Public concerns about the uneven geographic distribution of philanthropic grants have prompted scholarly interest in how place influences funding outcomes. This study adopts the concept of place-based stigma to examine how the racial and socioeconomic characteristics of location may disadvantage organizations seeking funding from community foundations. Using quantitative methods, findings indicate that differences in the place-based racial and class characteristics of grant makers and recipients intensify the negative effect of place-based stigma on funding outcomes. Unexpectedly, these stigmatizing effects are strongest when recipients were located within the same community as the grant maker. These findings highlight the important role of place, and the social meanings attached to it, in shaping philanthropic behavior. These findings enhance understanding of persistent disparities in philanthropic support to marginalized communities and provide insights into promoting more equitable distribution of philanthropic resources.
AshleyS. R.FaulkL. (2010). Nonprofit competition in the grants marketplace: Exploring the relationship between nonprofit financial ratios and grant amount. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 21(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.20011
2.
AshleyS. R.Van SlykeD. M. (2012). The influence of administrative cost ratios on state government grant allocations to nonprofits. Public Administration Review, 72(Suppl. 1), S47–S56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02666.x
3.
BargeB.Collins-CalhounB.GarciaE. (2020). Black funding denied: Community foundation support for Black communities. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. http://www.ncrp.org/2020/08/black-funding-denied.html
4.
BertrandM.MullainathanS. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review, 94(4), 991–1013. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828042002561
5.
BesbrisM.FaberJ. W.RichP.SharkeyP. (2015). Effect of neighborhood stigma on economic transactions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(16), 4994–4998. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414139112
6.
BesbrisM.FaberJ. W.RichP.SharkeyP. (2018). The geography of stigma: Experimental methods to identify the penalty of place. In GaddisS. M. (Ed.), Audit studies: Behind the scenes with theory, method, and nuance (pp. 159–177). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71153-9_8
7.
BielefeldW.MurdochJ. C.WaddellP. (1997). The influence of demographics and distance on nonprofit location. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(2), 207–225.
8.
BourdieuP. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.
9.
CarboniJ. L.EikenberryA. M. (2021). Do giving circles democratize philanthropy? Donor identity and giving to historically marginalized groups. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 247–256.
10.
ChengY.SandfortJ. (2023). Trust, power, and organizational routines: Exploring government’s intentional tactics to renew relationships with nonprofits serving historically marginalized communities. Public Administration Review, 83(3), 570–586.
11.
ClotfelterC. T. (1992). Who benefits from the nonprofit sector? University of Chicago Press.
12.
ColinvauxR. (2017). Donor advised funds: Charitable spending vehicles for 21st century philanthropy. Washington Law Review, 92, 39.
13.
ColinvauxR. (2018). Defending place-based philanthropy by defining the community foundation. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2018(1), 1–56.
14.
DanleyS.BlessettB. (2022). Nonprofit segregation: The exclusion and impact of White nonprofit networks. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 51(3), 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640221081507
15.
De GraauwE.GleesonS.BloemraadI. (2013). Funding immigrant organizations: Suburban free riding and local civic presence. American Journal of Sociology, 119(1), 75–130. https://doi.org/10.1086/671168
16.
FongC. M.LuttmerE. F. P. (2011). Do fairness and race matter in generosity? Evidence from a nationally representative charity experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 95(5–6), 372–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.07.010
17.
GalaskiewiczJ.WassermanS. (1989). Mimetic processes within an interorganizational field: An empirical test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(3), 454–479. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393153
18.
GarrowE. E. (2011). Receipt of government revenue among nonprofit human service organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(3), 445–471.
19.
GarrowE. E. (2014). Does race matter in government funding of nonprofit human service organizations? The interaction of neighborhood poverty and race. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 381–405. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus061
20.
GarrowE. E. (2015). Racial and ethnic composition of the neighborhood and the disbanding of nonprofit human service organizations. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 12(1), 161–185. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X14000277
GoffmanE. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of a spoiled identity. Simon & Schuster.
23.
GrønbjergK. A.MartellL.PaarlbergL. (2000). Philanthropic funding of human services: Solving ambiguity through the two-stage competitive process. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(Suppl. 1), 9–40.
24.
GraddyE. A.MorganD. L. (2006). Community foundations, organizational strategy, and public policy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(4), 605–630.
25.
GuoC.BrownW. A. (2006). Community foundation performance: Bridging community resources and needs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(2), 267–287.
26.
HabyarimanaJ. P.HumphreysM.PosnerD. N.WeinsteinJ. M. (2007). Why does ethnic diversity undermine public goods provision? An experimental approach. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 709–725. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.928824
27.
HammackD. C. (1989). Community foundations: The delicate question of purpose. In An agile servant (pp. 23–50). The Foundation Center.
HoxJ. (1998). Multilevel modeling: When and why (pp. 147–154).
30.
LePere-SchloopM.WalkM.PaarlbergL. E. (2024). “We expected a revolution and got a slow burn”: Microfoundations of institutional change in the community foundation field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 53(1), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640231152240
31.
LuJ. (2015). Which nonprofit gets more government funding? Nonprofits’ organizational attributes and their receipts of government funding. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 25(3), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21124
32.
