Committee for Conflict Transformation Support |
CCTS
|
Funding Conflict Transformation: Money, Power and Accountability -
|
||
| a discussion paper by Juliet Prager, Deputy Trust Secretary, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust As most readers know too well, funding for conflict transformation is limited, fragmented and difficult to define. Consequently, there can’t be a general funder’s perspective, and as somebody working within a relatively unusual independent grant-making trust, I’m aware of the limitations of trying to reflect on the whole field of funding. It would be interesting to consider academic research into grant-making in the UK: but there is almost none. The handful of researchers who have looked at independent grant-making trusts acknowledge that data is limited and there is, historically, a lack of transparency(1). I don’t know of any research which looks at grant-making more broadly, including for example government and community funders. What is funding? Money can come from many sources – from governments, local authorities, private and public businesses, charities and grant-making trusts, via political parties, trades unions and faith groups to individual donations and community events. I have the sense that people needing to raise money generally turn to the methods they know best, and rarely consider what can and should be funded from what source. If fundraisers did have the time and energy to reflect on where they should get their money, they’d need to be open-minded about the answers to several questions. How much money is needed? By when, and for how long? Which potential funders share the concerns? What restrictions might they impose? What are the likely benefits on both sides? In this paper I will argue that fundraising can and possibly should be as much about building community as raising money. Auctions of promises or carols-and-mince-pie evenings help to build a sense of belonging and commitment between members and supporters of the PTA or the Nicaragua Solidarity Group. I suggest that this sense of community can also exist in other funding relationships; and that, as in any relationship, there are powers and responsibilities on both sides, which are closely interconnected. It’s worth referring to the issue of where the money comes from, and some of the dilemmas that creates. The funding world can be exciting, creative and empowering; but it can also be uncomfortable. We all know that UK Lottery money comes largely from the poor. Government funds come from taxpayers, who have little control over national budgets. Some people turn to the JRCT for funds on the grounds that a Quaker Trust with an ethical investment policy is a ‘cleaner’ source of money than others; but JRCT still invests in the stock market, and grants are available only because of an economic system which some people would despise. No funding relationship is straightforward. Power and funding What power do funders have? Most obviously, they have something that other people want – money – but the real power lies in what and how they choose to fund. Some of those choices may have been determined by others (for example by a trust deed or a government policy). Other choices are more tactical. Some are made on the basis of extensive research and consideration, while others are subconscious. To be a funder you have to give money away – which can’t be done unless there’s something or someone to give it to. While funding can empower people working for change, so those people can empower the funders, giving them at least a raison d’etre. In fact, funders often have more than money to share with the people being funded. They may have an overview of the situation. They may have experience, expertise and even specific skills that can be shared with the recipient. They may have some flexibility and the ability to respond quickly to changes. They may have useful contacts, often built up over years of involvement in an area of work. Personally, I believe that money can be used most effectively when it is used by people with the passion, commitment and capacity to do something. But this view – that the grant relationship should be based on ‘power with’ rather than ‘power over’ – is not, and perhaps should not be, shared by all funders. A government department may have to implement a policy, whether or not there are people ‘out there’ who are keen to make it happen. For some funders, a sense that nobody is doing the work that needs to be done may lead to becoming ‘proactive’ or even ‘operating’ bodies. When funders are proactive, they see a need and then ask people to address it. Some funders combine that approach with a pure grant-making role. The Compagnia di San Paolo, based in Turin, with an education programme and a concern for social justice, gives grants to NGOs; but it has also initiated funding to a state school with a relatively large percentage of refugee pupils. The aim is to make the school desirable, so that other parents are keen to send their children there. In some cases, funders decide the task can best be done by themselves – for example, the German-based Bertlesmann Foundation spends nearly all its programme funds on employing researchers and campaigners: its mission is ‘to perceive problems within society, to help solve them by developing exemplary models with experts from practical and theoretical fields, and to put these models into effect in society’. It’s worth noting that while some independent grant-making seems to be moving in this direction, some governments have been moving in the other direction. There can be problems with these approaches. When organisations without a rooted perspective develop new work, there is a danger of competing with or even undermining others. But if the aim is to be effective and to promote change in a certain direction, this may not be the primary concern. I argue that there may be two drivers for funders deciding whether to focus only on grant-making or whether to develop proactive work, or to be an operating body. One is that they have a clear value base and clear vision: they understand what they want to achieve and how they want to achieve it. The other is that in effect the funder doesn’t