Funder Collaboration: Unpacking the toolkit - Collaborate

Funder Collaboration: Unpacking the toolkit Annabel Davidson Knight and Mary Stevens December 2017

Cover Design TBC

Good collaboration leads to better projects.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

ABOUT THE FUNDER

Collaborate CIC is a social consultancy that helps services to the public to collaborate to tackle complex social challenges.

Big Lottery Fund is the largest funder of community activity in the UK. It uses money raised by National Lottery players to help communities achieve their ambitions. From small, local projects to UK-wide initiatives, its funding brings people together to make a difference to their health, wellbeing and environment. Since June 2004 it has awarded £8.5 billion to projects that improve the lives of millions of people.

Issues such as rising inequality, multiple needs, devolution and fairer economic growth require collaborative responses. We create partnerships that get beyond traditional silos to deliver credible change on the ground. We are values-led, not for profit and driven by a belief in the power of collaborative services as a force for social and economic progress. Our clients and partners span local government, NHS, charitable funders, civil society and the private sector. For more information, see www.collaboratecic.com

FUNDER COLLABORATION: UNPACKING THE TOOLKIT

In 2016, Big Lottery Fund and the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation UK co-funded Collaborate to examine the funding ecology for civil society. Following the publication of this first report, Big Lottery Fund commissioned Collaborate to build on this research and identify practical approaches independent funders can take towards collaboration within this ecology to support positive social change.

2

Contents 1. Introduction and guide to report 4 2. Context: building on the Funding Ecology work 5 3. Understanding your ecology: a compendium of tools 7 Positioning your organisation on a journey

8

How to use these tools

9

4. Analysis of collaboration 11 5. Next horizons 12 Strengthening use of data

12

Broadening collaboration

12

Using systems and design tools to deepen understanding

12

Understanding readiness

13

Taking culture seriously

13

New attitudes to risk

13

Appendix

15


3

1. Introduction and guide to report The value provided by Trusts and Foundations is significant, yet we know more can be done to make the most of the varied assets funders hold. In 2015/16 grantmaking by the top 300 UK Foundations alone totalled some £2.9bn. This fails to take into account the added value of support offered in many and varied forms by funders – through convening communities of practice, sharing learning and insight, providing platforms to influence and many more besides. How this financial and non-financial value is leveraged to create greatest impact is the source of a plethora of learning activities, reports and data – all with the crucial aim of helping funders understand how we can ensure the resources we have are used most effectively to create the best possible outcomes for people and planet? One part of the answer is in understanding the funding landscape in which you find yourself. In late 2013 a partnership between Collaborate, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation (UK) and the Big Lottery Fund was established to explore the ecology of funding for social change with a view to improving self-awareness, interdependence, collaboration and impact.


Through the ensuing programme of work Collaborate CIC has engaged with a wide number of Foundation staff, philanthropy experts and civil society actors and produced two core publications Supporting Social Change 1 and A New Funding Ecology - A Blueprint for Action 2. These have stimulated fresh thinking and debate in the sector with the concept of the funding ecology beginning to take hold, enabling funders to think more purposefully about their particular role and value in the systems or ‘ecologies’ in which they work, particularly in relation to other funders and investees. The need for a new way of thinking which makes the most of the resources available through clarity of purpose, alignment and collaboration – particularly at a time when money for social initiatives and services is sparse – has been widely accepted. But while theory is important, we know that for real change to take root practical support and action research is required. The purpose of this work is to start to capture the tools and guidance to move this work into implementable action. As such it is not an impact report or how-to guide for implementing funder collaborations, but instead gathers together tools and resources that are available to help funders understand the field and funding environment, analyses their use, identifies gaps and makes recommendations for further work. Many of these resources are of real value to delivery organisations too, and it is worth noting, are not yet commonly used by funders who in the main, rely on their networks and relationships, rather than other resources and guidance. In compiling this report, we spoke with staff at Foundations and Social Investors as well as a number of VCS intermediaries and creators of tools, through interviews and a workshop.