MacIndoeH. (2021). Understanding foundation philanthropy to human service organizations: Funding stratification in an urban grants economy. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 46, 202–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2021.1964010
33.
MackK.PreskillH.KeddyJ.JhawarM.-M. K. (2014). Redefining expectations for place-based philanthropy. The Foundation Review, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1224
34.
MarkhamW. T.JohnsonM. A.BonjeanC. M. (1999). Nonprofit decision making and resource allocation: The importance of membership preferences, community needs, and interorganizational ties. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(2), 152–184.
35.
McGinnis JohnsonJ. (2016). Necessary but not sufficient: The impact of community input on grantee selection. Administration & Society, 48(1), 73–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713509241
36.
MillesenJ. L.MartinE. C. (2014). Community foundation strategy: Doing good and the moderating effects of fear, tradition, and serendipity. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(5), 832–849.
37.
MosleyJ. E.GalaskiewiczJ. (2015). The relationship between philanthropic foundation funding and state-level policy in the era of welfare reform. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(6), 1225–1254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014558932
38.
OteroG.MéndezM. L.LinkF. (2022). Symbolic domination in the neoliberal city: Space, class, and residential stigma. Urban Geography, 43(4), 632–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2021.1887632
39.
PaarlbergL. E.Ghosh MoulickA. (2017). Captured by partners: Interorganizational relationships and fund allocation stability in United Way systems. International Public Management Journal, 20(3), 356–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2016.1237398
40.
PaarlbergL. E.HannibalB.McGinnis JohnsonJ. (2020). Examining the mediating influence of interlocking board networks on grant making in public foundations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(4), 734–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019897845
41.
PaarlbergL. E.McGinnisJ. J.HannibalB. (2020). Race and the public foundation grants marketplace: The differential effect of network status in communities of colour. Public Administration Review, 22(10), 1443–1446.
42.
PaarlbergL. E.MoulickA. G.Van PuyveldeS. (2017). Testing a two-stage grant allocation process: The case of the United Way. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(6), 1117–1141.
43.
PereiraR.AbokorL.AhmadF.AbdikkarimF. J. (2020). Unfunded: Black communities overlooked by Canadian philanthropy. Foundation for Black Communities.
44.
PfefferJ.LeongA. (1977). Resource allocations in united funds: Examination of power and dependence. Social Forces, 55(3), 775–790. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/55.3.775
45.
PoterbaJ. M. (1997). Demographic structure and the political economy of public education. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, 16(1), 48–66.
46.
QuH.PaarlbergL. E. (2021). Community diversity and donor control: An empirical analysis of contributions to donor-advised funds at community foundations. Administration & Society, 54, 763–791. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211035721
47.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1–1). Sage.
48.
SampsonR. J. (2019). Neighbourhood effects and beyond: Explaining the paradoxes of inequality in the changing American metropolis. Urban Studies, 56(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018795363
49.
SchneiderJ. C. (1996). Philanthropic styles in the United States: Toward a theory of regional differences. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25(2), 190–210.
50.
SissonA. (2021). Territory and territorial stigmatisation: On the production, consequences and contestation of spatial disrepute. Progress in Human Geography, 45(4), 659–681. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132520936760
51.
SmithS. R.SmythJ. (1996). Contracting for services in a decentralized system. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(2), 277–296.
52.
SuárezD. F.HustedK.CasasA. (2018). Community foundations as advocates: Social change discourse in the philanthropic sector. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 7(3), 206–232. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-018-0039-z
53.
TittleD. (1992). Rebuilding Cleveland: The Cleveland Foundation and its evolving urban strategy. Ohio State University Press.
54.
ToeplerS. (2018). Public philanthropic partnerships: The changing nature of government/foundation relationships in the US. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(8), 657–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1295462
55.
WacquantL. (2009). Territorial stigmatization in the age of advanced marginality. Protosociology: An International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 26, 213–225.
56.
WacquantL.SlaterT.PereiraV. B. (2014). Territorial stigmatization in action. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 46(6), 1270–1280. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4606ge
57.
WangX. (2023). The long-term effects of matching grants on giving and fundraising: A longitudinal study of community foundations in Indiana, USA. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 34, 1–15.
58.
WardripK.PaarlbergL.LePere-SchloopM.SextonD. (2022). Philanthropic capital for communities: A comparative analysis of community foundation and United Way Grantmaking (pp. 1–21). Federal Reserve Bank.
59.
WilliamsonA.LukeB.FurneauxC. (2021). Perceptions and conceptions of “place” in Australian public foundations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(6), 1125–1149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764021998461
60.
WolpertJ. (1988). The geography of generosity: Metropolitan disparities in donations and support for amenities. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 78(4), 665–679.
61.
WolpertJ. (2001). The distributional impacts of nonprofits and philanthropy. In FlynnP.HodgkinsonV. A. (Eds.), Measuring the impact of the nonprofit sector (pp. 123–136). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0533-4_7
62.
WuC.-S. (2021). The geography and disparities of community philanthropy: A community assessment model of needs, resources, and ecological environment. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32(2), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00180-x
