Philanthropy-Government Collaborations in Urban Renewal and Community Development: Two Case Studies from Israel’s Periphery

ABSTRACT

This article examines a philanthropic foundation’s work to promote complex urban renewal and community development processes in two cities in Israel’s periphery. It compares the working principles, strategies, and results of collaborative projects undertaken by a philanthropic foundation, local authorities, Israel’s Ministry of Construction and Housing, and community representatives, and describes how young, mission-based communities can serve as a resource for community development and urban renewal processes in Israel’s peripheral areas. The evaluative study accompanying the project used qualitative data collection methods, including 34 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, field observations, and analysis of official documents. The results indicate that to ensure the quality and sustainability of community development in urban renewal initiatives, investments are necessary in the local economic and social infrastructure, as is the creation of a strong and resilient partnership between the governmental and local authorities, residents, and the philanthropic organization.

KEYWORDS:

• strategic philanthropy
• community development
• urban renewal
• young communities
• philanthropy-government partnership

Introduction

This article examines complex urban renewal and community development processes in a collaborative project conducted by a philanthropic foundation (a new philanthropic partnership promoting young mission-based communities in Israel), Israel’s Ministry of Construction and Housing (MoCH) Neighborhood Rehabilitation Division, and two local authorities in Israel’s geosocial periphery. This joint initiative was designed to promote social urban renewal process to ensure the residents’ wellbeing, as community development is considered a primary tool for strengthening a community’s capabilities and advancing residents’ interests.

This article first describes the urban renewal initiative’s background, including the difficulties local residents faced, the entry of the philanthropic organization process into the area, and the challenges of building a partnership between government and a “new,” or “strategic” philanthropy. The article then presents the results of a qualitative evaluative study of the urban renewal projects undertaken collaboratively by the philanthropic foundation and the government in two municipalities. It particularly focuses on the project’s infrastructure development, the foundation’s investment principles and strategies, program implementation, and the program’s results and outputs regarding the development of community and personal resources that were made available to the municipality and its residents. The article discusses the contributions of activities undertaken by the philanthropic foundation and the young communities it supports, and outlines steps needed to ensure such initiatives’ quality and sustainability.

Urban renewal processes

In recent years, governments around the world, including Israel’s, have undertaken urban renewal processes to promote national goals and meet local authorities’ needs (Cohen, 2019; State Comptroller’s Office, 2016; Yulis & Warhaftig, 2020). Such urban renewal processes expand available commerce and services, increase the number of housing units in urban centers, promote physical renovation and development of old neighborhoods and commercial areas, and improve residents’ quality of life (Chan & Lee, 2008; Pérez et al., 2018; Taleai et al., 2014; Woodcraft & Dixon, 2013).

However, evidence indicates that such initiatives may have exclusionary impacts (Aalbers, 2011, 2016; Goetz, 2013; Kovács et al., 2013; Lees, 2014): neighborhoods’ characters gradually change and gentrification processes emerge. Following improvement of the physical infrastructure, middle- and upper-class populations are encouraged to move into previously poor neighborhoods, often displacing veteran residents. Some research suggests increased involvement of local residents and investment by public entities in strengthening community cohesiveness is needed to ensure social sustainability during urban renewal processes (Chan & Lee, 2008; Cooperman, 2018; Geva & Rosen, 2016). However, a follow-up study on programs for empowering communities and involving them in urban renewal projects in the United Kingdom (Dicks, 2014) raises doubts about such initiatives’ success, indicating that in practice, to save money, the authorities do not provide budgets to implement these goals, and veteran residents have no means to finance them.

Several Israeli entities have recommended working purposefully to address the challenges and streamline accelerating urban renewal processes (State Comptroller’s Office, 2016; Gannon, et al., 2017). In 2016, Israel established the Urban Renewal Authority, which, inter alia, publishes a “social report” on the socioeconomic characteristics of the areas targeted for renewal and provides professional information to residents. State Comptroller’s Office (2016) and other entities underscore the need to invest in “empowering veteran tenants in urban renewal processes” to help overcome the different challenges. National and local authorities are expected to assist in these processes, and it has been suggested recruiting “nonprofit organizations” to advance this work (State Comptroller’s Office, 2016).

In response, some local authorities in Israel have established urban renewal divisions employing social coordinators who prepare reports detailing the socioeconomic traits of the neighborhoods slated for development. Social workers also empower residents to participate in the planning process, advocate on residents’ behalf, and develop the local communities’ capabilities. With both teams employed by the local authorities, they may face a conflict between addressing residents’ needs and their commitment to the local authority, which wants to expedite the processes, without necessarily guaranteeing residents’ interests are protected (Geva & Rosen, 2016). Supporting and cooperating with relevant nonprofit organizations has also been recognized as a possibly effective means of achieving urban renewal projects’ goals (State Comptroller’s Office, 2016).

