Ghana, a Giving for Change country with a population of over 32 million, is the second most populous country in West Africa. Like many other global economies, the COVID-19 pandemic wreaked havoc on the local economy, leading to increased inflation and a rising cost of living. For 2024, one of the biggest conversations in Ghana has been around the upcoming presidential election in December 2024. On December 7, Ghanaians voted to return former president John Mahama to office. Naana Jane Opoku-Agyemang—a member of the National Democratic Congress party (NDC)— becomes the vice president of Ghana, making her the first woman to hold this position.
Civicus in 2023 rated Ghana’s civic space as obstructed. With the presidential elections, there were possibilities of the civic space remaining constrained, with significant risks for CSOs working in areas perceived to challenge state authorities. The potential for repression was high, especially in cases of electoral violence or protests challenging election results. The new government’s position on free expression and assembly will shape the civic space in the coming years. Early indications suggest that civic actors may continue to face restrictions, particularly where advocacy efforts intersect with sensitive political topics.
For the past four years, the Giving for Change programme has been implemented by Star-Ghana, with support from WACSI, in Ghana. To learn how the work is shaping up, Ese Emerhi (Global Fund for Community Foundations) and Barry Knight (GFCF advisor) caught up with Charles Kojo Vandyck, Head of Capacity Development at WACSI, to learn more about their work in building community philanthropy through the Giving for Change programme and to reflect on the impact of the work so far. The interview was conducted in October 2024, and it has been edited for length and clarity.
How are things with you, and specifically, with WACSI? What are some of the big issues you are facing now?
Lately, there’s been a lot of attention paid to the work we’ve done, specifically with the RINGO project. It’s been one of WACSI’s main innovations for the past three years, working with others in the #ShiftThePower movement, and it has spotlighted other work that we do.
When we developed our current strategy – from 2023 to 2027 – one of the principles underpinning that work was to mirror the #ShiftThePower principles but in a way that made sense to us and our partners and in the way that we work. It has also made us pause and reflect internally about how we go about our work. It was challenging because, with the RINGO project, we are moving from a prescriptive way of working to a much more co-creation approach with our partners. This has meant more capacity and investment with staff and a greater investment in our work processes and the way in which we engage with partners.
Programmes like Giving for Change, the FCDO #ShiftThePower programme, and RINGO – which we are involved in – are all interconnected in one way or another. We’ve tried to weave many of the programmes principles together in such a way that the work in these different spaces complements one another. The overarching goal of all these initiatives is to ensure an enabling and just environment for civil society, especially within our region and in Africa, more broadly. It’s been an interesting period for us; the demands are greater, and the spotlight means that we must position ourselves to be able to respond effectively to all. We still have a long way to go in terms of things we need to learn, but thanks to our various partnerships, especially with Star-Ghana, we are putting these learnings into action.
I think the impact of what we begun with the CoPs won’t be felt for another two or three years.
One major achievement, is that, we now have our building! This is a major milestone for us and a step towards financial sustainability. It means we can now start generating income from the building and cutting down on the cost of rent. There are other investment opportunities we are also looking into that could help generate other types of income for us. Overall, it’s been an incredibly busy and eventful period for us, but also very challenging.
What would you say is the biggest achievement you’ve had so far?
I would say it is the impact of our work with RINGO. I don’t think we have really been able to quantify it fully; it’s probably greater than we think. We’ve been able to build a community and get INGOs, especially funders, to think about their practices and make certain adjustments. But, I won’t attribute that success to only us; the conversation has been going on for years, but the RINGO project has acted as a form of catalyst to get things moving quickly in the past three years.
There are other programmes we run that have also continued to make an impact, such as our Next Generation Leadership programme, that many people don’t know so much about. The Next Generation Leadership programme keeps on producing great civic actors who are now in leadership positions in different organizations all over the world.
Of course, we are also known for the capacity-strengthening work we do. When it comes to training around resource mobilization and financial sustainability, I think we are doing well in terms of resources and tools that we have developed – there’s a lot of traction there.
How does the Giving for Change programme fit into the overall work that WACSI does?
First of all, I can’t believe it’s already been four years since the programme started. We became involved as a strategic partner to Star-Ghana. When the Giving for Change programme came to us, it was a very different concept, and we thought it was important due to the focus on communities and local philanthropy. We also liked the fact that the programme also recognized that in as much as you want communities to be independent and proactive, they must also have the tools to hold duty bearers accountable, which is the social accountability aspect of it.
