Participatory grants, or when philanthropy includes communities in decision-making

This text is part of the special section Philanthropy

Even with the best of intentions, philanthropy sometimes misses its mark because decision makers are disconnected from the reality on the ground. This is why participatory grants, which decentralize power to integrate the community into the decision-making process, are attracting more and more interest in the philanthropic world.

With the large sums at their disposal, foundations can have major effects on various social or environmental problems. However, the fact that power is often in the hands of people from privileged backgrounds can mean that the money is not spent in the right way.

“The problem with the concentration of power is that often the wealthy individuals who set up these private foundations haven’t experienced first-hand the social inequalities they are trying to address. There is a significant gap between them and community organizations, which are aware of the needs and are better able to offer effective solutions,” explains Juniper Glass, both a researcher at PhiLab and a consultant for the organization. of Philanthropic Strategy Tips Light, which she founded.

Power to communities

The current trend in philanthropy around the world is moving towards a process that will rely more on activists and organizations to determine the best aid strategies. Increasingly, foundations are forming committees of experts and community members to better target their actions.

A good example of these new practices is the Arctic Indigenous Fund, which was set up to support indigenous communities in Arctic regions around the world. The fund was created by indigenous people themselves, and their decision-making process involves young representatives from each region involved. They work together by incorporating their traditional values ​​into decision-making and how to spend the money, which comes from three foundations. They have therefore decided to trust them and hand over the decision-making power directly to the people concerned.

Foundations know that they can no longer make their decisions in the shadows, that they must be more transparent

Another good example is the Community Foundation of Greater Peterborough in Ontario, which aims for gender equality. The foundation has invited all the women’s organizations in the region, and together they decide how to use the funds in the best interests of the region.

“The traditional grant-making model is often based on competition,” says Juniper Glass. This places organizations that should be friends in an unproductive competitive situation. The Peterborough case was a great success. It is interesting to observe the trust shown by the foundation and the teamwork in the service of the community. »

The most important benefit of these models is that it really ensures that the money is used in the best possible way, thanks to the knowledge and experience of the people on the ground.

In Quebec, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Foundation of Greater Montreal recently launched the Collective Fund for Social Equity based on a participatory process to decide where the funds would go.

“We have experimented with decentralization, with an approach called trust philanthropy,” explains Karel Mayrand, president and CEO of the foundation. Instead of making a call for proposals, we turned to listening and, instead of imposing our objectives, we tried to grasp the needs and identified the organizations that could meet them. »

How to change things?

This need to change their practices is well understood by major foundations and, although there is still a long way to go, several are already addressing the issue, notes Juniper Glass.

With the positive examples that have multiplied over the past five years or so, it is becoming increasingly clear that crowdsourcing is the right thing to do and that it will no doubt one day become the norm. Expectations of foundations reflect the evolution of society as a whole, towards greater inclusion, diversity and participation of individuals in decisions that affect the community.

“Foundations know that they can no longer make their decisions in the shadows, that they must be more transparent”, emphasizes Juniper Glass.

One of the key elements to succeed in this decentralization is to carry out consultations from the start, according to the researcher. “Even when foundations want to improve their practice, they often forget to involve people who can provide them with the information and insight they need early in the process,” she says.

The big challenge remains to convince the boards of directors and other decision makers to trust the communities and their ability to manage the funds received. For decision-makers accustomed to the old ways, it’s about being open-minded, letting go of preconceptions and accepting that the community is at the heart of decisions that affect it.

Trusted philanthropy in Montreal

To see in video


source site-47