 We are going to start setting people in now. Thank you, good luck everyone. Welcome to Catalyzing Change Week. This year's Catalyzing Change Week is about solutions from the front lines by social innovators. In 2022, Catalyst 2030 concentrated its efforts on bringing government leaders and front line solutions to the forefront. Collaborations led by members from the global south produce groundbreaking reports on climate and transforming education with an emphasis on offering local solutions. We continue Darmishing to create an enabling environment for social entrepreneurs to flourish by initiating a letter to donors signed by more than 1,200 social entrepreneurs and innovators. Catalyst 2030 awards ceremony was spectacular and the awards themselves welcomed by the private sector, governments, bio multilaterals and donors. Catalyst 2030 as a movement is disruptive. One of the best things I think that's come out of Catalyst 2030 so far is incredible collaboration across the ecosystem that just didn't exist before Catalyst came into being. The thing I love most about Catalyst is that it's an open movement for social entrepreneurs around the world. I'd encourage anyone who's looking to be more connected with their local communities around social development goals to come along to Catalyzing Change Week. Welcome to Catalyzing Change Week. Great, well thank you. Welcome everybody to the session on locally led development and the compliance conundrum. It's great to have so many of you joining us for what I hope is going to be a really fascinating conversation. There's some housekeeping I think is going to be just a couple of notes put into the chat by Mal. Thank you Mal and Nunez for helping on the logistical side of this session. Please introduce yourselves in chat as well. We'd love to know kind of why you're interested in this topic, the organisation you represent and just really share your perspectives and questions as we go through the session. We will try as best as we can to make sure that there's time left so we can also engage in cleanery. Before we get started and I introduce the panel that we've got today, I'd just like to take a second to set the scene a bit for this discussion and describe where we see TechSoup's role in this work. You'll also hear a bit more about a specific programme that we operate that really gets to the heart of these issues. So TechSoup is a global network of non-profit support and infrastructure organisations. We focus on digital capacity building and transformation and also provide a range of betting services to support donors and grantmakers, scale and streamline their giving, so be that product, software, technology or grants. And we have learned through our work that among civil society organisations, even given the interest in equity and philanthropy and trust-based initiatives, there is a very broad acceptance of the need for accountability and the recognition that certain organisational processes and structures need to be demonstrated. These organisations also accept that international funders have certain accountability and compliance requirements that they must meet. However, we've also heard a concern that not only can due diligence be opaque and a seemingly extractive exercise, it actively disadvantages local grassroots organisations who are the focus of commitments, as you know, such as Grand Bargain and movements like Shift the Power. And our sense really is that the sector at large is growing quite frustrated with the failure to progress on these commitments. So, from our work, we feel that there are many questions that need to be addressed. For example, why are smaller local organisations still considered riskier than larger international organisations? How can local organisations be positioned from a place of strength instead of from their weaknesses? How can we reimagine risk and change how conversations between local organisations and funders unfold to ensure a positive and progressive relationship that also results in funding flowing directly to these organisations? And how do local organisations take their place at the table as a strategic partner rather than simply an implementing organisation? So ultimately, how do we reduce the distance between international funders and local organisations and move to a transformational, mutually trusting conversation and relationship? So they're big questions. And what we want to do in this session is really consider them from an operational perspective to uncover where their key blockages lie from a risk sharing and a compliance perspective. So we've structured this conversation as a conversation to get a view from the funder perspective, the national NGO perspective, and also the international, more global perspective. And so without further ado, I would be delighted to introduce our panel, a real expert panel for us today. So starting with Rachel, Rachel Hugie from the Conrad Hilton Foundation. Rachel manages the development and implementation of a partnership strategy that goes beyond financial grant making to build and leverage the work of the Conrad Hilton Foundation to really help catalyze and accelerate its goals to high impact relationships. So our previous role as a program associate Rachel supported the international programs team work in disaster relief and recovery, as well as avoidable blindness. Prior to joining Hilton she worked on water sanitation and hygiene issues with Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And she's also had a number of roles in the National Park Service Mercy Corps and Peace Corps. And now Joe Van Dyke is head of capacity development at WACC, the West Africa Civil Society Institute. Charles is a social activist, social justice activist and thought leader with expertise in strengthening civil society. He is a founding member of the International Consortium on closing civic space and initiative of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He is a member of the governing board of Africans Rising. He's a trustee