IN CHAPTER 2… We provide some context to the report, describing the principles and practice outlined in earlier publications.

IN CHAPTER 3… We ask what tools and resources are available which help funders understand context? We introduce a compendium of these resources and provide guidance on usage and case studies that demonstrate their value.

IN CHAPTER 4… We explore how these resources are being used. What do Foundation staff do when assessing their funding environment and considering collaboration? This chapter provides analysis and outlines some of the key challenges to collaboration reported.

IN CHAPTER 5… We conclude the report asking, what needs to happen next to strengthen practice in this space?

4

2. Context: building on the Funding Ecology work This report builds on our earlier joint work on funding ecologies, in particular A New Funding Ecology: a blueprint for action. This report supports funders to take action under the second founding principle set out in the report A New Funding Ecology: a Blueprint for Action: “being clear about where we create value.” Our findings begin to unpack 3 of the elements described in the funding ecology model below and questions posed therein, namely;

THREE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE FUNDING ECOLOGY APPROACH 1. “Funding the right models of change” – the need to build

in nuanced understanding of the underlying drivers and dynamics of social change – embracing new analytical tools and contemporary thinking on theories of change, complexity and demand.

2. “Being clear about where we create value” – the need for

clearer and more deliberate articulation of funder agency – being clearer about where organisations sit on a spectrum of issue-to-outcome, and from micro-to-macro.

1. DIAGNOSIS AND UNDERSTANDING

2. READINESS AND CAPACITY

3. ECOSYSTEM AND NETWORKS.

Identifying tools that help to build a clearer understanding of operating context, including the dynamics and drivers of issues, key stakeholders and existing activities and funders.

Signposting a small number of resources which provide learning from practical experiences of establishing funding collaborations, including the steps to preparing for this way of working – though guidance and case studies in this space could still be strengthened.

Listing a number of networks and online platforms which support better joint working and sharing of practice among Foundations.

3. “Collaborating to maximise our impact” – the need to

explore more deliberative models of funding - less about planning from design to delivery, and more about creating coalitions to enact change with others.


5

TAKING FORWARD THE FUNDING ECOLOGY MODEL ECOLOGY AUDIT Do you understand the funding ecology within which you are a part, and could you map it?

CONTEXT Do you understand enough about the drivers for change that will impact you?

Diagnosis & Understanding Impact & Legacy

Collaborative Social Change SYSTEM PRECONDITIONS Do you have a picture of the enabling factors that need to be in place for you to begin effecting systemic change through partnerships?

Readiness & Capacity

COLLABORATION READINESS How ready are you to work in partnership with other organisations (especially voluntary sector organisations) within your ecosystems?

Ecosystems & Networks Implementation & Scale


6

3. Understanding your ecology: a compendium of tools • Commissioned briefing

THE ECOLOGY AUDIT TOOLKIT Through the interviews and desk research we identified a number of tools and strategies that funders are using to enable them to better understand their ecology, and the role that they play within it. These tools are all inter-related, which is why we have depicted them on a wheel. For example, the main value of the platforms and network meetings may not always be in the content, but for the 1-2-1 contacts that emerge through it. Similarly, the insights from a report (data visualization) might prompt a funder to commission or undertake more in-depth scoping work, which might support the growth of bilateral relationships. You can find a full list of these tools organised by the categories above and with links to relevant sources in the next section of this report/by following this link.

• Systems mapping •L earning partners (Lankelly Chase) • Diagnostic tools

Reflexive tools

Bilateral relationships •W ith intermediary (e.g. local anchor) • Direct 1-2-1

• Open access: 360 Giving

Scoping tools Data analysis

Ecology Audit Toolkit

Platforms and networks

• Subscription model: e.g. Factary Phi

Data Visualisation • Place-based: e.g. BLF local insights • Thematic/international:

Click to see the full database

- Interactive (web-based) - Static (report-based) • Thematic platforms • Thematic networks • Place-based networks


