SPEAKER_01 0:12

Let's make it five podcasts with Hello, you're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast. This is the podcast where we try to put philanthropy in context. I'm your host, as ever, Rod Davis, and this week we've got a conversation, and it's a three-way conversation with Sarah Slaughter and Derek Mitchell. Now, Sarah is the executive director of the W. Clement and Jesse V. Stone Foundation in the US. And they are a grantmaker based in Chicago, and they focus on education, young people, youth development issues. And Derek is the chief executive of Partners in School Innovation, which is an organization based in San Francisco, which helps to support educators to become equity-focused change agents and sort of focuses on ensuring the experiences of students from minoritized backgrounds, you know, are as positive as possible. And the interesting point for this conversation is that Partners in Schools Innovation are a grantee of the Stone Foundation. And I was introduced to Sarah and Derek and had read a really interesting article that they co-authored together about the experience that they had had at Stone Foundation and at Partners in Schools Innovation in working to change the way that they do their grant making and particularly the kind of annual grantee convening that they do, where they bring together lots of their grantees. And they'd been thinking about how to change this to make it more useful and sort of purposeful for everyone. And that's the sort of centerpiece of this conversation. And so we had a really interesting chat talking about that and lots of issues around power dynamics between funders and grantees, how you need to think about the way in which you use language when you bring together uh organizations that might be representing both kind of lived experience and expertise and working at very different uh points in the sort of overall ecosystem around issues. Um we also talked about what some of the sort of practical challenges are when it comes to shifting power and what the role of funders is when they they do give away that power and whether, in some circumstances, they need to kind of retain or even lean into power and use it on behalf of their grantees. Um without talking too much more about it, let's go into the conversation. Um I should also just flag up that we had a few minor audio issues um here, mostly uh just an issue with Sarah's um Zoom connection, which cut out at one point. I've edited the conversation together, so hopefully it'll be pretty seamless. Uh, although I did go to the extent of adding in a small comment at the point where we had the major breakage, just so that you know what has happened. But hopefully it shouldn't um affect your listening experience too much. Uh well, hope you enjoy it. Uh, I will be back at the end for the usual bit of housekeeping and admin. Okay, great. Uh well, I'm joined uh by Sarah Slaughter and Derek Mitchell. Hello to both of you.

SPEAKER_02 3:47

Morning.

SPEAKER_01 3:48

Good morning. Great to have you both on the podcast. Uh, and since since there's two of you and we're doing a three-way conversation, I thought maybe the best thing to do as a starting point um would just be to get each of you to say a bit about who you are, introduce yourself and kind of why we're here talking today. So, Sarah, maybe you want to go first.

SPEAKER_00 4:06

Sure, thank you. And we're um really pleased to be part of this conversation today. So I'm Sarah Slaughter, and I'm the executive director of the W. Clement and Jesse V. Stone Foundation. We're based in Chicago, but we fund in five uh locations nationally, and we fund in early childhood, K-12, and youth development. And the conversation today is really about what happened when the Stone Foundation, shortly after I came on board, really decided to shift how it did its grantee convenings. And I have inherited a wonderful tradition of the foundation doing grantee convenings, but in 2017, we shifted that to be a co-designed grantee convenings amongst all of our portfolios and all of our geographies focused on racial equity. And Derek is one of our wonderful grantees and thought partners.

SPEAKER_02 5:04

And hi, it's wonderful to have this opportunity to continue this really important conversation. I'm Derek Mitchell. I'm the CEO of Partners in School Innovation. We're a national nonprofit headquartered in the San Francisco Bay Area who supports school districts in the work of better delivering for students of color who are challenged in the context of poverty. And so much of our work is a kind of high-touch consultancy aimed at helping districts build the capacity from the ground up to transform academic outcomes. And uh it's great to be here with Sarah. She's been a uh a wonderful and helpful partner in this work.

SPEAKER_01 5:47

Great. Um, well, that's really helpful background. Um, so yeah, you mentioned already about the the grantee convenings. And I think that's where I'd really like to start, because um I read a really interesting piece that both of you co-authored, which I'll put links in the show notes to so other people can read it as well. But describing some of um of that process and what had changed. But maybe if you could just say a bit first, uh, first of all, um both of you, but maybe start with with Sarah about what it is that has changed about the grantee convenings, with a focus kind of on why it was that maybe what you were doing before didn't feel like it was quite working and what you were trying to do with those changes.

