A Giant Impact: A Case Study on the Community Development and

Unification Practices of the San Francisco Giants Community Fund

A Senior Project

presented to

the Faculty of the Department of Experience Industry Management

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Science

Geri E. M. Pirkle

June 2020

ABSTRACT

A GIANT IMPACT: A CASE STUDY ON THE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND UNIFICATION PRACTICES

OF THE SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS COMMUNITY FUND

GERI E. M. PIRKLE

JUNE 2020

Over the past two centuries, the considerable efforts of a number of organizations,

companies, and individuals have led to the concurrent growth of two powerful industries:

professional sport and community development. The last few decades have seen a

merging of these two realms which effectively combine their separate spheres of

influence to create a significant platform for societal change. The purpose of this study

was to examine the community development and unification practices employed by the

San Francisco Giants Community Fund. The researcher designed a case study examining

the programs and events, partnerships and sponsorship, and marketing and fundraising

practices utilized by the Giants Community Fund. The results indicate that the Giants are

exemplary agents of community development but need to improve their marketing

techniques. As an important member of their greater communities, all professional sport

teams should utilize their unique platforms to support philanthropic initiatives and

achieve positive change in their communities.

Keywords: professional sport, community development, sport philanthropy, San

Francisco Giants, corporate social responsibility, Junior Giants

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... iii

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................... 1

Background of Study ...................................................................................................... 1

Review of Literature ....................................................................................................... 2

Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 11

Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 12

Chapter 2 METHODS....................................................................................................... 13

Description of Organization .......................................................................................... 13

Description of Instrument ............................................................................................. 14

Description of Procedures ............................................................................................. 15

Chapter 3 PRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS ........................................................... 16

Programs and Events .................................................................................................... 16

Partnerships and Sponsorship ....................................................................................... 20

Fundraising and Marketing ........................................................................................... 22

Chapter 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................ 24

Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 24

Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 27

Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 28

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 30

APPENDIXES .................................................................................................................. 35

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Background of Study

Helen Keller once said, “Alone, we can do so little; together, we can do so much”

(Adams, 2018, para. 1). It is no secret that one of humankind’s most powerful and innate

gifts is the ability to help other people. Since the beginning of society, it has been proven

time and time again that more can be accomplished by groups than by an individual. This

lesson has become ingrained in everyday life with common adages such as “strength in

numbers” or “love thy neighbor.” While the idea of “philanthropia” technically originates

from the Ancient Greeks, meaning “to love people” (Philanthropy New York, 2008), the

concept of formal philanthropy did not arise until the 1860s with the actions of financier

George Peabody. Through the endowment of libraries and museums and funding housing

communities for the poor, Peabody began a trend that would grow into one of the most

impactful movements worldwide (Barbic, 2019). What started out as a somewhat

disorganized undertaking was quickly industrialized and shaped into modern

grantmaking, large-scale donations, and formal organizations devoted to the furthering of

philanthropy. Various wars and historical tragedies gave birth to the Red Cross, the Peace

Corps, and other such organizations, as well as tangential developments including small-

scale charities and community funds (Philanthropy New York).

Today, it is common, if not expected, to find some form of a philanthropic arm in

most businesses, organizations, and even sport teams. Anyone who has participated in a

youth league or attended a live sporting event can attest to the incredible influence that

sport can have. From a business standpoint, the power of the sport market is immense,

with a current estimated value of $75.71 billion, a figure that is predicted to continue

growing (Price Waterhouse Cooper, 2019). With such societal presence comes a huge

platform and concomitant opportunity to achieve great change, particularly at a

community level. The purpose of this study was to examine the community development

and unification practices employed by the San Francisco Giants Community Fund.

Review of Literature

Research for this review of literature was conducted at a home residence in

Monterey, California due to the Shelter-in-Place order put into effect by California

Polytechnic State University of San Luis Obispo in early March of 2020. In addition to

online articles and other resources, the following online databases were utilized:

SPORTDiscus, Business Source Premier, and Sociological Abstracts. This review of

literature includes the following subsections: the evolution of structured community

development in the United States, the modern definitions and understanding of

community development, the introduction of community development into the corporate

world, the role of corporate social responsibility in professional sport, and the unique

relationships between community development and the professional sport industry.

Looking back on the inception and growth of community development in North

America, it was a slow process composed of the big dreams and small actions of

numerous individuals and organizations. Some trace the conceptual idea of community

development as far back as Jamestown, Virginia, with its inherent value of self-help and

dependency on local resources (Phifer, 1990). While its foundational roots may be found

in the pre-colonial era, the first clear evidence of community development began as a

response to the escalating farm crisis of the late 19th century (Phifer). In 1908, President

Theodore Roosevelt’s Country Life Commission combined with the Country Life

Movement in prompting the U.S. Department of Agriculture and land grant colleges to

focus their resources on actively improving rural life (Summers, 1986). Their

recommendations included one of the earliest mentions of “extension service,” a term

which, along with “extension agents” and “community organization work,” ultimately

grew into what is now referred to as community development. In response to these

requests, the Smith Lever Act of 1914 established the Cooperative Extension Service as a

joint endeavor of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and state land-grant colleges with

matching federal and state funding (Phifer). This new service aimed to equip every

farming county with at least one “trained demonstrator or itinerant teacher” to provide

leadership and guidance in all manners of rural activity, including social, economic, and

financial.

