​​Michelle's Story
​​TRC Co-Project Roundtable Part Two   
​​ 
​​ 
​
​Main Menu: ​+Home​ | ​+Intros​ | ​+Calls​ | ​+Story​ | ​+Criteria​ | ​+Funding​ | ​+What Else?​ | ​+HeArtspace​
​​ 
​
​Story Menu: ​+Main​ | ​+Short Story​ | ​+Leslie's Story​ | ​+Michelle's Story​ | ​+Your Stories​

​
​ 

​​Michelle Holliday's first connection to the TRCC came in January, 2014, when she gave ​+this interview​ as part of our "Movement Weaving" work. She then participated in the Roundtable Part 1 and the in-person gathering at Canticle Farm in Oakland. She is also the initiator of this TRC Co-Project "Sprout:" ​+A "Living Systems Stewardship" Action Learning Cohort​. We contracted with her to write this blog post as part of our storytelling process.
​​ 
​​ 
​​I traveled to Oakland, California, last month for a two-day gathering of the Thriving Resilient Communities Collaboratory (TRCC) - a circle of funders, community activists/project holders, and other contributors and advisors. The gathering was part of an ongoing experiment exploring how to bring more wisdom, equity and effectiveness into the philanthropy equation, specifically through involvement of grant seekers in the grant decision-making process. The idea is that if we believe communities become more resilient when publicly relevant decision-making is shared and transparent – when the decision-making process not only serves the end goal of making a choice but also grows the connectedness, self-awareness and wisdom of a community along the way -- then why wouldn’t philanthropy follow these same principles, particularly philanthropy that seeks to build community resilience? 
​​ 
​​The specific intention was to explore what happens, what we learn and what needs become clear when a sizeable pot of money is put into the middle of a diverse group, along with an invitation to propose collaborative projects and a mandate to decide collectively how the money will be allocated. 
​​ 
​​Within that framing, these were the questions I arrived with and hoped we might gain some insight about: 
  • ​​What does it look like to decide collaboratively, wisely and effectively how a pool of resources will be allocated for the greatest good of a community? 
  • ​​How can rich learning and community-building be a natural by-product of that process? 
  • ​​What structures, systems and narratives have to be present if this experiment of ours is to be a useful innovation that helps cultivate thriving and resilience in other communities?
​​ 
​​I’ll share below some of the observations and questions I left with. I’m a newcomer to this whole experiment, and so I’m unsure whether the questions are simply my own, borne out of ignorance. In any case, I hope others will find something useful in them. 
​​ 
  • ​​A beautifully mature group: There was a remarkably high level of integrity, care, commitment and patience among the people involved.  These were people handpicked for those qualities, as well as for their specific work in the world.  And those traits were particularly important for such an uncharted exploration.  The group was able to attend to the work at hand, to the quality of our relationships and interactions, and to our individual needs, all without noticeable tension.  I found this to be a wonderful model of what’s needed if we are to move into the new territory of participatory philanthropy.  
​​ 
  • ​​Relationship with money: At different points throughout the gathering, we talked about our relationship with money, noticing the dynamics that emerged around it throughout our work together.  That, in itself, felt valuable.  Just having the conversation seemed to help put money in its proper place – in service of life.  
​​ 
  • ​​In one example, the perspective was offered that those with money don’t really have the right to the special status that comes with it. The resource they bring has special status, but they as individuals are not necessarily more worthy than anyone else to steward it on behalf of a community, and they may even be less worthy since the way they got it in the first place may be suspect. Was it just white privilege that led them to amass this money? Did they exploit some people or the environment to get it?  On the other hand, we acknowledged that there may, indeed, have been wisdom, ingenuity, service and compassion that led them to amass their wealth – qualities that would warrant special status in the community.  And I can only imagine that those philanthropists have a strong desire to be valued, to make a contribution, to feel generous, to be involved.  It was a fascinating challenge to the dominant culture’s assumption that those with money naturally deserve power and respect, and it was a tricky conversation to navigate.  I felt profound admiration for the courage and openness of those involved in this conversation.  
  • ​​ 
  • ​​Achieving TRCC’s mission: The stated mission of the TRCC is to “connect the growing community resilience movement to more of itself ... [to be ] a learning community of practice and [to] foster synergy among leaders.”  My experience was that this initiative has already tangibly contributed to each of those ambitions.  In particular, I was grateful to be in rich conversation with front-line community activists, getting a small taste of the issues of social justice that they passionately champion and the struggles they face.  My views on my own work have shifted as a result.  
