Community Leadership in a Dynamic Perspective: An Exploratory Study of Community Foundations in Hong Kong During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2.1 Community Foundation and Community Leadership

Community foundations are place-based, locally embedded philanthropic organizations with the mission of raising, holding, investing in long-term endowments, and supporting local nonprofit entities (Hammack 1989). Unlike government or nonprofits, they face less stakeholder control and usually enjoy a higher degree of financial flexibility (Knott and Weissert 1995). Community foundations are expected to be an important pillar of the community, stewarding resources, supporting donors, advocating for local philanthropic needs, and fostering collaborations among various groups (Perry and Mazany 2014). In addition to promoting philanthropy and acting as intermediary funders, community foundations engage in activities beyond grantmaking to develop their communities. Current studies highlight the increasing expectation for community foundations to take on leadership beyond traditional fundraising and grantmaking in driving community change (Graddy and Morgan 2006; Layton 2016; Phillips et al. 2016).

A longstanding debate in nonprofit management questions whether community foundations should prioritize donor stewardship or take the lead in setting community-building priorities (Hammack 1989; Harrow, Jung, and Phillips 2016; LePere-Schloop, Walk, and Paarlberg 2024; Wang 2023). In the stewardship model, community foundations support donors in managing philanthropic assets and fulfilling their intentions (Perry and Mazany 2014). In the leadership model, they focus on convening community partners to advance a collective vision (Wang 2023). From a stylized leadership perspective, transformational leadership, akin to community leadership, focuses on recognizing grantees’ potential and inspiring them to achieve shared goals (Klenke 1993). In contrast, stewardship aligns with the control and authority of transactional leadership (Burns 1978).

The seemingly polarized concepts of stewardship and leadership are based on theoretical propositions about foundations’ normative roles. However, in practice, foundations blend these elements differently, depending on leadership, circumstances, strategic priorities, and available resources. While scholars argue that the most successful community foundations integrate both stewardship and leadership models (Leonard 1989; Grønbjerg 2006), a bottom-up community leadership approach is now the preferred standard for assessing their success (Easterling 2011; Graddy and Morgan 2006; Phillips et al. 2016). Research also suggests that foundations with a strong donor service focus tend to engage in broader leadership activities (Wu 2024).

Research on nonprofit organizations in crisis highlights that extreme events, including natural disasters, terrorist attacks, humanitarian crises, and pandemics, demand collaborative leadership to coordinate relief efforts (Comfort and Kapucu 2006; Kapucu 2005; Simo and Bies 2007; McMullin and Raggo 2020). These collaborative efforts serve as both immediate and strategic responses to environmental or funding uncertainty (Gazley 2010). External shocks can drive organizational learning and innovation (Chui 2022; Dierkes 2003; Herrero and Kraemer 2022). For community foundations, COVID-19 prompted reflection on local practices and strategy adjustments (Azevedo, Bell, and Medina 2022). Examining community foundations in times of crisis reveals how they dynamically define their roles and evolve their work.

During COVID-19, the leadership role of community foundations became increasingly prominent. A study of 16 community foundations found that nearly all adapted their engagement with donors and stakeholders during the pandemic (Brennan et al. 2022). Many actively took on leadership roles through pandemic response coordination and grantmaking support (Azevedo, Bell and Medina 2022). In response to emerging challenges, community foundations leveraged their unique position to bridge resources and needs, enabling them to adapt quickly to community changes (Díaz and Shaw 2002). Their adaptive capacity was further strengthened by implementing innovative, collective solutions (Strichman, Bickel, and Marshood 2008).

Shifts in community foundation’s practices, such as encouraging donors to exceed usual giving patterns, increase funding, and address specific community needs, suggest a transition from stewardship to a stewardship-leadership or full leadership model (Brennan et al. 2022). As one foundation leader noted, “We’ve always been very grounded in community, and COVID has made us almost hyper-focused on community” (Brennan et al. 2022). The long-term impact of this shift remains to be seen. With three years of lockdown, Hong Kong provides a valuable case for examining the stewardship-leadership dynamics and the evolving role of community foundations.

