Funding Power, Not Just Programs: A Conversation on Co-Governance.

Across the country, conversations are growing about what a healthy democracy requires and how to build it. Is it through elections or protests? Is it town halls? Co-governance argues that the real game changer is partnership and shared power between communities and government. In a co-governance partnership, everyone has a role. Communities are empowered to share their on-the-ground experiences and to co-create solutions. Government is charged with leveraging its expertise and public resources to bring solutions to life. Philanthropy is investing in these new ideas and possibilities that catalyze transformation.

Bottom line: We can do more together than any of us can do on our own.

“Co-governance asks, ‘What if communities that have been marginalized could help set the agenda of government, shape its policy ideas, and hold it accountable to implement and enforce these policies?’”

Race Forward, a national racial justice organization, sat down with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) to discuss the promise of co-governance and how it can build power and advance equity. The conversation included Brooke Tucker, JD, program officer, Healthy Communities, Law and Government, and Giridhar Mallya, MD, MSHP, senior policy officer, Policy Department at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Candace Moore: The mission of the RWJF centers on improving health and health equity in the United States, to further the belief that health is a right, not a privilege. How is co-governance essential to your mission?

Giridhar Mallya: As a foundation, we have always recognized that the government has an important role to play in the health of our nation. Historically, we were often focused on the products of government—laws, regulations, executive orders.  We weren’t focused enough on the system itself: What are the rules of the system? Who is it really serving? And who can influence what the government produces? This shift helped us focus on co-governance.

To be clear, co-governance is happening all the time, but it’s usually happening in the interest of the wealthy. For example, the real estate industry at the local level, or the pharmaceutical industry at the federal level, has a huge influence on what the government does and doesn’t do. Co-governance asks, “What if communities that have been marginalized could help set the agenda of government, shape its policy ideas, and hold it accountable to implement and enforce these policies?” Health and racial equity would be more fully realized.

Brooke Tucker: We recognized that health is broader than traditional health care, i.e. going to the doctor, going to the hospital. Social determinants of health—where you live, where you play, etc.—all play a part in how healthy you are. For a long time, marginalized communities have been forced to put all their hope in government officials, i.e. that they will elect the right people and those people will pass the right policies that will then improve living conditions. We have seen time and time again that this hasn’t worked out. We have been exploring what happens when you give communities more access to that governmental power, what happens when you give communities the power to shape their own experiences and how important that is to improving quality of life.

CM: Which of the six arguments in the Case for Co-Governance resonates most with you, and how could these compel others in the philanthropic community?

BT: The argument that’s most compelling is how co-governance can be used to combat authoritarianism. I read your Juneteenth article on co-governance. Having worked inside the government and inside the legal system, communities of color, especially Black communities, have never had trouble thriving when they are left alone. It is only when the weight of authoritarianism bears down and strips them of their rights that things degrade. Since we now have a system that is starting to formalize authoritarian structures (it used to be informal), the only effective counterweight is formalized structures that embed power within the communities themselves. This will allow them to fight back. When power is only held within the three branches of government, that’s not enough. There needs to be a community counterweight. Co-governance has historically shown that when communities are empowered to make their own decisions about how they are governed, they tend to thrive more.

GM: All arguments in the Case for Co-Governance are compelling, but I’ll focus on the argument that co-governance helps communities of color build power. Through our work with Government Alliance for Racial Equity (GARE) and other partners, we’ve been energized by the notion that racial equity should be a core function of government. If we want a system that is of, by, and for the people, racial equity must be at the center. Co-governance is a way to make that vision real. It can help communities of color build knowledge, gain access, and exercise power. It also shows that government can work for them. We’ve heard from many community partners that co-governance doesn’t mean they will always agree with government decisions. It requires them to hold government entities accountable and point out when government is not meeting its end of the bargain.

CM: What would you say to a philanthropic partner who was hesitant to invest in co-governance? What is the philanthropic “case” for supporting this sort of work?

“Philanthropy is already a powerful and privileged institution. As such, its goal shouldn’t be to play a major part in democracy but rather to infuse resources and capital into the community so they can stand up and advocate for themselves.”

BT: The question we must ask ourselves in terms of the philanthropic case for supporting this work is, “Do you want to make change, or do you want to perpetuate the status quo that’s not working?” RWJF has doubled down on dismantling structural racism and making healthcare a right. To do this, we must do things differently, i.e., co-governance. What if we gave communities of color real power instead of hoping a policy or a court case would solve things? This work of co-governance is really becoming foundational to the work we do at RWJF.

GM: Even as recently as five years ago, when I talked about democracy work at our foundation, the question I received was “We’re not a democracy funder, so why are we doing this?” That has changed a lot because of the advocacy of our partners in the field, colleagues, and board members. Now, most people at RWJF can clearly talk about the connections between democracy and health. We can’t have clean air, quality healthcare, or affordable housing without an inclusive, functioning democracy. I see the evolution at our foundation and other foundations—which, for better or worse, has accelerated because of the authoritarian consolidation we’re seeing in the country. Funders are seeing our democracy disintegrate in front of us, and this is forcing us to take action. Co-governance is part of the answer, especially when it comes to imagining and creating something new.

CM: What is the role of philanthropy in building a democratic ecosystem outside of elections?

BT: Philanthropy is already a powerful and privileged institution. As such, its goal shouldn’t be to play a major part in democracy but rather to infuse resources and capital into the community so they can stand up and advocate for themselves. We can use our resources to fund community members, so they have the same voice as other moneyed interests. Co-governance includes many different things. To have a truly participatory model, there are a lot of other resources the community needs—childcare, education on the issues, etc. Philanthropy can support these needs to ensure communities have the capacity to participate. Additionally, we want to ensure our work includes compassion-centered co-governance. Compassion-grounded co-governance is not just about power or power sharing, but about using compassion to create a new kind of democratic institution. The theory is that if we center compassion, we will combine love and power and thereby increase health.

GM: Elections are often the starting and ending point in terms of conversations around democracy. We’ve had to debunk that idea. It’s about the rule of law, civil and human rights, and people power. While our elected leaders shape healthcare access and policy, they’re also shaped by how patients engage civically, how we regulate profit in the healthcare system, and how the courts weigh people’s rights over corporations. That’s led us to take action by supporting community organizing, legal advocacy, and arts and culture work along with efforts to disrupt, delegitimize, and draw defectors from the authoritarian coalition.

If there is one throughline in this discussion between myself, Brooke, and Giridhar, it is that co-governance powers a healthy democracy. Whether it’s about putting compassion into action and/or creating a seat for those most harmed by the system to co-design solutions, co-governance is more than a program or project. It is a strategy to grow the kind of power that makes our communities strong and resilient. And that is worth all of us investing in!