The need for blended finance

According to the India Philanthropy Report, India witnessed a notable increase in its social sector spending, reaching 9.6 percent of the GDP in FY 2022 as compared to 8.6 percent in FY 2021. The increase was primarily driven by a 35 percent growth in public expenditure. Private philanthropy too has been playing its part by growing at a moderate pace of 8 percent from FY 2017 to FY 2022. Its contribution, as a result, totalled to approximately INR 1.05 lakh crore in FY 2022. In addition, family philanthropy has grown at 12 percent from FY 2017 to FY 2022, albeit, for the most part, in sectors such as education and healthcare. Interestingly, philanthropic capital is beginning to focus on under-represented causes within these sectors such as life skills, teacher training, special needs education, palliative care, and medical care.

Despite this progress, India still falls short (by 13 percent of the GDP) of the estimated total annual funding required to achieve the United Nations SDGs by 2030. Additionally, climate mitigation and adaptation is increasing pressure on government spending. India requires INR 11 lakh crore per year to achieve its  Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement.

Given this need for funding, innovative financing structures that can mobilise private capital and evaluate the risk of investments should be considered. It is also crucial to enhance the effectiveness of existing government and philanthropic spending, either through robust capital allocation or by establishing a stronger evidence building and monitoring ecosystem.

Financing solutions would require ‘blending’ with a focus on three key areas to address diverse developmental needs: creating an ecosystem that supports and strengthens social interventions, encouraging investment in high-potential innovations, and improving the efficiency and impact of existing grant programmes, ultimately leading to sustainable and inclusive development.

The blended finance landscape in India

Although blended finance has been gaining traction in India, lack of adequate documentation, research, and transparency has led to limited awareness and a homogenous understanding of the topic. This has created a critical need for an India-specific perspective on this innovative impact investment approach. The Blended Finance India Narrative report highlights the key trends in this space. The analysis is built on a transaction database, with 180 transactions spread over more than a decade till 2022, which will help in creating data-driven awareness in the Indian ecosystem and increasing the pools of capital aligned with blended finance. Here are some insights from the report.

1. Overall market size: The blended finance market has seen a steady growth in India at an annual rate of 18.8 percent, reaching a milestone of USD 1.1 billion in 2022. India’s market size is approximately 3.4 percent of the cumulative global market and approximately 40 percent of the market in Asia. However, given the early stage of projects and diverse range of innovative pilot and scaled solutions, India’s average transaction ticket sizes are lower than both the global average and those of neighbouring Asian countries.

2. Key sectors: Financial services and energy have dominated the market, accounting for approximately 65 percent of the market value, mirroring global trends. Additionally, agriculture and livelihoods are emerging as prominent and promising sectors in the blended finance landscape.

3. Investor mix: While development finance institutions (DFIs) and multilateral development banks (MDBs) are the largest investor categories globally, the Indian blended finance market is primarily led by non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) and banks. Together, NBFCs and banks account for 43 percent of all transactions, followed by MDBs and DFIs with a 29 percent share. Some international foundations such as the Michael & Susan Dell Foundation have also participated and played a leading role as catalytic investors.

4. Philanthropic participation: The involvement of domestic foundations and corporate social responsibility (CSR) capital has remained limited. Despite the shared goals of addressing SDG-related issues, philanthropic funders have been hesitant to fully engage in blended finance transactions. Globally, while foundations and nonprofits represent approximately 9 percent of the commitments from 2018–20, the share of philanthropic capital in the Indian space is estimated at less than 2 percent. Among various challenges, lack of clarity around legal and regulatory aspects, inhibitions about working with commercial entities, and lack of awareness around the subject have mainly constrained participation by domestic philanthropic partners.

5. Instruments utilised in blended finance transactions: Debt-based instruments, especially guarantees and insurance, have remained the most popular because commercial investors are familiar with them; this is followed by technical assistance (TA) grants. These instruments play a crucial role in driving growth and fostering innovation, particularly in sectors that are traditionally considered high-risk or involve non-traditional transaction structures.

6. Leverage: One of the critical measures of success for a blended finance transaction is the extent of leverage. Leverage ratio can help determine how effective concessional capital (that is, capital priced below market terms) has been within a blended finance transaction. It is defined as the amount of commercial capital mobilised by each dollar of catalytic or concessional capital. The current blended finance market in India is yielding a leverage of 5x on catalytic capital. As the market matures, a sustained focus on diverse sectors, efficient utilisation of instruments, and collaboration among different investor categories will further improve leverage and propel the growth of blended finance in India.

Challenges faced in scaling blended finance

The blended finance market in India is at a nascent stage but growing faster than ever. There has been an increasing interest among investors, both global and domestic, as well as service providers, indicating significant potential for this segment in the next few years. However, there are several challenges that need to be addressed for blended finance to achieve greater momentum.

1. Lack of clarity around legal and regulatory aspects: Philanthropies are great partners for innovation in development finance as they can work with the public sector to improve risk–return balances while engaging directly with private sector partners. However, current policies and laws, such as CSR and FCRA, restrict the blending of different pools of capital, making it difficult to structure these instruments. Regulatory clarity and push will be required for the blended finance ecosystem to thrive. This can be done through the creation of dedicated platforms/vehicles for blended finance or quasi-government entities that allow for pooling of different capital and issuing of different instruments to facilitate blended structures. A regulatory and financial sandbox (for experimentation to arrive at the relevant structure) could be created to begin with, leading to an appropriate structure to scale blended finance in an institutional manner in the country.    

2. Mindset and mistrust issues: Traditional mindsets and risk perceptions prevalent in certain sectors or institutions may impede the adoption and acceptance of blended finance. CSR teams and large domestic foundations often have inhibitions about working with commercial entities, and there is a general mistrust across parties stemming from diverging objectives of financial returns and impact. Foundations and most family offices have perceived investing and philanthropy as separate endeavours and have not fully appreciated the role of high-risk but high-reward investments in driving sustainable development. Overcoming these cultural barriers and promoting a holistic understanding of the potential benefits of blended finance is crucial to fostering awareness.

3. Limited awareness and conversation about blended finance structures: Concepts and models around combining philanthropic capital with commercial investment to achieve social good are not well documented and understood by all stakeholders. More data andcase studies showcasing track records of both financial and social impact created through blended finance projects can help in alleviating these challenges. Targeted efforts to enhance education including capacity-building programmes, workshops, and knowledge-sharing platforms will also go a long way in opening up the market to newer actors.

Opportunities for philanthropy

Philanthropic capital aligns well with the principles of blended finance in pursuing more impact and increased effectiveness of spending while creating more leverage with the limited resources available. Here are a few suggestions for philanthropies to consider using this approach.

1. Driving innovation: Most commercial investors are unable to invest in innovation due to fiduciary responsibilities. As a solution, philanthropic capital with low to no financial return expectations can be used strategically in the form of TA grants, or to design grants to drive innovation.

2. Addressing market failures in impact-focused sectors: Within the philanthropy sector, different sources of funds—from foundations, DFIs, CSR, and family offices—can be used for solving market failures to enable more flow of capital to certain segments of the population or sectors where commercial capital has typically not ventured due to perceived high risk. Some examples are:

• Foundation capital can be used to provide first-loss guarantees (where a third party compensates if a borrower defaults) as risk mitigation measures, especially in sectors that are considered commercially unviable.
• DFIs can help investors and banks achieve scale and volume for impact-focused deals.
• To make CSR capital more result-oriented and effective, outcome-based contracts can be structured, such as the recent Skill India Impact Bond, where CSR pays only if the outcomes of placement and retention are met.
• Family office capital offers flexibility, and hence can be invested across structures—from philanthropic to market-based. There is an increasing understanding among family offices, especially second-generation members, about impact investing.