​​ 
  • ​​I also appreciated the group’s commitment to go beyond simply inviting different stakeholders into the philanthropy conversation, instead embarking on a necessary and sometimes difficult conversation about unintended barriers that prevent people of all classes and races from feeling truly welcomed and heard. This level of awareness and intention is a key aspect of community resilience, and I found it important that we practiced it ourselves in the spirit of shared learning. 
  • ​​ 
  • ​​In addition, this project brought me into direct collaboration with several members of the group, in two emergent projects we all find exciting and important within the community resilience movement. 
  • ​​ 
  • ​​Each of these new relationships and insights made the initiative a success for me, and my impression is that my experience was not unique. 
  • ​​ 
  • ​​Emergence of a viable model: Ultimately, the group engaged in a collaborative, creative process to identify criteria for the funding selection.  Then the decision was made to create a smaller Council that would make funding choices, guided by those criteria.  That Council will include funders, core members of the TRCC community, and grant-seekers.  This is one clear and viable model of participatory philanthropy - another success.    
​​ 
​​With all of these successes, there was also a vague, swirling sense of uncertainty that plagued me during the gathering (and continues to do so). I’ve struggled to identify what exactly it was that niggled at me – and that might offer useful learning. Here’s what I’ve extracted, more questions than conclusions:
​​ 
  • ​​Three levels of impact: Though there was the strong sentiment that the money should support front-line efforts (“boots on the ground”), we weren’t actually rooted in any particular community, responding to its needs.  We weren’t deciding “how a pool of resources will be allocated for the greatest good of a [specific] community.”   Part of this was a result of the concurrent desire that projects be “trans-local” – national or global networks of locally-rooted projects, like the worldwide Transition Movement.  And part of it was the desire to support and connect the community resilience movement more broadly.  This is three distinct levels of impact, and I struggled with that spread.  The whole process felt somewhat abstract to me, and I believe it was a result of that split focus.  
​​ 
​​At the same time, there were projects like the ​+Climate Justice Alliance​ that touched on the first two of those levels (on-the-ground impact in multiple, connected locations) and that also offered valuable learnings into the third (the community resilience movement generally). I’m reminded of a fantastic Montreal-based organization, La TOHU, with a triple mission of circus, planet and people. In their early days, they were constantly challenged to choose one of those three as the highest priority, but they refused, insisting that all three were equally important. Now, their shining success and community impact are a clear result of that commitment to all three. Along the same lines, perhaps TRCC really does need to stand its ground in serving all three levels of impact equally. 
​​ 
​​Still, I can’t help wondering if it would be productive to have clearer focus on where (at which level) TRCC can make the most impact. There were calls from several people for articulation of TRCC’s “theory of change.” I think this may be a similar point.
​​ 
​​Might it be useful to zoom the focus in on a particular community? What role might TRCC play in an experiment in participatory philanthropy at that level? We were “growing the connectedness, self-awareness and wisdom” of our own broadly distributed, loosely knit community. But to some degree, I craved those benefits for a cohesive, interdependent, on-the-ground community. My sense is that this may be where a new form of participatory philanthropy is most needed and most relevant. 
​​ 
​​Or what if TRCC specialized in supporting the development of trans-local networks and learning related to them, putting its money into that effort in ways that no one else is currently doing? 
​​ 
​​Or what if TRCC focused solely on convening, connecting, illuminating and nurturing the community resilience movement overall? 
​​ 
  • ​​What decision-making process? Though there was an agenda and skilful facilitation, in general there was a natural unfolding of clarity and choice that didn’t always feel like a formal decision-making process and didn’t always include everyone involved (particularly since there was a continual ebb and flow of participants).  This felt right – like how life really works.  But it raised some gentle questions.  How inclusive and collaborative is this process, really?  Who has authority to make choices?  Are we comfortable with such an organic process – and is it appropriate to this experiment - or is something more formal and fastidious required?  These questions were not fully answered, and they will become even more important as the experiment progresses and is replicated.  
​​ 
​​Reflecting on our experience, I had the sense that there was high trust both in the core stewards (Leslie, Ben and Marissa) and in the collective wisdom of whoever was present at any moment. There was also a high degree of comfort in uncertainty – after all, we had all signed up for an open experiment in process. I also had the impression that there was a somewhat limited sense of ownership, so that there wasn’t the full expectation of being involved in every decision. If that’s true (and I can’t be sure that it is for others), it raises the question: is that a bad thing? It may not be. There is a small core of stewards with strong commitment, and then there are others who have come and gone and come again over several years within quite a complex history of conversations, events and communications. We’re contributing what we can, when we can, and beyond that we’re going with the flow, as it’s piloted by the core stewards. 
