Wherefore Participatory Grantmaking in the Age of Urgency?

It’s a scary time. Power is consolidating, civic space is shrinking, democratic institutions are being razed, and authoritarianism is on the rise.

What should philanthropy do? We’ve heard over and again: Funders need to protect democracy by acting – and acting fast. 

To date, there’s been some action. More funders – big and small – are promising to increase grant making from their endowments. Philanthropic giving in the U.S. has increased; in 2024, it grew to $650 billion, including $109 billion from foundations. That includes funding for democracy, which has seen a marked uptick since 2016.  

At a time when democracy in the U.S. is on life support, that’s good news. But grants are just one thing funders can do. Another is democratizing themselves. 

A growing number of funders are doing just that, by incorporating power-shifting and participatory approaches in their efforts. But they’re still in the minority. That reluctance may only increase with concerns that “participatory approaches take too long” in the face of the quite-real urgent need to get funds out the door quickly. 

The risk is that in this moment of quite-real urgency, participatory grantmaking will fall by the wayside. Big grants will go out, but in the same top-down ways that funders have claimed they are trying to move past.

We asked 15 philanthropy executives who use participatory practices, including in their grantmaking, about this dynamic. What is their approach now? The good news: the leaders said that participatory approaches are important and effective, even at a time when there's huge demand for rapid response funding. 

In short, it’s “both and.”

What grantmakers think

As noted, all of the funders we asked felt that participatory approaches still make sense at a time when the urgent funding is escalating. And they said that addressing that is critical to giving funders who are skeptical of participation —and even those who’ve already been incorporating participatory approaches in their decision making processes—reasons to continue with this important work.

In fact, the phrase “both and” was used repeatedly.

One executive, the director of a community foundation using PGM, said that he/she was familiar with this debate, but didn’t buy into the framing: “If the response is to move as fast as possible, suspending PGM might seem like the right choice since a best practice is getting funding to those who need it quickly so they can continue their work. However, PGM can be executed efficiently without sacrificing its integrity so we’ll continue to do PGM in a way that is both accessible and efficient.”

The director of a funder collaborative that has incorporated PGM into its grantmaking and governance explained that speed and participation are not mutually exclusive, and that there are lots of funds that already exist with the infrastructure already set up.

They said: “We will need both nimbleness and steadfastness right now. One doesn’t need to replace the other. There are already many inclusive, participatory, community-driven initiatives out there that philanthropy can fund much more quickly than creating new things internally – if we trust those communities. Now may be a good moment to practice that trust, along with courage and persistence.”

Meanwhile, the head of a large, national health-focused nonprofit also pointed out that those on the frontlines are already well versed in navigating many of the challenges that may feel new to philanthropy, and invites philanthropy to stand true to their commitment to support communities.

They said: “Community is already together, already organizing, already dealing with this. The real question is: will those with money, power, and privilege stand strong? This is not the time for savior design, for stepping back under the guise of ‘it’s too hard’ for marginalized communities. No, what’s really happening is people trying to save themselves – from discomfort, from the challenge.”

What does this both/and approach look like?

For funders navigating the tension of whether to set up a participatory process when urgent support is needed, participatory grantmakers around the world continue to prove that it can be done efficiently and strategically through the participatory infrastructures they already have in place. That not only includes administrative structures but also the systems and relationships at the core of participatory grantmaking. 

In 2024, the Participatory Grantmaking Community – which has more than 2,000 members around the world – hosted a webinar in 2024 on participatory grantmaking during intersecting, or polycrises that provided examples of not just how funders can use participatory practices to respond quickly during these kinds of crises but also how it improves the overall process.

Using Intermediaries

One of the most successful ways to combine participatory approaches and rapid response funding is using existing intermediaries that have deep experience in participatory grantmaking, as well as diverse and expansive community networks. As one participatory grantmaker asks, “Why reinvent the wheel when there are already many inclusive, participatory, community-driven initiatives up and running out there?”

The number of these intermediaries has increased dramatically in recent years. Some are place-based like the Contigo Fund, a central Florida-based fund led by and for Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian and Pacific Islander immigrant communities and other communities of color. Others are movement-focused such as the Emergent Fund, which provides rolling rapid response grants to frontline communities in the U.S. Still others are global participatory grantmakers such as Global Greengrants, which has provided billions to grassroots environmental justice movements around the globe using participatory grantmaking approaches. 

