Grant Holders at The Other Foundation
Whilst visiting The Other Foundation and spending time at the Kopano (from the Sotho n. [ko-pa-no] meaning a gathering to address an important issue), I was able to chat to a range of grant holders who had applied to the participatory fund.
I think it’s worth mentioning that, for a small minority of grant holders that I spoke to, the fact that a peer approach was used either didn’t register or was not of importance to them. They had applied to The Other Foundation purely to deliver their project/s and because the Foundation provided funding for LGBTQ issues that might not be funded elsewhere. They wanted to highlight with me more generalised criticisms of funders– such as lack of funding for core costs, funding for hidden costs and the lack of conversations between funders about who should fund the aspects that slip through the gaps.
However, in the main, grant holders spoke highly of the process. Siphokazi Nombande from Soweto Pride (an organisation that mobilises pride parades and events in Townships) spoke about the easy application process and that:
“the participatory methods were respected and liked by communities — it’s the people doing the work who make the decisions”.
Siphokazi also spoke about how staff at the Other Foundation supported them when the form was daunting, encouraging them to just write about what they were doing. I also spoke to Sanja Bornman from Lawyers for Human Rights who echoed the sentiment of a simple application process making it much less daunting. Sanja spent some time talking me through the application form they had submitted to The Other Foundation highlighting that the work required was proportional to the money requested, something that definitely wasn’t the case for other funders. Again, the peer review approach was highlighted as being trusted and well regarded as communities who know what is happening on the ground make the decisions.
Nandi Msezane who runs PLUS the LGBTI+ Business Network (http://lgbtiplus.com/) again mirrored the above comments:
“[The Other Foundation] tries to meet organisations where they are, it’s not restrictive for small or new organisations. It’s not asking for big log frames or theories of change”.
Nandi spoke about the rigorous process that the peer reviewers go through and the importance for the community to see that. With such a wide cohort of peer reviewers this becomes more or less representative of the communities which means more informed and stronger decisions. Having cohorts of peer reviewers who then go on to run projects or work in this space means that:
“there’s an ownership of what creates change in communities and this increases systematic thinking within the sector”.
Whilst at the Kopano a discussant challenged the funders in the room to really understand the partnerships they are funding and to understand the validity of organisations who claim that they are working with the grassroots:
“The people getting the money are sat in coffee shops with funders talking about my life”.
This is a comment that resonates well with my experience in funding and how difficult it is sitting outside a community to truly understand when a partnership is genuine and where an organisation has been tokenistically added onto a funding application. Participatory grant making is a way to spot and reduce this bad practice.
Through my conversations the relational aspects of The Other Foundations approach have shone through, highlighting the importance of building relationships with organisations. It’s important to work closely to support applicants to complete the forms and break down the fears and assumptions that they often make about funders based on how we as a sector have conducted philanthropy over the decades. It’s important to recognise that we can’t just change the questions on a form and assume that the years of baggage that we, as funders, have created will just disappear. We have to support applicants to understand this different approach otherwise they can assume hidden requirements or that funders are looking for some ‘secret code or language’ as we might have done in the past.
Creating an application process that is proportional and accessible is vital and The Other Foundation’s simple approach was applauded by many I spoke to, especially when compared to long and onerous applications for other funders. These insights demonstrate how important it is to user test application forms/processes so that we are asking questions that make sense to the people we are encouraging to apply. We should also be self-reflective, looking at our questions and asking ourselves ‘why are we asking that?’.
I think it’s important to recognise that when The Other Foundation do their due diligence checks this often happen once an applicant has been recommended for funding. This way of working reduces the work for applicants, as only those successful in the peer review process need to supply this extra information. It also reduces staff time as they are not having to run checks on organisations who are not likely to be successful. Once an organisation has been recommended at peer review, had due diligence checks conducted and then signed off by the trustee board they receive funding.
For some grant holders knowing that the applications are peer reviewed gives them much greater confidence in the process, and in some cases can make the acceptance of a no decision easier. Communities can feel closer to decisions and more brought into the process, they may actively want to understand who was funded and explore connections and learning between applicants, grant holders, peer reviewers and funding staff. I think this connection and communication around what has been funded and why; who has been a peer reviewer and why can be really tricky for funders and is part of the process which is often neglected as we become wrapped up in back-office work e.g. setting up grants, due diligence checks and moving onto the next round of funding. This closing the circle and keeping communities informed is an important part of the process that helps to build transparency and trust and shouldn’t be underestimated.
