‘You find the work by funding it’ Lessons from the Community Action Fund
Overview
In December 2022, the Civic Power Fund launched the Community Action Fund.
Powered by Campaign Bootcamp legacy funds, the Community Action Fund aimed to support grassroots groups building the power of their community through community organising.
One-off grants were offered on a sliding scale between £2,500 and £20,000. We placed £200,000 of Campaign Bootcamp legacy resources behind the fund and the Civic Power Fund raised a further £136,000 from other donors.
The Fund closed in February 2023.
A Community Action Panel of grassroots organisers and activists then made the final decisions about which groups to fund. This Panel was selected through an open application process run by the Civic Power Fund. In April, they selected 18 groups who between them will receive £336,000 to build the power of their community through community organising.
You can read more about these incredible groups and their work here.
While our evaluation is ongoing, we wanted to take this opportunity to share some of the early lessons we learnt throughout this process, as part of our ongoing commitment to learning in public
Summary
The mission of the Civic Power Fund is to build lasting civic power through community organising. By investing in grassroots organising, we can unleash the power of people to improve their lives and their communities and create common cause in pursuit of the social, environmental, and economic justice vital to a flourishing democracy.
The Community Action Fund set out with three core aims key to the delivery of this mission:
- Find and fund grassroots organising led by communities excluded because of who they are or where they are from.
- Design a process that removes as many funding barriers as possible.
- Shift decision making power to community organisers and grassroots campaigners who understand the day-to-day struggle of this work.
We have summarised what we learnt across each of these aims, before capturing more detailed lessons and feedback below.
On the work
The Community Action Fund evidenced what we already knew: incredible grassroots action is happening all across the country. But it also showed that so many communities lack the resources to build power and win change.
As we set out in more detail below, the response to the Community Action Fund was overwhelming for a fund with three part time staff.
We received around 900 potentially in-scope applications. This was after 7,500 people took an initial eligibility questionnaire. The staff team then identified a shortlist of 90 groups that fully met the Community Action Fund criteria.
These groups came from 42 different cities, towns and villages and all UK nations and regions.
From this shortlist, the Community Action Panel selected the final 18 groups, using a scoring process they designed.
In line with our criteria, shortlisted groups were already organising and building power. But we saw work with *so much* potential across the groups that were not shortlisted. It is clear that with the right investment and support, so many more groups could be transforming the power of their communities.
Of the 90 shortlisted applications that the Community Action Panel considered, the total funding request was £1.5 million.
If we map the shortlisted funding request to the full 900 potentially in scope applications, we estimate a total funding need of around £13 million. While we are *so happy* that money is getting into the hands of 18 incredible groups, surfacing such significant unmet needs is deeply frustrating.
It is also not surprising, considering that just 0.3% of social justice funding goes towards community organising and 75% of social justice grants focus on work at the national level.
As Zain, our Community Action Fund Manager, reflected following his 1–2–1s with the 90 shortlisted groups:
“A recurring theme was that service delivery alone would not win sustainable change — and that it is critical for them to do more organising and campaigning work. But they had neither the capacity nor the funding to do this.”
On the process
Conducting an open process already reduced some traditional funding barriers. We have heard time and time again that the closed nature of social justice funding excludes so many grassroots groups, particularly those led by Black and other minoritised communities.
The volume of applications the Community Action Fund received reflected this; we learnt about work we simply couldn’t have known about without an open and accessible process. However, we also know that many groups will have missed this opportunity, and we had a noticeable gap from certain geographies and identities. Investing in tailored outreach is vital.
This volume created new challenges, for example: pushing back our timeframes so groups had to wait longer to hear from us and minimising the quality of bespoke feedback we shared with groups we rejected at the first stage. With so many groups coming through to the first stage, it also showed us that both our criteria and initial eligibility questionnaire could have been tighter.
However, we set out to minimise time-wasting from the beginning — knowing how significant this is with an open process.
- The eligibility questionnaire was taken by over 7,500 people and took on average just 2.5 minutes to complete. This ensured thousands of people did not go through a process that wasn’t right for them. Recent research has also shown how valuable this early stage eligibility approach is.
- The first stage asked four simple questions to try to minimise the time groups put in until there was a realistic chance of funding. We also gave groups the option of submitting answers by video or voice-note, which almost one third of first stage groups opted for. Groups rejected at this stage were also offered 1–2–1 feedback calls, where alternate funding sources were discussed.
- For final stage applicants, we co-produced Grant Memos with each group, aiming to both reduce the cognitive load but also ensure they left the process with something of value. We then offered free governance and due diligence checks to each unsuccessful group and a 1–2–1 feedback and next steps call.
Initial feedback from applicants suggests we got some of this right.
77 percent of first stage respondents rated their overall experience of the Community Action Fund as good or very good. 100 percent of second stage respondents rated their experience as good or very good.
One applicant told us:
“I never once felt like I was being made to do something for no reason or like I was ticking boxes just for the sake of it. You can tell this fund was set up by people who know what it’s like to be an activist. I really felt like you cared, even when you said no.”
