Welcome to the final DDI Update! Thanks for sticking with us over seven blog posts about our process in co-designing with the Innovation for Change – East Asia community about the potential support mechanisms under the Digital Democracy Initiative. The last blog post shared the prototypes that emerged from the in-person ideation and prototyping workshop we organized in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia earlier in May 2024. Now, we’ll be sharing the discussions on the principles that should govern the DDI support mechanisms.

One of the interesting requirements for this co-design process is that participants should come up with a set of principles and values to guide the support mechanisms under DDI. It is a discussion that’s not often brought up in designing support mechanisms but nonetheless quite important. For a programme that aims to support marginalized and under-represented groups in civil society, the mechanisms should be accessible to them and be responsive to their needs. There was no better opportunity to have that discussion than during the in-person workshop when participants either come from or work with diverse communities such as migrants, youth, indigenous communities, and women.

After completing the prototypes, the two groups were asked to reflect on two questions:

• What do you hate most about your grant experiences?
• What do you appreciate?

Since the participants do not have any prior experience in designing support mechanisms, the questions helped ground their deliberations on thinking about their own experiences accessing other support mechanisms. They were asked to make two sets of values and principles: one for donors who would be providing the financial resources and another for civil society organizations who would be accessing the mechanisms. After each group’s presentation, the other group were invited to ask questions and comment on what they just heard.

Below are what they came up with as well as some of the discussions that followed.

Group 1 Principles

Donors

• Decentralize and localize grants to cover more CSOs for funding
• Have income threshold for organizations to apply
• Provide increased percentage for overhead costs
• Open communication channels with project implementers
• Consider specific contents of CSOs and recognize pressing risks
• Provide flexibility in reporting for CSOs

CSOs

• Compliance! Not just for donor requirements but what we do for the community to support
• Be open to co-creating with other CSOs
• No to tokenization, yes to participative empowerment
• Share info & best practices in project proposal
• Do not monopolize issues — recognize needs of other CSOs
• Build large chain of community

 

Reading what Group 01 proposed for donors and CSOs, the points center around the idea that support mechanisms should be inclusive of smaller, grassroots organizations. Many donors tend to favor “donor darlings”, larger organizations who are awarded large portions of the funding for civil society due to their ability to attend large gatherings, comply with strict reporting requirements, and resources to fundraise.

A participant from Indonesia shared the principle of “Don’t eat your children”. It is followed by a coalition of Indonesian civil society organizations to mean larger organizations cannot apply for projects which are more appropriate for smaller community organizations. This prevents monopolization of opportunities.

Extending further the idea of preventing monopolization is the desire for CSOs to see themselves as part of a larger ecosystem. They should be open to greater involvement of small organizations from co-creating and implementing projects, to openly sharing information and best practices.

Lastly, which reflects the composition of the participants, there was a push to have meaningful participation from youth groups in decision-making. This will lead to not only inclusivity and diversity but also ensure that the issues of the next generation are addressed.

Group 4 Principles

Donors:

• Realistic
• Support the holistic (not only activities)
• Flexible – reaching the same goal but flexible in action
• Can become umbrella organization to other CSOs who cannot access or not eligible for support
• Process: Writing proposal
• Individual applicants can apply

CSOs:

• Transparency
• Criteria to be inclusive
• Have a good MEL or MERLIN plan
• Realistic on project to not add many components

Both

• Risk management (set criteria that does not burden some CSOs)
• Applicant expertise (to help funding support)
• Cross-cutting corners (intersectional)
• Not only open to all, but to support
• Organizational development to be considered

 

For Group 4, there was a discussion on both CSOs and donors needing to be realistic about the proposals they submit and what they expect applicants are able to do. By promising or expecting too much, it leads to overburdening groups and organization, and burnout of their team members. There needs to be an appreciation that funding should also be seen as holistic support for an organization. They should not only be seen as directed towards one project but as a way to help organizations to gain and grow capacities.

There was a desire to define flexibility not only on how financial resources can be spent or on the ability to modify activities based on changing contexts but also on what policies are in place for an organization or group. It was shared that documented policies are only one way of demonstrating accountability. There could be conversations on practices and commitments or being open to fiscal sponsorships.

There is also a question of what a group of grassroots leaders or activists want to do in the future. Do they want to be a registered organization or do they want to stay being an informal group? Registration does have its benefits, which comes with more responsibility and overhead costs. Sometimes it depends on how much support is actually being provided. Policy development can be a burdensome process, which can overburden smaller groups. The amount they’re expecting to receive should be commensurate to the amount of work necessary to have the required policies in place.

And with this, we end the final DDI Update. The prototypes and the principles will be included in the final report to CIVICUS. Hopefully these will be part of the rollout for the second phase of DDI, which will cover the actual implementation of the support mechanisms. It was a great pleasure for the I4C-EA team to facilitate this co-design process.

---