Trust-Based Philanthropy. Corey Oser & Effie Ansah Interviewed

In our latest episode we delve into the transformative power of grassroots organisations and the crucial role of trust-based philanthropy in fostering meaningful change. We interviewed Corey Oser, Vice President of Programs at the Global Fund for Children and Effie Ansah from Little Fish Theatre, who share their insights and experiences in navigating the complexities of funding and community engagement. Corey begins by outlining the mission of the Global Fund for Children, which focuses on empowering child and youth-centered organisations through flexible and unrestricted funding. This innovative approach allows organisations to allocate resources based on their unique needs and priorities, ultimately fostering a sense of autonomy and trust. Corey emphasizes that flexibility is not merely a luxury but a necessity for smaller, grassroots organisations, particularly those led by women and youth. Effie Ansah, a facilitator at Little Fish Theatre, adds depth to the conversation by sharing her experiences working directly with young people in various settings. She highlights the importance of arts-based opportunities in engaging youth and facilitating honest conversations about societal issues. Effie's work exemplifies how creativity can serve as a catalyst for personal and professional growth, enabling young individuals to explore their identities and express themselves authentically. Throughout the episode, the discussion touches on the findings of a recent impact study conducted by the Global Fund for Children. This research underscores the significance of trust-based relationships between funders and grassroots organisations. The study reveals that when organisations feel trusted and valued, they are more likely to take bold steps and innovate in their approaches to community engagement. Corey and Effie both talk about the challenges and limitations faced by grassroots organisations, particularly in securing funding that aligns with their missions. They advocate for a shift in the philanthropic landscape towards more inclusive and participatory grant-making practices, where the voices of those directly affected by funding decisions are prioritized
Corey OserCorey Oser leads Global Fund for Children’s engagement with child and youth-centered organisations globally as Vice President of Programs. Her interest in strengthening community wellbeing and human rights at the grassroots level stems from working with community-based and international organisations on issues such as supporting women affected by conflict and war and preventing human trafficking.  She is a practitioner of transformative organisational change and creative facilitation and seeks to shift power dynamics in philanthropy and global development. She is the host of the Roots and Sparks podcast, a platform for global changemakers to tell their stories. Corey is a graduate with highest honors from Bates College and holds an MA in International Affairs from George Washington University. She serves as Co-Chair of the Wellbeing Project’s Funders and Wellbeing Learning Group.Effie AnsahEffie Ansah, Little Fish Theatre facilitator and GIS Report Researcher Effie is an actor, writer, and creative freelancer working broadly across theatre. With a background in youth and community work, she is passionate about bringing arts-based opportunities to communities that often face barriers to accessing the arts. She believes that creativity is a key to unlocking progressive growth in both personal and professional development and brings this perspective into spaces ranging from corporate environments to educational settings. Effie has worked for over four years with Little Fish Theatre as a facilitation practitioner.
If you’re interested to find out more about Corey Oser & Effie Ansah work, take a look here:

Corey Oser

Web

Transcript

Kate: Welcome to the Power Decolonising Development podcast series, seeking to bring together thinkers, practitioners and activists. To share ideas, inspire change and identify tools for practical action.

I'm Professor Kate Bird, associate economist and director of the Development Hub and my co-host is Dr. Nompilo Ndlovu. Over to you, Nompilo.

Nompilo: Thank you Kate. As Kate has already said, I'm Dr. Nompilo Ndlovu. I'm a senior associate at the Development Hub. And my interests are varied and include higher education, international relations and development practitioner work, especially around gender marginalisation feminism.

I am currently a lecturer at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. Back to you, Kate.

Kate: Thanks Nompilo. Today we're talking to Corey Oser and Effie Ansah. Corey Oser leads the Global Fund for Children's engagement with Child and Youth centered Organisations globally, as vice President of programs. Her interest in strengthening community wellbeing and human rights at the grassroots level stems from working with community-based, and international organisations on issues such as supporting women affected by conflict and war and preventing human trafficking.

She's a practitioner of transformative organisational change and creative facilitation and seeks to shift power dynamics in philanthropy and global development. She's the host of The Roots and Sparks podcast, a platform for global change makers to tell their stories. Corey is a graduate with highest honors from Bates College and holds an MA in international affairs from George Washington University.

She serves as co-chair of the Wellbeing Projects, funders and Wellbeing Learning Group. And now Effie, Effie Ansah is from Little Fish Theater. She's a facilitator and GIS report researcher. Effie is an actor, writer, and creative freelancer working broadly across theater with the background in youth and community work, she's passionate about bringing arts-based opportunities to communities that often face barriers to accessing the arts.

