African community foundations gather in Nairobi

Representatives from community foundations in Egypt, Ghana, Mozambique and Zimbabwe were among those who attended the first pan-African meeting of community foundations hosted by the GFCF in Kenya in November.

The Nairobi group, gathered for the African Community Foundations Peer Learning and Exchange

GFCF Programme Consultant Halima Mahomed tells all about it:

‘The African Community Foundations Peer Learning and Exchange, with funding support from TrustAfrica and the Ford Foundation, was held in Nairobi on 1 and 2 November 2010, just before the African Grantmakers Network Assembly. The convening saw 34 participants, representing 26 organizations from 12 countries come together to engage in two intensive days of rich and stimulating discussion, interactive debates and learning, learning, learning …

‘A rose by any other name is still a rose? Or not so? Well, given the range of different institutions in the room – community foundations, local grantmakers, national public foundations, and corporate community foundations – we kicked off the convening with a session that asked “What does our tribe look like?” This was aimed at establishing a collective identity within the group, based not on institutional type (or name) but rather on a set of values and principles. Moving the term “community foundation” temporarily to one side, we had a rich (and very creative session) that underscored what the group had in common: these included a shared commitment to community ownership, leadership, trust and assets – as well as transparent, accountable and inclusive systems.

‘We also devoted some time and space to learning from and sharing with each other via small-group peer learning discussions. In kicking off some of these small group discussions we heard about the “tool box” devised by the Lurdes de Mutola Foundation in Mozambique (in which grantmaking is only one part of a comprehensive approach to strengthening local community-based organizations), about the PhotoSpeak tool used by the Community Development Foundation Western Cape as a way of engaging young people and of the ways in which the Urgent Action Fund in Kenya has tackled social justice issues head-on, particularly within contexts that have very skewed gender and power dynamics. Although most of the participants came from African institutions, we were also joined by practitioners from further afield: Black Belt Community Foundation, based in Selma, Alabama in the United States has as one of its most significant assets a network of over 100 volunteer “community associates” who share the foundation’s vision for their communities and ensure that it remains closely connected with the 12 communities it serves; while from Slovakia, Banska Bystrica Community Foundation underscored the importance of valuing and encouraging small individual contributions as a cornerstone of its community engagement and public awareness‑building strategy.

‘The highlight of the convening was undoubtedly the trial of Business As Usual. Apart from the fact that it was filled with enough humour and wit to rival the best “court TV”, the trial provided a space not only to analyse the context of development aid within which we operate but also to critically interrogate and reflect on the fault lines within our own frameworks and practices.  In addition, however, the trial also reflected how a number of local philanthropic institutions are engaging in business unusual and provided compelling and encouraging evidence to help make the case for locally owned and locally driven development paradigms.

‘One thing that this convening has reinforced, and also provided the opportunity to begin remedying, is that we need to begin to develop a knowledge base on Africa’s emerging philanthropic/grantmaking sector.  A wealth of good practice and innovative strategies exists, and yet so little of it is known or documented outside individual institutions. By the same token, there are serious challenges and hard questions that we need to ask ourselves – around our readiness to take risks and bring about real change, and around our commitment to building local philanthropic resources rather than relying on easy external money – but very few spaces in which to critically reflect on these.’

Over the next few months the GFCF will be drawing intensively on the wealth of energy, information, data, stories and personal commitment offered by participants to begin to build such a knowledge base and so help to strengthen the voice, practice and impact of community foundations in Africa.

Frederick Mandara (Morogoro Community Foundation, Tanzania) and Beulah Fredericks (Community Development Foundation for the Western Cape, South Africa)

 

News from our partners

Fostering local leadership in the Amazon region: interview with the director of the Amazon Partnerships Foundation.

Mary Fifield helped to set up a community foundation in Ecuador with a focus on environmental issues – the Amazon Partnerships Foundation (Fundaciòn Tarpuna Causay). Mary, executive director of the APF, spoke to the Global Fund for Community Foundations about her experience.