The “new philanthropy”

Philanthropy patterns have changed in recent decades, with a model of “new philanthropy” or “strategic philanthropy” developing alongside traditional charity models. The traditional model of philanthropy, based on supporting the specific values of an individual or organization, involves contributing money or effort for charitable purposes, such as relief, welfare, improvement, or even social reform. The new philanthropy goes further in targeting specific projects in which the individual or organization seeks to “invest” their funds and efforts to achieve a direct impact by involvement in efforts to promote public needs. These projects often involve active collaboration with government or quasi-governmental bodies (Frumkin, 2006; Kania et al., 2014; Schmid & Shaul Bar Nissim, 2015). Tens of thousands of new philanthropic foundations have sprouted over the past decades with exponential growth of certain economic sectors (Salamon, 2012; Tobin & Weinberg, 2007). The “new philanthropists” include wealthy entrepreneurs, their fortunes earned from electronics, high-tech, and other modern industries (Almog-Bar & Schmid, 2018; Shimoni, 2008). This new philanthropy is characterized as rational, goal-oriented, and often directly involved in the social enterprises to which it contributes. The initiatives follow a business management plan, with a “return on investment” in terms of expected social impact (Payton & Moody, 2008; Shimoni, 2008). Generally, this new philanthropy strives to stimulate innovative thinking about neglected social challenges, provide effective responses, and encourage accountability (Frumkin, 2006). It seeks to create change in the government and local authorities’ operating patterns, leading to changes among service providers and consumers (Almog-Bar & Schmid, 2014). Kania et al. (2014) point to a co-creating and co-evolving strategy with multiple organizations to reach a complex, long-term, return on an investment goal.

Significantly, given the spread of neo-liberal economic policies and civic organizations’ reliance on government funding (Shaul Bar Nissim & Schmid, 2019), new philanthropic activity is becoming particularly widespread in the fields of advocacy, human rights, and social change (Kraeger, 2021). Philanthropic foundations’ involvement enables social organizations advocating for social change to achieve greater independence from government funding, and may counterbalance governmental economic policies and bureaucracies that often impede social and civic initiatives (Almog-Bar & Schmid, 2014; Almog-Bar, 2021; Chaves et al., 2004; Verschuere & De Corte, 2014).

During the last decade, following practical experiences with this philanthropic approach, a number of concerns have been raised about it. First among them is the aim of becoming more disciplined, rigorous, and effective has been accompanied by the tendency to apply simple solutions to complex social problems, and to invest less in long-term, complex social goals (Kania et al., 2014). The second concern is that the new philanthropists’ intensive involvement may discourage local citizens from stepping forward and solving their problems based on their local knowledge and insights (Schambra, 2013). Finally, there is concern that local leadership will shift their attention from accomplishing the original mission of promoting the public good to the goal of pleasing the philanthropic actor whose financial support is needed (Harvey, 2016).

Philanthropy-government cooperation

Philanthropy represents approximately 0.74% of Israel’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), compared to approximately 2.1% of the U.S. GDP and 0.73% in the United Kingdom and Canada (Schmid, 2021). Differences also exist in each government’s investment in social services − 16% of GDP in Israel, 18.7% of GDP in the U.S., and 20.6% in the U.K. (The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2021). Over 50% of the funds for Israel’s philanthropic activity comes from governmental resources earmarked for privatizing social services (Schmid, 2021). Although Israel’s governmental entities recognize that philanthropic organizations are an important resource for initiating meaningful societal changes (Frumkin, 2006), some officials are apprehensive about involving these philanthropic organizations, whose operational patterns are foreign to them (Hess, 2005).

Given the scarcity of philanthropic resources in the realm of social welfare, compared to government resources, collaborations between philanthropic and governmental entities help leverage professional knowledge, experience, and resources, creating enhanced impact (Schmid & Shaul Bar Nissim, 2015). Joining local authorities to government-philanthropy partnerships may strengthen residents’ trust, particularly populations from different cultural or sociodemographic backgrounds. Such partnerships can also help advance initiatives addressing complex or controversial local issues (Bresler Gonen & Alsraiha, 2021).

Inter-organizational encounters between a new philanthropy and governmental entities can result in a value-based, ideological clash between different organizational cultures (Schmid & Shaul Bar Nissim, 2015), while also yielding opportunities.

Tensions between the new philanthropy and governments can arise from: different organizational cultures ‒ conservative and bureaucratic versus entrepreneurial and proactive (Schmid & Shaul Bar Nissim, 2015); differing attitudes toward their role in policy design and in the decision-making process (Harrow & Jung, 2011); divergent approaches to how to provide social services and the extent of the integration of social innovation (Gazley & Brudney, 2007); and conflicts over the use of the philanthropic funds, especially whether they should be invested mainly in social innovation and research and less in funding social services for disadvantaged populations (Mosley & Galaskiewicz, 2015). Goffer (2021) stresses the opportunities such partnerships offer for expanding the involvement and representation of stakeholders from various cultural backgrounds in democratic processes, emphasizing that these processes should be based on cooperation, partnership, participation, transparency, accessibility, and discourse to ensure the partnership’s social results and sustainability.