3. Creating demonstration effects through bespoke structures: While these are usually complex and resource-intensive, bespoke structures such as development impact bonds (DIBs) and social impact bonds (SIBs) present potential for sourcing capital and create a demonstration effect. Once new models are proven to be workable and successful, capital can be raised to scale up interventions.

The concept of blended finance has gained prominence in the last decade as a strategic approach to mobilise private capital for sustainable development. Despite continued efforts and increased spending by the government and philanthropy towards enabling more inclusive and sustainable development, India still faces a significant funding gap to be able to achieve the SDGs and address climate action requirements. It has thus become imperative for public and philanthropic capital to relook at their spending models and innovate for increased effectiveness as well as to crowd in additional commercial capital towards development. By leveraging blending as an approach, we can create the right financial structures and incentives to co-opt this capital. However, it is critical to overcome challenges such as legal and regulatory clarity, mindset shifts, and limited awareness through collective action from different stakeholders to scale the opportunities presented by blended finance structures.

By embracing blended finance and addressing the challenges, India can create a robust ecosystem that attracts private capital, strengthens social interventions, fosters innovation, and maximises the impact of grant programmes, ultimately leading to sustainable and inclusive development.

—

Know more:

• Read this to learn more about how blended finance could help combat climate change.
• Learn how blended finance can support India’s Covid-19 recovery.

Working with government systems can be challenging but also extremely rewarding for nonprofits. For instance, there is a significant amount of money available in the government system, but not many nonprofits have identified how to tap into these funds. As a result, they resort to the challenging task of raising funds independently. By spending time understanding how to successfully apply for government grants or get into the tendering process, nonprofits can bridge some of the funding challenges they face. Similarly, for nonprofits looking to scale their work across a state or multiple states, there is no better option than to work with the government. The financial and human resources available to the government exponentially exceed those that would ever be available to a single nonprofit programme.

At Leadership for Equity, we have spent the last six years working with governments across district, state, and national levels. Here are five things we have learnt that can be of value for nonprofits seeking to work with governments.

1. Understand the structure of the government and how information flows

The structure of the government can be unpacked by looking at it through three aspects: levels, government bodies, and people. At the national level, there are ministries that set the national agenda across various sectors, including education, agriculture, and health. The national government has the state governments below it, under which are local government bodies such as district, block, and cluster. The degree of autonomy each body can exercise may vary across levels, with bodies at lower levels of the government executing the responsibilities assigned to them by those at higher levels. Each body of government across levels is composed of people (that is, officials), who are in charge of leading these bodies and executing their functions.

It is extremely important for nonprofits that aim to collaborate with the government to understand the flow of information across the systemic hierarchy. This enables the organisation to identify where breakdowns might happen and take the necessary precautions to ensure that things continue to move forward. For instance, within the education sector, work most often gets stuck at the state level; however, if you are aware that there is a decision-making body present at the district level, you could approach it directly to help your work proceed. Being aware of the structure of government also helps nonprofits plan proposals that the government would be more receptive of.

2. Think carefully about the level of government you need to engage with

The level of government that an organisation would approach and the capacity in which the government would be approached relies on the form of interventions they design and who the end beneficiaries of its interventions are. The expertise of one organisation may lie in directly working with students or teachers, whereas another may work with Anganwadi workers to provide vaccinations. In the latter case, the organisation works directly with the community, so it would only need to approach state leadership for advocacy or permissions, and not partnerships.

District-level bodies often need help with programme implementation, and are happy to accept support from a nonprofit.

In our experience, district-level bodies are typically the most receptive because they are closest to the end beneficiary. They have specific responsibilities, understand what is required in their particular geography, and are in a position to take decisions. However, they are often swamped with the priorities that are assigned to them by the state and national ministries. Therefore, district-level bodies often need help with programme implementation, and are happy to accept support from a nonprofit. At higher levels, decision-making entails a political dimension that might complicate the situation.

3. Don’t build parallel systems or interventions

If a nonprofit is working with the government but their solution is in parallel to what the government is doing, they are further fragmenting the ecosystem rather than building on to or leveraging what already exists. For instance, the State Council of Education Research and Training bears the responsibility of training teachers in government schools. However, many nonprofits invest significant sums into developing modules for training teachers, which they approach the government with. This solution seeks to replace the existing system rather than complementing the government’s efforts. Even if a parallel programme receives government approval, it ultimately leaves the teachers and students confused since they get different instructions on the same topic from multiple sources. As a result, the ultimate aim of an improved teaching–learning process remains unfulfilled.

Therefore, the solutions that nonprofits design should instead be based on need-gap analyses and compensate for what the system lacks. By integrating their interventions into existing government programmes, nonprofits can build stronger, impactful partnerships that are more sustainable. In our experience, some government bodies are great at strategising and some can effectively operationalise a plan, but most struggle with planning and implementing monitoring structures at scale. Therefore, a nonprofit can be a valuable partner to a government body by assisting with breaking up a programme goal into milestones and setting up monitoring structures for each milestone.

4. Approach officials strategically

To identify the person who will champion their cause within the system, nonprofits need to first understand the various roles and responsibilities of government officials. Leadership positions within government bodies are occupied by either political or administrative heads depending on the functions their body is responsible for executing. While political heads are typically in charge of big-picture tasks such as setting up the vision, the administrative heads ensure the implementation of the government’s vision through policies and programmes. 

Looking at the hierarchy, at the national level, there is a cabinet minister who is assigned to a particular ministry. If we are to use education as an example, this would be the minister of education. While the minister is the political head who handles the ministry’s vision and communication, its implementation at the state level is carried out by the principal secretary, who is an IAS officer. Although most departments have similar structures, diversity generally emerges at the district level. At each level there are a mix of administrative and political heads. For instance, the chief district-level official is the collector, who is an elected political head. However, under the collector is the chief executive officer/chief development officer (CEO/CDO), who oversees the implementation of programmes across various departments. The departments overseen by the CEO/CDO have their own respective heads, who handle the administration of these departments under the guidance of the CEO/CDO.

Even when a nonprofit is working at a policy level, it needs to be aware of the conditions on the ground and offer adequately rooted suggestions.

If a nonprofit is working on policy interventions, it will work with the officials in leadership positions. For example, at the state level, one would work with the principal secretary and the education commissioner. If a nonprofit wants to focus on implementation, it should work with the district- and block-level officials, as they are the ones overseeing the implementation of programmes within the communities. However, even when a nonprofit is working at a policy level, it needs to be aware of the conditions on the ground and offer adequately rooted suggestions.

5. Engage empathetically with government officials

For nonprofits, it is also critical not to operate from a place of authority, as it would seem arrogant for an organisation to assume that it can step in and teach the government how it should function. The dominant conception of public departments posits them as slow, lazy, and ineffective. However, systemic uncertainties such as delays in fund disbursement, changes in political/bureaucratic leadership, and extremely tight deadlines are actually responsible for the inconsistent performance of these departments. Although the bodies may consist of officials who are intelligent and efficient, they are also overburdened. Additionally, government officials, especially those closer to the ground, develop deeper insights into the communities under their charge and how they can be helped. However, they may lack the resources to single-handedly effect change in these communities. Therefore, when attempting to work with government officials, it is important to be sensitive to the various challenges they experience and not take away their agency by neglecting their expertise and ideas.  

