Named by Inside Philanthropy the thorniest topic of 2019 (with race as its runner-up), the concept of power has been in the center of philanthropic discussions for a number of years, fueling conversations on who remains excluded from decision-making processes, how the sector perpetuates systemic oppressions (including those it seeks to dismantle), and about the very nature of institutional giving, especially in times of great disregard for and criticism of wealthy people’s engagement and influence in politics and the economy.
Control and disbursement of funds is not, however, the only issue that philanthropy needs to take up. Although the question of who and through what means is able to influence decision-making processes is crucial to re-imaging the whole sector (and becomes evident thanks to the growing popularity and expansion of community-based re-granting mechanisms), the question of how to reframe power is also one of everyday philanthropic practice, and that includes the responsibilities of admin, program and management staff alike. Since institutions vary with regards to how much control over the grant-making process is given to employees it can be hard to address power in grantee-donor relationships. At the same time, however, those interactions, and the practices that come along, constitute the bulk of experience with power for many groups and individuals.
Whether the conversation about power within your own institution concentrates on change, distribution or transformation (with their opportunities and challenges), there are adjustments you can make to your everyday work that will reframe the way you as a grant-maker connect to those whom your work supports (or in some cases – assists). If the leadership of your institution does not engage in broader deliberations on the matter (and that in itself is an issue worth addressing), simply changing some aspects of your practice can help start a much broader discussion on influence, leverage and leadership, which – in turn – can become an important aspect of your internal advocacy.
In this post, I would like to propose a few points that can be helpful to those of us who manage grants, monitor grantees’ progress, review reports, offer capacity building and organizational development consultancies, as well as are part of strategic conversations of our and other institutions. These tips have been developed through not only my own practice but also (and largely) thanks to ongoing collaborations and discussions with colleagues from various grant-making institutions – private, public and community-advised or led.
0. Consider your language
The way the sector refers to groups and individuals receiving grants can have a transformative effect on the nature of power relations.
Although the word ‘grantee’ is widespread, some institutions choose to rename this connection by adding the word ‘partner’ in order to underline that the relationship is not simply one-sided and transactional, but rather that it is also about collaboration and exchange of ideas, as well as the much needed recognition of expertise that more often than not can be found solely in the movement.
It is useful to revisit one’s language every now and then, and understand whether it promotes or, on the contrary, stifles a respectful and acknowledging exchange. Whichever word one decides to use as a grant-maker, it is imperative that its intention is clear and that it is well communicated to colleagues, collaborators and the beneficiaries themselves.
1. Choose general support (or flexibility) over projects
Flexible grant-making makes a tremendous difference.
It challenges artificial scarcity created through restricted short-term funding practices, promotes growth, helps groups and individuals focus on their vision and mission, and relieves them from (over-)reporting, which in the end is beneficial for both the grantee partner and their donor. In the context of challenging power – this approach can be a useful intervention in institutions where donor-driven initiatives and other interventionists strategies are more wide spread and difficult to challenger for anyone not in a leadership position.
There are, of course, instances where restricted funding can be beneficial. The benefits of it, however, should be aligned with grantee partners’ vision of the work. It is also a good practice to discuss your reasons for not offering flexibility with the grantee. It is important to be ready to have difficult conversations with beneficiaries in order to build trust through transparent decision-making.
2. Consider how to introduce new ideas to grantees
This point is specific to those institutions that do not shy away (or even engage in too many) donor-driven initiatives.
It is true that as a philanthropic professional you often see certain problems from a broader perspective than some of your grantee partners, at the same time, however, it is pivotal that this knowledge is shared with groups and individuals that you support (granted it’s not confidential).
When you share valuable insights from the sector, you create opportunities for civil society and other actors linked to it to engage, which in turn minimizes introduction of difficult power dynamics into an existing funding relationship. Such transparency also builds trust and shows your beneficiaries that you see them as experts who play an important role in their movements and the larger picture they connect to.
3. If you can’t fund something, don’t ask for it
Not only do some donors tend to think that we know better what our beneficiaries should engage on and how, some of us also offer ideas and solutions without putting any resources behind them.
This comes to light when matters of organizational development are discussed (such as hiring an extra person to help with existing workload, creating an organizational strategy or introducing well-being practices and policies).
Having conversations about these issues is not off limits, on the contrary, you learn a lot about the situation groups and individuals find themselves in if you discuss problems and shortcomings. At the same time, however, it is important to know where to draw the line. If you are about to suggest to a beneficiary how to go around certain issues but do not have a budget to back up what you are asking for – you will create unnecessary tensions, anxiety and mistrust. When proposeing measures to mitigate a problem, always back your ideas with resources.
4. Do not micromanage the organizations you support
As philanthropic professionals, we need to remember that our mission is first and foremost to mobilize resources for causes or communities whose work we see as advancing our (and hopefully shared!) vision of the world.
In this kind of relationship, the power dynamics are already extremely uneven, especially if grantee partners do not have an opportunity to feed into our institutions’ strategies (which is still the case for many institutions). It is therefore important to understand our role and its boundaries. It is not our task to order beneficiaries around or require institutional changes from them that do not align with their own ideas on how to structure their work. If we are committed to challenging the issue of power in the sector, we also need to commit to trusting groups and individuals with the resources that we are offering, and do not intervene in everyday tasks.