Schmid and Almog-Bar (2020) find it essential to invest in three initial stages of building cross-sectional partnerships: first, initiation and scoping, entailing identifying common goals and values and assessing the partnership’s economic resilience; second, creating and formulating cooperative work processes; and third, building, implementing, formalizing, and standardizing administrative processes. This entails establishing a formalized set of operational standards, including mechanisms for supervision, communication, and activity implementation. Pereira et al. (2017) note the importance of using information and communications technology to share information and create cross-entity integration.

Supporting young communities to promote community development and urban renewal

“Young mission-based communities” refers to groups of young adults who have chosen to live together on a long-term basis in municipalities and neighborhoods in Israel’s geosocial periphery. Most members take an active role in community life (mainly in education and welfare) and work together to effect social changes and improvements. The personal and social capital and resources they can access, individually and as a community, can help advance community development and urban renewal processes (Koren-Lawrence, 2016; Putnam & Feldstein, 2004; Woodcraft & Dixon, 2013; Yulis & Warhaftig, 2020). Involving these young communities in urban renewal can help meet some of the process’s challenges. They can promote connections between key stakeholders; living in the area, they are familiar with residents’ needs and resources (Jabelberg & Komemi, 2015; Rojs et al., 2020; Shemer, 2013).

The encounter between these communities and local residents raises dilemmas and challenges (Tsafoni, 2012). Local residents of a previously homogeneous community may feel threatened by the entry of members of a different socioeconomic group. Members of young mission-based communities are perceived as idealistic and enterprising in comparison to local residents who are considered more passive and who do not live in a peripheral region by choice.

The philanthropic foundation

The current study examined the work of a philanthropic foundation for cooperative community development. Established in 2010, it is a philanthropic partnership of foundations, organizations, and private donors working together to reduce inequalities in Israeli society by supporting young mission-based communities’ work in Israel’s periphery, where such activities are almost non-existent. The foundation’s urban renewal and community development work is conducted in cooperation with local authority and government ministry partners – two key actors with the most significant organizational and economic resources that may affect the success of the initiative.

This study examines a collaboration between the MoCH Neighborhood Rehabilitation Division and a philanthropic foundation in two selected municipalities in Israel’s geosocial periphery (city A and city B). The venture’s goal is to promote community development and increase residents’ involvement in their neighborhoods’ urban renewal processes.

Materials and methods

The study was conducted throughout 2020. At each of the two project sites, the study examined the context in which the philanthropic foundation and the young communities were operating; the main activities of key stakeholders involved in the neighborhood renewal projects; and the project’s results.

Interviewing a variety of stakeholders facilitated examining the issues from multiple perspectives; adapting a variety of information sources strengthened the confirmation and assurance of the findings (Stake, 2013). Therefore, a variety of qualitative methods were employed to gather data from both sites: in-depth, semi-structured interviews, field observations, tours of the project sites, and analysis of official documents.

To examine the issues from multiple perspectives, in-depth interviews were conducted with multiple stakeholders involved in the urban renewal processes in the two municipalities. Interviews were conducted face-to-face or via Zoom when coronavirus regulations made personal meetings impossible. Interviewees included: municipal officials (n = 6), young community members (n = 8), local neighborhood program coordinators (n = 3), residents’ representatives (n = 8), philanthropic foundation (foundation) representatives (n = 4), government ministry officials (n = 2), and developers involved in neighborhood construction’s representatives (n = 3).

Moreover, the researcher observed community activities and meetings with the local authorities, and was taken on tours of both sites to become familiar with the neighborhoods’ physical infrastructure and to speak with residents.

Data were collected on aspects of the joint initiative’s main activities, including: partners’ patterns of communication and cooperative activity; resource allocation and utilization; community development and urban renewal processes; project implementation; use of community resources; results of community development and urban renewal activities at both sites, and the sustainability and impact of the economic and human resources invested at both sites.

In city A, extensive documentation and written material on the initiative’s activities were obtained from the foundation, the neighborhood program coordinator, welfare departments, the local authorities, the local departments of urban renewal and neighborhood rehabilitation, and the developers. These documents covered the urban renewal plan, the site, social profiles of the population in the municipality and in the neighborhood slated for renewal, and documentation of meetings and activities, including ongoing activity reports. Less documentation was collected from city B, where there was almost no documentation of the activities. Some information was compiled from city B’s and the young communities’ websites. All the collected information pertains to the project’s activities during the years 2018–2020.