​​ 
​​On the other hand, in a circular sense, it may be that the limited sense of ownership (to the extent it actually exists) is the result of the unclear decision-making process (rather than the other way around). In other words, it may be that we’re comfortable with an unclear decision-making process because that unclear decision-making process doesn’t engage us quite enough to insist on a clearer decision-making process (!!). If we believe this to be true, then there would be more incentive to create a clear decision-making process. 
​​ 
​​Finally, limited ownership may signal some broader lack of clarity and coherence - perhaps as a result of the split focus I mentioned above; perhaps because of the complexity of communications; or possibly because of something else. And again, to the degree that this exists, it may be perfectly appropriate. 
​​ 
  • ​​Money in the Middle: This experiment in participatory philanthropy emerged after interviews revealed the lack of money as a major constraint for those working in community resilience.  In particular, interviews showed that peer organizations and even allies are forced to compete over limited available funds.  The response was to offer a sizeable pot of money and to invite peers and allies to collaborate, rather than compete, in order to have access to it. 
​​ 
​​At the same time, interviews indicated that far more money is available, if only ... something shifts.  But our process didn’t really dive into what needs to shift to open up those untapped reserves.  Ben tried valiantly to invite us to imagine our various projects all woven together so that they would then attract huge amounts of money.  But my experience of that exploration was that it was awkward to patch together unrelated, fully formed projects, outside of any specific context or tangible need – especially when competition over the original pot of money was still implicitly on the table.  
​​ 
​​And so we were back where we started, with a focus on a limited amount of money and competition to see who gets it. 
​​ 
​​There also seemed to be the assumption that community resilience groups need an invitation or encouragement to collaborate.  In fact, in practice, it seemed awkward to look for ways to collaborate, seemingly for the sake of collaborating (in order to get the money), rather than in response to a clear, grounded need.  My sense is that community resilience groups are natural collaborators, by necessity.  But when it’s forced and devoid of context, it risks adding overhead in time, expense and distraction that may not be commensurate with the value gained. 
​​ 
​​Truly, there was some justification for putting money in the center, as we did. It served as a powerful magnet, bringing us all together in greater numbers and enthusiasm than any previous gathering. But I wonder if that was our conditioned response, more than the reflection of an inevitable truth that money has the strongest power of pull available. I wonder if putting money in the middle may necessarily lead to competition and a sense of lack and limitation.  It also seems to close our eyes to other resources that may be needed – and available.  Perhaps in addition to the current initiative, I’d love to see us experiment with putting a concrete and community-based need in the middle, collaborating as stakeholders and philanthropists to figure out how to address it together - and then determining what resources can be attracted.  I have a feeling that that may be a clearer path to the vast untapped resources the interviews alluded to. 
​​ 
​​To belabor the point just a bit, we referred to the collection of projects as a garden. If I think about the Permaculture approach to gardening, it involves thoughtfully planting things that are both complementary to each other and well suited to that particular plot of land, with its shape, location, elevation, water flow, soil composition and sun exposure. It also invites us to consider our own capabilities as stewards of that garden. What if we took that kind of approach to this experiment in collective, collaborative philanthropy? What, if anything, would change? 
​​ 
  • ​​Purpose and Process: A friend recently said to me, “If you have no vision for what the world needs, you prioritize process.”  It would be going too far to say that we had “no vision for what the world needs.”  But my sense is that we could get even more clear and focused on the particular need we’re trying to address, and that might help us rise above what often felt like a lengthy focus on process.  It’s necessary and important to figure out process as we pioneer new forms of philanthropy.  But it may be possible to work through that in even more agile – and joyful – ways, with the help of greater clarity of purpose. 
​​ 
​​I hope these have been useful observations that affirm the value of our work together, illuminate our successes and learnings, and offer some helpful new ways to think about the path ahead. Most of all, I hope my deep admiration is clear for the people involved and for their integrity and courage in stepping into unknown territory in service of vital issues.
​​ 
​​-- Michelle Holliday, December 11, 2014 --
​​ 
​​ 

​
​Comments

​​Use the space below to post comments. Let's try this "blog style," with the most recent ones on top. Suggested formatting is to put your name and the date on the first line in bold, then post your comments below. Replies can be indented, following a similar format. 
​​ 
​​ 
​​ 
​​