What Does “Place-Based” Really Mean?
Place-based philanthropy has become a popular term in recent years, especially among funders looking to build deeper relationships with communities. But what does it actually mean to be “place-based”—and how can learning and evaluation strengthen this approach rather than dilute it?
At ELEVATE, we’ve been working with our group of advisors to sharpen this definition. Our community includes funders with longstanding ties to place and others just beginning to shift their strategies. Through surveys, discussions, and field research, we’ve developed a framework that’s rooted in practice and informed by values, not just geography.
What follows is not a definitive answer. It’s a set of working principles that guide how we think about place-based learning and evaluation and how funders can do this work with greater clarity, humility, and impact.
1. “Place” Is More Than a Location
Foundations often define “place” in terms of a city, region, or neighborhood, yet what makes a strategy truly place-based is not its physical boundary—it’s its relational depth.
Our advisory group emphasized that place is shaped by interwoven social, cultural, economic, and political dynamics. Understanding these dynamics takes more than site visits or listening sessions. It requires sustained engagement, local knowledge, and awareness of the systems that create (and perpetuate) inequity.
Research supports this view. Reid, Reid, and Murillo (2022) found that embedded foundations—those physically located in the communities they fund—often possess a visceral understanding of place that’s hard to replicate. Location alone isn’t what matters most. As ELEVATE’s criteria affirm, what matters is a funder’s ability to engage deeply with local ecosystems and act in relationship with community leaders and networks.
2. Being “Based” Is a Posture, Not Just a Position
While many funders operate in specific places, fewer are truly based in them. Being based means more than opening a local office or hiring a program officer. It’s about showing up consistently, building trust over time, and allowing community input to shape—not simply inform—strategy.
One of our advisors captured this clearly: “I don't believe a foundation should ‘bring’ its own priorities to a place.” Another advisor underscored the sentiment, “I think the foundation's priorities should be formed by the place from the beginning.
This insight is echoed across the literature. Embedded funders, according to Reid et al., are often better positioned to defer power, honor local leadership, and shift strategies mid-course as conditions change. Non-local funders can do this too—but it takes intentionality, humility, and structures that allow for real-time adaptation.
3. Power-Shifting Must Be Built Into the Work
Place-based strategies often fail—not because of bad intentions, but because of unacknowledged power dynamics. When funders bring pre-set priorities into communities, even well-designed programs can miss the mark. Community voice becomes a box to check rather than a core input to strategy.
Bridgespan’s report on community wisdom puts it plainly: “To center community power, funders must be willing to share decision-making authority—not just gather input.” This requires rethinking everything from how priorities are set to how success is defined and measured.
ELEVATE’s framework centers this commitment. We ask: Who sets the learning agenda? Who owns the data? Who gets to define what counts as evidence of success? Foundations serious about place-based work must also be serious about shifting power.
4. Flexibility Is Essential—But Must Be Anchored in Values
Our advisory group consistently emphasized the importance of flexibility. Local contexts shift. Crises emerge. Relationships evolve. Strategies must be able to flex in response.
But flexibility without grounding can turn into drift. That’s why ELEVATE’s members anchor their work in values: equity, long-term commitment, systems awareness, and trust. Flexibility isn’t about improvising—it’s about being responsive within a clear set of commitments.
5. Learning and Evaluation Should Support, Not Slow, the Work
Evaluation has often been viewed as an afterthought—or worse, a compliance mechanism. In place-based work, that approach is especially limiting.
At ELEVATE, we see learning and evaluation as core to place-based strategy. But that only works if those practices are:
Participatory – designed and interpreted with the people most affected by the work
Contextual – sensitive to place, history, and power
Strategic – integrated into how decisions are made, not separate from them
Developmental – flexible and evolving, rather than fixed and summative
As one advisor put it, “The place should lead. And the foundation is in a privileged position to connect dots across the community, share opportunities and gaps, and share approaches that have (and haven't) worked in other places.”
Where ELEVATE Fits In
The ELEVATE learning community is built for funders who want to go deeper—not just with place, but with learning, partnership, and purpose. We support members in aligning their strategies with the principles of place-based work by offering peer learning, participatory tools, and space for honest reflection.
We believe place-based learning and evaluation should be:
Grounded in deep local understanding
Built around trust and shared ownership
Designed to strengthen systems—not just programs
Informed by real-time learning, not just post-hoc reporting
Anchored in equity, accountability, and long-term relationships
What about you? How are you navigating place-based learning and evaluation in your work? What questions are you wrestling with?
Take our short survey and help shape how we define—and refine—what it means to be truly place-based in learning and evaluation.
