Thanks to probing, concrete questions from MarylinePenedo, moderator of a virtual discussion on aid effectiveness from a gender perspective sponsored by UN-WOMEN at the end of last year, I was ableto better share my experience of alternativesmall grant mechanisms that directly support community groups. From the insidein, it’s often difficult to describe your own experience, but Maryline helpedme to elaborate on the approach used by a family foundationI worked with for many years that was crafting an alternative to business asusual in the aid and philanthropic sectors. I’m gratefully utilizing her questionsto create a Q & A format in the second of two posts (see Part 1 here) that attempt to answer the importantquestions posed by fellow blogger, Dave Algoso, “Sowhat’s that look like? And who, if anyone, has done this well?”
Q: Could you be more explicit about what you mean by “minimumaccountability requirements” necessary [to lower the barrier for localorganizations to benefit from funding]?
A: The foundation’s proposal and reportingformats were specifically formulated to break down language and conceptualbarriers that often serve to exclude community-based organizations from moretypical funding mechanisms. Forexample, rather than having to provide abstract objectives and a logframe,organizations were straightforwardly asked to respond to about ten questionssuch as “What are you trying to achieve?” and “What do you plan to do in this proposal tobring about these changes?” At the reporting stage, the same occurred withsuch questions as “What were you able to achieve?” and“How do you know if you are makingprogress on your goals?” Everyattempt was made to de-technicalize development jargon and offer questions thatwere easy to translate in local languages, including financial reporting...
Read the full article, including a list of international small grantmkers, at: how-matters.org
Add a Comment