Why not just change?

‘Social justice philanthropy’ has been a recurring theme in Alliance – but what does it look like in practice? This was the question raised by some members of the Woburn Place Collaborative (WPC). WPC is a self-selecting, inclusive gathering of foundations in the UK interested in the role of philanthropy in promoting a more just and sustainable society. For some members of WPC, the term ‘social justice’ might be seen by trustees as overly radical, or perhaps just woolly.

Examples of social justice philanthropy tended to come from the US and/or from international giving, and there were few stories of domestic social justice philanthropy in action in the UK and wider Europe. A small group of WPC members therefore decided to commission a study that would start to provide such stories. It was agreed that the study should focus on examples of effective foundation contributions and should attempt to draw out some practical tips for effectiveness.

The study

The study focused on seven examples of change in which foundations played a variety of roles, including but going beyond funding. The cases cover children’s rights, disability rights, the education of imams, rural land reform, corporate accountability and the reintegration of ex-political prisoners in Northern Ireland. Each case involves very different levels and very different types of risk for the foundation. Some cases deal with issues that are unpopular in the sense of being neglected; others deal with issues that are unpopular in the sense of arousing negative or contested reactions.

The education of imams
One case focuses on a project undertaken by the King Baudouin Foundation (KBF) in Belgium. However, the issue taken up is relevant in many European societies – the training of imams. The story illustrates the unique ability of foundations, standing outside and above the fray, to do what no government, single non-profit or research institution could or would do. Although KBF did spend money commissioning and disseminating research, this was, arguably, much less significant than its role as a convenor and knowledge entrepreneur around a controversial and sensitive issue.

After three years’ work there had been change at a number of levels. There was solid information available about the training of imams in Belgium and other countries compared with the training of leaders of other religions. The key stakeholders from the Muslim community, education and government had been brought together and were continuing conversations. The issue was higher up the political agenda. The issues and the options had been clarified and there was acceptance that the Muslim community needed to take responsibility for agreeing ways forward. There were concrete propositions for moving forward. Two small experimental university-based training courses had been developed; and there was wider international interest in developing training programmes recognized across countries. In June 2007, the Walloon government recognized the first mosques, and the Flemish government is expected to do the same. For each recognized mosque one or two imams will be paid. However, those involved see the overall aim of better integration and understanding as yet to be fully achieved. KBF will continue to advocate on this issue with the Ministry of Justice.

Children’s rights
This case is again about an issue that was ‘unpopular’ in the sense of being neglected. The Paul Hamlyn Foundation (PHF) played a very active role, going beyond funding, in achieving the change it sought. Its role was also unusual, working directly with local government departments as it is they that have the power to effect change.

In the UK, most Looked After Children (LAC) achieve well below their potential in education. Libraries, providing free books and other learning resources, are one obvious, and widely available, potential source of benefits for LACs and their carers. But PHF discovered that in reality libraries were doing very little in this regard. Social services, education and libraries rarely talked to each other; library rules inadvertently deterred LACs and their carers from using libraries; and residential homes and foster carers might or might not encourage book ownership and library use.

After four years PHF succeeded in encouraging libraries to work in partnership with social/children’s services and education departments to develop long-term, sustainable strategies for engaging LACs with books and reading. Libraries are working more flexibly with LACs and their carers; social services have a better understanding of what libraries can offer to LACs and have encouraged residential and foster carers to become more aware of the importance of reading and access to good quality reading materials; and education departments have a better understanding of the role of libraries as informal learning environments. For the children themselves, there have been a variety of benefits from increased confidence in reading and better communication skills to improved test scores. The Right to Read checklist, developed by PHF, was incorporated into the Green Paper Care Matters: Transforming the Lives of Children and Young People in Care.

Ex-political prisoners in Northern Ireland
Foundations often talk about making a sustainable difference but few willingly enter into arenas of funding that combine real unpopularity with risks of failure, legal risks and risks to personal safety. This case study of the work of Community Foundation for Northern Ireland (CFNI) with ex-political prisoners in Northern Ireland is at the extreme end of risk-taking in a highly contentious area. It illustrates the potential of foundations to contribute to peace-building by working on issues government cannot easily address and with people they cannot easily reach.