2.2 Research Context in Hong Kong

In Hong Kong, nonprofit organizations (NPOs) have been extensively employed for social service delivery, and they have been supported substantially by government funding (Lee 2012). Scholars view the nonprofit sector in Hong Kong as a statist-corporatist governance regime, characterized by a combination of hierarchical state control and a corporatist relationship between the state and the nonprofit sector (Lee 2012; Wang 2022). Throughout history, the role of Hong Kong’s nonprofit sector has been complex. Unlike the U.S., Hong Kong nonprofits are not seen as legitimate governance institutions, limiting their functions (Lam and Perry 2000). However, the colonial government relied on hundreds of voluntary organizations for education, health, and social services (Lam and Perry 2000). Since the 1970s, NPOs in Hong Kong have collaborated closely with the government to address societal needs, providing over 90 % of social welfare services and becoming integrated into the state’s funding scheme (Lee 2005a; Jordan, Chui, and Forth 2020). Despite their contributions, they remain highly dependent on government funding and often play a marginal, ambiguous role in the community.

Although Hong Kong does not have a centralized authority to monitor and regulate charities, its nonprofit sector has undergone New Public Management (NPM) reforms, aligning with international trends to redefine state-nonprofit relationships (Alexander, Brudney, and Yang 2010; Bode 2006; Chan and Lam 2015). International experiences concur that NPM reform tends to increase the managerial power of the state at the expense of the autonomy of NPOs (Ascoli and Ranci 2002; Grønbjerg and Salamon 2002). Following NPM reform, the state shifted from viewing NPOs as collaborators to treating them as contracted service providers, significantly influencing resource allocation decisions.

Following the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) in 1997 and the subsequent Asian financial crisis, budget cuts and welfare retrenchment were implemented to address Hong Kong’s economic challenges (Lee 2005b). In 2001, the NPM reform introduced new funding and service performance monitoring mechanisms, changing how the government allocated funds to NPOs. This shift created financial uncertainty, as funding became subject to performance-based cuts and short-term contracts with no guarantee of renewal (Lee 2012). The performance management reform left many post-1990s NPOs underfunded as they struggled to meet its requirements (CCSG 2010). To address local funding shortages, they relied primarily on international, corporate, and private donations and foundations (CCSG 2010). Meanwhile, small grassroots NPOs faced competition from more established counterparts. Data from 2000 to 2008 shows that of 236 new service contracts awarded by Hong Kong’s Social Welfare Department, only three went to small NPOs (LSGIRC 2008).^[1] Given the funding challenges faced by grassroots organizations, community foundations have become an alternative funding source, particularly for smaller NPOs. However, nonprofits also face growing public distrust. A Hong Kong survey found that citizens viewed them as “irrelevant” and “unrealistic,” questioning their sustainability and ability to drive social change (Grassroots Action Media 2014).

The COVID-19 pandemic has been described as “a wake-up moment for philanthropy,” urging a more active crisis response (Brennan et al. 2022). Community foundations in Hong Kong had to balance providing crisis-responsive services, traditionally managed by nonprofits, while also issuing grants to them. This raises questions about how they define their role and adapt to the city’s evolving socio-political landscape during crises. During COVID-19, Hong Kong residents were strongly encouraged to stay home (Lum et al. 2020). Public health measures, including temporary NPO closures and mandatory social distancing, created an unprecedented emergency for nonprofits (Kuenzi, Stewart, and Walk 2021). Since the first wave of the pandemic, traditional offline service models have become dysfunctional.

Community foundations, which fund place-based social services, face the dual challenge of ensuring service continuity for existing beneficiaries while addressing growing demands driven by COVID-19’s psychosocial and material impacts (Chui 2022). These included financial insecurity (Wilson et al. 2020), rising elderly depression rates (Meng et al. 2020), family violence (Zhang 2022), and material shortages (Ng 2020). This highlights the urgent need to examine how community foundations navigate their role and strategic responses in supporting local nonprofits during crises, such as natural disasters and financial downturns, as seen in the COVID-19 pandemic.

4.1 Strategies during COVID-19

Consistent with current research, our findings show that community foundations tend to take on leadership roles during COVID-19 by coordinating pandemic responses and supporting communities through grantmaking (Azevedo, Bell, and Medina 2022). In their COVID-19 response, the three foundations prioritized community needs differently across various phases of the pandemic in Hong Kong, which the media and government classify into five waves.^[3] The Pathways Foundation established the Anti-Coronavirus Fund on February 12, 2020, to provide grants for individuals in need, followed by four rounds of grants to respond to the pandemic waves (see Table 2). Between waves, Hong Kong’s COVID-19 risk was low, prompting relaxed prevention policies and the public mask mandate. To address rising healthcare demand and a strained public system, Pathways Foundation launched the Medical Assistance Fund in April 2022 to support beneficiaries ineligible for public or private medical aid programs.

