraising

fundraising functions of the functions of the community foundation

community foundation determine the opportunities

for community leadership

Community leadership efforts within the sample of community foundations

interviewed focused on a range of topics, including increasing access to affordable

housing, improving cradle-to-career education outcomes for students, redesigning

scholarship programs to transition from scholarships of merit to scholarships of need,

increasing access to healthcare careers, building nonprofit capacity, and eliminating

human trafficking. In all of the examples, community context was a driving force in

selecting the community leadership agenda.

In many cases, practicing community leadership provided visibility and

legitimacy for the work of a community foundation, and the leadership can both be

respected and contested by community stakeholders. In short, social issues are

community-based challenges or gaps within the social fabric of a community. Many

community foundation leaders stated they generally did not experience pushback from

residents when they state their foundation is pro-education or pro-housing. Still,

tensions can often arise when a community foundation selects a specific issue and

works to eliminate barriers that divide the community.

I think also, ‘I’m going to go out on a limb and say, just being in

leadership roles makes our partners and people out in the community

feel more comfortable with us. Even if they ‘don’t agree with us on

whatever stand ‘we’re taking on something, they respect us because they

know that ‘we’re not doing it to line our

own pockets (CF 4).

Another community foundation leader shared that community leadership is often a

process that occurs over time and involves having conversations with various

stakeholder groups. Furthermore, they said that community leadership must be guided

by the needs of grantees and other community stakeholders for it to be impactful.

So I think the big challenge in foundation leadership is the only really

legitimate foundation leadership comes with very grounded in what the

grantee and other stakeholder community and what the end-users of

your grant think. And you really have to have created situations where

folks feel free to disagree with you. And you ask the question multiple

ways and multiple times and multiple venues, and you listen (CF 7).

Interviewees also identified a need for community foundations to be both

courageous and strategic in their community leadership. Change is often hard to

accomplish, so community foundations must be mindful of how they wish to seek

change while recognizing that promoting change does not come without obstacles or

scrutiny, even when they seek to make positive changes on behalf of just causes.

But when you are advancing a cause, you are going to make people

upset. And so, people have to be comfortable with what that feels like.

You have to be okay if your organization shows up in the paper, and ‘it’s

like you flip a coin and some people like it, some people ‘won’t. So, just

ways to kind of build that heat shield with boards and their executive

leadership. Now, to me, this whole discussion is not a license to do

stupid stuff. It ‘shouldn’t be a badge of honor that like, ““Ha ha ha, I

went out, made people mad”.” That’s not the point. The point is to

advance an agenda and mission and a purpose recognizing there are

some status quo interests that are going to get upset in that process. And

as you’re trying to maneuver in a way that minimizes that to the greatest

extent possible, but you’re not afraid to trip those wires that need to be

tripped (CF 8).

When a community foundation practices community leadership, it often creates

disruptions within a community by inviting nonprofit organizations, elected officials,

and other stakeholders to question the community’s status quo and to envision a brighter

future for all residents in the community. Interviewees argued that community

foundations must have a clear vision of what and how they want to change something to

ensure they can achieve the desired results via community leadership practices.

Same Strategies Lead to Same Results

During the interviews, participants were given five cards with the different

CFLeads (2019) community leadership competencies written on them (engaging

residents, working across sectors, data collection and sharing, shaping public policy, and

marshaling resources). Interviewees were asked to point to or organize the cards to

identify the roles they were best at and the roles they felt they needed to strengthen. The

overwhelming majority of interviewees indicated that shaping public policy was a role

they were effectively engaged in or actively pursuing. Community foundations have

historically been labeled as neutral institutions; however, the Council on Foundations

has changed this phrasing over the years to indicate that the community foundations are

nonpartisan. Nevertheless, many interviewees indicated their increased involvement in

public policy efforts and have taken this risk in order to create systemic change in their

communities.

Over the last 16 years, I can comfortably say that I’ve turned a

wonderful traditional risk-averse community foundation into what we

call ourselves as activist grantmakers. And we fund community

organizing. We fund advocacy, not political, not partisan, but issues that

affect the community. We’re very grounded in community (CF 7).

One community foundation executive mentioned they were simply tired of doing the

same thing (grantmaking) and getting the same results: little to no improvement. The

nonprofit sector was serving as a band-aid to prevent conditions from becoming worse.