She believes that creativity is a key to unlocking progressive growth in both personal and professional development. Brings this perspective into spaces ranging from corporate environments to educational settings. Effie has worked over four years with the Little Fish Theater as a facilitator practitioner.

For more about Corey, Effie, the Global Fund for Children and Little Fish Theater, please click on the show notes below this episode. And now back to you Nompilo for our first questions.

Nompilo: Thank you Kate. Welcome both to the show. Hello Corey, we are here today to talk about the Global Fund for Children. Could you tell us a bit about the Global Fund for Children and what specifically you  do?

Corey: Absolutely. And to start off by saying it's such a pleasure to be part of this conversation as a fan of this podcast. I'm delighted to join you today. Global Fund for Children started just over 30 years ago as a startup idea of a young university graduate who was from the United States, but rooted in India. And she was spending some time after graduating university, exploring her cultural connections to India, and had some conversations with people while she was there who she noticed were engaging in activities in their community based on a need that they saw, such as supporting children who are out of school, who were working and didn't have the opportunity for education. With their own resources, without structure, without a location, without space, without really any external support. And in dialogue with some of these individuals that were so impressive to her, she had this idea, what if there was a mechanism to get support, funding and other sources of support to some of these community-based initiatives without strings attached, without telling them what they needed to do or how they needed to do it.

So, the idea was sparked for this organisation that would function as a mechanism to support grassroots organisations. She got some very initial small startup funding and built the Global Fund for children across several years. And at that time it was a fairly unique perspective, this idea of getting funds to nascent organisations just given the currents of global development. So things have evolved over the years and it's become somewhat more common, but we've continued to wrestle with this question of what does it actually look like to fund grassroots organisations in a way that shifts power rather than concentrates it?

In terms of what we actually do today, we are a grant making organisation that provides direct funding to community based organisations around the world that are working with children and youth and in many cases led by young people themselves. And they're working on issues related to a broad spectrum of young people who are facing social exclusion or discrimination, whether it's due to poverty or experience of conflict and displacement or disability or exclusion based on gender or ethnicity or other factors, and we offer flexible grants. So this means grants that are invested in the organisation themselves. We're not funding projects or directing organisations to implement specific pieces of work, but really investing in their existing vision. And the grants are flexible, there are no conditions on how they can use that funds. And we're also supporting them with non-financial support in different ways based on. What they emerge as interests and priorities and we're supporting organisations to strengthen their peer networks and opening spaces for them to connect with and learn from each other.

And it feels important to note that we're a public foundation. So this means we're a fundraising organisation, we don't have an endowment, so we are funded primarily by other institutional funders or family foundations or individual donors, so we're acting as a bridge. In some cases people use the term intermediary, so these other individuals or organisations are really trusting us to build relationships and they're not building them directly. So it gives us a chance to create a bit of a buffer. So if there are certain requirements or conditions, we are taking those on rather than passing them on to the partners that we're working with.

And across these years since the founding, we don't claim to have it all figured out. We're always learning, sometimes making mistakes and trying to practice humility that this kind of work is really calling for.

Nompilo: Thank you, Corey. I can tell your passion. And I do like that, you really amplify that this work needs humility and learning out of it, you highlighted something earlier. You spoke about non-financial support. Could you tell us about the kinds of non financial support you provide, your funding partners and how you design these support packages?

Corey: Absolutely. So one thing I'll say is we've recognised that language is important and how this kind of support is named across the sector has gone through different iterations. So we enjoy referring to it as a capacity mobilisation, or accompaniment, or capacity development. Really recognising that the partners that we're working with, even if they are very nascent, they have tremendous strengths and knowledge and capabilities, and we don't see our role as fixing them somehow or professionalising them according to some kind of notion of an ideal or a perfect organisation, but really helping them to identify what they want to strengthen on their own terms, and then collectively mobilising resources to help them do that. So one piece of this is that we don't arrive with partners in relationship with them with a prepackaged set of support offerings. So we spend time listening, to understand their context, their history, and their aspirations. Also acknowledging that many of these leaders are very focused on responding to ongoing issues and needs in their community, and staying afloat as entities. So they're often not having what can be a luxury of a space to step back and reflect on their organisational journey. So we are opening some of that space and using participatory methodologies to facilitate processes where they can pause and ask themselves, what are our strengths? What do we want to develop? What would make our work more? Impactful or sustainable according to our own vision. So from there, we co-design support based on what emerges from these conversations.