The passage of the Smith Lever Act launched a sort of organizational

transformation as several states, including Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri,

New York, North Carolina, West Virginia and Virginia, began conducting “community

organization work” under the leadership of their Extension Service (Phifer, 1990). In the

early 1920s, extension agents began organizing community clubs in some Southern states

and by 1923 more than 21,000 communities had a committee or club working on local

improvements (True, 1928). Around the same time, educational associations such as the

Adult Education Association and the National University Education Association (NUEA)

began showing support. Since the term “community development” first appeared in their

1924 proceedings, the NUEA has played a major role in furthering the community

development movement within universities (True). During the 1940s, NUEA leaders

Howard McClusky, Jess Ogden, and Baker Brownwell launched community

development programs, centers, and fields of study at their respective universities

(Phifer). Over the next several years, this trend spread to other universities, towns, and

cities as more and more establishments became aware of the benefits of community

development programs.

The 1960s is widely considered to be one of the most influential decades for

community development, particularly in terms of citizen participation and federal

involvement (Phifer, 1990). In 1962, the Department of Community Development was

established on Columbia’s campus as a center for formal study and implementation of

community development. Within a few years, the Area Redevelopment Administration

was founded as one of the first of many federal programs that would offer financial

incentives for community development. In 1964, federal impact continued when

President Johnson declared his War on Poverty and began creating community action

agencies which were funded through the Office of Economic Opportunity. By the mid-

1960s, there were more than 1,100 federal programs offering technical and financial

assistance for community improvement projects. This flood of programs providing funds

for local, regional, state, and multi-state development persisted through the 60s and into

the 1970s (Phifer). Universities continued their support as well, and by 1976 more than

sixty-three colleges and universities offered programs and majors of study in community

development (Cary, 1976).

In January of 1969, the NUEA made possibly its greatest contribution to

community development through sponsoring a mid-continent conference that spurred the

founding of the Community Development Society (CDS) in Columbia, Missouri. With

membership fluctuating between 400 and 1,000 members, the CDS can be viewed as the

first organization devoted solely to practitioners, teachers, and agents of community

development (Phifer, 1990). This establishment marked a symbolic dedication to

appreciating and integrating community development as a fundamental element in the

corporate, residential, and social worlds.

Jumping ahead to the current decade, community development is no longer an

embryonic idea or far-fetched vision but rather a commonplace term which holds the

value and appreciation of those involved with and affected by it. However, given its

dynamic nature and wide range of manifestations, it remains difficult to define. One

definition describes community development as:

A process aimed at promoting citizen participation in social affairs, developing

people’s awareness of problems, enabling them to define their needs in relation to

the total environment, make possible their enlightened choice among various

options and channel the results into effective action for social changes. (Draper,

1971, p. 383)

On a federal relationship level, community development can be viewed as, “a process

which emphasizes the organization of people to act as citizens to cause changes, to

communicate with the established power, and to make them listen” (Chekki, 1982, p. 32).

While the specific goals of any given community development program will vary

depending on their respective area or organization, almost all seem to fall under the

collective theory that they are, “Intended to raise individual and group aspirations,

develop indigenous leadership, create a sense of neighborliness, allow people to learn

new skills, and teach people to make use of government services in a more meaningful

and creative way” (Brokenshaw & Hodge, 1969, p. 121). With its more humanistic goals,

some see community development as an effective solution to the shortcomings of typical

bureaucratic organizations. They have certainly proven capable of accomplishing great

feats of human power, including reduction of alienation and hopelessness, focus on

locally relevant needs and issues, and immeasurable unification of community members

(Chekki).

There is a diverse collection of programs that fall under the broad label of

community development, ranging from citizen-led councils to state regional planning

commissions to governmental units. Community development entered the corporate

world under the name of corporate social responsibility (CSR), which has been described

as “the extent to which an organization meets the needs, expectations, and demands of

certain external constituencies beyond those directly linked to the company’s products

and markets” (Ullmann, 1985, p. 548). This introduced the associated concepts of

company-society relationships and societal expectations’ role in a company’s conduct.

McWilliams and Siegel (2000) defined CSR as “a set of actions aimed to further some

social good, beyond the explicit pecuniary interests of the firm, that are not required by

law” (p. 156). This new set of actions included cause-related marketing and cause

branding as part of the transition from a focus on financial-social performance

relationships to the context, processes, and outcomes of CSR. Cause-related marketing is

characterized as “profit-motivated giving… enables firms to contribute to nonprofit

organizations while also increasing their bottom line by tying those contributions to

sales” (Grau & Folse, 2007, p. 26). Beyond moral fortitude, CSR introduced a new

opportunity for competitive advantage and intra-company strength. Engaging in CSR

activities can produce intangible benefits including reputational capital, improved

employee commitment, and a buffer for negative media scrutiny (Alsop, 2002).

With the emergence of corporate social responsibility came the concept of

strategic philanthropy or the “synergistic use of a firm’s resources to achieve both

organizational and social benefits” (Bradish & Cronin, 2009, p.692 ). Serving as an

alternative to viewing philanthropy as a solely altruistic undertaking, strategic

philanthropy was founded on the idea that philanthropic activities can provide the

organization with a benefit to themselves and their brand in addition to the social benefits

for the causes they support. These company benefits may be financial, political, or social

and all indicate a motivation beyond just the “warm feelings” associated with prosocial

behavior. Instead, the actions are driven by self-serving motives with an underlying goal

of gaining something in exchange for their charitable activity.

As corporate social responsibility and philanthropy became increasingly prevalent

in the corporate world, the professional sport industry was not exempt from its influence.