Still, this executive said that they lacked support in making progress toward positive

community outcomes.

Our community foundation learned from the field that grantmaking is

not enough to solve problems. That in order to really be effective and to

make a difference, and to prove the value of your community

foundation, you got to be willing to roll up your sleeves and get dirty

sometimes in policy change (CF 4).

Another community foundation executive indicated that they alone could not do the

work of community leadership, so they focused their efforts on raising the level of

leadership in the community so various groups could lead change, advocate for

themselves, and become active in spaces in which they had not been invited to

participate in previously.

Most of our grantmaking is focused around creating the abilities of

communities to advocate for themselves around policy changes that will

influence how resources, especially [in] the public sector, are allocated

and how those resources are measured in terms of the impact on

individuals, families, and communities (CF 3).

Implementing different strategies to achieve different results is bound to pique the

interests of external stakeholders. However, as many community foundations did not

see systemic change in their communities, they elected to try different tactics to ensure

that their resources were invested in positive ways. Community foundations are often

confronted with the challenge that they must cater to various stakeholder groups while

recognizing that their funds primarily come from individual donors; therefore, a

community foundation’s community leadership is bound to prompt reactions from

donors.

Donors Reactions and Engagement

Community foundations are institutional forms of philanthropy that can often

only grow due to philanthropists’ monetary investments. In some cases, community

foundations can grow due to gains in the stock market, but this is a prolonged growth

process; therefore, fundraising is essential for a community foundation that strives to

increase the number and size of grants it makes annually. Grantmaking and fundraising

have historically been the lifeblood of community foundations and is what most

community foundations are often recognized for in their communities. As community

foundations begin to pursue community leadership agendas, they also must consider

how their primary source of revenue—donor contributions—may change as a result of

the bold steps they may choose to take.

Look, I have a fund for planned parenthood, and I have funding for folks

that want to find organizations that help pregnant women have had

children… I will service them both because they’re both donors, and I

don’t impose my views on donors as far as to where they give (CF 7).

In many cases, community foundations are facing unprecedented competition in

the field of community philanthropy. Community foundations have often been one of

the only local institutions offering philanthropic services, other than the United Way.

Changes in the private sector have created opportunities for philanthropists to create

donor-advised funds or other giving vehicles, such as a range of charitable trusts, with

financial or investment firms (e.g., Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard). The community

foundation executives interviewed indicated that most of their operating funds stem

from fees charged on the various funds they hold. Some donors have begun to shop

around for lower fees—especially when for-profit agencies give donors more discretion

over their distributions. When asked to describe their potential sales pitch to a donor, a

community foundation executive indicated that fees support the foundation’s leadership

work, and many other community foundation executives shared similar ideologies.

Okay. I get it, and I get that we’re more expensive, but here’s what we’re

doing in the community, and have you ever thought of the fact that the

fees that you’re going to pay to Vanguard and Schwab and Fidelity are

going to go to New York

City, they’re going to stay in L.A. They’re not going to this community;

they’re not doing one thing for this community. Whereas the fees that

you pay 100% of them stay here in this community, and 100% of them

go into the work that we’re doing (CF 8).

All community foundation leaders that were interviewed indicated that

community leadership was directly tied to their asset growth in recent years. According

to interviewees, bold community leadership has often led to increased visibility,

accountability, transparency, and additional donor contributions over time—both from

current and new donors. Community foundations can no longer elect to be neutral in the

face of community challenges since they make grants toward specific causes;

ultimately, they speak with their dollars if they elect not to speak up about community

injustices.

So I think the reason they say that is because they want to be neutral,

and they don’t want to piss off any donors in their community. That’s

very old school. If you want to attract a very specific donor, then okay,

play that vanilla role, and maybe that’ll be the only donor you ever have.

But like I said, our asset size in

2012 was $12 million. Our asset size in 2019 at the end of last fiscal

year was at

$41 [million]. So I think that’s data for you on community leadership

actually underwrites your development goals. It’s also the right thing to

do. What the hell are we here for? Like I don’t understand why we even

exist. They can open a fund at Fidelity with a way better fee. But

otherwise, there’s no reason for you to be here. Like literally our sales

pitch for donors that walk in the door that say, “Well

I could ...” If they’re fee sensitive, we literally tell them to go somewhere else (CF

6).

