# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Advancing Impact Investing

https://www.rockpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/RPA-Impact-Investing-Handbook.pdf
Impact Investing Handbook: An Implementation Guide for Practitioners
Presented by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, https://www.rockpa.org/about/ Two years in the making, this practical publication features case studies and detailed guidance for individuals, families, foundations, and corporations. The Handbook comes at a pivotal moment. In the midst of urgent social, economic and environmental challenges including COVID-19, a rapidly changing climate, growing economic inequity, and broader realization of systemic impacts of racism, more investors are seeking to better understand the positive and negative consequences of how they deploy capital. There is a growing realization among those who seek to influence society that they can use more of their assets to complement and even accelerate their social impact goals.

Impact Investing: A Primer for Family Foundations Impact-Investing-A-Primer-for-Family-Foundations-The-Impact-2016-impact-investing-a-primer-for-family-foundations.pdf (ncfp.org)
Presented by The Impact, The Impact - NCFP, a membership network of family enterprises that are committed to making investments with measurable social impact.

A foundation is a powerful platform through which families can express their values in society. Yet, most families only use a small portion of their foundation assets to pursue their philanthropic missions. Impact investing is a powerful tool for maximizing a foundation's assets for good. This primer is a guide for families looking to align and activate their foundation's assets to achieve their social and environmental objectives while meeting their foundation's financial needs.

Kellogg Foundation, Case Study, Mission Driven Investments casestudy_Kellogg_v6.pdf (pacificcommunityventures.org)
The MDI program was created within the endowment of the Kellogg Foundation through a one-time transfer from the trust, where it sits alongside a $100 million allocation for emerging fund intermediaries managed by women and racial minorities and invested primarily in public markets.

Wisconsin's Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs): A study commissioned by WHEDA to examine Wisconsin's CDFI landscape, its capacity-building needs and opportunities for growth.

Community Investment Trust: Building Community Ownership, One Investor at a Time
The Community Investment Trust (CIT) builds the possibility to strengthen communities and empower lives. The CIT offers a long-term path to collective, communal ownership of real-estate for investors from $10 - $100 /month. Ultimately, CIT is committed to working together to build more productive and resilient communities across the country.

Community Investment Guarantee Pool: How It Works
The Community Investment Guarantee Pool (CIGP) is a first of its kind platform allowing guarantors to combine resources and expertise by establishing a single, one-stop-shop for intermediary lenders in the climate, affordable housing, and small business sectors. Together, this group is making more and new types of community development transactions feasible by putting more of their assets to work in service of greater community impact.

Deals as System Events: An Introduction to Deal Review Center for Community Investment
When we review deals as system events, we can see what our systems need. When we create catalytic deals as system events, we can move our systems forward. Both of these activities can help shift community investment practice from a focus on what can be financed to what is important, from a transactional approach to a systems approach, from single projects to pipelines of projects, from projects that fill gaps to ambitious and scaled initiatives, from reductionist and siloed systems to integrative and adaptive systems. The result is more and better deals that ultimately support stronger and healthier communities. This work doesn't happen in a vacuum; instead, it happens as a result of good deal review.

Improving Community Health by Strengthening Community Investment: Roles for Hospitals and Health Institutions
Center for Community Investment with support by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Hospitals and health systems have a variety of assets-such as financial resources, land, and expertise-that make them valuable participants in the community investment system. A small, but significant cohort of institutions have taken bold steps and engaged in investment discussions or transactions. For this paper, the authors sought to identify and interview these leading health institutions that have been playing pioneering roles in community investment to understand what they are doing, what they hope to accomplish, and what their experience has been.

COVID-19, Structural Racism and Community Investment: Notes Toward a Just Recovery Center for Community Investment
What do we need to do to ensure that this double pandemic of Covid and racism is followed not just by recovery, but by a just recovery? How can we approach this work in ways that enable our communities and their residents not only to recover but to thrive? What principles should guide us as we respond to the significant issues that face us, the uncertainties in our environments, and the competing demands on our time, attention, and resources? This guide outlines the Center's initial thinking about some guiding principles.

Impact in Place: Emerging Sources of Community Investment Capital and Strategies to Direct it at Scale
The U.S. Impact Alliance Commissioned by Federal Reserve Bank of New York

This report examines key trends in the community investing field, such as increased corporate engagement, the leveraging of donor advised fund capital and innovative, participatory models for community wealth building. Impact in Place seeks to spark a conversation around the future of community investing, offering recommendations to investors and others who work to spur economic and community development across local Main Streets. The report is intended to inform how community investing can be leveraged in building a just and equitable post-Covid recovery.

Nathan Cummings Value Proposition
A detailed journey into how and why Nathan Cummings Foundation transformed its investment model to align with its capital with its mission.

Across the Returns Continuum
This paper by Omidyar Network offers a framework for investing across the returns continuum-from commercial investments to philanthropic grants. Their framework walks through a broad range of viable investment profiles, some of which involve a trade-off between social return and financial impact, and many of which do not.

Deals as System Events: An Introduction to Deal Review Center for Community Investment
When we review deals as system events, we can see what our systems need. When we create catalytic deals as system events, we can move our systems forward. Both of these activities can help shift community investment practice from a focus on what can be financed to what is important, from a transactional approach to a systems approach, from single projects to pipelines of projects, from projects that fill gaps to ambitious and scaled initiatives, from reductionist and siloed systems to integrative and adaptive systems. The result is more and better deals that ultimately support stronger and healthier communities. This work doesn't happen in a vacuum; instead, it happens as a result of good deal review.

Essentials of Impact Investing: A Guide for Small-Staffed Foundations
This Guide demystifies the process of designing and implementing an effective impact investing strategy, offering advice, tools, and real-world examples of impact investing by foundations with few or no staff. For experienced impact investors and newbies alike, the Guide demonstrates the wide breadth of approaches and purposes that impact investing programs accommodate. Just as importantly, it provides actionable advice and insights that foundations can use to build or enhance their impact investing efforts. The Guide includes 21 case examples featuring investments made by small-staffed foundations.

Impact Investing Resources and Tools by the Council on Foundations
Whether called impact investing, mission investing, program-related investing or sustainable and responsible investing, foundations are increasingly looking for ways to leverage financial markets for social gains. These resources are intended to help foundations explore the emerging strategies and diverse options available to them.

At times, finance can seem like a whirl of unfamiliar jargon. What are the distinctions between terms like "impact investing" and "SRI"? This glossary of terms is intended to be a reference point for anyone who is interested in learning more about the ins and outs of finance and impact investing terms.

Place-Based Impact Investing: Three Briefs for Practitioners by Mission Investors Exchange
This article presents concepts, best practices, and lessons learned from three key elements of place-based impact investing: building strong ecosystems, mapping opportunities and capacities, and deploying capital on the ground together through collaborations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Impact Investing | Wisconsin Philanthropy Network

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Advancing Impact Investing https://www.rockpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/RPA-Impact-Investing-Handbook.pdf Impact Investing Handbook: An Implementation Guide for Practitioners Presented by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, https://www.rockpa.org/about/ Two years in the making, this practical publication features case studies and detailed guidance for individuals, families, foundations, and corporations. The Handbook comes at a pivotal moment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sara's published article on her experience with the PGM Start Well Cohort

# data[].attributes.subject
Sara's published article on her experience with the PGM Start Well Cohort

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Finding My People, Rewriting the Script: A Reflection on the PGM Start Well-Cohort 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Sara Wilcox, Executive Director of Snow-Redfern Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over the past few years, I've witnessed a shift in perspective from traditional charity models to a more dynamic form of philanthropy. The distinction between charity and philanthropy is crucial. While charity often focuses on direct assistance, the evolution in recent years to strategic philanthropy aims not only for immediate impact but also for long-term, systemic change. Strategic philanthropy supports implementation of a proven early childhood education program rather than sending books. It supports capacity building for local community health workers rather than simply sending medical supplies. Strategic philanthropists support systems change that helps keep children in families rather than give money to orphanages.

So, what do our clients think about spending and overhead? What we're seeing is an interest in sustainable outcomes rather than merely minimizing overheads or salaries. It's about getting the job done efficiently and maximizing impact.

If we take that same kind of focus to philanthropy as commercial investing (as with Apple), strategic philanthropists similarly don't look at costs and overheads in isolation. The equivalent to "profit" in philanthropy (and impact investing) would be "results." The equivalent to "share price" would be "outcomes." The key question for investing in social and environmental impact is to ask whether it will result in positive results and, if so, what's the ultimate cost per outcome. A rigorous focus on cost per outcome rather than simply assessing resource input and where it goes can help us evaluate which non-profits, or social enterprises, are good investments for social and environmental impact.

The investment analogy has never been more fitting. Many of our clients are now focusing more on using their philanthropic giving to leverage the most outcomes. In a way, philanthropy is often moving more toward impact investing, where philanthropic capital is a tool for achieving social and environmental returns.

Another way in which our clients are maximizing the impact of their giving is by engaging blended finance, which uses philanthropic capital to catalyze private investment by providing risk reduction. The blended finance approach not only has the power to catalyze commercial capital, but it also creates the potential for financial returns alongside the main goal of social and environmental returns. For philanthropists, this means any financial returns can then be recycled into other philanthropic investments - achieving even more impact.

In this evolving landscape, the emphasis is on aligning financial and social impact goals. What investors, including philanthropists, want to know is that a particular non-profit organization or social enterprise can demonstrate that its spending contributes significantly to positive change and offers attractive cost per outcome. Here, the question is as it is for every investor, "Will I get the most returns from my investment?" Costs and overhead are only important insofar as they contribute to that.

