In launching ‘More than the Poor Cousin? The Emergence of Community Foundations as a New Development Paradigm’ yesterday, the moderator of the session, Caroline Hartnell, asked the 40 people in the audience to help us to craft the next stages of the study.
The conclusions of the study suggest that community foundations may be the missing piece in the jigsaw of international development, but the work by the Global Fund for Community Foundations is at an early stage. Caroline Hartnell asked the audience to consider questions such as:
- Does this study make the case?
- Does the central finding about the importance of ‘trust’ square with your experience?
- What else do we need to know?
In a lively session, people both offered ideas that supported the findings of the study and asked sceptical questions. For the authors of the study, the session was immensely helpful in guiding us about how to take the work to the next stage.
The evidence base
People liked the methodology of the study. It is based on using the administrative process of the Global Fund for Community Foundations to generate evaluation data about the performance of the grantees. This does away with the need for an external evaluator and yields a combination of statistical and qualitative information relevant to the goals of the Global Fund.
People wanted to see this method extended, both by adding new cohorts of grantees into it and by using other data sets from related fields. One person suggested that the Mexican experience of community foundations had yielded a cornucopia of data that could be used in a similar way.
The centrality of trust
There was much support for the idea that trust is a successful element in development. In the Carpathians, one person told a story of how a youth group gains much financial support because they are trusted. Several participants, from Latvia to Brazil, suggested how important it was to have an institution that was countering corruption in communities and showing a clean way to operate. In assessing the integrity of an organisation, a key component was who was on the board. In Africa, there was a different dimension to trust. When NGOs said to a funder ‘trust us’, this could mean ‘leave us alone’, but when this was probed deeper, it commonly meant an exhortation to funders to ensure that their requests for reporting on the grant add value to the work, rather than tie the organisation up in bureaucratic activity.
Despite this level of support for the idea of trust, some people thought that our analysis of trust was superficial and needed to go deeper into the relationships between individuals and families. Staying at the institutional level told only part of the story.
Community foundations as a way forward
It was pointed out that community foundation professionals and development professionals tended to operate in different worlds. Community foundations could offer a sustainable exit strategy for development programmes, but the idea was rarely taken up.
Others were sceptical about the roles that community foundations could play. Most people felt that community approaches were important but not sufficient on their own. The role of the state was missing from the analysis in the report and this needed to be put right. There was little reference to private corporations either. There was also the issue of scale, and the size of the organizations described in the report meant that they were too small to tackle the huge problems facing the world. Small may be beautiful but size matters.
Next steps for the research
In devising the follow up to this initial study, we will address all of the points raised at the meeting. Further information may be obtained from Jenny Hodgson, Director of the Global Fund, at jenny@globalfundcf.org.
Barry Knight is an adviser to the Global Fund for Community Foundations
At a session on Tuesday, the Global Fund for Community Foundations presented data on trends in the emerging community foundation sector in the Global South. One main topic of discussion was the importance of ‘trust’ to make community-based philanthropy work to its highest potential. Nevertheless, Barry Gaberman observed that ‘the high demand for metric evaluation within philanthropy creates a distrustful situation. A lively discussion of the nature of trust within philanthropy – and one participant from Latvia noted that in some parts of the former Soviet Union only young people under 30 years old are free from what he called ‘Post Soviet Anxiety’ about the freedom of civil society – an anxiety that unfortunately inhibits the development of self-confident civil society in some parts of the world.
Comment by Chet Tchozewski — June 9, 2010 @ 1:14 pm
The Global Fund for Community Foundations has just completed a baseline study of 50 applications for grants. Sound boring? Not at all. Lively discussion followed the presentation of preliminary results, focusing on the importance of the community foundation as a model of locally-drivenphilanthropy. I urge you to pick up the recently published paper. An engaged audience emphasized the role of community and
trust building, as well as the significance of local knowledge. I notice Bhekinkosi Moyo has already posted a blog on this session. I was particularly stuck by the diversity in the room. Participants came from Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America. All had important stories to tell. This conference isn’t turning out to be as European as I expected.