To understand the accuracy of interviewees’ statements about how the community

leadership role positively influenced the community foundation’s fundraising efforts, 10

years of financial data (2008-2017) from all California community foundations were

gathered to run simple financial comparisons. The mission statements of all community

foundations (N=81) were analyzed, and those that stated an element of community

leadership (n=25) were categorized into one group, and those that did not have the

element (n=56) were placed in another grouping (Table 3). It should be noted that the

statement of community leadership in the mission statement of the community

foundations was used as a proxy for true community leadership, and the effectiveness of

community leadership was not an examined factor.

Table 15

Changes in Assets of Community Foundations a

Claiming Community Not Claiming Community

Leadership b Leadership

Average Annual

Growth Rate

(2008 – 2017) c

8.88%

(n = 23)

7.64% (n

= 45)

Average Annual

Unrestricted

Asset Growth

Rate

(2008 – 2017)

10.2%

(n = 21)

9.34% (n

= 20)

Total Asset

Growth Average

(2008 to 2017)

70.64%

(n = 15)

74.75% (n

= 32)

a Dollars adjusted for inflation utilizing the Consumer Price Index (conversion to

2018 dollars) b Mission statement coding was utilized to identify which community

foundations claimed a community leadership role (See Chapter 3).

c One outlier removed from the analysis

d Two outliers removed from the

analysis

While these data do not indicate causality, the apparent association indicates that

the community foundations that claimed community leadership saw higher growth in

their annual total assets and annual unrestricted assets. Interviewees indicated

unrestricted dollars provided them with the opportunity to be strong community leaders

by allowing them to deploy assets for various purposes flexibly.

Challenges in Community Leadership

Overall, the community foundations interviewees did not report challenges

associated with the actual act of leading but more so with challenges related to the cause

they elected. For example, individuals were not upset when one community foundation

became involved in increasing affordable housing, but merely addressing the social

issue came with expected challenges. Furthermore, many interviewees reported that

though they perceived community problems as growing, especially in smaller

communities, their community foundation assets were not (CF 1, 2, 4, 5, 9).

I feel like the challenges in our community are growing exponentially,

and our financial resources are growing incrementally. (CF 2)

Another community foundation executive stressed the importance of considering how

the community foundation serves the community, not just donors and the nonprofit

sector. An integral part of community leadership appears to be doing what is in the

entire community’s best interest. While donors and nonprofits are part of the

community, they are not the only stakeholders.

I think that the nonprofit sector is an invaluable and extremely important

component in what we do. But that sector also needs to answer to the

community, to the constituency that they serve. And sometimes those

connections can get a little bit fuzzy, can have a little tension to them,

can be a little bit...the gap, can have gaps to them. (CF 3)

In many of the interviews, community foundation leaders expressed frustration over the

fact that while many individuals may be aware of what a community foundation is and

what it does, they do not understand the community foundation’s business model.

Well, for nonprofits, I think it’s helpful if they understand our business

model because you don’t just have this large corpus that we have

complete control over. So we try to be as strategic as we possibly can

with the resources that we have at our discretion. And because I do think

sometimes that nonprofits get frustrated that, why aren’t they funding

us? Why aren’t they funding this? And sometimes it’s just because we

literally have no money. It has to do with your community and just...

There’s not a lot of environmental organizations in our community, and

there’s not a lot of funders that fund that either. And that’s why, and it’s

a bummer (CF 6).

The nonprofit sector is often tasked with handling many community challenges.

Yet, it is clear that a lack of resources is one of the many barriers to achieving a society

where individuals have, at minimum, their basic needs met. The community foundations

included in this study attempt to do their best to raise resources to support community

challenges, but there often seems to be more community challenges than philanthropic

dollars available to solve them, or at least not enough donors or funders interested in

solving a particular issue. Furthermore, community foundations have an institutional

structure that has both benefits and challenges; various calls within the field of

philanthropy have encouraged foundations to consider how to decolonize philanthropy

(see Edgar Villanueva’s Decolonizing Wealth: Indigenous Wisdom to Heal Divides and

Restore Balance) and work to engage marginalized groups both as donors and as

recipients of philanthropic funds.

Investing in ALL of the Community

Many community foundation leaders emphasized the need to be a leader and

learner in their communities. Furthermore, the operational roles of community

foundations are shifting with community foundation leaders acknowledging various

advancements in the field of philanthropy: shifting practices in grantmaking (e.g.,

giving circles, trust-based philanthropy, and grantmaking with an equity lens), new

investment strategies (e.g., program-related investments, mission-related investments),

and new strategies for additional groups in the community to become involved with

community foundations (i.e., people of color, individuals identifying as LGBTQ+,

young professionals).

