Nila Kartika Wati
In 2021, the international philanthropic organization Humanity United convened a landmark meeting on the top floor of a hotel in Kathmandu, Nepal. Situated miles from the foundation’s headquarters in Washington, DC, the gathering brought together a diverse group of migrant worker advocates and survivors from the Global Majority. The objective was not to present a predetermined funding agenda but to launch the foundation’s first participatory process. Rather than utilizing high-production digital presentations, organizers used a single sheet of paper taped to a wall to outline the foundation’s existing strategy development, decision-making timelines, and grant allocation processes. This visual transparency allowed stakeholders—those most affected by the issues being funded—to critique and reimagine the philanthropic lifecycle from the ground up.
This convening served as a catalyst for a broader institutional shift within Humanity United and highlighted a growing movement in the nonprofit sector: the transition from traditional, top-down "strategic philanthropy" toward authentic community-led partnerships. As global crises intensify and the limitations of Western-centric funding models become more apparent, the push for participatory grantmaking (PGM) has moved from the fringes of social justice activism to the center of professional philanthropic discourse.
The Paradigm Shift: From Consultation to Decision-Making Authority
The core of the current shift in philanthropy lies in the distinction between "consultation" and "participation." For decades, many foundations have utilized focus groups or grantee interviews to inform their strategies. However, critics argue these are often extractive exercises where foundation staff maintain ultimate control. Authentic participation, by contrast, requires that individuals with lived experience hold actual decision-making power over how resources are allocated, how success is defined, and how strategies are implemented.
This transition is deeply rooted in the principles of trust-based philanthropy and solidarity philanthropy. These frameworks seek to decolonize wealth by intentionally shifting authority to marginalized communities. The fundamental question being asked by reformers is no longer just "Who should we fund?" but "Who is philanthropy accountable to?" By moving decision-making power from offices in London or New York to local leaders in places like Kathmandu or Kampala, foundations are beginning to challenge the historical hierarchies that have defined the sector since the early 20th century.
Historical Context and the Roots of Participation
While participatory grantmaking is currently gaining traction among large private foundations, the concept is far from new. Proponents point to long-standing community-led financial systems, such as the susu lending circles in Ghana, which have utilized equitable participatory practices for generations. Within the formal Western philanthropic sector, feminist funds have been the primary pioneers of this model.
The Ms. Foundation for Women began building social justice networks and utilizing participatory approaches as early as the 1970s. In 2003, the Fondo Centroamericano de Mujeres (Central American Women’s Fund) launched a participatory grantmaking model centered on feminist movements. More recently, the FRIDA Young Feminist Fund has gained international recognition for its participatory governance structures, which are entirely rooted in the leadership of young activists.
Despite these successful precedents, widespread adoption remains slow. A comprehensive study conducted by the Evans School of Public Policy & Governance at the University of Washington surveyed large U.S. foundations and found that only approximately 10 percent allowed community members or grantees to make final decisions on grant allocations. This gap highlights the significant institutional inertia that remains within the sector’s largest entities.
Institutional Requirements and the Labor of Power-Sharing
For a foundation to move beyond rhetoric and into meaningful power-sharing, significant internal restructuring is required. This work cannot be relegated to mid-level program officers; it requires the full commitment of boards of directors and senior leadership.
The transition involves several critical operational shifts:
1. Resource and Time Allocation
Participatory methods require an investment in staff capacity. Building trust with community movements is a time-intensive process that often takes months or years of relationship-building before a single grant is made. Senior leadership must provide staff with the "permission to fail" and the flexibility to adjust timelines. Furthermore, budget flexibility is essential to cover the costs of external facilitators, translation services, and logistical support for international convenings.
2. Recognizing the Labor of Participants
A common pitfall in participatory models is the failure to recognize the significant burden placed on community participants. These individuals are often asked to navigate complex foundation systems, undergo due diligence requirements, and translate their lived expertise into "philanthropic language"—all while managing their own grassroots work. To prevent this from becoming extractive, foundations are increasingly implementing equitable compensation models and providing organizational grants to the participants’ home institutions to mitigate the financial strain of their involvement.
3. Operational Alignment
Shifting power externally requires shifting power internally. Legal, finance, and grants management teams must align their compliance frameworks with participatory goals. If a program officer is attempting to decentralize decision-making while the legal department maintains rigid, top-down control over contract terms, the process becomes stifled.
Addressing the "Age of Urgency"
One of the primary critiques of participatory grantmaking is that it is too slow. In an era of collapsing foreign aid budgets, rising authoritarianism, and climate catastrophe, many donors argue that there is an urgent need to move capital quickly. In a recent analysis titled "Wherefore Participatory Grantmaking in the Age of Urgency?", experts Cynthia Gibson and Kelley Buhles noted that even nonprofit leaders who support participatory values often worry about the practicality of these methods during a crisis.
However, advocates argue that while participatory methods may slow down the "first mile" of the process—the strategy development phase—they significantly speed up the "journey." By ensuring that the strategy is grounded in the reality of those on the front lines, foundations avoid the common pitfall of funding ineffective or culturally irrelevant programs. Furthermore, when community leaders hold the power, the cumulative time spent by nonprofits "guessing" what a funder wants is reduced, freeing up their capacity for mission-critical work.
Transparency as a Foundation for Trust
A critical component of the Humanity United model in Nepal was the radical transparency regarding how decisions were made. For many grassroots organizations, foundation decision-making is a "black box." Real participation requires foundations to explain their internal constraints, including budget limitations, legal due diligence requirements, and board-mandated priorities.
This transparency helps mitigate the risk of "movement capture"—a phenomenon where philanthropic funding inadvertently steers a grassroots movement away from its original mission to satisfy the donor’s agenda. By establishing shared agreements around visibility and accountability, foundations can support movements without dominating them.
Broader Impact and the Future of the Sector
The shift toward participatory philanthropy represents a fundamental re-evaluation of the role of the donor in society. It moves the foundation from the role of a "benevolent expert" to that of a "partner and facilitator." As Humanity United continues to refine its approach years after the Kathmandu convening, the broader sector is watching closely to see if these models can be scaled.
The implications of this shift are profound. If the 10 percent figure reported by the University of Washington begins to climb, it could signal a massive democratization of capital. This would not only change which organizations receive funding but would also alter the strategies used to tackle global issues like labor exploitation, climate change, and human rights.
Ultimately, the move toward community-led decision-making is an admission that the traditional structures of philanthropy have often been part of the problem they seek to solve. By embracing institutional humility and sustained investment in community leadership, foundations are betting that the people closest to the problems are also the ones best equipped to solve them. The real question facing the sector today is no longer whether participatory processes are worth the logistical effort, but whether philanthropy can maintain its legitimacy in a changing world without them.