Here at UBS Optimus Foundation, we're fortunate that many of our clients choose to work with us because UBS is deeply committed to its mission of social impact. UBS absorbs overheads and salary costs, ensuring that 100% of our clients' donations reach their chosen impact partners, along with a match of 10% by UBS Optimus Foundation. This approach enables us to maximize the impact of philanthropic efforts and helps with our partner's costs - paving the way for a redefined philanthropy that can bring proven innovations to scale.
Read more about how we're using blended finance in our UBS Collectives here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beyond overheads - Redefining philanthropy for maximum impact

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Looking for comprehensive philanthropic advice? Want to experience philanthropy in action? Interested in an investment-based approach to deliver solutions to pressing social and environmental issues? Let's partner together to manage your philanthropy and maximize your impact.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Millennials Elizabeth and Kevin Phillips are boldly demonstrating that there doesn’t have to be a trade-off between doing good and doing well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AJL Foundation: Shifting Decision-making to Affected Communities through Participatory Grantmaking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Podcast Episode · Hidden Brain · 08/02/2021 · 51m

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Participatory Grant-Making: Youth Action Council - Pueblo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Broadening Philanthropy: Youth Grantmakers in Action

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BLING: A Case Study in Youth Philanthropy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Edgar Villanueva, a Native American philanthropist, explains why decolonizing wealth is necessary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Insight on Participatory Grantmaking: Camille Emeagwali, New York Women's Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What does it mean to democratize power in philanthropy and social change work? | Sudha Nandagopal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Models of Participatory Grantmaking June 3 and 4 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Making Change: Shifting the Philanthropic Landscape for Women and Girls of Color

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An event providing an opportunity for the Chicago philanthropic community, their networks, and the organizations they serve to engage and discuss concrete ac…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you are working to bring about social change, you are no doubt familiar with the inequities and injustices found across the globe. It's likely part of your mission to overcome these challenges and herald in change that will foster future equity, diversity and inclusion.

But this is easier said than done, and incorporating these building blocks of social justice into your program takes constant and consistent action and attention.

Here, we take a look at the practical steps you can take to build equity, diversity and inclusion into your grantmaking and funding distribution to foster social justice and change through your grant or funding program.

Practical step #1: Create, write and share an EDI statement

It all starts with the words-equity, diversity and inclusion.

According to Peak Grantmaking , these buzzwords can be defined as such: Equity is achieved when all people experience situational fairness - when one's identity, race, background or social status is not a determining factor in the allocation of societal assets and advantages.

Diversity typically focuses on encompassing populations that have historically been marginalized in broader society.

And inclusion refers to the degree to which diverse individuals are able to use their voice, participate in the decision-making processes within a group, and the amount of power they have within that group.

So what do these terms mean for your organisation and community? And how can you define your mission in accordance with these principles?

First of all, it's important to make your EDI statement more than just a few half-hearted declarations hastily written and shared to appease the community or interested stakeholders.

Your EDI statement should clearly and boldly state your organisation's stance on matters of equality, and should answer the following questions:

What is your organisation's clear stance and opinion on these issues?

How does your organisation actively engage to address issues of equity, diversity and inclusion?

How are your grant and funding initiatives and decisions guided by principles of equity, diversity and inclusion?

And how does your organisation work to continually improve and address issues of inequality?

Let's take a look at a couple well-written EDI statements.

From United Way, which works to advance the common good in communities across the world: "We take the broadest possible view of diversity. We value the visible and invisible qualities that make you who you are. We welcome that every person brings a unique perspective and experience to advance our mission and progress our fight for the health, education, and financial stability of every person in every community. We believe that each United Way community member, donor, volunteer, advocate, and employee must have equal access to solving community problems. We strive to include diversity, equity, and inclusion practices at the center of our daily work. We commit to using these practices for our business and our communities.
Read their full statement .

From FIRST, a nonprofit working to advance STEM education:
Exploring, developing and implementing strategies to become more inclusive and ensure access to our programs to all students (as well as access to key supports) is critical for FIRST to reach its goal and mission. ALL young people should have the opportunity to become science and technology leaders. FIRST will remove barriers to program participation for underserved, underrepresented students. Pursuant to that end, FIRST Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion is a concerted, organized effort to develop strategies to make its programs more accessible and inclusive.
Read their full statement .

Practical step 2: Build a diverse grantmaking team and panel

As we move beyond the language and sharing of your EDI statement, it's time to address your action plan. How can you make good on the promises you made in your equity, diversity and inclusion statement?

A great first step is to build diverse representation on your grantmaking team, your review panel and your organisation's partners and sponsors. Consider your community of grantseekers. Have you included representatives from the diverse groups you aim to help fund or support? Think about creating partnerships with organisations that can help guide your initiatives.

Or perhaps you want to make the funding decisions more inclusive to your broader community. Consider a participatory grantmaking approach that would invite more people to participate in the funding decisions and help create the social change they seek in their own communities. (We have some helpful tips on participatory grantmaking , too.)

Practical step 3: Use grants management software to support EDI initiatives

Grants management software, such as Good Grants, can do a lot of the heavy lifting for you when it comes to establishing best practices in creating an equitable grantseeker application experience and application review process.

For example, Good Grants offers the following features to help support equity, diversity and inclusion:

Accessibility

You only need an internet connection to register and log in to the grants management system. And the entire system meets Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, a set of standards to make the web as accessible as possible. The latest revision, or WCAG 2.1, focuses on improvements to mobile accessibility and power with low vision or cognitive and learning disabilities. By using the built-in accessibility functions of Good Grants, you can put inclusivity at the forefront of your grants program.

An equitable grant application form

It's important to provide an accessible and intuitive application form that is easy for grantseekers and conclusive for your review panel. For example, our 17 different question types, conditional logic to ask for additional information, and options to add help text throughout the application. Good Grants offers the flexibility to build your application form to your program's exact needs easily.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More than words: 5 practical steps to build equity, diversity and inclusion into your grantmaking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We take a look at the practical steps you can take to build equity, diversity and inclusion into your grantmaking process and funding distribution to foster social justice and change through your grant or funding program.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Edgar Villanueva, a Native American philanthropist, explains why decolonizing wealth is necessary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tara Magner, Director, Chicago Commitment, reflects on how trust, time, and transparency help share power and promote more equity and inclusion.

The Chicago Commitment team is nearing its six-year anniversary. Since 2016, when our team was charged with taking a new approach to MacArthur's local grantmaking, we have endeavored to respond to Chicagoans' hopes and aspirations for our city and region.

One call that we heard loudly and clearly was the desire to include new and different voices in philanthropy. When we redesigned our traditional arts grantmaking program to have a stronger grounding in racial equity, we added a participatory process for selecting grant recipients. Each year under the Culture, Equity, and the Arts (CEA) program, we invite a group of eight to twelve Chicagoans with a broad diversity of backgrounds and experiences to serve as participatory grantmakers. They review applications for multi-year, general operating support taking into consideration our equity-centered criteria. And they recommend a slate of awards to MacArthur's leadership. By relying on their recommendations, we seek to give greater voice and power to individuals from outside the philanthropic sector and to distribute resources more equitably.

Three primary themes emerged: trust, time, and transparency.

We previously described the process of developing the CEA program and offered reflections on the first year of relying on participatory grantmakers. Each year, we learn from this process and take steps to improve it. In 2021, our learning and evaluation partner, EDC, met with the participatory grantmakers without MacArthur Staff present to invite their views about the process and outcome. Three primary themes emerged: trust, time, and transparency.

Trust

For three years, we invited the same facilitator to lead the process, but to a certain extent, rotated the individuals serving as participatory grantmakers. As a result, each year, there were some new faces in the group. Building trust within this panel was paramount to success. Individuals needed to feel comfortable expressing their honest assessment of the applications they reviewed. We also wanted them to feel welcome to raise questions about the grantmaking criteria and the application itself-in effect, to critique MacArthur's program and offer advice on how to improve it. The participatory grantmakers developed a set of parameters, agreed upon by all, to ground their conversations. They later expressed the belief that the diversity on the panel-reflecting a range of racial and ethnic groups, life experiences, and careers in a variety of sectors-led to richer discussions and contributed to their willingness to speak freely.

Time

We learned early on that participatory processes take time and should not be rushed. After the first two years, we were advised by the participatory grantmakers to build in more time at each stage of the process, beginning with introductory sessions that allow individuals to get to know one another. We also began:

We learned early on that participatory processes take time and should not be rushed.

holding orientation sessions that describe the process in detail;

establishing a substantial period of time for the reviewing and scoring of applications; and,

increasing the amount of time scheduled for discussion so the panel can reach a consensus recommendation on a slate of grants.

The last step was perhaps the most difficult. We are striving to improve the calendar, integrating this advice as we plan for 2022 and beyond.

Transparency

Our participatory grantmaking partners expressed a strong desire for MacArthur to be transparent about all elements of the progress. For example, what amount of grant dollars are they helping to distribute across how many grants? Who holds decision-making power at each stage of the process? Will their recommendations be honored or overruled by MacArthur? Who ultimately approves the grants? The participatory grantmakers expressed the belief that having this information upfront will shape their views on whether to join a panel. In addition, they said that the more formal influence the panel holds, the more individuals feel their voices are valued. On the latter point, it is our intent to honor the recommendations made by the participatory grantmakers. To date, all recommended grants have been awarded.

The more formal influence the panel holds, the more individuals feel their voices are valued.

Another key element of transparency is to disclose who is serving as participatory grantmakers and other types of advisors to the Chicago Commitment team. Doing so increases the visibility of less traditional voices in grantmaking, demonstrates the broad diversity of the panel members, and allows us to publicly thank the individuals. For the participatory grantmakers, we ask for permission to post their names after they have completed one full cycle of recommendations. A recent Perspectives piece, Listening to and Seeking Guidance from Local Advisors, explains in greater detail when and how we draw on these voices and shares the names of individuals who agreed to be listed publicly.

We are working to incorporate all that we heard from the participatory grantmakers. While the process remains imperfect, we feel confident that it promotes more equitable and inclusive values in our support for Chicago-based arts and cultural organizations.