Mary Fifield in a community meeting in Campaña Cocha (photo: David Barnes)

 1. Can you tell us about the origins of the Amazon Partnerships Foundation (APF) and the context in which it operates?

The Amazon Partnership Foundation’s (APF) model grew out of an experience I had a few years ago when I first started working in Napo Province in the Ecuadorian Amazon for an international community health NGO, whose primary objective was offering health workshops. Visiting rural, indigenous communities, I discovered that many people had their own ideas for projects but lacked the technical skills or financial resources to implement them. I researched grassroots grant-making approaches and developed a model that applied to health issues. But then I found that communities were repeatedly asking for support to address worsening environmental degradation and the changing climate, which of course affects everything from health to economic development to community cohesion.

Meanwhile, I had begun to discuss some of these issues with my Ecuadorian and North American colleagues – in particular Natalia Santillan, Stella Klemperer and Susan King – all of whom had worked in the area and would later become APF board members. Given the fact that we were working in the world’s largest tropical rainforest and one crucial to maintaining climate stability, we saw the opportunity to broaden and refine the model so it could be applied to conservation projects. We recognized that this strategy would also allow us to foster environmental leadership and a sense of ownership among traditionally marginalized communities. That was the beginning of the APF.

Mary helping people in the community of Isla Appai install a water system (photo: David Barnes)

2. Can you say something about the role that institutions play in local culture and also about how the communities you are working with relate to the mainstream in Ecuador?

The relationship between institutions (state, religious, and non-governmental) and communities is as complex here as it is in most developing countries. Rural communities, especially indigenous ones, have usually been regarded with a mixture of disdain, disregard, pity, or worse, and have been marginalized or discriminated against for years. Recently that dynamic is changing, and the new Ecuadorian constitution guarantees many more rights for indigenous groups than they’ve been afforded before. Some indigenous federations have made inroads in terms of development policy, government assistance in health and education, and land rights, but communities in Napo Province are still quite removed from most decision-making processes. Despite changes in the law that are intended to include and empower the grassroots, by and large many institutions still take a paternalistic approach to development, and many communities expect the government or NGOs to bring projects to them.

3. How did you come to the (community) foundation framework as a way of framing your work? How different is it, in your view, from what has gone before?

In Napo Province, one thing that always concerned me with the traditional NGO approach –whereby the organization designs the project (even with significant participation from community recipients) – is that the initiative, no matter how well researched and planned, comes from outside the community. Although the community may want a reforestation project, for example, it’s the NGO that has to show results and therefore must do whatever is necessary to encourage community participation. Depending on the community, this may be relatively easy or difficult, but ultimately the NGO owns the project until the day comes when it has to be turned over to the community to make it ‘sustainable’. At that point, it is difficult to convince people to take ownership, especially when they know they won’t have any outside support. And that’s when many projects fail.

The power dynamic inherent in this model, where the project really belongs to the NGO and the communities are participants, discourages a genuine sense of community ownership. That was one of the reasons that a community foundation model appealed to us: initiative, responsibility, and ultimately success or failure of the project rest in the hands of the communities. Through our competitive grant solicitation process, communities have to think carefully about what they want to do and how they are going to do it, and they learn more about how the world of grant-making works – this knowledge can help them find other sources of funding for future projects.

Of course, for this very reason, our model is much more labor-intensive than a conventional grant-making approach. We first conduct workshops with communities to teach them how to plan and design proposals. If our board approves their proposal, we work with communities for at least a year, teaching them how to monitor and evaluate their projects. Results based on benchmarks they set themselves help determine whether they qualify for follow-on funding from us.

Despite such a deep culture of paternalism, many communities respond favorably once they learn about our model. We see people – some of them indigenous women who are typically quite reserved – participating actively in meetings, brainstorming new project ideas, and even coming up with ideas to help us improve our process. Many of the techniques we use in our project management workshops were suggested to us by the communities.

4. What have you learnt about the context for local philanthropy in Ecuador and, specifically, how it relates to communities with which APF is working? What do local philanthropic traditions or systems of self-help look like at the community level? Do they provide a basis from which to build?

The philanthropic sector, as it might be defined in the US or Europe, is quite weak in Ecuador. The country suffers from a history of corruption, including in the non-profit sector, and many, including the government, view foundations or NGOs with distrust. The few wealthy individuals who give to charities tend to have a direct connection with them, whether it’s their children’s school or their church. With no government tax incentive for giving, there is no culture of social investing or supporting organizations working in social or environmental justice.