SPEAKER_00 6:24

Right. So I think we changed both how we did the convening and what we talked about at the convening. And I think the two are very related that how we did it also impacted what we were talking about. And I think that prior to my coming on board and being the executive director, the convenings would bring together grantees from each of the different portfolios. And they would, uh the foundation would pick a topic that then they would talk about during that convening. And I think it was well received, is my understanding. But when I came on board, I guess I wanted to really think about getting at some of the underlying problems and particularly around issues of equity and really seeing some of the common threads across portfolios. So when I started my first 10 years in philanthropy, I did uh early education, birth through third grade. And what I would often see was that there were some issues that were very prevalent and uh embedded in early childhood, like teacher pay and teacher diversity. And yet those things were not talked about in partnership with the K-12 folks. So that, you know, even though there were some common causes and root issues, they weren't being talked about holistically. So that was part of it. The other part is the how part, which I think is maybe got us to a bigger, even bigger shift, which is we decided that rather than the foundation picking the topic and then saying, hey, y'all come, and knowing that when a funder says, y'all come, that they're gonna jump because we're the funder, we co-designed it with the grantees and we created advisory committees of the grantees, and Derek being one of those who's been on most, if not all, of our advisory committees, and um really went in with the only sort of non-negotiable being that we wanted to talk about something related to equity. And after coming together with the grantee uh advisory committee, we would then pick the topic, and we had a wonderful consultant, Sherry Killen Stewart, who does great facilitating and is also an equity expert herself, who would then take that and then flesh it out into a two-day convening.

SPEAKER_01 9:03

And Derek, from your point of view, I'd seem were you involved in some of the convenings prior to that change and kind of what was different about how you were involved and what you got out of the convening with this new approach?

SPEAKER_02 9:14

Yeah. Um uh funder convenings are always a little bit of a trap for nonprofit leaders. Um often because uh the timing of them is something that we generally don't have any say on. And in most cases, the topics are topics that we either you know know something about, have interest in or not, but regardless, you know, you you you you experience them as command performance, you know, kind of expectations, or you know, at uh best an opportunity to shine, right? An opportunity to be present and in the minds of the organization that you're gonna be asking to continue to support you. Um so there's a kind of pressures to show up. Um, but a lot of times, once you're there, um there's uh uh uh a pretty um challenging uh uh feeling of lack of respect um in a lot of them, where uh where it's you know sort of sit and get um for content that you either that you may already know or or even if you don't know, you're not all that interested in. Um and and you're you know sort of expected to kind of smile, you know, um uh be happy to be there when you have really pressing work back at the office that you could be doing to move the needle for your for your partnerships and for your schools and districts. And so um the Stone Foundation meetings were always a little bit different um than that because they there was always a uh a more of an interest in understanding um how we would work um cross uh sector in the conversations because you we would always come together from from the different parts of the stone portfolio. And so for me, there was always an uh a kind of uh implicit you know um collective impact mental model at play. And we got to see and and hear from folks who we normally wouldn't. And so I've always uh tell the stone leaders that that their convenings were the only professional development that I would get in a year um as ED, because I'm sitting and listening to EDs of early childhood ed or EDs of student voice organizations or you know, um, or EDs of folks who are tackling educational policy, and you just don't get that mixture um in most cases. But even in the confines of of that um that richness, there was always this sense of of um of a power dynamic that was uh a bit um, I guess the only word that comes to comes to my mind is it's kind of disrespectful. Um, you know, you're you're you know called together, you know, to the knee of your at the knee of your funder to receive something that they've determined independently is of importance to you. Um and so what's changed is is pretty much that entire um orientation to the events themselves, right? Where uh where there's a a collaborative team of folks who are advising the foundation on on what are the the key issues we should bring the folks together to discuss. Um and there's often disagreements about that. And so in these conversations, we can hash those out um with really the expectation that we want to uh to have an event that is rich and rewarding and engaging and valuable for as many of the folks who are brought to the to the conversation as possible.

SPEAKER_01 12:59

And and Sarah, from the from the point of view of a funder shifting towards that kind of approach to convening, how difficult is it to sort of to see the value of that convening without being directive and but but also to keep some sense of purpose to it? Because we can, you know, I've been to many, many events sort of in the philanthropy world, which are great events, they're lovely. I meet lots of great people, have really interesting conversations, and then afterwards you sort of think, and and what next? So kind of but equally, if you're if you set out with too much purpose, people kind of feel as though everything's been decided before they turn up. So, how do you find you kind of manage that balance?

SPEAKER_00 13:34

Well, I I think um that tension or that that uh that you just laid out is the tension that we experience all the time. And I think that um what we certainly have gotten comfortable with, and I will admit, I think some of our grantees are more comfortable with it than others, um that it's okay to walk away from a conversation or a meeting and not say, tomorrow I'm going to do X at 9 a.m. You know, it's to um expand your thinking to reflect and share and disagree, and that that's how you know it it's sort of the difference between knowing the answer to a test and being able to think critically. And that, you know, again, recognizing that some folks don't feel comfortable with that, but I think that there are many uh who do. And and certainly I and and and my team at the foundation, that it's really sort of opened our minds. And I know that I've learned more about racial equity from from these conversations than I have in any sort of set webinar or or a report that I've read, that it's really made me reflect and think about, you know, how and why we do our work. And when you reflect on the how and why, it ultimately it does impact what you do.

