Participatory grantmaking involves communities directly in grant decisions — moving beyond the traditional model where funders assess and decide in isolation. In its various forms, it might mean community members sit on grants panels, community groups collectively decide how funds are allocated, or affected communities design the criteria by which grants are assessed.
It's a significant departure from conventional philanthropy. And for the right contexts, it produces better outcomes: decisions aligned with actual community priorities, increased community trust in the funding process, and grants that work because they reflect genuine need.
Traditional grantmaking concentrates decision-making power with funders. Funders design the criteria, assess the proposals, and make the decisions — often with limited input from the communities the grants are meant to benefit. This creates several problems:
Funder priorities ≠ community priorities
What funders think communities need isn't always what communities actually need. Even well-intentioned funders apply assumptions, biases, and institutional priorities that can push grants away from what would be most impactful. Communities themselves are better placed to identify their own priorities.
Power dynamics shape applications
When grants are decided by funders who hold all the power, applicants optimise for what funders want to hear rather than what's actually true. Participatory processes can surface more honest, genuine proposals because applicants are speaking to their own communities rather than performing for institutional gatekeepers.
Accountability to communities
Grants are meant to benefit communities. If communities have no voice in how grants are made, there's a legitimacy question about whose interests the system actually serves.
Participation exists on a spectrum, from minimal consultation to full community control.
Consultation
The lightest form: funders ask community members what priorities they should fund, then make decisions internally. This is better than nothing, but it's not participatory grantmaking — it's still funder-driven decision-making with community input.
Advisory panels
Community representatives join an advisory panel that reviews applications and makes recommendations to the funder's board. The funder retains decision-making authority but is heavily influenced by the panel. This is a common model for funders who want to incorporate community voice while maintaining institutional accountability.
Community panels with full decision authority
Community members constitute the grants panel and make final decisions. The funder provides the funds and facilitates the process, but doesn't vote on grants. This requires significant trust in community decision-making capacity and clear processes for managing conflicts of interest.
Participatory budgeting
Community members vote directly on how a pool of funds is allocated — typically through an open public process where anyone in the community can submit a proposal, and community members vote for their favourites. Common in government contexts (city councils allocating discretionary budgets) but increasingly used by philanthropic funders.
Community-controlled funds
The most participatory model: a pool of funds is governed entirely by the community, with the funder acting as a wholesale funder to a community-controlled entity. The community entity makes all allocation decisions. This requires substantial community infrastructure and governance capacity.
Participatory grantmaking doesn't happen on its own — it requires careful design.
Who counts as "the community"?
The concept of community is contested. Different groups within a geography or sector may have very different views and interests. Be specific about which community you're engaging, how participants are selected, and how to ensure diverse voices (not just the most organised or loudest).
Managing conflicts of interest
Community panel members often have relationships with applicant organisations — they're from the same networks, same social groups, sometimes the same organisation. A robust conflict of interest process is essential: clear rules for when to declare, step back, or recuse.
Power dynamics within communities
Communities have their own internal hierarchies and power dynamics. A participatory process that appears open might still be dominated by established voices and exclude marginalised groups within the community. Design processes that actively create space for less powerful voices.
Capacity and support
Community participants need adequate support to participate effectively. This means: clear orientation to the process, accessible materials (not jargon-heavy funder documents), time to review applications, and fair recompense for their time.
Accountability and transparency
When community members make grant decisions, those decisions need to be explainable to applicants and the broader public. Build in processes for communicating decisions, handling appeals, and reviewing the process itself.
Participatory grantmaking isn't appropriate for every context. It works best when:
It's less appropriate when:
- Decisions require specialist knowledge that community participants don't have (e.g., highly technical infrastructure grants)
- Time constraints don't allow meaningful engagement
- The funder wants the appearance of participation without genuine power-sharing
In New Zealand, participatory grantmaking aligns with tikanga Māori and the principle of hapū and iwi determining their own priorities and futures. Funders working in Māori communities should consider how their processes align with (or undermine) tino rangatiratanga — self-determination.
Community foundations and local funders have more commonly adopted participatory elements than national funders, partly because local knowledge is more directly relevant. Sport New Zealand's regional sports trust model delegates significant allocation decisions to regionally-governed bodies. Iwi social services funding increasingly flows through iwi-controlled entities.
For funders new to participatory approaches, incremental steps are more sustainable than wholesale transformation:
Each step builds the relationships, trust, and capacity needed for deeper participation over time.
Tahua's grants management platform supports participatory grantmaking with configurable assessment workflows, multi-reviewer processes, and the panel management tools that make community-led decisions administratively manageable.