Tweet about this on Twitter Email this to someone Share on LinkedIn
logo-ivar

Supporting a dynamic learning agenda across City Bridge Trust: Our present, vision and direction

In the second blog from our learning in uncertainty blog series, Donna Buxton from City Bridge Trust (CBT) reflects on how the pandemic has influenced the development of their Impact and Learning Strategy. 

 

Donna Buxton is the joint Head of Impact & Learning at City Bridge Trust, with Ruth Feder.

 


Our journey – where we are now?

 

We work in partnerships with our funded organisations to reduce inequality and grow stronger, more resilient and thriving communities for a London that serves everyone. That is our aim, that remains our focus.

 

Our Bridging Divides strategy (2018-2023), clearly established our roadmap. We have additional assets in our ‘toolbox’: access to strong networks across all sectors and a commitment to social investment.  Our Impact & Learning Strategy outlines our commitment to grow our organisational learning culture, embedding an equitable approach to delivering impact (whilst fostering continuous learning) and ultimately improving our philanthropic solutions and approaches.

 

CBT has also teamed up with a learning partner  Renaisi, a social enterprise which supports us in to develop our learning culture and undertake regular ‘temperature checks’ to measure how effectively we are achieving this. The Impact and Learning team also works closely with our staff who represent a vibrant and dynamic learning community.

 

Our ambition has always been to develop effective feedback loops (internally and externally), either through data we routinely collect or other types of insights we receive from our funded organisations. We want to prove what we do is making a difference but also continually improve our offer to funded organisations and wider stakeholders across London.

 

Our organisational values underpin a progressive, adaptive, collaborative, inclusive, environmentally responsible and representative way of  working.  However, the pandemic presented an unforeseen ‘bump’ in the road. 

 

Where do we want to get to?

 

At this mid-point in our Bridging Divides strategy, we are progressing on our journey towards having a strong learning culture. We are members of various communities of practice including IVAR’s Evaluation Roundtable and Charity Evaluation Working Group (ChEW) – this ensures CBT keeps up to speed with the latest social research and evaluative tools and techniques. This progress has also been been helped by learning from the recovery efforts (at all levels) across London and the concerted ongoing efforts of the whole CBT team.

 

 

But it may be pertinent to view our journey as never ceasing, as we may want to change course and shift gears when required.

 

 

How do we get there?

 

The pandemic has given us much to think about, particularly revisiting where we want to go in this ‘new normal’ environment and how we get there. We’ve taken action over the last 18 months to navigate around difficult terrain, while remaining responsive and delivering at pace to our funded organisations.

 

 

We are excited for the future. We have tried to keep the communication channels between CBT and funded organisations open throughout the pandemic.

 

 

To reduce the burden on funded organisations, we only collected data that we absolutely needed for our legal, accountability and evaluative learning requirements. We also listened to people’s stories so we can ensure decision making is always based on need and grounded in robust evidence. We will continue to adopt this process moving forward, remaining flexible and adaptable.

 

 

As part of our dynamic learning agenda, we are also:

 

  • Developing a ‘Data Strategy’, ensuring we are always equitable in our data monitoring and collection, asking the right questions at the right time, benchmarking ourselves and collaborating on a cross sector ‘data standard’.

     

  • Running a programme of learning activities for colleagues, including regular ‘data digests’, ’lunch and learn‘ sessions and deep dives into key topics, which keep us up to speed on current socio-economic issues across London.

     

  • Developing an external learning programme for and with our funded organisations which will build collaborative relationships and drive effective feedback loops. 

     

  • Revising our theory of change so intended outcomes and impact reflect what Londoners now need from our funding streams. It will also signal to us what the ‘mechanisms of change’ could be (connected to our distinct programmes), our assumptions of what could work (to achieve our aims), and what are the enabling factors.

 

From all of this we can ensure we are in the right gear to provide support.  You never know what is round the corner.

 

About City Bridge Trust: 

 

City Bridge Trust is the funding arm of the charity, Bridge House Estates.

 

Our aim is for London to be a city where all individuals and communities can thrive, especially those experiencing disadvantage and marginalisation.

 

We provide grants totalling around £25m per year.

 

The Evaluation Roundtable

 

If you would like more information on the Evaluation Roundtable, please visit our page.

 

If you are interested in attending sessions, please email houda@ivar.org.uk.