The Rawa Fund, which uses PGM to cede decision-making power to their communities in Palestine, has minimized bureaucratic barriers in a way that allows them to quickly shift funding priorities and address communities’ immediate needs. The Dalan Fund, which works in central and eastern Europe, south Caucasus, Central Asia, and other areas facing rapid authoritarian shifts, has built trusted networks across politically sensitive areas that allows them to get funds where they are needed swiftly. 

The Global Resilience Fund adapts their approach in the face of crisis by simplifying application procedures, providing language support, and/or engaging with local advisors familiar with the local context. They also collaborate with other funders to share due diligence and risk management, which reduces burdens on local organizations, and makes sure funds are able to reach communities without delay. 

Borealis Philanthropy has several funds that transfer decision-making power to community members for more equitable and inclusive funding, including rapid response grants. The Headwaters Foundation for Justice’s Rapid Response Fund supports strategic organizing in response to unexpected events, urgent challenges, or rapidly emerging political moments.

PGM builds Resilience 

One funder who was the director of an intermediary commissioned by a large national foundation to regrant using a PGM process suggests that while urgent funding is critical in the face of crises—which may not always lend themselves to PGM approaches—there will always be “the need for longer-term investments in grantees doing important work, and those are opportunities for PGM processes that can lead to stronger networks, leadership, and more informed grantmaking.” Nino Ugrekhelidze, Lead of the Dalan Fund shared, “Crisis doesn’t just require immediate response; it demands long-term resilience, and participatory grantmaking is the infrastructure needed to be prepared for ongoing polycrisis.”

Another national PGM funder believes that using PGM for developing stronger capacity-building and technical assistance grant programs can help grantees weather future crises and “can be a powerful way to ensure that these include the elements that organizations on the ground really need and will find useful.”

A PGM practitioner and facilitator notes that “it’s important to remind funders who are skeptical about PGM ‘taking too long’ that, often it’s the first grant cycle that is more time-consuming because you have to establish new systems and structures. Once those are in place, subsequent grant cycles tend to be more efficient. At the same time, PGM’s open source approach allows for tweaks along the way that may actually be more responsive to crises that are occurring in real time.” 

The Process is the point

These and other funders who are using a “both/and” approach to providing participatory rapid response funding are proving it’s possible to respond to urgent needs in partnership with the communities facing crises. This is a distinct departure from traditional top-down grantmaking approaches, which have yet to demonstrate that they are any better at getting resources out the door efficiently and quickly. While more funders may be stepping up to respond to urgent needs right now, it remains to be seen  whether this support will keep nonprofit grantees—especially those working in underserved communities—afloat, especially over the longer term. 

Moreover, what happens after the urgency dies down? Will traditional philanthropy go back to its historical reliance on expert-driven strategies and top-down decision-making or will it use this opportunity to understand the value of participatory approaches and actually incorporate them in some way across their internal and external activities? 

Grappling with those questions is essential since many of the problems philanthropy is trying to alleviate—including political conflicts, global pandemics, environmental disasters, and humanitarian and economic crises—are rooted in systems of inequality. Participatory grantmaking challenges those entrenched power dynamics by partnering with the people most affected by these issues to explore and create solutions that are equitable, resilient, and built from community wisdom. 

If authentic participation is abandoned by funders under the guise of speed or control during crises, they are not only devaluing wisdom the communities embroiled in those crises could bring to deploying resources strategically, but are also reinforcing the same top-down systems that have proven to be unjust and unsustainable. Participation is more than a method, it is an invitation to shift our worldview to one where communities are resilient, where justice prevails, and power is shared.  

Perhaps the real question isn’t whether participatory approaches are suitable in responding to urgent needs but, rather, whether funders are ready to embrace an approach that embodies the democratic processes they are trying to protect. In short, what if the real threat isn’t ceding philanthropic decision-making power through those kinds of processes but the absence of it? 

There’s no better time to find out than now. 

Cynthia Gibson, Ph.D., is principal of Cynthesis Consulting, which provides philanthropic institutions and nonprofits with strategic planning, program development, evaluation, and communications services. In addition to being a widely published author on issues related to philanthropy, the nonprofit sector, and democracy, Cynthia is also a national leader in efforts to advance participatory and deliberative practice in these and other sectors.

Kelley Buhles is an independent consultant and collaborative leader working to build a regenerative economy. She is a participatory grantmaking thought leader, having practiced since 2010, she is a founding member of the Participatory Grantmaking Community, and is especially excited by the models that explore non-competitive options.