What we are exploring
Where are the opportunities to unpack power, privilege and voice in systems grantmaking?
We are zooming into a grant cycle, where we see at least six areas for deeper inquiry. We are also zooming out to opportunities beyond a conventional grant cycle.
We recognize we’re not starting from scratch. Plenty has been tried before and around the world. The early ideas suggested here are starting points for further exploration and conversation. Got a relevant example of grantmaking practice to share? Or a different perspective? We’d love to hear from you!
Zooming out from grants
COVID-19 and anti-racism protests spurred by the murder of George Floyd have shaken our systems and rattled core assumptions.
Responding to systemic inequities, and pursuing open windows for change, will take more than grants. We recognize we cannot simply grant our way to systems change.
As we engage with community members and system stakeholders, we’ll catalogue how the landscape is shifting and raise questions about the role of foundations, now and in the future.
Zooming into grants
Framing
Core to Vancouver Foundation’s identity is being a responsive grantmaker; that is, a grantmaker who responds to the needs of community. Operationally, this means any eligible organization can apply for a systems change grant on any issue.
The assumption is that organizations who apply are best placed to frame system challenges within their community.
An alternative assumption is that organizations who apply have one important vantage point. Communities are wonderfully eclectic spaces made-up of individuals, families, loose associations, groups, foundations, organizations and institutions. Part of systems change is looking at who names problems, sets agendas, and determines the language used.
Alongside listening to applicants, what are ways foundations might come to understand the systems at play and seek out a multiplicity of perspectives? When does it make sense for foundations to fund agnostically, and when does it make sense to focus efforts? How might communities, not foundations, set systems change priorities?
To help frame a granting stream, we might try different:
Ways to invite diverse voices to shape systems mapping
Ways to visualize systems and levers of change
Ways to host conversations to indicate priorities
Finding
Part of Vancouver Foundation’s commitment to community responsiveness is opening the door to any local non-profit organization -- regardless of size or mission. Provided your organization is a registered charity or qualified donee and operates in British Columbia, you are eligible to apply for a systems change grant.
The assumption is that light-touch eligibility criteria allow any organization to walk through the door.
Another assumption is that open doors are responsive to organizations who know and have the capacity to knock. Smaller, less established organizations might not have the bandwidth to apply. Bottom-up systems change work, led by local leaders without institutional backing, might also lack the right structures to apply.
Alongside an open door, what are ways foundations might source and scout work from marginalized and historically overlooked communities, including Indigenous communities?
To help find the unusual suspects, we might test different:
Outreach and mobilization strategies including community field trips and canvassing.
Ways to matchmake leaders, teams and groups with eligible intermediaries
Roles to build relationships in marginalized communities
Applying
Vancouver Foundation gets to know its applicants via the written word. All applicants go through the same online application process where they submit answers to questions, within given character limits.
The prevailing assumption is that a clear online process with standardized questions ensures a level playing field.
An alternative assumption is that a process predicated on the written word privileges linear, analytic thinking, and is not inclusive of all cultures and disciplines. Indigenous cultures, for example, draw on oral storytelling traditions to pass down knowledge. Design disciplines, for example, use drawings, diagrams and physical prototypes to convey ideas.
Alongside written applications, how might foundations try other modalities and forms of expression?
To help re-imagine applications, we might test:
Non-written application formats
Applications oriented around learning versus delivering activities, and prototyping versus planning.
New kinds of coaching and feedback loops
Assessing
One-by-one. That’s how Vancouver Foundation reviews applicants coming through its systems change granting stream. Staff and volunteer community advisors score each application against a common set of criteria.
The assumption is that evaluating each application on its own, against a standardized rubric, facilitates fairness.
An alternative assumption is that systems change is all about how parts fit into a whole. Applications might be considered side-by-side as part of a collectively crafted theory of systems change, driven by lived and in-system experience.
Alongside one-by-one grant-making, how might foundations look at clusters of themed applications, collaborating with communities to define the criteria for joint action?
To help broaden assessment, we might test:
Setting criteria with stakeholders in communities
Visual assessment tools
Roles for people with lived experience
Resourcing
Vancouver Foundation draws a distinction between service delivery and systems change work, and recognizes that day-to-day pressures too often push systems change work to the side of already overworked desks. That’s one reason for granting to systems change projects.
The assumption is that project funding enables organizations to move forward with their systems change ideas.
An alternative assumption is that project funding, alone, can’t compensate for chronic underfunding of systems change infrastructure. Where service delivery typically needs coordinators, administrators, case managers and frontline workers, systems change might draw on researchers, artists, designers, film-makers, lawyers, advocates, journalists, etc. The desire to engage in systems change work may not match with organizational capabilities and structures.
Alongside grants for projects, how might foundations invest in infrastructure for systems change? How might they support shared functions like learning and evaluation?
To help explore resourcing, we might test concepts for:
Shared roles or functions
Shared products, perhaps social marketing, websites, databases.
Influencing
Systems change challenges are very much political challenges. At the root of so many stuck systems are vested interests and power imbalances. Vancouver Foundation supports political engagement, welcoming its grantees to engage in advocacy activities.
The prevailing assumption is that political change happens through grantee’s individual efforts. Project dollars facilitate policy shifts and political reforms.
Another assumption is that political change happens because of political leverage and social capital -- and that Vancouver Foundation is well positioned to exert some influence. It also has a big-picture view, able to take learning from the ground, see patterns, and weave together fresh narratives that can shape political and policy discussions.
Alongside project-level advocacy work, how might foundations engage in collective advocacy and narrative shaping work? How might foundations invest in collecting and leveraging on-the-ground learning to inform political agendas?
To help explore the influencing role, we might test:
Ways to bring grantees together to set policy agendas
Communication products and tools to shape broader narratives
Events to build relationships between political leaders and communities