Systematic Change through Participatory Grant Making
The Other Foundation
For me, one of the biggest questions raised by The Other Foundation and their model of participatory grant making was how you move peer reviewers away from the here and now to focus on more strategic systems change. This was a challenge we came across whilst designing the Leaders with Lived Experience pilot programme at the National Lottery Community Fund. Can participatory grant making really create long lasting change?
This was particularly pertinent for The Other Foundation which focuses on LGBTI+ issues across Southern Africa, where, in places, this would involve funding legislative challenges rather than service provision to bring about legal protections, including decriminalising homosexuality. For other issues the field building that participatory grant making provides to a sector by strengthening and upskilling is enough to tweak systems to be more accessible or provide better provisions. But for such drastic and urgent change how do participatory approaches tackle such systemic challenges?
My time with the Other Foundation has really demonstrated how they have approached these challenges through their practices. This systematic change is the driver to their work and therefore the lense in which they approach their grant making.
Whilst in South Africa I had the privilege to attend their Kopano (from the Sotho n. [ko-pa-no]) meaning a gathering to address an important issue. This opportunity to bring a large number of activists, change makers and staff from the Foundation together to learn, convene, challenge and set the context is, as I have realised, a fundamental aspect of the participatory nature of their work. It allows them to shift learning in the sector, amongst their peer reviewers and within their grant holders to approach some of the toughest challenges they are attempting to solve. It is an excellent example of bringing knowledge from the grassroots, lived experience and learnt skills together to create the greatest change as a collective. This willingness to learn from all was really displayed in the culture of the Kopano where expertise from the panels welcomed challenges from the floor and regular breakout sessions on specific themes were facilitated by volunteers whilst staff, panellists and discussants shared experiences and solutions. It was clear from these discussions that those working on the ground knew that systems where broken and could vocalise how they needed them to be and by working as a collective more detailed solutions could be explored.
The most obvious example I saw of this was during a breakout session on working with the media where grassroots campaigners were voicing frustration at not being able to proofread articles before they were published. Journalists within the room then informed them that they could be sacked for sharing their articles. By sharing this knowledge, it allowed both journalists and campaigners to understand where each side was coming from and develop more understanding of how to create change.
The Kopano also feeds into the participatory process as it allows communities and peers to understand the work of others, they can share best practice allowing the attendees’ understanding and solutions to be strengthened when they return to their work. It will be interesting to see how the exchange of knowledge and ideas will shape the applications put forward at the next round of funding. This gathering of applicants, grant holders and community also allows a collective accountability for those who have received grants as well as providing an incentive to showcase successes as many of the peer reviewers will be selected from those attending the Kopano.
Samuel Shapiro, Research Coordinator at The Other Foundation, highlighted this fact:
“Kopano is part of participatory grant making. These conversations frame the funding discussions, peer reviewers [will often] come from this group of attendees… the conversations push the movement and communities to improve proposals and decisions. Relationships can be made that improve partnership, accountability and quality of decisions and proposals.”
The Kopano really demonstrated that having the space for communities to come together to learn and think is an extraordinary thing. It debunks the myth that those with lived experience of an issue or those working at the grass roots can’t work or think strategically. It puts into stark light that having the space, time and resource is often not afforded to those working on the front line.
As funders is it important to recognise the luxury we have to think and to ask ourselves how we can use our power and resources to help provide these spaces for our grant holders, applicants and the communities we work with. We need to recognise the impact that spaces and opportunities like this can have on strengthening the applications we receive and the sector as a whole.
How do we facilitate these conversations in a way that both pushes the sector to think more strategically but is also peer led? The Other Foundation achieve this by bringing together 30 of the sector’s leading activists and thinkers for a smaller pre-Kopano with The Other Foundation to define the key issues and develop an outline of the agenda for the main Kopano.
This approach goes some way to answering questions I had around who sets the strategy for the organisation, and who should. Is this the Foundation or the community? What do we do when these priorities don’t align? What do we mean by community in this instance? The Other Foundation supports work across 13 countries, each with their own challenges and contexts as well as hugely diverse community/communities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, gender non-conforming, intersex and other people. If these don’t align what do you change? The organisational strategy or the community you are working with? These questions are ones that I think each foundation needs to grapple with and it’s encouraging that The Other Foundation have used their participatory approach to ensure these big questions are answered collectively rather than being steered by a board or donors.
When speaking to Samuel I asked how to create the conditions to change the system. Samuel spoke about the importance of recruitment, for staff, trustees and peer reviewers:
“You need those who can change the conversations and dynamics, who can cultivate systems change, those who can shift the learning in the sector and who can create the environments to help make [the best] decisions.”
It was clear to see that this was the case within The Other Foundation, there was huge diversity in the voices I heard across all levels of the organisations and there was the opportunity for experiences to aid the work of the Foundation in different ways. I met peer reviewers who were now grant holders or staff members, grant holders who had gone on to become trustees, and staff who had been grant holders and speakers at the Kopano from across a range of backgrounds, including those who had yet to have interactions with the Foundation.
Neville Gabriel, CEO of The Other Foundation captured the Foundation’s role beautifully in his opening address at Kopano 2019:
“The Other Foundation sees the growth of activism across Southern Africa… We are at a tipping point in favour of irreversible change — we need to renew messages and challenges, to expand the influence of progressive change… Kopano is about stimulating discussions, The Other Foundation curates and organises the space then hands it over to the community.”
