Integrating Project-Based Grantmaking and Movement-Building
Workshop report

Speakers:
Balasubramanian Iyer, IDEX
Annu, Manavi - India
Sarah Hobson, New Field Foundation
Mark Randazzo, Funders network on Trade and Globalization.

Annu began the discussion with general remarks
Manavi is working in Bihar, India. Bihar is an area that floods frequently, affecting many people. Much of the work in the area is very charity-based, mainly relief efforts. Many people realized this was not a long-term solution, that it made people beggars, and even that the flood was a natural part of life. Over time people realized that the flooding was also related to government policies and that alternatives to the situation needed to be found. People starting organizing in the area, without funding from outside sources. As a result people started to wonder if there were more ancient ways of trying to control flooding without modern technology. In general this helped efforts overall in the area to move towards taking control of their own lives and find options beyond charity.

Mark Randazzo continued the conversation with his general remarks
Mark started working in Africa in the 70s on "seeds and tools" initiatives. By the 80s, he was working with Save the Children in the same way, but trying to bring in more community voices. By the late 80s and early 90s, more efforts were being made to bring in civil society and empowerment programs, and still later bringing in youth organizations and eventually movements and social justice perspectives.
He feels that many of the lessons are straight forward: That is important to help people at the grassroots level and that unless we are able to confront power and structures, there will not be much change.

Sarah Hobson continued Sarah spoke of her experience in the women's movement for 40 years working in Europe, Iran, South Asia and Africa. These influences have helped her see the importance of working for change. She was also involved in movements with peasants and rural social movements and worked for 20 years as a writer. Her education has come out of seeing the experiences of people. She made a documentary about women in Gambia being effected by globalization and how traditional women are being pushed out as a result of large development projects. This video had an impact on many people and in fact is still being used by academics and grassroots groups.

Balu then began a moderated conversation

Question: Many groups are only working on things at a local level and don't see the importance of taking on policy. Do you believe that grassroots groups are spending too much time looking at local issues without taking on policy, or is this false statement? How do you convince the groups you work with to be involved at all on advocacy?

Annu responded by describing the evolution of the work of Manavi. When they began working on the issue of flooding, they also started to work on women's issues. They found that this work on women's issues needed to be rooted in whatever were the local issues. They started to talk about the issues of flooding and agriculture and then including women's issues. It was more accepted this way. From there, they became more active in movement work, such as by working on seed issues and indigenous community issues. From there they became more involved in advocacy issues. From this work on advocacy, they started to connect with larger national and international networks and eventually became more aware of globalization issues.

Sarah noted an important starter question: How do organizations begin working on structural issues? International issues touch us all. We want charity to have an impact. Funders often take time to learn and engage with different groups and many are already trying. So how do funders do it all? How do we work without putting our agenda on the groups we are funding, but also address issues at different levels? New Field Foundation funds multiple groups, including local grassroots and advocacy and capacity building work at many levels. How do they do this without getting pulled in different directions? Generally they make sure they take their lead from the local community.

A participant asked if they bring local and policy groups together?

Sarah responded: Somewhat, but they are just getting started. They've funded people to go to the World Social Forum, including giving a supplemental grant to ensure it happened. They've also made grants for networking and to support exchanges. It is easier for New Field, as they are focused on a concentrated area: two-thirds of grants are made in West Africa.

Mark then discussed the aspects of local vs. policy funding and the fact that people are affected at all levels by policies. All grassroots groups deal with policy issues. How can funders be supportive of this? It's important for funders to fund institutions and provide unrestricted funding. When Mark was funding local work, he also funded networking, coalitions and movements. If funders fund individual groups, it's important to support these groups to be a part of networks and movements by providing unrestricted funding for what they need.

Sarah responded: Many women in rural Africa don't see money. How do you get money to them in order to effect change and do what they want to do? New Field Foundation is funding in recent conflict areas where there are no tools and seeds but there is also a need to do policy work. It is not as simple as either/or, but there is the real need to fund change. Most of the women don't have the tools to effect real change.

A workshop participant responded: She was encouraged to hear that funding is getting to multiple levels. She felt that such a strong focus on grassroots leaves out some people and that local governments are often excluding by discussions of local change. Especially on the environment, there is not a way to exclude governments.

Mark Randazzo responded by discussing Via Campesina as a decentralized policy group that work on both local issues and policy.

Balu asked the question: Many US funders are only funding seeds and tools. Why are funders afraid of funding social movements? Are they afraid that it will come back on them?

Sarah discussed that New Field funds groups for seeds and tools and money for whatever they need, so they can fight issues at all levels.

Annu made that point that for them working at the grassroots level, they often wonder why funders fund movement work, when so many of the movements have fallen apart. At the same time, some local-level funding has divided the community, as funders have funded one group over another creating conflict. Often funders create a movement that doesn't represent people at the local level.

A discussion ensued on leaders of local movements who loose legitimacy by engaging in policy work and pulling away from community needs.

Balu asked a question of European funders: Why are European funders more willing to fund movement work?

A discussion ensued on funders wanting short-term results and that movements do not have tangible results. Social movements often take place regardless of funding, and funders can often inhibit and make local problems. Funders often have more power on these issues than they should. Another comment was that funders are afraid that movements will lead to violence.

Recommended resources:

• Social Service and Social Change: A Process Guide: http://buildingmovement.org/
• Social Movements: A summary of what works, by Charles Dobson: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/
• Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail, by Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward, (1977), Pantheon Books
• Contemporary Movements and Ideologies, by Robert Graner (1996), McGraw-Hill

back to top

Grantmakers Without Borders   PO Box 181282   Boston, MA 02118
Phone 617.794.2253           Fax 617.266.0497
Copyright © 1998-2008. All rights reserved.
For more information contact us at GwoB@gwob.net
Please report any problems with this site to the webmaven