Comment by Terry Odendahl — June 9, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
This relationship building leads me to venture into another session that I attended today on community foundations. With a beautifully crafted title, the session was called ‘Not just a poor cousin: Understanding the unique role of community philanthropy in driving development’. Those that know me and my writings would attest to the fact that this is my favourite subject area. I have written extensively on this, yet I remain amazed by the amount of new research and data on this sector. This session was organised and presented by the Global Fund for Community Foundations. A presentation of research findings into community foundations was presented which sought to link data from administrative functions with various aspects of evaluation. A few findings are worthy repeating here. The study found that;
* Community foundations are young and small;
* Size isn’t everything; it’s the functions that matter;
* A key function for community foundations is to build active communities;
* Community foundations don’t precisely describe their work as working on social justice even though when analysed along those lines, most of them are found to be working on social justice matters;
* Small grants are beautiful as a developmental tool;
* Obviously I am simplifying the report here. Nevertheless, I came out of the session with the following observations;
* A community’s world view determines as well as defines its sense of self and the functions it fashions for itself. This also defines how that community crafts its trajectory. A study like this therefore needs to delve much deeper into explorations of the very foundations of a community and the lens through which it defines its identity. Only through such foundational explorations will a sense emerge on how community foundations fashion themselves and what they perceive themselves to be. So whether they are big or small will be immaterial if not understood within that community’s worldview. While therefore I like the idea that small is beautiful, I also think that big is better.
* The question of trust seems to come out strongly in the report. It was one of the areas that the discussion also focused on. In the report, there seems to be a narrow focus on what trust entails. The report focused primarily on how communities or donors trust organisations. This is well and good but it only covers one aspect of trust. It does not even begin to unpack the various dimensions of trust. It might be useful to break down the various levels of trust-to answering questions such as who is to be trusted, why and by whom? In addition, it might be useful to address the level after organisational trust to how community foundations can build trust within and among members of the community, for example, between boy friend and girl friend, mother and daughter, father and son, wife and husband, neighbours, community and the
state, etc. This it seems to me would be the greatest contribution that community foundations can make. It is only when communities have trust for themselves that they can begin to trust organisations and institutions. After all community foundations are supposed to be made up of community members. Thus the report needs to link organisational trust with community trust.
* The report does not refer to the state in development, yet the very notion ofdevelopment cannot be meaningful without state involvement. Conceptually, the state exists for development and any initiative that seeks development has to address the question of the state. This is more so today when one of the greatest ideas to shape the decade would be the return of the state.
These are few of my observations that I wanted to put out for discussion. There are obviously more but these are critical for me in discussing community led and driven initiatives. Let there be no illusion that community foundations are the panacea for the problems of development. No they are not, but they serve a purpose that needs to be supported. It is like a system-if one aspect of the system malfunctions, the whole system seizes to be effective. The message of the report therefore is well
presented and resonates well, but it must not be read at the exclusion of other parts of the development system.
Comment by Bhekinkosi Moyo — June 9, 2010 @ 1:20 pm
1. I totally agree with a list of proposed important questions to discuss and has no idea how we may develop discussion… possibly some of this questions became topics of GFCF’s webinars.
2. In the era of globalization, I am very skeptical about the term “system”. It is possible to accept the existence of the single system – the universe. We may call whatever else as “system”, just only by the exclusion of certain factors, minor with someone’s subjective point of view. Systemic approach in some sense means the recognition of failure to be effective in conditions of social synergetic, and also means the desire to simplify the reality to the illusion of control a specific set of components. I do not deny the right to use a systemic approach. I would like to note that social synergy social capital and trust are phenomena, which are very important for community foundations. I’m having doubts about the effectiveness of the systems approach as the only for the study of community foundations. I guess more effective this approach can be used to systematize the knowledge about CFs.
3. I am concerned by “…the state in development, yet the very notion of development cannot be meaningful without state involvement”. This is a very big question to discuss, so I’d like just to remind that state governance is one of the instrument to provide changes in a society, but not the only one, and not necessarily the most effective. I think that community’s and society’s development cannot be meaningful without community’s and society’s involvement. It’s great when we have good governance and good cross-sector cooperation. At the same time, let’s never forget totally different methods (taxes via donations) to reach development: state has a legal monopoly for violence, coercion. Community foundations can work only with a good will. Sometimes it means a problem to mix, sometimes – not, but it doesn’t mean “cannot be meaningful without state involvement”.
Comment by Vadim Georgienko — June 17, 2010 @ 9:49 am
Who is the Poor Cousin?
