How do we shift the power to implementing organisations with lived experience of the social issues we are collectively trying to tackle?

With Trust Based Philanthropy and Flexible Funding and collaborative philanthropy and community based philanthropy (See the GFCF) and decolonising development there seems to be an increased awareness across the socialsector that giving should be informed by the needs and knowledge of those closest to the problem.

And that "educated experts" in typically western head offices, are not likely to have all the answers and therefore should be mindful of their grantees time and experience.

This is not a new idea. Though we are still far from realising it.

In 2016 the Grand Bargain was founded at the World Humanitarian Summit exactly because it recognised that only 0.2% of philanthropic funding - worldwide! - was being allocated to national or local / sub-national organisations.

And funding - whether we like it or not - is a partial reflection of where power sits.

7 years later there are still reports from across the board that funding is not flowing where it should.

“The State of Cities Climate Finance” Report issued by C40 shows that “there is not enough climate investment flowing to urban areas in developing countries”.

It continues to state that of the total USD 384bn for climate finance given to cities in 2017/2018, only USD 4bn and USD 3bn were allocated respectively to South-Asia and Sub-saharan Africa.

The Grand Bargain 2022 annual report confirms that despite constituents’ efforts, quality (long-term unrestricted) funding is largely unavailable, and mostly only goes to multilateral organisations and INGOs not local actors.

It strikes me that that these seemingly separate issues of philanthropy, private and public sector funding not flowing to people that have the potential, expertise and trust-based networks to tackle these issues locally are in fact different sides of the same fundamental problem:

We have inherited a philanthropic and development funding system that relies on international intermediaries and has grown so heavy with bureaucracy and approval processes that it has lost it’s ability to enact the nimble flexibility and responsiveness our world crises require.

Here are a few signs its just not working:

Top-down changes in policies rely on consortiums publishing brilliant analytical thinking in research papers and reports, but by the time these are approved and disseminated data is likely already 3-5 years out of date. To change the system we need to understand the system. And because the system is constantly shifting on it’s own we need new ways to understand how money is flowing today, not 5 years ago.

New words and terminologies are used to build momentum, but also to hide inaction and draw attention to new shiny objects. Language can be powerful to draw people together but it can also distract us. We need more unifying movements showing how existing efforts overlap and are working towards similar goals so we can leverage each other’s work and more easily see how our own interests align with those of many other stakeholders.

Local actors are still only getting a fraction of international philanthropic and development funding (whether they be local NGOs or local governments). There are so many reports stating this as a fact, but what is often less highlighted are the fundamental “elephant in the room” root causes and drivers perpetuating this situation. One of them is transparency about our true incentives. Transparency doesn’t just mean being open when we are showing off something we are proud of, it means holding ourselves accountable to a higher standard when it is uncomfortable too and sharing our true interests and needs even when they may seem less popular. e.g. admitting that shifting the power would require multilateral organisations to redefine their roles. We just can’t solve a problem if we are each working towards different primary objectives and not being upfront about it.

Complicated, time-consuming often biased grant application processes are still the norm. And though the likes of trust based philanthropy project and flexible funding pioneers IVAR are working hard to set new standards, adoption is slow.

Of course, safe to say, I do not have a magic bullet that can instantly make all the complexities of development politics, entrenched ways of thinking and international legal and financial systems disappear.

But here are a few questions I think we should be asking ourselves, especially if we are responsible for allocating funding:

1) Let’s be honest have I done my work in trying to understand the problem space and gather publicly available information on the grantees I am interested in? Or am I playing the “my experience/position/access to funding trumps all card” and asking others to give me information I could procure myself?

Some funders like the Conservation Collective employee research teams to understand what issues are affecting a specific area, BEFORE even deciding whether to intervene in a region.

More often than not non-profits are asked to speak at conferences, provide strategies and expert advice for free (and they accept in the hope of nurturing long-term funding relationships).

This is a power play.

Expertise and time should be paid for not taken advantage of especially in the context of already lopsided power dynamics.

Being informed also means being aware of one’s own biases and beliefs and recognising when we need to get outside advice to bridge our gap in understanding.

2) Do I know what I want to fund or do I need help figuring that out?

We all too often assume that funders know it all, and everything is clear their side of the pond. But deciding what to fund and how can be a mammoth and daunting task and it is unrealistic to assume all funders have already decided, also because in some cases you don’t know what you want until you see it.

So how can we devise grant processes that both allow funders to iterate and build clarity on their own strategic priorities, without wasting a ton of grantees time?

Some ideas already put forward by others are to compensate grantees for their time as they are providing advisory services or to review rejected applications to extract unspoken rules of funding.

3) Am I taking responsibility for the role I play in perpetuating power dynamics or am I blaming externalities?

It is all to easy to blame others. Problem is this means no one really owns the problem and it means we are basically ignoring the role we each play.

And we all play a role.

Statements like “I can’t allocate funding because my funder didn’t give me enough flexible funding” perpetuate the change.

Accepting unreasonable funding conditions from a funder, knowing the impact this will have on grantees down the line is an active choice.

So, let’s look at those choices and identify areas where we can do better.

4) Have I put myself in my grantee’s shoes (and do I even have access to the right experience and information to do that)?

Do I know through experience what impact my decisions and behaviours will have on organisations I fund? If we don’t is there any way we can get access to that information through grantee feedback or advisory groups?

5) What level and depth of conversation am I open to having realistically with my grantees?

Size and number of grantees as well as funder staffing can ironically influence the quality of interactions with applying grantees. (Funders work within resourcing constraints too!)

Being realistic about what is possible and what values as a funder we want to protray can help us avoid the “too many applicants applied” statement and instead offer constructive feedback.

Someone is presumably already taking the time to screen applications and in making their decisions has bullet points in their head – e.g. “too experienced, not clear, not relevant experience” - how long would it really take for this precious feedback to be shared.

I suspect that most funders don’t share feedback because of the fear it might be contested, but if instead policies clearly state the purpose of providing feedback is purely for development purposes is there no world where this is possible?

Let’s also not forget communication is a two-way street it would be nice if funders give something back in exchange for receiving carefully curated ideas for new programmes from grantees.

6) How will I manage change during my funding journey?

Change and risks are inevitable, not talking about them and pretending they don’t exist, or writing RFPs which attribute superhuman abilities to grantees expecting them to achieve all no matter what the circumstances don’t help anyone.

Why not be proactive instead and be prepared to adapt to change when it happens?

Check out my earlier newsletter on contracts for more info on this or my course Roadmap to Self-Reliance that has a whole section on change management.

So what do you say?

If each funder:

Knew their problem space,

Acted based on data and facts not just beliefs,

Knew exactly what they wanted to fund,

Understood their target grantees well enough to be able to take responsibility for the impact of their decisions on others and

Had a clear game plan setting out the most appropriate ways of keeping back and forth communication open and

Worked with their grantees to manage change (instead of against them) would trust based philanthropy flexible funding and localisation agendas make more progress?

I want to know what questions or ideas we should add to this list, so please add them below!

​​As always, feel free to reach out to chat too. If this is something affecting your work, know I am always available to think through solutions together.