Case studies

Examining and analyzing the social profile and the municipal context of the two sites facilitate better understanding (Stake, 20213) and allow for in-depth analysis and comparison of the program’s distinctive operational contexts, the complexities of implementation, operating strategies, and the projects’ results. Both municipalities are located in Israel’s geographic center but its social periphery, as both are ranked in a low socioeconomic cluster (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2021). A significant proportion of the residents in both municipalities are from low socioeconomic groups and need assistance from public social services (Table 1).

Table 1. The Cities’ Main Characteristics, 2020 (CBS, 2021; NII, 2021).

	City A	City B
Socioeconomic cluster	2	4
Number of residents (thousands)	140	82
Area (dunams, in thousands)	37	12
Population density (per capita/sq.m.)	3,622	6,786
% Ultra-Orthodox population	55	~2
% Arab population	-	31
% Immigrants (1990+)	16	25
% Birth to 18 years old	55	37
% 65+ years old	5	15
% Employees under minimum wage	50	41

City A

This city, located near Israel’s geographic center, has access to abundant resources, yet faces myriad challenges. Covering a relatively large area, the city has a low population density, despite experiencing significant population growth, especially among the ultra-Orthodox Jewish population, usually of a low socioeconomic status. The population is relatively young, with a low proportion of immigrants, most from wealthy countries (North America) or the former Soviet Union. The city faces diverse challenges in education, employment, health, and social welfare. The municipality is now undertaking a process of new construction in its jurisdiction. About two years after this project began, the city established a department for urban renewal.

The program led by the foundation (“the program”) took place in a low socioeconomic neighborhood in an old section of the city. The neighborhood, built in the 1950s and 1960s, consists mainly of two- to four-story buildings, with small apartments, a significant proportion of them rented or publicly owned. A high percentage of neighborhood residents are elderly and/or immigrants, with few social services available in the neighborhood. There are no schools or public buildings that can serve as leisure or cultural centers, very few well-maintained public spaces where people can gather, and only one playground.

At the end of 2015, a renewal plan was approved for the neighborhood, involving a six-fold increase in the number of housing units, and including housing for the elderly population, small residential apartments, commercial units, offices, spaces for leisure and recreational activities, and a public elementary school.

City B

This city in Israel’s geographic center is relatively small, with a high population density, and large numbers of residents who are members of low socioeconomic populations: the elderly (often with little formal education), Arabs, immigrants from poor (mainly North African) countries, and asylum-seekers from Africa. The city faces multiple major challenges, particularly in education, employment, health, and welfare. Approximately a year before the program began, the municipality established a department of urban renewal.

The program led by the foundation was implemented in a low socioeconomic neighborhood in an older section of the city, built in the 1980s and 1990s and consisting mainly of three- to four-story buildings with small apartments. Many are rented or publicly owned, and the high tenant turnover makes it difficult for them to organize, for example, to maintain buildings’ common areas. The neighborhood’s public spaces are not well maintained or used in ways that benefit the residents. There are almost no public parks, leisure and recreation sites, or commercial-business areas.

In 2013, a plan was approved for residents’ removal and renovation of three complexes in the neighborhood. The plan called for an approximately four-fold increase in the number of housing units, expansion of commercial and business areas, and an increase of places for entertainment, leisure, and recreation. Additionally, there are plans for an expanded network of intercity and urban roads and for new bicycle and pedestrian paths (Urban Renewal Authority Reports, 2019, 2020).

Renewal process implications

Implementing these plans in both cities will change the neighborhoods’ nature, the buildings’ style, and the services residents receive. Residents will enjoy a higher-quality environment, and will benefit from new services in education, employment, and transportation designed to meet their needs. However, the changes will be more relevant to home owners than to renters in the areas.

The situation presents several opportunities and challenges. In both localities, residents expressed enthusiasm about the urban renewal process and the opportunity to improve their standard of living. Businesspeople and developers are also interested in participating in this process. However, most veteran residents have a low level of organizational skills, and are vulnerable due to their need to change residence and find low-rent housing. Residents express concern that the urban renewal projects will change their neighborhoods’ social composition and family-community nature. To ensure local residents’ sense of wellbeing during the urban renewal process, a parallel process of community development is needed to expand the resources and tools available to residents to advance their own interests.

Results

The study’s results shed light on various aspects of the joint initiative of the foundation and the MoCH’s Neighborhood Rehabilitation Division, and their work of supporting the activities of young communities’ members in these two sites, including the partnerships created between key stakeholders (government, local authority, residents), and the results of the joint program in the realms of community development and urban renewal.

Since the operating model was new and experimental, an evaluative study followed the project’s implementation, targeted to identify the most appropriate means for achieving the initiative’s goals: community development among the neighborhood residents in peripheral areas, and expansion of their involvement in the urban renewal process.