 


Attendance is by invitation only, but we warmly encourage you to get in touch.

Covid made us all into “learning organisations”

In the first blog of our learning in uncertainty series, Shoshana Boyd Gelfand reflects on what it means to be a learning organisation and how we might incorporate the new skills developed during the pandemic and embrace disequilibrium, to become lifelong learners.

 

Shoshana Boyd Gelfand is the Director of Leadership and Learning at the Pears Foundation.


The literature on “learning organisations” is vast. In a fast-paced world, those who are capable of continuous learning are clearly going to outpace those who aren’t. And yet we all know just how challenging it is to be one of those elusive “learning organisations”. Moving people from a place of comfort into a place of learning is never simple.

 

So, here’s the good news – if your organisation survived Covid, you are by definition a learning organisation. There is simply no way that anyone got through this period without adapting and learning new ways of working.

 

These new ways may have included new technical skills such as:

 

  • How to be part of a team when you can’t be in the same room together
  • How to fundraise when you can’t look someone in the eye
  • How to collaborate using online tools
  • How to work when your child/dog/neighbour is distracting you in the background

 

Just as important as these technical skills, we all had to learn new attitudes and dispositions:

 

  • How to function in a situation of great uncertainty
  • How to motivate ourselves and others following major disappointments
  • How to manage serious levels of loss (of life, of health, or just of normalcy)

 

Both the technical and attitudinal learning that we have achieved have been hard won. This learning has made us more resilient, more flexible, and – crucially – better at learning (which is fundamentally about encountering and engaging with something new). We have learned how to learn: a huge achievement and one not to be squandered.

 

The big question now is not how do we learn –hardship is often an effective teacher, and surviving a pandemic has effectively made us all into successful learners. Our challenge is now twofold: 

 

1) How do we incorporate our hard-won Covid learning into our organisations?

 

As eager as we may be to spring forward into a “new normal”, it’s crucial that organisations pause and reflect on the changes we have made over the past year and a half. Many of those changes are worth holding onto! Organisations can ask themselves questions such as:

 

  • Under what circumstances should we continue to offer flexible work schedules?
  • Should we maintain a “paperless” office?
  • How can we continue to make conferences/meetings accessible and climate-friendly?

     

Leaders have an obligation to capture this learning, reflect on it, and consciously choose which practices to continue, and which ones to leave behind.

 

2) How do we continue to learn without the harsh teacher of Covid breathing down our necks?

 

So much of what we learned wouldn’t have happened without the pressure of closed offices and the simple necessity to somehow carry on with our vital work. If you had asked me two years ago whether I could do leadership training and team-building workshops online, I would have said no. I wouldn’t have even tried. And yet . . . what I learned during the pandemic is that this kind of virtual training is indeed possible. Some of the techniques that I discovered (by painful trial and error) are ones that I will carry on doing. But I never would have discovered them had I not been pressured into that. So, the question for me personally is how do I motivate myself to continue to be open to those things that I would have once dismissed as “impossible”?

 

The big question moving ahead is:

 

Can we not only incorporate the new skills we’ve developed during the pandemic, but can we also consciously embrace the disequilibrium that comes from being placed in new situations?

 

My personal conviction is that we have no choice. Our organisations have survived (at least thus far) perhaps the worst year that many of us could have imagined. We’ve lost so much during that time. The only way to make up for that loss is to learn from it – and to let it transform us into confident ongoing learners.

The Evaluation Roundtable

If you would like more information on the Evaluation Roundtable, please visit our page.

If you are interested in attending sessions, please email houda@ivar.org.uk.

Attendance is by invitation only, but we warmly encourage you to get in touch.

How you make grants is as important as what you fund

At a recent Evaluation Roundtable Community of Practice session we asked what working practices people are hoping to retain from lockdown; and what they are looking to improve or introduce as they approach autumn and winter. In the  fourth of our blog series addressing these questions, we ask Kate Peters (Community Foundation for Surrey) to share her reflections.

 

Remember March? The world turned upside down, and we all had to come to terms with living a totally different kind of life, separated from loved ones and our normal routines. Meanwhile, the voluntary sector was not only stepping up to be a lifeline to thousands of our vulnerable neighbours but facing a disaster in terms of lost income. Community fundraising was cancelled and contracts and grant funding were put into question as projects became undeliverable.

