Part of a philanthropic mosaic

Learning with Lankelly Chase through the years

 

By Emily Bolton

 

 

I believe we need a mosaic of approaches to supporting social change.

 

I agree with Lankelly Chase’s viewpoint that the status quo isn’t good enough and we shouldn’t put up with it. But then you need to ask what do you do in that situation? What’s your role to play?

 

Stuck social problems 

 

I first started working with Lankelly Chase in 2009. They were one of the investors in the Peterborough Social Impact Bond, the first ever Social Impact Bond (SIB). My role was to set it up and we were looking to demonstrate a different way of supporting people leaving prison, to reduce reoffending, but also to transform how we think about funding preventative interventions and shift more money to prevention. 

 

At that point, a key strategic focus of Lankelly Chase was criminal justice reform. So that was how I ended up working with them. They weren’t just an investor – they were also an ally in getting it off the ground, making it happen, working out who within the system cared about the same change.

 

My relationship with Lankelly Chase continued. A number of foundations I’d worked with in setting up the Peterborough SIB felt frustrated that they kept on funding the same kind of projects that they’d been funding 10 years previously and that the underlying issue wasn’t improving. They wanted to really address the root cause of the problem, and wondered if the approach I took to develop both the operating model and the funding model for Peterborough could be applied to other stuck social problems. That led to me setting up the Impact Incubator which was established to do this.

 

Connecting across the field 

 

Lankelly were a founding partner in the Impact Incubator. It was focused on taking some of these really stuck problems and looking at whether we can transform how society responds to them. We looked at a range of issues including perpetration of domestic abuse and Black mental health inequalities, both of which led to models and coalitions that really have changed the system. 

 

Lankelly were a real partner in both setting up the Incubator in the first place and bringing people to the table around specific issues. In a similar way, actually, as with Peterborough, they were like, “I know this person cares about the same thing as you,” and connected us to them. That definitely helps to accelerate the work, if you know who you should be talking to.

 

It felt like we all had the same problem we were trying to crack. We were working on it together, recognising that we really brought very different skills and perspectives, but that potentially we could do something together that none of us could do alone. 

 

Transforming philanthropy 

 

I also felt that Lankelly Chase had an agenda about transforming philanthropy, which, to me, was clear from the outset. However, in the early days I didn’t feel that the Lankelly team were happy publicly owning that agenda. 

 

I think what Lankelly does really well is that they are questioning and they’re restless. They’re not happy with how things are, and they’re always asking the big questions. They’re happy to do things that are bold and different. I think that is really important. 

 

And Lankelly’s approach is not the only answer. 

 

A mosaic of approaches 

 

Lankelly Chase is a leader with a strong point of view. It would be good to think through how we can celebrate what Lankelly’s done, and also recognise the value that the more steady, constant providers of philanthropic funding bring, because I do think you need both. 

 

In my view, you need a range of different sorts of funders and funding models. Having lots of funders driving systems change isn’t always helpful. It risks the foundations all being in the driving seat. That’s not beneficial for the sector, because you need a mosaic of funding approaches, some of which aren’t with the foundation leading the agenda. 

 

It might be worth thinking about how to frame Lankelly’s decision [to close] as one of a myriad of potential options and solutions that are needed, rather than a singular answer. I don’t think all foundations or all people should be playing exactly the same role. I would encourage them to pose questions rather than answers, because there are so many unknowns.

 

We need to guard against a belief that all of the answers to transforming our social problems lie in a reformation of the big foundations and them leading the agenda. There are some foundations that need to work like Lankelly, but if all worked in that way it would not be beneficial in creating the future we all care about. There is a place for stability and constancy. 

 

I love their team – they’re brilliant and thoughtful and challenging. You need that, but you don’t need it all the time and from every funder. 

 

 

Story Weaving by Jack Becher

 

Learn more about Generative Journalism Alliance