Unlike Pathways Foundation’s grantmaking approach, Aurora Foundation and Catalyst Foundation first identified community priorities throughout the pandemic, distinguishing between material and emotional needs in their grants and activities. Aurora Foundation launched the Community Response Grant in May 2020 to address the growing challenges faced by organizations. The first round in 2020 awarded HKD 173,300 to seven organizations, while in 2022, around HKD 140,000 was granted to five organizations. Aurora Foundation also increased its general allocation in 2020 and 2021, adjusting its activities due to COVID-19. Between the third and fourth pandemic waves, it held an online facilitation workshop in October 2020. In November 2021, it hosted the Women Changemakers event and a webinar on philanthropy and women.^[4] During the fifth wave, as the situation improved, it offered a Feminist Leadership Program and Digital Security Workshop for grassroots women’s organizations. Aurora Foundation strategically shifted between grantmaking and programming activities at different stages of the pandemic, prioritizing direct financial support during large-scale outbreaks and focusing on empowerment and capacity-building once conditions stabilized to aid community recovery and reorganization.

In 2020, Catalyst Foundation launched the Alumni Opportunity Fund to strengthen the impact of its alumni and their projects in marginalized communities. It awarded HKD 162,000 to six projects in 2020, HKD 114,867 to five projects in 2021, and HKD 124,500 in 2022. While not directly the result of the pandemic, the Opportunity Fund was a strategic shift aimed at expanding the Foundation’s community impact during the crisis through alumni support. In 2021, Catalyst Foundation transitioned its focus from the fellowship program to public engagement. By 2022, it resumed recruiting changemakers for its fellowship program, emphasizing COVID-19 response and health-related topics under the theme #Wellbeing Reimagined: Inclusive and Accessible Health for All. As part of its 2021–2024 strategic plan, the Foundation sought to diversify its income through a charitable store and fee-based activities to adapt to “ever-changing” circumstances. This demonstrates its continuous reflection and strategic adjustments during the pandemic.

Our findings indicate that a strategic focus aligned with organizational attributes is crucial for community leadership development in crises. Pathways Foundation demonstrated leadership through its sustained grantmaking, while Aurora Foundation and Catalyst Foundation expanded their roles by offering training and mentorship programs to actively lead during the pandemic. All three foundations adapted their focus in response to available resources and shifting social contexts, demonstrating dynamic community leadership during the crisis.

4.2 Knowledge and Capacity Building

On the surface, Pathways Foundation’s investment in pandemic-specific knowledge-building from 2020 to 2023 appeared limited. It continued hosting regular events like Christmas, Green Low Carbon Day, and Charity Day, none of which were specifically tailored to COVID-19. There was no evident shift in event content or promotion, nor did it introduce dedicated capacity-building or knowledge-building programs for individuals or grassroots organizations. However, leveraging its strength in grantmaking, Pathways Foundation engaged partner organizations in reviewing the Anti-Coronavirus Fund, fostering cross-sector collaborations to deliver innovative services (Shier et al. 2019). These grantmaking initiatives also provided hands-on capacity-building opportunities for individuals and organizations.

Compared to Pathways Foundation, Aurora Foundation actively organized knowledge-building activities for individuals and capacity-building workshops for grantee partners and local gender NPOs, considering both the COVID-19 context and its mission of gender equality. In 2021, Aurora Foundation hosted Women Changemakers, an event for individuals striving to bring gender-sensitive change to their communities. In November, it held a webinar, Investing in Women and Girls, highlighting the importance of investing in women’s rights, philanthropy, and social change. As the pandemic’s impact eased in March 2023, it organized four events and exhibitions focused on equality and women’s stories.

For grantee partners, Aurora Foundation provided Online Facilitation Training to enhance virtual meeting skills during COVID-19. In 2021, it introduced Digital Security Training to help community organizers navigate online security more effectively. In 2022, it launched the Transformative Feminist Leadership workshop to support nonprofit leaders in exploring new approaches to organizing and operating their work. Throughout the pandemic, Aurora Foundation launched gender empowerment initiatives tailored to the evolving crisis, expanding its community impact by supporting individuals, women’s groups, and local NPOs.

In 2021, Catalyst Foundation conducted experiential workshops that raised awareness of identity and privilege among 97 % of participants, inspiring them to take action for equality in Hong Kong. Beyond building capacity for fellows in its annual fellowship program, it responded quickly to COVID-19 by hosting a virtual Alumni Get-Together and a mental health training session at the start of the outbreak. In February 2021, it launched the Every Action Matters campaign to encourage everyday actions for equality and inclusivity in Hong Kong. According to its 2022 annual report, Catalyst Foundation organized a launch event and three experiential workshops in October 2021. The report also assesses program impact through participant feedback, reflecting its commitment to knowledge dissemination and capacity building.