of Intrek in the UK and an advisory board member of disrupt development in the Netherlands. He's a core team member of the reimagining INGO's system change initiative, Ringo, and a certified change the game Academy master trainer. Naomi Iot Naomi has dedicated over 15 years of her career to leadership development and humanitarian programming positions of local and national organizations in Uganda. As a program planning and management specialist, while using her expertise expertise in organizational development to strengthen the capacities of various local and national organizations in Uganda Malawi, Rwanda Burundi and Kenya as the Africa advisory board member of spirit in action. She's currently team leader of CapAGE Uganda and coordinator of the local coalition accelerator Uganda program. She was recently reelected as the current chairperson of the C4C working group charter for change working group in Uganda, where her focus has been on advocacy for quality relationships between INGO's and local actors. And last but by no means least, Lynette Micheni from TechSoup Africa. Lynette is the programs manager at STEP and manages the relationship with the global network partners, while working with other team members across the globe to continuously develop and roll out the STEP framework, and also provides support to know on the nonprofit digital resiliency programs in Africa. Lyn is an incredibly versatile development manager and organization development practitioner. And her experience cuts across resource mobilization, project management and grants administration in sectors across youth development, human rights, good governance, livelihoods and education development. Before TechSoup, she consulted for internews Kenya, emerging leaders foundation Africa, moving the goal post Caliphi and power 254. She tells me she's very glad to be back in the philanthropic sector, having started her development career at the Kenya Community Development Foundation, a much value TechSoup partner as well. So with those introductions out the way. I welcome you all. As I say delighted to have you here. And first of all, I want to zoom out a little bit and take a look at kind of the current context the current situation and Charles if I could ask you the first question. How local is local. And where in your view are we with the with the localization debate. Thanks so much Caroline hello to everyone nice to see a lot of colleagues and friends online. So I mean local for me is the reality of the context and the ecosystem in which communities are existing right now and where we engage as national local organizations. Locals of course about the needs of these communities or our communities is also about community assets about their voice it's about knowledge indigenous knowledge networks and expertise within these communities. So local is their reality is their day to day commitment to overcome the development challenges that they face so it's so for for us. It's a constant survival. It's a battle between survival and opportunities and possibilities to thrive so the whole idea and concept of localization is not necessarily new. It's always been practiced within communities. It's been like an intrinsic way of being and doing the challenge is that most of the indigenous ways of doing things have not been documented or mainstreamed. And so, a lot of the times, the different ways of working are not out there but communities have found ways to to respond to their own challenges and are still doing are still doing that. So I think it's great that we are now amplifying the whole issue of localization. And through these debates and these conversations, and we are paying more attention to the fact that localization should be centered and driven by the communities themselves. But for us to really see the fruits of this movement I call it a movement of, I think, we need to practically come together and practically tackle the unequal power relations the current idea of the international aid system itself. And the good thing is that I think there's now a recognition that things are not working is not fit for purpose. So we need alternatives we need to do things differently. So there's been a lot of debates. Sadly, the debates have been a lot more on the supply side. There's been a lot of discussions and debates and conversations there. I think the challenge is been on the demand side on how we get these conversations and debates happening more for the lack of a better word in the global south and national and local organizations. And I think there's not been enough attention paid to mobilizing southern actors to build some sort of concerted and coordinated efforts or to demand for some of these, some of these changes but then but then they are bright spots. And I'm happy to talk about some of these bright spots. There's been a recent development in India, which I think it's something that we all should pay attention to. Our colleagues from the humanitarian aid international. I think just recently, I think it was around April, you know, they, they came with the form the coalition of organization they call it local local organizations coalition for advancing localization. And they've come up with a charter of accountability. So these are Indian local and national NGOs and grassroots organizations. And they've come in humanitarian actors and they've come up with a set of principles and commitments and for me, one of the things I love about what they're doing is their commitment in holding I NGOs and funders accountable. And so one of their commitments is basically to support the signatories of the charter for change, the grand bargain and more recently the pledge for change, which I think it's great so they are basically mirroring the funders that are in these things in these documents or in these pledges as a way of, of negotiating their relationships with I NGOs and funders and I believe this is a model that could be replicated in other countries and other regions within within the global south. And