This is not to say that we should not engage in a dialogue with various actors and discuss the details of their everyday work. These discussions, however, always require that we create and give space for grantee partners to disagree with our analyses and proposed measures, and that we let ourselves take those disagreements in and accept them.
5. Consider alternatives to standard narrative and financial reporting, and minimize its extent
Reports are an essential part of the grant-making process.
They document grantee partners’ progress, project results, outcomes of work and contain other useful information philanthropic professionals can use to measure how their support advances their strategic goals. At the same time, however, their preparation can be difficult, tiresome and, worst of all, intrude on time that grantee partners could use to further their work. It is for that reason that we need to be more flexible with the way we engage with beneficiaries, whether we ask for shorter, more concise reports or change our approach to reporting altogether.
There are many ways to retrieve information without having to wait for an interim or final report, which is not only beneficial to a grantee partners, but also helps philanthropic professionals stay on top of their own strategic plans. Alternatives to detailed reporting include – check-in calls and conversations, familiarizing oneself with annual reporting and audits which groups usually have an obligation to produce anyway, speaking to other funders, ans setting up online search alerts so that you can stay on top of media reporting about your grantee partners’ work.
If your institution is open to alternative forms of reporting, why not ask the grantee to send a video or audio message where they can describe their work in detail, and spend a significantly shorter time for its preparation. This can be very helpful to those beneficiaries who do not have regular access to a computer (as such messages can be recorded on a mobile device) or who have little to no paid staff whose time would be better used on a different task.
6. Provide a platform for your beneficiaries instead of taking the stage yourself
As philanthropic professionals we have a responsibility to support grantee partners beyond grant-making.
One of the most powerful ways to show said support is to provide a platform for beneficiaries to speak to wide audiences about their work. The simplest way to do so is to showcase their work on our institutions’ websites and through various types of communications work such as amplifying messages on social media, creating content with beneficiaries involvement and by helping partners connect with journalists and other content creators.
Providing platform is, however, more than just amplification – it is about empowering grantee partners to be able to tell their stories themselves. It is a commitment to having them present and speaking at events such as conferences and seminars (also those that do not just concern philanthropy and its practice), meetings with stakeholders, strategic deliberations, panel discussions, and many others. It is, in reality, a commitment to an understanding that only those engaged in direct work in the field know how to speak of their struggles and achievements. It is also a commitment to self de-platforming and stepping back, which in a sector valuing the practice of talking about others without their presence in the same room, can be not only hard but sometimes almost impossible. Nevertheless, it is important and necessary to try.
7. Challenge the leadership of your institution and those who you directly report to
Depending on where you reside in your institution’s structure, it may be hard to determine how much power you have with regards to bringing new or challenging ideas to the table, specifically to those at the top.
At the same time, however, it is important to remember that internal advocacy is an integral part of the work and should not be taken for granted. Whether it is about challenging your colleagues, confronting your direct supervisor, pushing ideas through to your department’s director or finding an opportunity to engage with the institution’s board, it can wield profound results and have an impact on the way power is reflected upon within your institution.
That is not to say that internal advocacy is an easy matter. On the contrary, some institutions may not value it at all, and others may be open to it only to a certain extent. Institutional decision-making and strategy setting may actually be the sector’s most prominent problem with power, especially when private philanthropy is considered. Even though it may not be easy, as conscious and informed practitioners, we need to be willing and ready to hold difficult conversations with everyone regardless of their position within the institution. If we are indeed invested in shifting how power is exercised in our line of work, we owe internal advocacy (including its potential consequences) to our beneficiaries, their constituencies and, ultimately, to ourselves.
For further readings on issue of power in the sector, most of which served as references to this post, please check out this twitter thread and/or the list below:
- Stanford scholar addresses the problems with philanthropy by Melissa De Witte – Stanford News, December 3, 2018.
- Can Philanthropy Help Restore Power to Marginalized Communities? by Shilpa Bavikatte – Iris Krieg & Associates, May 9, 2019.
- Philanthropy is at a turning point. Here are 6 ways it could go by Rhodri Davies – World Economic Forum, April 29, 2019
- REPORT: Is it time to challenge the power of philanthropy? by Magdalena Kuenkel – Centre for Public Impact, November 18, 2019.
- How Top Philanthropists Wield Power Through Their Donations by Paul Sulivan – New York Times, April 14, 2017.
- Philanthropy: Its Many Faces of Power by Simone P. Joyaux – Joyaux Associates, May 2004.
- Philanthropy’s “New Power” Challenges by Grace Nicolette – The Centre for Effective Philanthropy, May 3, 2018.
- Wielding Philanthropic Power with Accountability by Judy Belk – Stanford Social Innovation Review, October 26, 2018.
- Re-imagining Philanthropy’s Power Structure to Address Inequities by Kimberly Casey – National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, May 15, 2018.
- Philanthropy Experts Swap Tips on Sharing Power by Lisa Ranghelli – National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, September 26, 2018.
- How Community Philanthropy Shifts Power. What Donors Can Do to Make That Happen by Jenny Hodgson and Anna Pond – Grantcraft, 2018.
- Generosity and Impact Aren’t Enough. Let’s Judge Philanthropy on How Well it Shifts Power by Tate Williams – Inside Philanthropy, September 6, 2019.
Leave a Reply