{"id":806,"date":"2014-10-29T19:11:34","date_gmt":"2014-10-29T19:11:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/?p=806"},"modified":"2016-01-06T18:18:16","modified_gmt":"2016-01-06T18:18:16","slug":"developing-a-think-tank-first-hand-experience-with-core-funding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/developing-a-think-tank-first-hand-experience-with-core-funding\/","title":{"rendered":"Developing a think tank: first hand experience with core funding"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>[Editor\u2019s note: This is the first post in a series on core funding written by a new\u00a0<a title=\"Contributors\" href=\"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/about\/contributors\/\" target=\"_blank\">contributor<\/a>to On Think Tanks,\u00a0Gjergji Vurmo,\u00a0Programme Director at the\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/idmalbania.org\/\" target=\"_blank\">Institute for Democracy and Mediation\u00a0<\/a>(IDM) in Albania. This post\u00a0could be read along side a\u00a0<a title=\"Organisational change in think tanks: it takes more than great plans\" href=\"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/2014\/10\/27\/organisational-change-in-think-tanks-it-takes-more-than-great-plans\/\" target=\"_blank\">reflection on\u00a0organisational development in Latin America<\/a>.]<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The other posts in the series include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.google.com\/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0CB8QFjAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fonthinktanks.org%2F2014%2F11%2F03%2Fcore-vs-project-funding-for-think-tanks-managing-development%2F&amp;ei=Vu51VMr4BselgwTqsYGoCA&amp;usg=AFQjCNGwM12awrh2JE76rKvfa-qZ7XEmtg&amp;bvm=bv.80642063,d.eXY\">Core vs. project funding for think tanks<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/2014\/11\/26\/life-after-core-funding\/\">Life after core\u00a0funding<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>An interview with\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.politicsandideas.org\/\">Politics and Ideas<\/a>\u00a0on funding models for think tanks a few weeks ago touched upon the issue of institutional development grants. These grants are widely seen as a golden opportunity for think tanks in the Western Balkans (WB), a region where the funding\u00a0and policy environments do not really enable one\u00a0to develop as a think tank should. Therefore, the emergence of the\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.opensocietyfoundations.org\/about\/programs\/think-tank-fund\">Open Society Think Tank Fund<\/a>\u00a0(TTF) in 2005 and its Core and Institutional Support (now,\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.opensocietyfoundations.org\/grants\/organizational-development-grants-think-tanks\" target=\"_blank\">Organizational Development<\/a>) Program brought greater awareness\u00a0to\u00a0the need to develop think tanks. It also led to\u00a0more civil society organizations (CSOs) in the region wanting to transform themselves into\u00a0think tanks. The\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.idmalbania.org\/\">Institute for Democracy and Mediation<\/a>\u00a0(IDM) was one of those organisations. It was granted a TTF core grant in order to transform itself from a small CSO focusing on 3 key areas, mainly at national level, into a multi-thematic organization with a strong (although not strictly) think tank profile and presence in the Western Balkan region.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike many other donors, applying to TTF does not involve\u00a0completing\u00a0lengthy \u201capplication forms\u201d or \u201chiring consultants\u201d (in fact, the current TTF Organizational Development program does not even have an application form). Rather, it\u2019s about a process of identifying the present and the future of your organization.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, instead of \u201ctips on how to write a successful TTF application\u201d, the purpose of this piece is limited to better \u201cunderstanding this process\u201d.<\/p>\n<h2>It\u2019s not just another project application<\/h2>\n<p>One of the main problems with civil society in the Wester Balkans is that most of the funding offer lasts up to a year and is project based. This has a direct effect on CSOs financial viability and forces CSO managers to think about\u00a0funding the next projects before wrapping up\u00a0advocacy efforts for the current ones. Therefore, the\u00a0opportunity for a core grant seemed \u201ctoo good to be true\u201d for many colleagues with whom I\u2019ve discussed the TTF program. Understandably, overcoming dominant \u201cproject thinking\u201d was\u00a0the initial challenge.<\/p>\n<p>In fact, this was precisely my first mistake in 2006 when I approached TTF, at that time on behalf of another organization I was working for, with a concept note for core support. What I originally saw in\u00a0TTF\u2019s Call for Applications was an opportunity for a three-year fund to support\u00a0specific program areas of the organization. What I failed to see is exactly the latter: the organization; and where we wanted it to go.<\/p>\n<p>Of course we were kindly \u201cadvised\u201d that boosting our\u00a0favorite or most needy program area was\u00a0not the point of the TTF program. Rather, it was about developing the whole\u00a0organisation. In TT\u2019s own words: develop the organisation \u201cas an independent policy center that embraces inclusive policy change via analysis, advocacy, and engagement with a wide range of stakeholders\u201d. And this is a challenging task for any \u201cthink tank-wannabe\u201d and its program manager.<\/p>\n<h2>It\u2019s not a \u201cone wo\/man\u201d job<\/h2>\n<p>CSOs in the region have for long been identified with their founders or directors. In fact, some of them still are. In Albania, this can be partly explained by the fact\u00a0that over the past two decades CSOs have developed mainly as a one-man-show, with a small and unstable team. Yet, shrinking donor funding in the recent years has raised the need to break away from this habit and many CSO leaders have seized this opportunity to the benefit of their organizations. However, changing the managerial culture is still \u201cin the making\u201d and this is particularly visible when we \u201ctalk about organizational development\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>One thing I learnt during my second (and IDM\u2019s first) experience\u00a0with the Think Tank Fund is that your organization\u2019s\u00a0development is too important and also too big of a challenge to be entrusted to a single man or woman. It needs to have on board everyone in the organization and\u00a0even those closely associated with it. Of course, in the end, it will be just few people who will actually write and review the application, but ideas must come from everyone.