so I think we need to pay attention to this because we really need to invest more in mobilizing the voice and the perspectives from the global south to make this happen. But I also want to mention other efforts that are happening because if you're looking at the localization conversation we need to recognize the efforts that are going on for example with Ringo, which have been involved in. Yeah, it's been an amazing journey. Thank you whoever that was amazing journey so far. We've had a lot of engagement through the Ringo process. We are we are in the second phase of that Ringo process, looking at how we can influence institutional funders and also influence board members of I NGOs. There's a lot of work that has gone through in terms of prototypes that have come and models and alternative models that have come alternative models in terms of grant making compliance and risk sharing decolonization etc. So there are some exciting things that are coming out of the Ringo process but it's important for us to recognize that there are also other efforts and we need to also make sure that these efforts are also recognized the pledge for change. I think it's an amazing effort to get I NGOs to pledge around specific areas of equitable partnerships, authentic storytelling and influencing the wider sector, which I think is amazing organizations like peace direct within the peace building are also working on decolonizing the age system looking at having consultations to explore a polarized approach to partnerships across aid and peace building which is amazing. Currently action aid international is also working very hard on decolonizing its own internal structures and Federation oxfarm GB is doing the same thing. Oxfarm in Ghana is looking at equitable partnerships. So these are amazing examples the Council of foundations, and we've had the privilege of working with the Council of foundations on a funder action part exploring how funders can support in a more empowering way. Grassroots organizations really reducing the bureaucracy reducing the challenges that come with risk and compliance and really pushing a more, more investment in supporting these organizations themselves in terms of core funding and also pushing a co creation approach to doing things so that that I think is great recently in Ghana and in Malawi and in Gambia fcdo and coming if I work here on a shift the power program. And then of course I can't go without talking about tech suit step due diligence, which is I think is a, is a way of reframing the whole idea of due diligence from a typical assessment kind of tool to a more health check, helping organizations to look at the health status of their operations, and then supporting them to become much stronger. So, yes, so the localization debate I think is evolving I think there's some really good things happening, but we still have a long way to go in terms of within the system actually shifting the policies and practices. So that we actually see the fruits of all these efforts. So thank you so much Caroline. Thank you Charles for that very wide ranging and I know you wouldn't have been able to touch on every fantastic initiative and work that organizations are doing but that really helps set the scene. Naomi, if I could just move to you, given your work at the national level and maybe building a little bit on what Charles has told us about work that's going on already but where do you see that there may be blind spots and debates around locally led development and specifically when we're talking about perceptions of risk and compliance. Thank you and good evening and good morning to everyone in the room thank you for joining this discussion which is quite critical at this moment. We're looking at risks and compliance when we're talking of risk we are looking at generally across governance administration human resource financial management, but looking at organizational management, management quality, and then involvement of the local actors in decision making processes across these areas. The entire compliance issue is normally all those areas I've mentioned are rarely considered as direct funding, especially for local and national actors in terms of overhead costs. So there is already a burden of just being given short term projects to just support in helping a certain project get completed. In addition to having no budgets for overhead costs, and yet these overhead costs are what suffocates performance are what suffocates compliance are what they are for paid way for risks in organizations. So other actors are termed as being highly risky. However, have we given them have we told the local and national actors enough to be able to mitigate these risks in terms of ensuring that we give them overhead costs. And in case that any overhead costs, they are quite minimal to then cater for only one sector across compliance. We're going to talk about compliance we're having about six areas sub sectors under that, like I have already mentioned. Now if local actors are getting some resources and overhead costs, it is getting for something very small maybe the administration component. How about the internal risk management component, how about the governance, how about the human resource for them to be able to get in quality human resource, because compliance quality compliance, effectiveness in compliance and internal risk management goes hand in hand with quality human resource. So I see that as a big gap that eventually make local actors are not resource sufficient enough, especially through the overhead cost component so that they're able to mitigate the risks. And then at the end of the day, some don't have audit reports, some don't have good staff human resource to be able to put the systems, policies and procedures internal controls in place. They don't even have resources to hire external auditors. So when you come to us for audit reports, they're like where do we get in Uganda will talk about three million to above for you to get a certified audit