5 things we learned from our funder forum on tech justice

On 19 November 2024, we hosted our first in-person funder forum on tech justice: dismantling oppression, building futures. It was also the first time we brought funders and grassroots groups together.

The forum explored how funders can support tech justice projects that address the needs of communities affected by the racist and islamophobic riots of August 2024.

Our aims were to:

• create a space to share insights, reflections, initiatives and innovative funding approaches
• explore what it takes to make sure this work is appropriately and sustainably supported, and resourced, in the long term
• build towards a collective commitment to making these interventions enduring and impactful

Our first article about the event summarised some of the work, insights and reflections shared by attendees delivering presentations. This second article centres on the main issues raised in the small group discussions that took place. It includes potential solutions and areas for further exploration. Views expressed aren’t necessarily Catalyst’s views.

1. Bias and fear can influence decisions about grant applications from Black and Brown-led organisations 

Attendees from grassroots organisations shared the challenges they’d faced when applying for funding. They noted that the 2024 Charity Digital Skills report found that it's twice as hard to get additional funding if you’re a Black-led organisation, compared to other types. 

Zoe Amar Digital has been doing outreach around this data with a selection of funders. Some are more open to looking at the issue than others. It’s important to feed this conversation about equity, digital and access to funding.

Fear and a lack of understanding of Islam, Islamophobia and the issues facing Muslim communities means that some funders don’t:

• want to be associated with Islam
• want to be seen to be ‘promoting’ it
• know how to have a conversation about it,

A lot of Muslim-led organisations adopt neutral branding to avoid discrimination or biased perception by audiences. Some funders attending mentioned fear of referring to anything even vaguely Islamic in their vision statements. 

“...inadvertently, funders are stopping people from being who they really are and expressing what drives them. This forces Muslim organisations to present as secular organisations.” - Attendee

2. Islamophobia drains resources and stifles progress for Muslim grassroots organisations

It traps Muslim organisations (and individuals) in a cycle of responding and reacting. They spend an enormous amount of time trying to defend themselves from ignorance and hate. This reduces their resources, mental capacity, time and money to do proactive work. Or creative thinking. 

“One of the things we forget is that Islamophobia is such a waste of time. Having to counter it holds Muslim communities back.” - Attendee

3. The funding sector doesn't understand tech

Many funder practices are rooted in history and tradition. This leaves them behind the curve when it comes to understanding tech design and development. Funders usually lack relationships with tech companies. They are poorly equipped to understand the importance and impact of tech. They’re often slow to respond to technological changes and shift their practices to reflect tech's impact on society.

Funders find tech daunting. They avoid talking about it. They don't see tech's potential to reduce oppression.

Funders need to get better at:

• closing theit tech knowledge gaps
• exploring how tech can be used to support systemic goals
• supporting and resourcing tech initiatives.

“It’s only now that philanthropy in the UK is starting to realise the huge implications of misinformation. I think we’re so slow that, by the time the sector comes up with solutions, technology will have moved on.” - Attendee

Some funders don’t understand the potential benefits of AI

It’s concerning that some funders look unfavourably on grant applicants who use AI. These funders don’t realise that it means they’ll receive more applications from organisations working alongside marginalised communities and doing great work – which benefits everyone in the long run.

“We need to be careful that funders don't inadvertently end up reinforcing a power dynamic where they see the application process as theirs. It should be a shared process. One where useful insights and value are exchanged in both directions.” - Attendee

There are funders, like the National Lottery Community Fund, whose policies acknowledge and give guidance on using AI for applications. 

Tech isn’t always viewed as a priority

Sometimes tech is seen as a ‘nice-to-have’ in a project, rather than essential. Organisations' digital needs are seen as secondary to others. For example, support for staffing projects for people experiencing poverty, homelessness or domestic abuse.