Creating an infrastructure for implementing the program

Building a partnership between foundation and the MoCH

The joint purpose of the partnership between the foundation and the MoCH was to recruit resources for young mission-based communities involved in the field of urban renewal. In the MoCH’s view, these young communities represent a unique resource to moderate public criticism that has been raised against urban renewal initiatives and to increase the community’s social capital. The foundation involvement focused on influencing these initiatives’ implementation in the geosocial periphery so they reflect local residents’ interests.

As a first step in developing the partnership, the foundation submitted a bid for a tender with the MoCH. Subsequently an agreement was reached with a senior ministry official regarding the activities to be conducted in the two municipalities over a three- to four-year period. Several meetings were held between foundation and MoCH representatives. However, after about a year, the ministry’s reduced its involvement, remaining active only at major milestones (payment transfer dates, formation and presentation of research reports). In the following two years, program leadership has remained solely in the hands of the foundation. In both municipalities, leadership in the field has been undertaken by local program coordinators, employed by the foundation.

Creating a foundation-municipality partnership

During the stage of formulating the program, both municipalities focused on developing a detailed program. In both places, the plan’s focus included developing leadership and human resources, supervising urban renewal processes, organizing social community events, and building partnerships with local authorities. However, significant differences were found in the organizational patterns and nature of the partnership between foundation representatives and the various entities in the two municipalities.

In city A the collaboration comprised several key stakeholders, including the foundation, MoCH, local authority senior officials, young community representatives, and neighborhood residents. The program’s operational patterns were designed to promote joint work to strengthen inter-organizational communication (holding monthly meetings, establishing an accompanying steering committee, and publishing summaries of the meetings on an ongoing basis). Concurrently, efforts were invested in expanding residents’ involvement in the planning and implementation stages. An opening conference was held, a residents’ committee was established, and they were invited to all steering committee meetings and meetings with the authority and developers.

The program in city A was implemented in cooperation between the main stakeholders, including local residents, and incorporating components for increasing transparency and strengthening feelings of trust and a sense of community belonging. This operational style enabled the project to recruit resources from the local authority and receive support from its senior officials, which helped to advance the program and address problems that arose during implementation. As a senior official in the municipal authority stated:

We established a permanent steering committee that met monthly with all the involved entities from the authorities and the community. We thought about how we could advance the process together … by getting the approval of the residents, by encouraging the developers to work together and to submit detailed plans and [work] with the local authorities. Each partner examined what could be done to address problems within its field.

In city B, in contrast, the partnership was mainly with representatives of third-sector organizations. The director of the municipal urban renewal department participated in only one meeting. No cooperative work patterns were established between the participating entities. Following the initial stage of formulating the plan, no regular meetings were held between the partners, except for some meetings to plan community social events. No effort was made to encourage residents’ participation at any of the stages of the program’s operation in the neighborhood (Table 2).

Table 2. Key steps taken to create cooperation at the municipal level.

Main steps	City A	City B
Recruitment of program coordinator	Community social worker, A member of a young community in the city	Student from a local student organization dealing primarily with volunteering in the realm of education
Participants in formulating the plan	Representatives of MoCH, municipal departments of welfare and neighborhood renovation, residents, and the foundation	Third-sector organizations
Involvement of the urban renewal department in formulating the plan	Department was not yet established at time of initiative	Department director participated only in the first meeting
Definition of project objectives	Community development and urban renewal processes beneficial to residents	Community development and urban renewal processes beneficial to residents
Establishment of supervisory forums	Local steering committee with representatives from the MoCH, local authority, residents, community organizers, and foundation	Committee formed to formulate an action plan at the outset of the project, consisting of third-sector organizations in the neighborhood
Communication and documentation patterns	Monthly meetings and distribution of meeting summaries to all partners	Meetings at the beginning of the project; updates to the foundation via a monthly e-mail from the project organizer

Project implementation in the two cities

Analysis of the foundation’s activities in the realm of community development is based on various measures of implementation of participatory practices, building collaborations between parties and exhausting their resources for the benefit of the program; community capacity-building, and empowerment efforts (Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2020).

Operating model

The program operating models in the two municipalities differed (Table 3). Project implementation in city A was strongly endorsed in the municipality, with a professional, transparent, and clear pattern of operation supporting strong inter-organizational communication. The operational model was established and implemented by the young community members living near the neighborhood and who had been involved in the neighborhood on an ongoing basis for years, holding key roles in the local authority and carrying out programs in the fields of education, welfare, and sustainability.

Table 3. Measures of project activity in promoting urban renewal.