So for some partners, they may feel that they want to strengthen their safeguarding practices in culturally relevant ways, which depart from maybe Western Child Protection Frameworks, but help them think about what actually works in their context. Or they may be interested in thinking more deeply about how they engage with young people or in some cases, some of the more traditional areas, such as strengthening their financial management systems or how they process information that they're learning. And then we are sometimes leveraging the experience of our team, which is all based in the countries and regions where our partners are located. May be working with supporting partners to identify local consultants or really thinking about peer learning. So we've also learned that our partners don't often need us to be the experts. They can learn from each other. So simply creating that space through convenings, whether it's in one country or across countries where some of these leaders and representatives of the organisation can learn from each other. In very specific concrete ways or more of a sense of building networks of solidarity. We've had some partners visit each other for more in depth learning exchanges or collaborate on specific materials or pieces of work. And we also try to connect partners to other networks, to advocacy spaces and conferences so their voices can help to contribute to these conversations rather than being the subject of how other people are viewing grassroots work. But I think throughout this process it really is dialogue. So we're seeing ourselves in a sense as a reflector, as a critical friend, but trying to emerge what is coming out as most important to them.

Nompilo: Sounds amazing. A recent impact study on the Global Fund highlighted how your approach to funding benefits your partner organisations. Reflecting on the study, what have you learned about the ways flexible support, non-financial support measures and autonomy can support partner organisations to achieve their aims? Were there any unexpected outcomes or lessons that have emerged from this approach?

Corey: Thank you for bringing up the Global Impact study. That's been really a privilege as a fundraising organisation for us to be able to do research like this because this is something that is often difficult to get funded. So this is something that we were able to do with unrestricted funding that came to Global Fund for Children. So this was something that we were very happy to be able to do, and one of the findings that stood out was the notion that flexibility isn't just a nice to have or something that's good if you can manage, but it's really transformational, especially for smaller or women led or youth led organisations. So, when organisations can allocate their funds to core costs that other donors won't support, such as staff salaries or legal fees, or just that organisational reflective time. We had one partner say being able to support one of their core staff to actually take maternity leave with something that they were finally able to do. This really helps them be able to think more strategically rather than just surviving from project to project or grant to grant, and I wanted to share, thinking it's great to bring the words of our partners into the conversation. So I wanted to share one quote that came from a partner that articulates this well. She said We feel comfortable implementing, requesting and managing funds because GFC support adapts to the needs of the institution. That ability to be needs-based to pivot when a crisis hits or when the community says, actually this is what we need.

That's what other funders restricted funding doesn't allow. So with that, the autonomy piece was also important in that nearly all of the partners said they felt trusted to make their own decisions and feel, stay true to their vision, and acknowledged that they're often told by funders what they should be doing or how they should measure success.

 And one thing that struck us was this notion of a ripple effect outward. So, leaders who said they felt trusted by us, began to trust some of their own staff more by creating more participatory decision making internally, which is not something that we had necessarily expected. And another thing that was surprising was the study found the relationship itself, not only the money or the non-financial support was having an important effect, and that's something that's a little bit hard to quantify. So partners talked about this notion of a trust-based relationship, giving them confidence to take risks or experiment or work on certain topics that they wouldn't have been able to otherwise, with one partner saying it was almost therapeutic to work with us in this way during a difficult period. And we also didn't fully appreciate how much having light reporting requirements would matter. It's something that we had reflected on knowing that some of our funders have rather intensive reporting requirements for us. But partners said it really freed up the capacity, reduced stress, and allowed them to focus on things that felt more relevant to them. And one other unexpected finding was that the combination seemed to matter more than the individual elements. So flexible funding alone.

Didn't seem to be sufficient without the trust-based relationship. That really gives partners confidence to take bold steps. And then the access to financial support was better paired with flexible funding. So the notion of it being the package and not the parts, but also to say  that the study did surface some limitations.

So partners were clear in their message to us that they'd like to see funding periods be longer. So even though we are in the that bridge role of trying to navigate and negotiate and encourage the sector to move toward longer time frames to support more sustainable change or change in social norms. It's often not the reality, so where we aim to have relationships that are at least three years, three to five, or even much longer in some cases, there are some instances where it is shorter. So that was noticed by partners and also a call for us to be even more explicit about communicating clear funding timelines and also to be. Explicit about what non-financial support is available, and really making sure to communicate that from the outset of the relationship. So I think as a whole, the study validated for us that there is real benefit to trust-based philanthropy, but also where we can go further with encouraging longer funding periods or larger grant sizes were appropriate. And continuing to encourage us to ask that same question are we actually shifting power or are we working only to make the current system more palatable.