“Tech justice is part of the vehicle to achieve a positive future for the people and Earth. But some organisations and funders prioritise more imminent survival needs.” - Attendee

4. Decision-making trustees are far removed from the issues 

Many organisations have staff with experience of social justice issues, who can speak in depth about them. They care and are keen to mobilise their resources against oppression. But many funding proposals still go to trustees for final decisions, and most funder boards are dominated by members of dominant groups who lack the empathy and lived experience of issues. They lack deeper understanding of racism and Islamophobia. They don’t understand why these projects are necessary.

“People in power see things very differently. To what extent do they understand racism and Islamophobia? And to what extent does it feature in their DEI statements, or mission and vision?” - Attendee

5. Power imbalances between funders and applicants need to be addressed

More often than not, funders are involved in traditional, top-down relationships. So they:

• give a grant to ‘do good’
• hope that the community makes the most of the funding they’ve been given
• expect the community to send them a monitoring report

This is an old-fashioned kind of relationship, with power dynamics and imbalances that reflect those of wider society.

There’s minimal transparency around who’s setting priorities for funding, and the perspectives shaping these decisions.

And how are funders deciding whether projects have created meaningful solutions for these communities? We need to shift power to the communities who need those resources.

“We need to understand how we can influence upstream, how we can hold funders to account for the values they proclaim.” - Attendee

“I think decolonisation is what we’re looking for. Because everything comes back to whose knowledge and power is respected most.” - Attendee

Moving forward: potential solutions and areas for further exploration

Here is a selection of the ideas and suggestions that were made by attendees.

Build connections between funders and the tech sector

How can funders engage with, influence and galvanise the tech sector to support them? The tech sector makes a huge amount of profit, and some companies donate a percentage of their profits to charitable causes. How do we work with them to channel that into grassroots organisations?  

Use AI for good

One attendee spoke about a piece of work they’re involved in. Its focus is funding, and training, an AI tool to monitor the British print and broadcast media for negative reporting on Muslims and Islam in the UK. Up until now, a human being has been reading and reviewing articles. But the AI tool can do what used to be a week’s worth of monitoring in around five minutes.

This means this organisation isn’t having to spend time and energy refuting misinformation and lies. They can talk about who they really are instead. They have more time for community work. 

Small organisations don't often have the time, or experience, to navigate grant applications. But AI can help them gather data and produce applications.

"A map would be a helpful starting point. It would provide an overview of the organisations contributing to and working in the anti-racist, anti-oppression and liberatory tech space." - Attendee

We need deep work for meaningful change

Immediate responses to crises such as 2024’s racist and Islamophobic riots are valuable. But they’re not the solution in the absence of a strategy. We need long-term, meaningful, deep work. We know and acknowledge that this work is important. So given that there are capacity challenges and conflicting internal agendas, how might we resource tech justice work collectively? 

Use tech to support a movement

One funder spoke about their grantees who want to connect with others doing similar work. These members are interested in how they can build movement in their communities of place and of need.

Catalyst's Next Funder Forum: AI isn’t the problem

Our next Funders Forum is planned for 4th March 2025. The theme is ‘AI isn't the problem, the business models behind them are: examining AI’s failure of minoritised communities’. Fill in this form if you’d like to attend. Hope to see you there! 

‍

Thanks to everyone who attended the forum:

• Andy Curtis - Paul Hamlyn Foundation
• Sara Cooney - Lloyds Bank Foundation
• Fozia Irfan - BBC Children in Need
• Rizwan Yusoof - Funders in Good
• Zainab Qasim - Funders in Good
• Zoe Amar - Zoe Amar Digital
• Yasmin Farah - Camden Giving
• Abdou Sidibe - Paul Hamlyn Foundation
• Viv Ahmun - Black Men 4 Change
• Jake Ferguson - Black Equity Organisation
• Shaf Choudry - Seen on Screen Institute & The Riz Test
• Bonnie Chiu - The Social Investment Consultancy
• Sofiya Gatens - Joseph Rowntree Foundation
• Chloe Lloyd - City Bridge Foundation
• Arfah Farooq - Muslamic Makers
• Nichola Blackmore - The National Lottery Community Fund
• Zainab Ekrayem - inFocus
• Shanza Ali - Ardh

--