So I’m thinking from community foundations, we need to be out in the

community. And we have to have a set of values, and we have to be

known for something. And that’s something we have to define

ourselves. Because if we don’t define it for ourselves, others will define

us. And then if they put us in a corner, it’s very hard to get out of the

corner (CF 7).

Several community foundation leaders mentioned many promising changes in the

California community foundation field. Conversations are beginning to happen in

communities across the state around areas of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and

community foundations are now navigating how to reconcile with the fact that much of

the philanthropy that has supported them in the past has come from wealthy white

individuals, resulting in the exclusion of marginalized groups in their communities.

We’re really starting to try to lean in and have some courage when it

comes to talking about equity. I mean, most community foundations,

when they start, just because of the nature of wealth, it’s typically white

men over the age of 65 (CF 6).

Another community foundation executive framed their grantmaking strategy as

overinvesting in those communities that have historically been marginalized. While this

particular community foundation will continue to fund things throughout their service

region, they believed they must make investments in community-based nonprofits that

are actively seeking to address issues that only small, locally-based nonprofits can

handle due to the trust they have with local community residents.

We chose to overinvest in those areas, not that we were going to just

spread all funds equally. When doing that, I think then you have a

responsibility of thinking, well, if... You take different things into

consideration, like, are you going to actually just accept the very

polished grant proposal? It puts more on the funder to kind of get to

know the people in the organizations that are really trusted by the people

in the community because they may be the E.D.s that English is a

second language, that they have not, due to how a foundation’s fund not

had the same type of capacity support. So, I think our grantmaking has

definitely changed as a result (CF 2).

Also, numerous community foundations reported making changes to their

scholarship programs over the years to transition from scholarships of merit to

scholarships of need. The rationale behind these changes was to increase the talent

pipeline within communities and assist students who may not otherwise have an

opportunity to go to college. Many community foundations have improved their

scholarship programs to move from issuing scholarships to the “left-handed piano

player” (CF 6) to students that the financial contribution could genuinely impact—

turning a granting program that is often labor-intensive with little impact toward

scholarship awards that helped students, who may not have attended college otherwise,

pursue their educational goals and have the necessary resources to complete their

postsecondary education.

We prioritize need, it’s built into our scholarship application. If you have

a problem with that, we may not be the right partner with you. And we’ll

tell you why. We use scholarships as incentives – not awards, and it’s

really to help give kids, who maybe didn’t see themselves as college

material, like a push in the right direction. And so if you want to award a

kid that’s already going to Stanford and has like 10 other scholarships

coming to him in a full ride, I can make a badge for them. Happy to give

them a little certificate that says, ‘Amen’. But I’m not going to give

them money (CF 6).

When community foundations practice community leadership, they have the

opportunity to make a difference in communities by convening conversations around

challenging issues. While many community foundation executives shared that

community leadership is often the most meaningful and impactful activity of the

community foundation, there are still challenges to community leadership. Change does

not happen overnight. While interviewees recognized this challenge, one said that if

community foundations do not clearly define their role, others in the community will

define it for them.

Advice to Peers

Interviewees had the opportunity to share their community foundation’s journey

to community leadership and where they are today and were asked what advice they

would give to other community foundation colleagues seeking to improve their

community leadership. Many interviewees reported that the work of being a community

leader is not easy. Yet, it is often the work that has helped these community foundations

grow into what they are today. As one interviewee put it, community foundations must

be aware of the power dynamic between a funder and a grantee. In most cases, they

need to listen with openness and humility.

[S]o we will convene, we will gather together all the little people, and

we will say,

“We’re here to lead you," and the little people look at you with like,

"This lunch better be good." I’m going to have to sit here with a polite

look on my face wondering, "Is this going to translate into grants, or

what’s the deal here?" (CF 7).

However, community foundations should not be threatened by the positional

power they hold as grantmakers, as this provides them with a unique platform to

highlight and address community challenges. In many cases, individuals in the

community look to the community foundation for guidance on what is happening in the

nonprofit sector and how they can help. Community foundations should embrace all that

comes with being a learning organization and look to various stakeholders in the

community to obtain insights into various aspects of the community; then, community

foundations can serve as network-weavers to bring the right people together.