On shifting power
The Community Action Panel was simply incredible. The collegiate and caring approach they brought to decision-making was a joy to be part of. We learnt so much from them throughout.
By trialling an approach that “shared power with” rather than executed “dominant power over”, the Panel showed that a different approach to decision-making is possible. We also felt that better and more robust decisions were made than we could have made alone, with each Panellist bringing clear and relevant expertise.
We heard that this approach enabled potential partners to be more open with us. As Zain explained, knowing that we were not making the final decisions, groups felt better able to:
“Share their struggles about funding and capacity authentically, instead of trying to persuade us to win funding.”
This made for more honest applications and gave the Panel a better sense of how funding could help.
The Panel also told us that this attempt to shift power was done with care.
100% of panellists agreed or strongly agreed that their “input as a panellist was valued and considered in the decision-making process for the Community Action Fund projects”
“I found the time invested by the CPF team to create the right environment for the panellists to make thoughtful decisions as a cohort made the experience really enjoyable and really one of the best grant-assessment processes I’ve ever participated in.”
However, we also heard that more time and more focussed support was needed for the Panel- especially around decision-making. As we go into more detail below, timeframes and sequencing are key to shifting power. Our short-turn around and application overwhelm meant we were not as robust on this as we should have been.
Likewise, the Panel brought *so* much to the fund, that considering how we keep up the energy and momentum and build in future opportunities for meaningful input is vital.
What did applicants tell us?
We surveyed first and second stage applicants to get their feedback. In both cases, the response rate was roughly 15%.
77 percent of first stage respondents rated their overall experience of the Community Action Fund as good or very good. 100 percent of second stage respondents rated their experience as good or very good.
In written feedback, we heard that applicants valued the tailored, multi-stage process that recognised their work:
“The communication was very prompt and not only clear on why we weren’t successful but offered us a chance to arrange a meeting to discuss this if we had further questions. It helped [us] feel that care and consideration went into your decision making.”
“You took much of the cognitive load out of the application process.”
“The desire to understand our work and really consider where we’d fit and what other groups we should be connected with. The feeling that we were becoming part of a wider network that didn’t just end with a funding decision. The attempts to reduce our workload through quick expression of interest and a phone call to do the second stage application. The personal touch.”
However, there were clear areas for improvement.
66percent of first stage respondents felt the Community Action Fund was clear about its purpose and the work it wanted to fund, but 33% were less sure.
We saw similar results around communication, with 66% of first stage respondents and 86% of second stage respondents rating the communication around their application as good or very good, but a sizable minority disagreeing.
Written feedback showed frustration with the volume of applications and desire for more clarity.
“Eligibility criteria could be clearer from the outset, it was only at the point of being declined that all was made clear.”
“Further clarity can be provided in terms of examples of projects that could be funded and how organisations can demonstrate the need for funding.”
What did the Panel tell us?
We surveyed Community Action Panel members to understand their experience. The response rate was 85%.
100percent of panellists agreed or strongly agreed that their “input as a panellist was valued and considered in the decision-making process” and that the process aligned with the goals and objectives of the Fund.
Written feedback brought this to life:
“It was such an affirming, motivating experience to be part of the CAF panel — I was reminded of how much incredible work goes on, unseen by funders, and inspired by the potential change these groups could deliver. Working alongside the other panellists was also a brilliant reminder of how well collaboration and participation can work!”
“There was always space to share, speak, a welcome to say things that might feel difficult/wrong without judgement, an invitation to indulge and own bias and it felt like a very safe place to fully participate and be present, very warm, respectful and every point addressed.”
However, we also heard clear feedback that more time to review applications and deliberate together was needed. As addressed above, the volume of applications was not sustainable so fewer applications would also have aided this.
There was so much energy and insight within the group, that we also want to pay close attention to continuing the work of the Community Action Panel and how they stay involved with the Civic Power Fund overall.
“Slightly longer timescales (though I think a full month would be enough for reading, otherwise we’d have risked losing momentum) and more time for the final decision making. It almost felt like we were just getting started on that decision day — there was great energy — so it would have been interesting to think about a tangible follow up for the group.”
“As a slow reader I found that I spent more than the allotted time reading the grant memos and scoring. Also, on the final decision making day I felt rushed in trying to read through the grant memos.”
What else did we learn about the process?
It will come as no surprise that there are inherent tensions within this approach.
We are clear that the open process surfaced so much incredible work. Funders often ask how to find the work.
We find the work by funding it!
But this process is not without its challenges.
The team was undoubtedly overwhelmed by the volume of applications. We made a decision not to close the Fund when the numbers started creeping up, and we’re glad about this. Some of the most exciting work came through in the final few hours, with groups clearly working towards this deadline. And we now have an incredible picture of the work happening across the UK.
While we worked to minimise time-wasting throughout, having such a large number of applicants for such a small pot of money is not sustainable or desirable for applicants or for the Fund.
In future funding rounds, we will aim for a tighter criteria that does not increase the burden on groups. But funding is so scarce that groups will always find ways to make their work relevant. We must prepare for this.
