Folly #7: It's all Local

Here or there? Fitting your national impact into a local audience.

Remember when the expression global is local became a big thing? As we prided ourselves on being world citizens, the idea of giving to, buying from, and learning about people and communities around the globe made a lot of sense.

In philanthropy, it seems the reverse is true: it feels easier to make an impact locally. We see inequities around us and understand that there are needs closer to home. So why not start with supporting our neighbors?

After the 2020 election, I saw a data visualization graphic that really challenged my assumptions of words like local, community and identity.

In the past few years there’s a lot of “us” and “them,” and community needs seem especially daunting. Sometimes we need to simplify the problems and solutions just to have a sense of agency and hope. Yet communities and the challenges they face are not homogeneous this-or-that, here-or-there.

When funders focus on local impact, they create an unintended polarity – unless their model includes connecting nonprofits to issue-focused evaluation tools, best practices and networks that span a larger geography. Lots of nonprofits do amazing work across broad geographic boundaries. How do they fit into funding models that define worthy grantees as here (and fundable) or there (and not)?

Local impact (not to mention a healthy democracy) can benefit from conversations and documenters who capture, share and connect the diverse voices and needs of community members. Speaking of nonprofit newsrooms, last week I talked about a national, veteran-focused journalism organization that is often denied funding by locally-focused funders. They know military families are here, there and everywhere, but making the case to a funder interested in one place can be a challenge.

Is there a magical minimum number of local community members who must be served? Do community foundations have (and share) regional tools for program evaluation and local impact? Surely small, resource strapped nonprofits should not have to create and define metrics that quantify “local” data and measurement for issues that inconveniently spill over borders.

I once worked with a California-focused health equity foundation that had an amazing way of working with nonprofits on metrics. They provided a technical assistance mentor, and respected whatever the nonprofit felt important (and able) to measure. (If you know of others, please add a comment below and share!)

Next week… it’s Thanksgiving, and I wish you time with family and friends. And then it’s the week of Giving Tuesday (Nov. 29) and Folly Take 8: Yearend Giving.