 

The Community Foundation for Surrey launched a Coronavirus Response Fund on 26th March. We made our first awards after only 6 days on 1st April. Six months and £3million of grants awarded later, what have we learned from the experience?

 

It’s not just the money

 

Although the money was obviously critical, what we heard from our grantees back in April was how important it had been to groups to know someone was going to help. A number of key funds closed to applications at that time–just knowing we were there for them was really valuable.

 

It was not a big job to send a message to all our grantees, stating that whilst we understood that projects might pause or even fail, we would be flexible with reporting and changed delivery. That was one less thing for grantees to worry about and an element of funding that could stay in the budget. It is a message I still need to reiterate to grantees as their grant reports come due and I always sense their relief.

 

So, what did we learn? – How you make grants is as important as what you fund. Our impact as a Foundation can be seen in the invisible, intangible support we give to our groups.

 

Keep it simple

 

Keeping the criteria for the Response Fund simple and flexible made it much easier for us to be inclusive and responsive. As a Community Foundation we have a large range of funds with sometimes very targeted aims. Working with one Fund was refreshing and made it a lot easier to make quick decisions.

 

So, what did we learn? –  We need to look at the criteria for our programmes and ask: can we simplify for the benefit of our applicants – and for us?

 

Relationships, not process

 

The biggest factor enabling us to make quick decisions was our knowledge of our applicants and grantees that has built up over years. We could cut down the length of our application forms and take a lighter touch approach to due diligence because we know these groups; we know they can deliver good work. 

 

But what about the groups we don’t know so well? And the pop-ups and small un-constituted groups? We worked with the support groups, including the CVS network, which agreed to act as fund holders for small or new groups. These local support bodies knew what was happening in their areas and their advice and intelligence allowed us to be confident in our grant-making.

 

So, what did we learn? – Investing our time in getting to know our grantees pays off. Being part of the local sector and networked with the key players is invaluable. We must make time to get beyond the forms and reports and build relationships.

 

Even more relationship building

 

Those groups, who we already knew struggle with accessing our funds, were left behind in the initial stages of the Response Fund. While experienced applicants can quickly jump on a new funding stream, those groups for whom grant funding is an unfamiliar world could not take advantage of our support in the same way.

 

So, what did we learn? – There is an opportunity to take something good out of the crisis; more and better relationships with groups which don’t traditionally look to Foundations for funding.  We must take time to promote and offer support to inexperienced groups when launching any programme to ensure everyone gets a fair chance. We have made a commitment to do better and we will.

 

What Next?

 

We focused our Covid-19 grant-making on being there for our community; a rapid response, enabling groups supporting vulnerable people to just keep going. Response to a crisis is not the same as long term grant making, but there are good lessons we can take from the experience to inform how we make better grants for the long game.


Next Thursday (12th November), in the fifth in our new series of blogs about learning from funding during Covid, Andre Clarke describes how Comic Relief is driving forward an approach to funding that is rooted in trust: ‘we recognised timelines, expenditure and goals set out in existing grant agreements might need to shift to reflect the changing context, and we made that easy to do’.


If you are interested in joining our Evaluation Roundtable Community of Practice for learning and evaluation staff in UK trusts and foundations, please email vanessa@ivar.org.uk.

Old dogs, new tricks?

At a recent Evaluation Roundtable Community of Practice session we asked what working practices people are hoping to retain from lockdown; and what they are looking to improve or introduce as they approach autumn and winter. In the second of our blog series addressing these questions, we ask Oliver French (Lankelly Chase) to share his reflections.

 

 

The pandemic has given fresh energy to some long-held frustrations with foundation practice. It’s not the first time that demand for trust-based relationships, core funding, flexibility, responsiveness, light-touch monitoring and shared reporting frameworks have come up, and there have been many stalled attempts to evolve funder practice. Whatever the radical fringes and self-image of the philanthropic world look like, foundations have generally proved themselves conservative and resilient institutions, in that our processes and practices (and personnel?) change at a glacial pace, and power is rarely shared or distributed.

But a national medical and social emergency, coupled with a summer of direct action and debate about racial justice, has put foundations’ structures and practices under more acute stress than before. It remains to be seen which orthodoxies will spring back and which we might have lost forever – willingly or otherwise. Could we be in the middle of an evolutionary leap, where before we’ve only managed small steps? What stopped us changing before, and are those structures still in place?