Given their heightened media exposure, amplified reach of athletes, and deep-rooted role

in the community, it was logical for professional sport organizations (PSOs) to focus on

social responsibility and adopting philanthropic practices. From a business standpoint,

there is an undeniable advantage to developing and maintaining good relationships with

the communities in which they operate (Babiak et al., 2012). Armey (2004)

acknowledges that PSO executives are becoming increasingly concerned with the image

and public perception of their teams. According to Carroll (1999), the motivation for

PSOs to engage in sport philanthropy should not be reputational but rather the “moral and

discretionary responsibilities for contributing their resources to the community” (p. 277).

This supports the idea that the greater social significance of these activities lies in the

belief that PSOs can effectively facilitate the achievement of the social objectives of their

nonprofit partners (Diehl, 2007). By utilizing cause-related sport marketing, partnerships

with charitable causes, and community outreach, PSOs can express their commitment to

CSR via cause-based sport events, drives, and other acts of civic engagement (Babiak &

Wolfe, 2009). The athletes of these PSOs are valuable resources for facilitating social

impact and building positive associations for themselves and their teams. Overall,

professional sport leagues, corporations, and teams can be regarded as influential agents

in both economic and cultural realms (Kern, 2000).

Although roughly twenty years ago corporate social responsibility did not play a

significant role in professional sport, today nearly all professional sport teams have

established community development programs or charitable foundations (Babiak et al.,

2012). Particularly over the past decade, PSOs have increasingly focused on social

responsibility and engaged in philanthropic activities designed to support social causes

(Babiak & Wolfe, 2009; Diehl, 2007). The “Sports Philanthropy Project” was founded in

1998 with the mission of “harnessing the power of professional sports to support the

development of healthy communities” (Diehl). This organization grew to support over

four hundred philanthropic organizations associated with athlete charities, league

initiatives, and team foundations. On an international level, the Fédération Internationale

de Football Association (FIFA) became one of the first sport organizations to create an

‘internal corporate social responsibility unit’ and committed a percentage of their

revenues to related CSR programs (Hassanian‐Moghaddam et al., 2018). Across America

and the world, sporting events grew into agents that could achieve community objectives

and support the progress and growth of a community. Other modern examples include the

NHL’s “Hockey Fights Cancer” program and the NBA’s “Read to Achieve” and

“Basketball Without Borders” initiatives.

In examining the motivations behind why the sport industry saw this spike in

community development behavior, it is evident that the range of motivations are complex

and varying between organizations and individuals. An overarching theme is that

engagement in philanthropy leads to beneficial outcomes whether they are self-serving or

purely altruistic. Athletes have shared experiences of satisfaction, feelings of helping, and

being engaged in their community (Babiak et al., 2012). This humanitarian mindset is

exemplified by William Ford, former president of the Detroit Lions, who shared, “The

Lions are not just a football team but a part of the community as well. We have a unique

opportunity and responsibility to help make a difference by being a good corporate

citizen” (Inoue, Mahan III, & Kent, 2013, p. 320). On the other hand, Hibbert and Horne

(1996) found alternative motivations for charitable acts, including career advancement,

public recognition, and enhanced social status. Other self-serving aims can even be

tangible such as tax relief or public rewards. Whatever the reasons may be, it is agreed

upon that forming a foundation legitimizes the associated organization, team, or player as

a genuine, philanthropic community member.

In addition to the motivating factors that prompted the sport philanthropy

movement, several aspects of the professional sport industry make it an ideal platform for

launching community action. Sport is “unique for being both a social and an economic

institution, and as such, well-suited with this dual orientation to be interpreted by the

business principles and practices of corporate social responsibility” (Smith &

Westerbeek, 2007, p. 49). The factors that are distinct to the realm of professional sport

include its economic power, necessity of stakeholder management, transparency, and

potential for passion. Noll (2003) describes sports leagues as possessing “close to

monopoly power,” noting the special protections that they receive from the government.

Babiak and Wolfe (2009) point out that sport leagues often receive public funding for

stadium construction and other infrastructure. A PSO’s operation is dependent upon a

village of outside organizations including the media, sponsors, and fans, each of which is

invested in the potential benefits of the team’s CSR activities (Wallace, 2004). Sport and

philanthropy also play a significant role in the cultural makeup of society as sport is

inherently about aspiration and achievement, which therefore makes it a source of

inspiration to fans and followers. The dedication, passion, and discipline required by

professional athletes translates to an opportunity to motivate others to make a difference

in causes that are important to them (Babiak et al., 2012).

The sport industry is further characterized by the continuous transparency that is

expected from every member of a PSO both within and outside the game context.

Everything from season statistics and leadership strategies to charity donations and

athletes’ families is considered open knowledge (Armey, 2004). With this, a PSO’s

actions off the field (or court) are equally as impactful as their success or failure in

competition when it comes to reputation and public opinion. In comparison,

organizations and groups in other industries do not face the same level of media analysis

or general knowledge of their employees’ behaviors. Because of this scrutiny, PSOs must

be careful and intentional about how their activities are marketed and communicated to

the stakeholders and the public (Walker, Kent, & Vincent, 2010). According to Du,

Bhattacharya, and Se (2010), a consumer’s evaluations of a PSO may vary based on how

its philanthropic activities are described and how the information is disseminated.