know what they are doing. It may not be possible from the outside to assess which of these dynamics is in place; but if it is, then fundraisers need to understand it, and to understand the reasons. Responsible grant-making It is my experience that independent funders, and some staff members in larger funding bodies, are extremely aware of the need to behave responsibly (you may not agree, and as I’ll explore later, that sense of responsibility may be manifested in different ways). Many have been grant-seekers at some time, and appreciate the pressures. In the UK there are guidelines for funders – published by the Association of Charitable Foundations(2) and agreed by the Home Office on behalf of central Government. Essentially, they are focused on independent grant-making bodies (but grant seekers might find it helpful to gauge the behaviour of other funders against these guidelines). They largely cover procedural matters. For example, access should be open to all, with funding opportunities publicised in directories, leaflets and the media; timetables and procedures should be published; payment procedures should be clear and appropriate; the use of funds should be monitored in an appropriate way; and it may be helpful to explain to unsuccessful applicants the reasons they have been turned down. Most of these guidelines, in my view, are uncontroversial. (They are of course unenforceable guidelines, mostly written in conditional language.) But inevitably they are interpreted very differently by grant-making trusts, which are all different and which are usually fiercely independent by nature. Funders generally want most of their money to be used for grants, which means that their approach must be proportionate. As one example, how widely should a funder publicise the availability of its grants? I argue that there should be no difficulty for any funder in agreeing for its details to be included in one of the grant-making directories (although some would disagree); but if you can only give away £5,000 a year, for work with the elderly in the Borough of Wandsworth, it’s not helpful to anyone to advertise in the Yorkshire Post. As another example, JRCT’s experience is that applicants value the opportunity of meeting with some of the Trustees who will be making the final decision. But even within the UK this costs between £150 and £600, plus about six hours of volunteer time, for each application. That may be reasonable when the decision is whether to give away £150,000 – but less reasonable for £1,000. Understandably, smaller funders, particularly those with no staff, avoid that sort of approach. On the other hand, I have heard – anecdotally – that some government departments with enormous budgets lack the level of resources (in terms of staff and expertise) needed to facilitate responsible grant-making. Sometimes funders have to make decisions which may not be popular with people in the field. At these times, of course it’s important to act in a way that takes account of those who will be affected – both the immediate recipients and (if they are different people) the eventual beneficiaries. That may include consulting recipients, explaining changes clearly and giving good notice of changes to individual grants or to funding programmes. However, even ‘responsible’ funders generally won’t alter decisions once they’ve been taken. Generally, those decisions will have been taken for reasons that are sound, even if they’re not reasons that the applicant would agree with. I acknowledge that, because power is involved, it isn’t always easy for the funder or a rejected grant seeker to explain and to understand those reasons, particularly in the shorter term. A constructive relationship between a funder and potential grantees involves honest dialogue between people who are prepared to be open to hearing each other. However, this would require other attributes – sufficient capacity and a longer term commitment on both sides, along with an ability to step back from the immediate issues. Sometimes, funders have to make an investment in these areas, in order to facilitate a genuinely helpful relationship. The difficult issues The complexity of power relationships means that there are many difficult issues for funders and grantees. Here, I’m going to highlight a few: how funders are informed; honesty; openness and transparency; evaluation; and models of change. I believe that funders should work hard to be as well-informed as possible about the context in which we’re funding, and relevant issues. That’s not always a straightforward task. It’s relatively simple to keep abreast of developments through the broader media and through published newsletters: but much of the real news isn’t reported there. A good funding relationship involves a lot of information being fed back from the group to the funder. It’s harder – sometimes impossible – for funders to find out the inside information from groups they’re not funding. A relationship with responsibilities on both sides also needs trust and honesty from both. Funders who want to be accessible should be clear about what they fund and in what way. But how far should there be some flexibility, allowing for the possibility of funding new and creative initiatives? It is important for both funders and fundraisers to try to understand what lies behind each other’s language. However, there are dangers in trying too hard to fit into a funder’s criteria. JRCT receives many applications for projects which have clearly been designed to try to fit into our criteria – even though that’s not really what the applicant wants to do. They are almost all a waste of time, especially for the applicant (they generally take less than a minute for funders to assess and put on the ‘refusal’ pile). It’s a much better use of time to explain honestly what you want to do. Creative funders may want to find a way of offering a grant. Non-creative funders won’t bother either way. Funders usually want their money to be effective. A good funder responds positively when a grantee is going through difficulties – for example, we might extend the grant period, pay funds up-front, add a small amount to the grant, provide mediation or technical advice, or