Despite these obstacles, we do see some potential for change. A number of high-profile environmentalists also have power and influence among potential philanthropists, and could be important allies in changing philanthropic culture. We focus on strengthening our relationships with local small business owners because they are often willing to provide in-kind support to local NGOs. We also find that communities themselves are willing to make a contribution to the project budget and, though the amount is usually small, the practice encourages a ‘self-help’ attitude.

A family in Campaña Cocha standing proudly by their water tank (photo: David Barnes)

5. In our report More than the Poor Cousin? we looked at the notion of building trust and of the role of community foundations in trying to build it within and across communities. Does this resonate with the experiences of APF?

Very much so. I think one of the reasons we have been well received by communities is that they know that we are committed to the process. We strive to be accessible and reliable, and we expect communities to fulfill the commitment they make to us. When they don’t, we respectfully and directly address the problem with them, supporting their process for resolving it. Because there is a dearth of good jobs and local professionals to fill them, we are also committed to building a local team who can eventually manage the organization. Many of the skills we teach communities are the same we try to cultivate in our staff, though these may be on a more advanced level. This professional capacity building is a new approach for the region, and our partners view it favorably. All these activities have helped us build a good reputation with stakeholders, and we are very conscious of maintaining positive, transparent relationships in our area of influence.

Distributing saplings in Shiwa Yacu

6. Do you see the community-foundation approach – with its emphasis on local assets, ownership and participation – as having something to offer more mainstream development?

Absolutely. This is one of the hypotheses we want to explore as we continue to refine and implement our model. We have discovered that setting up a truly collaborative relationship from the beginning, where each party has well-defined responsibilities and commitments, is crucial. Mainstream development organizations could adopt this practice when starting new projects with new communities, though it requires a willingness to let communities learn through failure as well as from success. It may also mean that mainstream development organizations have to be more selective in choosing communities, because fostering ownership is both time and labor-intensive. In the short run, an organization might have to collaborate with fewer communities but do more far-reaching work with them.

With the community-foundation approach, to some degree we have to let go of our over-dependence on large quantitative goals and outcomes to prove we are effective. In the long run, though, I think this will serve both the grassroots and the development sector. Though it may be slow going at first, I believe changing the power dynamic and generating a true sense of ownership among communities will have farther-reaching, longer-lasting impact than efforts to impose development from the outside. In the long run, this approach may also prove more cost-effective, which is a theory we will test as we continue working. In the short run, we know we can help communities accomplish concrete projects, such as household ecological sanitation, small-scale reforestation, and organic agriculture, more quickly and with a smaller budget than most mainstream development organizations.

7. Who are your peers in this work? Are there others interested in taking a new look at ways of doing development?

We haven’t found many other community foundations working in the Amazon, but we have strong partnerships with the Universidad Andina in Quito, as well as with the US Peace Corps, Ecuadorian environment ministry and the German Development Cooperation. All of these are primarily focused on conservation initiatives, but our model intrigues them. We’ve also been invited to participate in a regional sustainable development planning body, which we see as an excellent opportunity to lay out our version of the community foundation model to government officials and other institutional stakeholders.

South-East Asian Community Foundations gather in Bangkok – and a new regional network is born

Until recently, the emergence of community foundations in South-East Asia has been something of a gradual, stop-start process. Some truly homegrown, one-off, institutions have certainly emerged: the founders of the Pondong Batangan Community Foundation in the Philippines, for example, unaware of any global community foundation field, called their new institution a “community foundation” simply because those two words best seemed to describe what they thought it should be about. Other efforts by international funders to seed the community foundation idea have yielded somewhat mixed results.

If a recent meeting in Bangkok is anything to go by, however, there is a new energy emanating from and among community foundations in the region. In the first regional meeting of its kind, community foundations from Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam met in Bangkok, Thailand on 1–3 December. The workshop, which was supported by the Global Fund for Community Foundations, included 34 participants from new and emerging community foundations in Korat, Satun, Songkhla, Phuket and Bangkok (Thailand), from the Pondong Batangan Community Foundation and the Coalition of Social Development Organizations in South Cotabato (Philippines), the LIN Center (Vietnam) and the World Bank (Bangkok office).

