Nila Kartika Wati
The landscape of modern philanthropy is undergoing a fundamental shift as traditional foundations grapple with the inherent power imbalances of the donor-recipient relationship. At the heart of this transformation is participatory grantmaking, a practice that seeks to answer a deceptively simple yet structurally disruptive question: What would happen if the people directly affected by a funder’s decisions were the ones actually making them? While the concept of community involvement is not new, the degree to which institutional power is truly ceded remains the primary point of contention and variation across the sector.
The Participatory Grantmaking Community (PGMC) defines the practice as the transfer of decision-making power—including the determination of strategy and criteria—to the communities a funder aims to serve. However, as foundations adopt these models, a complex spectrum of participation has emerged. Some institutions involve community members in setting priorities or evaluating applications while retaining final board approval, while others hand over the checkbook entirely. This distinction is critical, as it determines whether participation is a meaningful redistribution of power or a sophisticated form of consultation that leaves the status quo intact.
The Theoretical Framework: Arnstein’s Ladder and the Philanthropic Evolution
To understand the current state of participatory grantmaking, one must look back to Sherry Arnstein’s seminal 1969 work, "A Ladder of Citizen Participation." Arnstein identified various levels of engagement, ranging from "manipulation" and "therapy" at the bottom to "citizen control" at the top. In the middle of the ladder lies "consultation," a stage where people are given a voice but lack the authority to ensure their views are heeded.
In the context of 21st-century philanthropy, many foundations find themselves on the middle rungs. They may invite community members to sit on advisory boards or provide feedback on grant solicitations, but the final fiduciary and strategic authority remains with a board of trustees that often does not reflect the lived experience of the community. The transition from "giving a voice" to "giving control" is where the most significant institutional friction occurs.
Jasmine McGinnis Johnson, a leading scholar on the subject and co-editor of Participatory Grantmaking in Philanthropy, argues that the practice should be viewed as a comprehensive ethos rather than a single event. According to McGinnis Johnson, participation can and should occur at every stage: setting priorities, reviewing proposals, conducting site visits, making award decisions, and evaluating long-term impact. Her research highlights that foundations successfully implementing these models often employ staff with backgrounds in community organizing, bridging the gap between bureaucratic institutionalism and grassroots activism.
Case Study: The Peter & Elizabeth C. Tower Foundation’s Structural Shift
The Peter & Elizabeth C. Tower Foundation provides a concrete timeline of how an institution can evolve its power dynamics over several years. The foundation focuses on four specific areas: intellectual disabilities, learning disabilities, mental health challenges, and substance use disorders.
The chronology of their participatory journey illustrates a deliberate move up Arnstein’s ladder:
- 2019: The foundation established an advisory team specifically composed of young people with intellectual disabilities to provide feedback on initiatives.
- 2021: The model was expanded to include individuals with lived expertise across all four of the foundation’s focus areas.
- 2022: A significant shift occurred when the board of trustees moved the team from an advisory capacity to a decision-making one. The board allocated an initial $200,000 for a fund that the community team would design and execute.
- 2026 (Projected): The fund’s allocation has grown to $375,000, with the community experts team holding the authority to select recipients without board intervention for individual grants.
Nissa Bisguier, who transitioned from a team member to the manager of the process, notes that the role of staff in this model is to facilitate rather than steer. However, even in this progressive model, institutional boundaries remain. The foundation still sets the geographic limits and the broad thematic focus areas. While the community team decides who gets the money, the foundation’s board still decides how much money is available and what categories of issues are eligible for funding.
The Invisible Hand: How Staff Influence the Process
One of the most nuanced aspects of participatory grantmaking is the "power before the vote." Before a community committee ever sits down to review an application, several gatekeeping decisions have already been made by foundation staff. These include the recruitment of the participants, the screening of applicants for "eligibility," and the design of the scoring rubrics.