Nompilo: I am just gonna ask a quick question before I move on or make a quick comment. I do wonder how you answer to your donors or the institutions, around M & E especially where you're using non-conventional flexibility, trust space. So what do you give them when your funding partners have given you light reports and how does that impact their contributions to your work?

Corey: Sure. Well, we have some very interesting dialogues with organisations about what it means to support partners with our way of working where we're not asking partners to work toward a shared indicator, or they're not all focused on the same issue area. So there is a lot of donor education that's involved in the process  with helping some funders maybe to shift their expectations and their requirement where a funder may come and say well, we want to know the percentage of say girls who graduated from high school, and we will have to explain that's not how we're working. So I think part of it is that education piece and part is being able to continue to advance the notion that qualitative data is also data and that stories of change and being able to look at qualitative information and emerge trends and patterns is also a valid form of collecting information and there is also a lot that our partners have to share about they're working and what they're learning about their work. And so being able to share some of that bigger picture insight is appreciated by donors. But we also on occasion have to decide not to enter into funding partnerships where it is going to require us to ask partners to collect information in a way that just doesn't align with our way of working. So it's a continual negotiation and process.

Nompilo: Thank you for that. I think I can just close off with one more question before we move off to Effie. You've spoken earlier about just the research methodology for the study. How did it reflect GFCs core values such as partnership, inclusion and learning? You've touched on it already, but is there anything more that you want to add to that?

Corey: Lovely. Thank you very much. So we commissioned an external research firm to be able to give some degree of separation between us and our partners, a firm called Eris. And we chose them through a competitive process to lead the study based on the strength of their proposal and the two main methodological frameworks that they were proposing. One being contribution analysis, and the other peer participatory action research and we really appreciated that combination because with contribution analysis, this would give us a vigorous way to trace how our support contributes to change in partners and communities without claiming that we're the only factor. And I think that's where this notion of trying to prove that causal link can be challenging, and we are very comfortable with saying we are contributing, but we are not by any means the only factor for some of these changes. And with the participatory action research that resonated because we knew that traditional methods where we would bring only external consultants in to collect data would not necessarily be in line with our values and with this participatory approach, we really appreciated how Eris worked to design a model where our own partners became co-researchers. I'm excited to have Effie, here in the conversation in that we had 30 locally based researchers from partner organisations in Guatemala, India, Kenya, in the uk. That were trained on research methods, safeguarding ethics, and really for people who didn't have a research background that wasn't a requirement.

And then partners actually conducted the field work using interviews and creative exercises with peer organisations and some of their community members. And through this process, we had 377 pieces of data, and then contribution analysis helped the research team make sense of it, really bringing in the co-researchers into collaborative workshops to do sense making, and we felt like this was reflective in our values around this notion of partnership. So people with lived experience of being GFC partners were the ones investigating what it meant to be a partner. And felt like this might open up the space for conversations with peers, that it would be a little more difficult to have potentially with external researchers. And then this notion of capacity strengthening and learning. So we wanted this to be a meaningful  activity for everyone involved, and not only to be an exercise for Global Fund for Children. So, many of the partners told us it was the first time they'd done this kind of research and they found it valuable for how they might apply it in their own organisations. And then the notion of inclusion. So because there was creative methodology alongside traditional interviews, it gave people in communities, particularly child friendly spaces, a chance to use photos, drawings, videos, movements to explain and express their experiences in a way that felt more accessible.

And I'll just close this with saying that we're also aware that there are trade offs. There's certainly the risk of positive bias in this kind of process, even though we try to mitigate it by having co-researchers study peers rather than being studied themselves. Certainly partners that receive funding from an organisation might be inclined to emphasize positives and acknowledge a variation in data quality. When you have many co-researchers engaging in this kind of work for the first time, even though they have received training and that we chose co-researchers or recommended them particularly because we thought they were coming from partners that were very engaged with GFC, but this means we didn't collect their own impact stories. So there might have been something missing in that process. So I think we're really feeling very confident that this study gave us some powerful evidence-based data about our contribution and the value of trust-based philanthropy. But we're also clear about what the approach can't claim, that it's not a randomised control trial.

So we're not quantifying impacts or proving causation, but there's a really powerful message about the contribution.

Nompilo: Thank you Corey, and thank you for taking the time to speak to us about what trust-based philanthropy, and a whole lot of other methodologies and inclusivity that you're using are, you referred to and already, previously and already spoke to about your collaboration and working together. So I think it's time to move on to Effie. Thank you for joining us today.

Effie: Thank you for having me.

Nompilo: Can you tell us a bit more about your organisation, the Little Fish Theater, and the work that you do?