firm to do your audit and give you the good audit reports. So that is a blind spot to the local actors are not in the decision making spaces. I was looking at research street child. Now, if even we haven't received those commitments to go to the local actors, we were talking of 25% at 2016. We are now into and globally we are 21% in Uganda. And what percentage are in different countries so if we can still don't have resources for the money and to what extent do we even have resources to ensure that we have internal risk management systems and procedures in within the local actors. However, I'm not saying there's nothing being done. As a coordinator of the local coalition accelerator we have donors who are already converted and are not are not ready to just frame local national actors as as high risk, but they are providing opportunity for for local actors to be resourced and their capacity to enable them to meet these standards and lower down from being highly risked. So the main issue is there's no resources for for for systematic capacity strengthening a lot of capacity strengthening of local actors are are projectised. And that is a blind spot. If we can move away from supporting local actors to just implement a certain grant to supporting them grow systematically, procedure and in governance and internal risk management, then the conversation of risk will go down. So basically for me that's where I see the challenge or the major blind spot that that is affecting the local national actors, especially at the national level that at the end of the day they end up framing them. So if we can have more of converters like the Hilton Foundation who are willing to spend their time and come and listen to a group of local actors to listen to their pains and their games and they are unique of doing things because for us it is about the community. What the community tells us is what we do. We like I can echo what someone told us we are just having a reflection land session recently said guys, we can we can quarrel we can do whatever we want as local actors in this room. What is important is what did the community tell us the community must be at the center. So for us as local actors, if I can echo what Charles said, it's about the community. It's about what is biting the community most as I'm in this meeting there is a group of the Somali community saying hey now you've not come to us you need to come, you need to bring the local coalition accelerator down here. So for us it is about the community. So lack of resources to tool compliance and internal risk management is the major blind spot that makes us to be framed as highly risky. Fantastic Naomi thank you and and you've already spoken about Hilton Foundation. And so Rachel to bring you into the conversation, you know as a funder what conversations are you having about local development with other funders, and especially regarding you know obviously direct funding of local organizations how do those conversations pan out. Yeah, absolutely. And we're going to that I just first I want to thank you for you all for having me as a part of this panel it's really an honor and I just wanted to lift the very first thing Charles said which I wrote down which is the idea of localization is not new is an intrinsic way of doing and being. I'm very conscious that I think the donor funder community sometimes likes to claim that this is a new trend and it's not it's been existence for as long as communities have so. In Hilton Foundation, we have made a whole organization commitment to localization in line with what the US government has the power has set a target of 25% along with a grand bargain. And so we're working towards that goal of shifting 25% of our funding directly to local organizations like Waxiana LCA for example. In philanthropy I think really over the last year we've seen a growing interest and focus and understanding of the need for locally led development. And I think what we're starting to see finally and what I'm hoping to have this conversation about is a reframing of risk. What is the risk of not doing locally led development we funded some research with our partner will connect where they found that projects that were not locally owned and managed simply were not continued past the project lifetime. So if the risk. So to me that's the risk of losing 100% of your investment right at the projects exist. So I think that's one way of looking at it. I think as Naomi spoke to there is risk. I really don't like the framing of the conversation that is local organizations are risky. This is not true. In my personal experience the only compliance issue I've ever had as a philanthropy officer, and I've been in this job for 10 years was a giant university based in the United States and I will never name them but I don't see the risk with our local partners they have incredible capacity both technical and in the relationship with the community. And so I think that's a misnomer that I just want to identify right off the bat. And I think that we need to have a conversation about risk as a two way street. So, part of my trip in Uganda when I was visiting with Naomi also met with Dr. Sosuba who's been involved in the Ringo initiative that that trials was just talking about. And I think because donors have the funding we often are framed as coming with assets to the community right but there's assets in the community as well. Otherwise we wouldn't be there, we wouldn't be working with communities and acknowledging that that the risk is a two way street that there's risks of working with donors as Naomi said, you know, these projectiles grant cycles where nonprofits are starved for overhead and that's not healthy for the infrastructure or for the system so I think trying to reframe that conversation is is part of the work that I'm doing and I'm starting to see that more. So I think that's what I'm doing in the West Carolina within the philanthropic sector, understanding of the need and the value of local actors, the