Lastly, the professional sport industry carries a special element of passion that

cannot be found in other corporate realms. Thousands of people will rally behind a

certain team or even an individual player and develop an attachment. This connection and

admiration in turn enables that team or player to dramatically affect their consumers’

views and behavior. The concept of team identification, which can stem from familial

association or even physical proximity, introduces a sub-community that will follow the

actions of its chosen leader. Athletes today have an almost celebrity-like status in which

their conduct in all areas of their life are closely watched and often imitated. With this

increased attention comes a set of expectations regarding their demonstration of

charitable involvement (Roy & Graeff, 2003) as well as the opportunity to serve as

promoters of philanthropy (Kott, 2005). Organizations outside of the sport industry

simply cannot replicate the unique power that PSOs have to encourage philanthropic

action and strengthen their community.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the community development and

unification practices employed by the San Francisco Giants Community Fund.

Research Questions

This study attempted to answer the following research questions:

1. What programs and events are currently being offered through the Giants

Community Fund?

2. What partnerships and sponsorships do the Giants Community Fund currently

have in place?

3. What fundraising and marketing practices are currently being utilized by the

Giants Community Fund?

4. How impactful are the programs and events currently being offered through

the Giants Community Fund?

5. How beneficial are the current partnerships and sponsorships of the Giants

Community Fund?

6. How effective are the fundraising and marketing practices currently being

utilized by the Giants Community Fund?

Chapter 2

METHODS

The purpose of this study was to examine the community development and

unification practices employed by the San Francisco Giants Community Fund. This

chapter includes the following sections: description of organization, description of

instrument, and description of procedures.

Description of Organization

A case study was conducted on the San Francisco Giants with a special focus on

their Community Fund program. As one of the oldest teams in Major League Baseball,

the Giants long history originates in 1883 with the New York Gothams, a National

League team created by John B. Day and Jim Mutrie (San Francisco Giants, 2020). In

May of 1885, with the help of several valued players transferred from the American

Association’s New York Metropolitans, the Gothams achieved record-breaking success

in their first league game. Their inaugural season brought continued success as well as

the team’s new name, the Giants, which is said to have come from an emotional post-

victory speech from manager Jim Mutrie. Under their new name, the Giants claimed their

first National League pennant and the world championship in 1888. Following the

folding of the Players League in 1891, the Giants moved into their former ballpark,

located right next to the Polo Grounds (San Francisco Giants).

Over the next sixty-seven years, the New York Giants welcomed many now-

legendary names into their ranks, including John McGraw, Carl Hubbell, and Willie

Mays (San Francisco Giants, 2020). In 1958, owner Horace Stoneham announced their

move to the Bay Area where they would rebrand as the San Francisco Giants. From their

first home in Seal Stadium, the Giants moved to the notorious Candlestick Stadium in

1960 and eventually settled in Pacific Bell Park in 1999. While the stadium underwent

several name changes and is now known as Oracle Park, it remains the Giants current

home (San Francisco Giants).

The past decade has brought a tumultuous sequence of events including three

World Series victories, a record-breaking worst season, and the retirement of longtime

manager Bruce Bochy. Moving forward under the leadership of new manager Gabe

Kapler, the San Francisco Giants, although currently on “hold” with the rest of

professional sport, are striving to continue making a positive community impact both on

and off the field.

Description of Instrument

The instrument utilized in this study was a case study guide developed by the

researcher (see Appendix A). The structure of this instrument was an organized table with

three elements: area of department, description of area, and a section for additional

comments. The instrument was used to examine community development and unification

practices and how the San Francisco Giants Community Fund implements these

practices. A pilot test was conducted on the Los Angeles Angels Community Department.

After the pilot, it was determined that ‘Events’ should be added as a department area in

addition to ‘Programs’ to accurately encompass all community relations activities. ‘MLB

Initiatives’ was also added to the instrument to provide a frame of reference for assessing

the success of the Giants Community Fund.

Description of Procedures

A case study was conducted on the San Francisco Giants. The instrument utilized

in this study was a case study guide developed by the researcher. Research for this case

study was conducted during a two-week research period and included an assortment of

online sources. The primary resource utilized to gather information on the San Francisco

Giants Community Fund was the Major League Baseball website, mlb.com. The website

gave access to comprehensive sub-websites on every MLB team, each one replete with

information on everything from their franchise history to their current marketing

strategies and community relations initiatives. The website devoted to the San Francisco

Giants had a page titled ‘Giants in the Community’ which provided a wealth of

information on everything community related. In addition to in-depth sections on their

various programs, events, and donation opportunities, the page provided links to further

information on the Junior Giants Program, Balldude/Balldudette Program, and the 50/50

Raffle. In addition, several academic journals were used to evaluate the unification and

community development practices of the Giants Community Fund in a social context.

These included SPORTDiscus, Business Source Premier, and Sociological Abstracts.

Chapter 3

PRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to examine the community development and

unification practices employed by the San Francisco Giants Community Fund. A case

study was utilized to examine the San Francisco Giants Community Fund. This chapter

includes the following sections: programs and events, partnerships and sponsorship, and

fundraising and marketing.

Programs and Events

The San Francisco Giants Community Fund is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization

that has operated under the Giants Corporation since their founding in 1991. Through

various programs, events, and initiatives, the fund works with a team of athletes,

volunteers, and community partners to achieve their mission of “using baseball as a

forum to encourage underserved youth and their families to live healthy, productive

lives.” In addition to their flagship program, Junior Giants, the fund focuses on

Education, Health, and Violence Prevention as their three key areas of development.