Effie: Yeah, so, I work with an incredible organisation called Little Fish Theater, and we are based in the South of England and we're a theater company that uses drama tools and practices as a means to engage young people and sort of just open up dialogue about challenging and prevalent societal issues. An example actually is a project that we're running right now, and it's called voicing Masculinity. And it just encourages honest conversations about masculinity and identity and self-expression, with young boys. And predominantly a lot of the work that we do is through workshops and programs and performances in mainstream schools. We also go into a people referral unit. Special educational needs schools. We work with alternate provision services as well, so anywhere that there's young people, we go into those places. So my role as a facilitation practitioner and performer is pretty varied, but it means that a lot of the time I'm going in and working directly with these young people and providing workshops or courses or like programs, and also getting to do performances that are often followed by facilitating workshops. But it also means that I get the opportunity to represent Little Fish as a company doing things like this, but also going into spaces where conversations are being held with other professionals who work with young people in various sectors like healthcare and social workers. And we sort of share our creative approaches to methodology with them in the hopes that it will inspire other youth focused sectors to do something a little bit similar.

Nompilo: Thank you for sharing such meaningful work. I'll hand it over to Kate just so you can hear from somebody else. And I look forward to hearing the rest of the conversation. Kate, over to you.

Kate: Thanks Nompilo. Effie, can you describe your links with the Global Fund for Children and tell us a little bit about how their approach differs from other funders.

Effie: Yeah LIttle Fish is one of GFCs partners, as has already been mentioned. And I guess from what I've learned by being part of this study is that, GFCs trust-based funding and flexible funding approach is not really common amongst many other funders, but it is the things that repeatedly come up as being most valued by their partners. But not only by their partners also from the people that benefit from the work that their partners do. Even if they don't realise that directly, because they may not know too much about the funders, the impact of such is kind of what came up in the research. And I feel like a lot of other funders are stricter when it comes to accounting for pennies and where everything goes and having to tick certain boxes as Corey highlighted. But GFC showing that they trust the organisations that they're partnering with that they will put the money where it's most needed, has shown itself to be invaluable, especially for organisations that are working with young people and that are grassroots and working in communities that maybe it's harder to identify, with quantitative data. What impact is being had? But it's also really hard to trust someone that you don't know. So there's a great value put on the fact that GFC works hard to build relationships with their partners as well. And just get to know them and get to know their needs. And I think that came up a lot as well in the research that we conducted, as something that was quite meaningful to the partners.

Kate: Thank you. And I wonder, just as a follow up question, I imagine that Little Fish Theater has more than one funder.

Effie: Yes.

Kate: So can you tell me a little bit about how your relationship with the Global Fund is different? The relationships that you have with other donors? And I guess how that impacts the way that you work. So how does the Global Funds funding model create space for you to do your work in a different way than other funders?

Effie: So, definitely I think the artistic directors who work directly with the funders would be able to answer this question so much better than what I can. But just from doing this, research study and alongside one of the artistic  directors, one thing that I picked up on in terms of comparing GFC to some of the other funders is how GFC has directly had an impact, on us being able to do certain, projects last minute or being able to do certain projects that are harder to attain funding for because, one we're in a very I don't know if oversaturated is the right word, but an industry in the city, that it's hard to get funding. I don't know how else to put it. It's hard to get funding. We're in the city and a lot of people want money to do similar things that we are doing. So, that is difficult and as well it's hard when the communities that you are trying to reach are ones that are very localised. So it's like you want to be able to help them because they're part of your community and you're passionate about them, but equally, somebody else in another area is also passionate about their community, and it's like, where does that money go? But GFC has, from what I've learned being, just that like last minute. Save when lots of other funders have said no, or have not been able to give as much as what is needed. GFC has been there to top up. And that's also based on the fact that they have a relationship with Little Fish. They know the type of work that they're doing and they believe in the type of work that they're doing. So that also helps a lot.

Kate: Great, thank you. And can you share some of your experiences working as a co-researcher on GFCs Global Impact Study, and perhaps share some of the most meaningful moments or challenges you encountered during that process and how participating influenced your perspective.

Effie: I think for me coming into this without a research background, I'm not a researcher, is very far from my everyday life and the things that I do. At least that's what I felt like coming into this project. And also recognising that when I first walked into that room, I was in a room with CEOs of businesses and people who have worked directly with GFC putting in those applications and et cetera. And having those relationships with them.