So it’s really like, I just think that, with community leadership work, you

start in a place where you’re curious, you’re trying to really understand

a problem. (CF 6).

Finally, another piece of advice shared from the interviews was to create an exit

strategy. It might be the right move for a community foundation only to be engaged in a

coalition for a few years. Eventually, however, they will likely need to transition to

other issues that affect the region’s quality of life. Community foundations have the

opportunity to be quite innovative in incubating community ideas, but a community

foundation must "pass the torch" to continue fulfilling its roles in the community.

Community foundations are not experts in education, human service, healthcare, or

other community issues, but they can serve in roles that can help establish networks to

address specific community issues.

The sign of good leadership is that you do some work, you create

excitement, you create this container and that you can pull yourself out

and it holds on its own.

(CF 6).

Limitations

The interviews with community foundation executives across the state provided

much-needed insight into the definition of community leadership and how it is

interpreted and implemented by various community foundations in different ways.

While this study included several community foundation leaders’ perspectives, some

study limitations can be opportunities for additional research. First, the study only

included community foundations located in California that included "community

leadership" in their mission statements, resulting in the exclusion of community

foundations that may be excellent community leaders yet did not meet the selection

criteria outlined in the methodology section.

The inclusion of community leadership in the mission statements was utilized as

a proxy for authentic community leadership. The extent to which community

foundations were successfully practicing community leadership was outside the focus of

this study; therefore, additional research into community leadership’s effectiveness is

needed.

Initially, this study was designed to include more community foundations; however,

COVID-19 forced the cancellation of meetings due to travel restrictions and community

foundations being unavailable. In many communities across the country, community

foundations created response funds to accept charitable donations to support nonprofits

during the global pandemic.

The 11 interviews highlighted in this study are not generalizable. The findings

suggest that additional research into the financial outcomes associated with community

leadership is warranted, along with investigating to what extent community foundations

define and evaluate their community leadership activities.

Conclusions

The interviews with community foundation executives have demonstrated that

community leadership at its core is selecting a particular issue, advocating for that issue,

and seeking to make a positive change on an issue. The framing for the questions in

these interviews was based on the conceptual model of community leadership presented

in Chapter 2 and the findings from Chapter 3 indicate that community foundations may

be including community leadership within their mission statements more frequently;

however, there is no clear indication within the mission statements on what community

leadership actually constitutes. Interviewees all highlighted the collective action needed

to pursue a community leadership agenda, yet some community foundations had clearer

visions than others—indicating a lack of measurable change.

While community leadership goals like “end human trafficking,” “ensure all kids

are reading at grade-level,” and “ensure all nonprofits are successful” are ideal

aspirational goals that can serve as the inspiration for particular initiatives, the lack of

overall measurement is providing an opportunity for community foundations to attest

they are working on improving something, but are not entirely accountable to it. While

internal measures may be in place that define the “success” of community leadership,

the community foundation executives interviewed did not indicate within the interview

or in additional supplementary materials what civic outcome was to be achieved.

Nonprofit organizations are often under pressure to provide funders with evidence

that the money they receive is being used for a useful purpose and that an organization’s

mission is advancing. In the case of the community foundations included in this study,

there appears to be a lack of external pressure for performance and accountability. The

findings from the interviews suggest that as community foundations deepen their work

in community leadership, there need to be additional tools to guide the creation of

effective leadership agendas—clearly articulating civic outcomes and communicating

the impact of community foundation grantmaking and community leadership.

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This chapter presents a summary of the two studies presented in this dissertation and

discusses the results. First, a summary of the findings from each study is presented.

Next, a summary of the implications for both research and practice are presented. The

chapter concludes with ideas for future research and additional recommendations for

practice.

Summary of Findings

The following subsections provide an overview of each of the two studies conduct

in this study – the mission statement analysis (“study one”) and the interviews with

community foundation executives (“study two”).

Study One – Mission Statement Analysis

The first study of this dissertation (Chapter 3) examined the mission statements of

California community foundations utilizing institutional theory and isomorphic change

as the primary framework for analysis. The first hypothesis was that community

foundations founded before the introduction of community leadership best practices by

the Council on Foundations in 1990 would be less likely to include elements of

community leadership within their mission statements that those created in 1990 of later

(i.e., normative isomorphism). The second hypothesis, also motivated by normative

isomorphic change, stated that community foundations that were accredited by the

National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations (a sponsored organization of the

Council on Foundations) would be more likely to include community leadership within

its mission statement as community leadership is one of the standards included in

National Standards.