sustainability component of it. You know one component that came up quite a bit in our recent trip was the ability of local actors to really partner with local governments who are another key part of this conversation. And I think, you know as we'll get to a little bit more in this conversations of infrastructure needs to be developed but I just want to acknowledge some both sides of the table right it's not, it's not simply local organizations it's donors as well. Yes well taken. Thank you Rachel I think that's an important thing to say. So like maybe if we can unpack that a little bit. Because, you know I think that it, there is no knowledge that we need to be more nuanced generally about how we reframe these issues. It still seems to me, at least from where I sit that we get a little bit stuck though when it comes to sort of the reality of how do you work with in and so back to you Charles, and really kind of with your, your Ringo hat on I guess specifically in your conversations with the international NGOs. How does that go to they find that compliance is a hindrance for them, moving towards their kind of grand bargain commitments. And how can they contribute this is a valuable important sector but I sometimes feel they sit a little bit aside from these, these broader conversations, at least maybe in the philanthropic world so what contributions do you think they can make. Yeah, yeah I think that's a really, really great question. From our work with the NGOs are conversations. It's clear that there's a certain level of frustration with the way due diligence is done and how that is affecting their partnerships actually with national and local organizations, I think, I think, most people will say that look it's the value chain. It's we get the money from somewhere and, and we also have to sign certain contracts we also have to be compliant. And so, you know, it's an issue of transferring that risk or transferring those complexities down this value chain. But one of the things that I think it is important is as we are having these conversations is to ask ourselves maybe two, two questions. What has been the primary objective of due diligence. I think we need to go back to the basics. Why was due diligence being done. What was the ultimate objective of that. How has due diligence process is being conducted. Right. And so, I think there's a recognition that the framing of due diligence itself needs to be redefined or re re imagine that's one of the biggest challenges. We have a situation where due diligence, you know it's seen, you know, as a risk assessment and compliance tool and I think it's a really narrow way of looking at that process itself. And, and when you talk to grassroots organizations. A lot of the times, they, they, one of the jokes that we share is that you know, they eliminate us by complexity, you know, it's like a tool to eliminate or to justify why certain organizations do not, you know, receive a certain amount of funding, or even get access to funding, because they have a certain lack of infrastructure, or a certain way they work that might not align with the comfort of how that due diligence process has been set up in the workplace. And so, one of the frustrations of NGOs is that immediately this due diligence is done. The relationship becomes trans transactional. Right. Just because of the way it is done and it's very difficult then to build on such a relationship to make it transformative. Right. So it becomes a typical funding relationship and nothing more. Right. So this has been some of the challenges that they've expressed. But one of the things that I think it's important to talk about is the fact that since there's a recognition that we need to reframe the question is how do we make the due diligence process a more empowering process. And one of the things that I've seen that seems to be working is this whole idea of co-creating, right, but not co-creating when a tool has been developed or the process has been developed and asking for suggestions or input, but actually co-creating for a due diligence process that is actually comes like a health check for organizations. Not a risk assessment to necessarily, but to help organizations identify where they are strong, where they are weak, where they need to invest, where they need more support. Right. And also to help organizations identify the assets that they already have. They may not have money, but they do have other types of assets. So a due diligence process that is both needs-based, yes, but also recognizes can help organizations recognize their assets or leverage on those assets. So for me, I think it's about getting a process that promotes equitable partnership. So the whole idea of co-creation, but not just co-creation in itself, but co-creation from conception. And it's going to be a huge challenge for all of us to do that. But I think this is, this must be something that we challenge ourselves to do in order to change things, to make this process a bit more empowering, especially for grassroots organizations who are actually doing a lot more of the work in these communities. Thank you. You know, I think that that's fantastic insight and input. I mean, one of the challenges I see is that there still tends to be responsibility shifted, you know, with the INGOs. They have their frustration. So it's sort of looking up the value chain above them and saying, well, when those people move, then we can move. You know, it's a little bit about how do we unblock that and really get to this new way of thinking about things in a co-creative way that is very challenging, I guess, for everybody who's used to doing things in the day-to-day way with those everyday pressures of moving money. Naomi, I'm interested in the coalition work that you are doing and how or if even, you know, there's a different experience if you are a member of a coalition and having to respond and think about risk and due diligence. I'm still using those words, forgive me. This is how you might, if you are an individual