What are the models for democratizing philanthropy through greater participation by the community, and what are the implications for foundation governance and practice? A new book summarizes the findings of nine research projects that aimed to map current practices, document experiences, and develop tool kits.
Participatory Grantmaking in Philanthropy: How Democratizing Decision-Making Shifts Power to Communities, edited by Cynthia Gibson, Chris Cardona, Jasmine McGinnis Johnson, and David Suárez. Georgetown University Press, 2024; 365 pages; ISBN 9781647125172
Philanthropic foundations are not democratic organizations. The very model of the endowed charitable foundation – governed by a group of trustees, responsible for stewarding funds and in many cases for maintaining a donor’s legacy and intent – is not democratic in the sense of letting “the people” decide. Typically, foundations don’t have broad stakeholder involvement in their internal decision-making. This is true of most institutional funders, even if they can claim diverse or “representative” boards and staff. Indeed, the idea of representative governance is misleading, since boards of foundations are usually elected by a closed group of members. As charities, foundations in Canada are mandated to work for public benefit. But there is no external mandate forcing them to engage the public in that work.
Does it matter that foundations are not democratic? An increasing chorus of academics and critics suggest that it does. They describe foundations as plutocratic, paternalistic, technocratic, and unaccountable. Some of the critics focus on the extractive origins of foundation wealth and the tax-sheltered benefits to unaccountable donors. Others focus on the purposes and targets of foundation funding, which ignore systemic inequalities. These critics link their observations to a broader social movement of public opinion against elite institutions making top-down decisions, pitting institutions against communities.
Does it matter that foundations are not democratic? An increasing chorus of academics and critics suggest that it does.
In this context of critical and popular pressure on their legitimacy, some philanthropic organizations are looking more closely at the idea of democratizing philanthropic practice through greater participation by the community. But what are the models for increasing participation, and what are the implications for foundation governance and practice? To answer these questions, the Ford Foundation provided funding in 2019 for research that could demonstrate the effects of participatory frameworks and practice in the philanthropic field. Nine research projects were funded, with the goals of mapping current practices, documenting experiences, and developing tool kits. The collected articles in this new book on participatory grantmaking summarize the findings and provide some deep reflections on the unanswered questions and challenges that participatory approaches pose for modern foundations. This is a book that stimulates thinking not just about forms of participation in practical terms, but also about the accountability and legitimacy of the philanthropic model in democratic societies.
The four editors, all philanthropy researchers or practitioners themselves, provide an original and helpful macroanalysis of the various forms of philanthropic practice, situating participatory grantmaking in relation to two core dimensions of philanthropy: who is the decision-maker (individual or institution), and to what degree is power concentrated or distributed. Within a matrix created by these two dimensions, the editors differentiate what they call “participatory grantmaking” from alternative power-sharing practices such as trust-based philanthropy, social justice philanthropy, and community leadership. Acknowledging that there are many forms of participatory philanthropy, the editors focus on institutions that choose to distribute their power through participatory grantmaking. Their rationale for doing so is that it is “uniquely attuned to current critiques of traditional foundations and megadonors” and “aligns with but can be distinguished from social justice philanthropy.” This is an intriguing clarification. Greater participation in decisions by those directly affected is a core aspect of philanthropy directed to the redress of inequality and injustice. But it is not exclusive to social justice. Participatory grantmaking, the editors note, “may contribute to democracy [or power sharing] but not necessarily social justice.” This broadens the application of the approach and makes it of interest to funders with diverse purposes.
The editors differentiate what they call ‘participatory grantmaking’ from alternative power-sharing practices such as trust-based philanthropy, social justice philanthropy, and community leadership.
The editors underline that participatory grantmaking is a dimension of the broader phenomenon of participation in institutional philanthropy but one that deserves particular attention because “it is centrally about who has decision-making power about grant funds, the primary currency of philanthropic action.” And they see grantmaking as a process, not just a single decision about who gets the funds. They believe that the impact of participatory grantmaking will only increase when stakeholders (or nonfunders) are involved as decision-makers in all stages of the grantmaking process, including setting strategy, identifying recipients, allocating funds, and defining metrics of evaluation.