Chicago Commitment grantmaking ›
Chicago Commitment strategy ›
Other Director's Reflections ›

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sharing and Shifting Power: Lessons from Participatory Grantmaking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The MacArthur Foundation supports creative people and effective institutions committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. In addition to selecting the MacArthur Fellows, we work to defend human rights, advance global conservation and security, make cities better places, and understand how technology is affecting children and society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Philanthropy from a poor person's perspective | Destin Bundu | TEDxYouth@BeaconStreet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A recent study by the Center for Effective Philanthropy debunked widespread concerns surrounding the volume and speed of MacKenzie Scott's charitable donations in 2020 and 2021.

The study found that the premature criticism-that other donors would pull back their support or that small groups wouldn't be able to handle the gifts-was largely unfounded. To the contrary, the majority of grantees surveyed reported that they were using the influx of funds to improve their organizations' financial stability and that current funders (both institutional and individual) had not altered their support as a result of Scott's donations.

In what must be the decisive decade on climate change solutions and closing the gap on gender, racial, and economic inequality, we need philanthropy to act with urgency, flexibility, and disruption, at scale-just as Scott is demonstrating. Philanthropy must rise to this moment and create the transformational change that is deeply needed to close the $5 trillion annual funding gap to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), address the dire findings in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, and lift 700 million people out of extreme poverty. The longer we wait, the greater the costs and complexity of resolving today's global systemic challenges.

So what does disruptive and catalytic philanthropy look like? And what will it take to get there?
1. Reexamine and rebuild existing power structures through philanthropy.
At its core, transformational, catalytic philanthropy is anchored around intention, flexibility, redistribution of power, and the unlocking of more capital for sustainable solutions. This also includes meeting local demand for social change and ensuring that local stakeholders have the capital and tools they need to pave the way for sustainable change. On a practical level, this includes multiyear unrestricted funding, an appetite for risk and funding approaches that can bring additional types of financing to the table (such as impact investment capital), streamlined applications and reporting, and a commitment to building relationships based on transparency, dialogue, and mutual learning. By giving social entrepreneurs, nonprofits, and the communities they serve the ability to plan and grow and the flexibility to respond and innovate around emergent needs, philanthropy can help foster a healthier and more resilient social sector. This is exactly what Scott is doing, and this is what it will take to shift power and resources back to communities most affected by inequality.

We see this clearly with the climate crisis, which is hitting the most vulnerable communities the hardest. Though least responsible for emissions, developing countries will likely bear between 75 percent to 80 percent of the cost of climate change. As we fall further behind in the race to net zero, climate funding must center the voices, perspectives, and needs of those most impacted-and it must do it now.
2. Transformational philanthropy goes hand-in-hand with diverse leadership.
Investing in leaders who reflect the communities served and bringing perspectives to the table that are rooted in life experiences-experiences similar to those of the people they seek to help-can help philanthropists more effectively advance the common good. Philanthropy-or any capital tool for that matter-cannot evolve and become a force for good if we do not change our mindset and approach. And that evolution starts with shifts in intention and in who is driving decisions. Philanthropy has the unique ability to take risks in ways that no other form of financing can to attract more capital that builds long-term prosperity and sustainability. It's critical to have diverse decision makers shaping this trajectory and seeding transformational impact.

Moreover, we already know that more diverse perspectives lead to better outcomes. A study by McKinsey found that companies that actively spearhead diversity and inclusion strategies are 35 percent more likely to achieve above-average returns, and 83 percent more likely to be able to recruit millennials, the custodians of the future.

Yet, an annual survey by the Council on Foundations found that in the U.S., people of color comprised only 14 percent of foundation CEOs and presidents. And while women comprise 77 percent of all full-time foundation staff, they are significantly underrepresented (62 percent) at the CEO/president level. In Europe, out of the 10 wealthiest philanthropic institutions, only two are currently led by a woman CEO, and only four have a woman chair of trustees. We have to do better if we want to create real systems change.
3. Shift away from a risk-averse mindset and toward catalyti c, flexible philanthropy.
While there is a place for traditional philanthropy, especially as it relates to disaster relief and recovery, philanthropy alone cannot scale and solve today's massive challenges such as poverty and climate change. However, if done right, it can bring billions of dollars in private and public capital to solutions best positioned to help achieve the SDGs-by providing first-loss guarantees, seed funding, technical assistance funding, and unrestricted funding. That is why philanthropic bets should leverage today's available capital resources, which carry enough weight to really address global inequality. By taking a first-loss position, for instance, philanthropy can de-risk investments and mobilize follow-on capital in order to truly build the momentum required to meet our global, systemic challenges of today.

Philanthropy today-and, indeed, in the future-needs to take on a long-term view with a catalytic and flexible approach. By not embracing the full power of philanthropic capital, many philanthropists are missing a monumental opportunity to make real change happen at scale. The good news is that sitting alongside traditional philanthropic structures is a new wave of social entrepreneurs, women and millennials, and venture philanthropists and impact investors who are disrupting this sector and creating long-lasting and impactful change. This is catalytic philanthropy and, ultimately, where the greatest return on investment lies.

This type of philanthropy can harness political and market forces to get critical innovations and solutions to the people who need them most. This is how the IKEA Foundation helps organizations accelerate their efforts in combating climate change while enabling families to create sustainable livelihoods. It's what allows Acumen to take big bets on underfinanced social enterprises which are scaling business models that prioritize people and planet alongside long-term profits. It unlocked billions of dollars for sustainable water and sanitation solutions through Water.org's work and led to the creation of global impact investment manager, WaterEquity. And it's how Root Capital finds and invests in promising agricultural businesses (many of which are led by women) in overlooked parts of the world, helping them become investment-ready and gain access to financing.

In summary, we already have an array of capital tools that we can use creatively to reach those living in extreme poverty, create markets that ensure affordable goods and services reach consumers from all walks of life, fuel women-led and gender-inclusive businesses that are often undervalued and underfunded, and meet an annual $4.35 trillion budget for climate finance by 2030. This is where the philanthropic sector can step up, amplify impact, and show their grantees and partners that they are truly walking the walk. It will take self-reflection and disruptive change-including giving in far greater percentages, placing more diverse people in decision-making roles, and taking much bigger bets.

Alix Lebec is the founder and CEO of Lebec Consulting, a women-owned and led company working across philanthropy, impact investing, and ESG to help clients achieve their greatest social impact. Rafia Qureshi serves as Lebec Consulting's chief strategy officer in Europe and brings more than 17 years as a multilingual, multi-sector leader in philanthropy and impact investment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What got us here won't get us there: The case for disruptive philanthropy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What got us here won't get us there: The case for disruptive philanthropy. In what must be the decisive decade on climate change solutions and closing the gap on gender, racial, and economic inequality, we need philanthropy to act with urgency, flexibility, and disruption, at scale, argue Lebec Consulting's founder and CEO and its chief strategy officer in Europe....

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In an era marked by rapid change, division, and uncertainty, many philanthropists and leaders of grantmaking foundations are grappling with how to adapt their plans to remain relevant and impactful. Traditional long-term philanthropic planning models are being upended, necessitating a shift towards more agile and responsive approaches.

Whether you are conducting strategic planning or succession planning, planning to create a new foundation or sunset an existing one, here are eight simple strategies to navigate this shifting landscape, ensuring your philanthropic efforts are both effective and adaptable.

1. Cultivate a Mindset of Adaptability and Resilience

In an era where change is the only constant, funders must cultivate adaptability and resilience as core competencies. Rather than allowing the idea of an "unknown future" to paralyze you, let it free you. You can't possibly plan for every contingency, so stop trying. Decide to be flexible and agile instead, recognizing your plan will likely change along the way. By adopting a mindset that welcomes change, you position yourself to seize unforeseen opportunities and innovate in response to new challenges. This approach ensures that your philanthropic efforts remain impactful and relevant, no matter how the external environment evolves.

2. Recalibrate Your Timeline

If this new decade has taught us anything, it's the futility of spending one to two years to create three- or five-year philanthropic plans. By the time it's done, the world will have changed, and the plan will be outdated. While setting long-range goals is great, the reality is funders can only plan for the next 12 months or so. That's liberating! We aren't locked into an inflexible multi-year strategy. Instead, we can quickly incorporate new opportunities as they arise, making a bigger impact faster.

Here's a practical example. I guided a private foundation to create an executive transition plan in preparation for the founding CEO's retirement in three years. The plan anticipated hiring a search firm to conduct a national search in Year Two. But six months in, an amazing successor candidate showed up unexpectedly. Because we embraced an opportunistic mindset and recalibrated the timeline, the foundation was able to hire the new CEO faster than originally anticipated. As a bonus, the outgoing CEO was retained to extensively train and onboard the new CEO, transition key relationships, and help with special projects. The result was a seamless transition and a stronger foundation.

3. Stop Endlessly Researching

Often what slows funders down is they embark on extensive data collection prior to any philanthropic planning. Digging into data is critical-but only to a point. Often the additional research is induced by fear of failure or making the wrong choice. Research becomes an excuse to delay taking action. Funders likely already know 80% of what they need to know about an issue. Leverage that existing knowledge by brainstorming what you currently understand. Then identify the critical gaps in your understanding and limit your research to obtaining that specific information. Base decisions on the best available information, with the confidence that you will keep learning and adjusting as you go.

4. Clarify Objectives Before Tactics

Too many funders jump straight into tactics before taking the time to clearly articulate their overarching objectives. Pause and discover your "what" first: What specific impact do you want to see 12 months from now? What does your desired future state look like? Then frankly assess your current state on this issue, and only then determine how you'll bridge that gap (your tactics). Putting the "how" (tactics) before the "what" (objectives) sends you spiraling down the wrong path prematurely.