There are no regulations that limit nonprofits from approaching a government body to engage in collaborative endeavours.

There are no regulations that limit nonprofits from approaching a government body to engage in collaborative endeavours, but the mindset of the officials that lead these bodies plays a major role in whether any proposals are accepted. While some may welcome collaboration, others may perceive the proposal of alternate solutions as a threat to the work they are doing. Recognising their apprehensions and finding ways to alleviate these fears in a respectful and empathetic way can go a long way in setting a partnership up for success and sustainability.  

Whether a government partnership works out or not is ultimately determined by a number of factors; however, keeping these five principles in mind before you start can tip the odds in your favour.

—

Know more

• Read this explainer for an in-depth look into local government in India.
• Learn more about the various projects Leadership for Equity is undertaking at the state, district, and city levels.

Fundraising efforts in the US among the Indian diaspora have largely been fragmented, with multiple organisations repeatedly asking donors to participate in their numerous events, for example. There’s a need for consolidation and that’s why, in 2019, 11 US-based organisations working for humanitarian and development goals in India decided that “the costs of working in isolation outweigh its benefits, and that a collective approach can bring about greater change”. And so the India Philanthropy Alliance (IPA) was publicly launched to respond to an urgent need for enhanced communication, coordination, and collaboration among nonprofits, particularly among those working in India. Today our coalition has 16 members. 

More than four years since we began meeting and two and a half years since going public, our monthly calls, semi-annual retreats, and successes and failures have helped us identify some practical and surprising lessons that have made us a more effective coalition. While some of these might be unique to our particular situation, we believe many of them have applicability to other collective impact or, more broadly, coalition efforts.

1. Build a strong holding environment

Coalitions succeed when there’s at least one staff member who keeps the group’s ‘trains running on time’, mostly by ensuring meetings run smoothly and following up where needed. When a member tries to take on the additional role of the coalition’s secretariat, things inevitably fall through the cracks and progress can grind to a halt for long periods. Since budgets are usually tight in coalitions where member dues are the main or only source of revenue, some coalitions delegate the staff work to a junior member. However, their lack of stature and experience often leads to frustration and turnover, as members tend to be less responsive to someone they don’t consider a peer. The problems with this model can be exacerbated if this individual spends only part of their time working for the coalition and the remainder for one of its members (which can create the perception of divided loyalties). For this purpose, the IPA employed Alex Counts (one of the co-authors of this article), a former CEO of one of our members (thus giving him peer status), who devotes three to four days each month to IPA. 

2. Establish a strong learning culture

Establishing a code of conduct early on is something we would recommend to other coalitions. However, although useful, by itself it only goes so far. Through our meetings, e-mail exchanges, and other communications and interactions, we gradually built a culture that, while imperfect and still evolving, kept members involved despite IPA not having any funding to disburse to them. One important element was privately and publicly celebrating as many member successes as possible. Another was educating every member about the work of their IPA peers, such that they could and did become ambassadors for organisations that had previously felt like competitors. 

Coalitions should seek to consciously shape their culture in the direction of collegiality and mutual support.

We recall when, at our year-end meeting in 2020, Gouri Sadhwani, then the executive director of Akanksha Education Fund (which is now led by Sejal Desai), reported that she had worked a reference to the path-breaking work of VisionSpring in providing eyeglasses to truckers (thus reducing deadly highway accidents) into a recent speech of hers. This was possible because she knew enough about a peer’s work and was willing to tip her hat to another organisation fundraising in her market. Having the same leaders always represent each organisation, rather than a rotating cast of characters, helped ensure such a positive and sustainable culture. 

Coalitions should seek to consciously shape their culture in the direction of collegiality and mutual support, with their chairs and vice chairs ideally leading by example from the outset.

3. Enable shared services

One purpose of a coalition is to address problems, or ‘pain points’, experienced by all or most of its members. In some cases, doing so collectively is more efficient, affordable, and practical. For example, the same expert can be hired to provide counsel to the leaders of all impacted groups, instead of organisations addressing their issues individually. But small and relatively new coalitions (ours has an annual budget of less than USD 100,000, which is small in comparison to other coalitions in the US) are not always well positioned to help solve their members’ biggest issues. These, in the case of IPA, include raising more money from wealthy Indian American business leaders, consistently and rigorously measuring outcomes, and navigating the growing regulatory complexity in India.

4. Facilitate networking among peers

In coalitions like ours that do not function as funding intermediaries doling out grants, helping our member representatives develop themselves as leaders, establish and deepen trusting relationships with peers, and deal with the ‘slings and arrows’ inherent in running mission-driven organisations is essential. This is especially true for leaders of small and/or virtual organisations, who often feel isolated and distant from the programming action in India. 

We often bring in guest speakers or assign and discuss articles that address these needs. However, simply having flexible agendas and facilitation allows for these needs to be met naturally in the course of our business meetings and other gatherings.

What coalitions should think about as they mature

All nonprofit coalitions must evolve and mature to avoid a slow decline into sporadic engagement and irrelevance. The main challenges we face in the years ahead are:

1. Enabling donors to give more

According to a survey by Indiaspora, Indian Americans give USD 1 billion to charities today, but could give triple this amount if they simply matched the per capita, wealth-adjusted giving rates of Americans generally. 

Coalitions should strive to attract more groups of donors, but in a gradual way that allows for a well-designed onboarding and integration.

While we have identified growing the culture of Indian American philanthropy as a core objective, till today IPA has been unable to align on how to move the needle on this issue. We are working to design a major campaign to increase Indian American philanthropy, approach major institutional funders together, and appeal for more supportive laws. The extent to which we succeed will go a long way in determining whether launching IPA was worth the time and effort.

2. Rotation of leadership and succession planning

Good governance principles suggest that at some point we should give new people a chance to lead, or at least propose how they might take us in newer and better directions. But we risk losing a key element of our ‘secret sauce’—a strong, focused, respected, and cohesive leadership team. When and how to start this transition are challenging questions. In addition, the one individual who has been the driving force behind creating and sustaining this group is still involved, and arguably his departure—which is inevitable—could lead to a crisis or at least a loss of momentum. 

Coalitions must figure out how to create and maintain such a strong value proposition to members that their future is not dependent on any one leader or organisation.

3. Increasing membership and effectiveness

Coalitions should strive to attract more groups of donors, but in a gradual way that allows for a well-designed onboarding and integration into their culture (while helping to shape the next phase of their evolution). 

Further, like most nonprofits, many coalition members could struggle to secure the resources and talent needed to consistently and rigorously measure outcomes and impact. Raising the collective performance in this area will help attract increased funding from sophisticated institutional donors. With outside assistance and determined efforts, coalitions can raise each member’s performance in monitoring, evaluation, and learning. They may even be able to aggregate their insights and use them to inform policy and practice well beyond their network. 

Coalitions and other collective impact initiatives are hardly a panacea for addressing societal problems and ensuring that philanthropy is impactful. But they can make substantial contributions if their culture, leadership, staffing, and activities are forged in a collaborative, action-oriented, and thoughtful manner.

This is an edited version of an article that was published on October 1, 2021, on Indiaspora’s blog under the title The India Philanthropy Alliance: Two Years On, which can be found in its entirety here.