At the Tower Foundation, staff handle the recruitment of new team members, often relying on referrals from existing partner organizations. While candidates must have lived experience, the final selection of who gets to sit at the decision-making table currently remains an administrative function. Furthermore, staff perform an initial screening of grant applications. While Bisguier notes that "ineligible" applications remain accessible in a separate folder for team members to see, the act of categorization itself serves as a powerful nudge toward certain outcomes.
This highlights a recurring theme in the sector: the distinction is rarely between total staff control and total staff absence. Instead, it is about the transparency and intent of staff involvement. If staff provide the starting point for a request for proposals (RFP) or a draft of the scoring criteria, they are shaping the boundaries of what the community can consider.
Comparative Models of Authority: iF and Foundation North
The distribution of authority varies widely when compared across different regional contexts.
iF, A Foundation for Radical Possibility: Operating in the Washington, DC, region, iF utilizes a model where community members hold final grant-making authority. In this structure, foundation staff are strictly non-voting facilitators. The foundation defines the geographic scope, but the community committee is empowered to redefine priorities and select awardees, representing a high level of ceded power.
Foundation North (New Zealand): Through its Pacific Youth Future Makers initiative, this foundation involved 10 to 15 young Pasifika people in South Auckland to design a fund from the ground up. These young people defined the fund’s purpose, eligibility, and review process. However, a crucial distinction remains: the team makes recommendations, but the foundation’s chief executive retains the final legal authority to approve or deny those grants.
These two examples demonstrate the difference between "delegated power" and "citizen control." In the case of Foundation North, the institution seeks the legitimacy and insight of youth participation while maintaining a traditional fiduciary safety net.
Data and Trends: The Growth of Trust-Based Philanthropy
The rise of participatory grantmaking is part of a broader movement known as "Trust-Based Philanthropy." According to data from the Trust-Based Philanthropy Project, foundations are increasingly moving toward multi-year unrestricted funding and simplified reporting as a way to rebalance the power dynamic.
While comprehensive global data on the exact dollar amount of participatory grants is still being aggregated, a 2020 report by the Insight Center and the Participatory Grantmaking Community found that interest in the model surged following the social justice movements of 2020. Foundations realized that traditional "top-down" giving often failed to address the root causes of systemic inequity because the decision-makers were too far removed from the problems they sought to solve.
The logic is supported by organizational psychology. When community members are involved in the process, the resulting grants are often more culturally competent and target "hidden" grassroots organizations that might be overlooked by professionalized foundation staff who prioritize sophisticated grant-writing over community impact.
Analysis of Implications: Who Decides Who Decides?
The critical frontier for participatory grantmaking is no longer just about the vote; it is about the "meta-decisions." If a foundation retains control over the size of the budget, the recruitment of the participants, and the definition of "impact," it is still exercising significant top-down power.
Meaningful power-sharing, as argued by the PGMC, requires involving communities in:
- Defining the Problem: Rather than the foundation deciding that "mental health" is the priority, the community should define what the most pressing needs are.
- Determining the Budget: Allowing community members to have a say in the total percentage of the endowment that is distributed.
- Setting Evaluation Metrics: Moving away from rigid Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) toward community-defined versions of success.
The experience of the Tower Foundation suggests that the process itself has intrinsic value. Participants reported feeling "heard" and "empowered" even when their preferred organization did not receive a grant. This suggests that participatory grantmaking is as much about democratic capacity-building as it is about the distribution of funds.
Conclusion: The Future of the Sector
As philanthropy continues to evolve, the pressure for transparency and accountability will only increase. The "black box" of foundation boardrooms is being opened, and participatory grantmaking is the primary tool for that exposure.
However, for the practice to move beyond a trend and into a systemic standard, foundations must be willing to interrogate their own roles. It requires a shift from being a "decider" to being a "steward." The ultimate success of these programs will be measured not just by where the money goes, but by whether the institutions are willing to relinquish the authority to change the rules of the game. Moving beyond consultation requires more than an invitation to the table; it requires a willingness to hand over the keys to the room.