To figure this out, at Lankelly Chase we’ve been trying to tune into change at the level of ‘how’ and ‘who’, rather than just ‘what’. A new emergency fund here, or the suspension of an outcomes evaluation there, will have quite a low ceiling. But the remaking of a trustee board, the redistribution of decision-making rights in local places, and the creation of new centres of power have much greater transformative potential. As individuals, as organisations and as a sector, we should not just be looking to ‘build back better’ on the outside, but from within too: rather than seeing change as something that we create, support, resource or manage, it’s something that we seek to model and embody in the ways that we behave.

 

As individuals, as organisations and as a sector, we should not just be looking to ‘build back better’ on the outside, but from within too: rather than seeing change as something that we create, support, resource or manage, it’s something that we seek to model and embody in the ways that we behave.

Complexity and adaptation

 

It’s a normal human tendency to see the things which confirm our worldview and minimise those which challenge it. For our part at Lankelly Chase, we’ve long held that social change work isn’t characterised by simplicity or linearity, but by complexity and unpredictability. Covid didn’t introduce uncertainty to our world, but it has certainly increased our sensitivity to it. It’s also given us and our partners more freedom to sit with ‘not knowing’ and lack of control, and released some of the usual pressure to reach for comforting but spurious measures of performance or effectiveness.

For us, coronavirus has been further evidence that we’re living and working in a complex environment, and we’ve been trying to deploy our resources and attention accordingly. This means pivoting away from a focus on things like planning, delivery and assessment; and looking instead towards sensemaking, responding, and adapting to continuous change. We’ve sought to do this collectively, alongside networks in the places and partnerships we’ve invested in – not trying to ‘manage’ or to ‘assess’ but to inquire; and finding that “what have you noticed?” is a much deeper question than “what have you done?”. Instead of meticulous planning and retrospective evaluation, we’ve been able to act (and fund) with fewer conditions and more trust, and focus on putting the architecture in place to learn as we go. We’ve been trying to do this continuously and ‘in the moment’ (about which we’ve published a series of blogs), rather than waiting for the benefit of hindsight.

 

Instead of meticulous planning and retrospective evaluation, we’ve been able to act (and fund) with fewer conditions and more trust, and focus on putting the architecture in place to learn as we go.

 

Back to the future(s)

As the pandemic has unfolded, it’s become increasingly difficult to separate conversations about crisis response from those about a post-Covid future. After an initial flurry of activity, the demand for quickfire cashflow support has died down (for now…) amongst Lankelly Chase’s funded partners (more on our approach here), and our hastily convened ‘emergency’ team has found itself inexorably drawn into deeper questions like “when is an emergency no longer an emergency?”. We’ve been forced to consider what kind of future we’re (re)building towards, what kind of environment we’ll be operating in, how our new context will be shaped, and who gets to decide.

At times the number of flatpack futures being offered has felt overwhelming, as thinkers of all stripes offer different visions of what society should look like. We’ve felt very aware of who has a platform, whose voices are loudest and whether they’re the same ones we usually hear, which is why initiatives like the Lottery’s ‘Emerging Futures Fund’ are so important – not just for centring different voices, but also for unashamedly investing in enquiry and imagination.

At a very simple level, the Covid-19 pandemic has unlocked charitable resources that might otherwise have remained in bank accounts or questionable investment funds. It’s given us both the opportunity and the cover to do more, more quickly, than we had originally planned, including undertaking bigger experiments with devolved power and participatory grant making. The test now will be how we can respond to our tendencies to slip back into the old habits we’ve professed to dislike, and ensure that what’s been proved possible becomes normal – even essential.

 

The test now will be how we can respond to our tendencies to slip back into the old habits we’ve professed to dislike, and ensure that what’s been proved possible becomes normal – even essential.


Next Thursday (5th November), in the fourth in our new series of blogs about learning from funding during Covid, Kate Peters describes how the Community Foundation for Surrey has begun to embrace a different philosophy of grant-making: ‘How you make grants is as important as what you fund’


If you are interested in joining our Evaluation Roundtable Community of Practice for learning and evaluation staff in UK trusts and foundations, please email vanessa@ivar.org.uk.