Know more

• Read this to learn more about raising funds from the Indian diaspora in Southeast Asia.
• Read this for insights on how to sustain alliances and networks.
• Learn about funding practices that can build more resilient nonprofits.

Chetna Gala Sinha had recently moved from Mumbai to live in a village with her family when a neighbour, a female welder named Kantabai, approached her for some advice. Kantabai wanted to open a savings account; she hoped to save enough money to shelter her family from the monsoon rains by buying tarpaulin sheets. When banks rejected her requests for an account, Sinha and other local women decided to open their own bank and applied to the Reserve Bank of India for a license, which they received only after a long campaign.

Sinha and Wilson went on to form collectives of the people around them to work towards shared goals. Today, they successfully run the Mann Deshi Foundation (MDF) and the Safai Karmachari Andolan (SKA) respectively. In collaboration with UTI, Mann Deshi Bank founded the first pension fund for rural women micro-entrepreneurs and has supported countless women through empowerment programmes and bank loans, leading to increased farmer incomes and profits. In 2014, SKA’s efforts resulted in the Supreme Court of India directing all states to abolish manual scavenging and help sanitation workers find new professions.

International development and philanthropic organisations have renewed their interest in community-led development.

Around the world, community-based collectives have been successful in building cooperative producers’ capacity, advocating for much-needed improvements to public services, law, and policy and for fair corporate practices. Research across multiple countries in the majority world further suggests that community-led ways of working can produce positive outcomes in many areas of social impact.

More recently, international development and philanthropic organisations have renewed their interest in community-led development. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, they saw how community-based organisations worked hand in hand with governments to deliver essential goods and services, enable social behaviour change, and implement policies. We decided to take a look at some of these collectives to see what makes them successful, and how external stakeholders can support them.

Recognising the different types of community-based collectives

Collectives pull together a community of people with a shared interest, for example, livelihoods, employment, demographic, caste, a social cause, or some combination thereof. For practical reasons, they are also often bound by a region, although that is not always the case.

Not all collectives, however, look the same. Depending on how closely the community works together and the commonality of their agendas, they tend to be of three types:

• Cooperatives are tightly organised legal entities formed to pursue the socio-economic aspirations of communities, with a federated leadership structure and an elected governing board. Mann Deshi Bank and Amul are cooperatives formed by women labourers and small farmers respectively.
• Movements are more fluid, with an informal structure. They bring together individuals and organisations with shared experiences to enable coordinated and unified action, usually against social injustices. SKA is a movement galvanised by a Dalit community forced into manual scavenging. Pinjra Tod, a feminist collective started by female college students, challenges patriarchal rules and regulations and Dalit Mahila Samiti, a movement built by Dalit women in Uttar Pradesh, challenges caste-based oppression.
• Meshwork comprises loose webs of heterogeneous groups (individuals, organisations, associations, unions, researchers, etc.) that work towards the same goal, with different strategies for change and occasional joint action. The network of people and organisations that worked to decriminalise homosexuality through the repeal of IPC Section 377 is one such example.

Five factors driving the success of collectives

Collectives empower a community’s collective voice and ability (or ‘power’) to advocate against experienced injustices and unfair practices, identify local needs, and co-create solutions as well as implement them. In our conversations with leaders of a few collectives, they acknowledged their distinct form of organisation and identified several factors driving their growth and effectiveness.

In-situ development

Collectives that form within a community are more readily fuelled by the specific needs and wants of their members. For example, rural women set up the Mann Deshi Bank to solve the pressing need for banking services (such as loans and safe deposits) that were largely unavailable to them. In-situ development organically unites community members and fosters trust and collaboration from the start.

Diversity within shared identity

Collectives create a shared secondary identity for community members whose individual identities might otherwise differ. This enables the most marginalised subgroups within these communities to participate in the collective agenda and voice their opinions and concerns in key decision-making bodies. Amul, for instance, reserves seats for marginalised groups (including women, Adivasi communities, and small farmers) to ensure representation.

Local leadership

Each community has natural leaders, and collectives enable local leaders to emerge. At Mann Deshi Bank, local women from the community have grown to hold several leadership positions. Rekha Kulkarni, who started as a clerk there, is now its CEO. Similarly, Amul introduced programmes for leadership development and union-building workshops for the youth. Today, local leaders are well represented in its federated organisational structure.

Women have been particularly effective mobilisers in collectives.

Women have been particularly effective mobilisers in collectives. “[Women] tend to work collaboratively with people across age groups, [and] foster mutual trust and accountability, rendering the play of politics less prominent,” says Yusuf Pathan, general manager of procurement for the Amul Group–affiliated Panchmahal District Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union.

Incentives and small wins

Collectives may have a bold vision for the future, but they build their power over time with small wins that are shaped by the type of collective. In general, cooperatives are underpinned by an economic objective. Members continue to work together as they accrue benefits arising from their collective bargaining power. The federated leadership structure also strengthens the collective over time, as individual members grow within the organisation to play larger roles.

Collectives formed around a social agenda, on the other hand, keep members invested by building momentum through small wins as they work towards their ultimate goals. For example, in 1993, the Indian Parliament passed an act that banned the construction of dry latrines (as well as outlawed the practice of manual scavenging). Threatening legal action under the new act, Bezwada Wilson wrote to the managing director at Kolar Gold Fields. He also wrote to the prime minister and others in government. Officials felt the pressure and responded by destroying the dry latrines at Kolar Gold Fields and converting them into water-seal latrines. The media covered the events extensively, and Wilson received widespread recognition. This relatively small yet important win paved the way for Wilson and SKA to expand their efforts into other regions, and build momentum towards their vision of abolishing manual scavenging.

Evolving change agenda

Collectives evolve their agenda in line with changing community needs. For example, through SKA, Wilson mobilised manual scavengers to protest and advocate for abolishing the practice of manual scavenging. Today, the organisation also works on mitigating the adverse health effects of sanitation work, and supports members of oppressed castes to find alternate professions. Similarly, Mann Deshi Bank’s origins are rooted in the need for financial inclusion for women in the rural informal economy. Obtaining an official bank license from the government was the beginning. The cooperative has grown over the years and served more than 2,00,000 account holders, even introducing a pension scheme for its members.

Supporting community-based collectives

If collectives have shown their potential to spark change across a breadth of social and environmental issues, then funders, intermediaries, and development agencies ought to be thinking about how best to support them. And while the five success factors may be present in varying degrees at all collectives, they don’t all lend themselves to support from external stakeholders. Here are three ways of credibly supporting community-based collectives, as discussed in our interviews:

• Building leadership from within communities by creating spaces for leaders to engage with community members, training emerging leaders on soft skills and communication, and supporting them in their engagement with government representatives.
• Providing financial support for collectives, especially those centred on social issues such as health and dignity. Channels of support can include wage compensation for volunteering community members who give their time to the collective and early-stage support for development of new enterprises.
• Strengthening bargaining power and networking by, for instance, bringing collectives together from village to tehsil to district levels.

It is true that many communities are suspicious of outsiders. This is particularly the case with communities that have historically been marginalised by social, political, legal, and corporate institutions. While there have been instances when external stakeholders have earned the trust of communities and collaborated closely to support the development of collectives, those cases have been more the exception than the rule.

Earning the trust of community members is the non-negotiable starting point. And the ground rules for earning trust are engaging with community members as equals, actively listening to them, and building representation from the community in the external organisations themselves. Trust comes when external stakeholders change their point of view from doing something for the community to being part of the community.