	City A 3 years of activity	City B First 2 years of activity^1
Resources for project implementation
Team composition	Community social worker; welfare department employee, two volunteers	A student, five students (one day per week)
Budget	Budget designated for community events from the municipal department for neighborhood rehabilitation	Budget designated for community events from the municipal department for neighborhood rehabilitation
Operating style
Networking with local authority officials	Mayor; department of urban renewal, neighborhood rehabilitation; community work department	Head of neighborhood rehabilitation
Networking with other organizations active in the neighborhood	-	Local third-sector organizations in fields of education, community, and welfare
Recruiting members of the young community for project activities	Members of the young community	Members of student organization in the city
Activity documentation	Summaries of all meetings conducted in the project	Summary of initial project coordination meetings; Monthly activity reports via e-mail to the foundation
Professional team nurturing	Ongoing training (for coordinator, all team, residents’ representatives)	One-time training (for coordinator, students)

^aThe table shows only the first two years of the program’s activity in city B, since subsequently, the coordinator resigned, and the project ceased operating for a year due to coronavirus restrictions. After a year, a member of a young community in the city was appointed as the new project coordinator, but at the time of the study, she had been in the position for only approximately two months.

The program staff consisted of a social community coordinator, an additional worker from the welfare department, and outside volunteers. The staff met weekly to plan and coordinate program activities and implementation, and work processes were intensively documented. An experienced community worker provided individualized professional guidance to the project coordinator and a steering committee oversaw the program staff monthly throughout the period, providing professional assistance and financial resources.

The project in city B was organized by a local students’ organization that provides volunteer-led educational and community activities and that receives funding from various departments in the municipality. Its alumni are encouraged to remain in the city, and many take positions in the local authority or third-sector organizations in the city. The project’s operating model was less formal than that in city A. There was little documentation, other than monthly e-mails of key activities to the foundation’s representative. The project coordinator received professional guidance from the students’ organization, professionals from the neighborhood, and a foundation representative.

Community development and urban renewal activities

In empowering a community and strengthening its capabilities, it is important to foster “bridging” and “bonding” social capital (Putnam, 2000; Woodcraft et al., 2012). “Bonding social capital” (of partnerships among residents) creates meaning, and a sense of belonging and commitment of the individual to the community. “Bridging social capital” (of partnerships between community members and other public and private agencies) increases trust, acceptance of the other, and tolerance. In these processes, an infrastructure must be established to ensure long-term investment in partnerships between residents and other key community agencies. Mechanisms must be created so the process is not for residents but with residents’ participation, which is encouraged via a variety of means in various stages and areas of the project’s operation.

An examination of the program’s activities in community development and urban renewal also shows differences between the two localities (Table 4). In city A, emphasis was on community development activities with a participatory, inclusive orientation. Prior to the project’s implementation, the coordinator arranged home visits to residents’ homes to familiarize herself with their distinctive social traits and needs.

G’s [the neighborhood coordinator’s] visits to residents’ homes, interviews, and work on the community level and with a personal and family-oriented atmosphere, were meaningful and made the activities visible to residents of the neighborhood.

(Senior official in city A)

There was a knock on each door in the neighborhood and G. [the neighborhood coordinator] came with a gift and sat and talked to everyone.

(Neighborhood committee member)

Table 4. Program activities promoting community development and urban renewal.

	City A 3 years of activity	City B First 2 years of activity
Community development activities
Interviews with residents to map their needs	170 personal interviews	~100 personal interviews
Bonding social capital (community building, social cohesion, connections between residents)	Establishing neighborhood WhatsApp group to provide updates	-
Initiating community holiday events	Wide range of community events	Wide range of community events
Fostering involved and innovative community leadership	Neighborhood committee involved as an active partner in leading all community activities	Few meetings with neighborhood representatives
Fostering “bridging social capital:” between residents, the local authority, and supporting agencies; tightening ties between neighborhood representatives and officials in the local authority	Neighborhood committee participation in all meetings on community development	-
Translation of materials for distribution to neighborhood residents	Materials translated into Amharic and Russian	-
Urban renewal activities
Fostering “bridging social capital:” strengthening ties between neighborhood representatives and municipal officials	Neighborhood committee participation in all meetings on the progress of the removal-renovation of the neighborhood	-
Professional training and guidance for program coordinator	Weekly mentoring by a community social worker; participation in a course on urban renewal	-
Training and guidance for project staff and neighborhood committee	4 meetings with experts in urban renewal issues	-
Expansion of knowledge in the urban renewal issues to residents and conferences on exhaustion of rights	2 conferences on subjects of urban renewal and residents’ rights	-
Ongoing professional dialogue with developers	6 meetings	-

These visits were meaningful to residents, generated mutual acquaintance, and strengthened the residents’ trust in the coordinator.

A neighborhood WhatsApp group was created and a neighborhood committee was established that received professional guidance and support throughout the process. Committee members took on various roles in the areas of community development and urban renewal, for example, organizing social events for residents (especially during holidays), and were present at all meetings regarding the project.

The neighborhood committee and the project coordinator met regularly for updates on the urban renewal project, to monitor residents’ needs, and to initiate relevant responses. One neighborhood committee member spoke about how cooperative organization of neighborhood activities could be successful (in terms of attendance and relevance to residents’ needs):

The residents received letters about holiday activities and updated on the neighborhood WhatsApp group about community center activities. This made the residents aware that something was progressing, even a little. That had been lacking before.