And so I did immediately feel very almost out of place. But that was very quickly kind of pacified because the person who was training us and led us in the research who, as Corey mentioned, was actually an external or from an external organisation coming in. She was just fantastic at doing her job in training us and making us all feel very well equipped because once we all started speaking, it became clear that everyone was coming from a different background, different areas, different experiences, and it wasn't about making us all the same or enabling us to all have the same information aside from what is necessary in order to be an effective researcher, but like  allowing us to have the qualities about ourselves that make us ourselves. And just the confidence to take those qualities to the forefront of our research. And of being a researcher. So that was really exciting and very handy. And as well as that, our lead researcher kind of gave us the opportunity to have a lot of input into the guide that we used to conduct the research. So we went through the guide with a fine tooth comb, and we looked at all the questions and we made sure that they were fitting. A great thing about having the diverse voices in the room meant that we covered a lot of angles. So, I'm pretty sure there was nothing that was missed in terms of like, the questions that we asked and how it could be received by different groups of people. And those different backgrounds and different voices, definitely positively impacted how we trained and prepared for that research. And I think, not only did that level the playing field for me in my mind knowing that, okay, I'm going into this with the knowledge that I need to be able to be an effective researcher. But I also know that I have so many tools in my toolbox that I can bring that'll be useful and impactful to the research study.

But I was also equipped with language and processes that were necessary too. And I think to answer your question about impact wise on me or things that kind of stuck out to me, a question that stayed in my mind was like, how would I sort of define impact? And I don't know if I have an answer, but I think what was really impactful for me was going into, one group, which I will mention, and their level of community care and cultural insight, just was clear to me that, that was the backbone to the effectiveness of the impact on their participants. And if the organisation didn't have that community care they weren't rooted in the community, and they didn't have that cultural insight specific to the needs of their participants. The impact on them wouldn't have been nearly the same. And I remember one person I spoke to said, two years ago, like I wouldn't have done this. I wouldn't have sat down and had this conversation with you. And it's because of how I've been able to grow through this organisation. Well, they use the words like the fact that I'm consistently building on what this organisation has given me is one of the reasons why I'm able to be comfortable meeting new people and having these conversations. And that organisation was, one that's based in London. And it's called Milk Cuney Bees. And it's a grassroots organisation and its black women founded and it has a focus on providing support and leadership opportunities to young black girls. And its aims are to amplify voices and to create liberating spaces for them to exist and for them to be able to mobilize in their communities.

So I found it really interesting how Corey mentioned the word mobilise earlier, because I was like, that's exactly what falls directly in line with the values of one of your partners. So yeah, that was just incredible. And meeting those young girls had such an impact on me in my personal life because I looked at them and they looked like me 10, 15 years ago and I was like if I had this opportunity, I don't know where my life would be, but I feel like I would be better off. Not that I'm not great off, but I'll be even better off. I remember one girl said that she worked as a mentor as well as an engagement coordinator and she did admin for the company and also was a published author because of a book that the company had released.

And I just sat there in awe because I'm like, that's so incredible that this young girl who is not even an adult yet has been able to have these experiences. And I think it's invaluable for especially, young black girls, which is the focus of Milk Honey Bees to not just be told about what's possible, but to actually physically be able to experience what's possible and some of the conversations I had with some of the young girls, I realised that their ambitions and, their passions is actually what drives, is what enables them to be able to be engaged with the work that Milk Honey Bees is doing because it's not a one size fits all.

It's tailored to what they're interested in or tailored to some of the talents that they already have that just need to be drawn out of them. So again, that flexibility comes into play to the organisations that GFC are impacting with their funding. It's not just something that they're introducing to their partners and their partners aren't carrying on that same flexibility. Seems to be a strand that was noticed as well. So, I feel like I probably could say so much more. I loved working with that particular group. Maybe it's because I saw so much of myself in them, but it was also very fascinating to me because I realised that my contribution was probably.

I don't even think it's maybe 1% of the final report. As Corey mentioned, it's huge. But, my findings from my individual research, with the organisations that I met with do align with what we see in the final report. So I guess if it's clear on a micro level that the macro end is in alignment, then I guess something is right. Something's going well.

Kate: Thank you so much, Effie. That does sound like a really enriching experience being involved in that project and it gives a very vivid image actually of the work, the kind of work that GFC is funding. In your part of the world. And my understanding is that GFC has funded many organisations across the globe. So this is just a little snapshot I guess, of what GFC is achieving. But I really appreciate what you've just said because it really captures how community-based organisations are tailoring. What they deliver to the needs of the community. But also working with community members to design something that really fits for them. I think you explained that really nicely. So moving back to Corey, now I've got a question for you. Power and control over resources are inextricably linked, and when I think about decolonisation and anti-racist action, I often think that you need to follow the money.