As Chetna Gala Sinha succinctly puts it, “[When] we are part of the communities, we will work out the solutions together.”

An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Rekha Kulkarni is now a managing trustee (rather than CEO) at Mann Deshi Bank. This was corrected on December 22, 2021. Additionally, UTI was added as a supporter of the Mann Deshi Bank pension fund.

—

Know more

• Dip into these case studies of urban community-led initiatives in India.
• Learn about how valuable qualitative data is for community-led solutions.
• Read a funder’s view on investing in community-driven systems change. 

Today, to achieve even our individual organisation missions, we need to scale our ideas and approaches, instead of multiplying our presence. Partnerships are the drivers that catalyse this process.

A recent survey conducted by Sahayog Foundation across 160 nonprofit leaders revealed that 96 percent believe it is possible to scale programmes through collaboration, yet just half have a strategy in place to do so. Their lack of strategy reinforces something we have known as a sector for a while now: Partnerships are hard work.

To make them work, organisations need to take time to strategise the ‘why’ and ‘what’ of partnerships with critical decision-making on ‘how’ to prepare programme for partners. Here are some steps that can help get them started.

First, find the right partner

The most common choice is to partner with leaders and organisations that are familiar or known. However, what may seem like a comfortable or obvious choice may not lead to the best partnership. Hence, it is useful to come up with a list of criteria for selection.

1. Re-visit your desired partnership and programme outcomes

This helps maintain focus on the landscape of the issue you are working on. Once that is done, develop an outreach strategy to identify potential partners—this allows you to look beyond your network and could lead to new relationships. Some outreach methods you could consider:

• Reaching out to your network of trusted nonprofit leaders to explore partnership potential
• Publicising your partnership approach on social media and other channels to garner the attention of a wide range stakeholders
• Asking organisations in your existing network who they have worked with before, and what that relationship has been like

2. Shortlist partners based on your alignment with them

In particular, it is important for partners to be on the same page about:

•  Values and outcomes since partnerships hinge largely on trust, and ideological alignment is critical for establishing trust
• Non-programme processes such as legal and financial compliance, programme costs and fundraising, branding and communications, and data sharing and access
• Programme processes such as training, roll-out strategy, roles and responsibilities, and timelines

3. Create a partnership agreement in consultation with your board and advisory members

Ensure absolute clarity on the terms of any partnership you are engaging in, including:

• Partnership duration
• Roles and responsibilities between organisations and teams
• Intellectual property rights
• Financial agreements
• Partnership termination criteria
• Partner liabilities

Then, break your programme down into smaller partnership-pieces

Having run our own programme over multiple years, it can be easy to forget the number of adjustments it initially took to get it off the ground. Partnering requires a similar level of adaptation—this time in a manner that assumes the partner has little to no pre-existing knowledge. Working from this assumption helps to prepare the following for smooth programme adoption.

1. Content

Applying a partnership lens to content would include providing information and insights to your partners on training material, implementation processes, frequently asked questions, and evidence supporting the success of interventions. There is also a need to have a discussion of data—regarding its sharing and attribution.

2. Human resources

Human resources play a critical role in the success of any partnership. Therefore, it is vital to assess the capacities of your team, whether it is for partnership management or building a partner’s capability. Partnership management typically requires talent that fosters collaboration, is able to manage conflict, knows how to adapt programmes to meet contextual needs, and ensures the partnership is well-documented. Identification of capability support is usually done during the partner selection process. 

Knowing your partner’s need and your organisation’s capacity will reveal the need to hire or adapt roles within.

3. Operations and costs

It is important to consider the time and financial resources needed for initiating a partnership, and the end-to-end programme implementation, including needs assessments, monitoring, communications, and documentation. Operations and costs may vary depending on geographies, the size of the partner organisation, and whether you adopt an online, offline, or blended method of training.

Partnership costs may include:

• Talent: Hiring or upskilling partnership managers to manage the partnership, building capacity internally to prepare your leadership, organisation culture, strategy, and programme for the partnership
• Materials and technology: Technology and processes for programme monitoring and evaluation; communication and programme collateral; travel, accommodation, and logistical costs associated with the partnership, meetings, and retreats with partner organisations to align objectives and co-create programme details
• Partnership management: Administration (eg. setting up and managing partnership trackers, agreements, legal compliances, and funding processes) as well as partnership-focused monitoring and evaluation systems

4. Financial resources and fundraising

It is essential to have an open conversation with partners on raising funds for the partnership as it may be that partner nonprofits have to approach funders together. In that case, there should be transparency and clarity on what the partnership programme will cost, leveraging existing funder contacts, and equity in representation to the funders.

When seeking funds for a partnership, be sure to answer the following questions:

• Why are the two organisations partnering?
• What is the expected impact of partnering?
• What are the logistical and administrative costs of partnering?

Looking forward

Partnerships are an opportunity to recover the social progress that we lost in this past year—be it in terms of livelihoods lost, increased malnutrition, or the overburdening of limited healthcare facilities. Leveraging programme expertise, community relationships, and talent, partnerships can propel us to meet the multi-faceted needs of those we serve. However, without leaders and organisations inherently prepared for partnerships, the prospects of success appear to be limited.

It is therefore time for nonprofit leaders to recognise the need for collaboration and partnerships. Strengthening this cultural foundation now, will enable inclusive strategic planning to achieve organisation goals and amplify impact.

—

Know more

• To understand the principles of partnership readiness, see Sahayog Foundation’s Succeeding in Partnerships Guide.
• Learn more about the importance of partnerships and collaborations in the nonprofit sector.
• Read this report to understand how nonprofits can benefit from working together.

Needless to say, the benefits of collaboration are universally known: Knowledge sharing, an increase in efficiency, and the ability to address multiple levers for systemic change. However, more often than not, the barriers to operationalising a successful partnership between two or more organisations prevent it’s widespread adoption. Given this, what can nonprofits do to ensure that they are setting up their collaboration to be a success?

From building internal capacity, to aligning organisational strategy, and initiating a new partnership—this article outlines five steps nonprofits looking to collaborate can take today.

1. Preparing leaders for partnerships

a) Recognise the benefits of peer collaboration: Analysing organisations working in the same domain keeps nonprofit leaders aware of the strengths they and their peers contribute to solving social issues. With this in mind nonprofit leaders should identify how potential partnerships will contribute to their organisation’s overall mission. Assessing alignment of values, commonalities and differences in programmes and partners, can reduce effort and duplication as well as help change a competitive mindset to a collaborative one.

b) Create a culture of collaboration: Focusing on ‘soft’ skills involves developing the ability to listen and respond empathetically. This helps create an environment in which team members feel confident to share their views. Consulting with department heads ensures that the opinions of team members are heard and that the ideology of collaboration and common outcomes are communicated to all levels of an organisation.

c) Celebrate team effort: Leaders who celebrate joint effort and contributions recognise the role different members have in achieving a shared goal. Adopting this approach sets a precedent and disrupts ‘silo’ mentality.