The case study highlights the range of resources foundations can contribute to achieving change: convening, independence, non-alignment, expertise in grantmaking, community knowledge, local and, in this case, international networks – using their own or other people’s money. Although CFNI is both a fundraiser and a grantmaker it also, in some programmes, adopts an operating role, adding value from its own non-financial resources. It also highlights the value of funding risky, sometimes intangible, value-added work, as well as work on policy lessons and international exchanges – all things that some foundations are reluctant to fund.

After several years’ work, CFNI was widely credited with contributing to recognition of the fact that reintegration of ex-political prisoners had to be addressed; it provided support to the development of service and support organizations; it developed training and skills; it created networks and alliances; it encouraged understanding, dialogue and healing – basic building blocks to reintegration and lasting peace.

Key methods

The case studies (and the wider research literature) demonstrate that there are no golden rules or magic bullets in achieving change with impact beyond immediate grantees. But they do highlight some recurring themes in how foundations work and what they need to look for, and fund, in grant recipient partners if they want to contribute to the achievement of wider, longer-term impact. There is insufficient space here to cover all themes but some are worth highlighting.

Flexibility
One theme is the need for flexibility to seize opportunities and capitalize on, or make, luck – and that has implications for core funding. ‘It’s about taking opportunities, choosing the right time and nuancing things in the right way to fit the needs of the moment or the audience. That requires flexibility, being able to jump when you need to,’ said one interviewee.

Passion plus evidence
The importance of believing passionately in what you are trying to achieve came up again and again in case studies. Passion gives people confidence and charisma, it helps them through the low times, it encourages persistence, and it can be infectious, reproducing itself in other champions for the cause.

Passion seems to be most effective when it is allied with a solid evidence base. Anecdote and good ideas are not sufficiently convincing in today’s ‘evidence-based policy environment’. Research can uncover new facts, raise new issues, create new ways of understanding causes and effects, demonstrate what can be done and/or change the terms of the debate.

The most robust statistics and evidence may be necessary, but they are often not sufficient to engage commitment around an issue. Human stories bring a hundred figures alive.

Hitching rides on other bandwagons
Reframing an issue to see it from a different angle can be powerful in itself and may create new interest and support if the issue can be related to some other, already topical, agenda that may be equally, or more, powerful in gaining attention and action. ‘Hitching rides on other bandwagons’ is one element in ‘making your own luck by seizing opportunities’.

Working on a number of fronts
The case studies suggest that change is most likely to be achieved by working on a number of fronts: national and local, service and advocacy, support and promotion, and so on. Bringing people together across boundaries is not only valuable in itself but also one way of, in effect, working on several fronts simultaneously.

‘Giving smart answers’
Dissemination is a key strategy in all the case studies. But an additional theme is the power of ‘giving policymakers and others recommendations in bite-sized chunks’ or ‘giving them smart answers’ that are feasible and actionable. This might involve equipping others to deal with challenges and obstacles (for example, working with press officers in government departments). It might involve being pragmatic and compromising over what can realistically be achieved at any given time. Providing ‘smart’ answers relates to three other themes: focusing on the positive, presenting clear and simple messages, and focusing on the message not the messenger

Not shiny
Perhaps the clearest message from the case studies is the need for persistence. Most change is a matter or iteration not cataclysm. Furthermore, as several interviewees from within government noted, being able to stay with an issue longer term is one of foundations’ great strengths, and something government finds it hard to do. This has obvious implications for funding terms: ‘There’s a problem about having to bid with something new and shiny. Achieving change isn’t about shiny – it’s about years of hammering away, publishing reports, going to meetings, networking, building credibility, making people know you’ll be around next year, and the year after.’

Diana Leat, Just Change: Strategies for increasing philanthropic impact is published by the Association of Charitable Foundations, London, 2007 www.acf.org.uk. You can contact her at dianaleat@hotmail.com.