At the start of the programme, we were exploring how to develop a social accountability program for the Change the Game Academy – now a fully-fledged project. We were excited about the opportunity to influence government and create a much more functional philanthropic ecosystem in the country. The programme also allowed us to locate the work with other things that were happening at the time, like the #ShiftThePower movement and the work that the NEAR network is doing in changing the humanitarian sector.
Star-Ghana’s role in the Ghanaian programme is much broader. But for WACSI’s role is much more strategic, supporting capacity strengthening through the various communities of practice, which is a very different way of engaging with organizations. I think it took a while for the community of practice members to appreciate that the set-up was not a typical funder-grantee relationship. It’s been interesting to see the development of the communities of practice over the years and growing into their role as “enablers” of the ecosystem.
Can you talk a little bit more about the communities of practice and some of the work that has come out of it?
There have been some interesting, innovative pilots that have come out of this process, and I think it would be important to document them and see how they can be amplified. We’ve supported CoP members with capacity building on local fundraising, as well as having conversations on alternative financing. One such conversation was around social impact investment, another on asset-based community development, and another on social enterprise. These conversations had not taken place before with these members.
For example, CELDAR Foundation acted as an enabler during the formation of a new community foundation was supported by local Chiefs and the Diaspora community. I think the awareness this created among the CoP members and their partners about the opportunities that come with philanthropy was amazing to see. I think the impact of what we begun with the CoPs won’t be felt for another two or three years.
That’s an interesting point you make, because not only have you raised awareness of important issues, but you’ve set in motion a whole series of things that will multiply over time and yield benefits down the track. The challenge with a program like Giving for Change is that often the benefits occur way after the program is formally finished. If, for instance, you look at the American anti-poverty program that took place in the ‘60s, you could still trace the benefits from that through the ‘90s in terms of the influence on African American communities. You wouldn’t have a Black middle class in America if it wasn’t for those programs. But it wasn’t the way things started. So, there are often unexpected benefits coming from small initiatives. It’s from small acorns that Oak trees grow, as they say in England.
Coming back to the Giving for Change programme, what efforts have WACSI and/or Star-Ghana made to support the growth of the philanthropic infrastructure in the West Africa region? As you know, there are ongoing efforts in Senegal, Cote D’Ivoire, Togo, and Nigeria to set up national philanthropic platforms similar to the Ghana Philanthropy Forum. Do you think the Giving for Change programme has in any way influenced efforts to start other national philanthropic platforms?
I think it’s impacted us. The Ghana Philanthropy Forum is a critical milestone that has come out of this process. If you look at the kind of conversations we’ve had at the conference, it shows that this is a platform that is here to stay. We had conversations about what philanthropy looks like from an indigenous point of view, how philanthropy has evolved in Ghana, how it is manifesting in communities, and how philanthropy can support more social justice work. There have been a high number of participants from the private sector and government, which is a good signal for the ecosystem around building a more enabling regulatory environment for civil society. This year (2024), the Ghana Philanthropy Conference will build on earlier conversations around volunteerism and how this can strengthen civic action and development in Ghana. So, I think, this has been one major outcome of the Giving for Change programme.
It’s always challenging to talk about tangible results when it comes to the advocacy and influencing aspects of the work. We were successful in getting the Ghana Revenue Authority to come and talk about the various tax reliefs and other potential changes to the law that can support more philanthropic efforts. It was a very difficult and sensitive conversation to have because of the current economic challenges we are facing in the country and with the government interested in only raising taxes. We’ve been able to attract government entities to be part of this conversation by bringing up the topic of domestic resource mobilization and the power of philanthropy to support development.
In the area of strengthening organizations’ capacity to hold government more accountable, more effort can be made. There has not been a lot of investment in social accountability. I wish we had more time and investment in this area because we believe that it is one of the best ways of ensuring that the system works for the people. Citizens must be able to understand the system for them to be able to work the system. There’s a lot of misunderstanding about how development is done and proper engagement with local and national government entities. Social accountability is an opportunity to get a clearer understanding of the rights citizens have. I feel as if this area is a bit of a lost opportunity and hopefully, we can work to strengthen this.
How can the programme improve on or join up different bits of global actions? In a way, how can we de-projectize things? We know that there is a desire to connect more on some of these global issues. People have dissolved their egos and there’s clear evidence of a difference in the field now. People seem keen to work together. But maybe, sometimes, we are stuck in the old ways of working.
As an alliance with the Giving for Change, every time we meet, we always come up with great ideas. When we met in Kisumu, Kenya, in 2023, for instance, WACSI came back and streamlined a lot of our activities around the communities of practice to make them stronger.