organization with a one-to-one relationship with a funder. Thank you. The way the local coalition accelerator in Uganda is operating is quite unique. I'll just pick it up from Charles. He talks about a process of equitable partnership and co-creation. We were allowed to create our own guiding document, which I find very successful. Why? Because when we created our own guiding document, we looked at what is the NGO risk that is happening in terms of what is the government of Uganda, qualifying as an organization to operate. And we agreed on certain criteria that for you to be a member of the coalition, you should have met because we did. Naomi, can you hear us? I think we might have lost you. Is it just me or is everyone? Yeah, I think I can hear her. I will send her a little chat, maybe if we can just move on to Rachel. Yes, she's dropped off, isn't she? Okay. So Rachel, once again, from the funder perspective, what opportunities do you see in changing the way that this dynamic and the relationship exists today? What's Hilton's thinking around that and what challenges do you anticipate in these opportunities? Absolutely. So I'll start internal with Hilton and then spend an aperture a little bit externally. And Caroline, we had an interesting conversation about this because even as a program officer within the Hilton Foundation, when I was thinking about our due diligence process, it was like, who owns that really? Who has the authority to change that? And I just want to say that because I think it might be illuminating to not profit partners about how complex these can be, especially in kind of larger foundations with many different departments. And we really see it in three kind of streams. I did my research, I talked to my colleagues, and it's our finance department. Are the funds getting to the end organization? That's literally the wire transfer issue. From a grants management side, it's, does the organization, oh Naomi, let me just finish my sentence then Naomi, we'll go back to you. From a grants management perspective, it's, you know, does the organization comply with either the US law, where that's where they're based, or with the rules in their country that they can operate. And then from the program perspective, from my perspective, the risk is do an organization achieve its impact. And I think that's just helpful to think about those three streams because we can really, I think to Charles and Naomi's point, get at all three of those in a way that feels more like partnership and relationship than like one side evaluating the other. And that's the space I'd like to get to. So I have wanted to say that first I want to let Naomi hear more from her. Thank you. So, I was saying sorry about that internet in the community. So, so what I was saying is we were given opportunity to design our own document to decide, are you ready to receive resources, or we can maintain in the coalition as you can and support you to strengthen your system internally as a member of the coalition. And also, we're allowed to allocate some resources to support members to grow, develop this thematic capacity strengthening. So, help them know how to do audit, how to attain a finance intelligence authority certificate, because we created these criterias by ourselves. So we have the capacity to ensure that we do do diligence, but how many others who are not members of the coalition can have the opportunity that we had. That was a plus for us. And if that can be done with others, rather than being judgmental, I wanted to borrow Charles once to look at transformational processes, rather than transactional processes. And then, after that, we then designed the due diligence process but it was not so complicated the one which looks like it's fault finding. But again, it enabled us to look through organizational management financial systems. It instead helped us to see the gaps that we had that we could train ourselves to get out all. And from a grant of $180,000, we are now upgraded to $1 million. And we are still a coalition. And we still have the issues that we sought out as ourselves and it is not the donor coming in or our technical advisors as the share trust and we're the advisory coming in, but it is us. You know, we get it in our reflection, learn and review meeting and we're like, no, we don't want to be at risk with the government. We don't want to be at risk with the community that we serve. We don't want to be at risk as a coalition in terms of dying in the next few years. We want to continue being in the community. So we are self-checking ourselves, we do self-reflections and then self-checks to improve quality of work, improve accountability to each other, and above all, to improve accountability to the community that we serve. Many other local actors have such opportunities. These are the opportunities that need to be cascaded to other local actors, and yet there are very few. There are few people who appreciate these processes over here. Thank you, Naomi. And I think, you know, it shows a lot of this stuff is slow work, right? You know, the building of a coalition, the bringing everyone along with you. You know, everyone needs the space and the time and the freedom to be able to do that in a way that's appropriate according to who your membership is, right? So there's a lot to learn from what you're going through and what you've been through. I've got my eye on the time a little bit, Rachel. I'd love to hear this was the end of your thoughts, if you like. So please do jump back on in. I mean, luckily, actually, I was mostly going to speak to some of the amazing models that I've seen in the field and I feel like Charles did a shout out to a lot of those in his first statement. I mean, the local coalition accelerator, this is what gives me a lot of hope in these conversations is that I see conversations like we're having right here are happening in a lot of different venues and a lot of different initiatives have kind of taken root and are starting to gain traction. So