We worked to treat each applicant with care, but could have offered even better support to a smaller number. Likewise, Mohammed personally rejected over 700 groups — many over the phone. He was pleased to make connections with and for these incredible groups, but this took a personal toll and overwhelmed the Fund for this period of time.
Equally, as we have already set out, the Community Action Panel process was one of the most transformative aspects of the Fund. Better and more equitable decisions were made and organising networks were strengthened by building a Fund around these changemakers.
Doing this well took time, energy and resources — and deliberate intention and care to make sure the Panel were welcomed into the Fund as equal partners with clear decision-making power.
Any funder interested in pursuing a participatory approach should view this as core business and dedicate sufficient time and resources to enable this.
We must also confront that applicant and Panel interests don’t always align. For example, we didn’t ask applicants to present to Panellists directly to avoid wasting their time, but we know that Panellists would have valued hearing about the work directly.
Likewise, we needed to enforce tight timeframes and standardised approaches on applicants to ensure we respected the Panellists time and give them the best chance of reviewing applications. Exploring ways to address these tensions will be a vital part of the next iteration.
Beyond these tensions, we identified three core areas for improvement:
Data and Systems
As already mentioned, we were overwhelmed by the volume of applications. Data entry and data capture was therefore a huge challenge and some mistakes were made.
We are now working with the team at Modern Grantmaking to design a data capture system that a) minimises any burden placed on potential applications; b) minimises the stress on the Civic Power Fund team; and c) helps us analyse and understand the grassroots organising landscape.
Timeframes
We recruited for the Community Action Panel while the Fund was open. It worked well to have existing scaffolding and clear values in place before the Panel started. This gave them a clear framework within which to apply their expertise. However, in future participatory grantmaking, we will recruit decision makers before designing and opening the Fund. We missed having their incredible expertise at this stage.
We intended to complete due diligence checks before the Panel met to make their final decisions. The volume of applicants made this impossible, but we will ensure this next time. The final decision should sit with the Panel and ensuring due diligence and Board sign off at an early stage is vital to this.
The pace was difficult for both Panellits and applicants. We had to turn the Grant Memos around in about three weeks. This was challenging for some groups, so we rightly flexed to give them more time. For many grassroots groups emergencies, priorities, and staff energy makes working to tight deadlines simply impossible.
Applicant Experience
As we have already set out, we set out to reduce time wasting at every stage. However, we want to work even harder to guarantee this next time. This includes a tighter and clearer criteria, so fewer first stage applicants come through. It also includes more realistic timeframes, so we can ensure applicants are not waiting for a response.
Around one third of applicants opted to use the video or voice note option. This was clearly of most use to overwhelmed groups, with little time to craft an application at this early stage. As a result, we want to ensure this flexibility and make it even easier in future.
We sent individual feedback emails to every applicant, but these could have contained more information and guidance. In managing applicant volume and timeframes, we would hope to offer even more bespoke feedback next time. With more robust data capture and regular communication, we can also work to minimise any applicant guesswork.
What else did we learn about the work?
Communities facing the harshest injustices are nurturing their people and patching up service gaps. But several factors are preventing them from building the lasting base of people power that can hold decision-makers to account and win lasting change.
Lack of community bandwidth
As the cost of living crisis intensifies, community groups are providing vital support to those who are struggling. This leaves them little time or money to focus on the systemic drivers of this crisis. Many communities simply do not have the capacity or practical support to develop leaders; build alliances; and take sustained political action.
Lack of funding for grassroots community organising
The sheer lack of available funding for grassroots organising is compounding these constraints.
Short-term and competitive funding approaches
Where funding does exist, it is short-term, small, and often project focused. This is forcing organisations to shift strategy depending on what funding is available where. The sheer scarcity of resources for this work is also creating competition between groups.
By making funding explicitly available for this work, the Community Action Fund addressed some of these barriers but far from all of them.
We know it is going to take a more concerted, strategic effort to ensure money is available more readily and consistently.
While we as funders test and learn, communities are surviving. We should respond accordingly, providing the long-term funding that both sustains this work and enables the transformations we collectively seek.
This is also why the Civic Power Fund invests in places and in infrastructure. By geographically targeting resources and supporting local work through powerful and rooted nation-wide organising, we can give groups the best chance of success.
What next?
While we know that sustainable funding is the most important thing grassroots groups need to succeed, they’ve also told us that wrap-around support is vital.
As a result, we will now work with the groups to deliver:
Collaboration
To build the coalitions vital to transformational people power. This includes dedicated and strategic support in place to help connect groups to each other and to wider opportunities for impact.
Capacity building
To help groups access the support they need to thrive and grow. This includes specific support around learning about power and community organising. It also includes governance advice and guidance. And it includes vital support for collective care and mental health, recognising the significant toll this work takes and the well evidenced risk of burnout. This needs to be bespoke, and flexible and prioritise the wants and needs of a given community.
Cohort building
To nourish current and emerging leaders and support peer learning.
We will keep capturing and sharing lessons from this process and consider how we apply the lessons learnt to our wider funding approach.
We welcome your feedback on these lessons and are eternally grateful to all the partners, organisers and funders who have already shared their lessons.
