Q&A: How a skeptic helped design Co-Impact’s approach to giving

OXFORD, England — When Rakesh Rajani was first approached to explore opportunities at Co-Impact, a new model for collaborative philanthropy, he was skeptical. “The idea that a bunch of billionaires are going to come together and somehow solve the world’s problems — I thought, ‘What is that about?’” he recalled. “I said, ‘I don't think I’m your guy for this. I actually don’t believe in it.’” But Rajani says the idea that he could be wrong is a posture he brings to everything, especially the things he believes in most deeply. So he decided to take a call with Co-Impact CEO Olivia Leland. Originally from Tanzania, Rajani started and led organizations focused on education, citizen agency, and democracy, before joining the Ford Foundation, and he said he often draws on his background in civil society in his work in philanthropy. Now, Rajani is the vice president of programs at Co-Impact, which connects donors and social change leaders working on systems change. At Skoll World Forum, he spread the word on their second round of grants, focusing on early childhood development and jobs, skills, and livelihoods. “How can philanthropy be smart and humble in service of people on the ground who are driving the change?” --— Rakesh Rajani, vice president of programs, Co-Impact Devex caught up with Rajani about what eventually sold him on Co-Impact’s model and what part he thinks funders in the global north have to play in systems change in the global south. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Can you tell me more about how you went from being skeptical about Co-Impact to joining the team? All I had heard about Co-impact before I was approached is I had read one article. The notion I got from there was that billionaires are going to come together and form a collaborative that is going to make systems change happen and the emphasis seemed to be on billionaires collaborating. This notion that somehow billionaires who live in their bubbles in the global north can solve problems in the global south that are systemic in nature felt to me naive. All my experience suggested that was not the core problem, the lack of money. And in the zeitgeist of all the inequality in the world, and the growing gap between rich and poor, an initiative that came across to me as a bunch of rich people coming together is something I was skeptical of and not excited about. When I said to Olivia, “I have a lot of skepticism,” she said, “So do I.” When we got into the specifics, more often than not, she shared my concerns. She saw that I brought this critical eye. I am from Tanzania, and I have spent much of my life in East Africa, and I bring that perspective. She was not looking for someone who just mirrored her or would say “yes” to her vision. So, after multiple conversations, what ultimately convinced you? There are some incredible opportunities in the countries of the global south to make a deep, scalable difference working through systems change. And the reason it doesn’t happen now is there is a failure of collective action — the pieces that need to line up don't get lined up. You need organizations that know what they’re doing, that are rigorous, that have good ideas. And for the kind of systems change and scale we’re thinking about, it’s almost impossible to do it without government. And you need patience, big enough and long enough capital, to take ideas that are proven that are working but that are poised to go to millions. If those things are all lined up, that’s when the magic can happen. With Co-Impact, because we are agnostic about which specific country, we can have our antenna open for where these things are aligned, and then we can come in to help align it, by convening and connecting, and to bring the resources behind it. That is why I was really excited to join. It was less the getting philanthropists together piece and more about the difference you can make on the ground. When it comes to making a difference on the ground, how important do you think it is to invest in locally developed and locally led solutions? I was, until recently I guess, a local leader. But we shouldn’t stereotype local leaders. “Just because you’re local doesn’t mean you’re not connected to global things.” --— I was based in Dar es Salaam, but I was working with the Obama White House to mount a global platform that now involves countries around the world, so just because you’re local doesn’t mean you’re not connected to global things. It is a very different thing when somebody who is from the global south, who is based there, is leading an effort that is internationally connected and open to ideas from around the world, than someone from the north helicoptering in and trying to make change happen. And of course, it ties into all kinds of power dynamics and race dynamics as well. But we also have to be careful not to essentialize or exoticize what is local. Can you expand on how your work as a practitioner informs your work in philanthropy? This morning, we facilitated a breakfast session with some of our community funders. Their whole role is to listen to the program partners. It’s not about starting with you and your brilliant idea. My posture has been to say to a very impressive philanthropist: “You’re really smart, you know a lot, but here, your job is to listen.” If you’ve made billions, you’re used to having your voice heard. So part of what we gently do is to say that if you want to have an impact, the posture you need to take is one of openness, listening, and a beginner’s mindset. We choose very few grants. These program partners are really impressive. And as soon as you curate that platform for the funders to listen, they get it. We don’t use the language of philanthropists driving change. It’s not about them driving change. It’s more: How can philanthropy be smart and humble in service of people on the ground who are driving the change? How have you codified that into the operations of Co-Impact? There were no rules of the game. When the funders would ask questions or make requests, we would jump and make our program partners jump to respond to those questions. All those questions came from a good place, but whether they were really valuable for making change happen on the ground or what burden they posed for program partners, it was often too much. We developed a strategy document that embodies key values and principles of how that relationship should work. We’ve also developed a handbook, which will be published on our website, and holds us accountable. The core principle there is we are there to support our program partners to help people on the ground and not the other way around. Early on, we did a survey where we asked our applicants and grantees about their experience. We got some really great candid feedback, including advice like: “Be predictable, don’t keep changing the goalposts, think about the burden you are imposing on us with your requests.” Or :“It’s great you got consulting support to help us, but you hired the consultant so in effect that consultant works for you because you’re paying them, so instead can you give us the resources to hire the kind of help we want?” It all comes down to how do you put people in the driver’s seat and trust them and hold them responsible rather than hold them on a short leash? In round one of your grant-making, you supported five program partners, and in round two you are opening up a call for proposals. What are you looking for? How are you partnering with local organizations in a way that does at least two things? First, is the local partner co-leading this effort with you? It’s not about them being the implementer and you being the thinker. What is the level of equity in the decision-making and sharing of resources? Sometimes the program in California has a program officer with an annual salary of $150,000 dealing with a much more experienced CEO of a local organization expected to work for $40,000. These are uncomfortable conversations but we should have them. Second, where we work with international organizations, we expect them to articulate how the nature of their engagement will not only achieve results but also leave the local or national organizations in a more powerful position as a result of that engagement. It is almost like a double bottom line: impact plus strength and capacity on the ground. We’re asking for the concept notes to be in English, because that’s the language we can handle, but we’re very clear you don’t need to be fluent in English. We are developing our scoring and our rubric to make sure we aren’t penalizing people because they don’t speak English. And we’re explicitly saying we will give preference to organizations either based in the global south and or led by people in the global south. Update, April 17, 2019: This story has been updated to clarify comments by Olivia Leland and reflect that the collaborative of funders has expanded since the launch of Co-Impact.