I think the work of the local coalition accelerator has been really incredible. One thing, again, speaking from the donor perspective about infrastructure, what needs to be developed to make local development possible. I think a lot of it is actually on the supply side to use Charles language is. So as a program officer who manages, you know, a certain budget, it's very hard for me to make individual grants to, for example, each of the 14 organizations in the local coalition accelerator that Naomi is a part of. But through having a thoughtful intermediary that can also play that hands on peer to peer learning role. I can have much greater impact on the funds that I invest. So I think, you know, looking for models of thoughtful intermediaries, like that looking for places where we're coming up with new ways of doing age old practices like Ringo. And thinking about as an officer, where are the levers that you have full of control, right there's things at an institutional level that you can't quite manage. But I think that most of us if we looked at the way our budgets are developed internally, we could provide a little space for more overhead and capacity building for local organizations right we couldn't work that into project budgets. And so I think it's going to take, not just a whole institution approach, like Hilton, but a whole of philanthropy approach and kind of a reorienting our mindset of what it takes to make and locally develop locally like development more possible. Sorry, I need more coffee. Thank you, Rachel. I would love to bring in people from, you know, everyone else on this call. And so we have. We could talk as a small group forever. We've got some more questions but if you don't mind I'm just going to ask Lynn just speak to the step program, just bring that kind of context into the conversation. And then hopefully we can have still a few minutes to open it up to plenary. So Lynn, please over to you. Thank you Caroline. So, indeed, as we've been discussing, there are different initiatives that we are investing in as actors. In the journey of localization, you would see that some actors are investing more time in changing the narrative around localization. Others would invest in tools and others would even find the process. Caroline spoke into who takes. So I won't go through that, but really work with small, the smallest nonprofits around the world. And much of the work we do is contributing to their resiliency, whether that's by providing the mission critical resources that they will need, particularly as it comes as a, as it regards digital transformation. And so when you talk about step and as tech so we said, and we have been working with nonprofits over this many years and how do we contribute to the localization agenda. I will not also get into the numbers. They have been mentioned in the, in the discussions before, but really our contribution to this big, big, big agenda around localization. And I was thinking about how do we contribute to having the small nonprofits, the organization that are closest to the communities to access funding. And from our experience, we have realized and observed and also did significant research. And we know and we acknowledge that due diligence framework is a key barrier as to how financing flows from the funding community to the smallest nonprofits in the world. And so how tech soup is contributing to this agenda is through step, which is a tier due diligence. And really this is a localized digital platform that provides a 360 degree view of CSOs in terms of their structure, their governance and compliance processes. But beyond that is finding out what is their existing assets, how we harness those assets, and even where they are challenges and gaps, how do you work together to strengthen their capacity. And we argue that it is possible to do that while still meeting its national requirements, especially those requirements that might take a long time to change, as we acknowledge that some of these conversations take a lot of time. So what I would imagine that most of us would be familiar with due diligence, but for purposes of getting all of us on the same level. We identify due diligence as a means to understand an organization's internal processes standards and safeguards, and really this is information that I've found out. In order to see how aligned they are with the organization that they are working with. What we have been discussing here is that due diligence, excuse me, as it prevents effective distribution of philanthropy and humanitarian aid. Already we have talked about the very small percentage of funding that goes to local CSOs as a 2021 only 0.4% of humanitarian assistance funding went to local actors. And also the way that due diligence has been really it's defined from a Western perspective, as well as the duplicative costly and time consuming nature of due diligence. Anyone who has actually done fundraising or managers and nonprofits, you identify with how costly and time consuming due diligence is, especially if you're having to do this with every other founder that is interested in the nonprofits. In the path due diligence really has been tied to start the donor interest. And as Rachel said we want to move that conversation so that how we look at due diligence or even how we define risk is really from both sides of the funders, as well as the implementing organizations. So step then is an improvement of all this existing due diligence and how is that, how are we different or how have we structured this. One is that it's tiered in order to be able to recognize that nonprofits come in different shapes and sizes. The texts are different. And so to not be realistic to want to, you know, shape an unprofit tool to perform that they are not necessarily interested anymore that would fit their reality. And so we have different tiers that an organization is able to locate themselves, and I will take the team to that shortly. The other thing that's different is that we work with local