just offer moral support – but we can’t do that unless the grantee tells us what’s really happening. And what about openness and transparency? The appropriate level of transparency will depend on circumstances, and is more usefully seen as a continuum than a cut-off point. Publicly funded bodies have to be completely open, while the amount of money you choose to give to a beggar can remain private between the two of you. JRCT has been concerned throughout its 100-year life to improve accountability in public life. We work hard to make our decision-making as open and accessible as possible, and to that end we publish lists of grants; but we retain the right to withhold some details. In the past that might have included not publishing grants made to people facing state oppression under the apartheid regime; or those doing particularly sensitive work in conflict areas. I know that a major bone of contention between the people doing the work and the people funding them, is evaluation. Increasingly funders feel they have to evaluate, often to the disgruntlement of grant-holders. It’s true to say that there is evidence that evaluation is increasingly seen as an important aspect of the process of grant-making(3). I’m only aware of one set of researchers looking at how funders evaluate. The group found that there was some confusion in the way that evaluations were set up(4). Perhaps more importantly, although funders may undertake formal evaluations, they are still likely to base decisions on non-formal processes(5). In my experience, independent foundations often make good decisions, but they tend to do so informally, based on long-term experience, rather than formally with a rational measurement of indicators based on a short-term evaluation(6). Without exploring evaluation techniques in depth here, I would argue that it isn’t good enough simply to dismiss formal evaluation techniques. However, we all – both the funders and the people doing the work – need to understand evaluation better, and to develop creative approaches that are both relevant and appropriate to the situation. Another area that we might usefully explore is how far grant-making bodies consider, overtly, how change happens. Again, my own experience that this is not often done consciously(7). In his book about the impact of US grant-making foundations on the peace movement, Tirman argues that foundations should do more to understand social change. He describes many donors’ ‘casualness of thinking’ about social change, and suggests that ‘high-performance philanthropy flows from a grounded theory of how social change occurs’(8). Again, I don’t suggest that grant-making foundations are necessarily doing this badly. But there is some evidence that the right-wing has a much more strategic approach to funding, supporting key individuals over long periods(9). There are efforts to address this amongst progressive funders; but to some extent good grant-making practice – equal opportunities, open access, performance measurement, transparency – can mitigate against this. Unfortunately, so can short-term and politically-focused approaches. At the same time, I would suggest that this is also a deficit within the broader peace movement. I have seen too many applications from groups and individuals who simply assume that there is one way – theirs – to save the world. What is your model of change? How do you implement it in the complex environment that you’re working in? And, how do you explain your approach to funders? This may bring us back to one of my first points, and help us to understand why some funders are more appropriate than others. Most funders have some value base, which it is worth understanding. Those values will influence not just the issues they fund, but also the sort of organisation they fund and the way that they work. The Community Fund, which raises income from the National Lottery, has to be seen to give out grants in a way which is fair. Consequently, it has strict criteria in relation to equal opportunities and clear guidelines about levels of deprivation, backed up by solid research; and will refuse applications which don’t meet the criteria. That ‘tick box’ approach would be quite inappropriate for the Network for Social Change, which is not publicly accountable and which exists to take collaborative action to fund social change projects. Another example is the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) which seeks ‘to deepen understanding, promote collaboration and stimulate exchange between Americans and Europeans’. At first glance, it might be an ideal source of funding for peace-related transatlantic dialogue. But GMF’s website explains that it was set up as a memorial to the Marshall Plan, which saw the US as having a pivotal and leading role in ‘the return of normal economic health to the world’. If GMF’s values are the same as yours, or if you can express yours in a way that GMF will understand and find relevant, then I’d suggest that you have a better chance of getting a grant from it. Back to the beginning Money is a difficult issue that shapes all of our lives but which we rarely discuss. (According to one Quaker who researched attitudes to money, even people brought up within the same family may have different perceptions about whether they are wealthy or poor(10).) How many of us talk openly about our income or our spending choices beyond our closest friends and family? How many self-employed people actually charge a reasonable amount for their work? And what’s reasonable anyway? It isn’t easy to ask for money; and giving money away responsibly can be incredibly complex. I would encourage anyone involved in that process, in any role, to think carefully about what it looks like from the other side. When money, people’s livelihoods, ideas and actions are at stake, it can be extremely difficult to be objective about this. Like any work for peace, the process involves listening, hearing, and being ready to change our views and our actions. |
||
(1)Vincent, J and Pharoah, C (2000) Patterns of Independent Grant-Making in the UK: a survey of grants made by independent trusts and foundations Kent: Charities Aid Foundation |
||
|
newsletter | ccts | top |
||