SPEAKER_01 15:16

Yeah, absolutely. Um, and one of the things I noticed that I thought was particularly fascinating in the piece that you wrote was you made mention there of some of the challenges around language, and particularly the sort of the language that we use when we're talking in philanthropy. And I wondered there, you mentioned about the need to make sure everybody is speaking the same language to some extent so you can have meaningful conversations. But I also wondered if part of it was getting away from some of the technocratic language that we often fall back on in the philanthropy and nonprofit world, which I often feel gets in the way of some of the conversations we need to be having. When you bring together those convenings, you know, do you do you find with this new approach, Derek, that you're kind of talking in different ways, both to the funder and to the other organizations that are in the room?

SPEAKER_02 16:06

Yeah, I I uh absolutely do. There's a kind of democratization of language that happens um when you recognize the ex the expectation and responsibility of communicating outside your sector. Right. I mean, so so it was the it was the uh the the uh student voice organizations who challenged us on this most. Remember, remember Sarah? Um and and to some degree the early childhood folk, um, but uh they would basically raise the issue of the meanings behind the words we were we were spouting. Um and and even once we explained them, they would then understand that what we're talking about really doesn't have any purchase for where they're trying to go and their organization doesn't work. Um, and so uh it was a really you know wonderful uh lived experience in the moment of you know, we we all have privilege in our sectors of this shared language that we use, a kind of shorthand for this for the key issues and topics. But that when you're trying to have these robust conversations about how you may solve these problems in in a collective way, you have to let set that stuff aside, you know, and um and work harder to be inclusive in your language. Um, and that requires a kind of reflection and kind of uh lowering of your own, you know, sort of professional ego a little bit.

SPEAKER_01 17:32

And and Sarah, yeah, did you want to come in on that? Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 17:34

Yeah, I I think that you know, your question makes me think of two two sort of separate but related things, because I think part in part because we brought these grantees together from some um work directly in schools, like uh partners in schools, like Derek does, and some are policy and advocacy organizations, and some are organizers. And I think one of the specific parts of the language where there was a little bit of initial awkwardness or disagreement was around policy, and that there were some folks who were saying, look, a policy change just is not the end of the game. It hasn't gotten us where we need to go. And you know, they were really talking about organizing and how and that's and and really where we sort of came together and sort of a aha moment for I think many of us was really thinking about it like how do you put people into policy? And really, it's not an either-or, you know, it's it's organizing and policy change, and it's students informing policy change or or teachers or uh parents in informing early childhood policy. And so I think we got to uh a better place. And again, I think that language and you know, sort of the how and how and why then sort of I think is really shaping the what, because I I see more of the policy advocacy organizations who are engaging community members, parents, providers in their work, throughout their work. And likewise, I see some of our youth development grantees who've done this organizing, and then they've org in one particular example in Oakland, and they organize students to uh get a referendum to allow the 16 and 17-year-olds to vote for their local school council members. They got that accomplished, but then they bumped into some of the policy implementation and they needed to sort of expand their muscle, their capacity around policy. So I think that's an example of that language that um, you know, through that, it really helped folks understand that they they these two things aren't different. They really go together.

SPEAKER_01 20:07

And Derek, yeah, you wanted to come back to one.

SPEAKER_02 20:09

I I also think there's a bigger issue um or or a contextual factor that uh Sarah and her team established that allow these conversations to happen. And that's this idea of uh, you know, sort of trust, right? Creating a context where where you're trusted enough to speak your truth, even when it's challenging, um, you know, um, and even when it's challenging a funder. Um and so uh creating a context that makes that okay um so that the you know the policy folks, um, well the the the uh the organizing folks can say to the policy folks, we want to show up, not just to be carted out at the at the moment of the vote, you know, to uh we we want to be part of the conversation along the way. We want to help craft what those policies are. Um and uh and it was it was it was a bit of an aha and a sort of oh my goodness moment um to hear that from them. Um and to and to watch and see how the policy folks immediately adjusted their their orientation and posture and work in order to accommodate these voices further downstream, right? Because everyone's seen the you know the the carting out the families for school board meetings and and state board meetings, right? And and uh and it was clear the organizers were like, that's not what we're talking about. We say we want to be involved. Um we said we really want to be respected, that our our positions understood. And that means we need to be in proximity um to each other. We need to be in community together.

SPEAKER_01 21:52

It it seemed it seems almost as if I mean touching on the idea of uh the need to recognize different forms of knowledge. And that question of balancing a recognition of the value of experience and expertise, which I know some organizations do find find a challenge. In in convening organizations together that sit at those different ends of the spectrum, potentially kind of policy and right down at the grassroots in terms of lived experience. Did you find that that it kind of happened relatively naturally that they came to respect each other, or did it take quite a lot of managing of that process?

SPEAKER_00 22:29

Right. And I think that one of the learnings that has happened through the convenings is, for example, if it is a parent who is has the experience of the difficulty of navigating an early childhood system that is not uh well designed and cohesive. And that parent's experience informs what policy or practice changes are needed. Now, that parent is not going to be the expert on how to draft that regulation or legislation. So I think that it's by recognizing that duality. So we're not saying that the policy folks have no expertise, um, but that, you know, so we're we're recognizing that the expertise needs the benefit of the experience in order to be the expert that they should be. And so I think that that's what we've tried to accomplish. And and I think that um, again, I think it's happened both intentionally through the conversations as well as some of the organic conversations that happen when we're together.