7

POSITIONING YOUR ORGANISATION ON A JOURNEY The audit wheel presented above is a static model, a means of laying out all the tools available to funders to understand their ecology. However, different tools or strategies will be appropriate at different moments on a collaboration journey. The model below represents the journey that funders may need to embark on in putting in place collaborations: a dynamic counterpart to the wheel. ‘Knowing your ecology’ corresponds to the ‘diagnosis and understanding’ stage of the funding ecology model above; ‘knowing your organisation’ refers to ‘readiness and capacity’. The majority of the tools and strategies identified through this work will add most value in ‘knowing your ecology’. However, the reflexive tools and strategies will also support funders to better understand the value that they and others bring, and how they may need to adapt to deliver successful collaboration.

Scoping

ECOLOGY

ORGANISATION

Getting ready

Delivering

What’s the issue? What’s the context? Who are the key stakeholders? What are others doing?

What partnerships do I need? What do we need to work well together? What in the wider context do we need to be aware of?

What is changing around me? How are partnerships working? What impact are we having?

What are your strengths? What do/can you fund (e.g. scaling? R&D? What is my particular value in this space?

What change internally do we need... - In permissions/buy in - In skills/tools? - In behaviours? - In process?

How do I continue to manage internal buy-in? What further skills/tools do we need? How are we learning and adapting our practice?

It is worth highlighting that growing awareness of self and the wider context should also help funders recognise the contexts in which collaboration will or will not add value. For example, Collaboration for Impact advocates the use of David Snowden’s Cynefin framework to ensure that a problem really is complex (rather than just complicated) and therefore merits the additional resources that developing a collaboration approach will entail. 3 More light-touch modes, he argues, are better suited in this context, such as better coordination and alignment. One interviewee went so far as to comment; “The more collaboration there is, the less accountability and clarity there is. Ninety per cent of time collaboration is a complete waste of time.” - INTERMEDIARY This is a contentious statement, but few would disagree that there are many situations where collaboration is not the best approach. The tools and strategies in this report focus on those funders that have already recognised potential benefits in taking that step.


8

HOW TO USE THESE TOOLS a) Scoping tools

b) Data Analysis

c) Data visualization

The purpose of these resources is to help those supporting or conducting charitable activities to deepen their understanding of the issue or area in which they are looking to act; the tools are particularly valuable for those developing programmes or strategies in new arenas. They include guides to ‘scanning your landscape’ and understanding social finance, network mapping tools and systems mapping resources.

These resources are a mix of tools providing detailed data on grants, particularly by theme, and more general information on available sources of funding. These are particularly valuable to organisations seeking support, but heavily dependent on the quality and quantity inputted; for example, some tools listed provide mainly data on North American activity where there is a lot of data inputted, but their coverage of the UK is thin. 360 Giving deserves special mention as the leading development in the UK attempting to improve and strengthen available data on grants – at present some 51 funders have signed up to sharing their data but as more Foundations sign up and make their grant data available, the stronger this resource will be.

These are particularly valuable in presenting complex grant data in visual formats through mapping, graphs and graphics, some of which are interactive. There are some excellent best practice examples, but as yet the UK does not have platforms which do this in real depth across the board, as exists in a more complete way in the U.S.

These resources help me to…

• Understand my own positon within a wider system or network.

• Understand who has funded what and where.

• See the big picture on investment trends.

These resources help me to… • Get an overview of a new subject area or place. • Map the scope, stakeholders and leverage points of my work - to understand where I can best effect change. • Develop a common approach with my partners (for example by applying the same tools).

These resources help me to… • Quickly see funding hot and cold spots. • Quickly compare investment across different places and themes. • Understand the connections between funders.