Philanthropy Annual, 2008 review by Foundation Centre published next figures for the USA. Parts in giving: 10.5% corporate foundation, 9.9% operating, 9.2% community, with total giving in 2007 – $42.9 billion. Parts in assets: 8.1% community foundations, 5.8% operating, 3.2% corporate. So it looks like community foundations have a similar level as well-known corporate brands. In GFCF’s report the most CFs are young and small, it is interesting how long it takes in the USA to transform their poor cousins to such good position? In general I enjoy a report as a GFCF’s step in a direction of CFs’ analyzing. In any case, to present collected statistics is a good step, which give an impulse to think. I’d like to clear possible parameters of further GFCF research work. I guess there should be as statistics and stories, so further different concept and hypotheses. Bhekinkosi Moyo said “Let there be no illusion that community foundations are the panacea for the problems of development. No they are not”. And the majority of pragmatic-thinking people may agree with it. At the same time one philosopher said “If you are building castles in the air, it does not mean that they are wrong; perhaps real castles should be the same. It is important then to bring foundation under them”. I believe that dreams of social changers help to change the world around. So, I’d like to share with some in small article “PRIVATE MONEY OF COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS” here http://www.georgienko.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=40:private-money-of-community-foundations&catid=30:2010-06-17-13-47-31&Itemid=12&lang=en
Comment by Vadim Georgienko — June 17, 2010 @ 2:00 pm
Internaqtional community foundation have so far not been able to address head-on local socio-economic development challenges some global communities face on a daily basis. Reasons for this failure are many and varied. For example, international and national development agencies hardly have an idea of how community foundations could be used as vehicles to complement their work on required and sustainable socio-economic development approaches. Lasting solutions to most of identified socio-economic development challenges of our time seem to lie mainly on closer cooperation and common understanding between and among development agencies: community foundations and other development agencies. I fully agreee with expressed ideas that community foundations need to create a new international paradigm for development, to succeed in their operations. Equally, I agree with Caroline Hartwell in her view that community foundations may at the moment be the missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle of international development.
Comment by Chris Mkhize — June 21, 2010 @ 3:18 pm
The research Jenny Hodgson & Barry Knight have carried out is an excellent analysis of the issues that currently face international community foundations. In building on this research, communiuty foundation practitioners and others now need to ponder on how global community foundations and international development agencies could persuade and encourage UN member states to strengthen community foundations for greater public accountability, sustainable local socio-economic development, to promote and develop socio-economic values based on respect for diversity of opinions, citizen participation and democracy.
Comment by Chris Mkhize — June 21, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
Reply for Mkhize’s comment.
I also fully agree with Caroline Hartwell in her view that community foundations may at be the missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle of international development. It has a reason to point it out, to recognize the role of CF’s by UN member states etc as a strategy’s targets. BUT strengthening of community foundations by state? It is very sensitive issue on the brink of a foul, and it needs in very careful discussion before any steps in this direction despite mentioned good intentions. Let’s think about other possibilities. For example, “every community’s member become a social investor” as a direction means more independence, trust and sustainable for CFs and for community development as well. All, what “three organization” can do to assist in this way – may help to form parameters of their successful activities and cooperation. They has a good position, enforced by accumulated knowledge and permanent monitoring of the market. If they can find good and innovative way for development of their services in mentioned direction, they will multiply results. For example, using of the “cloud” concept may be useful not just for Google…of coarse I mean not to double Google’s services). If this direction of discussion is interesting we may continue, and sorry, if I am too active in discussion here.
Comment by Vadim Georgienko — June 23, 2010 @ 9:57 am
This is a valuable and inspiring report, particularly for emerging community organizations. Thank you for sharing this!
In the next phase of this research, it would be great to learn how these organizations are measuring and reporting on their impact and ability to achieve goals they have set – such as building active communities. As mentioned in the report, building trust is a key requirement for success in terms of both community engagement programs and local fundraising. Here in Vietnam, gaining such trust depends on transparency, effective use of funds and, most importantly, the demonstration of impact.
Perhaps Bhekinkosi Moyo has other ideas of how trust is gained in other areas. And, like Mr. Moyo, I share an interest in learning about the existing or desired relationships and/or interaction between community foundations and state agencies.
Thanks again! We will look forward to the next steps…
Comment by Dana Doan — June 24, 2010 @ 2:36 pm
[...] [...]
Pingback by Un nuevo concepto de comunidad: las Fundaciones Comunitarias como promotoras del cambio local « Fortalecimiento de la Sociedad Civil en México — July 1, 2010 @ 5:04 pm