For example, while I was facilitating philanthropic planning with a family foundation, one trustee suggested the foundation needed to communicate more effectively to key stakeholders. He began asking if the foundation should be on Twitter or Facebook. I explained they could not possibly determine which social media platform the foundation should prioritize, if any (the tactics) without first formulating its strategy and communications objectives.

5. Prioritize

Once you've created your plan, it can feel like you have 65 immediate next steps. But you can't do 65 things at once. Determine your top 3-4 priorities. These are the most important actions that need to be taken next to implement your philanthropic plan. Ask yourself, what is the 20% of effort that will create 80% of our results? These critical priorities transcend any individual's task list - they must become the enterprise-wide rallying cry for everyone. Communicate your top priorities to everyone involved, decide who is accountable for driving each one forward, and measure progress obsessively.

6. Build a Simple Action Plan

For each priority, list out five to 10 specific action steps required to accomplish it, assigning owners and deadlines to each. Then implement rapidly - no need to build fancy charts or complicated project plans that will be outdated quickly. Your very first step is often the hardest: dropping all non-essential commitments from your calendar to free up capacity for these priorities. Block official "execution time" for them, even if you don't yet know the exact activities.

7. Constantly Recalibrate

Don't just set your plan and implementation in motion without ever looking up again. The world around you will continue shifting rapidly, so you must be able to pivot your approach just as quickly. At regular intervals (e.g. quarterly), explicitly reassess: What progress have you made? What's changed internally or externally that impacts your ability to achieve the desired outcome? In light of those changes, what portions of your existing plan still make sense, and what needs to be modified, drastically altered, or abandoned? Update your priorities and plan accordingly, then continue moving forward.

8. Prioritize Progress Over Perfection

Perfection is an illusion that too many philanthropists get caught chasing. Rather than agonizing endlessly to create the perfect plan, take an iterative approach instead. Quickly develop an initial strategic roadmap based on your current knowledge, immediately put it into motion, and be prepared to rapidly adjust as new information and circumstances arise. A solid-yet-flexible game plan allows you to make progress, align resources, and respond agilely to emerging threats or opportunities - preventing "analysis paralysis" and protecting you from wasting precious time and money. The world needs philanthropists willing to make imperfect bets and continue evolving based on real-time feedback. An imperfect plan you implement is far better than no plan.

As we navigate through an era of unprecedented change, the call for philanthropists to adopt more agile and responsive strategies has never been louder. The eight strategies outlined offer a roadmap for navigating the shifting philanthropic landscape with confidence and purpose. By embracing adaptability, prioritizing action over perfection, and being willing to make and learn from imperfect bets, philanthropists can ensure their philanthropic planning efforts continue to make a meaningful impact. The journey ahead may be uncertain, but by remaining flexible and responsive to the world's evolving needs, philanthropy can continue to be a powerful force for good.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Adapting To Disruption: A Guide For Modern Philanthropists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore 8 strategies for agile philanthropic planning, ensuring your impact remains relevant and impactful in today's changing landscape.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exploring the intersection of Trust Based Philanthropy and Participatory Grantmaking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Photo courtesy of the Greater Worcester Community Foundation

A group of teenage philanthropists sit around a boardroom table at an urban community foundation in Massachusetts. As they explore the needs they see and face in their communities, they begin to understand how different life is only a few miles from their own neighborhoods.

A past participant of Youth for Community Improvement (YCI), Greater Worcester Community Foundation's youth philanthropy program, explained that YCI made her aware of challenges in the community that she had not heard about before. During the conversation, another student brought up the need to fund improvements to the sidewalks in the city of Worcester, and she initially did not understand why this was necessary. Her fellow student explained that the sidewalks in her neighborhood weren't safe and sometimes didn't even exist. Cars drove on the sidewalks and this student was afraid of getting hit.

In discussions like this, young people learn about themselves, their own privileges, and about the challenges their peers face. As students begin to know and trust one another, their understanding of community broadens. As one 2019 YCI participant stated, "In [YCI] we are all different but we are the community. Everyone's point of view adds something." This thought demonstrates why participatory grantmaking practices are so necessary.

In " Deciding Together: Shifting Power and Resources through Participatory Grantmaking," Cynthia Gibson explains that participatory grantmaking "cedes decision-making power about funding-including the strategy and criteria behind those decisions-to the very communities that funders aim to serve." There are various means to build a participatory grantmaking strategy. At the Sillerman Center, our Youth Philanthropy Project investigates youth philanthropy as a model of participatory grantmaking with the potential to make grantmaking more democratic, inclusive, and responsive to the needs of underserved communities.

Youth philanthropy programs support young people making grants directly to nonprofit organizations and projects, while also providing mentoring and learning opportunities for youth grantmakers. The more widespread definition of youth philanthropy is: young people giving time, talent, treasure (monetary resources), and ties (networks) for social good. In each of our briefs on youth philanthropy, we explore it as a participatory grantmaking strategy that, as Cynthia Gibson explains in Deciding Together, "is a lever for disrupting and democratizing philanthropy."

In 2018, the Sillerman Center looked at the best practices of democratic and inclusive youth-led grantmaking in the United States in " From Beneficiary to Active Agent: How Youth-Led Grantmaking Benefits Young People, Their Communities, and the Philanthropic Sector." Then, in 2020, we released " Community-Centric Youth Philanthropy: A Case Study of Greater Worcester Community Foundation's Youth for Community Improvement (YCI) Program." This case study aims to demonstrate how a particular model of youth philanthropy programming disrupts and democratizes philanthropy, while simultaneously benefitting the young people engaged in the grantmaking. In both briefs we explore the vital nature of trust-building, community-centric, and power-sharing practices that must take place in order for this participatory grantmaking model to thrive.

However, these practices take a long time to build and require intentional work to sustain. Youth philanthropy programs must commit to an equity lens. They must then engage diverse young people through outreach, trust-building, and values discussions. Then they must ensure young people have the mentorship and necessary resources to develop leadership skills. A strong mentor, or program director, will act as a guide and facilitator for program participants. Program directors will advocate for the young people, provide an inclusive environment, and ensure that the youth receive the resources they need to stay engaged with the program. Resources may include transportation assistance, stipends, food, or sibling care.

Once barriers are broken down so that young people from all backgrounds are able to actively participate in youth philanthropy programs, they must work to trust one another, understand one another, and understand their communities.

As the Justice Funders' Resonance Framework explains, "We must work to build new systems that are good for all people, and not just a few. Just Transition must actively work against and transform current and historic social inequities based on race, class, gender, immigrant status and other forms of oppression." We believe that youth philanthropy, as a model of participatory grantmaking, is a practice that helps move us towards a democratic, inclusive, and regenerative economy.

Participatory grantmaking is complex. There is no one-size-fits-all model or approach. However, youth philanthropy is a model of participatory grantmaking that engages young people in a meaningful, civically engaged way. It is a practice that puts monetary resources and decision making in the hands of those who will be the beneficiaries of a future that they help decide.
The views and opinions expressed in individual blog posts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the National Center for Family Philanthropy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Engaging Youth Voices in Participatory Grantmaking Practice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A group of teenage philanthropists sit around a boardroom table at an urban community foundation in Massachusetts. As they explore the needs they see and face in their communities...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Across non-profit, advocacy, and youth-serving organizations, "youth voice" has become an increasingly popular topic. But what does this work look like and how do organizations interested in incorporating youth voice into their mission and scope of work do so in meaningful ways? This resource has been designed to be a collection of currently existing resources, spotlights of partners in the education and youth advocacy space, and useful definitions and terminology for this work. Additionally, in an attempt to model some of the promising practices outlined by currently existing resources, this piece is framed by direct recommendations of youth and has been supported by a youth advisory board that has contributed to, designed, and edited the final versions of this toolkit.

Who is this resource for?

This resource is for programs and organizations at the beginning of their youth voice journey. This page is designed for programs to explore the spectrum of youth voice work and tools and examples from partners at each level of youth involvement and best practices to begin your work.

Overview and Our Takeaways

The Spectrum of Youth Voice

The first place to start diving into youth voice is identifying the kind of youth engagement that is authentic to and supportive of your work. It is important to view youth voice work as a spectrum, rather than a scale - regardless of the level of youth engagement your organization is working at, ensuring that that engagement is a quality and empowering experience for the youth involved is key.

This resource is organized using the Texas Network of Youth Success's Definition of Youth Engagement, which is based on a ladder of engagement developed by Dr. Roger Hart of the Children's Environments Research Group and on a Continuum of Youth Participation developed by Jack Nowicki, LCSW, of TNOYS.

Explore the Spectrum

At this level of the spectrum youth are assigned a specific role and informed as to how and why they are being involved. Includes inconsistent youth involvement or temporary consultations.

Focus Groups

Surveys

Advisory boards for stand-alone projects

Explore Resources:

At this level of the spectrum youth give ongoing advice on projects and programs designed and run by adults and are informed as to how their input will be used, and the outcomes of the decisions made by adults. Youth involved in the evaluation of programming.

1. Youth Advisory Councils

2. Youth Board members

Explore Resources:

At this level of the spectrum, projects or programs are initiated by adults but decision-making is shared with youth. Attempts made to use youth-friendly procedures and language. This is where most of our work in out-of-school time lives.

Explore Resources:

At this level of the spectrum youth and adults join together as equals to accomplish programming, plan activities, operate program, or complete specific tasks.

Explore Resources:

At this level of the spectrum youth serve as peer leaders in paid or volunteer capacity. Youth leads activities with peers or adults, adults involved only in supporting role.

Explore Resources:

At this level of the spectrum youth have a central role in an organization's structure, driving programmatic or strategic decisions. Youth are empowered to be part of shared decision-making processes and have the opportunity for youth to learn from the life experiences and the expertise of adults.

