Lankelly taught me learning is an outcome

Promote a spirit of inquiry in grant making trusts

 

By Ollie Batchelor

 

 

It’s a gross oversimplification to say so, but there are a lot of charities that are great at getting money, but don’t necessarily do the best work. And, there are a lot who aren’t great at getting money, but do fantastic work.

 

Part of the problem with funding and grant funding is that it’s very short term. There’s no point giving people two or three years and then at the end of that just investing in something else. People need security to do good work. 

 

During my time as a trustee between 2016 and 2019, Lankelly had moved much more to wanting to fund those with whom there was an existing relationship. So rather than casting about and having rounds of funding and then being swamped by applications, it was about being in it for the long term. 

 

Instead of the advisors spending time trolling through applications, sifting them, and then making funding decisions, theirs was much more time spent on building relationships, trying to understand the what, why, where and how in individuals’ lives and in places. 

 

There was a preference for continuing to develop with people we were already working with, being in it for the long term.

 

More and more it was less about trying to fund projects and more about what we’re trying to learn.

 

Lankelly was good at saying to grantees, “You don’t have to convince us. We’re in this journey together.” 

 

It was a spirit of inquiry, rather than a spirit of giving money out and being the ‘gracious benefactors’. 

 

Lankelly did a lot to help others think about what they were doing and what the impact would be, not of a limited scope project, but of the bigger picture. We were sitting with how much money we had and what difference we were making. What are we learning from the 10, 12, 15, projects we’re funding? What’s the big picture? What are we learning from that?

 

There was something about those patterns. Learning what’s going on in the country on such a broad scope was to some extent as close to an academic inquiry as you could get. It was very useful to those of us delivering services on the ground and to grant givers. 

 

This was a big shift in emphasis. And no question, it was an influential shift too. 

 

That was a benefit of being in London. Julian knew people. There is that London hub of other grant-making bodies who would be thinking similarly and building a little bit of an alliance, having influence, with government, talking to ministers, and other big charities in London. It felt as if they were in step and being really open to how things could be done in a different, more effective, and more efficient way too.

 

Sometimes you can throw money at something, and sometimes it isn’t the money that’s the main thing. Sometimes it’s that somebody will come alongside you in that spirit of inquiry and think through what’s going on and ask you questions to help you tease it out. Sometimes we have to go to analysts or counselors because we don’t see our own blind spots.

 

They’d do that journey with you, ask questions, and share because they’ve got a lot of knowledge of the other projects they run. They’d say, “You may want to link up with this person because they’re doing this and that. You know, that’s the difficulty they’re finding. But maybe if you put your heads together, that would be better.” 

 

So there is that facilitating role too. 

 

Lankelly advisors started to develop that spirit of inquiry. They were called learning partners. 

 

We can encourage the shared learning from things, whether funding goes on or not. Most people on the ground who are working with people, yes, they want money for their projects. But they also want to work out what works and what is most effective, and what people using the services think of them and get from them and can be helped by. That’s a really important part of the process. 

 

If that can be encouraged and learned, that’s a major thing. Lankelly led the way on that, and influenced people in a way that they’ll maybe never get the credit for, but it’s there. 

 

They were really interested not just in, are you spending our money well and wisely, but what’s being learned as a result of this money? 

 

That’s just very exciting. Had we not given this money, this would never have happened. That’s a wonderful thing. We’re with you in this learning and the excitement, and in the ups and downs too, when it’s difficult.

 

There’s something about being connected. It’s quite good to see those things. It helps the buy-in from both sides.

 

Hopefully if anything that comes from this, if people listen, it will help to shape that trust in grant making relationships. 

 

I think trusts will be less interested in the sort of the big, philosophical questions, but rather what’s made the difference, what can we learn from and change in our practice to ultimately make people’s lives better.

 

 Learning is an outcome. Lankelly taught me that.

 

 

Story Weaving by Peter Pula

 

Learn more about Generative Journalism Alliance