SPEAKER_01 23:57

Um and from your point of view on that, Derek, if for instance, I mean, you know, it's possible that you might um have a have a different point of view on this year, but it's possible you agree, you know, with Stone Foundation about everything. But if if there was a situation in which you felt from your position, either kind of based on your professional expertise or from you know the people and communities you were working with, that something different should be funded or something should be funded in a different way, how would you approach that conversation with Stone Foundation as a funder? You know, how how challenging would that conversation be to have?

SPEAKER_02 24:30

Well, I um I have actually raised that conversation a couple of times uh with Sarah and her team. Um uh but to to to build on what Sarah was just saying, um, you know, the the receptivity of each of us for the perspectives that we ourselves don't hold um was not an easy uh thing. You know, it you know, we we we went through several iterations of of design and implementation of the convenings um to get to a place where there's uh you know uh folks feel like it's a platform for all of us rather than just you know one platform for for K-12, let's say, that the others can play in on. Um and so and I think part of it is that we had different perspectives about the value of those different voices for to what we're trying to do. And it was the the uh organizers of young people, particularly, who challenged us on this. They they said things like, you talk about students, but you never include students in in anything you're designing and developing. Um, you know, uh you you use this word equity, um, and you know, we haven't investigated whether we're even talking about the same thing. And um, and they shared, well, my definition is this, and this is, you know, and it means for them, you know, nothing about me without me. Um and so uh and so, you know, when Sarah says that it's a both and, meaning the the need to respect the expertise at all levels, uh, is sort of uh an underlying principle of the of the events. Uh, I think that's really true. But it I think it's been a uh a process to get us all to the place where we can effectively do that.

SPEAKER_01 26:31

Hi there, everyone listening. Uh sorry to interrupt this conversation, although I hope you enjoyed those vinyl scratch sound effects there. Um, this is just a little word to say that at this point in the conversation, unfortunately, Sarah had some technical difficulties with her Zoom call. Uh so I carried on speaking to Derek for a bit, and then Sarah was able to rejoin us, luckily. Um, I've put the uh conversation together as best I can through editing. I think it's pretty fluent and it shouldn't really make too much difference to your listening experience. But just in case you thought there was an odd moment of disjoint, I thought I would pop in and explain a little bit from behind the curtain. Back to the conversation.

SPEAKER_02 27:09

So on that point about the receptivity of the funders, um in our convenings and in our conversations, we talk about the inherent power associated with um folks with money um with and folks who are soliciting investment. I mean, we you know, and Sarah and her team um do a really good job of putting it on the table, um, and then giving us permission to set it aside, right? Um it and I think it's I think it's a valuable um it's a valuable competency that not every foundation learns to kind of set aside the the inherent um inequality associated in the positionality that's there. Um and so, but once once you're able to do it, then you can actually get real information, right? And and not, you know, socially acceptable or whatever it is the funder um is expecting that will or that we think they're expecting so that they'll fund us, you know. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 28:21

Yeah, it's I mean, it always strikes me with with uh even if you're a well-intentioned funder who really who genuinely wants to to shift power and fund in ways that that don't, you know, kind of distort the activities of your funders, because just the nature of what you are as an organization and the scale of the resources at your disposal and the fact that you're free to make decisions about what to fund and how to fund it means that it's very hard to you have to be quite active in kind of shifting that balance in the opposite direction.

SPEAKER_02 28:53

Yes, that's a great, that's a great insight that the the idea of being active actively shifting it. Um so it isn't just a question of a change in policy or different uh process for applications or uh you know or a single conversation, but uh, but really a uh a recognition um and a constant leveling. Um I guess that's kind of what we meant in the article by getting proximate. Yes, yeah, yeah, absolutely. Right. The intent is to is to understand deeply the actual um experience of doing the work um uh so that you can make better decisions about how to support it.

SPEAKER_01 29:37

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 29:39

And to some degree, some folks feel like their money isn't is a way to to not get proxy. You know, I mean I you know, I I even had a funder say, why would I do that? That's why I pay you. Yes. Um yeah, and I I get their point, right? Um, to some degree, you know, there there is an inoculation or or a prophylaxis that money can produce um for folks. It don't have to be shoulder to shoulder with the with the need that they authentically want to help address. But to some degree, getting shoulder to shoulder uh helps them understand the both the authenticity of the need, but also some understanding of of the limitations of of resources like theirs to address it.