This youth-led organization was started in 2012 through weekly Twitter chats and has expanded into a national student-led effort. With a focus on action for more equitable schools, this organization works in all 50 states equipping students as advocates for student equity. Youth Voice is built on the backbone of students since they are the group directly affected by the policy. This organization continues to recruit student advocates, with a current network of 10,000+ students.

This organization is an educational platform that amplifies the voices of the Gen Z community. It consists of a network of 100,000 young people committed to unifying the educational space. The conversationalist was founded by a Gen Z student who felt that the voices of students around her were not sufficiently amplified across her community. This effort to amplify student's voice is exemplified by the leadership in the organization, and self-advocacy among the students in the network.

Youth founded and led, but adults serve supporting roles. This organization is a climate activism non-profit, founded by three youth leaders who wanted to take action and have young adults included in conversations about the environment. Now, with over 60,000 followers on Instagram, Zero Hour has become a powerful platform where youth voices are heard "loud and clear" by elected officials and policymakers.

Culturally Responsive Youth Voice

No matter where you are on the youth voice spectrum, it is essential to ensure your work is responsive to the reality that every youth comes to the table with a different history, perspective, and experience. As your organization continues to incorporate youth voice using the resources above, it is crucial to recognize the importance of culturally responsive framing and the variety of communities youth are coming from. By utilizing these different lenses in youth voice development, you will also be able to recognize common mistakes adults make and how to avoid them.

Meet our Youth Advisory Board

From the beginning we knew that it was important to include youth in the conceptualization and design of this resource. As a result, this project was completed with guidance from an advisory group of youth that discussed, provided guidance on, and reviewed this resource.

Gabriela Rodriguez
Million Girls Moonshot Inaugural Flight Crew Member
Shrika Paramasivam
Million Girls Moonshot Inaugural Flight Crew Member
Ramaya Thomas
Emeritus Afterschool Alliance Youth Ambassador
Acknowledgements

This toolkit was supported by the Grantmakers for Education Afterschool and Summer Recovery and Opportunity Fund. Contributing funders included: S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, Bezos Family Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, New York Life Foundation, Overdeck Family Foundation, Susan Crown Exchange, The Wallace Foundation. For more about the Fund, please visit the EdFunders Out-of-School Time Impact Group webpage.

The toolkit was produced by the Afterschool Alliance in cooperation with: Every Hour Counts, IEL/Coalition for Community Schools, the National Afterschool Association, National Indian Education Association, and National Summer Learning Association and the National Urban League.

These organizations contributed to the project design, suggested effective practices for the toolkit and nominated young people to serve on an Advisory Board for the project. The Advisory Board reviewed, edited, and approved the toolkit. The toolkit's authors also received and incorporated feedback from young people who participated in a listening session, providing their views on youth voice and how adults and non-profits can improve. The quotes throughout are from young people who attended the listening session.

This toolkit is meant to be a dynamic resource. Please contact lsilverberg@afterschoolalliance.org with feedback and additional resources to add.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Afterschool Alliance: Youth Voices Toolkit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Across non-profit, advocacy, and youth-serving organizations, "youth voice" has become an increasingly popular topic. But what does this work look like and how do organizations interested in incorporating youth voice into their mission and scope of work do so in meaningful ways?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To truly strengthen our democracy for the long-term, funders need to hear directly from young people and youth organizing staff and follow their lead to deeply invest in the ecosystem that builds political home and collective agency for us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This blog was written by Global Fund for Children's spring 2021 intern Daniela Barahona and by GFC Program Manager for Advocacy and Movement Building Vanessa Stevens.
As part of a broader effort to amplify youth voices, GFC is involving young people in two important grantmaking processes.

Around the world, youth are speaking out about the issues impacting their lives, communities, and futures. Increasingly, young people are also speaking up through participatory grantmaking.

Grantmaking is shifting toward greater inclusion, recognizing that traditional funding practices often exclude many communities. Instead, participatory grantmaking embraces community members, with their lived experiences, as experts - no one better understands which issues are most urgent than those experiencing them.

According to Candid's GrantCraft guide, Deciding Together: Shifting Power and Resources Through Participatory Grantmaking, "Participatory grantmaking cedes decision-making power about funding - including the strategy and criteria behind those decisions - to the very communities that funders aim to serve." Through a participatory process, funders confront power imbalances, break down barriers to participation, and listen more deeply to grassroots leaders.

At Global Fund for Children (GFC), members of our Youth Leadership Council (YLC) and a diverse group of youth in the UK are engaging in participatory grantmaking in two new initiatives. While one initiative focuses on child safeguarding best practices and the other on gender and masculinities, both recognize the value of youth perspectives in the grantmaking process.

Youth Leadership Council help shape safeguarding pilot in Uganda

For two members of the YLC, their direct experience as grassroots community leaders informs how they engage in grantmaking. YLC Vice Chair Solomon Tawanda Ndondo from Zimbabwe and YLC Secretary Sunga Kufeyani from Malawi recently participated in selecting an intermediary organization to re-grant funds for a new project in Uganda initiated by the Funder Safeguarding Collaborative and coordinated by GFC. The pilot will support community organizations to articulate their approach to strengthening organizational cultures and practices that keep people safe, ensuring that local knowledge and expertise define the most effective approaches to safeguarding within a Ugandan context.

In April 2021, both Solomon and Sunga joined the committee that reviewed applications and selected the intermediary partner. They played a key role in the discussion around the selection criteria and took part in due diligence procedures, learning about that side of grantmaking for the first time.

"I really liked the whole process and that we were involved in its entirety," Solomon said. "I really felt like a part of the GFC family and that we as young people were really involved. It was an opportunity to gain leadership and negotiation skills."

For Sunga, her participation meant understanding the realities faced by community organizations seeking to build better partnerships. "Most grassroots organizations in Africa are led or started by young people," Sunga said. "I started a grassroots organization, so I have a better understanding of advocating for them. It's crucial because my experience shows how we put unrealistic expectations on grassroots movements. In this selection process, I was passionate about finding a grassroots organization that will work to find and aid other grassroots organizations."

Youth fund peer-led initiatives in England to promote healthy masculinities

Through GFC's Exploring Masculinities in England initiative, 11 young people ages 18 to 25 are designing a grant pool to fund youth-led projects promoting healthy masculinities. While the initiative also funds a network of ten community-based organizations engaging young people in exploring masculinities and gender justice, UK Program Officer Katherine Gilmour recognized the importance of giving young people decision-making power.

"Far too often, youth voices are silenced in conversations about gender, and can bring new perspectives to issues about gender and masculinities for social change in their communities," said Katherine, expressing her excitement to give up space in grantmaking for young people to take the lead.

The youth panel, which was launched in May 2021, is learning about grantmaking, fostering new peer connections, and discovering creative, youth-led initiatives encouraging healthy masculinities. The panelists will design all aspects of an open-call grantmaking process - including the criteria, application, and decision-making and final selection processes. GFC will get to see how young people re-envision grantmaking, including whether young people prioritize criteria differently, design a more youth-friendly application, reach more diverse applicants, and choose initiatives we might not otherwise have heard of or selected.

Katherine is keen to ensure meaningful and accessible participation throughout the process. Recognizing the time commitment and young people's expertise, youth panel members are receiving a stipend. GFC is also lending Chromebooks and hot spots to young people who don't have access to a computer or Wi-Fi. The grantmaking process - which GFC is facilitating in partnership with a local youth-centered organization called Participation People - is alive with fun engagement, including activities involving Legos and care packages. Already, the process is a significant departure from traditional grantmaking, and GFC is eager to support and celebrate the young people on this journey.

Hopes for youth participatory grantmaking

As GFC team members and YLC members engage in participatory grantmaking, we are committed to learning from the process and its outcomes.

Sunga believes young people will shift power through participatory grantmaking. "I choose to believe that a lot of young people nowadays are conscious of social justice, so they can point out problematic behaviors, stigma, and discrimination," she said. Sunga notes that this also means not looking for perfect organizations, but instead for grassroots organizations close to marginalized communities.

Solomon also views these grantmaking initiatives as an important opportunity to support grassroots and youth civil society.

"I believe that if funders would really take the time and resources to engage young people, their programs would be more effective, and remove a lot of the red tape that excludes youth-led organizations," he said. "Youth know what they are doing and what they want."

Katherine agreed. "Youth are impatient for change, and have an appetite to speed things up," she said. "Engaging young people in decision-making is still so rare, when it should be the norm."

GFC is proud to be part of the movement for participatory grantmaking and to champion opportunities for young people to make decisions about their lives, communities, and futures.
Header photo: A young person participating in a program run by The Warren Youth Project, one of the organizations in GFC's Exploring Masculinities in England initiative. © The Warren Youth Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Grantmaking by and for young people | Global Fund for Children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As part of a broader effort to amplify youth voices, GFC is involving young people in two important grantmaking processes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Youth Philanthropy to a Youth | Maya Tharoo | TEDxSugarLand

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Power of Participation: Youth reimagining philanthropy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Amplifying Youth Voice: For Youth Development, Community & Democracy | John Weiss | TEDxYDL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
YouthSpeak, a global movement for young people to let their voices be heard.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Role of Philanthropy in Decolonizing Wealth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Philanthropy Must Be Decolonized | Michelle Ramos | TEDxJacksonville

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Beginner's Guide to Decolonization | Kevin Lamoureux | TEDxSurrey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Your Invitation to Disrupt Philanthropy | Sara Lomelin | TED

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How To Use Digital Participatory Platforms To Support Participatory Grantmaking?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new tool that blends your everyday work apps into one. It’s the all-in-one workspace for you and your team

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Speak Youth to Power: Inspiring a New Social Contract

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the world begins the slow process of rebounding from the COVID-19 pandemic, societies must work harder than ever to safeguard democratic governance and overcome sustainable development challenges rooted in systemic inequality and exclusion. Because young people are disproportionately impacted and have the most to lose, their political participation and inclusion are pivotal. There are over 1 billion young people between the ages of 15 and 24 worldwide - half of whom are young women - with diverse lived experiences and political interests.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Change is in the air! Around the world, more and more children are taking action to make the world a better place. They are harnessing the power of Gen Next to create meaningful and lasting change in their communities and beyond. Let's make changemakers through girl child education India!

