How to Alleviate Concerns About Centering Community Voice: Advice for Funders

Community Wealth Partners - Advice for Funders Blog Post

As part of Fund for Shared Insight’s ongoing series about funder listening tools and resources developed by other organizations in the field, we invited Community Wealth Partners to introduce their resource for funders ready to share power with the communities most impacted by their work.

Many funders understand that solutions are more likely to be successful when the people who are most affected have a voice in shaping them. But when it comes to including that voice — listening in order to partner with and center community in decision making — the work often stalls before it starts.

In working with funders to create community-led research and planning processes, we at Community Wealth Partners have heard the concerns and misconceptions that often create that gap between intention and action. We also understand that funders have a wide range of things in mind when they consider community engagement, and that some approaches fall short of listening to shift power, as defined by others in the field. Our experience has taught us ways funders can address concerns about starting their listening efforts and take steps toward building enduring relationships and deeper collaborations with the communities impacted by their work.

Four concerns and ways to address them:

Loss of control

What if the community wants something we can’t do?

Ways to address it:

Set clear expectations; communicate transparently

Misalignment between community members’ asks and expectations and what a funder can actually deliver can be detrimental to a trusting relationship. Funders can help avoid this by being clear and specific about the input they are seeking from community members and how it will be used. During conversations, if you are engaging community members to help co-design a strategy or program, be clear about the questions you are hoping they will answer and major areas that may be off the table. Be transparent about tensions or organizational constraints that you will have to work through so community members have a shared understanding of the context in which you are working. The goal of these conversations is to provide community members the context and understanding of the foundation needed to do their work, not to dictate the work itself.

After you’ve listened to community members, be clear about next steps, how decisions will be made, and what other sources of information will inform decisions. Finally, be sure to close the loop once decisions have been made — communicating the decision and why it was made. If the decision differs from what community members recommended, explain the rationale and other factors that contributed to the decision.

Case example:

Program staff at a foundation were eager to engage community members in a far deeper way than they had before, but worried about how the process would unfold. The staff wondered, what if they want us to abandon longstanding programs? What if they want us to invest more money than we have? What if they think the foundation shouldn’t exist in its current form? Staff started to put together a lengthy list of “guardrails” to share with community members, but realized this might set a tone of control and oversight before the work even began. Instead, they developed one clear question to guide the work of a community listening team: What are the barriers residents face, and what can be done to overcome those barriers? The listening team, made up of residents from diverse backgrounds, focused interactions with the community on better understanding their needs and provided the foundation staff periodic updates on their progress throughout the work. At the end, the community listening team came back with a report that provided the foundation powerful new insights and recommendations, none of which ventured into the areas that had so worried the staff at the start of the process. These recommendations helped the foundation develop strategic priorities that reflected community needs in a way that they would not have landed on without community voice in the process.

Limited resources

What if engaging community requires more time and money than we planned for?

Ways to address it:

Build in time and budget from the beginning; consider ways to reallocate resources; start with a smaller-scale pilot

There are no shortcuts to authentic engagement. Processes that incorporate community voice will require time and resources. Community members deserve compensation for the time and expertise they are contributing to the process, and they also may need additional accommodations to be able to participate in the process, such as support for childcare, transportation, technology access, or translation services. The budget required depends on the number of community members involved, the amount of time they spend on the work, and the additional accommodations offered. Amounts paid also depend on local context, but we typically recommend offering $1,500 – $5,000 to community members engaging in periodic working sessions or $100 per hour to community members who are meeting on a weekly basis or carrying out research responsibilities outside of meeting time. If you haven’t budgeted for compensation from the beginning, consider ways you might be able to reallocate funds. For example, does the expertise community members are bringing replace another source of expertise you were going to pay for separately? Are there other internal budget line items you could draw from?

When planning for the time spent with community, consider planning for multiple touchpoints throughout the process and give adequate space for building relationships across the group — this will be critical for creating a space for open and honest dialogue about the issues that matter. Some funders we’ve worked with have found it helpful to start by engaging community in a smaller scope, such as to inform the design of one programmatic strategy, or select grantees for one grantmaking program. Then, the funders have been able to take what they’ve learned from that experience and apply it to other areas of the organization’s work.

Case example:

A community foundation in a major metropolitan area recruited a strategic planning team with 18 members: eight community residents, three nonprofit leaders, three foundation staff, two board members, and two donors. The group met every six weeks in person and had two zoom meetings, or about 25 hours of meeting time.

Community and nonprofit participants were compensated with a $2,000 stipend. These team members could also opt to receive $25-$35 per hour for childcare (including travel time) and $50 per meeting for transportation. A meal was provided at all meetings. Staff, board members, and donors were not offered compensation, as participation was part of staff and board members’ responsibilities.