• Understand who might fund things in a given area (eligibility criteria) as a first step to researching whether they are an active stakeholder. • Identify potential collaborators (funders with similar interests / profiles)

EXAMPLE: SCANNING THE LANDSCAPE 2.0 In this guide, funders working in the United States, Europe, and internationally describe their experiences with scanning the landscape. They explain when a scan can be helpful, how to frame questions to get the answers you need, and how to ensure you get viewpoints from a wide range of sources. This report is an update to an earlier version and now takes into account learning from contributors to the first edition as well as technological advancements and how they can aid landscape scanning. The report identifies what scanning is, what it can be used for, how to use it and encourages sharing of outputs. Like many other guides and tools, this report emphasises the importance of defining one’s purpose and also stresses how scanning can assist with building relationships and networks outside one’s usual references. It does not go as far as to detail how to develop common approaches with partners.


• Identify and learn about potential delivery partners (funded organisations active in the space) • Conduct effective due diligence - by understanding who else has previously funded an organisation.

EXAMPLE: WHERE THE GREEN GRANTS WENT This report, published by the Environmental Funders Network, provides an annual overview of environmental initiatives in the UK, with the last published in 2013. It not only offers a broad outlook of the shape of environmental grant-giving, but also divides these into an array of relevant categories. From breaking down species-based grants into different animal groups, to looking at the distribution of grants by each continent, the report provides clear information in the form of visual infographics that are easy to read and use. Where the Green Grants Went is a leading funding publication in the UK and goes further than most in gathering a huge amount of useful information before analysing it and placing it into a number of readable infographics. Authors of the publication report readers having altered their funding strategies based on it’s findings.

9

HOW TO USE THESE TOOLS CONTINUED d) Platforms and networks

e) Bilateral relationships

f) Reflexive tools

Methods that enable people to meet, share learning and explore common issues of interest/concern are explored in this category. Principally, these are groups or networks, events and spaces which enable members to come together. They are one of the most commonly used resources, and while the platforms themselves may not necessarily drive collaborative action, a number of interviewees engaged in funding collaborations referred to these spaces as places where those relationships were first nurtured.

While not a set of tools or resources in the same sense, the value of personal relationships in helping to develop understanding of context and the activities of other funders and resource holders was mentioned more often than anything else in our interviews.

The focus of these tools is in helping to learn and adapt ways of working – whether at the outset, midway or endpoint of funding. These include reports and learning from practice, frameworks and guidance which help funders to better categorise their approaches and assess the value of collaboration in different circumstances.

This approach helps me to… • Access tailored information instantly.

These resources help me to…

• Scratch below the official picture to understand complexity, tensions and challenges.

• Meet with my peers to keep up to speed with their priorities and programmes.

• Build trust to support collaboration (and enjoy my job, by cultivating the personal relationships that make it fun)

• Learn from others' experience.

• Connect me quickly to other key actors (a 'snowballing' approach)

• Maintain my wider sector expertise.

• Save time.

These resources help me to… • Structure my thinking and exploration of my ecology. • Determine whether or not collaboration is the right approach and if so, what sort of collaboration. • Understand my strengths and review my performance (and that of my partners) • Improve my practice.

• Access tools and strategies to enhance my practice. • Identify possible collaborators with common interests. • Avoid duplication.

EXAMPLE: THE COLLECTIVE IMPACT FRAMEWORK This how-to toolkit describes a four-phase approach for developing a collective impact approach, with simple practical guidance. The framework provides clear steps to take and additional useful resources are available in the blog. It starts by outlining initial questions to help build understanding of the problem you are approaching by exploring purpose, assessing the readiness of a collaborative approach and the level of leadership required. The four phases that follow are:

Phase 1) g enerate ideas and dialogue through

testing and building the case for change with key stakeholders and the broader community

Phase 2) initiate action, including building the case for change and also communicating

Phase 3) o rganise for impact by putting in

place collaborative governance and infrastructures

Phase 4) s ustain action and impact – (this part of the toolkit in under development)


10

4. Analysis of collaboration HOW ARE THE TOOLS BEING USED?

CHALLENGES FOR EFFECTIVE COLLABORATION

A preference for the informal

Tools are only a means to an end, and in our interviews, discussions about how and when tools were being used – or not – quickly turned into conversations about the wider barriers to collaboration. Overall, we found that awareness of the available tools or theoretical models does not necessarily translate into their application.