From organizing marches and protests to advocating for social justice and environmental protection, these young changemakers are leading the way toward a brighter future. By harnessing the power of Gen Next, we can empower children to become agents of positive change in their communities and beyond, and create a world that works for everyone.

In this blog, we will discuss the important role of children as changemakers, and explore how to unleash the power of Gen Next to create meaningful and lasting change.

What is Gen Next?

The term Gen Next refers to the next generation, in particular, the rising generation of young people aged 18-24 years old. Gen Next is often understood as the cohort born between 1995 and 2011 but is also used to refer to any person aged 18 and under.

This is because youth are often under-represented in decision-making processes, and have fewer opportunities to influence policy and decision-making.

This term emerged in the 1990s in response to the growing impact of young people and the changing nature of youth culture and is now widely used to describe young people as agents of positive change. Gen Next has been described as "a mass of connected, empowered individuals who expect to be heard, want to be involved, and want to make a difference in their own lives and in the world".

Role of Children as Changemakers

Children and young people have been taking action to make their communities and the world a better place. But more and more children are taking action as Gen Next, and are increasingly recognized as leaders and changemakers. There are many examples of children as changemakers across the world and across different issue areas, from climate change to education, human rights to gender equality, and health to peacebuilding.

As Gen Next grows, there is a need for children and youth to be involved in decision-making processes. More and more children and young people are taking action to ensure their voices are heard and are becoming agents of positive change in their communities and beyond.

Children and young people have different perspectives than adults, and Gen Next has something to offer everyone. By involving children and young people in social change, we can harness the power of Gen Next to create meaningful and lasting change in communities, and create a world that works for everyone.

Children as Changemakers

Children and young people around the world are taking action to make their communities and the world a better place.

Benefits of Involving Children in Social Change

Children and young people have something to offer the world, and there are many benefits of involving children in social change. By including young people in decision-making processes, we can make societies more inclusive and representative of the full diversity of people and views. We can harness their energy, enthusiasm, and creativity to create positive change.

We can also create a cycle of positive change that will continue through future generations. This also helps children develop critical thinking and life skills, including problem-solving and decision-making skills. Children are eventually also able to develop empathy and a sense of responsibility for their communities and society.

Ways to Involve Children in Social Change

There are many ways to involve children in social change.

1. Organize events that bring together community members, including children and young people, to discuss issues and find solutions together.

2. Include children in social media campaigns and online discussions to engage with policymakers and decision-makers, and help them understand child perspectives.

3. Hire and engage child-staff members to help with research, communications, and other tasks related to your organization.

4. Organize events that give children the opportunity to engage with local policymakers on issues that matter to them.

5. Engage children in creative and artistic forms of social change, such as writing, poetry, and art.

Encouraging Children to Become Changemakers

Ideas to encourage children to become changemakers.

1. Include children in decision-making processes and give them opportunities to engage with policymakers on issues that matter to them.

2. Create inclusive spaces where children and young people share their ideas and are heard.

3. Appoint child ambassadors and child spokespeople to help amplify children's voices and put them in the spotlight.

4. Promote and celebrate children as changemakers and role models.

5. Organize workshops and special events to engage children in social change and give them the opportunity to lead and take action.

Challenges of Involving Children in Social Change

There are many challenges to involving children in social change. Here are a few:

1. Child participation in policymaking processes may be limited because of their limited access to decision-making processes and resources. - Some adults in society may be skeptical of the ability of children and young people to contribute meaningfully to decision-making processes.

2. There may be a lack of space for children and young people to share their ideas and be heard.

3. There may be a lack of representation of children and young voices in social change. To bridge the gap, let's focus on girl child education India!

Conclusion

Children have always played an important role in social change, but with the rise of Gen Next, their role is becoming increasingly important. By unleashing the power of Gen Next, we can create a world that works for everyone, and more children can become changemakers.

Girl child education India is important in unlocking the potential of young changemakers. Smile Foundation wants to contribute to the making of young changemakers. Learn here!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Power of Gen Next: Role of Children as Changemakers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unlocking the potential of children as changemakers through girl child education India. Young children have the power to change the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"We have outsourced our relationship with uncertainty to certainty merchants."'But What is Your Impact?' - Diego Espinosa
It's a question we get asked frequently, especially when talking to (potential) funders, which often means, 'how can I be sure that money is well spent', or more vulgarly 'are you getting the maximum bang for your buck'?

This reductive reasoning didn't get us far in Keynesian economics, let alone will it adequately fit infinitely complex systemic political change.

"Don't fund anyone who doesn't do a credible job of determining their own impact. An organization that doesn't determine its own impact is flying blind and you will be too." - Kevin Starr

A rather unimaginative take in general, for flying blind can take us to surprising, exciting places, however if we are discussing humanitarian or welfare work, like needle-exchange programs or anti-malaria missions, then indeed, material tracking, human bodies receiving care, recovery times etc.. are all crucial metrics to monitor impact and to finetune this work. But if you transpose key performance indicator culture onto extremely complex, often nonlinear political change work (like connecting malaria not only to the presence of a mosquito in your bedroom but the more complex issue of neo-colonial exploitation and resulting poverty), this reductive reasoning becomes oppressive at best and misleading at worst.

While service provision is important, yes, I won't turn down penicillin when I have an infection, service provision in social change is often just maintenance of the system (and all its failings). In fact, welfare structures often support the continuation of systemic shortcomings, because "look, we have new homeless shelters, and more food banks!". They need to be accompanied by work that upends oppression, addresses power imbalances and results in actual structural/systemic changes. . Firefighting or plugging holes on a sinking ship are two imminent disaster avoidance actions, and they must exist, but if there is not much attention placed on addressing the causes of the fires or the holes, life will continue to be an exercise in imminent disaster tackling, and if the wider warning sign of say desertification or flooding there won't be any trees left to burn, and entire coastlines will be underwater, so all our skills in firefighting and holeplugging will be of little use.

This perhaps is the key difference, behind wishywashy, nonpositional 'social change', and a more mature 'social justice' lens, which is built on an analysis of existing (complex) power inequities, historical context and lived experiences. A social justice approach is preventative, it ought to be disruptive, a radical shift from the structure in place that is a growing behemoth of a charitable industrial complex.

This is why we are also shifting the lens under which we operate. What we do at Guerrilla isn't philanthropy, it's participatory resource redistribution, but perhaps it has more to do with love of humanity than the word that literally means this.
Don't Feed the Zombies"It is impossible for organisations to "demonstrate their impact" if they work in complex environments. Asking them to do so requires them to create a fantasy version of the story of their work. This corruption of data makes doing genuine change work harder because it is difficult to learn and adapt from corrupted data."
And is this entire preamble, a classic lefty (now stereotype), of overthinking and avoiding to address the question, "but what is your damn impact then?". The invitation is to keep an open mind. Sonja Blignaut highlights that " Obsessive Certainty Disorder " is a widespread (primarily Western) affliction. It is linked to anxiety and the widespread human need for control. It can have devastating consequences, especially when it comes to organisational responsiveness and innovation. This deep-seated need for certainty (or safety) can radically distort the work needed to bring about genuine safety. It means asking: 'How might a restorative approach for creating justice and public safety look?' rather than asking 'What is the best program to reduce the percentage of re-offenders?' While the former might lead to a deeply transformed society where, ultimately, prisons will be a relic of the past, the latter creates a sense of pseudo-safety while doing nothing to actually address the pain inflicted on people under capitalism.

Don't Feed The Zombies, a piece in SSIR that states that "impact is a material change in the world that makes it a better place. It's an observable, quantifiable difference, which can be measured in terms of specific outcomes. We're talking about things like: kid's lives saved, farmer incomes increased, deforestation prevented, more literate students, less CO2 in the atmosphere, HIV transmission prevented, cleaner urban air, rehabilitated fisheries, and rights achieved." There are huge differences between these outcomes and so many others, especially in the political space are neither observable nor quantifiable, but funders copy/paste this mentality into Social Return on Investment - misguided business school thinking tainting entire outlook onto the world.

Performers as zombies..

"I quickly learned that in the real world, data is cleansed, re-presented and re-formatted until it tells an acceptable and neat story. Stretching the truth was seen as harmless and normal. Our behaviour was rational. We told lies in order to:

-Get funding

-Keep councillors happy

-Keep management team happy

-Impress government departments

-Get a good inspection rating

-Compete with other organisations in our region"

from Centre for Public Impact
An emerging Guerrilla impact narrative
We don't want to become zombies collecting data we're actually not interested in/that does not help us understand our work better. This is why we hosted a conversation with members of our activist council and funders circle to hone in on our impact narrative and hone our collective understanding of what impact means for the Guerrilla Foundation.

1. Grantmaking - funding the underbelly of movements

Our impact is in funding the right groups not the right project/campaign. So any discussion of impact needs to connect to our selection criteria. Groups need to share our values, have a systemic root cause analysis of the issues that are affecting their lives, defined an angle that is rooted in their own lived reality to address these issues and who are in it for the long run, not for a 'project' before moving on to other topics. They actively build connections with an intersectional lens and see themselves as actors in a wider ecosystem of struggles and tactics. They know their position in that ecosystem and have an understanding of why their tactics make sense in their movement and political context at a certain point in time. Importantly, they have the ability to be self critical, reflect and learn about their work as they go along. There's not as many grassroots groups as you'd think that fits this bill.

