- Over the past year, FRC has been speaking to a diverse set of people on community-led change. The overarching theme — Rooting for change: trust-based philanthropy for community led change – was a set of conversations between grant-makers, grassroots organizations, and social researchers. Explicating from their knowledge and experiences the conversations focused on the various aspects of trust-based philanthropy. The ensuing discussions explored the importance of flexible funding, de-jargonizing the concept of trust-based philanthropy, assessing trust and accountability, experimentation and failure, and issues concerning language, which are intrinsic to interrelationships in trust-based funding. The following sub-sections elaborate on the conversations that transpired with regard to the aforementioned issues.
Trust-based Philanthropy (TBP) and nascent organisations
The discussion highlighted that funding relationships are often based on accountability of implementation. This limited notion of accountability, based only on implementation, frequently employed by funders for evaluating the diligence of fund-recipients function as a major impediment for organizations. The discussion underscored that the conception of trust based on this narrow notion of accountability is restrictive; averting experiments and creativity, dismissing the scope and space for failure, which is a valuable lesson for growth. The conversation highlighted that lack of trust in such funding relationships results in constant questioning by the funders, which comes across as invasive scrutiny. This one-sided scrutiny indicates a central issue of asymmetrical power dynamics in traditional funding relationships. In such instances of unequal funding interrelationship, grant-recipient-organisations may either concede and comply to the demands of the funders which can be restrictive for their innovation and growth. Or they can choose to exercise their agency and cease receiving funds, or more importantly seek alternative funding sources and partnerships having mutual respect and support for each other’s work and objectives.
TBP believes in funders approaching their partners from a place of trust and collaboration rather than compliance and control. TBP ensures that this is rooted in centering relationships, redistributing power, mutual accountability and openness to learning.
In this context, trust-based philanthropy (TBP) based on the principle of mutual accountability between both grant-recipients and funders provides an effective alternative redressing the hierarchy in traditional funding practices. It shifts away from the traditional funding power dynamics. TBP believes in funders approaching their partners from a place of trust and collaboration rather than compliance and control. Thus, emphasising that trust should not and does not need to translate to restriction. It was also acknowledged that while TBP ideally supports unrestricted funding, yet given various country-based compliance requirements, funding can exist in both restrictive and unrestrictive forms. The latter in the form of flexible funding is crucial for nascent and grassroots organisations which reposits trust in the organisation based on the needs of both the organisations and the communities they work with. TBP ensures that this is rooted in centering relationships, redistributing power, mutual accountability and openness to learning. Thus, underlining TBP’s potential as an effective alternative practice facilitating greater agency for funded organizations.
Practicing trust-based philanthropy
Following from the above, the conversation went on to explore the importance of flexible funding in the philanthropy sector. The conversation raised the issue of innovation — a significant requirement in funding relationships. It also emphasised that innovation can also be intertwined with failure — an aspect that is rarely acknowledged in traditional funding practices. However, flexible funding based on TBP offers an alternative allowing room for failure during the innovation process. The discussion also specified other merits of adopting flexible funding in trust-based philanthropy, suggesting that flexible funding allows for greater adaptability to fund recipients and respects the agency of the recipient organisations. Moreover, the conversation engaged with the concept of flexible funding as a potential catalyst for facilitating long-term relationship between funders and funded groups, permitting greater scope for accommodation and assistance in the event of unforeseen circumstances. Thus, flexible funding based on trust-based philanthropy can function on three levels:
- Programmatic level – whereby this model increases the success rate of the program by allowing greater agency during the innovation process and considering failure positively.
- Organizational level – assists by creating spaces and addressing the developmental for robust organizations.
- Interpersonal level – facilitating long term relationships whereby funding becomes lived experiences for all parties involved, bringing them closer to the people and community that they work with.
The discussion emphasised on the need for egalitarian and more power diffused relationships in funding and grant-making based on trust-based philanthropy.
Flexible funding based on TBP offers an alternative allowing room for failure during the innovation process.
Areas of effective intervention grounded in TBP/flexible funding
The conversation centred on the issue of embedding TBP in policy landscape and defining flexible funding as an effective intervention to foster meaningful philanthropy. The discussion brought to fore that the best way to embed TBP into the policy landscape is for donors to start practicing flexible funding at the grassroots. Additionally, the conversation examined the concept of impact as a key parameter for assessing organisational efforts in the social sector. Specifying the popularity of this concept, the discussion highlighted that studies predominantly available on policy works in the social sector are engaged in understanding why policy fails instead of examining how policy works. The discussion put forth that these existing studies tend to focus on understanding and explaining policy failures rather than acknowledging how failure itself can serve as an indicator of impact. Simultaneously, it was observed that “adaptability to fail, learn, and improve is fundamental for the funded organizations” and underscored that this fundamental aspect contextualises the need for adopting flexible funding models.
Furthermore, the conversation accentuated relationship building and networking as requisites for flexible funding. Emphasising, in order to create flexible sources of funding, current funders and partners should introduce other funders to recipients and create inclusive spaces where grassroots and local organizations can be invited to.
The conversation also focused on the key role that language plays in both limiting and facilitating access to funding. Bringing to attention the significance of multilingualism in the funding process, identifying it as the proper means for facilitating increased accessibility.
Accountability in TBP
The overall conversation expressed the need to adopt flexibility in funding practices based on TBP to accommodate the needs of local and nascent organisations. However, there were also concerns raised on whether this model can easily succumb to the problem of adhocism, and lack of accountability. Reflections and discussions based on experiences and practices clarified that in TBP there is no scope for adhocism, since adhocism is antithetical to trust whereby presence of one will negate the presence of the other. This is also closely linked to practicing accountability. The conversations mapped out that failure in such instances necessitates the highest responsibility on part of the fund recipients, since they have to fully account for the failed initiative to the funders. As a result, the fund recipients always assume full accountability of the failed funds.
The concerns about adhocism and accountability were rooted in the need for transparency and compliance requirements so as to avoid misuse of trust in funding relationships. The discussions however pointed out that there is an essential distinction between full disclosure as part of compliance requirements so that there is no fraudulence, and funders not trusting the grant-recipients enough. TBP is a praxis that addresses the latter while holding up the need for transparency and accountability on all sides, including abiding by compliance requirements.
Concomitant to the practice of trust-based philanthropy, which is rooted in community-led change, is the idea of changemaking in partnership with youth. Thus, in order to enable young changemakers to access funding resources for their work, it is necessary to not only highlight but also address the challenges they face. Therefore, the following session engaged in conversation with young changemakers highlighting the challenges faced by young people in accessing funds and opportunities. It also brings to fore core issues identified as important by young people especially linked to accessibility and marginalisation when it comes to digital spaces, alongside pertinent discussions on healthy masculinity for realizing the broader objective of gender justice.