The first day was dedicated to discussions among the group of five Thai community foundations, with a particular focus on the Thai context and the potential value-added of community foundations in that context. Although the five have all emerged from different processes and with the support of a variety of institutions –including the Thai Centre for Philanthropy, the World Bank, Synergos and the Van Leer Foundation – in recent months, they have increasingly found a value in collaboration, the seeds of which were planted by a joint study visit to Slovakia in 2009.

The group was joined on the second day by community foundation representatives from Vietnam and the Philippines and the day was spent sharing different country experiences of giving, effective fund-raising approaches, grantmaking for social change, social mapping and social media, with a view to teasing out some of the common characteristics and challenges of emerging foundations in South-East Asia.

It was on the final day, that the decision was made by the group to create an Asian Community Foundation Forum (ACFF), as a learning and sharing network that would link community foundations in the region. Songkhla Community Foundation was assigned the task of formulating different types of e-forum for the group, such as blog and Web S-splog.

Thanks to Pamornrat Tansanguanwong for contributing to this article.

News from the community foundation field

The 2010 WINGS Global Status Report on Community Foundations is now available online.

The 2010 WINGS Community Foundations Global Status Report is now available in a new online format. According to the report, globally, the number of community foundations has almost doubled over the past ten years from 905 in 2000 to 1,680 in 2010. Some of the growth has come from North America (700 in 2000 and 880 in 2010), but the bulk of this growth occurred between 2000 and 2003, after which the trend levelled off. In other continents, numbers have remained below 100 for the whole decade, though there are some suggestions that numbers are set to grow in Africa and Asia.

The report can be viewed here.

Latest news

GFCF launches its new website

The Global Fund for Community Foundations launched its new website in early 2011. We wanted the new site to reflect the responsive character of our organization, and the dual purpose that we serve: to provide not only funding to individual community foundations working at a local level all over the world, but also a platform for the global community foundation movement to promote itself more widely and more effectively.

The new site has all the content you would have found on the old website, but in a more accessible and intuitive arrangement. In addition, we have:

  • completely re-designed and restructured the site
  • established a members’ forum, where users can log on and post comments about articles on our site or about their own work or research in related areas
  • created a new home page, with a changing menu of news items, again relating to our own work and to stories connected with it
  • made it easier for you to donate to support our work
  • opened Facebook, LinkedIn and delicious accounts, which you can access from our home page

We have also, crucially, built into the site the flexibility to amend it as our concerns and activities develop, and as our users, colleagues and associates would like us to.

So please tell us what you think. E-mail us with your comments on: info@globalfundcf.org

Caption here

Disaster relief

The Lambi Fund of Haiti: response to the devastation

The Lambi Fund is focusing its efforts both on immediate response and support to internally displaced people. As thousands of quake survivors in and around Port-au-Prince have found themselves homeless, many have gone to their home villages or rural villages surrounding Port-au-Prince, also heavily impacted by the quake, and those rural areas, with already extremely limited resources, are struggling to absorb them. To support the Lambi Fund, visit their website.

Prešov Community Foundation in peril

What are the risks and benefits for community foundations in undertaking EU contracts?

 

 

Alliance magazine reports:

In December 2006, with funds from the European Social Fund (ESF), the Slovak Ministry of Education contracted Prešov Community Foundation to carry out a two-year programme to improve access to education. In partnership with a local university, the foundation launched a programme in January 2007. This was completed in November 2008; the total budget was €375,000. However, under the terms of the arrangement, the community foundation had to fund the initial costs against later reimbursement by the ministry, forcing it to use its reserve funds, as well as those of other partners, which placed a severe strain on its finances. Compounding this, the government reimbursed virtually nothing in either 2007 or 2008, which resulted in Prešov Community Foundation having to take out a bank loan of €135,000 to complete the project. The final blow, however, came in April this year when the foundation received a letter from the ministry telling them that the contract had been cancelled because one of the consultants employed on the project had been late in submitting project monitoring reports, and that no expenses would be reimbursed for the entire project. Read more.