SPEAKER_01 30:30

Yeah, absolutely. And that is it interesting in terms of that getting proximate, because it does strike me not some funders will already be in that place and will be comfortable with shifting more towards it. But for others that have been, I guess, taking what might be seen as a more traditional or kind of hands-off funding approach, that's a pretty big shift, isn't it? Because essentially before they were picking organizations and then funding them and probably imposing some program requirements and measurement on them, but they weren't necessarily required to actually get to grips with the underlying issues in quite the the same way. And maybe it requires a different mindset and and even a kind of set of skills from the parts of a funder if you're going to do that.

SPEAKER_02 31:13

I think that's true. Um, and and if if uh Sarah would probably say that uh there's um varying degrees of interest and proximity among the the different uh funders who support what the foundation does. Um and so you know it it's the height of white supremacy culture to assume that one strategy is is gonna be useful for everybody. Yeah. Um so we're not saying that that this is something every foundation should do. Um uh that's just not not you know uh a rational set of expectations, different folks and different reasons tackle these problems. But if but if you if you want to be a better funder who who supports folks to kind of achieve their transformational goals and not just you know run at them um like uh you know Don Quixote. Um that means that means understanding their context in this in a thoughtful and and creative way, um, and being able to challenge in uh them in ways that will help them get better um uh at the work that they are focused on doing, as opposed to redirecting their work just to you know an idea that you know comes off the top of your own head about what might work.

SPEAKER_01 32:36

Yeah, absolutely. Um I I suspect looking at um Sarah's attempts to to rejoin here, that this might be uh unfortunately slightly doomed. Um what what I might do, I mean, I think we should I I don't know whether it's best just to entirely try and reconvene. I I whether it's going to be possible to kind of patch together bits from this. If you don't, if you have five or ten minutes now, I wouldn't mind asking you just a couple more questions so that I've got that. And then if I do need to kind of piece it together a little bit more, um, that might be possible. I particularly I just really wanted to pick up on a couple of things you're saying there. There were uh in terms of the relationship between you know funders and and grantee organizations, which I think is you know really interesting thing about this conversation. There's quite a lot of discussion from you know well-meaning funders about the need to shift power. I wondered what your sense was of the reality of what that means in practice. You know, it does it always actually require a slightly uncomfortable sacrifice or a lot of power on the part of the funder? Because I think sometimes it's easy to say, oh yeah, yeah, we want to give away power. But when when push comes to shove, actually what it means to give away power is that you no longer have that control that you're accustomed to. And that can be quite disconcerting for funders. Have you found in your experience that that actually it's you know it's a more difficult process than sometimes the rhetoric suggests?

SPEAKER_02 34:00

Of course it is, of course it is. Um the you you know there's there's actual research on this that you know uh you know folks very rarely um uh released power. I mean, you know, generally it has to be seized. You know what I mean? Yeah, and so and so uh the idea um that an authentic um uh funding partner recognizes that uh a more effective strategy that would help the foundation meet its goals is to uh be more trusted um and uh and work in a way that's more collaborative and thoughtful um is something that in and of itself they have the power to do. Right. Um and so uh and so the funder funding a partner may decide, you know, I'm gonna issue an RFP, it's gonna be super, super clear, or or request for for proposals, it's gonna be super clear, and and I'll judge who meets it and you know, and I'll hold them accountable. And that's the degree of of uh of control that I'm comfortable with. There are plenty, you know, foundations who that will always work that way and and never really change. Um, but at some point they're gonna have to ask themselves some critical questions about um the degree to which that strategy gets results. Um, and if you ask most of them, you know, and they'd be honest with themselves, uh, you know, they would probably uh be challenged by that question, right? And so maybe working more organically, dynamically, collaboratively um in a more trust-based frame uh will allow for the micro shifts in strategy and implementation and in knowledge in both directions, funder and funde, that will enable both to be more effective. That's essentially what we're suggesting in the piece.

SPEAKER_01 36:10

Yeah, it's really interesting. And and Sarah, I wondered, we were just uh talking there, Derek and I, about the the kind of the gap sometimes, I think, between the the rhetoric that is easy to agree with about the need to shift power and the reality of what it actually means and whether there is a sort of uh necessary discomfort in in that process. Um and I just wanted to pick up actually on what Derek was saying there, because a lot of what you what you said, Derek, was about the the rationale for doing this or the reason for doing it being that it's a more or it makes you more effective as a funder and potentially as a fundee for that process of power shifting to happen. And I wondered, Sarah, as a funder, is it primarily a case of thinking this will make us better and more effective as a funder, and that is why we should do it? Or does it come from a point of view of it being the right thing to do, or is or is that a false binary? Is it a bit sort of both and?

SPEAKER_00 37:04

Right. I I do think it's a both and. I I think from a pragmatic standpoint, I think that we funders all have to answer to our boards. And and ultimately we um we do want to get to an equitable system and equitable results. So I think that that that for me that that pragmatic reason then bubbles to the top, that we will be more effective, that at the end of the day, you can make a great grant and you can point to some uh quantitative outcomes, but if we haven't seen a difference in the systems and the communities that we're trying to impact, it's just a grant, it's just a number, it's just a report. So I think that thinking about it pragmatically, that uh we can be more impactful, we can be more effective when we shift the power. And I do like the frame shifting the power because I think seeding the power is almost like the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction, because there are things that funders can do, even beyond the grant making, that can help the grantees and the communities to be more effective. So I think it's a it really is about that shifting and and not completely uh some people like to say, well, get out of the way. If you get out of the way, then you sort of can lose the opportunity to do some supportive things.