Mission statements were qualitatively coded using four type of qualitative coding

(provisional, hypothesis, in vivo, and structural coding). Upon examining the results

from the qualitative coding process, the first hypothesis was rejected as there appeared

to be no connection between the founding year of a community foundation and whether

or not it mentioned community leadership within its mission statement. The second

hypothesis was slightly supported, as those community foundations that were accredited

by National Standards appeared to be more likely to include community leadership

within their mission statements.

Study Two – Community Foundation Interviews

The second study of the dissertation (Chapter 4), utilizing the results from the first

study, sought to provide additional content to community leadership by interviewing

community foundation executives throughout California. Based on the research

conducted in the first study, a total of 26 California community foundations were

identified as including an element of community leadership within their mission

statements, and 21 community foundations were invited to participate in the study as a

result of the selection criteria. Initially 16 community foundations agreed to participate

in an interview; however, due to COVID-19 complications, the total number of

interviews completed was 11.

Utilizing the conceptual framework of community leadership presented in

Chapter 2, the interviews focused on the community foundation’s mission statement,

grantmaking, and community leadership. The results of the interviews indicate that

community foundations practice community leadership in a variety of different ways

including focusing on a range of issues including affordable housing, educational

attainment, and building strong local nonprofit organizations. In almost all of the

selected cases, community foundations approached community leadership one of two

ways: (1) the fundraising and grantmaking roles of the community foundation

influences the type of community leadership and (2) the community leadership role

influences how community foundation make grants and the types of fund the aim to

raise.

Many of the interviewees highlighted the issues in their communities are growing

or evolving, and all of them framed community leadership a little differently; however,

interviewees expressed that community leadership is often the tool that provides the

most visibility for the community foundation and is what they are known for in the

community. All interviewees indicated that their community leadership had a positive

impact on their fundraising roles, and that the additional exposure has led to them

securing additional gifts and gaining positive community visibility.

Discussion

The findings from the mission statement analysis and community foundation

interviews indicate the community leadership is indeed a complex phenomenon in the

community foundation field. There are multiple aspects of community leadership, yet

there appear to have been limited efforts within practice to push for accountability

associated with community leadership or capture the aspects of successful community

leadership. Community foundations are required to collect metrics associated with their

grantmaking and fundraising, and report them on their IRS Form 990; however, there is

no clear indication on how community leadership is being approached, evaluated, or

reported by community foundations across the country.

The research surrounding foundations and evaluation is very limited (see, Buteau,

Glickman, Loh, Coffman, Beer, 2016), so it is not surprising that the community

foundation field has varying conceptions of what community leadership for a

community foundation looks like and how it should be implemented. While a

community foundation’s approach to community leadership is undoubtedly going to

reflect the context of the local community, there are bound to be elements of community

leadership that build the backbone of what it is to be an effective community leader.

Defining Community Leadership

The community foundation interviewees did not necessarily have a definition for

community leadership. In most cases, community leadership was considered the work

the community foundation did outside the walls of community foundation; therefore,

there were varying conceptualizations of community leadership. For some interviewees,

community leadership was the everyday community engagement work of the

community foundation, while others defined it as specific initiatives they crafted with

the assistance of the local community.

When asked the question “What are some examples of how your community

foundation has played a community leadership role?” the majority of interviewees

described a specific program or initiative they have launched in the past, indicating that

community leadership is often a specific action, or set of actions, designed to create a

change within the community.

Community Leadership Practices

The practices the individuals at the interviewed community foundations used

when pursuing community leadership differed as well. Those community foundations

that appeared to have been practicing seemingly effective community leadership were

those that took a hands on approach to community leadership. The practices of these

foundations included holding convenings around particular issues, participating in task

forces aimed at creating a change in the community, or creating supporting

organizations within the foundation to focus on creating a set of particular programming

(e.g., hiring a specific individual to oversee a community reading program, incubating a

small nonprofit organization to oversee affordable housing developments within the

community).

Those community foundations that appeared to have weaker community

leadership were those that simply claimed the role and participated in one or two local

activities. These individuals did not necessary lead the strategies around particular

issues, but they had a presence in the room where conversations were happening.

