The Problem of Philanthropese

I will never forget the looks of incredulity pointed at me while I tried to explain the difference between an activity and an output, before outcomes even came into the mix. I was in northeast India, working with frontline civil society leaders who had, between them, supported hundreds of thousands of vulnerable individuals across over 20 years. Many had personally rescued victims of exploitation, trained as lawyers to defend women accused of prostitution, or completed PhDs in social work. Yet very few of these amazing individuals had managed to raise funding from donors outside their own communities. What funds they got to support their work was scraped together from their local communities, businesses and associated organisations.

To them, letters of interest, theories of change, and MEL systems were like a completely different language. The complex, confusing and often incomprehensible language I have dubbed ‘philanthropese’. A product of the International donor community’s (rightful) desire to understand how their money was being spent, this language has come to dominate international development over the past few decades. But, stood in that room in India, I was again challenged to think if we have really made a system fit for purpose.

All of the individuals I was training are highly skilled. They have run what, to many donors, would be astoundingly impactful and comprehensive projects. But they do not know how to write a project proposal, how to order their plans and activities into the neat boxes we have defined. Can we truly say that these boxes are the best system by which donors can understand projects? Have we fallen into the trap of prioritising our own convenience over allowing those doing the work to express themselves in the way that makes the most sense? Simply: who is philanthropese serving?

I am not alone in this thought. Many donors, especially trusts and foundations, are moving beyond the common proposal and reporting systems. They have simplified their funding structures, seeking to build long-term, trust-based relationships with their grantees. But there is a long way to go, especially when we consider the number of donors who still rely on overly complex, labour intensive proposals to allow people to even bid for their funds.

Philanthropese has its purpose. Often donors do not have expertise in the areas they are funding. There has to be a common language to enable them to access the plans and ideas of those they seek to fund. As someone who has been on the receiving end of some astoundingly poor project proposals, I can understand the temptation to hide behind increasingly complex requirements for funding. But this should be viewed as exactly that: a temptation. The donor-grantee relationship should be one of partnership, where both sides try to understand the other; our project proposal designs should reflect this.