Accessibility in Philanthropy

So #accessibility; this has a load of meanings, from enabling people with additional needs to be a part of things, to simply figuring out how to getting those impacted involved. It's super closely related with making things participatory; which will be next week's topic - subscribe to the newsletter now to keep up to date!

For me a lovely way to look at this is opening the doors which work for people and encouraging them to come through. Sometimes this can be simple things like inviting people to join in on something but other times it can be doing things in a bit of a different manner which sometimes can be a bit disconcerting if one isn't used to making such adaptations.

For example, a good friend of mine is #neurodiverse and the way they experience the world as pretty different; one more tangible example is that its as though the world's volume was 10x higher than mine - say for instance the sound of a train; for me its noticeable but can zone it out (especially with some tunes on) but for them, it's oppressively painful for them and takes conscious effort for them to not get super overwhelmed it. That's quite different. Being a naturally loud person with a tendency to break out into spontaneous whistling, beatboxing, or song, we've ran into this a few times, and it was a bit tricky at first.

But with a bit of #empathy, and a lot of patient reminders, I eventually curbed my enthusiastic sound production in their presence - and it wasn't actually that bad!

This really taught me something,

For me, making things accessible really comes down to empathising.

Taking the time to consider what another person is feeling, which I'd suggest can and ideally would including asking them, enables one to make decisions with this additional perspective in mind.

For me at least, having extra info to use when making a choice on is a win - the more information one's perspective of the circumstances is constructed based on the more accurate the view will be, enabling more suitable intentions to generated and ultimately acted upon leading to better results for all involved - fab!

So for me asking ‘How are you feeling?’, ‘Do you have any thoughts?’ or ‘What's on your mind?’ are all super helpful as they facilitate an open conversation which can be really conducive to making progress in a way which lifts everyone.

And helping everyone rise together, just feels better.

Obviously however there are some limitations of empathy:

1. There may be some assumptions about the other person’s/group’s experience which can be partially remedied through conversation, however this leads to the second group of challenges,
2. The time requirement for the detailed communication, the fact people often have different definitions of words, and that some people struggle to express themselves accurately
3. Although one can empathise, that doesn't mean the emotional or rational perspectives are the same; so compromises need to be made
4. Sometimes it can be hard to figure out what thoughts and feelings are present, especially if someone finds verbalisation tricky for whatever reason (language barriers, neurodiversity, etc)

So what's the solution then?

Get them involved!

As I mentioned at the top of this article, I'll be discussing this in the next article; don't forget to subscribe to the newsletter to be part of the conversation!

In the recent work I've been doing as part of the Open Philanthropy Panel with NPC (New Philanthropy Capital) , I've seen some great work demonstrated in terms of accessibility, and discussed lots of other best practices from JustFund Rosa UK Fund Chorus foundation in the documentation provided. All class - especially for me as I'm a new to this space; so if you've got any personal examples from your own experience, drop them in the comments below - I'd love to learn about them!

NPC chose to provide the same flat rate of reimbursement for both panellists and advisers; so not only is the time of both groups valued the same, but it enables people with different circumstances, such as having a young child, to still get involved. The team have also supported travel costs, allowing the unification of people from far and wide to help make influential decisions without the added pressure of paying to get there.

That's all well and good, but they're not actually going to be making the funding decisions, they're just providing the foundation on which the panels are to build.

So how can funding be made more accessible?

Structuring

When we're selecting the structure of the fund, we'll explore the level to which different groups currently have access to funding to support with financial hardship, using a cross section of demographics and geographies.

Then weighing into this decision will be the question of need and impact; two things which are certainly rather tricky to measure - but that's where lived experience and longitudinal studies come in to play.

Once all of this info has been digested and the food coma has passed ??, we'll be able to identify which groups are most in need, and how supporting them could be achieved - which leads me on to the next section: the process of actually getting the money to the people

Selection

Now let's hypothetically assume we've got a satisfactory plan of which groups we'd like to support and in what manner, but how do we select specifically which people, projects, or organisations to give the money to?

Do we have an application process, use referrals, or try to find the people ourselves? If we have an application process, can we make it more accessible by using different mediums, such as video like Rosa does with their grants, or with the length of the application?

What about different groups; are there any additional needs which could prevent them from being on an even playing field? Is there anything which can be done to support them, such as using different languages or reviewing applications before submission? What should the funding be spent on, and how can this be gaurenteed?

Can the money be used as start up capital to empower communities to lift themselves up, hopefully making them self sufficient? Or what about training?

A tonne of different questions without many answers at the mo but we'll worth bringing to the fore. Unfortunately in all likelihood the practicalities of delivering some of the above, such as reviewing all applications prior to submission (effectively doubling the work load) may make some of the options less feasible than others.

This raises an interesting, though somewhat contentious, issue; making things accessible can cost more, and this does impose limitations on the level of accessibility and participation which can be delivered. For example, if for the panel we were to invite every member of every group experiencing financial hardship to talk to us, we'd be here for more than a minute chatting. Undoubtedly we'd have some good conversations learning loads and set the world record for ‘number of cuppa's consumed in service to a single event’, but the money wouldn't be delivered to those in need anywhere near as quickly. This’d mean the impact would be seriously delayed - and when people are on the fence between eat or heat today, we need to act fast. Which begs the query around how we can actually move the money once a selection has been made.

Delivery

How we'll deliver the funding comes down to asking (yet more) questions around what requirements will be in place in order to ensure the money is spent in the best way possible. This however can result in red tape strangulation, leaving those most at need overwhelmed by beurocracy, but at the other end may mean the money gets diverted in undesirable ways.

Exploring what can be put in place to maximise the impact is of great importance, for example is having a bank account a requirement? If not, how is the funding provided? Does an individual need to have a home address? What about legal identity documentation?

Should the funding be provided to individuals as cash or vouchers? Should organisations be able to do what they want with the funding, ie spend it on running costs not just a new project?

Measurement

The final round of questions - as if there aren't already enough, is around measuring the impact of the funding, where we'll need to select what sort of frameworks will be used, trying to quantfy the unquantifiable and turn water into wine while we're at it.

Tricky, but not impossible (the quantification bit not so sure about the vino)

Closing Thoughts

Thankfully were not the first people to be taking on the challenges and asking these questions, in fact many others have gone down similar paths so there is plenty of best practice for us to learn from. Especially thankfully Swatee Deepak and the team all have loads of quality experience to share, and a tonne of insights - more about that in a following article about what choices we actually ended up making!

This discussion highlights one of the main challenges in philanthropy, and probably in life: where between the two extremes is the optimal point? In this Philanthropy case the two ends of the spectrum are

Obviously the point to aim for is somewhere in the middle, one foot in yin and one foot in yang; but in practical terms what does this mean?

Finding that fine balance in the middle is a challenge with the 12 people on the panel supported by the team at NPC. For me, I'm anticipating that although we'll use best practice, personal experience, and professional knowledge at every turn this is the first time round so there will be mishaps along the way - but it's all grist for the mill: things can be learnt and progress made. So far with the decisions we have made we've been able to compromise in a way which led to pretty strong majorities; which is awesome to see.

Anyway, that's enough for this article about accessibility. Although I haven't answered many (if any) of the questions I've posed, hopefully this will shed a bit of light on the process which we'll be going through, and may even be interesting for others in a similar position.

Can you think of any other ways the funding were providing could be made more accessible, while maximising its impact? Pop it in the comments or message me on LinkedIn!

Thanks for reading, and if you like this sort of content, then please subscribe to my newsletter as it'll encourage me to keep making it!