Very few of the more formal tools were cited in the interview data or the workshop. The exceptions were GrantNav – which was seen as useful and becoming more so as more funders sign up – and specific issue-based networks or forums (such as the ACF networks, or Ariadne). The majority of funders still appear to rely heavily on bilateral relationships, and make use of other tools (for example data or scoping tools) only as support mechanisms. There is a tension here, because the extent to which they are fully able to understand the context through using this approach will be dependent on the quality and diversity of their existing network. If the network is not well-connected to either grassroots activity or other services in the place (for example local authority activity, in the case of place-based funding) then bilateral relationships are unlikely to enable the funder to fully understand the system dynamics or the barriers and enablers to making change. At the same time, we have explored elsewhere the extent to which relational funding models may deliver greater impact in relation to complex problems. 4 Suggested ways of overcoming this tension, in particular through the use of mapping tools, are described in the recommendations. It is very unusual for funders to ‘start from scratch’ in a place or thematic area. Strategies are generally building on existing knowledge and connections. This context results in a bias towards the use of bilateral relationships (at the same time as building up trust).

“We’ve never done something properly new. Our grants are always an extension of existing work, building on existing relationships.” - FUNDER Where Funders are using tools and resources, they are deploying them in complementary ways, using a mix either concurrently or at different stages.

The USA leads the way

“Where this gets more formal, for example when we’re talking about a collective theory of change, it’s much more talked about than done.” - FUNDER

Skills and confidence Skills and confidence may also be a factor in the relatively low take-up of data analysis or systems mapping tools, which may be seen as technical and specialist, rather than an everyday part of context-mapping. In particular, the capacity of grant-givers to work effectively with data – to ask questions of it and to understand its constraints – was identified as a barrier to demand for further development and take up of data-driven tools such as GrantNav.

Competition or collaboration? Sometimes awareness of the funding ecology can actually undermine rather than enhance collaboration, by enabling competitive behaviour.

“What’s so interesting about the funding community and so odd is that rather than saying ‘Wow that’s interesting, I could add to this and make it better,’ rather people say ‘well they’re doing that, so we are doing something different’.” - FUNDER

As the database reveals, the landscape of tools and strategies for collaborative grant-making is more developed in the USA. This may reflect the fact that more spending data is available for US foundations, further reinforcing the value of data sharing.

For this reason, some interviewees argued that funders often collaborate better across sectors rather than within them, particularly when brought together by a crisis. Crises act as important prompts: examples cited include the Grenfell Tower disaster and the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean; there was frustration that the behaviours prompted in these contexts are rarely mobilised for early action.

Value for funded organisations

Leadership and role modelling

Most of these tools can also be effectively deployed by grantees and applicants to build their case for support or indeed to shape their own collaborations. This applies not just to tools that might help them to understand the Funders operating in a space (through for example data visualization), or develop a theory of change (using the systems tools, or data reports) but also there is read across to the way they are forming bilateral relationships. One interviewee explained that often proactive applicants are key to brokering collaborations, and bringing on board multiple partners. There are obvious issues about power here – some applicants will be in a much better position to leverage the necessary social capital – but it does draw attention to the fact that all the actors in a system can play a role in brokering collaboration.


The challenge of connecting Trustees to the daily work of Foundations was cited as particularly important. With Trustees normally removed from both the practice on the ground and the wider developments in the social sector, it can be hard for governing structures to make fully informed and nuanced decisions. Many cited how in the absence of such insight, it can be tempting to stick with funding things that are known, simpler or at least can demonstrate impact more clearly – rather than perhaps the more important but complex things. With Trustees necessarily concerned with organisational risk and reputation, a culture of risk avoidance is common and can create a real barrier to collaboration, among funders and more broadly. A relative lack of documented examples of really impactful collaborations – in the UK at least – was identified as another barrier to changing perceptions at board / trustee level. Whilst independent funders are often mindful of their position in relation to others when it comes to spending (and ACF’s reports are valuable here) there are fewer incentives to drive collaboration (collaborative behaviour is not publicly visible in the same way).