SPEAKER_01 38:56

Yeah, that's really interesting because I've I've talked to a few other people about this who've said something similar in that that they feel as though if you talk about shifting power in the sense of giving it all away, that's almost an abdication of responsibility on the part of the funder and a failure to reflect to recognise the fact that you do have power and that in the process of trying to give it away, some of it will get lost. Whereas actually, if you lean into that power and use your position to advocate at a policy level or to kind of take a helicopter view that can join the work of different organizations together, you might actually be producing more good overall. Um, I mean, from your point of view, Derek, do you think there that that kind of feels vaguely right? And kind of where do you see the sweet spot in terms of how much power the funder should be be giving over versus what you would see as a benefit of engaging with a funder in terms of the power they can bring?

SPEAKER_02 39:54

Yeah, I I uh I often think about um five questions that I that I that I wrote up in a in a conversation years ago um to really answer this question of how much engagement. Um and it was really um helpful for me to frame whether we're still doing our work or whether we're sort of chasing um the work that is fundable, right? Um, which you know it it may seem like that's a a um you know a sort of splitting hairs, but it really, really isn't. Um because the funding community has tremendous power to direct the work of the nonprofit sector, if that's what they're looking to do, right? Um, and so uh because of that, there could be some some significant distortions um uh of our ability to stay true to what is really our hedgehog. Um uh and so those questions are, you know, whose idea is this? Right? Um and so we're we're looking to fund to get a piece of work funded. Um, you know, whose idea is at work? Is it our work idea or is it something that we we've taken off the funder's website because it's you know something that they're interested in supporting? Um the second question is who's at the table executing on this idea? Right. Um and so it it could be the situation where we gain resources from a funding source to do something, um, and then we need to kind of find a whole nother set of people with which to do it. Um, you know, that that is a good indication that it we we may be sort of uh chasing the dollar rather than you know, sort of uh resourcing the work that we're we're founded to do. Um the third is is whose measures of success are these? Right? Um, and that's a really important question. In my organization, we spend a lot of energy and time focused focusing on literacy rates and and um and different uh uh ways in which we measure attainment for students. Um but when families have often other things that they care about just as strongly. Um and uh how much are we caring about and leaning in to the to those other pieces and other elements? I mean, are we are we stuck on these measures because our funders want to see value in them? Um or are we, you know, are are they important enough um to override the the measures that families find valuable? Uh the last two have to do with money, right? Um, whose resources are seeding these ideas is question four. And question five is whose resources are expected to sustain it. Right. Um and I raise these to myself and my team and and to some of my uh other nonprofit leaders just as a way of of making us clear about the power dynamics associated, you know, in in this dance we're all in or this relationship we're all in between, you know, uh funder and fundee. Um and and I can say with all honesty that uh in the partnership with with the Stone Uh Foundation and Sarah and her team, the answers are always the right ones. Um that is not necessarily uh going to be always the case, though, if we look at the entire portfolio of the funder and and fundey landscape, I think.

SPEAKER_01 43:41

Yeah. Yeah, no, and those really kind of questions that kind of get to the heart of a lot of this. Um and and certainly in the the piece that you co authored together, one of the the really interesting ideas, I think, in that that really just sort of resonated with me was the idea of the need to take an approach that shows radical. Humility, which I suppose is probably primarily on the part of the funder, although not entirely. For you, Sarah, what does it mean to talk about radical humility? What is it? And is it something that the foundation sector as a whole should be looking to do more?

SPEAKER_00 44:16

Well, well, I'll be honest that uh the radical humility that Derek came up with that phrase. And and and and it it uh it rattled me at first because I I thought that was a uh maybe a bridge too far, or maybe putting radical in front of the word humility was actually the opposite of humility. But but as I thought about it more, I think that it is something that I think that we as a sector need to strive for. Because I think that it is again, we we talk a lot in philanthropy recently about trust-based philanthropy, like we need to trust our grantees, we need to also be trusted by our grantees and by the communities that we're trying to support. And I think what it means is approaching our work as learners. Yes, uh, there are just a um philanthropy is full of very smart, very uh wonderful people, but we all need to approach it as learners and learning with our grantees because that helps shift that that dynamic and that we are also our grantees are not just accountable to us, but we are also accountable not just to our boards, but to me, I always tell my staff that our client or our customer is not the grantee so much as it's actually the communities that we're trying to serve. So that then sort of makes us think about how are we accountable for sustainable change? And how do we bring together the different components or actors that are necessary to get to that sustainable systems change, even if we might not fund in that area, how can we then connect or reach out to somebody who does fund in that area? So I think that radical humility, it's about being a learner, it's about um uh recognizing that money is only part of a complex problem, especially one around racial equity, and really stepping out of that hierarchical paradigm.