Picture courtesy: Rawpixel

2. Building internal capacity for partnerships

a) Focus on the big picture: When teams understand where and how the potential partner or their organisation contributes to the larger ecosystem, they are more open to partnering with different organisations. Just as leadership teams are required to identify the strengths of their organisations, it is equally important for teams to recognise the value that partners add to their work.

b) Include collaborative skills in team reviews: When reviewing success, incorporating self-reflections focused on the process of dialogue and team work helps team members consider their role, contribution, and how collaboration could be improved to increase the level of success in the future.

c) Allow for flexibility and failure: Providing platforms for knowledge sharing across teams, allowing some percentage of staff’s time to contribute to verticals or teams other than their own based on their interest, and celebrating failures as lessons learnt are strategies to stimulate a collaborative mindset across an organisation.

d) Take time to prepare: It is critical for the organisation to focus on the processes involved in collaboration (be it internal or external) – how common goals are identified, what consistent communication looks like, why resource sharing, board alignment, leadership buy-in and operational capacity are important, and so on.

3. Aligning organisational strategy

a) Incorporate a ‘partnership lens’ in strategy: Assess the feasibility of partnerships to sustain, strengthen, or scale nonprofit programmes and/or organisations. When reviewing organisational strategies, nonprofits can introspect to consider how their mission can be supported better by a collaborative effort, and how that plays into their short-term or long-term plan.

b) Focus on partnership metrics: It is important to place metrics of collaborative success as a key element of organisational goals. Analysing the success of identifying partners, forming partnerships, and sustaining those partnerships, tracks an organisation’s partnership journey from the beginning and makes space for adjustments along with the way.

4. Developing a partnership strategy

Establishing the purpose is the first step to take on the partnership journey. To make this happen nonprofits should consider:

• Uniqueness of the existing programme supported by demonstrated evidence of success
• Compliance checks—ensuring they are legally sound to partner
• Financial stability to ensure they have adequate financial resources to allocate to the operations and delivery of a partnership associated programme
• A customised partnership model to achieve goals that are aligned to the organisational strategy
• The right type of partners for the partnership

5. Initiating a collaboration

While the above factors underline the partnership readiness journey, entering into a partnership requires key decisions and commitments. The following factors should be in place before any two or more organisations engage in a partnership:

a) Goals: Each partner should have agreement on the common goals to be achieved. Defining success criteria both for the implementation of the initiative, and the functioning of the collaborative, prepares partners to monitor progress effectively.

b) Roles: Clearly defining each partner’s role based on strengths communicates their value to the partnership. Documenting the division of responsibilities presents the opportunity for each party to equally contribute to the collaboration.

c) Talent: Partnerships require dedicated personnel to contribute to discussions on behalf of their organisation. Initially, senior leadership tend to take on this role and delegate to colleagues once key decision-making has taken place.

d) Model: Nonprofits wanting to scale their existing programme require a replicable model with the ability to build capacity across partners. Partners seeking to integrate other programmes within their initiative, identify how it will be sustained in order to positively impact the communities they work in. The partnership model should be clearly articulated between parties.

e) Review: Monitoring and evaluation systems provide critical data to inform the direction of collaborative action and uphold accountability. Mid-way reviews focus on aspects such as operational effectiveness, progress in achieving defined goals, and the functioning of the partners as a collective. Ensuring data transparency across partners enables each one to reflect on their own contributions to achieving common, as well as, organisational goals.

—

Know more

• This article is based on a paper which analyses partnership in crisis, drawing insights for the future of collaborative action from 13 social sector leaders. 
• Watch this webinar series focused on cross-sector collaboration.

Philanthropists and corporations with CSR ambitions, often form coalitions amongst themselves to aggregate financial resources to have ‘impact at scale’. Generally, their theory when shaping the coalition is that they should focus on one cause, combine their resources, and push out a common solution as widely as possible—a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach.

Other forms of coalitions bring diverse partners together, from across the corporate/philanthropic, civil society, and government sectors. The reason for this is the understanding that complex issues require combinations of diverse perspectives for a good understanding of the challenge, and to provide diverse capabilities for the delivery of the solution.

The former, single stakeholder type of coalition, though limited in its capability, is simpler to set up. Nevertheless, even such coalitions have difficulties in forming and performing. Issues of ‘brands’, decision rights, and even personal egos, come in the way. Attention to the scale of the outcome in terms of sustainable impact on the lives of people, slips too easily into attention to the scale of the coalition itself, and to impacts on the brands of the partners involved.

Coalitions amongst civil society organisations are bedeviled by similar, self-centered concerns, even when they are focused on a single cause—for example, the rights of women, or the needs of children. Who will be invited to high-level meetings with governments? Who will get the most credit for the outcome? When coalitions aim to be broader, difficulties in forming coalitions increase. For one, the coalition must have a common purpose for its existence and a common goal to align partners’ actions. Another, is the requisite architecture for the coalition.

The recent history of the labour rights movement in India provides insights into some of these challenges. Indian labour unions have been struggling for some years to combine their energies to serve the crying needs of marginalised workers, who are in informal employment or in self-employment, have no protections of their rights to speak of, and no social security.

Labour unions are mistrusted because they are perceived to be serving the interests of their own leaders.

The unions have been unable to form an effective coalition for the common cause of India’s workers because they cannot agree amongst themselves on the methods of action to apply, and because they mistrust each other’s broader political intentions. They have realised that unions are mistrusted because they are perceived to be serving the interests of their own leaders, and only the small number of workers in the organised sector. They must change public perceptions and win the right to represent all of India’s workers. Therefore, many have been working on the ground to provide relief to families in distress, even before the pandemic struck, and they have multiplied their efforts since then.

Some unions believe that the establishment must be confronted, because sitting around with it in tripartite negotiations has failed to achieve any fundamental changes in the conditions of Indian workers.

These same questions—about appropriate methods and about ultimate objectives—seem to arise in other civil society coalitions also. Putting it bluntly: Is it a matter of only service to the people through relief and development, or also of fighting for their rights?

There is little benefit to the people by stakeholders forming coalitions only at the top, if their representatives do not collaborate with each other on the ground. | Picture courtesy: Flickr

Formation and governance of coalitions

Civil society organisations must become parts of two types of coalitions to produce sustainable all-round change in the lives and livelihoods of people marginalised by the prevalent socio-economic structures.

One is the single stakeholder type—that is a coalition amongst civil society organisations, as mentioned before. The other is coalitions that include other stakeholders too—the institutions who have wealth, governments who have power, and the people as well.

It is important that civil society’s leaders build good coalitions at the top for building better multi-stakeholder coalitions on the ground, if we are to achieve future goodness of humanity and the planet.

Coalitions of civil society organisations, whose core purpose is to make sustainable improvements in the lives of the poorest citizens of society, and who are also concerned with threats to their existence from the Establishment, may find some common cause with labour unions. They will also be confronted with similar issues in forming effective coalitions. These are:

1. What is the reason for forming a coalition—what is its purpose?
2. Is it a tactical coalition, for a short-term objective? And will we disband when we have achieved it (or failed to achieve it)?
3. Or, are we united for a superordinate purpose, which will provide us a glue to stay together and win the war, with several tactical campaigns on the way?
4. Are we all committed to this superordinate purpose?
5. If we want ‘scale’ in our coalition so that we can overcome challenges, and we also want the strengths of diverse capabilities, who will we admit into our coalition, and who will we shun?
6. Who is the ‘we’ that will decide whom to admit?
7. Do we see ourselves as an ‘organisation’ with conventional structures of governance? Or, will we operate as a network, or even only as a movement?
8. How much structure do we need to define while we are getting going? And, a related question—what would be appropriate structures for providing adequate coherence to shape an energetic movement or an effective network?