You need to look at who holds the purse strings, who makes decisions about strategy, who decides what is funded, when, and how and what their control is over that funding in terms of releasing funding against milestones, against delivery schedules or whatever. So I'm very interested in, GFCs model, because it has intentionally built a strategy around shifting power. Can you tell me a little bit more about how the Global Fund acknowledges the link between power and control over resources and specifically avoids replicating Eurocentrism in its funding priorities and strategies?

Corey: Absolutely, and I think that hits on such a key conundrum or issue that so many are grappling with in this space, given that we're existing in the reality that philanthropy in itself is problematic and that the fact that there are large accumulations of wealth reflects the kind of inequity where the money that's given away often comes from economic systems that created poverty and injustice. So I think that's the framework that we are existing and trying to kind of push and shift within that structure. So I think, thinking about who is making decisions about how funding is allocated and what is supported. As I said earlier, we are trying to build relationships with funders that are more flexible and are interested in letting go of some of that controlling factor and structuring ourselves as an organisation where all of the colleagues who are working directly with partner organisations are living, or from and working in the regions where our partners are located and building those relationships. So there aren't decisions that are being made. We don't have board members making decisions, for example, on what we fund and what the strategy is. There is a real decentralisation of that approach, but we've also been shifting toward what's called participatory grant making in some of our initiatives where that means people closest to the work being funded are making the actual funding decisions. So one example of this is a fund in South-east Asia focused on youth -led climate resilience activities where we worked with a group of young people as panelists who designed an application process, determined criteria for supporting, and then ultimately decided who receives funding. So this is also a different dynamic between staff, even regionally located staff making decisions. And this is something that we've been integrating more and more into our work. And then the notion of not coming with predetermined models or theories of change that partners then need to adopt. So acknowledging the diversity of context and approach and finding organisations that are already working in and trusted by their communities and doing work that's valued and asking how we can support what they're already doing, rather than saying, we've come up with this model of what say girls empowerment looks like, and we're just looking for partners to fall into that model. And also, I think funding groups that are unregistered or youth led groups, groups without some of those formal qualifications that often have difficulty getting access to funding because there's this traditional notion that some groups have of what is risky. So I think contesting that notion of what risk actually means.

And then as we've mentioned, just the how of the way we fund. So the unrestricted funding, reporting that's more focused on learning and reflection rather than supervision and surveillance. And increasingly looking at fundraising coming from specific regions for work within those regions, particularly Asia is an area where there's been quite a bit of advancement in that way.

And then really looking at the notion of co-creation, whether it's looking at. Designing non-financial support or building a communications campaign together. Really trying to, while still acknowledging that we have access to resources and there are, is that allocation happening that we are also an actor in the social change space and there can be much that we can do on a collaborative. Front rather than saying, no, we have the answers and we're just looking for you to implement and we're going to tell you how to do it. So I think it's trying to really create more pathways for groups that others see as too small or too informal or too community led for them to be able to advance the work that they're doing based on their own terms.

Kate:Thank you so much.

So something that popped into my mind as you were talking then, I actually really feel that the models that you've developed to fund, to work with, your partner organisations to review what they're doing through this impact study or review what you are doing in a way, are some really interesting templates for other organisations, and I would really encourage our listeners and viewers to take a look at the report that's just been released, for examples of, what I would say quite unusual, good practice within the philanthropic area. And I wonder if you have boiled down this report or your other practices that aren't captured in the report into kind of one page or two page, almost cheat sheets on kind of case studies on what you are doing and how you are doing it and why you are doing it the way that you are doing it.

Corey: Great suggestion. We do have a more of a shortened five minute read version of the overall report, but I think it is a good consideration to pull out the specific practices maybe and highlight some of those more specifically because ultimately, the idea behind this was first to see whether some of these practices are having an effect, are appreciated in ways that we thought they might be, but wanted some more evidence behind that. And then to be able to share with other funders what's possible in ways that they might not be aware of.

Kate: Because when you are within an organisation like yours, you may not be aware just how far your practices are, or your practice is from the mainstream. And I'm sitting here just wishing that the people who fund my research had just a portion of the kind of the trust-based approach, the reporting, the accompaniment, all of these aspects.

Kate: It's not just community-based development that's crying out for this, it's people across the sector, would really benefit from a more humane, sensible creative approach to funding. It would go a long way. So I think it'd be great to see some kind of short bite sized pieces that kind of pull apart the whole of your approach into, this is how we do this bit and this is how we do that bit. I think it would be really nice to see some products like that out there. I think it'd be very helpful for other organisations, and not just for funders, but for community-based organisations to hold it up to one of their other funders and say, look, there is a different way. There's another way that we could be playing this game. How about this? So it could be used as a lobbying tool as well. So I would encourage you to have a think about that and maybe go back to your research partner and see if that's something that they could do as a spinoff, if you've got the resources for it. I know these things are resource hungry.

