Gw/oB’s message to US donors: ‘This is nuts’
Event Grantmakers Without Borders 2002 Conference
Date 17-19 November 2002
Venue Washington DC
Theme Funding a World that Works for Everyone: Global Social Change Philanthropy
‘Today, less than 2 per cent of US giving supports projects outside US borders. This means that over 96 per cent of humanity, including most of the world's poorest and neediest people, are denied access to the largest pool of philanthropic capital in the world. This is nuts.’[1] The task Grantmakers Without Borders (Gw/oB) has set itself is to make the case for more US money going to social change grantmaking overseas. The international conference in Washington DC is November was part of that case.
With an impressive array of inspiring speakers from developing countries, the conference provided a wonderful showcase for some of what social/human rights activists are doing the world over. The only pity was that there wasn’t a wider range of funders there to meet them.
Gw/oB is a young organization. Established in March 2000, its 250 odd members are individual donors and individuals working with public and private foundations who share a common desire to expand and enrich progressive international philanthropy. One of the services it offers members is the weekly Switchboard, which enables funders to seek information about funding opportunities in particular geographic or issue areas.
From the start, you could see this conference was going to be different. Very unusually, six out of the seven panellists at the opening plenary were women; three were from developing countries and one from Russia. Throughout the two and a half days of the conference, in plenary sessions and workshops, discussions were focused and serious.
What is global social change philanthropy?
This was the question facing panellists at the opening session. Everyone agreed about ‘global’. Global means everywhere. Resources may be raised globally as well as locally, but change happens locally.
The ‘social change’ part was more difficult. Whatever it is, all speakers seemed to agree that if self-determination is part of the definition, it can’t be the grantmaker who says what change is and when people are ready for it. Social change philanthropy ‘supports local people, their organizations and communities to make social change’. ‘It’s people finding a voice, saying “I’m taking charge”.’ This seems to require donors to adopt an uncharacteristically trusting, humble role, to stop talking about ‘my programme’.
Ownership apart, there must also be some content to the idea of social change. Another big issue was service delivery versus advocacy – a familiar dilemma. Service delivery alone does not effect change, but it’s difficult to deny it where basic needs are lacking. The answer is also familiar: ‘If what is needed is to dig a well, then pressure local authorities to do it next time.’ There is a natural progression from service delivery to advocacy to policy change. After a disaster, for example, focusing on policy change alone would be useless. But in Gujarat after the earthquake, women who had never left their houses were trained to monitor what the government was supposed to be doing to refit houses.
Speakers warned against holding a ‘puritanical’ or ‘pure’ vision of social change philanthropy, where only certain things ‘count’. But does a non-puritanical approach open the door too wide? A speaker from Peru talked about self-sufficiency; the need for skills; the need to train other people who can manage similar projects in the future. A speaker from Zimbabwe suggested: ‘If you provide unforms for girls, they can go to school and act as peer educators.’ If young women in Mexico are distributing condoms, aren’t they being empowered as change agents, asked another? Is everything counts as social change, the emphasis on it could become vacuous.
A speaker from the MacArthur Foundation warned of the dangers of achieving change outside the political context, describing how 20 years of reforestation work in Senegal was undone in a day by the decision of the president to give the land to a religious leader. Change is fragile without public policy change to reinforce it.
Another issue is how we measure social change, and here research is needed. One delegate suggested that understanding social change in the past (eg the civil rights movement or the anti-apartheid struggle) might help us to understand what groups are trying to do now and to e valuate their capacity to do it. Delegates again put the emphasis on grantees when creating indicators: grantees need to define what they want to achieve, what would constitute success.
One session looked at the barriers to overseas grantmaking. These included cynicism about non-profits, the need for inspiration, problems with due diligence, the costs of making grants, and the ‘Why not support our own community?’ syndrome. The Gw/oB conference certainly addressed several of these.
1 From the ‘About Gw/oB’ section of the Gw/oB website at www.internationaldonors.org
To find out more about Grantmakers Without Borders, contact National Coordinator John Harvey at gwob@att.net or on +1 617 794-2253
See www.internationaldonors.org
