Why Participatory Philanthropy Is Essential To Progress
Photo by Tim Mossholder
Philanthropy advisors don’t always have the answers (nor should we)
At I.G.’s recent Curation with a Conscience event , after a full day of critical analysis, power workshops, and open-hearted reflection, I ended the event by asking those in the room (individual philanthropists, foundation leaders, and corporate impact executives) to share a new risk they were planning to take, based on what they’d heard throughout the day. We had spent a lot of time discussing how those of us with power and resources could (and should) take more risks in order to lessen the risks of those working on the frontlines of issues we care about. Attendees pledged to do everything from removing restrictions on their giving and lowering reporting requirements, through to establishing entirely new funding mechanisms and reforming governance structures — many of which have become more important and urgent in the context of COVID-19. Honouring the vulnerability and commitment of those who shared, I also decided to commit to my own risk: “As someone leading an organisation that is literally paid to give advice, I will be more clear on where we simply can’t know the answers — where others are the experts”.
This commitment might sound strange — but, it wasn’t about de-valuing the expertise or problem-solving creativity of I.G.’s team. Rather, it was a commitment to facilitating the active participation of those with lived experience of an issue (the experts) in deciding and designing responses to it. And, critically — inspiring our clients and partners to do the same.
Since our founding, I.G. has always been carefully balanced at the intersection of the philanthropic, business and non-profit worlds, which calls for fluency in the languages, needs and drivers of these very different groups. Where we’re called upon to translate, and bridge the critical gaps in understanding, we’re often viewed as the experts. However, our role is not to know all the answers, it is to look for them, figure them out, imagine them, and test them. And, to do this, we have a choice in how much we invite, and centre, the voices of those affected.
For the last 3 years, I.G. has adopted human-centred design principles, including them as a non-negotiable in our client projects, and using them to ensure our overall work for the sector is responsive and effective. Practically, at the very least, this has meant consulting our clients’ key stakeholders (service users, grantees, donors), and in many cases going a step further: involving them where we can in co-design processes when building new programmes, developing strategies and making decisions. As consultants, there is always more room for us to improve these processes — and, as philanthropy advisors dedicated to justice and social impact we know we have a responsibility to encourage our clients to use these ways of working beyond the life of our contracts.
The concepts of Participation, and Participatory Grant-making, have been prominent in the philanthropy world for some time now, and essentially boil down to one thing: meaningfully engaging affected constituencies in the grant-making process. ‘Meaningful engagement’ is obviously a subject of debate, but ceding power is a core theme, as well as enabling people with lived experience to decide one or more elements of the giving journey, including the: focus areas, scope, objectives, budgets, timelines, grant allocations, impact measures and learning process (and paying them for that work, too). This is the point where most traditional donors begin to sweat. It feels radical, it feels risky, it feels like an administrative burden, and it feels hard to control.
Yes, all of that is true. But, we must all move towards it anyway.
Many have written extensively about the problems participatory grant-making and decision-making can help solve, the challenges of doing it that can be overcome, and the opportunities it brings to donors who are brave enough to evolve and reform their processes. Suffice it to say, at I.G. we have been fortunate enough to play a part in designing, refining and facilitating participatory grant-making and programme approaches for a variety of organisations, even small family foundations, and we have seen the benefits outweigh the costs every single time.
To shout-out a few: the With and For Girls Collective has opened people’s eyes to the untapped power of involving girls in decisions that affect their lives, and brought together some of the world’s most influential children’s funders to do so (check out our podcast interview with them to learn more); Spark Microgrants has revolutionised the empowerment of communities to design their own development projects, and Edge Fund member Rose Longhurst and Global Greengrants Fund UK trustee Tessa Khan both spoke passionately about their differing participatory approaches at our event. We are fiercely proud to have supported this work, and we know there are many more incredible projects out there leading the charge.
As advisors, our role is to support people and organisations to explore, imagine and implement ways of creating impact they care about with their own resources, and we will always be humbled to play a role in that process. I.G. is committed to embedding participatory processes in our work wherever we can; to thoughtfully encourage our clients in the philanthropy and non-profit works to do the same; to be honest when we are not the right experts; and to humbly facilitate the involvement of those who rightfully are.
Of course, we can’t pretend every donor is ready to adopt a fully participatory model, or that every social or environmental issue has a simple and accessible ‘community’ from which members can participate in decision making. However, we know there are bold, effective and valuable stepping stones to help move towards it (think greater inclusion on boards, full engagement with strategic reviews, open digital voting and assessment processes, and thorough community consultations, to name a few). And, at this point, ‘can we really afford not to?’