Honoring expertise

We’ve hired program officers with deep expertise on the issues we fund. Will we truly learn something new when we listen to community?

Ways to address it:

Honor multiple ways of knowing; acknowledge the many perspectives within any given community; support program officers in broadening their skillset

Traditionally, funders have hired staff based on their academic and professional expertise on the issues the organization funds. While this is a valuable perspective, it is not the same as lived experience. Those experiencing an issue bring a real-time perspective on how the issue plays out in their lives, along with what solutions have already been tried and whether those worked. They can also say which organizations on the ground are most effective, and which might just talk a good game in grant applications. Consider how different types of knowledge and diverse perspectives can complement one another to create a more complete picture of the issue you seek to address and a more effective solution.

While there is no substitute for getting input from people who are currently experiencing the issues you wish to address, following the lead of foundations that are reimagining the program officer’s role and responsibilities might be a good idea here, too. Recognizing the importance of being in close relationship with community members, these funders are hiring program officers with connections to communities served and who are skilled in listening, relationship building, and facilitation. These program officers are typically expected to spend less time in the office and more time listening to grantees and other community members. Creating these kinds of roles and hiring staff to fill them who have lived experience or relationships in community are important steps, but remember that one person does not speak for an entire community.

Case example:

In 2018, The Colorado Health Foundation redefined the role of program officers. Prior to the shift, program officer roles, similar to those at many foundations, emphasized developing strategic funding recommendations, conducting due diligence, making recommendations for funding, and managing grants. Today, program officers are responsible for building and fostering deeper relationships within local communities and for making community-informed decisions by listening to better understand community members’ experiences and what is impacting their health. This approach is supported by an expectation that program officers spend approximately 40 percent of their time meaningfully engaging in and with communities the foundation serves. The foundation’s Community Engagement IMPACT Practice Model outlines actions and behaviors for program staff to embody.

Community Engagement IMPACT Practice Model
Community Engagement IMPACT Practice Model

Lack of trust

We haven’t built trust or we have damaged trust with our community in the past. How do we repair harm and earn trust back?

Ways to address it:

Acknowledge prior indifference or harm; take small steps to rebuild trust; work with trusted partners

In many cases, community members have good reason to be skeptical when a funder comes in talking of partnership and good intentions. They’ve seen offers like this before from institutions with power and resources, and they’ve seen institutions not fulfill their promises. Or maybe they’ve seen years of programs designed without real community voice. Why would they believe this time will be different?

If your organization does not have a strong base of trust with the community, the first steps are to acknowledge past missteps, seek to understand the harm that was caused by your organization’s prior action or inaction, and consider what might be done to repair that harm.

Remember that trust is built over time, through a series of consistent actions. If your organization lacks trust with the community, there will be work to do before community members will believe they can truly have a voice in your work. Start by showing up to community-led events and listening to and learning from what others are doing in the community. Then consider how you can leverage your role to further these efforts.

Another idea to facilitate authentic community engagement is to partner with another organization that already has relationships and trust with the community. This partner may be able to give you honest feedback and serve as a helpful broker in the relationship between your organization and the community.

Case example:

ACT for Alexandria, a community foundation, sought to launch a new racial equity fund with community-led participatory grantmaking. When they met with community leaders, they were politely told that the foundation did not have enough trust and relationships with the community to bring them to the table. The foundation paused their initial plan and set about building trust by supporting the activities of community organizations, hosting events and focus groups led by community organizations, and deepening relationships with resident leaders. A few years later, an enthusiastic group of community members partnered with the foundation to develop its strategic plan. Read more about ACT for Alexandria’s journey.

A strategy planning meeting at ACT for Alexandria.
A strategy planning meeting at ACT for Alexandria. Photo credit: Heather Peeler

Moving through concerns to take action

We hope the ideas here help you and your organization push through the concerns that could otherwise be a barrier to advancing your work. Our suggestions and the lessons in the case studies we share can serve the dual purpose of addressing concerns and, no matter the starting point, provide a foundation for your efforts to authentically engage and share power with the communities most impacted by your work. Community Wealth Partners’ “Sharing Power with Communities: A Field Guide,” full of practical tips and examples, can help you take the next steps.

We believe — from our heart and from our experience — that community-driven work leads to better impact, more sustainable solutions, and more powerful communities. As you move to fulfill that ideal, be patient with yourself and the process. Identify steps you can take to get started. Celebrate your progress. Connect with others for support. Most of all, we hope you get going and keep going.

About the authors: 

Lori Bartczak Community Wealth Partners
Lori Bartczak
Associate Vice President, Community Wealth Partners
Sandra Moore Community Wealth Partners
Sandra Moore
Senior Director, Community Wealth Partners

Have you seen funder listening in action?

Share your stories to demonstrate what’s possible when grantmakers center the people and communities most impacted by their decisions.