Holistic, sustainable changes on the ground, that benefit and empower people, require collaboration between the different sources of power—the power of the people, the power of money, and the power of government authority.

Good coalitions at the top are hard to form because the partners are divided by invisible wall.

There is little benefit to the people by stakeholders forming coalitions only at the top and declaring goals for change in the world, if their representatives do not collaborate with each other on the ground, and if they do not make improvements in the lives of people, which is their common objective.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) point the way to address this challenge. The first 16 SDGs address the many and multi-faceted challenges facing humanity that must be addressed very urgently. None of the SDGs can be addressed without multi-stakeholder collaboration. Moreover, multi-stakeholder teams, working on each of the 16 goals, must work with each other too, because all the goals are systemically interconnected. The 17th SDG—the need for better partnerships—is the key to achieving the other SDGs.

Good coalitions at the top are hard to form because the partners are divided by invisible walls created by competition for recognition, and with jockeying for control. These walls also tend to extend all the way down the rank and file of their organisations.

Convergence amongst all stakeholders must happen on the ground

The world needs local systems solutions to solve global systemic problems. Therefore, all civil society actors—other than pure activists perhaps—must be good multi-stakeholder coalition builders on the ground. They must have the ability to facilitate systems thinking and collaborative action on the ground—which must be a common capability for all, irrespective of the specific causes they are committed to.

Effective coalitions form bottom up, not top down. The people on the ground must set the agenda, because they are the common cause that the coalition at the top was formed for.

—

Know more

• Understand how nonprofits can genuinely support social movements, not through partnership, but through solidarity.
• Read the article CSOs shouldn’t try to be like companies in scaling up by Arun Maira, to understand how we can rethink fundamental concepts regarding the governance of civil society organisations.

This has changed dramatically over the last few weeks, with many organisations coming together to respond to the COVID-19 crisis. The urgency of the situation, the scale at which it has impacted lives and livelihoods, and the need for an immediate response has resulted in the rapid formation of several broad-based collaboratives and coalitions. They are founded on a recognition of the fact that addressing the many challenges thrown up by the pandemic, and the ensuing lockdown, requires pooling in expertise, efforts, and resources, and that this cannot be the task of any single organisation.

We spoke to members of three different collaboratives that are currently responding to the crisis in distinct, yet complementary ways.

One of these, The National Coalition on Enabling a Rapid Rural Community Response to COVID-19 (RCRC Coalition) was set up to bring together civil society organisations working at the grassroots and to develop a coordinated response to the crisis. Another, the COVID-19 Resource Collaborative was created with the objective of assembling resources on fundraising, financial management, and managing teams, to help development sector organisations work effectively both during and after the crisis. And a third, the COVID Action Collaborative (CAC) was established to support various stakeholders—civil society, private sector, government, and others—to rapidly and cost-effectively prevent new infections, diagnose early, treat appropriately, and mitigate any other impacts of the pandemic.

Drawing on the experiences of these coalitions, here are some emerging learnings and insights for current and future collaborators:

“In crises, who do you reach out to? People you trust the most.”

— Ved Arya, RCRC Coalition

Given the speed with which these collaboratives came together, a pre-existing degree of trust and good will between the first few collaborators proved to be a key ingredient. Convening partners ensured this by initially reaching out to organisations and networks that they already knew and trusted, and later expanding this to include organisations that came recommended by trusted sources.

Inherent trust has enabled organisations to rely on each other to a greater degree.

This inherent trust has enabled organisations to rely on each other to a greater degree. For instance, when the RCRC Coalition noticed a lack of representation from the northeast in its membership, they asked their partners to help them identify organisations to reach out to.

As collaboratives grow, it is important to keep investing in building and maintaining trust among members, as failing to do so could disengage newer partners. Building transparency into the collaborative process and open co-creation are key to building trust on an ongoing basis.

As collaboratives grow, it is important to keep investing in building and maintaining trust among members. | Picture courtesy: Wikimedia Commons

“A successful collaborative is one that has similar values, similar commitments, similar passion; a group of people whose intent is similar, and who don’t have any other agenda—neither political nor financial.”

— Angela Chaudhuri, CAC

Coalitions bring together different kinds of organisations and individuals—nonprofits, for-profits, developers, designers, volunteers, and others—all of whom will work in their own distinct ways. It isn’t easy to bring people from different orientations together, but doing it well is key to amplifying impact. When prospective partners have a clear understanding of the purpose of a collaborative, they can determine if it makes sense for them to join and participate. Additionally, it is also helpful to identify other aspects—value systems, a common mission, a strategy, or a commitment to sharing information and resources—around which members can align.

As collaboratives evolve and grow, competing priorities may emerge that could cause shifts in alignment and commitment.

Both the RCRC Coalition and the CAC found it useful to draw up a formal charter or framework that sets out a common minimum programme for partners, allowing them to work together in a more organised way. Rather than being set in stone, these frameworks are seen as ‘living documents’ and are constantly evolving, in response to an evolving situation.

As collaboratives evolve and grow, competing priorities may emerge that could cause shifts in alignment and commitment. In the interest of working towards the greater good, it is important to keep an eye out for these changes, acknowledge and respond to them sooner rather than later.

“How can we make sure that we’re not duplicating efforts, that we’re moving quickly, and that we’re bringing people together as fast as possible?”

— Mary Ellen Matsui, COVID-19 Resource Collaborative

Responding to a complex challenge, such as a pandemic, almost inevitably requires a multisectoral approach—which is where collaboratives come in. However, it is precisely this aspect of working together with people and organisations who come from different orientations that can slow collaboratives down.

In addition to finding alignment, crossing this bridge requires individual partners to recognise their strengths and the limits of their own perspective and experience. It also needs them to actively reach out to and learn from others who may have complementary capabilities in different domains. For instance, the initial members of the RCRC Coalition were all livelihoods organisations with limited knowledge of how to secure the health and safety of the communities they work in. Recognising this, they drew on the expertise of the Jan Swasthya Abhiyan, a national health network, and other public health experts to equip RCRC Coalition members with accurate advice to guide their health and safety efforts in communities.

Leveraging unique skills, aptitudes, and technologies—rather than duplicating existing efforts— is allowing these collaboratives to think and implement at scale and amplify impact.

“Nothing should be left unsaid, unheard, or un-understood at any point of time.”

— Narendranath Damodaran, RCRC Coalition

Communication is a key ingredient to collaboration, and becomes even more important when people are working remotely. The process of communication can start before even taking the decision of whether or not to collaborate. For instance, the CAC sends out an email to potential collaborators, outlining what the partners are expected to contribute to the collective, and what resources will be available to them, should they decide to join. Once a new partner is identified, a robust on-boarding process is carried out: First, to present what the collaborative is about, and second, to understand what support the partner would like. These joint conversations allow mutual expectations to be set early on, creates ownership, and ensures active participation in the collaborative.

Once partners start working together, it is important to ensure that communication channels are kept open between everyone and that everybody is proactively kept in the loop about all aspects of their collaborative efforts. Not only does this promote transparency, it also helps streamline collective action, prevents duplication of efforts, and allows for cross-learning.

Effectively using both formal and informal communication platforms is one way of doing this. Formal communication mechanisms such as phone calls, virtual meetings, and emails can be used to communicate decisions, check-in on partners, or co-create systems and processes. Informal channels such as WhatsApp and Slack also play an important role, as they allow for free communication between a wider group of members, provide updates in real-time, and can be used both for work and to build camaraderie among geographically scattered members.