Activities organized in the realm of urban renewal included formal training of the coordinator, professional training by various experts for residents’ representatives, and meetings and conferences for all neighborhood residents to transmit information on issues, such as exhaustion of their rights and legal aspects during various stages of the urban renewal process. A member of the neighborhood committee spoke about the contribution of the professional training they received:

After the professional conferences, we better understood what is involved in the process and what is needed to do it better, in terms of working with residents, the municipality, and the developers. We didn’t have anywhere else to learn this.

An ongoing professional dialogue took place between the developers carrying out the neighborhood urban renewal project and various professionals and residents’ representatives in the local authority, including the mayor. The mayor’s involvement brought about a meaningful change in the perception of the residents regarding the urban renewal project:

After the mayor’s visit, there was a change in the residents’ awareness, and they came to sign [the relocation/renovation agreement]. There was a change in the residents’ trust in the municipality and the developers. They trusted the committee because they saw … that things were progressing. They saw the mayor walking around in the neighborhood and saw that they could ask questions and receive answers.

(Project coordinator)

Following the mayor’s visit, residents were more willing to be involved in activities promoting the urban renewal project. They felt that the mayor was accessible and the residents’ needs were visible to those carrying out the project.

Community development was emphasized in the project in city B, but the work style differed from that in city A. There were community activities on holidays, and a workshop led by student volunteers was offered to mothers at a local kindergarten. There were environmental improvement activities in the neighborhood, with “makeovers,” such as renovating benches, plastering stairwells, cleaning yards, and establishing a community garden. Neighborhood residents were invited to all activities. However, local authority departments and local residents were not part of the organization and operation of the project activities.

Outcomes

Comparison of the program outcomes at both sites approximately three years since the start of the activities reveals a number of significant differences. In the city A neighborhood, following massive investment in “bridging social capital,” the neighborhood committee continues initiating activities to strengthen community cohesiveness (through a WhatsApp group and community events). As a member of the neighborhood committee reports:

On the last holiday many residents came. About 50 people came, which was unexpected. For the next holiday I plan a smaller budget [details of budget …] from the developers. We are going to ask them, and they usually give us a budget … we also going to plan activities for elderly residents who feel alone and need help. Especially during the time of the coronavirus. It is important for them to get out of the house, meet with people, and see that people care about them. It is very important.

This committee member is responsible for the budget for community social events, identifies residents’ needs, and plans future activities along with locating financial sources. In this city, there are also ongoing activities to promote the neighborhood urban renewal project with the municipality, the developers, and residents. A local coalition was created (of residents, the project coordinator and team, officials in the municipality, including the mayor) to advance the project implementation in the neighborhood. One of the members of the committee spoke about the joint work of the committee with the local authorities, and the developers:

This week, there was a meeting with the mayor. We [the committee] had a meeting beforehand to identify any problems that might arise. The meeting [with the mayor] was called after several decisions had been made without our participation. We wanted to raise issues such as the removal of several roadways from the plan. We asked why this was done and received satisfactory answers … in the meantime they [the developers] are keeping to the promised time schedule, despite corona, and we are not giving them more time … we also identified a problem with the division of the complexes.

The project in city A was implemented on the basis of a model of first constructing new buildings and only afterward evacuating people from their old homes, enabling residents to stay in their homes until the new apartments were ready, since the municipality provided the developers with a large area for building before evacuating the residents.

In city B, the focus of the project investment was on mapping residents’ needs and offering social community events and activities to improve the neighborhood environment, but there was no investment in developing the community’s resources. During the third year of the project, the coordinator left and another was not appointed for almost a year (due to the coronavirus, among other reasons). During this time, community activities ceased, and neighborhood improvement initiatives were neglected. Renovation processes progressed on only three neighborhood buildings. The urban renewal process scheduled to be completed by the end of 2021 only provided tenants with a “security room” and elevator for these three buildings. It is not expected that the removal-renovation project in this neighborhood will increase the number of housing units, meet construction regulations regarding earthquake safety, or improve the public spaces inside and outside the buildings, despite their state of neglect and dilapidation. Residents repeatedly stated that “Nothing remains from what had been accomplished in previous years.” Unfortunately, due to the cessation of project activity for almost a year, no results of previous work remain visible in the neighborhood; it seems that the invested resources were wasted, and the new coordinator must essentially start from scratch.

Discussion

As part of the 21st-century trends toward privatization and efforts to strengthen civic society and promote social change, it has become more common for multiple stakeholders to be involved in implementing public policy. Meetings and cooperative activity of stakeholders from multiple sectors enable various populations to have their interests represented. Building partnerships between philanthropic foundations and governments (national and local) offer opportunities to pool economic resources, professional knowledge, and experience for the benefit of the public (Sher-Hadar et al., 2021). More initiatives in this field have recently been launched.