11

5. Next horizons This research has served to bring together the range of possible tools and strategies, and highlighted the gap in practice between those available and their take-up. For the most part practice continues to be dominated by what Duncan Green refers to in the international development context as ‘rules of thumb’. 5 This isn’t necessarily a bad thing; indeed, Duncan Green makes a strong case for scepticism with regard to the ‘toolkit temptation’. Most toolkits arise from good intentions – a desire to support effective inquiry without having to reinvent the wheel every time – but they run the risk of constraining the practice they seek to promote, and in particular the kind of flexible, adaptive behavior that systems practitioners need to adopt. Instead of frameworks he uses the metaphor of a cookbook, from which activists (or indeed any change-maker) can select and adapt ‘promising recipes.’ 6 Further work in this space might do well to avoid the risk of over-codification, and focus on the development of practice, relationships and rapid feedback, rather than frameworks and checklists. A number of the solutions proposed in our workshop align with this thinking and are explored below, alongside ideas gathered from wider analysis.

1. STRENGTHENING USE OF DATA AND INSIGHT

2. BROADENING COLLABORATION

It is clear that in order for existing data tools, and in particular 360Giving’s GrantNav tool, to realise their potential a critical mass of funders need to sign up. Data-sharing – who you have funded and how much, to do what – needs to become the norm. 360Giving is currently the most viable platform for driving this transparency.

Increasingly, we have found Funders are talking about importance of engaging in wider ecologies of change – multi-disciplinary, cross sectoral coalitions of stakeholders. Funders collaborating with one another, from aligning to full partnership, is undoubtedly important, but there are questions as to whether this is more effective when done in partnership with grantees and others involved in tackling issues.

Alongside the encouraging trend to improve and strengthen quantitative data, there was interest too in more qualitative learning, namely case studies for funders or what good collaboration looks and feels like. To extend the cookbook metaphor, case studies are the glossy photos that encourage the reader to give something a try when the written recipe may appear daunting. The recently published report Working in Place: Collaborative funding in practice 10 by the Institute for Voluntary Action Research is a good example here.

The development of more place-based forums or systems change cohorts was one idea mooted at our workshop. This would bring funders and commissioners together with service providers and infrastructure organisations in safe spaces, where they can explore and learn from failure, treat ‘success’ with caution whilst celebrating progress made, and adapt quickly to feedback.

3. USING SYSTEMS AND DESIGN TOOLS TO DEEPEN UNDERSTANDING The potential of the more formal tools to support the ‘rules of thumb’ in knowing the ecology also should not be underplayed. In particular, systems mapping tools (such as those gathered together in the Systems Grantmaking Resource Guide 7 ) have a valuable role to play in making the implicit explicit, focusing attention on the system boundaries, the power dynamics, the potential blockers and the points of leverage. Forum for the Future’s work with Lankelly Chase and the North Camden Zone to use systems mapping ‘to make inroads in capturing and communicating the multiple and interrelated challenges faced by children in the community’ is a standout example of how this approach can be applied in practice 8. At the same time, they are clear that ‘system mapping cannot be a one-off—it should be part of an open-ended process where all involved commit to discovering, prototyping, iterating, and learning together’ (p.40). Some felt this to be an important and necessary shift for funders;

“…how can we best create impact? Move away from trying to fund great things that might work - but that don’t add up to anything as a whole – but rather to try to impact on a particular issue. [We’ve made a] deliberate decision to understand and navigate the system” - FUNDER


12

4. UNDERSTANDING READINESS

5. TAKING CULTURE AND RELATIONSHIPS SERIOUSLY

6. NEW ATTITUDES TO RISK

An idea raised in our workshop was to design a ‘self-audit’ skills checker, to support funders to understand the role they play in a system and their collaboration readiness 9. This might take the form of a series of questions, helping to identify strengths and differences in form of funding (for example campaigning or core funding support) as well as particular analysis on existing culture and fit with collaborative ways of working. Results from the audit might help funders better analyse where they might need to make changes to their own cultures and practice in adapting to the wider landscape. The value of such a selfaudit tool would prove its true value when utilized by a group and the results compared and shared to build a picture of the best alignment of funds, and possibilities for collaboration.