“Build systems for accountability and transparency down to the last point.”

— Ved Arya, RCRC Coalition

By their very definition, collaboratives are made up of several members and will therefore benefit from instituting systems—for governance, accountability, and transparency—that enable members to work cohesively. In a collaborative, the key to building systems that work is to ensure that they are co-created by partners. Building these systems becomes even more critical when a collaborative chooses to raise and allocate funds.

The key is to ensure that leadership and decision-making power is distributed.

While some collaboratives choose to stay away from funding (since it has the potential to generate competition and conflict among members), others consciously make the decision to fundraise as a collaborative, as it helps reach organisations that find it more challenging to mobilise resources on their own. The CAC’s approach, for instance, is a reflection of the former. Rather than the collaborative acting as an intermediary, they see themselves as enablers of funding—a platform through which donors can fund individual organisations (rather than the collective as a whole). On the other hand, the RCRC Coalition recognises the weight of a collaborative in attracting funding, and has found useful to play a more active role in directing funding to its members. This allows them to avoid overlaps in funding for specific geographies.

It also helps to clearly articulate the many activities that a collaborative needs to conduct, and identify distinct sub-groups to carry out the associated responsibilities. Based on the individual needs and requirements of each collective, this may take various forms such as a governing council, a general body, and/or working groups that are created based on areas of expertise (such as health, livelihoods, and migration, or financing, human resources, and procurement).

The key here is to ensure that leadership and decision-making power are distributed.

Being mindful of these principles and course correcting whenever necessary can help fulfil the potential of collaborative action to mitigate risk for individual organisations, amplify impact, and give the sector a collective voice to influence public policy.

In addition to those quoted above, we also spoke with Shiv Kumar, Swapnil Agarwal, Dr RK Prasad, and Reeva Kulkarni. 

Know more

• Learn more about how philanthropic collaborations succeed, and why they fail.
• Looking to maximise social impact through collaboration? Read this article from SSIR on hacking nonprofit collaboration.
• Explore some of the potential pitfalls and vulnerabilities that come with partnerships.
• Use this partnership matrix to better understand the various types of partnerships in which organisations can engage.

Do more

Are you searching for, or working on, a solution to COVID-19 or the effects of the lockdown?

• Join the CAC, volunteer your time, or share resources by writing in to covidaction@catalysts.org.
• Connect with the RCRC Coalition at info@rcrc.in.
• Reach out to reeva@atma.org.in to explore how you can engage with the COVID-19 Collaborative.

The Collaborators are just one example of a small but growing trend in India toward philanthropic collaboratives. We define them as entities co-created by three or more independent actors (including at least one philanthropist or philanthropic institution) who pursue a shared vision and strategy for achieving social impact, using common resources and prearranged governance mechanisms. In increasing numbers, Indian funders, government, nonprofits, and intermediaries are joining forces to address the array of climate, economic, social, and other looming problems faced by the country. “If we want to do scale-related work, the only way forward is through collaboratives,” Shah says. “There is no other option to tackle these big social problems.”

The Bridgespan Group’s recent research, detailed in Philanthropic Collaboratives in India: The Power of Many, found that most Indian collaboratives are less than five years old. Given their promise, why has there not been more formal collaboration to address complex social change?

Call it the ‘collaboration conundrum’. Social sector actors understand in theory that they benefit by drawing on others’ resources, skills, and experiences, but relatively few do so because it can be difficult to build consensus across multiple partners, accept the risk that some partners might fail to deliver, or share credit for their work.

Nevertheless, our survey of multiple stakeholders affiliated with 13 Indian philanthropic collaboratives and more than 50 interviews found that for a large majority of these unions, the benefits of working together outweigh the risks. Indeed, 71 percent of the 35 survey respondents strongly agreed that collaboration has enabled them to make more progress toward addressing India’s socio-economic challenges, than working alone has.

The organisations surveyed also identified three primary motivations for working collaboratively:

• by leveraging the diverse skill sets of different partners, the total effect can be greater than the sum of its parts;
• it expands the circle of influence, and the impact of individual participants; and
• it mitigates risk by spreading it across multiple players.

Despite the benefits, our research found that participants in a philanthropic collaborative often encounter unique hurdles, including:

• finding long-term funding, balancing the organisation’s priorities with those of the collaborative;
• overcoming a lack of trust, or clarity among the partners; and
• adapting to working in the collaborative model.

As more funders and stakeholders shift from considering partnering to actually pursuing it, philanthropic collaboratives will become the new normal for taking on complex issues. | Picture courtesy: RawPixel

There is no one-size-fits-all solution for avoiding these pitfalls, and they vary in severity in the different life stages of the collaborative. Nonetheless, our study helped us identify ‘3Cs’ that current and aspiring collaborators might keep in mind:

• It takes commitment to collaborate. Making progress toward large goals requires a significant investment of time, imagination, and persistence. It helps to recruit funders who are willing to provide long-term, unrestricted funding. For example, The Collaborators partner only with organisations that buy into the pooled funding model and truly share the organisation’s mission and strategy for driving impact. “It is why we have only seven funders,” says Naghma Mulla, EdelGive Foundation’s chief operating officer.
• Clarity (and communication) can streamline collective action. This requires regular conversations about who does what within the collaborative, as well as on how core and implementing partners are faring against the commitments they have taken on. To ensure that roles and responsibilities were clear, 10to19: Dasra Adolescents Collaborative formed discussion groups that met frequently and defined the work of each operating partner.
• Be prepared to course correct. Some assumptions may not prove out. By tracking progress and results, collaboratives can learn, improve, and make any changes necessary to meet their goals. When The Education Alliance suddenly lost two funders, it brought in new core partners and acquired new funding. It also transitioned from a collaborative to a nonprofit entity while remaining committed to its mission: ensuring quality education for children in government-run schools.

Although philanthropic collaboratives in India are a relatively new phenomenon, interest in them is accelerating. During the course of our research, we found that some global collaboratives, as well as domestic philanthropists, are actively considering setting up collaboratives in India. Over the next five years, as new collaboratives emerge and existing collaboratives produce far more outcome data, we will learn much more about their impact.

Players in the social sector will have to recognise the potential of collective action—and have the perseverance to keep at it.

What is already clear is that as more funders and stakeholders shift from considering partnering to actually pursuing it, philanthropic collaboratives will become less of an exotic pathway in India’s social sector, and more the new normal for taking on specific, complex issues. That means players in the social sector will have to recognise the potential of collective action—and have the perseverance to keep at it.

“We need to think more deeply about how we can get more people to work together,” says Ajay Piramal, founder of Piramal Foundation. “Collaboration requires a long-term commitment. The problems we face will not be solved in one or two years.”

The research on philanthropic collaboratives builds on the work of Bain & Company, Dasra, and EdelGive Foundation, as well as Bridgespan’s 2018 study Bold Philanthropy in India: Insights from Eight Social Change Initiatives and its Conversations with Remarkable Givers.

—

Know more:

• Understand in depth how philanthropic collaborations succeed and why they fail.
• Read this piece on the power of collaboration among philanthropic, government, and corporate ecosystems for positive outcomes in education.
• Read the reports Collaborative Action and Collaborative Force to comprehend the vital role of collaboratives in advancing India’s development agenda.

Do more:

• Connect with the authors Pritha Venkatachalam and Kashyap Shah.