This article studied how a new/strategic-model philanthropic foundation works with other key stakeholders (national government, municipalities, and residents) to promote community development and urban renewal process. It also examined the activities of a philanthropic foundation that supports young communities that lead and operate the project in cities. It compared the implementation process and the results of community building initiatives undertaken in two municipalities where urban renewal was taking place.

The added value of the philanthropic foundation and the young community activities

The results of the study indicate that in one of the cities, the resources invested by the philanthropic foundation through the work of young communities successfully brought about a new spirit to the urban renewal processes – of increasing the residents’ involvement in the process through developing local leadership, offering training and guidance, providing local residents with professional knowledge, and strengthening community cohesiveness. At the same time, local authority representatives became aware of the importance of the involvement of these communities (and the veteran residents) as partners and government funds for the initiative were secured.

However, the foundation’s involvement in the project’s activity does not suffice to guarantee the implementation of critical components of community development. Findings indicate that in one locality they were partially implemented.

Findings suggest that the philanthropic foundation’s implementation strategy for this initiative influenced the quality of the operation and its results. The case studies indicate three key factors that affected the degree of success of the projects: (1) building a broad partnership between the foundation, the government (local and national) and the residents; (2) cultivating local community resources; and (3) investment in the quality of the leadership and project staff.

Importance of the foundation-government-municipality partnership [Figure 1]

In both case studies, the strategy adopted by the philanthropic foundation was to provide leadership for implementation processes in collaboration with the municipalities. In the municipality where there was successful collaborative work in the field between the local authority, the national government, and the philanthropic foundation (such as pooling of resources and regular monitoring of the quality and pace of the operation) (Casey, 2016), the implementation of the initiative was more successful and had longer-term sustainability. In the locality where the partnership only involved contact with third-sector organizations with loose connections with the municipality, there was limited application of resources for the program and its goals. Furthermore, the urban renewal department in this municipality did not respond to the plan or to the needs of the neighborhood residents.

Cultivating local community resources as part of community development activities

Implementation of initiatives does not always succeed in achieving the expected results. The quality of project implementation and its success in achieving the expected results was higher in the municipality where there was investment in fostering three main components: community assets, empowerment through a broad range of strategies; “bonding social capital” (Putnam, 2000; Woodcraft et al., 2012), strengthening social ties and cohesiveness within the community; and “bridging social capital” ‒ strengthening residents’ involvement with municipal entities. The findings also indicate that it is not self-evident that residents will be represented and able to make their voices heard by the local authority and governmental entities. Efforts must be made to develop this aspect as an integral part of implementing the initiative.

The quality of project leadership and staff

This study indicates the importance of intensive investment in the quality of the project’s leadership and staff, such as by providing formal and informal training for individuals and groups and ongoing professional mentoring. Training leaders and residents also contributes to maintaining the “spirit” of the program, promoting residents’ wellbeing, and creating personal and social capital that will persist even after the project ends.

Ensuring the quality and sustainability of the initiative

The trends toward privatization and funding of public initiatives from multiple sources may lead to a lack of tight and structured oversight and monitoring mechanisms by professionals of the government, local authorities, and local residents (Kraeger & Robichau, 2017). Such oversight mechanisms include computerized monitoring and documentation, dialogue, and agreements regarding the goals, activities, and scope of the investment to be made by the philanthropic foundation (Pereira et al., 2017). The lack of such oversight mechanisms led to great variability in the implementation of the projects in the two municipalities, which led to differences in the quality of the projects and their results.

In one of the municipalities, the program was suspended following the departure of the project coordinator. Thus, residents did not enjoy any lasting impacts from the individual and social resources that had been invested in the program. Savaya and Spiro (2012) note the importance of recruiting resources for program sustainability at an early stage of the program. Thus, in the early stages of this partnership between the philanthropic foundation, the MoCH, and the municipalities, it would have been worthwhile to have conducted formal discussions between these stakeholders and other relevant civic entities to ensure that the vast resources invested in the social programs would have a lasting impact.

It is worth noting that the current study was carried out toward the end of three years of program operation. It might be necessary to take a longer view (of 5–8 years) to properly assess the degree to which the project achieved its goals, and quantitative data should be incorporated as part of the analysis (Giloth, 2019). In order to more fully understand the extent of the contribution of philanthropy-government-local authority partnerships, similar initiatives in other municipalities where the context is different should also be studied.

Figure 1. Resources Map of the Philanthropy-Government-Municipal Partnership.

Disclosure statement

The author of the article served as an external evaluator commissioned by the philanthropic Foundation and the Ministry of Construction and Housing to carry out a formative evaluation research.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Israel’s Ministry of Construction and Housing, Neighborhood Rehabilitation Division [4501327609].