Catalyst Foundation’s founder and CEO prioritized public knowledge dissemination and community capacity-building through digital platforms. Both Aurora Foundation and Catalyst Foundation launched YouTube channels to share Zoom discussions during the pandemic. In April 2020, the CEO of Catalyst Foundation wrote an opinion piece for a major Hong Kong Newspaper on lessons from the pandemic and the power of community in addressing social inequality. She was also interviewed by the CEO of Habitat for Humanity Hong Kong on RTHK Radio:

Let’s invest in further enhancing the collective wisdom and strength of communities, instead of only focusing on individual needs.

Their discussion addressed the role of charities in Hong Kong, challenges faced by the NGO sector during the pandemic, efforts to involve women in philanthropy, and ways for public engagement. These initiatives aimed to strengthen stakeholder relationships during the crisis.

4.3 Convening, Partnership, and Policy Engagement

Convening involves engaging community members and stakeholders in dialogue to identify needs, set grantmaking priorities, evaluate projects, and balance partnerships with community foundations (Easterling 2011; Graddy and Morgan 2006; Phillips et al. 2016). Building partnerships also facilitates policy engagement, allowing community foundations to collaborate with nonprofits and partners for advocacy and policy change (DeLeon and Varda 2009). This section examines the three cases’ activities related to convening, partnership, and policy engagement.

From a partnership perspective, Pathways Foundation collaborates with over 160 nonprofit partners in Hong Kong, providing a strong foundation for policy advocacy during COVID-19. Before the pandemic, it maintained a grantor-grantee relationship, distributing annual funds while monitoring their use. However, during COVID-19, these partnerships deepened through closer interactions. The Anti-Coronavirus Fund invited partner organizations to co-review public applications, fostering greater collaboration between foundations and member agencies. Pathways Foundation also maintains a close partnership with the government. On February 29, 2020, the Chief Executive of HKSAR and appointed officials donated one month’s salary to Pathways Foundation for charity. These funds were then allocated to its non-government-funded member NPOs, strengthening ties with both the government and member agencies. However, limited public information is available on whether Pathways Foundation engages member agencies and donors to adjust grant priorities or address evolving community needs. This may be because these strategies are primarily internal and not explicitly detailed in annual reports (Wu 2021).

Aurora Foundation’s partnership with organizations strengthened during COVID-19. As noted by the Chairperson and Executive Director in the 2021 annual report:

Aurora Foundation gives support to local NPOs on a first-come, first-served basis in order to provide support as soon as possible. We also reflected on Aurora Foundation’s funding policies, strategies and guidelines to better meet the needs of the community. To help grantee partners [local NPOs] develop their resilience capacity to overcome this struggle, in the past year [2020], Aurora Foundation provided tailored, care-driven tools to enhance their organizations to lead the way.

Aurora Foundation fosters partnerships through grantmaking and capacity building, actively engaging the community. However, we found no direct evidence in its reports or content indicating collaboration with the government during COVID-19, which may have limited its policy involvement with grantee partners.

Before COVID-19, Catalyst Foundation, still in its start-up phase, collaborated selectively with local nonprofits. In 2020, it launched the Alumni Opportunity Fund to help alumni establish new nonprofits and grassroots programs, strengthening ties with local groups and creating a convening platform. Beyond alumni engagement, Catalyst Foundation actively involved the public during the pandemic. Between March and April 2020, it conducted focus group interviews with its alumni to assess public perceptions of equality. From May to August, it consulted its community to develop content for the Equality Toolkit in collaboration with the Equal Opportunities Commission, a semi-governmental body in Hong Kong, marking a direct policy engagement. Catalyst Foundation also leveraged the pandemic to strengthen communication and collaboration with other organizations. In April 2020, alongside 173 independently funded nonprofits in Hong Kong, it co-signed an Open Letter to Funders, urging increased support for small nonprofits during the crisis. According to its annual report, this initiative was led by women NGO leaders, including Catalyst Foundation’s CEO.

4.4 Discussion

Applying the community leadership framework helps analyze the strategic responses of the three foundations during a crisis, providing a deeper understanding of leadership dynamics (see Table 3). Table 3 summarizes the similarities and differences in community leadership attributes across the six aspects of the framework for the three organizations. Our textual analysis suggests that variations in community leadership roles largely stem from different organizational attributes, and the current framework cannot fully account for the pandemic’s impact on leadership responses. To address these gaps, we propose integrating two key factors that may shape these roles.