Thanks to the continuous contributions and support of their partners and the leadership of

their thirty-member Board of Directors, the fund has donated over thirty million dollars to

community efforts over the last nineteen years. In 2016, the San Francisco Giants were

named the Sports Humanitarian Team of the Year by ESPN in recognition of their

community outreach efforts. In 2017, the Giants Community Fund was awarded the

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Sports Award for, “an innovative and influential

approach to using sports to improve the culture of health in our communities.” As

indicated by this recognition, the fund has been successful in many areas, including their

flagship program of Junior Giants.

Since its start in 1994, the Junior Giants Program has established ninety leagues

throughout Northern California, Nevada, and Oregon which together serve over 24,000

youth participants. The program offers free, noncompetitive, coed summer baseball and

softball leagues that supplement their sport instruction with teachings on character

development and programs in health, education, and bullying prevention. The leagues are

broken down into age-based divisions, offering T-ball for 5-6-year old’s, Minors for 7-9-

year old’s, Majors for 10-13-year old’s and Seniors for 14-18-year old’s. Junior Giants

shows an emphasized focus on increasing youth sport participation in both male and

female athletes. With the launch of their Game ChangeHERS initiative, the program

strives to raise their female numbers from their current level of 33% participation to their

goal of 50% of all Junior Giants being female. In 2015, the Junior Giants program

received the Commissioner’s Award for Philanthropic Excellence. Currently, in response

to COVID-19, the program is offering Junior Giants at Home as a safe alternative to their

normal in-person leagues. This four-week virtual season will still provide the

fundamentals of baseball as well as lessons in health, education, and character

development. This programming will be delivered by Junior Giants Americorps

Ambassadors, Giants Manager Gabe Kapler, and members of the Giants coaching staff.

Looking ahead, the Giants Community Fund is in the process of expanding their

Junior Giants Program with the creation of the Urban Youth Academy. With support

from the Giants Corporation, the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department, and

Major League Baseball, the fund hopes to create an extension of the Junior Giants

program that will serve to further their philosophy of cultivating positive character

development, academic achievement and improved health in youth. They hope to build a

year-round facility equipped with ball fields and a learning center that will host after-

school and summertime activities, skills and strategy clinics for both players and coaches,

local and regional tournaments, and a tutoring and college preparatory program.

The Giants Community Fund’s education program includes Junior Giants specific

projects, annual events such as Education Day, and greater community partnerships with

Chevron and the Bay Area All-Star Scholarship Team. Round the Bases Reading

Program is a summer reading program offered to all Junior Giants players through their

Junior Giants Handbooks. Through an incentive program of baseball themed achievement

levels and Giants-branded awards, the course aims to encourage youth to continue

reading, particularly during the summer. Every year distinguished Junior Giants are

among those recognized at Education Day, a special ballpark day devoted to honoring the

incoming and graduation classes of Harmon and Sue Burns Scholars. In addition to

attending a pregame reception with Giants representatives, the scholars and their families

are celebrated in an on-field pregame ceremony during which education grants are also

presented to local non-profit organizations. Within the larger Bay Area, the San Francisco

Giants are part of the Bay Area All-Star Scholarship Team (B.A.A.S.S.T.). Formed in

1996, the B.A.A.S.S.T. is made up of several Bay Area sport teams that together provide

seven high school seniors with $5,000.00 college scholarships. Each team contributes to

the program funding and recognizes the recipients at pregame ceremonies.

The Giants Community Fund’s community initiatives are continued through their

health program with youth-focused movements and awareness days at Oracle Park. The

Junior Giants Health Program highlights the importance of regular exercise and healthy

eating, lessons that are delivered through their interactive Health Line-Up Poster and

personalized videos from Giants players and staff. Through a partnership with the Until

There’s A Cure Foundation, the Giants became the first professional sports team to host

an AIDS benefit game. Since that first Until There’s A Cure Night in 1994, the Giants

Community Fund has distributed over $500,000.00 in grants each year to Bay Area

organizations that focus on HIV/AIDS education and service. The fund also works with

the Donor Network West to host an annual Donate Life Day. On this day, the first 25,000

fans to arrive at Oracle Park receive Giants baseball cards with donor information as part

of an overall goal to raise awareness about the importance of organ and tissue donations.

Similar to their other two main focuses, the Fund’s violence prevention program

gives additional attention to its youth-based causes. The Junior Giants Strike Out

Violence program provides forums for participants and their families to discuss methods

of preventing violence in their neighborhoods. Additionally, the Junior Giants Violence

Prevention Speakers program brings Michael Pritchard, a youth advocate and comedian,

to Junior Giants teams for annual talks on respect, gang prevention, and anti-bullying

messages. Finally, the Junior Giants Strike Out Bullying Contest provides youth with the

opportunity to creatively express what their community would look like if it were

violence free. With the submission of a poem, song, or piece of art that communicates

this message, participants have the chance to win the contest and be recognized at the

Strike Out Violence Day pregame ceremony. In partnership with Futures Without

Violence, the Giants Community Fund has held Strike Out Violence Day for twenty

years. During the special day, a pregame ceremony includes a message to all attendees on

the importance of working together to stop violence in our communities and homes. The

annual Jerseys Off Our Giants also takes place on this day, in which hundreds of

volunteers sell raffle tickets for the chance to win an autographed Giants jersey with all

proceeds being donated to charities such as the La Casa de Las Madres shelter.

