“We talk a lot about the ‘risks’ of funding systems change work. What about the risks of NOT funding systems change work? Who bears those risks? It is the children, the communities, who deserve so much better who bear that risk.” – Joyce Malombe, Wellspring Foundation [approximate quotation]

Co-Impact, where I work, is a global philanthropic collaborative fund working to improve the lives of hundreds of millions of people in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, via significant-sized, long-term grants that help support local change leaders’ efforts to create more just, effective, and inclusive systems. We were purpose-built from scratch to test the impact potential of this approach, and have seen powerful results and ‘social return on investment’ from it over the last several years.  

Given this, it was a pleasure to spend a few days in Edinburgh, Scotland engaged in deep conversations with several dozen other international education funders on this topic. Three themes particularly resonated with me:

 1. End game = enduring improvement at the population scale.

There was much discussion about what “systems change” means. The term has suddenly become ubiquitous in our sector but often feels like just a buzzword used to mean many different things. At the conference, and for us at Co-Impact, I felt there was a shared sense that a systems change is an enduring improvement in a government (or market) system, which results in that system consistently delivering more/better results for all of the people it was intended to serve, especially those who are typically least served by it, e.g., women and girls, and other groups who have been marginalised or neglected.

This idea can be transformative. It recognises that in the vast majority of circumstances, there is an existing “system” which already reaches, albeit imperfectly, many or all of the people that we care about. And furthermore, it recognises that the root cause of many struggles in people’s lives – for example, billions of children around the world not learning even basic literacy and numeracy in school – is that the system that is supposed to serve them is not designed or not working correctly.

Unfortunately, for decades, much of philanthropy has ignored this fundamental reality or set it aside as “too hard”, “too risky” or “not satisfying enough” to work on. Philanthropy has often failed to ask itself, and the change leaders it has supported, “What is your end game” for truly solving this problem, for everyone who needs it. It’s incredibly exciting to see that begin to change!

2. Systems change often means knowing how to work with government

Most systems that philanthropy cares about are government systems, like a public education system. Even market-based “systems” are often heavily influenced by the government in a number of ways. Therefore, change leaders – and the philanthropists that fund them – have to be deeply savvy about what it takes to work successfully with the government.

Dr. Sara Ruto, most recently the Chief Administrative Secretary at the Ministry of Education of Kenya and prior to that the leader of a civil society organization in Kenya, reflected on how her time in government taught her the critical importance of deeply understanding government’s few top priorities, and also the political forces and considerations driving them.

Simon Sommer, Co-CEO of the Jacobs Foundation, noted the importance of needing to design and work within the realities of governments’ finite (and often limited) capacity and staff and have patience and empathy for this while still finding ways to move things forward.

Gail Campbell, CEO of the Zenex Foundation, emphasised that systems change efforts must be truly “owned” by the government, where they see it as their own work and priority, rather than some outside activity that is just another random donor project which they tolerate but will sooner or later just fade away.

Finally, Shaveta Sharma-Kukreja, CEO of the Central Square Foundation, spoke of how you also need to watch out for “reform fatigue” within government bureaucracies, where many staff may just pay lip service to an initiative but not really take it seriously or be motivated to take it up as their own at first, after seeing so many prior reform efforts before just come and go in a year or two. 

3. Philanthropic mindsets and approaches need to align with the realities of systems change

Systems change efforts can be incredibly impactful, but they take time (often 10+ years), and are frequently complex, non-linear, and somewhat unpredictable. 

Deep contextual knowledge, relationships, adaptability, and long-term commitment are essential. Given this, philanthropy must carefully look in the mirror and understand how it needs to change in order to effectively support such work. Beyond basics like duration and scale of grants, and collaboration and alignment with others, we discussed issues such as “localization” – doesn’t power, and strategy design, need to rest at the local level, with the change leaders themselves, especially for such work? How can funders in the Global North be the ones to develop truly viable change strategies for national systems in Global South countries, especially for 10-15 year time horizons? And, what kind of measurement can best support systems change work – not for attribution or ‘credit’, you can’t really measure that in systems change work, but instead focus on measuring the progress of the change itself, to help inform learning and adaptation.

Finally, how do you create safe spaces, within your foundations and with your grantees, to allow people to speak up when change is needed, as it inevitably will over the course of any systems change effort?

Abe Grindle, Director, Programs at Co-Impact.