The editors make these definitional points in a thought-provoking introduction to the collection, which is bookended by a concluding chapter pointing to future directions for participatory grantmaking research. Between these bookends, the 12 chapters written by different authors are organized under three themes: mapping participatory grantmaking practice, case studies of participatory grantmaking in action, and the challenges for and limits of participatory grantmaking. Many of these chapters provide new information and evidence about experiments in participatory grantmaking conducted, in some cases for decades, by pioneering foundations that include women’s funds, disability rights funders, antiracism funders, environmental funders, and Black-led-organization funders. The third section raises some useful questions to help pinpoint under what circumstances foundations might adopt alternative approaches, whether they involve participatory grantmaking, trust-based grantmaking, or community leadership (an approach developed by community foundations). Readers will find the first chapter mapping the US landscape to be of particular interest as it includes a clear conceptual framework for understanding stakeholder participation in institutional philanthropy and addresses the direct question of whether the emergence of participatory philanthropy (particularly post-2020) is a harbinger of institutional change in the field or a “shooting star” that will burn out. The editors conclude (spoiler alert) that it is more than a passing phase, although the innovations are still quite recent.
The 12 chapters are organized under three themes: mapping participatory grantmaking practice, case studies of participatory grantmaking in action, and the challenges for and limits of participatory grantmaking.
Chapters 11 and 12 are also valuable for the general reader. Chapter 11, on “participatoriness” in philanthropy, written by Michael Hartmann and William Schambra from a conservative perspective, argues that although participatory approaches are most often associated with progressive foundations, they could align with conservative traditions and values. The chapter includes a brief but clear description of the groundings of a conservative approach to participatory philanthropy, based on the importance of strengthening mediating structures between state and individual, such as families, neighbourhoods, houses of worship, and voluntary associations. The writers suggest that participatory philanthropy is an implied challenge to establishment or elite philanthropy, and a means of empowering communities. There is a shared interest from both progressive and conservative philanthropies (in what they describe as the Burkean/Tocquevillian tradition) of “seeking to devolve decision-making power over philanthropic dollars from credentialed foundation officials to everyday community members.” The authors of this chapter note that humility, careful listening to community preferences, and support for choices would be a genuine alternative to current practices of participatory grantmaking. Chapter 12, by Anne Katahira with Marissa Jackson, goes deeper into reflection on the necessary changes in the attitudes and roles of staff and, importantly, board members of foundations who cannot imagine ceding their decision-making power without ceding their role entirely. The authors ask us to imagine what it would mean to redefine leadership within a philanthropic organization. Perhaps ceding decision-making power is leadership by example that will help shift perspectives fundamentally across the field. As they note, “power is renewable . . . by sharing power we all get more power.”
The editors remind us that participatory approaches are part of a larger conversation about power and responsibility in philanthropy.
The editors conclude by reminding us that participatory approaches are part of a larger conversation about power and responsibility in philanthropy. They are not a silver-bullet solution for democratizing philanthropy or strengthening community, although they may increase community voice and self-determination. Many questions remain for researchers and foundation staff to explore, some of which are set out in the concluding chapter. The evidence is not conclusive on whether more participation automatically creates better or more effective philanthropy. It is fair to say that those foundations that have already started on the road of more stakeholder participation are still not ready to share external participation in decision-making. This may only be possible once more trusting relationships have developed with the communities from which participation is wanted. As the editors emphasize, this field of participatory philanthropy is very much in flux. Political pressures and tensions in 2025 and beyond will at the same time increase pressure on institutions such as foundations to open themselves to more participation and allow megadonors to retreat from accountability to communities. So it is not clear how quickly democratizing philanthropic decision-making can indeed shift power, as the subtitle of this book suggests it might. For now, readers will still learn a good deal from this thoughtful collection of evidence and insights that will help leaders from both foundations and organizations in the community reflect more deeply on their roles and take steps toward more inclusive and participatory approaches.
