Experience of Peer Reviewers at The Other Foundation
Throughout my conversations with a range of grant holders, staff, peer reviewers and trustees it has become clear that the impact of a participatory approach has wide-ranging impacts, not just on those involved in the process but also on the types of decisions made and the strength of the sector.
I spent time with Thandeka Mukuku who is originally from Zimbabwe and was involved in working within the artist community encouraging play writes, dancers and performers to include small elements of LGBTI dialogue or story lines within their work. Though this, Thandeka was encouraged to volunteer at a Kopano and become a peer reviewer for the Other Foundation. Thandeka described this experience as:
“Life changing for me. It’s an incredible opportunity — a chance to travel and change lives. I was left with a sense of wow”.
In order to become a peer reviewer, you have to submit an application, CV and declaration of interest which are then assessed by staff at the Other Foundation to choose 13–16 peer reviewers for each round. Most of the peer reviewers I spoke to had been encouraged to apply by someone else, either a staff member, previous peer reviewer or trustee. They were unlikely to have thought about or feel confident enough to apply if this hadn’t have happened. Thandeka said that as the application process is very reflective it really helps you realise that you are capable.
On the process of being a peer reviewer, Thandeka reflected on how overwhelming it could be; the speed at which you need to read a large volume of concept notes and having two very intense decision-making days was draining but exciting. As a peer reviewer Thandeka found the process not overly clear meaning they didn’t understand why the timelines were so short. Now working for the Other Foundation, Thandeka understands why this is but felt more clarity would have been helpful particularly if this is a new and overwhelming process for some. Thandeka suggested that a phone call or skype call alongside an email with all the details may have clarified this and allowed peer reviewers to ask questions manage expectations for workload and what was going to happen. This again highlights the importance of relationship building to understand where each person is coming from and that putting in the work beforehand can make the decision making easier on the day. The peer review process was also challenging because it involved a huge shift in the way that peer reviewers had to think about not only the work of others but also themselves.
“It meant I had to think like a funder, my mind shifted. I had to see how things are aligned and I needed to see the bigger picture. This opportunity made me want to be part of the bigger picture…Everything I thought I knew about funding was wrong.”
After being a peer reviewer Thandeka started working at the Other Foundation as a Donor Reporting Officer, helping the organisation to compile reporting on the work they fund and the state of the sector. Being a peer reviewer and a volunteer at Kopano made Thandeka want to be part of the community that The Other Foundation has created. The Kopanos were a large part of this, allowing peer reviewers to put names to the applications and work they were reading about, which enabled them to witness what organisations were doing, what they were achieving and to be able to hold them to account. It’s an opportunity to understand what’s going on and to ask questions.
“There’s a sense of community and belonging, it makes me want to get involved in everything — it’s our Foundation.”
Whilst at the Kopano I also had the opportunity to spend time with Lwazi Mulaudi who is a founding member of Parents of Families of South African Queers (PFSAQ). Lwazi reflected on the opportunity to learn what donors are looking at within applications.
“It was good to know it wasn’t about perfect English, it was about a clear idea and strategy.”
It’s interesting to know that this was a key reflection and was something the decision-making process had managed to achieve as in some foundations the level of written English in an application could have a fundamental impact on the decision a funder makes. This is an important challenge to funders to look beyond the best written and look to the best ideas, concepts and approaches.
Lwazi also talked about how much of a learning experience being a peer reviewer had been despite it being hard work and a lot of travel.
“It helps a lot — you know what donors are looking at. You learn the importance of clarity. It let me know who else was doing things so we aren’t duplicating and solidified the importance of what my organisation is doing. I now know the who, what, when and how [the sector is tackling issues]… I can reflect on past work and other grants I’ve submitted and realise why I didn’t get it…It’s made applying for other applications easier”
“You think, think and think again.”
For Lwazi the opportunity to be a peer reviewer was amazing and the application process to become a peer review meant that it wasn’t just the ‘known’ faces or those with widely recognised profiles who were getting the opportunity but a mix of peer reviewers from different countries, backgrounds and areas of work again making the decisions stronger.
The integrity of the discussions and decisions were important for Lwazi. Because of the robust process and wide range of peer reviewers, Lwazi thought it would be difficult to ‘sabotage’ the process as the range of peer reviewers knew the sector and could challenge and champion the applications. That collective knowledge meant that although it was difficult to narrow it down the elimination process was fair and robust.
My reflections
Being able to spend time understanding the experience of peer reviewers has been incredibly insightful. The main take away from this is the benefits of being a peer reviewer are vast. This opportunity enables individuals in increase their confidence, knowledge, broaden networks, improve their strategic and systematic thinking and even enable them to seek a change in career direction. Organisationally, being a peer reviewer can improve their future funding bids therefore increasing income, helps to re-align work based on understanding gaps in provision as well as strengthening their approaches by learning from others best practice. The decisions that are made are stronger as they are made based on a wide range of expertise and knowledge from specific areas and communities.
Collectively as more and more peer reviewers are involved in each round of funding the wider the impact of the participatory process across the sector. Widening out this experience to a range of people challenges the whole sector to be more ambitious, effective and connected which in turn improves the lives of LGBTQI communities across Southern Africa. It would be interesting to capture and understand the wider (and longer term) impact of being a peer reviewer by exploring what individuals and their organisations/projects have achieved in the years after the experience and the implications of these achievements on the sector as a whole.
In the UK, where staff and trustees in foundations predominately come from similar (privileged) backgrounds, the opportunity to provide experience skills to a range of people who might not otherwise have access to such training or decision-making can also in turn lead to those people then going onto becoming paid staff members and/or trustees within foundations. Not only does this provide opportunities to those individuals but also helps to diversify staff and expand the knowledge and expertise of teams and the wider funding sector.