evaluators and in local languages, even in recognizing that languages are key barrier. And now the standard part of step then allows us to save time and resources that come as a result of the duplication of different due diligence frameworks. So in talking with different nonprofits you hear some organizations are going to have gone through over five due diligence frameworks in a year in their process of, you know, fundraising and imagine a small nonprofit of, you know, five full time staff, and you're having to spend all this time in doing the same thing. I mean, the information they're sharing to the different funders is really similar. So how do we reduce that duplication and save the time for nonprofits to focus on their missions. And also that the CSOs need to feel that the due diligence is an empowering process and a tool for them. So in developing step we invested in looking at other due diligence frameworks. And as you'll see on the screen we have, you know, benchmarked with existing frameworks from the different funders that you can see on the screen. And the nine streams that the framework looks into, there are nine streams as we are now, and that touches from governance to how we work with implementing partners, how is the risk management. And one thing that we would appreciate with step is that we are keen to know what is the process, how do you go about it. And we're supposed to just asking for do you have this document, upload this document or do you have this. So step is not a pass and fail mechanism, but it's a process that is designed to really understand the organization's systems and processes as they are, and in a language that is really accommodative to the different audiences that we would have. We've talked about our global network. Currently we've been working with our partners in West Africa and that is Waxi in South Africa Pombano, in Kenya we are working with the Kenya Community Development Foundation. We are also working with CEMF in Mexico. And we are keen to expand the network and leverage their resources to ensure that the process is as localized as possible. So we talked about the tiering system. And so far in this pilot that we are working on, the tiers are four, and really they help us to differentiate organizations based on the stage that they are in, or even the level they would want to advance their systems. And I would not get into the specifics but we would find this in our website, but as the organization continues to, you know, advance their systems and the level of sophistication they would want, or a small family foundation in a, you know, a coastal village in Tanzania, they would be able to find themselves in this framework and ensure their reality as accurately as possible. So what happens after the due diligence then, we provide every organization with this kind of a report as you can see on the screen. The idea of this report is really to help the organization see their strengths and the areas we want to invest in. And we also provide a summary of recommendations. In the past we have seen nonprofits use this report to solicit for funds, especially institutional strengthening funds with different funders. And as you will notice, the way that the report is designed is really to appreciate the strengths of the organization as opposed to, you know, creating a sense of what they do not have or the weaknesses. So this report is shared by with the permission from the nonprofit and the nonprofit is free to, you know, use this document in their other conversations, but beyond giving them recommendations and working together with a nonprofit to identify their areas of strengthening. So we have invested in an organizational strengthening portal within step. And so we are creating resources that are speaking into the nine streams. And on this portal you find these resources are trained from videos to articles to templates to guide books, handbooks, webinars, courses from different sources, we have not duplicated this. So we will find content from other content providers, whether that's your mentor, Kaya, our very own local partners who are CKCDF have lots of resources for nonprofits, and we are working to having this information. So one of the calls to action is if you have resources that you think would benefit the nonprofit, we are happy to have a conversation as to how those resources would be in the resource portal. And finally, what are some of the benefits of step. We save the obvious around flow and transfer funds, but also for the nonprofit is really more of a self audit, a participatory process that allows them to reflect on the organization and how they can strengthen their systems and structures and So, sorry. We did yes. And those are people that I know pretty well I sort of said be there or else. So, I think we're coming to the end of the session so sorry to cut you off there. Thank you. Well, listen, I hope that was was useful just to say try to pry by a little bit. I'm trying to do two things at once. Yeah, Matt. But I think if you can see in the chat that there's been some suggestion or that we carry on this conversation because because we could talk for hours. There's someone who is interested in learning more and talking about these issues more from just not just step but also more broadly as we've been having at the beginning of the session. I think it's it's rich for for for deeper discussion and understanding and more importantly I think there's so many initiatives out there that could really do with some collaboration and convening. We're very eager for that. And so, Matthew has put his email address I believe in the chat and so has Mel. He contacted us at step at TechSoup.org. We would love to talk more. So sorry we can open to plenary today. So with that I will thank everybody to our panelists Rachel Charles Naomi and Lynette many many thanks and to all of you for joining. We really appreciated your attention and participation. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks so much. Thank you.