Granted, the scope of this study was not to measure effectiveness of community

leadership; however, there were indications that those that took a more strategic

approach to their involvement saw greater impact within the community, as well as the

community foundation receiving public recognition and increasing its visibility.

In some cases, community foundations utilized the community leadership

opportunities they selected as promotional opportunities. In other cases, the community

foundations that were highlighted in the research took the approach of a backbone

support organization and were not necessarily in it for the recognition. Regardless of the

practice, community foundations in this reinforced the assumption that community

leadership goes beyond simply engaging with their local communities, but practicing

leadership within it.

Revising the Conceptual Framework for Community Leadership

The conceptual framework for community leadership (Figure 10) presented in

Chapter 2 was essential in conceptualizing the community leadership practices of

community foundations. Upon examining the literature related to community

leadership, the concepts of civic leadership, collective leadership, and community

engagement appeared to be the items that community leadership as a whole was trying

to achieve. Within the interviews, the community foundations that appeared to be

handling their roles as community leaders well were those that implemented the tenants

of all three elements of the conceptual framework.

Figure 10

Conceptual Framework

In a few cases, some community foundations acted as though community

engagement was synonymous with community leadership; however, these foundations

appeared to be struggling with their community leadership role and were not seeing

clear returns on their time invested. The community foundations that took civic and

collective leadership approaches, through the coordination of specific initiatives, were

those that appeared to have be more prominent in their communities as a result from

participating in local initiatives.

As an exploratory study, the findings from this research only scratch the surface

of what community leadership is and how community foundations can be successful

community leaders. The implications for the research suggest that there are some

additional lines of research that should be explored related to community foundations

and community leadership, as well as some immediate implications for both research

and practice.

Implications

The findings from this research have some immediate implications for research

and practice, and additional questions that warrant further investigation. In terms of

implications for research, utilizing purpose and mission statements to understand

organizational shifts over time is a unique result of this study. For practice, the

implications are related to the implementation of community leadership, and provide

unique insights into various community foundations rather than the efforts of a single

community foundation—which is often the norm presented within the practitioner

literature.

Implications for Research

Purpose Statements and Mission Statements. Findings from this study suggest

that much can be discovered when comparing the purpose statements of organization

with their mission statements. Community foundations are an institutional form of

philanthropy with a particular structure and business model, so limited shifts within the

study were expected; however, utilizing a similar strategy with other types of

organizations that do not share a similar operating structure like that of a community

foundation may identify different types of organizational shifts. This paper primarily

argued that normative isomorphic change was a factor in the adoption of community

leadership, but utilize coercive or mimetic isomorphism, in a different organizational

context, could also provide unique insights into how organizations shift over time as a

result of various external pressures.

Implications for Practice

While community foundations often operate within a specific business model, the

comparisons of community foundation purpose and mission statements reveal that

community foundations can, in fact, change their focus and priorities over time.

Examining the original purpose of an organization allows individuals within practice to

understand the original intentions of an organization and potentially identify shifts that

have occurred over time—for better or for worse. Mission creep within the nonprofit

sector can often be a valid concern; therefore, examining the modern mission with the

founding purpose may help organizations gain clarity when making organizational shifts

or going through strategic planning. Rather than having the mission lead the purpose, an

organization should have the purpose lead the mission.

Community Leadership Can Affect Fundraising. The qualitative data within

this study illustrates that community leadership is helpful when it comes to fundraising

for a community foundation. All the community foundation representatives interviewed

in this study indicated that community leadership raised their visibility within the

community, which often lead to additional contributions from local philanthropists. The

quantitative data, while very simplistic in nature, demonstrates that there may be a trend

based on the correlation of mentioning community leadership within a community

foundation mission statement and asset growth overtime. While additional research

needs to be conducted on this including controlling for variables such as population,

average annual income, and giving trends—the qualitative and quantitative data indicate

that if community foundations are fearful that being a community leader is going to

upset or alienate donors, this appears to not be occurring at the community foundations

interviewed.

Process of Becoming a Community Leader. The limited research on community

leadership within a community foundations often reports on the specific initiative or

grant program that a community foundation created in order to become a community

leader. At present, there appears to be little to no research on how community

foundations become community leaders or how they navigate in their communities as

leaders. The findings in this dissertation illustrate the goals behind community

leadership, how it is framed, what has helped community foundations in the journey,

and offers guidance on things to consider if a community foundation is seeking to

engage in or improve their community leadership.