Promoting equitable, inclusive and transparent grant making

At a recent Evaluation Roundtable Community of Practice session we asked what working practices people are hoping to retain from lockdown; and what they are looking to improve or introduce as they approach autumn and winter. In the second of our blog series addressing these questions, we ask Himali Dave (Urban Movement Innovation Fund) to share her reflections.

 

Despite the stark social, political and economic moments of the past year, we have seen incredible resilience and drive from our grantees. This has prompted us to reflect on our role as a funder and convener, and how best we can support organisations – not only to continue to meet their own strategic objectives during this period, but also to create a collective impact that is greater than the sum of its parts. Reflecting on what we have seen emerge with and through our partners, below are 3 key practices we are looking to retain and grow.

1. Agile and responsive grant making

 

We have realised that our collaborative grant making philosophy itself has been key to enabling UMIF to respond quickly, from supporting grantees to adapt and pivot projects through to responding to the field’s resource and capacity needs to operate in their new respective realities. By consciously minimising the associated layers of bureaucracy that often comes with grant making, we have seen more trust built with the field, as well as increased scope for creativity.

 

By consciously minimising the associated layers of bureaucracy that often comes with grant making, we have seen more trust built with the field, as well as increased scope for creativity.

 

Examples of this can be seen in global response grants which went from proposal to approval process within two months, including grants enabling organisations across India, South Africa and Mexico to virtually connect grassroots allies under lockdown. We need to hold onto this as a guiding principle and strive for high levels of collaboration and continued dialogue with grantees, and in doing so promote equitable, inclusive and transparent grant making.

2. Building shared ownership of learning agendas

 

Whilst the pandemic has overhauled ‘business as usual’, it has also sharpened the focus on key questions which often preoccupy funders and NGOs alike: “What are we learning? And how are we putting that learning into practice?”

In light of the fact that we are a relatively new fund, with most grants not yet having reached the one year mark, we have used this opportunity to embed a learning approach into new projects early on in their development. Through this process we have had some incredibly transparent conversations with grantees around their measurement-related anxieties – a common concern within movement building work, which is often hard to measure and attribute to individual projects. A key outcome from these conversations has been shifting the focus from ‘success’ to ‘learning’, which has really encouraged our grantees to consider metrics as a positive and experimental tool to accompany key learning questions, rather than donor-pleasing exercise.

 

A key outcome from these conversations has been shifting the focus from ‘success’ to ‘learning’, which has really encouraged our grantees to consider metrics as a positive and experimental tool to accompany key learning questions, rather than donor-pleasing exercise

3. Fostering virtual communities

 

Transitioning to a virtual operating space has not only fundamentally shifted how we interact with each other, but it has posed an additional challenge for UMIF as a funder that seeks to convene the field and foster collaboration and networking.

In order to maintain and grow the momentum within the community, we have hosted virtual convening sessions through the year, bringing together 55 participants from civil society and philanthropy. Despite the successes we have had in developing various strategies and collaborative projects remotely and across multiple geographies, ‘Zoom-fatigue’ is a real challenge and something that we have had to be mindful of. We have tried to apply the same principles as we would do for in-person sessions, with a unique offering for each convening: we bring in external facilitators, regularly check in and gather feedback, and encourage dialogue and interaction through breakout sessions. Building on grantee feedback, we have also tried to support regular points of contact in between these moments through newsletters examining best practices.

As we approach 2021, and with lockdowns most likely to remain a regular feature in our lives, we need to hold onto and smarten our utilisation of these technologies and techniques to ultimately strengthen and deepen the connectivity amongst our field of grantees.


Next Thursday (29th October), in the third in our new series of blogs about learning from funding during Covid, Oliver French, from Lankelly Chase, will reflect on what he and colleagues have been learning about what’s been made visible, possible and necessary as the covid-19 pandemic has unfolded.

If you are interested in joining our Evaluation Roundtable Community of Practice for learning and evaluation staff in UK trusts and foundations, please email vanessa@ivar.org.uk.

Making ‘relational’ real: Our experience of funding during Covid

They say moving to a new house is one of the most stressful things you can do. For others it’s starting a new job. And as everyone knows now, living through a pandemic has been a new extreme of stress. But imagine all those things at once.