Finding and supporting such groups, trusting them with implementing the activities they see fit, allowing them to navigate and build power is the main impact of our work. If there's a successful campaign that manages to change a law, hold power to account, upend exploitation and oppression in a specific context, or a concrete outcome in terms of massively raising public awareness about a certain issue we are of course excited. Ultimately, we're doing this work to contribute to social justice. But we do understand that with grant amounts of 1500-20.000 EUR these cases will be rare and we acknowledge the need to support people in their experimentation, political education and learning and in building connections and building out the 'field' from which large campaigns and other impactful actions can emerge.

2. Other activities
Impact as Hyper-Rationalist Hallucination
On top of funding, we try to contribute to reflection and sensemaking in the field and shift narratives in activism and philanthropy. Here, we used to track and report the number of coaching calls with grantees - while interesting to know in terms of planning staffing (we still track it but don't report it anymore), this cannot be an impact metric if we are serious because there's a power dynamic involved (funder demanding participation in regular calls). Neither is the amount of participants in online events or readers of our website a good enough indicator of actual impact. Again, they can be tracked - but only to spark discussion and for example feel into how happy we are with the ratio of effort put in vs. reach of any specific offer. But this needs to be seen in context. Connecting a handful of activist groups working in the same field through an online P2P exchange that took hours to find a date for to bring everyone into the same Zoom room might sound like very little. If 3 of those groups re-connect again to start a European Citizen Initiative a year later, this was time well spent. We're trying to build connections first without expecting immediate outcomes. We try to create conditions for collective sensemaking and learning to happen. To foster people's understanding of the field, the realities of groups in other countries who work on related issues, build a mycelium that can nourish and connect giant trees but that also has an existence in its own right. Slow process, number of events are only an approximation here.

Effective Altruism Evangelists

The map is not the territory folks.

Dogma of deep quantification, western ways of knowing valued above all else.

"Our species will not be released from the stranglehold of emotionalism that anchors it to hallucinations" - Thomas Legotti (because yes below that seemingly cold-calculated fact-based scientific-objectivity lies a very human vulnerability, the need to control, to be able to predict something and to mitigate uncertainty).

Campbell's Law 1976: "The more that any quantitative (and some qualitative) social indicators are used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor."

Goodhart's Law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure".
Emerging Conclusions/Tensions/Questions
George Box's aphorism: "All models are wrong, but some are useful".

Impact is a widely misunderstood term, either used willy nilly or majorly overused to mean very different things.

Fetishisation of outcomes gets us to miss the forest for the trees, particularly problematic when it comes to addressing systemic social injustices.

Grantee performativity is catalysed by funder demands to demonstrate impact.

Capitalist society is obsessed with metrics, commodification and reductive proxy thinking that enables easier manipulation of variables while not taking into account complexity of life.

What happens when we focus on intention and learning loops rather than impact?

Tensions arise when the system demands justifications and proofs.

Measurability of achievements is sometimes not visible

Hyper-rational thinking is internalised since childhood, from numeric-based school placements that constantly produce and reproduce self-criticism.

How to measure something we value and with which lenses, and we need to change our relation to power while doing this work?

How to create a new way to present "results" and potentials?

If we're not asking organisations to demonstrate their impact, how can we create accountability for spending resources well?

This is a great question. Fortunately, it also has a couple of straightforward answers.

Remember - asking people/organisations to demonstrate their impact doesn't create accountability - it creates a bunch of fantasy data. So, we don't have accountability right now, we have the performance of accountability. Accountability is great - let's create some.
Appendix
Ask people/organisations to be accountable for experimenting and learning together - collaboratively. Create accountability for enabling the healthy systems, which are how positive outcomes are actually achieved in the real world. If you don't know how to do this, there are lots of examples of organisations doing this in practice...
Multitudes Foundation
Alternative Perspectives/Conceptualisations of Impact..
Human Learning Systems Warm Data
Further Resources Explode on Impact - Toby Lowe Human Learning Systems: Public Service for the Real World Made to Measure: how measurement can improve social interventions The Sorry Tale of Outcome Based Performance Management How Organizational OCD is Stamping out Innovation and Agility Certainty Artefacts: the constructs we create to make sense of the world Lighting Fires and Staying Accountable Public sector porkies - 10 years of lying up the hierarchy

The Tyranny of Metrics (2018) by Jerry Z. Muller

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TL:DR - It is impossible for organisations to "demonstrate their impact" if they work in complex environments. Asking them to do so requires them to create a fantasy version of the story of their work. This corruption of data makes doing genuine change work harder because it is difficult to learn and adapt from corrupted data.
Everyone who works to make public service operate more effectively wants to impact the world. Having an impact is a great thing. It's an important North Star for a person, team or organisation. What we do should make a difference in the world.

However, too often, the way that the concept of "impact" is used by organisations gets in the way of the real-world change that people are trying to create. In previous work, we have assembled evidence which helps to show that using outcomes as performance management tools doesn't work, and this is similar territory. The idea that we can measure our impact to understand how well we are performing is seductive, but fundamentally flawed.

Using "impact" for any form of performance management makes it much more difficult for organisations to do impactful work. This is the uncomfortable truth that leaders must face if genuine impact is to be created in the world.

This truth is uncomfortable because it would be really, really handy for managers and leaders if we could use impact as a performance management tool. It would make the job of managing public service (or any form of social action) much, much easier. This is why it is such a seductive idea.

However, part of the responsibility of leadership is facing uncomfortable, difficult truths. So, let's examine the evidence around "demonstrating impact".

Demonstrate "your" impact

Many teams or organisations seek to demonstrate "their" impact - the difference their work makes in the world. They are often asked to do this by those who fund the work. Sometimes they do it because they want to help their staff see the difference that they make.

There's only one problem with this. Almost all useful social change is achieved as part of a complex system. In other words, your work is a small part of a much larger web of entangled and interdependent activity and social forces.

The systems map of the outcome of obesity illustrates this perfectly - it shows all the factors contributing to people being obese (or not), and all the relationships between those factors.

This is the reality of trying to make impact in the world - your actions are part of a web of relationships - most of which are beyond your control, many of which are beyond your influence, quite a few of which will be completely invisible to you.

All of these things combine with your actions to create impact in the world. Let's work this example through using the obesity systems map. Say that you're one of the people operating in the bottom right corner of this system - you're providing "healthcare and treatment options" to address obesity. Let's say you're delivering weight loss programmes in neighbourhoods. How would you distinguish the impact of your weight loss programme from the influence of all the other factors in this system?

Short answer - you can't. Someone on your programme sees a film that changes their perspective on the meals they cook. Someone on your programme changes jobs, to a place with a canteen where they only serve healthy options. Someone is made redundant, so they can't afford to buy organic food. What was the impact of your programme in these situations?

This reveals a fundamental truth about the nature of complex systems. In a complex system, it is impossible to distinguish the effect of particular actors on the overall pattern. This is because complex systems produce emergent, nonlinear behaviour. The tiniest change in input variables creates potentially huge changes in results. Consequently, you can't produce a reliable counterfactual in a complex system. (You can't say what would have happened if X wasn't present). And if you can't produce a reliable counterfactual, then you cannot reliably identify the impact of your activity.

Contribution analysis - doesn't really solve the problem

It is increasingly recognised that it is impossible to reliably attribute impact to a particular intervention in a complex system. This is why you will increasingly hear people say, "we're interested in contribution, and not attribution".

At this point, most people nod and think - "yeah, they get it".

But what does "contribution not attribution" mean in practice? (Next time you hear someone say that, why not ask them what they mean?). Because in order to be a meaningful switch, the question has to mean: does X contribute to change as part of a complex system?

But that's not the question that (for example) Contribution Analysis asks. It asks, " how does X contribute to the desired outcome?".

"The CA approach we examine here adds to existing (although not always well implemented) Theory of Change practice by 'zooming in' on critical causal links in the impact pathways in order to assess how an intervention contributes (or fails to contribute) to change" ( ODI, 2020, p 4)

This has a number of problems from a complexity perspective:

Any work that relies on reference to predetermined "critical causal links" isn't really taking complexity seriously. It is using causal links identified in one context and applying them to another, without examining how changes in the context affect the appropriateness of those causal links. Consequently, it is also blind to emergence - the foundation of causation in complex systems.

Secondly, using "critical causal links in the impact pathways in order to assess how an intervention contributes (or fails to contribute) to change" sounds an awful lot like seeking attributable change. In what way is the previous sentence different from "we are seeking to attribute the extent that X made Y happen"? How exactly is this different from attribution?

This is not to say that "Contribution Analysis" has no place. It has been demonstrably useful for enabling adaptation in programme delivery. But, as per our conversation above, it seems to have been useful when its purpose is starting dialogue, rather than drawing conclusions. The ODI paper above makes this very clear when it says that Contribution Analysis (and Theory of Change) must be separated from contract management to be effective. In short, you can't use Contribution Analysis for performance management.

If we want to achieve impact in the world, the crucial uncomfortable truth that must be faced (from the perspective of traditional management thinking) is that impact isn't something that can be "delivered". In fact, the whole "delivery" mindset is damaging to creating impact in the real world.

We have been encouraged to believe a fantasy - that we can "deliver" impact by a linear planning process (like the programme logic model above). This appeals to us for many reasons: it makes us feel more in control of the world than we actually are - it creates a comforting illusion of certainty. It is fine to seek comfort. It is not fine to pretend that things work in one way, when they absolutely do not. And looking at the actual evidence on how outcomes are made (like the systems map of obesity), we can see that this kind of programme logic model does not represent an accurate or robust portrayal of how outcomes are really made (unless the logic model goes to a very high level of abstraction).

When we think of impact as something we can 'deliver', we are pretending to ourselves to make the task of managing social change easier. And the purpose of good management is not to make the task of management easier, it is to confront the uncomfortable messiness of how the world actually works. If we care about making impact in the real world, we need to stop pretending.

( Image credit)

This kind of pretending matters because it makes the work of achieving real change in the world harder to do.

