Participatory grantmaking is a model in which community members — rather than (or alongside) professional programme staff — make decisions about how grant funds are allocated. The model has grown significantly over the past decade, driven by a broader shift in philanthropy toward redistributing power and centring the communities that funding is meant to serve.
For grants management software, participatory grantmaking is a meaningful edge case. Most platforms were designed around a model where professional assessors evaluate applications using structured rubrics. Participatory models require different things: simplified interfaces for non-professional reviewers, accessible scoring tools, anonymous review options, and transparency mechanisms that let community members see how their input shaped decisions.
Participatory grantmaking takes several forms, and the software requirements differ by model:
Community assessment panels. In this model, community members sit on the assessment panel alongside (or instead of) professional staff. They score applications using the same tools as staff assessors. The software requirement is primarily accessibility: the assessment interface needs to be usable by people who are not grants professionals, may not regularly use software platforms, and may be accessing from mobile devices.
Separate community scoring. Some funders run community scoring as a separate, lighter-touch component — a community vote or rating that feeds into a final decision made by programme staff. This requires a distinct participant pathway: a simpler interface with fewer fields, clear instructions, and reduced cognitive load compared to the full assessor interface.
Nominee or shortlisting models. Community members nominate organisations or projects that go forward to a professional assessment process. The community-facing component is more like an intake form than a scoring tool.
Peer review. In some contexts — particularly in research funding and artist grants — applicants review other applicants' proposals. This requires careful COI management: applicants cannot review proposals they are connected to, and the anonymity of both reviewer and applicant may need to be protected.
Participatory budgeting. Government funders sometimes run participatory budgeting processes in which residents directly allocate discretionary funding. This is closest to voting than grants management, and requires different tooling.
Accessible, simplified review interfaces. The standard assessor interface — multi-criteria weighted rubrics, detailed comment fields, comparative ranking tools — is designed for professionals. Community reviewers need something simpler: clear single questions, plain-language criteria, star ratings or simple numerical scales, and minimal navigation.
The practical test: can someone who has never used the platform before understand how to complete their review without a training session?
Mobile-first design for community participants. Community reviewers — particularly from grassroots and community organisations — will often access the platform from a mobile device. A desktop-optimised review interface that is technically mobile-responsive is not the same as a mobile-first design built for phone use. Evaluate this directly: open the review interface on a phone and try to complete a review.
Anonymous review support. Depending on the model, participatory review may need anonymity in two directions: applicants may not know who reviewed their application, and reviewers may not know who else is on the panel. Platforms with strong COI management infrastructure can usually support this; platforms where assessors can see each other's identities throughout the process may not.
Configurable participation pathways. The platform should allow programme staff to define a distinct community reviewer pathway — different from the standard assessor workflow — with its own interface, instructions, and scoring structure.
Transparent decision documentation. Participatory grantmaking is partly a legitimacy-building exercise: the community needs to be able to see that their input genuinely influenced outcomes. Software that can produce a clear audit trail showing how community scores were incorporated into final decisions (and for declined applications, how the community vote compared to the final outcome) supports this accountability.
Community reviewer recruitment and management. Recruiting, onboarding, and tracking community reviewers is an operational task that some platforms support as part of a panel management function. If the platform treats reviewers as a single homogeneous group, managing separate community and staff reviewer cohorts becomes a manual overhead.
Most grants management platforms were built for the professional funder workflow. This means they have strong capabilities for weighted rubric scoring, panel management with COI, and governance reporting — but may have significant gaps for participatory models:
Interface complexity. A platform optimised for experienced grant assessors may be genuinely difficult for community members to use. This is a functional barrier to participation.
Dual pathway design. Running a community scoring component that feeds into a professional assessment process requires configuring two distinct workflows within the same round. Some platforms do not support this natively — it requires workarounds that create data management problems.
Accessibility compliance. Web accessibility (WCAG 2.1 AA compliance) matters more when participants are not trained professionals. Community members are more likely to include people with disabilities or older users for whom accessibility failures are disqualifying.
Language and localisation. Participatory grantmaking is often used by funders working with communities that are not English-speaking. Platform support for multiple languages in the applicant and reviewer interface varies widely.
"Can you show me what the review interface looks like when I reduce the criteria to three fields and remove the text comment requirement?" This tests whether the interface genuinely simplifies, or whether a basic-looking front end is still driven by a complex underlying structure.
"Can you configure a round where community reviewers see a different, simpler scoring form than professional assessors?" This directly tests dual-pathway capability.
"What does the interface look like on a mobile phone?" Ask to see this — not a description of it.
"Do you have existing customers using the platform for participatory or community-led grantmaking?" Reference customers in this use case will tell you what actually works.
"Can the platform produce a report showing how community scores compared to final decisions for each application?" This tests transparency documentation capability.
Participatory grantmaking creates operational demands that extend beyond the software. Community reviewer recruitment, orientation, availability management, and support during the review period are all programme management tasks. Software that reduces the support load — through genuinely intuitive interfaces and good mobile experience — is worth paying for; software that creates support demand will consume programme staff time that should go to community engagement.
The strongest argument for purpose-built grants management software in participatory programmes is documentation: having a clean, auditable record of how community input shaped decisions is important for the legitimacy of the model. If the participatory component runs on a separate spreadsheet or survey tool while the professional assessment runs on a grants management platform, the record is fragmented.
Tahua supports participatory grantmaking models with configurable review pathways, panel management tools, and mobile-accessible interfaces.