Kate: So as we bring our conversation to a close, I wonder Corey, if you could suggest a practical first step for funders. In the sector who want to ensure that their approach is both anti-racist and decolonising. And then Effie, I wonder if you could identify the single most important factor for recipient organisations to be able to take an empowered role in their relationship with donors. So here I'm thinking about the kind of the two sides of the whole and what needs to change on both sides. So Corey, first please.

Corey: Sure, I would say if there's one place to start, it might be asking yourself two key questions. One being who is really making decisions about what you fund and what it would take for you to genuinely trust the people that you're funding. So we know that in many funding organisations, decisions are being made by program officers or boards, in some cases a bit removed from some of the communities being served. So really looking at it. Are there people with lived experience of the issues that you're funding making grant making decisions or are they being consulted and what is that difference between asking an opinion and giving decision making power? And within that, encouraging some funders where they have the possibility to experiment with participatory grant making models where those directly affected our making, actual funding decisions and not only advising and also acknowledging that there are many ways to do this. There isn't one perfect model for participatory practices. There is a continuum, so it can be possible to start with something very small. And the second place I'd look is on reporting requirements and what you're really asking of organisations or individuals that you're supporting, are you asking for detailed line item budgets or receipts, or are you predetermining outcomes before you'll fund?

Are there reports where you're looking for quarterly impact metrics because each of these requirements reveals what you are. Considering is trust or the lack of trust. And even considering if an organisation is considering making changes, rather than saying, okay we need to start with a wide scale change, maybe just thinking of one group of partners and experimenting with simplifying or shifting what you're asking.

And then be open to them telling you that priorities have shifted or something didn't work, and not seeing that as a failure. So these are some, maybe practical starting points. And on the bigger picture, over time, I think being able to provide grants that are large enough and long enough for organisations to build and not only to survive and being willing to fund some of the work that actually challenges existing systems such as general operations or advocacy or organising are also important.

Kate: Thanks Corey. And Effie, what are your thoughts for the other side of the equation?

Effie: I would say this, research study. Had such a rich focus on qualitative data, in the stories of change that we gathered from those organisations we researched. I think my answer comes from a quote that I heard from one of the young people I spoke to about what she believed to be one of the biggest impacts that organisation had, had on her and others like her. And she said that the people that the organisation are reaching out to, feel like they're being  heard and really listened to. And so I believe organisations when they get to define their own priorities and not just having to respond to funders agendas. But by building honest relationships that doesn't treat funding as rescue or aid, but as partnership and collaboration, is one of the most impactful ways that these partners can feel that they're really being listened to and actually heard, and so able to carry out the mission and the vision that they have most effectively and from a position of empowerment

Kate: It's a great end to our conversation. Thank you so much Corey and Effie for joining us today. I'm really, encouraged by this model of funding and the process of accompaniment that we've heard about today because it's kind of all that I would want as a researcher who is constantly scurrying around for funding to fund the research that I wanna do, rather than the research that somebody else wants me to do. It's always hard to get flexible funding, long-term funding and to be treated with trust and respect. So hearing somebody who's out there doing that, for community-based development around the world, is lovely. And having Effie join us today to tell us not just about her organisation, but to give us a really vivid example of another organisation has been really encouraging and enriching. So thank you both for joining us. And I'm gonna hand it over to Nompilo now for a final farewell.

Nompilo: Thank you. I'm personally invested in this podcast today because I was trained in women gender studies and my first work was that of a grant maker. So about 20 years ago I remember leaving work, having worked with grassroots, very remote, very rural organisations. Because of the idea that we were just having to disperse funds as an intermediary very quickly, very tiny, and move on, right? And the idea of trust, languaging philanthropy in a way that made sense to us. Flexibility, co-creation and just the whole process around it, just felt very humiliating is a strong word, but very demoralising from the global south. So, I really stuck around for this because I wanted to commend you. I wanted to commend you for doing the work and then continue to research it to see if it's working. So that if there's errors and there's things that can be fixed, you do, but it's really, really impressive. And I'll continue to follow your work and tell everybody I know about it, but it really does give me hope that this is a field that I can one day return to. Because over time we've started listening more, when we've started making the changes that matter. So thank you both for your time and for doing your work with such passion.

Corey: Thank you so much for this great opportunity to be in conversation with you both.

Nompilo: Thank you Corey and Effie. It's been an illuminating conversation. My best wishes with your work going forward and yeah, we'll continue to keep tabs on you guys. Bye.