At its least worst, it wastes everybody's time attempting the impossible - time spent "demonstrating your impact" or creating linear programme logic models is essentially time spent inventing a fantasy. (But that's ok, because everyone working in public service/social change has got loads of time on their hands, right?).

But the truly pernicious aspect of "demonstrating your impact" or linear programme planning is when it is used for accountability or governance purposes. When people/teams/organisations are rewarded for demonstrating impact - when funding is given to those who can 'prove' their impact, or contracts awarded on this basis, or promotions/pay rises are secured in this way - it corrupts the information we need to improve how things are working.

We know this is the case because this is what the evidence tells us happens (overwhelmingly, unarguably) when we seek to use "impact" (or outcomes) for accountability/governance/performance management purposes. If you're interested to read more, here are just a fraction of the key pieces of research in this area. ( Here, here, here and here). The key point is summed up in Campbell's Law:

"The more any quantitative (and some qualitative ) social indicators are used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor." ( Campbell 1976)

When people/organisations are asked to provide data which demonstrates their impact, they create a fantasy version. This is obviously terrible - because if we're not telling each other the truth about the work we do, how does any of this work get any better?

And to be 100% clear - the people/organisations who create these fantasies are not doing so because they're bad people - it's because they're being asked daft questions, where the only sensible response is to craft good-looking fantasies. This systematic fantasy-making is the responsibility of those asking the questions, not those providing the answers.

The great thing about this problem is that it has a really straightforward solution that will make a huge difference to how effective social change/public service work is. It is entirely within the capacity of people to do, and it's really simple.

If you're responsible for resources for public service or social action (if you make decisions on how resources are allocated) stop asking people/organisations to demonstrate their impact.
It makes things worse. Please stop now. Like right now: if you've got a policy or strategy like this - tear it up. If you're writing this into how you work - step away from the keyboard.
Philanthropists and other charitable funders have a significant role to play in making this shift - as people in this context can move more quickly to change how they fund activity.

That is simple. But a very reasonable question comes rapidly into view.... If we're not asking organisations to demonstrate their impact, how can we create accountability for spending resources well?

This is a great question. Fortunately, it also has a couple of straightforward answers.

1. Remember - asking people/organisations to demonstrate their impact doesn't create accountability - it creates a bunch of fantasy data. So, we don't have accountability right now, we have the performance of accountability. Accountability is great - let's create some.

2. Ask people/organisations to be accountable for experimenting and learning together - collaboratively. Create accountability for enabling the healthy systems, which are how positive outcomes are actually achieved in the real world. If you don't know how to do this, there's lots of good advice here and here, and lots of examples of organisations doing this in practice here.

The key shift to make here is to move from funding for "demonstrable" impact (because this - paradoxically makes real impact harder to achieve) to funding for collaborative learning and adaptation. The evidence shows, this is how real impact is made.
And if all this sounds like the right way to go, but you'd like some help with thinking through how you do it, please do get in touch.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TL:DR - It is impossible for organisations to "demonstrate their impact" if they work in complex environments. Asking them to do so requires them to create a fantasy version of the story of their...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How could philanthropy benefit from a more radical approach?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CoWeaving Leadership at Change Elemental

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We’ve shared a bit about Change Elemental’s leadership journey and experiments over the years - from a single Director, to CoDirectors, to a multi-person Chrysalis, and then to the Leadership Hub and lily pads. Earlier this year, we celebrated our latest leadership transition: Delia Allen O’B

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What Is the Role of White Leaders in Philanthropy in Dismantling White Supremacy? Hosted by Edgar Villanueva, Principal - Decolonizing Wealth Project + Liber…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ep 217: Why We Must Reframe The Narrative Around Gen Z

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bianca Anderson and Lamisa Mustafa join me in a conversation about shifting the stereotypes and misconceptions about “fixing” Gen Z.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sociocracy resources: Articles, videos, diagrams and podcasts about sociocracy, consent and teal organizational development.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If someone gave you $400 to make a difference in your community, what would you do with it?

# data[].attributes.headline
Listening Fund Young Advisors' Learning Journey

# data[].attributes.subject
Listening Fund Young Advisors' Learning Journey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SRF 2024-2026 Strategic Plan w Appendix_final

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SRF draft Governance model updated_April 2025

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Private foundations | Internal Revenue Service

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A brief explanation of the rules for classifying charitable organizations as private foundations, and the effect of private foundation classification.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Youth Grantmakers Spark Systemic Change 2025

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PRESS RELEASE YOUTH VOICE 2024 BBC Youth Grantmaking Project

# data[].attributes.headline
Implicit Bias and its Role in Philanthropy and Grantmaking

# data[].attributes.subject
Implicit Bias and its Role in Philanthropy and Grantmaking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Graphic that represents the wheel of privilege and power

Adapted from James R Vanderwoerd ("Web of Oppression"), and Sylvia Duckworth ("Wheel of Power/Privilege")

In the center is the word "power", and on the outside of the wheel is the word "marginalised". The categories are:

Body size, with large on the margins, and slim in the center;

Mental health, with vulnerable on the margins and robust in the center;

Neurodiversity, with significant neurodivergence on the margins, and neurotypical in the center;

Sexuality with lesbian, bi, pan, and asexual on the margins, and heterosexual in the center;

Ability with a significant disability on the margins, and able-bodied in the center;

Formal education with elementary education on the margins and post-secondary in the center;

Skin color with dark on the margins, and white in the center;

Citizenship with undocumented on the margins, and citizens in the center;

Gender with trans, intersex, and non-binary on the margins and cisgender in the center;

Language with non-English monolingual on the margins and English in the center;

Wealth with poor on the margins and rich in the center;

Housing with homeless on the margins and owning property in the center.

Note: This graphic is not intended to capture all areas of marginalization. The intent is to provide a framework to view power and privilege. As you identify additional areas of marginalization, take time to reflect on how you might represent that within the model.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Grantmakers Can Use Power Mindfully to Advance Equity

# data[].attributes.subject
How Grantmakers Can Use Power Mindfully to Advance Equity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Grantmakers Can Use Power Mindfully to Advance Equity (SSIR)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While there are many potential barriers to utilizing power ethically and responsibly, funders can—and must—overcome them to truly advance equity and justice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For a foundation board to fulfill its essential duties, ensuring that it benefits from diverse voices, ideas, and perspectives is paramount.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Set up a private comfortable space where you won't be disturbed and invite your participants to find a seat around the circle. Hand out a and a pen to each participant. Frame the activity by using the information provided in the description.

Step 2 - Self-assessment (10')

Invite participants to go through the wheel and assess their proximity to power (closer to the centre of the circle) or to marginalisation (closer to the outer boundary of the circle) for each category. They can place a symbol or circle their position across the various dimensions. Remind them to be kind with themselves as they do this self-assessment: the intention is not to judge where they stand, but rather to have a well-rounded awareness of where they might be privileged/marginalised in life. Assure them that if it becomes too much, they can step out for a moment.

Depending on the size of your group and the objectives of your session, you may decide to split participants into small groups (3-5 people each) and invite them to spend the next 30 minutes sharing their experiences. Remind them that the intention is not to judge each other's power or marginalisation, but rather learn to acknowledge the nuances behind every person's identity. Invite them to practise active listening . Provide them with a few prompts to guide their conversation:

To what extent were you aware of the areas in which you are privileged/marginalised?

What areas are you uncomfortable with (be it because you are privileged or marginalised)?

When people see/meet you, what identity do they see first (or give more importance to)? What identity would you like them to acknowledge, too?

What misconceptions do people tend to make about you (e.g. assume that you are privileged because of XYZ)?

Step 4 - ​​Large group reflection (15')

Invite the small groups to return to the large circle and devote at least 15 minutes to debrief on the experience. Here are a few prompts:

What did you learn about yourself and others through this wheel?

How might this mapping help us refrain from quick judgments to acknowledge the multi-faceted dimensions of ouridentities?

What actions might we take to use our power in a certain aspect to support those who are marginalised?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The wheel of power and privilege * Recipes for Wellbeing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mapping marginalisation in an intersectional way.

# data[].attributes.body
PGM Community Values

We believe in self-determination

The concept of self-determination is critical to grantmaking decisions; grants and grant strategies should be

determined by the communities served. Self-determination means that people have the right and responsibility

to make choices and decisions about their own lives.

We are rooted in values of anti-oppression and equity

Within our community, we are committed to challenging stigma and discrimination including anti-Blackness,

racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and ableism. We are attentive to histories of colonization,

imperialism, violence, and capitalism and a culture of taking and hoarding which has shaped how institutional

philanthropy has arrived at where it is today. Our work aims to honor a human rights approach to global

issues, and be inclusive of the rights of all people¹.

¹What do we mean by “all people&#39;&#39;? To provide example, but not meant to be an exhaustive list, people from

the global majority, prisoners, workers, Black, Indigenous, and Latinx peoples, LGBTQI+, women and non-

binary peoples, refugees, migrants, and stateless peoples, disabled people, sex workers, young people, and

other historically marginalized peoples.

We value accountability and transparency

We honor and own our mistakes, and value critical feedback. While we are steadfast in our commitment, we

know that mistakes, and the process of openly and transparently learning and growing from them, are an

inherent part of the work. We recognize that race, equity, access, diversity, and inclusion efforts are evolving

and that they require us to learn, adapt, and innovate. The process is the point. We value accountability. We

understand that we are not alone in our journey as a community and that circles of feedback and

accountability enhance our work, relationships, and trust. We practice “calling in” each other and aim to

actively receive and share constructive critical feedback with our peers, within and outside our community, and

to incorporate what we learn, with care, openness and humility.

We move with care, love, and joy

We are engaged in deep, often difficult work where tension is inevitable. In order to thrive in this work, we take

time to support each other and celebrate our work. We make time for check-ins, compensate people fairly for

their time, and work to create a space of collective care for our communities.