Through our research we identified a particular lack of emphasis placed on support for building relationships ahead of embarking on joint working, nor many approaches that sustain collaborations which are up and running. One opportunity is to use existing platforms and networks to test new ways of working, to stretch beyond sharing of learning towards more strategic action. In this respect one interviewee felt such platforms were at present being used in a way which was;

Many felt a key barrier to deeper forms of collaboration was attitude to risk. Some cited the need for a shift towards greater concern for the risk to potential beneficiaries of doing/not doing – and away from organisational risk:

“Where is the risk appetite? We [funders] can bear a lot of risk and others can’t... Funders “…mostly ineffective – bring people together, don’t necessarily understand their own risk discuss something interesting – everyone nods (unlike in social investment). [There is a] need and then goes away and nothing changes. to understand own and others’ risk appetite.” Meetings [have] rotating Chairs… there isn’t - FUNDER a very strategic piece of work around how they collaborate together … finding common coherent piece of work is challenging. We should spend more time on figuring out what those things are more strategically.” - FUNDER Some pointed to the predominance in the sector of a culture of autonomy and independence and the significant influence this has on processes and staff behaviour. While undoubtedly a real strength of the sector, this culture can be counterproductive to forming collaborative ways of working. More considered work analysing existing cultures and behaviours within networks and collaborations may help to surface early on tensions that could cause problems further down the line. Building at the outset the trusted relationships, values and behaviours that can sustain the weight of collaborative action can greatly enhance chances of success. Here there was far more hope in existing platforms providing a tangible opportunity;

“[within the network] relationships have developed well and that definitely triggers things out of that. That’s the value. The contacts and relationships built are great, so quite positive about it.” - FUNDER


13

CONCLUSION We hope by collating these valuable resources and providing guidance on their usage funders will be better equipped to understand context, consider their particular value and act with purpose. They enable funders to understand their place in complex environments, to align and when needed collaborate more effectively as a collective. The insight and evidence offered by the resources described here undoubtedly add real value to the practice of Foundations and organisations delivering support – but they are only as effective as the input they receive and their uptake. How the sector responds to the insights generated will still depend on whether the value of collective and systemic ways of working is understood.


“if you’ve got a good idea, get out there and fight for it. Be entrepreneurial about it. Make your own luck. (There are) lots of people out there with great ideas – is there a way you can convince others to work with you?” - FUNDER

This work attempts to shine a light on the potential offered by these tools, but wider questions about culture and behaviours abound – both within individual Foundations and Trusts, and between them. How can the sector pay more attention to these crucial considerations, understanding when an investment of time in building relationships is well spent? What are the mechanisms that might help funders explore and analyse their existing internal behaviours and ways of working, and how these impact on their external relationships? For these considerations, the use of technical tools may not be appropriate, but rather open and honest learning and analysis within and among funders – and their beneficiaries – will be what is required. There is much to gain if we get this right.

14

Appendix THANK YOU TO OUR CONTRIBUTORS Collaborate would like to extend our gratitude to the following organisations for contributing to our research: 360 Giving Association of Charitable Foundations Barrow Cadbury Trust

PROJECT AIMS

METHOD

The aims of this project were:

• Desk research: to identify existing tools and support development of the compendium.

1. To understand and review the existing mapping and scoping tools available for funders and build on existing knowledge and insights from the sector to create easy-to-use tools for applying a funding ecology approach. 2. To co-create and co-design practical, implementable principles, guidance and tools to help people apply a funding ecology approach in practice, leading to an understanding of their own ecologies and the practical implications

Big Lottery Fund Big Society Capital

• Diagnostic interviews: we conducted 16 interviews with funders and creators of tools to understand existing practice. We focused on the questions in the table below • Co-design workshop: we conducted a workshop in Birmingham on 24th July. The workshop was an opportunity to test our emerging findings in a specific geographic context; to work with participants to identify gaps in the resources and tools available; and to co-design possible solutions. The workshop brought together funders, infrastructure organisations and designers of tools.