 

We were told to work from home after I spent less than 2 weeks at The Robertson Trust. I barely had time to learn everyone’s name (sorry colleagues). I had just moved myself up from London to Glasgow. All my stuff (plus partner) was in a mountain of boxes in our tiny Greenwich flat, ready for us to move into our new house on the 24th of March. That’s right – the day after lockdown.

 

I’m glad to say that we did manage the move – but not without a huge amount of stress, panic and surviving for more than a month with no furniture.  

At the same time, The Robertson Trust was experiencing its own stresses: a change in organisational structure, a new strategy to work out and staff adjusting to working from home.

 

Reflecting on the last six months, one thing I know now is the antidote to stress is being kind to yourself and asking for support when needed. I have certainly leaned on friends and family for support and given into a lot of creature comforts during lockdown. But, can we, as a Trust extend a sort of organisational kindness?

 

A new (kinder) approach?

 

We know that many Third Sector organisations have struggled to raise funds or generate income throughout lockdown and that many have had to radically change the way they operate. At the same time, they are seeing more demand from the communities they serve. In short, the charities we support, and the people who work or volunteer in them, are having a tough time.

 

We already knew that one of the ideas we wanted to employ in our new way of working was being ‘relational’. While principles on paper can be often be meaningless, the need for a relational approach has really come alive over the last six months. Although developing and implementing a new strategy during lockdown hasn’t been easy, I don’t believe we would have lived this principle so fully if it had been at any other time.

 

I see ‘relational’ as being supportive or kind – values that continue to be present in abundance across communities in Scotland. And just like going the extra mile for friends and family during lockdown; the same is true of the charities we work with.

I see ‘relational’ as being supportive or kind … just like going the extra mile for friends and family during lockdown; the same is true of the charities we work with.

As part of developing our new strategy, we have reviewed our communication. The way we communicate externally is now friendlier, supportive and more straightforward. We’ve also thought about accessibility and given options for people to highlight additional support needs.

 

A new strategy gave us time to assess our relationships and our role as a funder. We proactively build and maintain relationships in a wide range of sectors. We listen to how areas that we are interested in supporting have been impacted by Covid and how, using our assets as a funder and connector, we can help to make a difference.

 

Through the development of our funds, we reviewed the way we considered applications: We thought hard about the experience from an applicant’s point of view. We now have clearer and more transparent application and assessment processes that are proportional to the amount organisations receive.

 

Using Trust in Learning

 

Our approach to learning from our funds is based on relationships and trust. We will no longer ask our grant holders to tell us what outcomes they want to achieve. We will no longer ask them to measure those outcomes at the end of their grant period. We trust them to know the needs of their communities, to spend their grant wisely and to do a good job.

We trust our grant holders to know the needs of their communities, to spend their grant wisely and to do a good job.

We know that many people working in the third sector spend too much time writing funding applications and reporting on that funding. If a project or service has a melting pot of funders with different reporting requirements, that can mean a huge amount of time away from frontline work.

 

We still want to hear from grant holders at the end of their grant, but we want to check in on their experience: What were they able to do with their funding? What went well? What challenges did they face? How can we help them to overcome these in the future?

 

Organisations we fund can also choose to report to us in a way that’s meaningful for them. We’re happy to speak on the phone or they can send us a video or a report they’ve already made. 

 

Part of our approach to learning, and the shift away from formal reporting, is about seeing the benefit of informal data. What will tell us more about an organisation – a list of outcomes that they may or may not have achieved, or an informal chat where they have free-reign to tell us everything about their work? I’m excited to see informal conversations and peer learning events sitting alongside more traditional methods of evaluation like surveys.

After all, we’re not here to monitor and regulate funding – we’re here to support organisations and learn alongside them.  

We’re not here to monitor and regulate funding – we’re here to support organisations and learn alongside them.

What next?

 

The only thing about the immediate future is its uncertainty. We don’t know when or how new restrictions will end. We don’t know how badly the third sector will be affected. We don’t know the long-term impact on communities. We do know, however, that the pandemic isn’t over, and the foreseeable future will continue to be tough for everyone.

 

Despite this, I believe lockdown has made us a kinder funder who looks to build strong relationships with the organisations we work with. We’ve really brought to life the principle of being relational and we will continue to put this principle in action.


Hazel is a member of our Evaluation Roundtable Community of Practice for learning and evaluation staff in UK trusts and foundations. If you are interested in joining, please email vanessa@ivar.org.uk.