Future Research

The findings from this research have inspired additional questions that justify

further exploration. A majority of communities within the United States are served by

one or more community foundations; therefore, conducting additional research on these

local philanthropic resources can provide additional insights for both research and

practice to ensure that community foundations are achieving their intended purpose—

improving the quality of life for a specific region. The following subsections provide a

brief overview of additional research that can help further illustrate the importance of

community foundations, as well as discover ways in which they can be more effective

and accountable to the communities they serve.

Mission Statements. When comparing the mission statements of community

foundations to those of other nonprofit organizations, it is clear that many community

foundations pursue an aspirational mission of a creating a vibrant community with a

high quality of life, and have a wish to make a significant impact on communities;

however, the exact number of community foundations pursuing this mission and

measuring their effectiveness towards achieving it is unclear. Therefore, additional

research into the operationalization of community foundation mission statements can

provide unique insights into how community foundations are leveraging the community

foundation business model and executing strategies to enhance the quality of life within

their service regions.

Understanding Shifting Roles and Responsibilities. Previous research on

mission statements has often focused on what current mission statements represent for

an organization; however, based on the findings of this study there are opportunities to

study how nonprofit organizations have shifted their priorities over time by examining

both the founding purposes of an organization and the present purpose represented via

mission statements. The inverse is also possible since a majority of the mission

statement had very little changes; therefore, additional research could illuminate

whether or not mission statements are of value in terms of guiding organization actions

or simply just words that are used for marketing purposes. Organizations expand and

change their priorities for a variety of reasons; therefore, additional research into the

changes of mission statements over time could assist in further understand how

organizations are shifting their roles and responsibilities and how specific pressures may

trigger such changes.

Evaluation. Foundations often require grantees to complete a level of evaluation

to illustrate the benefits for a community as a result of a grant. However, it is unclear

how community foundations evaluate their successes. As both a distributor and recipient

of philanthropic assets, a community foundation can track both internal and external

outcomes, yet if foundations only track the dollars received and distributed, whether

they are genuinely making progress toward achieving their mission is not readily

known. For the community foundation model to move from a philanthropic giving

vehicle to a community impact model, community foundations must consider setting

realistic outcomes that can be tracked and achieved over time. Additional research into

how community foundations evaluate themselves, particularly in the areas of

community leadership, can provide additional insights into how community foundations

are approaching community leadership and defining effective community leadership.

Demonstrating Value Add. Community foundations were initially established to

pool assets to benefit the community, so it is assumed that they would continuously be

monitoring the needs of the community to employ resources effectively. However, with

the rise of donor-advised funds and financial firms such as Fidelity and Vanguard

creating competition and more cost-effective options in the marketplace (Ragey,

Masaoka, & Bell Peters, 2005), community foundations must illustrate their value add

to secure new donors. Yet, many community foundations have often created barriers

within their systems by accepting restricted assets that impede their ability to respond to

local challenges. Therefore, community foundations must collect and share meaningful

data that illustrate the impact of focusing one's philanthropy at the local level, utilizing a

local giving mechanism such as a community foundation. Additional into how

community foundations are crafting messaging to demonstrate value add can be

examined to see if certain community outcomes are leading to additional investments in

the community foundation.

Accountability. In addition to evaluation, questions of accountability demand

further exploration. Community foundations within the United States have been accused

of losing the community element of their work by becoming philanthropic institutions

for the wealthy elite, constrained by donor voices and choices, and are failing to

represent the entire community (Buchanan, 2017; Healy, 2018; Somerville, 2013). As a

result of having a broader stakeholder groups than most nonprofit organizations,

community foundations must determine how they will be accountable, not only to

donors but also to grantees and the broader community. While it is true that community

foundations are often aware of community opportunities and challenges, they do not

always have access to the funding needed to respond to these challenges due to the

restrictions placed on gifts by donors and the subsequent difficulties that follow (Cantor,

2015; Hurtubise, 2017). While community responsiveness and engagement have

historically been organizational characteristics of the mission and value of community

foundations, some argue that this may no longer be the case.

Transparency. With more and more restrictions being placed on the assets

contributed to community foundations, the need for increased transparency in the

decision-making processes of community foundations could help engage additional

Students also viewed