Blagrave Trust Dudley CVS Environmental Funders Network Esmee Fairbairn Global Dialogue Grant Nav Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity IVAR Lankelly Chase Lloyds Bank Foundation Office for Civil Society One Walsall

FOR FUNDERS What strategies or techniques do you use to understand which organisations and funders are operating in your area (your ‘funding ecology’)

What problem were you seeking to address with the development of the tool?

Why does this matter to you? How do you use this knowledge to support your practice?

How useful has the tool been in addressing this problem?

How do you identify opportunities for collaboration with other funders?

How do you know? What feedback have you received about the tool from funders?

What tools or frameworks are / have been helpful for you in identifying opportunities?

How does your tool support funders to identify opportunities for collaboration?

What are the main barriers to collaboration with other funders?

What other tools are you aware of that funders might be using to identify opportunities for collaboration?

What might help you to address these barriers?

Where do you see opportunities for improvement to support better collaboration a) for your tool b) for the sector?

Pears Foundation Podnosh

FOR CREATORS OF TOOLS

Sandwell CVO Ten Years’ Time TSB

Click to see the full report database

UK Community Foundations West Midlands Funders Forum


15

FOOTNOTES

COLLABORATE CIC

1.

Supporting Social Change: A New Funding Ecology, 2015 https://gulbenkian.pt/uk-branch/publication/ supporting-social-change-a-new-funding-ecology/

Clarence Centre for Enterprise & Innovation

2.

A New Funding Ecology - A Blueprint for Change, 2015 http://wordpress.collaboratei.com/wp-content/ uploads/A-New-Funding-Ecology-_-A-Blueprint-For-Action_Digital.pdf

3.

http://www.collaborationforimpact.com/collaborative-approaches/. The use of the Cynefin framework is also explored in the RSA report From Design Thinking to Systems Change: How to invest in innovation for social impact (2017, https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/reports/from-designthinking-to-system-change).

E: [email protected]

4.

A Whole New World: Funding and Commissioning in Complexity, 2017 https://collaboratecic.com/a-wholenew-world-funding-and-commissioning-in-complexity-12b6bdc2abd8

BIG LOTTERY FUND

5.

See for example http://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/heres-my-attempt-at-a-takeaway-message-on-how-changehappens-what-do-you-think/

1 Plough Place

6.

Duncan Green, How Change Happens, Oxford: Oxford University Press and Oxfam, 2016, p.238.

London, EC4A 1DE

7.

http://systems.geofunders.org/

T: +44 (0)345 4 10 20 30

8.

The Winch, North Camden Zone and Dark Matter Laboratories, ‘Building Impact Movements: Place-based systems change for children and young people in North Camden’, 2017, http://thewinch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Building-Impact-Movements.pdf , p.38

E: [email protected]

9.

6 St George’s Circus, London, SE1 6FE T: +44 (0)20 7815 8297

collaboratecic.com

biglotteryfund.org.uk

Collaborate, ‘Collaboration Readiness: Why it matters, how to build it, and where to start’ 2015, http://wordpress.collaboratei.com/wp-content/uploads/Collaboration-Readiness-Digital.pdf

10. https://www.ivar.org.uk/publication/working-in-place-collaborative-funding-in-practice/

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, other than for the purpose of internal circulation and use, as agreed with Collaborate, or as expressly permitted by law. For the avoidance of doubt, no reproduction, storage or transmission shall be carried out for any commercial purpose whatsoever, without the prior written consent of Collaborate. In addition, the recipient shall not modify, amend, assert authorship or make any other claim on this material. Collaborate asserts its moral right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work. © Collaborate CIC. December 2017. All rights reserved.


16


17