Next Thursday (22nd October), in the second in our new series of blogs about learning from funding during Covid, Himali Dave, from the Urban Movement Innovation Fund, will reflect on what she and colleagues have been learning about how best to support organisations to create a collective impact.

Acting locally in the Covid-19 era

Covid-19 has been like a viral version of globalisation. It’s the import and export of a deadly virus that pays no respect to national borders. So what’s local community action got to do with an international pandemic?

At a national level, of course, we have needed to mobilise the public sector, most notably the NHS. At a personal level, social media has provided ways for us to communicate with friends, family and colleagues across continents. But has the pandemic either stimulated – or stifled – local community action?

At one level, helping a neighbour with shopping; waving through the window to someone in isolation; sticking up a poster about a Mutual Aid scheme; all represent important contributions to our local communities. We could think of these as individual civic acts. Alongside this, mobilising our contacts with voluntary, community and co-operative organisations in our towns and villages has also been crucial. Local community action has an important complementary role to play in the current crisis but it also faces challenges.

Vulnerable people hardest hit

First, it’s important to note that community groups were already providing frontline support to people before the crisis. For example, they may have offered support or advocacy to people who were homeless or living in overcrowded temporary hostels; to undocumented migrants who encountered barriers to accessing health care; and to people on low incomes who relied on food banks to survive.

Second, it’s worth recognising that local groups have encouraged the associational life that is so important for mental wellbeing and local engagement. Over the last months most community centres have necessarily remained closed. These were places where people might learn yoga, drama or juggling; or organise and advocate for local needs; or provide places to socialise and meet friends. These are not frontline emergency services. But they may be vital locations for fostering mutual support and wellbeing.

Practitioner Voices

Let’s take two examples. At one community centre, in a densely packed neighbourhood in the south, volunteers have been regularly cleaning the garden as a convivial social space. Janet, one of the trustees, pointed out that the centre’s normal activities had ceased following government guidance several months earlier but ‘we have kept the garden open for local residents with strict rules on social distancing’. They rely ‘purely on room hire and fundraising activities’. At present ‘there is no income coming in’ and ‘we don’t get grants’. 

Meanwhile, a community centre on a new-build estate, have been operating an independent food bank. Sam, a committee member, underlined that health, housing and food were ‘the most basic aspects of life’. In this locality, ‘most people coming to food banks are on universal credit’ and, according to Sam, they are ‘self employed on low incomes that aren’t sufficient to cover their costs’. Their policy was that there would be no means test. Meanwhile, donations of money are preferred – rather than odd combinations of non-nutritious items – so that quality food can be distributed.

For him, the reason that Covid-19 had been such a disaster was because ‘for many people affordable secure housing, sufficient nutritious food and decent access to health services was already not part of their world’.

These two vignettes illustrate some modest but important examples of responses to the effects of Covid-19 by local community groups as well as indications of their own organisational fragility. Certainly, Public Health England’s (2020) [1] examination of the pandemic points to the higher risk faced by older people, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups, as well as for those living in deprived areas or in medical and menial employment roles. Local community action groups work closely with many of these groups.

The Outlook

It seems a different era since headlines on the 31st January 2020 read ‘First case of Corona virus confirmed’ [2]. For analysts such as John Gray [3], the arrival of the virus did not represent ‘a shift to small-scale localism’ however he argued that ‘…the hyperglobalisation of the last few decades is not coming back either.’ Gray’s analysis holds echoes of Paul Hirst’s [4] ideals of a local or regional associationalism that sought democratised private and public agencies.

The important support roles of local community action can easily be overlooked. Their multiple voices need to be heard in any post-Covid reappraisals of our social and economic structures. Their practical, social and convivial roles remain a vital contribution at the local level.


References

[1] Public Health England (2020) Disparities in the risk and outcomes of COVID-19, London: PHE publications.

 

[2] Burgess, K. (2020) ‘First case of Corona virus confirmed’, The Times; 31 Jan, 2020. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/world-health-chiefs-declare-coronavirus-is-global-emergency-9pc9jkkfk.

 

[3] Gray, J. (2020) ‘Why this crisis is a turning point in history’, New Statesman; 1/4/2020.

