Respect where people are at: How to facilitate for different needs

As a facilitator, what does it mean to accommodate different needs? The process at The Giving Lab is one that prides itself on representing local community voices and needs, with the added fact that the fund was co-designed as a key element of this. However, community members join the TGL process at different stages of their lives - some have had funding experiences, whilst others have not. In fact, when working with the Latino community, we had individuals on varied ends of the spectrum - some would be considered members of established organisations whilst others were more grassroots. How does a facilitator accommodate their sessions to these different needs, when people are at varying stages of their understanding of funding processes? 

My mindset shifted as I learnt how to be respectful to different needs whilst grounding decisions in the core values of The Giving Lab. At its core, TGL is focussed on collaboration, educating others on participatory funding. Whilst we had individuals further along in their journey for this, for example within the Latino space, we made sure to focus on these key values to accommodate those at beginner stages. This was important for their learning journey but we made sure to hold space in the sessions, for the more established groups, to offer their expertise and knowledge. 

In many ways this was both productive but did cause slight halts in the decision making processes as established members tended to be fixated on certain elements of the process. On the other hand, those at more beginner levels, were keen to progress to achieve the end outcome (which was the funding). Finding the balance between working towards the end outcome whilst providing space for alter and accommodate was interesting.

“My mindset shifted as I learnt how to be respectful to different needs whilst grounding decisions in the core values of The Giving Lab.”

I chose to lead with transparency and openness about the funding process. Share explicitly where change could be made (from the internal team) and where decisions could be made by participants. It led to an open ground for discussion, with participants sharing both their positives and challenges about the funding process which was a helpful means for us to learn and iterate as we go. Without the open facilitation approach there would have likely been a bottleneck in the process.