SPEAKER_01 46:42

Yeah, absolutely. And I'm I'm aware I'm in danger of keeping both of you all together um too long. And there's just a couple of things I'd really like to ask before we uh done with the conversation. One um again links back to something you mentioned in the piece, which I think is a fascinating question and one of the most kind of core uh issues within philanthropy at the moment, and that's the tension between urgency on the one hand uh and patience on the other. And this sometimes I think gets characterized in the um funder-grantee dynamic as one where you know grantees are constantly frustrated that things aren't going fast enough because the urgency of the issues they're working on is not being recognized, and the funders kind of urging caution and patience. You know, from your point of view, first, Derek, you know, is is that something that you've found in in the work and the interactions that you've done, you've had with um with funders, that you are the ones sort of urging them to do things you know faster because the the money needs to get out to to the communities that um that you know that could be helped by it.

SPEAKER_02 47:43

Um not often actually. Um the the place where the where the the pace of change piece uh emerges um it, I think, colluded with this question of the limits of money, right? Um uh so you know often um uh some funders might feel like they can up in 400 years of racial oppression in a five-year funding cycle. Um that would be a funding partner who needs patience, not urgency. They need to understand uh the limits of financial power um uh over some of these much more complex, much more challenging contexts. And in the inverse, it's also true in that um, you know, many of my colleagues in the in the um uh reform community um are slow to to innovate and iterate um on their own approaches when the when the environment in the context requires it. Um and that's where you know some nudging from funding partners, some opportunities created um to take risks and learn from those risks can actually improve and strengthen what what it is we do. Um a grant from a from uh uh the Stone Foundation literally did that for us, for partners. We we were um uh uh challenged with the idea of wanting to bring our services into the service of more communities. And um the Stone Foundation at that time said, well, you know, how do organizations like yours tend to scale? Um and we didn't have an answer for that question. And they said, well, let's kind of learn about that together. Um and so they made a small grant that enabled us to pull together some folks who had who had done the scaling work and um and and uh and write some some really important um uh sort of reviews of the work of other organizations to inform what it is we're trying to do and then to produce a plan um that was still pretty risky, um, but less the risk was made uh less challenging for us because we had the opportunity to learn our way into it that the foundation provided. So that was one instance where you know um it was the foundation saying, hey, you know, move, you know, you need to move a little bit to the right or left um in order to see your way forward in this work. Um, and here's some resources that can get you uh started.

SPEAKER_01 50:21

That's really interesting to hear that. And and Sarah, from your point of view, I mean, do you do you find as a funder that you do occasionally are faced with this tension of kind of the need on some issues to act with more urgency, but then also knowing that part of the role of a foundation is to sort of exist over the longer term and stick with issues.

SPEAKER_00 50:38

Right. I I I think that this um tension shows up in so many ways. And I think that you know, philanthropy is supposed to be um the sector that uh takes the long view and can take risks, right, as opposed to to government officials who are standing for election uh every some number of years. And we, on the other hand, in philanthropy are here for the long term. But so often we can be nonetheless risk-averse, or we want to see uh very um quantitative changes in a short amount of time, a two-year or three-year grant period. And so um, you know, again, I think that uh philanthropy needs to sort of embrace that tension, you know, and I think uh a sort of a more global, uh, I guess, or or universal uh example that we've seen recently was is in defund the police, and that there were many grantees who really saw the urgency of that and wanted to move very, very quickly, whereas there were others that were um wanting to be more patient and think about uh what the messaging was, and you know, is that the right message to move the movable middle? And so um again, I just think that that that tension shows up in so many ways. And we often just we need to sit back and chew on it a little bit and think about in those particular situations, which way do we go, which way should we lead?

SPEAKER_01 52:33

Yeah, absolutely. And and I guess the the final thing I just just wanted to ask, and maybe this is an unfairly large question, but I was I was struck again in the article you wrote that you um referenced uh quote from from Dr. Martin Luther King about the the fact that philanthropy is commendable, but it must not lead us to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice that that made the philanthropy necessary in the first place. And I just wondered, do you have any sense that that too often philanthropy is actually part of those circumstances of economic injustice? It's a reflection of systems and structures that are unfair and unjust. And so, to a lot of people's mind, it's part of the problem rather than part of the solution. And I guess if we are trying to make justice our kind of North Star on this, how do we make philanthropy be more part of the solution than part of the problem?