First, it is essential to reconsider community foundations’ philanthropic goals in relation to their organizational capacity and size to understand their community leadership attributes. While all three foundations responded to COVID-19, their speed, approach, and target groups varied based on their resources and operational scale. A key challenge was ensuring that target communities could quickly access funding during a crisis. To strengthen community leadership, foundations must clearly communicate their mission and the type of place-based philanthropy they promote, aligning with their organizational capacity. For Pathways Foundation, establishing the Anti-Coronavirus Fund required clearly informing individuals that, as one of Hong Kong’s largest and most established community foundations, it has the legitimacy and capability to offer financial support during the crisis. Strengthening this connection between the foundation and those in need would enhance its impact, reinforcing Pathways Foundation’s leadership role within the community.

Aurora Foundation, as a women-focused community foundation, centers its work on feminist philanthropy, guiding its activities and grants during COVID-19. It supported gender-based initiatives and local nonprofits’ gender-related projects, providing special funds and a feminist leadership program for organizations facing challenges in Hong Kong’s complex social landscape. Its gender-focused approach strengthens its impact on visible gender groups while providing opportunities to further engage organizations addressing intersectional gender concerns. Catalyst Foundation actively advanced its mission by conducting a public survey in 2021 to raise awareness as a community foundation focused on social inclusion. As a relatively new foundation, this outreach sought to attract more collaborators and participants for its fellowship program. Our findings highlight that a community foundation’s philanthropic goals are central to its leadership attributes during crises. They challenge the assumption that all foundations prioritize leadership by highlighting the interplay between grantmaking and social engagement. During the pandemic, these goals and missions became even more crucial in shaping community foundations’ responses.

Second, securing funding during a crisis is crucial for community foundations, yet existing frameworks often emphasize programming initiatives as indicators of leadership while overlooking the importance of fundraising. Pathways Foundation, a long-established community foundation, has consistently demonstrated strong fundraising capacity, enabling it to respond quickly and sustain donor support during the pandemic. In contrast, Aurora Foundation and Catalyst Foundation faced funding challenges but developed strategies such as hosting offline fundraising events, creating branded merchandise like T-shirts and bags with Aurora Foundation’s slogan, and seeking additional funding sources. Catalyst Foundation also recognized the importance of financial sustainability and set strategic goals to strengthen its resources. With limited resources further strained by the crisis, community foundations had to expand and coordinate their funding efforts. This aligns with research showing that crises can reinforce the need for organizations to maintain a healthy fiscal reserve through diverse income streams (Hung and Hager 2019). Emphasizing fundraising capacity underscores the role of stewardship in shaping community foundations’ crisis response capabilities.

The importance of organizational mission and fundraising capacity in community leadership during a crisis raises a fundamental question for community foundations: What community do they seek to lead, and how do they allocate their resources? This perspective helps explain the different approaches to community leadership development in this study. Additionally, the partnerships formed by all three community foundations during COVID-19 align with previous research, which identifies partnership-building as an inherent trait of community foundations due to their local roots and established stakeholder networks (Hamilton, Parzen, and Brown 2004).

Our findings reveal that the relationship between convening, knowledge building, and policy engagement varied among the studied community foundations during the pandemic. This contrasts with previous studies that assume these activities work in balance to facilitate policy discussions in stable times (Phillips et al. 2016; Wu 2021). Comparatively, large community foundations like Pathways Foundation, with substantial fundraising capacity, numerous partner organizations, and broad philanthropic missions, may find it challenging to implement specific knowledge-building initiatives during crises. The demands of managing multiple grants and member agencies approvals may limit their capacity to focus on direct public programs or knowledge dissemination.

We argue that Pathways Foundation utilizes its strong fundraising capacity to adopt a transactional leadership approach, fulfilling stewardship responsibilities and establishing community leadership through grantmaking during COVID-19. In contrast, Aurora Foundation and Catalyst Foundation embraced transformational leadership, focusing on knowledge-building, convening efforts, and community development with their stakeholders. Their funding constraints required them to sustain their organizational missions through engagement activities.

To some extent, limited fundraising capacity during the pandemic constrained Aurora Foundation and Catalyst Foundation from providing more direct material support, leading them to focus on empowerment through knowledge and capacity-building initiatives. Their missions of gender equality and inclusivity further motivated them to organize events beyond grantmaking. While Pathways Foundation maintained stable community leadership attributes before and during the pandemic, Catalyst Foundation demonstrated multi-dimensional leadership, and Aurora Foundation excelled in stakeholder empowerment. Each foundation adapted its leadership approach differently during the crisis, shaped by its mission and fundraising capacity.