In addition to their three capstone programs, the Giants Community Fund operates

several other programs including their Balldude/Balldudette Program and Field for Kids

Program. Created more than twenty-five years ago, the Balldude/Balldudette Program

gives fans a unique opportunity to engage with the game on the field. During each Giants

home game, two fans are given an official Giants uniform and the role of fielding foul

balls and handing them to children in the crowd. As it is an expectedly popular program,

the demand for spots tends to be filled quickly and has become a bidding-option in the

Community Fund auctions. The Fields for Kids program, named in honor of former

president and managing general partner Peter A. Magowan, is a field renovation program

that has been in service since 1995. With the help of donations and partners such as the

Good Tidings Foundation, Fields for Kids has fully renovated more than twenty-three

youth baseball fields.

Partnerships and Sponsorship

The Giants Community Fund collaborates with several local and national

companies and organizations to continue working towards their goals and furthering their

impact on the community. These partners include W20, Good Tidings Foundation, Bank

of America, Chevron, Masons 4 Mitts, Norman S. Wright, and, most recently,

Americorps. W20 is a San Francisco -based network of marketing and communications

firms that helps the fund expand their volunteer, participant, and donor outreach. Through

media relations tactics, content strategy and analytics insight they help the fund engage

hard-to-reach audiences and areas. The Good Tidings Foundation is a children’s charity

that, since 1995, has worked to support arts, education, athletics, and dreams for youth in

communities of need. This support extends to the fund in various programs, including

Fields for Kids. The Bank of America serves as the Presenting Sponsor of the Junior

Giants program and through its partnership allows the Junior Giants to continue

developing and growing.

Some of the fund’s partnerships involve crucial support of certain recognition

days and events. The partnership with Chevron is focused on bringing STEM to Junior

Giants participants, most notably through “The Giant Launch” in which Junior Giants

teams explore the trajectory of a baseball with a launch angle lesson. Masons 4 Mitts

operates as a Masons of California program that partners with multiple MLB teams to

help underserved youth in California. Each baseball season, masonic lodges in San

Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego engage in friendly competition to bring baseball

to kids in those areas. Additionally, the MLB team from those regions presents a donation

check on Masons Night at each of their ballparks. Finally, the Giants Community Fund

was awarded an AmeriCorps grant this year, partnering them with a network of national

service programs devoted to improving lives and fostering civic engagement.

AmeriCorps will be working mostly with the Junior Giants program, offering lessons and

activities in character development, education, health, and bullying prevention training.

Fundraising and Marketing

As with any nonprofit organization, the Giants Community Fund employs several

fundraising and marketing practices and strategies to sustain their wide array of programs

and initiatives. In addition to standard online donations, the fund conducts their 50/50

Raffle, selling raffle tickets throughout each baseball season. Each home game, one fan

wins half of the total proceeds collected during that game and the other half is donated to

the Community Fund which in turn is used to support a variety of charities and

community programs. Other donation options include Legacy Giving and the Car

Donation Program which accepts cars, trucks, RVs, and even boats as benefits to the

Junior Giants program.

Along with donations, the Community Fund hosts monetary and supply drives

including the Glove Drive and Stretch Drive, both of which support the Junior Giants

Program. The Glove Drive was created in response to the 12,000 kids who participate in

Junior Giants but do not own their own glove. Presented by the Bank of America, the

annual drive asks for new or used gloves and offers donors a Willie McCovey jersey pin

or cable car pin. The Junior Giants Stretch Drive is named for the late Willie “Stretch”

McCovey. Since 2009, it has been dedicated to raising both money and awareness for the

Junior Giants program.

Lastly, the Community Fund utilizes awards and other forms of recognition to

show appreciation to those who support and participate in their programs and raise

awareness of their actions. The Isabelle Lemon Community Spirit Award is given to one

volunteer each year who “exemplifies the commitment to community service and ‘can-

do’ spirit of Giants Community Fund Board Member Isabelle Lemon.” The award winner

is honored during a home plate ceremony and receives a $2,500.00 grant for the nonprofit

organization to which they are committed as a volunteer. The Junior Giants Hall of Fame,

similar to the MLB Hall of Fame, “honors outstanding past contributions, recognizes

current achievements and showcases our leagues, coaches and lead organizers who have

helped to build the Junior Giants program over the years.”

A second Junior Giants recognition is the Harmon and Sue Burns Scholarship,

named in honor of the late Giants owners, which awards ten eighth-grade Junior Giants

with a $5,000.00 scholarship. The scholars are inducted into the Scholars Program and

are honored at a home plate ceremony during the previously mentioned Education Day.

Lastly, the Willie Mac Award, also named in honor of Willie McCovey, serves as the

Junior Giants version of the annual award given to a Giants player by his teammates. The

award goes to “one outstanding Junior Giants player and coach/team parent that best

represents their league… [who] exemplifies confidence, integrity, leadership, and

teamwork both on and off the field.” Once recipients are chosen by their league

commissioner, they and a guest are invited to attend a special luncheon after the season’s

end.

Chapter 4

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The San Francisco Giants Community Fund’s numerous programs, events, and

partnerships strive to enact positive and meaningful change in the Bay Area community,

the greater Northern California area and beyond. This concluding chapter includes the

following: a discussion of the findings, limitations of the research, conclusions based on

research questions, and recommendations for the future.

Discussion

Over the last few decades, the programs and events provided by the San Francisco

Giants Community Fund have had a profound positive impact throughout their local

community and beyond. According to Babiak et al. (2012), it is important that

professional sport teams and athletes make strong connections with the community,

particularly given the amount of scrutiny they receive from the media. Furthermore, as

stated by Carroll (1999), professional sport organizations have moral and discretionary

responsibilities for contributing their resources to the community. The Giants’

multifaceted programs focus on key areas of health, education, and violence prevention.