SPEAKER_02 53:23

Um, as I say, it's a relatively big question, but if that kind of brings any immediate thoughts to mind, um Derek, well, one clear way, of course, is to um make um those who are providing these resources um making decisions about where they go more reflective of the communication communities they're trying to serve. Um that's that's a way to get out from under a little bit, you know, of the um the implications um of the you know in inherent injustice of having resources like these um and targeting those resources at communities that you don't know that much about. So just have people in your organization who you know who know about um and can actually make you know robust uh relational shifts within the organizations and across organizations to deliver on some support. The only other way that that uh that comes to mind um is to is to be transparent about where these dollars came from. Right. Um uh you know, there's part of uh Sarah talked about being funders being trusted too. Part of that being trusted is uh is a real recognition of of um of the history um and a and the the inordinate or disproportionate amounts of of privilege that produced these resources so that you can have these ideas in a way that um and and do this work in a way that's felt as more authentic. Right. Um imagine instead a context where you have a Robert Baron um who's a multi-billion, um, you know, uh providing you know philanthropic resources um at tax breaks for the very communities that you know uh his his work um impoverished. Um the only way that that could actually happen in a robust and thoughtful way is if he's transparent about the problems that that the resources he he gleaned over time produced, um, and then is trying in some ways to to you know to address those, to redress those, you know, to repair those.

SPEAKER_01 55:46

Yeah, absolutely. And and and Seraf, just finally from you, is I mean, is this focus on the idea that Fluntby should seek to further justice something that does inform your work as a funder and kind of how does how does that manifest?

SPEAKER_00 55:58

Right. I mean, there's no doubt about it that um wealth and access, that's the soil that you know gave earth, gave root to philanthropy, and then ironically, what we're trying to address. But I think that I think it's too easy in philanthropy to be caught up with your goal is a smart grant, and your goal is to have to be able to hold up these quote deliverables from this very strategic grant that you've made, as opposed to what you just asked about, with the end goal being justice or social change and equity. And not that any one, and again, no one funder or no one grant or grantee can achieve that. But if we think about that, that is our collective as a sector, that is where we're going. So, how do we cluster grants within our own control or how do we partner with our public sector um leaders or other funders and bring those lessons together to work towards that? And I think that that's gonna require some working with our own boards, because you know, in many ways, those incentives for us in the philanthropic, you know, I and my colleagues, we report to our boards. And so I think we need to also help our boards to understand that in working towards those things, that we have to go beyond, yes, we want some deliverables and good outcomes from those that we're funding, but we also have to think about that larger journey towards social change, justice, equity, and how are we leaning in with our grants as well as other, you know, sort of what I always call non-grant-making tools of partnerships or helping to network or providing other supports to move towards that bigger, more important goal.

SPEAKER_01 58:11

Yeah, I mean, it sounds from what you're saying, almost it feels like we need a fairly fundamental redefining of what constitutes success in grant making or philanthropy. Because as you say, it too often is I have set these goals and priorities as a funder, here are my deliverables and outcomes, and I measured them according to these metrics. Whereas if you are talking about actually wanting to empower communities or or increase justice as a whole within society, they're much more difficult things to measure in that way. But maybe that means that we should stop making measurement the starting point for some of these things. Um, listen, it's been an absolute pleasure uh talking to both of you. I just wanted uh to say I'll put links in the show notes to um uh the articles and some of the things that we've discussed. Um uh but if you know if you've got anything else just before I let you both go that you want to flag up or draw people's attention to particularly.

SPEAKER_00 59:03

Well, we appreciate this conversation, and and I think it's really an important conversation in this moment in time to harness the incredible um expertise, passion, and hard work that's out there. And, you know, how do we, in light of all the challenges at this point in time, um, maximize our capacities?

SPEAKER_01 59:28

Great. Um, all right. Well, thank you both very much. Um, you know, I wish you both well uh carrying on with with all this great work. And you know, maybe some points further down the line I could convince you to come back on and we can kind of catch up on how things have developed.

SPEAKER_02 59:41

Wonderful. That'd be great, Rob.

SPEAKER_01 59:43

Thank you.

SPEAKER_00 59:44

Thanks so much.

SPEAKER_01 59:54

Okay, great. Well, my thanks again to Sarah and Derek for coming on the podcast. Uh, it was great to have a chance to talk to them. I thought having the dynamic of speaking to both a funder and a grantee um about some of the conversations they have, which I, you know, I think we can get the sense, are often quite challenging, but can be done in a in a positive uh way, is really, really interesting. I will put links in the show notes to um the article that we mentioned a couple of times that Sarah and Derek co-authored and also a couple of other pieces um that might be relevant and interesting. Uh, if you're interested more broadly in issues around philanthropy and civil society, do check out the website at www.yphilanthropymatters.com. Uh, do follow me on Twitter while you still can before Elon Musk uh explodes the whole thing, at Rodri underscore h underscore Davis. Uh you could also find me at philiteracy, uh, where I do stuff that's more about history uh and kind of the theory of philanthropy. And like everybody else, I'm also dipping a toe into Mastodon. So you can find me there um at Roderydavis at uh mstdn.social. But if you do all of the kind of things that everybody's telling you to do in articles about Mastodon at the moment, I'm sure you'll be able to find me. Other than that, it just remains to say uh please do like, subscribe, tell anybody else that you think might be interested in this podcast about it, because the more the merrier, and I'll see you next time. Bye.