How we make decisions about money
“We want to build new models of community decision-making and change the way the money flows to support this.” This is what it says on the home page of the Gateshead Community Bridgebuilders (GCB) website. When we describe the work of the GCB, we talk a lot about decision-making - but there are many kinds of decisions made in this group, as in any. We’ve done a lot of thinking and experimenting around how we make the different categories of decisions needed to enable the group to do its work – that is, which decisions are made by whom, and in what way, in order for the group’s work to flow smoothly.
The strategic direction of the group is decided by the whole group through exploration and discussion. Day-to-day operational decisions are delegated to a smaller ‘planning group’ to free up everyone else to do the core work in community. We’ve learned through trial and error that this is a structure that works well. But the most significant decisions are around what we do and how we fund it – this blog post explains our process as an insight into one of the ways that financial decision-making can happen in work like ours, for anyone who is looking at or already doing similar work, or simply curious about the inner workings of the GCB.
What are we funding here?
We have financial resources thanks to the Lankelly Chase Foundation. Gateshead’s inclusion in Lankelly’s Place Inquiry started around the question ‘How do we change the systems that perpetuate severe and multiple disadvantage in Gateshead?’ Recognising that as a London based funder it wasn’t their place (literally) to make decisions on how that question would be investigated, they devolved decision-making about a proportion of their funds to what is now the GCB.
We made a conscious decision not to receive funding applications from people outside of the GCB in the pursuit of this ‘system change’ work. In the early years of this project, charity CEOs and local authority figures asked us to fund their work, but we decided early in the process not to become a proxy funder. ‘What we do’ and ‘how we fund it’ are, intentionally, very much intertwined. This work is designed around the idea that the people who are doing the work (i.e. the people doing the grassroots work in community on a day-to-day basis, rather than people in recognised positions of power) should make the decisions about it, and that includes how it is funded.
You can see some examples of what we mean when we talk about the ‘core work’ of the bridgebuilders by looking at our projects. Some of these projects take financial resources, some of them can be resourced primarily by funding somebody to do it (which is covered by funding the employment of the Bridgebuilders themselves). Bridgebuilders’ work starts, and runs, in community.
Our financial decision-making process
Each bridgebuilder is connected to one or more of Gateshead’s diverse communities, and was nominated to apply to become a bridgebuilder because they already played a connective role in their community. They go out and meet people, they surface problems and work with people to generate ideas to tackle those problems. This is where a new project might begin to form and a team member might begin early conversations to test the idea with others in the team. If that project needs funding, a costed proposal comes to the team, drafted collaboratively by two or more team members – at least one Community Bridgebuilder (the proposal owner) and a proposal sponsor. The sponsor is responsible for both helping the Bridgebuilder work out the details of their proposal and for fielding questions and concerns from the group and supporting the proposal owner to work through them. We use a consent based process for financial decision-making, with rounds of clarifying questions and concern/objection-gathering.
On what basis do we agree what to fund?
All proposals that we bring to one another are written with attention given to the GCB principles and purpose, which are:
Purpose: To build power and capacity at the heart of communities.
Principles:
We focus on bringing people who are usually excluded into decision-making.
Human connection is always part of the answer, whatever the question is – relationships are the lifeblood and the rocket fuel of this work.
We believe that everyone is different, and difference is strength.
We are led by listening deeply to people, asking questions rather than assuming we know what people need.
We go slow, maintain patience, and are prepared to try stuff without knowing how it’s going to turn out.
These principles have emerged as we have done this work. We allowed them to surface as our work has progressed, and subsequently evolved our practice to enable them to shape and guide what comes next.
Why this process?
There are many different ways we could make decisions about money. We’ve tried other ways and learned from them; this is where we’re at right now, it could change further in the future. Some of the ideas that have informed our choice of process are:
Using what has emerged in the past to inform the future. One of the absolute cornerstones of this work in terms of how we do it is that it is emergent. We did not set out with a clear plan of what the group would do, there is no GANTT chart activity plan charting exactly what everyone will do over the next however many years. We started with the question ‘How do we change the systems that perpetuate severe and multiple disadvantage in Gateshead?’ and every new piece of the puzzle we uncover informs the next one we shape. The GCB principles emerged in the early years of this work, now they guide what we do today.
Making informed decisions by bringing people in earlier. In the past we experimented with circulating proposals as papers for a meeting, then discussing them in a team meeting, then people effectively voting for the proposal over email. We found that those who didn’t frequently attend meetings - and were subsequently presented with a yes/no opportunity after everyone else had discussed it – sometimes agreed without fully understanding what it was they were agreeing to. They had missed too much. Under our current process people can ask as many clarifying questions as they like over email, in person, or in one or more group discussions if there are lots of details to work through, long before they are asked if they want to consent or object to passing the proposal. The first proposal circulated isn’t necessarily the final proposal.
Using the process to understand one another’s work better. Our current process also enables us all to have a much deeper understanding of what others in the group are doing and uncovering in their communities, because we have several opportunities to explore the thought process and experience behind the proposal. It’s also provided one ‘way in’ for connecting up pieces of work and expertise across the team. Some people have built their confidence in exploring their thoughts with the group because every proposal is a collaborative working space.
No one person has the final say. We are a team and, while we have different kinds of leadership roles in the group, when it comes to finances, no single person can push through a decision, everybody has a voice and power. One person can raise an objection but in doing so they accept responsibility to work through that objection with the proposal owner and sponsor. Nobody can block someone’s idea and wash their hands of it.
Managing opposition with kindness and collaboration; making it easier to disagree. Nobody brings a proposal alone anymore. When one of us brings a proposal for something we feel passionate about, we bring it with great excitement and personal investment. We are all human beings, and this work is important to us all on a very personal level. On several occasions, people have brought proposals to the team and the emergence of strong objections created a defensive/offensive dynamic, which was a painful experience for everyone. The introduction of proposal sponsors and multiple feedback points in the process brings other perspectives in much earlier, cultivating an environment where everyone has a hand in making the proposal stronger and no one person bears all the responsibility for convincing everyone of their idea.
Of course, having this process doesn’t fix every potential issue – we’re still working on different ways to connect up the different pieces of work across the team, and it’s always going to take some guts to say, ‘I object to this proposal’. But we are conscious that these are the kinds of conversations we need to have in order to do this work and having a well thought out decision-making process over one of the most personal and contentious subjects out there – money – is a vital part of that.
We would love to hear from other groups that are experimenting with power-sharing approaches to decision-making – if you’re interested in hearing more, or have other ideas to share, please get in touch.