Implemented through special events and ongoing programs, these initiatives provide

multiple ways for fans to engage and show support. By offering free programs such as

Junior Giants and emphasizing female participation, they uphold the values of

accessibility and inclusivity. In the professional sport industry, the Giants an exemplary

team in terms of community development, philanthropic endeavors, and responsibly

utilizing their platform. As noted by Kott (2005), the celebrity status of professional sport

organizations allows them to act as an icon to promote the importance of philanthropy.

Given that their past actions and current practices align with the goals of a professional

sport organization, the San Francisco Giants should continue their pursuit of positive

community impact including the innovation and adaptation necessary to stay relevant and

applicable in this ever-changing society.

The San Francisco Giants Community Fund’s various partnerships and

sponsorships are mutually beneficial financially and socially. As noted by Diehl (2007),

the social importance of these partnerships lies in the idea that professional sport

organizations can effectively facilitate the achievement of the social objectives of their

non-profit partners. The Giant’s partnerships cover an array of local and national

organizations, including corporations, non-profits, and other professional sport teams.

This diversity of partners enables them to increase the range of their impact and

ultimately achieve more positive change in more communities. Within not only the MLB

but all industries, the Giants’ partnerships illustrate the benefits of cooperation and

collaboration, specifically demonstrating how much more can be accomplished by

multiple organizations coming together under a shared goal. While their current

repertoire of partners and sponsors has proven beneficial and successful, the Giants

should look to expand their partnerships to include new organizations such as

independent businesses and organizations that focus on areas or groups that the Giants

are not currently connected to.

The Giants Community Fund’s current fundraising and marketing practices are

sufficient but not as effective as they could be. While the fund is well supported and

financially stable, overall awareness of their programs and efforts is lacking. Many of

their marketing initiatives are passive and rely on fan initiation rather than encouraging

participation through engagement. Additionally, the Giants corporation must balance

their marketing funding between promotion of the team itself and promotion of their

community development programs. While it is important that both facets of the

corporation are supported, a stronger social media presence, cause-related marketing and

intentional messaging could greatly improve overall awareness of the Community Fund.

Du et al. (2010) points out that a consumer’s evaluations of a professional sport

organization may vary by how its philanthropic activities are described in a marketing

message along with how that message is distributed. Across the professional sport

industry, all teams should engage in cause-related marketing to properly promote their

good deeds in an intentional and effective manner. Although their current practices are

sufficient, there is certainly room for improvement in the Giants Community Funds’

fundraising and marketing. They need to put more emphasis on their community

development undertaking and utilize cause-related marketing strategies to highlight their

efforts and raise general awareness of the causes that they support.

There were multiple limitations that impacted this study. First, the research

collected for this study consisted solely of online resources accessed primarily through

digital databases. This restricted method could introduce bias by inhibiting access to

information that could have been useful for the case study. Most of the resources utilized

were case studies from related fields without direct examples from the MLB and did not

provide any personal experience from participants of the community development

programs. Access to interviews of people who participated in Junior Giants or other

programs or who worked for the Giants Community Fund Olympics could have added

valuable insight and therefore more credibility to the study. The researcher may have also

expressed bias due to their background as an athlete and their upbringing as a San

Francisco Giants fan. This could have led to a subconscious ignorance of negative

findings and disparate reporting of accomplishments.

Overall, the San Francisco Giants Community Fund is a commendable example of

conduct for professional sport organizations. They engage in inclusive, purposeful, multi-

faceted programming and events. They utilize a variety of partnerships to increase their

resources and achieve their goals of enacting positive impact in the community and

beyond. Given the extent of their accomplishments, they need to improve their marketing

to increase awareness and support of their initiatives.

Conclusions

Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions are drawn:

1. The San Francisco Giants Community Fund offers numerous programs and

events including Education Day, Until There’s A Cure Night, and their

flagship program Junior Giants.

2. The Giants Community Fund currently has several sponsorships and

partnerships with a wide variety of organizations including Good Tidings

Foundation, Bank of America, and Americorps.

3. The Giants Community Fund is currently utilizing passive marketing and

fundraising efforts that include the 50/50 Raffle, Glove Drive, and online

donation.

4. The programs and events currently being offered through the Giants

Community Fund are successfully improving communities through their

multi-faceted, accessible, and meaningful offerings.

5. The current partnerships and sponsorships of the Giants Community Fund are

beneficial to both the Giants Corporation and their partners in terms of

financial strength and social presence.

6. The fundraising and marketing practices currently being utilized by the Giants

Community Fund are sufficient in supporting their present endeavors but

could be greatly improved for future progress.

Recommendations

Based on the conclusions of this study, the following recommendations are made:

1. The professional sport industry should utilize its unique platform to emphasize

community development initiatives and philanthropic aims to achieve positive

impacts in their communities.

2. The San Francisco Giants Community Fund should continue their current

programming and event offerings and strive for innovation and adaptation in

progressing forward.

3. The Giants Community Fund should seek to strengthen their current sponsor

and partner relationships and expand their partnership to new areas and

organizations.

4. The Giants Community Fund should enhance their fundraising and marketing

efforts through cause-related marketing, intentional messaging, and overall

increased emphasis on highlighting their philanthropic actions.

5. Future research should conduct a comparative analysis between the San

Francisco Giants and another similarly established MLB team and incorporate

interviews from participants in the programs of both teams.