However, I feel that one of our biggest challenges is in connecting with other global movements and efforts. Even though WACSI is hosting RINGO, there is a gap in connecting it more with the work of communities through Giving for Change. There’s a real challenge in getting members of the communities of practice to participate in RINGO activities. So many opportunities have been lost because of this. Perhaps the problem is the mindset – Giving for Change has been perceived as a project, it became projectized. We should avoid treating it like a project.
The way we are organized as a sector is a real challenge. Despite the flexible nature of the Giving for Change programme, once you introduce certain frameworks, reporting deadlines, and deliverables, it automatically becomes a project because there’s a certain level of accountability that comes with it. That’s just the reality of things. If we are to de-projectize things, we need to come together and agree on what we are willing to invest in, and to what extent we are willing to let our partners create or co-create things. Let them do things the way they want to with flexibility. You may not be able to get this type of flexibility with a funder, especially with a bilateral funder. While you may get this type of flexibility from a foundation, for instance, it may not come with the same type of resources that come with a bilateral funder.
When I reflect on things more, I realize that there’s an elephant in the room. The elephant is this – was the Giving for Change programme adding value to what partners in the Alliance were already doing, or was it seen as an opportunity to be part of a process? There is a real difference there. Even the simple factor of who you are working with is key. I know people don’t like hearing this or having this type of conversation because we all want to believe we are all in this together. I agree, we are all in this together, but in every process, there must be a certain amount of leadership and catalysts who bring everyone along. If you don’t get the right people or the right partners, they will not see it beyond being a project because the essence of the work is something they were not already doing.
If there is another opportunity for a programme like Giving for Change to bring together different partners, you need to look critically at what these partners are already doing and assess if such a programme will complement their work. It should be a partnership of justification, not a selection process. There needs to be a long-term view of this type of work. Partners must justify why they want to be part of this process, critically looking at their value add, so that we can achieve what we set out to do. Otherwise, partners involved will simply be waiting for the programme to end with all the burdens of deliverables and frameworks. It’s only a burden if the programme is not adding value to what you’re already doing.
When this programme ends, there should be a feeling of excitement, like, wow, look at how much we have achieved through this programme with what we were already trying to do. The thing to do next is to leverage these achievements to keep going at the same pace. For WACSI, we saw Giving for Change as adding value to what we were already doing.
You are raising an important point about the nature of programmes of this kind and why some may perceive them as just performative exercises where partners just tick the checkboxes. In the early days of this programme, we kept insisting that this programme could not be like that. How can we rescue this programme from this sort of thinking?
There was a missed opportunity during the Mid-Term Review process. That was the moment for us to fight, but we are all nice people, so we didn’t really go there. Even if the evaluation got certain things wrong, it did raise some important issues. We all have a certain mindset, we did not really appreciate what the evaluators were saying. That was the time for us to have taken a second hard look at the programme and shape it into what we wanted. Maybe we were just not brave enough at the time to do that.
As we are coming to the end of this programme, we need to talk to partners within the Alliance and the communities of practice to see how they are taking forward some of the gains made in a very real and tangible way as part of their strategies. I think that’s the conversation that needs to happen now.
What you’re saying brings up issues of power and why it is important to have uncomfortable conversations for change to happen with systems change work. Maybe there’s a different question we should be asking ourselves, not talking about “rescuing” the programme, but if we can find joy in doing this type of work.
For me, the dynamics surrounding this conversation were particularly delicate, given WACSI’s role as a strategic partner to STAR-Ghana, the national anchor partner for the Giving for Change programme in Ghana and the primary implementer of the initiative. Unlike in other countries participating in the programme where there wasn’t such a dual arrangement, except in Brazil with the Comuá Network and CESE—WACSI’s position as a non-implementing partner added a layer of complexity.
There were many moments over the years when I felt the tension of needing to align strategies and activities, often recognising missed opportunities to approach things differently. I found myself having to pause and remind both myself and the team that we were not the national anchor partner. This was a constant balancing act figuring out how to make meaningful contributions while staying within the boundaries of our role.
Reflecting on this experience, it has reinforced the importance of strengthening partner selection and orientation processes for initiatives like this. Ensuring that chosen partners are not only engaged in similar work but also fully understand their roles and responsibilities within the collaboration is crucial. A more robust orientation process could help align expectations, clarify boundaries, and set the stage for a more cohesive and effective partnership. These steps are essential to avoid confusion, maximise impact, and ensure that all parties are positioned to contribute meaningfully to the programme’s objectives.