<\/p>\n<p>The key ingredient in this process is \u201cparticipation\u201d of your team members and any other partners that have a stake\u00a0in the development of the\u00a0organization \u2013 your board, the associates you cooperate with, and also \u201coutsiders\u201d with relevant experience in your areas of work.<\/p>\n<p>(If you still believe that best ideas come from managers only, perhaps the next tip will change your mind.)<\/p>\n<h2>Take a breath\u2026it\u2019s not about daily concerns. It\u2019s even \u201cworse\u201d<\/h2>\n<p>The range of issues you will likely discuss while preparing an application for institutional development funds for the TTF or any other funder\u00a0is quite broad, stretching from purely administrative and internal coordination matters, to governance, communications, fundraising, program and capacity development, policy environment, advocacy and influence, etc. But the main questions you\u2019ll be answering will\u00a0not about your routine activities. Rather, you need to focus on your vision for the future\u00a0and the roadmap to building your organization\u00a0into a think tank that is able to deliver \u2013from an\u00a0organizational and programmatic perspectives.<\/p>\n<p>Such a processes take time (you won\u2019t be able to work out a roadmap over a meeting or two) and a certain level of separation\u00a0from your daily concerns (with all due respect to donor deadlines). Hence my advice is to organise\u00a0a retreat with your team or to find another way to have a \u201cfun-day at the office\u201d to think about the various aspects of the organisation that you wish to work on.<\/p>\n<p>I suggest you use the metaphor of a home. The organisation is like a house. You should encourage everyone to share what they think about \u201cthis\u00a0house\u201d (their house) and its surroundings; what\u2019s good and bad in it; how they want it to be in the future; which \u201croom\u201d they would prefer; and how would they transform the organization into a think tank.<\/p>\n<p>However, bear in mind that this is not a discussion about d\u00e9cor. Your purpose is not to build a likeable of fashionable \u201chouse\u201d, but an outfitted \u201chome\u201d with strong foundations. And while doing that, try to be realistic.<\/p>\n<h2>Don\u2019t fool yourself; or the donor<\/h2>\n<p>One of the questions that naturally emerges while discussing institutional support applications is: How honest should we be?<\/p>\n<p>Would our application look bad if we say that we have no communication strategy? Or that we don\u2019t know how to use our research data for advocacy purposes?<\/p>\n<p>This is my favorite part of the process because it means that if the brainstorming has reached this far then we are about to agree that what matters most\u00a0is not the application itself, but the organisational development of our think tank. Unfortunately, this is also the moment when some of us are likely to give up on the\u00a0process. Fortunately, others may\u00a0give up on the application, but not on the\u00a0process.<\/p>\n<p>My feeling is that donors engaging in institutional development programs usually have a clear understanding of both the environment and players. While the main target of such programs are the players (think tanks), the expected outcomes relate to impacting processes and the environment. Hence, understanding the needs, priorities, challenges and the very potential of players is of paramount importance. Yet, this doesn\u2019t mean that TTF, for example, would engage with just anyone that has needs and ideas, but no potential to develop capacities and deliver as think tank.<\/p>\n<p>The TTF application process and sound organisational development efforts do not allow \u201cshortcuts\u201d so it\u2019s better to be realistic of who you are and what you can achieve. Letting the donor know that you can manage research but are still lost when it comes to policy advocacy will only help you get there. You should not worry if you do not yet have a communication strategy. That\u2019s not a sin either, as long as you have something\u00a0to communicate. This needs to be coupled with a realistic plan to strengthen or develop your organisation\u00a0into and of the changes you wish to\u00a0bring about in your environment.<\/p>\n<p>Last but not least, while think tanks aim at being the frontrunners when it comes to\u00a0encouraging policy change, a \u201clone runner\u201d will not go far. Understanding your environment, its dynamics and as well as other players is equally important. Therefore, you make sure you have a realistic picture of these elements and a feasible plan of how you as a think tank will be able to interact with others and fit in the broader think tank and policy community.<\/p>\n<h2>\u2026after you get the grant<\/h2>\n<p>I suppose we all know TTF is not an easy donor to get onboard so many would say that implementing the approved grant can\u2019t possibly be much harder.<\/p>\n<p>I think tank\u00a0it can get quite hard if during the implementation you lose sight of one fundamental element: that TTF support is not there to stay forever. So, you must make sure that your think tank develops as an organization that is ready\u00a0to remain operational regardless of TTF.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gjergji Vurmo, Programme Director at the Institute for Democracy and Mediation (IDM) in Albania, shares his experience in preparing an application for core funding from the Think Tank Fund. He reflects on the process and offers advice to others planing to follow a similar path. He argues that core funding cannot be treated as business as usual project funding.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_relevanssi_hide_post":"","_relevanssi_hide_content":"","_relevanssi_pin_for_all":"","_relevanssi_pin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_unpin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_include_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_exclude_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_no_append":"","_relevanssi_related_not_related":"","_relevanssi_related_posts":"","_relevanssi_noindex_reason":"","footnotes":""},"tags":[189],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/806"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=806"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/806\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=806"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=806"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}