Going in circles

The intention was to be very different, but the reality was messy 

 

By Catherine Scott

 

 

I started working with Lankelly Chase back in 2017 when I was at Healthwatch York. We were working out how to bring together different parts of the statutory and voluntary sector to improve experiences for people experiencing multiple disadvantage. Lankelly invited us to think about: 

 

What do we want to do that is not just funding services, but thinking about systems change? 

 

I stepped into a full time role supporting the development of this network in York. We were basically Lankelly Chase associates, but not working directly for Lankelly Chase, just very closely with them as they changed the way they were funding place-based systems change.

 

Cyclical conversations 

 

Lankelly Chase were trying to be fundamentally different as a funder: a different power dynamic, funding things that were quite intangible, not outcome or output driven, and working in relationship with those they funded to work out how to do that. 

 

Initially, I was seduced by the idea of it – being really different – and it felt very different, but when the reality came there were still power dynamics. You can’t get away from it. Their intention was to be very different, but the reality was that it was very messy. 

 

I felt there were cyclical conversations about how the intention is to do something different, but I don’t think there was a sense they knew how to do that. It’s not like there’s some manual they can follow.

 

So I got the intention to be different, but it felt very juxtaposed to the reality of the level of power they held and couldn’t get rid of. 

 

My perception shifted in frustration at them not owning and stepping into the power that they have – trying to pretend it’s not there. I can recognise it’s very difficult to shift that when you’re a funder with lots of money and decision making ability. They’re working up against lots of barriers, like historical structures and funding models, and how the governance around funding determines certain relationships. 

 

Lankelly were trying to work really hard to work in opposition to that, whilst having to adhere to it. It’s very hard, because I understand the position they’re in, and also felt very frustrated and wished they would step into that in a different way. 

 

Filtering down to place

 

I was working with a large network who also felt it, so that dynamic filtered down into the work in York. It was completely unintentional, but it had an impact on what we were able to do and how we were able to act. It felt like I was a go-between, between a funder and people doing stuff on the ground in York, and I didn’t have clarity. Lankelly didn’t have clarity. Therefore, the people doing the work in the network didn’t have clarity. 

 

The lack of clarity around parameters, boundaries and understanding of where decision making and power sat impacted me personally. So there’s lots of frustration – and probably at all levels. I’m sure Lankelly were also very frustrated, and really wanted to stick with their intention of working relationally, challenging traditional power dynamics. But, at points, it would have been helpful if they were more like, ‘Cool. We’re here. This is our role. This is the power that we have. We don’t like it, but it’s unfortunately not possible, for various reasons, to shift it.’ 

 

I’m sure I replicated some of the power dynamics, because there was no clarity or transparency around it. I was in positions of power within that that I felt uncomfortable about, and limited power in other ways. So it was almost like the worst of both worlds. But also an incredibly privileged position to be in and be able to influence and share the reality of what was on the ground. 

 

I think what was missing, and what’s really hard about this, is that the Lankelly staff supporting the place-based work didn’t know and weren’t able to understand what it felt like to live and work in York. 

 

However much they tried to be regularly present, the fact that they were working for a funder and doing a particular job meant they weren’t walking the talk and they weren’t experiencing the day to day things that went on with people delivering services – the dynamics in the local area. 

 

How do you do live learning?

 

I’ve thought lots about what that could have looked like in a different way, especially of how to fund, and the requirements and monitoring. 

 

It’s much more about live learning. But how do you do that when you don’t have somebody in the core team closely situated to the work? 

 

It was always a tension. I get the sense that it was really difficult for those Lankelly Chase staff team members as well. They couldn’t get fully involved, but also they couldn’t leave us to it. They were trying so hard to work out a way to marry the two up and not be imposing, but I’m not sure that that ever happened. There was always a power dynamic when they came to things. 

 

There was so much unintentional harm which could have been avoided by listening and integrating learning about the experience of how it felt to work with people in place. 

 

I don’t think the structure lent itself to being able to have the freedom to do what we were doing in place, and get the most learning value out to Lankelly.

 

There was a lot of knowledge across the places Lankelly funded about what this could look like and how to do this differently. Yet they were missing an opportunity to learn from all of the work they were funding. 

 

There was a change in trustees, and the organisation started to think about how to not continue to replicate the existing structures, but there was a disconnect between the conversation about how they shift and the work they were funding. They had this idea of what that looked like to them, that I don’t think was articulated … or communicated in a way that was understood by the people experiencing these things. 

 

They were involved in that work, but not really involved – like one foot in, one foot out – which meant they couldn’t build on what was being experienced and learnt. 

 

It would have been really helpful to have a more structured and rigidly imposed learning framework, and supporting people in place to capture that themselves and co-create that as we went in a more formal way. 

 

The thing that was missing were the boundaries, parameters and structures alongside taking a systemic, relational, emergent approach. It needs to be balanced, and they can complement each other. 

 

How do you have a different approach to risk? 

 

I think the learning for the wider philanthropic field is: Don’t be so risk averse. 

 

How do you have a different approach to risk? I think that Lankelly Chase did that, actually. They didn’t see risk as a barrier to what they wanted to do. They embraced risk and utilised it to create opportunities and create learning, knowing that lots of stuff would ‘fail’. 

 

There’s also something about taking a different approach to learning, by putting learning at the centre, rather than outcomes and metrics. Yes, they’re much more tangible and easy to assess, but keep us stuck within this very rigid structure, upholding existing systems that don’t actually serve the underlying needs. 

 

A request of the philanthropic sector

 

My request of the wider philanthropic sector is to be really open to the learnings that come out of this. 

 

There’s so much richness. 

 

I hope it’s not another missed opportunity. I hope that there’s an appreciation of what Lankelly have done, whilst acknowledging the challenges and difficulties, and unintentional harm that has been caused through that process. 

 

I guess that would be incredible learning: How do you think about doing this kind of stuff, minimising that unintentional harm, and putting things in place for when it inevitably happens? 

 

If we know that there’s going to be harm or unintended consequences, how do we make sure that people working in this very different, systemic way, are supported to do that?

 

 

 

Story Weaving by Jack Becher

 

Learn more about Generative Journalism Alliance