REFERENCES

Adams, K. (2018). Helen Keller: "Alone we can do so little. Together we can do so

much". American Foundation for the Blind. Retrieved from https://www.afb.org

Alsop, R. (2002). Perils of corporate philanthropy. Wall Street Journal, 16, 1-2.

Retrieved from wsj.com.

Armey, C. (2004). Inside and outside: Corporate America vs. the sports industry. Inside

the Minds: The Business of Sports, 65-80. doi:110.1320/j.1428-2004.04833.x

Babiak, K., Mills, B., Tainsky, S., & Juravich, M. (2012). An investigation into

professional athlete philanthropy: Why charity is part of the game. Journal of

Sport Management, 26(2), 159–176. doi:10.7712/jsm.2012.s6304

Babiak, K., & Wolfe, R. (2009). Determinants of corporate social responsibility in

professional sport: Internal and external factors. Journal of Sport Management,

23, 717–742. doi:10.4551/jsm.2009.s5221

Barbic, K. (2019). George Peabody. The Philanthropy Roundtable. Retrieved from

https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org

Bradish, C., & Cronin, J. J. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in sport. Journal of

Sport Management, 23(6), 691–697. doi:10.1123/jsm.2009.3.691

Brokenshaw, D. & Hodge, P. (1969). Community development: An interpretation. San

Francisco: Chandler.

Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional

construct. Business & society, 38(3), 268-295. doi:10.1177/000765039903800303

Cary, L. J. (1976). Community development as a process. Columbia: University of

Missouri Press.

Chekki, D. A. (1982). Community development in North America: Problems and

prospects. The Journal of Sociological Studies, 1(1), 31-43.

doi:10.2883/10.1103/jss.1.1.31

Diehl, D. (2007). The sports philanthropy project. The Robert Wood Johnson Anthology,

11, 1-15. doi:10.0081/j.2558-6.2238.09340.x

Draper, J.A. (1971). Citizen participation: Canada. Toronto: New Press.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate

social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International

Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8-19. doi:10.1111/j.1468-

2370.2009.00276.x

Grau, S. L., & Folse, J. A. G. (2007). Cause-related marketing (CRM): The influence of

donation proximity and message-framing cues on the less-involved

consumer. Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 19-33. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-

3367360402

Hassanian‐Moghaddam, H., Ghorbani, F., Rahimi, A., Farahani, T. F., Sani, P. S. V.,

Lewin, T. J., & Carter, G. L. (2018). Federation Internationale de Football

Association (FIFA) 2014 World Cup impact on hospital‐treated suicide attempt

(overdose) in Tehran. Suicide and Life‐Threatening Behavior, 48(3), 367-375.

doi:10-3.9821/sltb.483-2018

Hibbert, S., & Horne, S. (1996). Giving to charity: Questioning the donor decision

process. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(2). doi:10.1132/j.cm.1996.13.02

Inoue, Y., Mahan III, J. E., & Kent, A. (2013). Enhancing the benefits of professional

sport philanthropy: The roles of corporate ability and communication strategies.

Sport Management Review, 16(3), 314–325. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2013.10.003

Kern, W.S. (2000). The economics of sports. Detroit: WE Upjohn Institute.

Kott, A. (2005). The philanthropic power of sport. Foundation News and Commentary,

46(1), 20-25. doi:10.1282/134729283725124

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial

performance: Correlation or misspecification?. Strategic management journal,

21(5), 603-609. doi:10.1002/smj.124-1865

Noll, R. G. (2003). The organization of sports leagues. Oxford Review of Economic

Policy, 19(4), 530-551. doi:10.1177/101436902883254

Phifer, B. M. (1990). Community development in America: A brief history. Sociological

Practice, 8(1), 18-31. doi:10.1012/j.sp.6.8.18

Philanthropy New York. (2008). History of U.S. philanthropy. Philanthropy New York.

Retrieved from https://philanthropynewyork.org

Price Waterhouse Cooper. (2019, November). North America sports market size from

2009 to 2023 (in billion U.S. dollars). Statista. Retrieved from https://www-

statista-com

Roy, D. P., & Graeff, T. R. (2003). Consumer attitudes toward cause-related marketing

activities in professional sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12(3), 163-172.

doi:10.1782/j.smq.12.3.163

San Francisco Giants. (2020). San Francisco Giants history. Retrieved from

https://www.mlb.com/giants

Smith, A. C., & Westerbeek, H. M. (2007). Sport as a vehicle for deploying corporate

social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 25, 43-54.

doi:10.0411/j.cc.25.7.43

Summers, G. F. (1986). Rural community development. Annual Review of Sociology,

12(1), 347-371. doi:10.1032/j.ars.12.2.347

True, A. C. (1928). History of agricultural extension work in the United States: 1785-

1923. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Ullmann, A. A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the

relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic

performance of US firms. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540-557.

doi:10.1521/j.amr.10.3.540

Walker, M., Kent, A., & Vincent, J. (2010). Communicating socially responsible

initiatives: An analysis of US professional teams. Sport Marketing Quarterly,

19(4), 187-195. doi:10.2560/j.smq.19.10.187

Wallace, C. (2004). An insider’s look at-and love for-pro basketball. Inside the Minds:

The Business of Sports. Boston, MA: Aspatore, Inc. 27-48.

APPENDIXES

Appendix A

Instrument

INSTRUMENT

Area of department

Description of area

Additional comments

Fundraising

Marketing

Partnerships

Sponsorship

Donations

Events

Programs

MLB Initiatives