Place-based funding is building momentum, with the government’s philanthropy roadmap Our Place to Give published earlier this year.
This high-level support creates an opportunity for growth but a change in approach from grantmakers is needed.
Every year, funders still ask charities to explain, in a few thousand words, why their community organisation deserves support more than the one next door. This approach of scoring and ranking by maximum marks does not suit place-based funding.
Market mechanisms can fail communities. When funders ask organisations to compete against one another, we ask who has the biggest numbers, the greatest need, the most compelling case or the most impressive outputs. But communities are not strengthened through competition.
The biggest challenges facing places like Southwark, where United St. Saviour’s Charity operates, aren't solved by any single charity acting alone. They're solved when organisations trust one another, share knowledge, work together and recognise that everyone brings something valuable.
Place-based funders must help to build people's networks, their local leadership, their community spaces, their ambition, their ability to organise and their capacity to work together. It means backing organisations that help hold a neighbourhood together and create opportunities for others to contribute.
Place-based funding should not be a contest between organisations explaining why they are more deserving than their neighbours. It can be a source of hope by building the power, confidence and relationships that shape the future together.
What this means for funders
That does not mean competition can be abolished entirely. Unless funders move to a wholly invite-only model, there will always be an element of choice between deeply credible organisations. But competition can be softened. It can be made less fierce, less performative and less damaging through thoughtful programme design.
At United St Saviour’s, we found that being explicit about the ethos and values behind our programme reduced unnecessary competition from the outset. Rather than relying solely on technical eligibility criteria, we were open about the kind of organisations, relationships and community impact we wanted to support.
Not every organisation that could apply would necessarily be the right fit, and honest conversations helped clarify that. In fact, many of our grantees tell us that those conversations are among the most valuable parts of the process.
We also gathered evidence differently. Instead of comparing which organisation had the biggest numbers, the greatest need, the most compelling written case or the most impressive outputs, we spent time in communities.
We visited organisations, built relationships and observed how they operated in practice. Through that process, we gained a richer understanding of which groups were trusted locally, embedded in their neighbourhoods and willing to collaborate with others.
Most importantly, we made space for ideas that challenged the traditional model of one charity competing against another for funding. We supported the time and infrastructure needed for partnerships to form around hyperlocal neighbourhoods.
We funded a sector-leading arts organisation to act as a convener and connector for its peers. We strengthened a coalition of charities jointly providing a safety net for people seeking sanctuary. In each case, we were backing collective capacity as much as individual organisations.
Strengthening civil society
Place-based funders are uniquely positioned to do this because they understand the ecosystems in which they operate. They have the relationships, local knowledge and long-term perspective needed to see beyond individual applications and understand how organisations contribute to the wider health of a community.
The question should not simply be: “Which organisation deserves to win?” More often, it should be: “What combination of organisations, relationships and networks will best serve this community?”
Funders who ask that question are more likely to invest in collaboration, shared infrastructure and collective impact, rather than inadvertently rewarding competition between organisations working towards the same goals.
If we want a stronger civil society, we should stop treating charities as rivals in a contest for scarce resources. Instead, we should recognise them as partners in the shared work of strengthening communities.
When funders focus on building power, trust and collaboration, they create the conditions for deeper and more lasting local impact.