 

[4] Hirst, P. (1994) Associative Democracy. New forms of economic and social governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.

NB Names of those interviewed are anonymised at respondents’ request.

Becoming a learning organisation – learning as a set of small, easy to introduce, habits

The Center for Evaluation, based in Washington DC, have pioneered a “learning habits” approach to becoming a learning organisation. In our first Letter from America – our blog series sharing evaluation insights from across the pond – Tanya Beer (Center for Evaluation Innovation) shares the theory behind their ‘learning organisation’ method and we talk to Irit Houvras (American Jewish World Service) about introducing ‘learning habits’ into the day-to-day work of her organisation.

 


We ask Irit Houvras (American Jewish World Service) about introducing ‘learning habits’ into the day-to-day work of her organisation
Why did you decide to give learning habits a try at American Jewish World Service (AJWS)?

I was invited to participate in the Center for Evaluation Innovation’s Lab for Learning just as we were refining our monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system. One of our main goals for overhauling the M&E system was to increase reflection and learning opportunities, especially across teams, countries and regions. It was the perfect time to test out some of the new learning habits that I’d explored with the Lab for Learning — but I wanted to do it without placing the burden of extra training on staff, who already had plenty of demands on their time.


How did you decide which habits to focus on?

Based on existing planned work and points of engagement with programmatic staff, I decided what habits made sense. I experimented with the habits:

  1. ‘Making thinking visible’
  2. ‘Answering the “now what?” question’

It was a great year to be experimenting as it happened to be a busy year rolling out revised M&E procedures, with numerous and varied opportunities. I selected habits that were a natural fit with the opportunities – while I had hoped to work on ‘asking powerful questions’, the activities were better suited to ‘making thinking visible’ and ‘answering the now what’.

I was pleasantly surprised to see how quickly these learning habits picked up momentum throughout the organization. My experiment showed how the right habit can strengthen existing learning efforts and instill new concepts that can be easily adopted—without a formalized roll-out or time-consuming training for all staff.

 

Can you tell us a bit more how you did this?

Making Thinking Visible. This habit is about clarifying underlying assumptions in people’s thinking and pinpointing what we need to learn next. To put it into action, I added a new step to prepare for AJWS’s first biannual reflection sessions: facilitating before- and after-action reviews. 

After-action reviews, first developed by the U.S. Army, are used to clarify the intended results of an action (before) and compare these intended results to what actually happened (after), so teams can discuss what contributed to the actual results and consider ways to optimize their actions in the future. The after-action review process supported AJWS staff—especially those who are critical to coordinating team efforts but are not in formal leadership roles—to make a bigger contribution to organizational learning. It’s an important step, given AJWS’s commitment to gather perspectives from people working at all levels of the organization. The review process also contributed to directors on the grantmaking team better communicating their thinking to their staff. Together, we were able to unearth ways in which we could all contribute to improving the year-end reflection sessions.

Answering the “Now What” Question. After gathering new information or experiencing something new, most people spend a lot of time focused on what happened. They often spend less time discussing why it was important and how it should influence future actions. To apply this habit at AJWS, I prompted staff to pivot their reflections, focusing less on answering the “What?” and more on investigating the “So what?” and the “Now what?”

I integrated these questions into a training activity on our revised M&E form. During the activity, staff had limited time to report on the “What?” question. They also visualized the “What?” in a simple chart, which helped them move on to the “So what?” and the “Now what?” Holding staff to a short window for discussing what happened was essential to making this process efficient. While they only had 5 minutes to share deeply complicated information, their summaries were still rich and the prompts to discuss implications and next steps led to meaningful dialogue.

Later, in an unexpected turn of events, senior staff (including our executive team) began using the “What? So what? Now what?” framework in other settings, including a board of trustees meeting. When the exercise was repeated with the board, the trustees had the chance to discuss and better understand the staff’s decision-making—and the strategic thinking behind it.


Read more about this learning habit and others in this Medium post by Julia Coffman at the Center for Evaluation Innovation. Find more lessons from the Lab for Learning here.

Tanya Beer is the co-facilitator of our 18-monthly Evaluation Roundtable, which convenes UK Trust and Foundation Leaders. We’ll be discussing learning habits with Tanya at the Evaluation Roundtable Community of Practice on 6 March 2020 and will continue to reflect on and share insights related to the theme.