The current relationship between charities and grant-making organizations is broken. Control over funding priorities is disproportionately weighted to the grant-makers. This dynamic is so completely embedded in our sector that to imagine the relationship in any other way seems radical, perhaps even ungrateful.
Addressing our hard problems is the purview of the nonprofit sector. We are doing the most important work in our communities today, and yet we must tie ourselves in knots to get the bare minimum we need. The culture of fundraising is stained with a deep inherited shame around asking for money, compounded by the fact that the sector is dominated by women – who are historically under-resourced.
We often talk about tips and tricks for writing successful applications. We invest time and money into researching current programming and funding trends, and write and rewrite strategies to contort our programming to fit funder priorities. But we spend very little time pushing forward other models that might better meet the needs of the communities we serve, and consequently, the needs of funders and nonprofits alike.
Over a series of four articles, I will be exploring alternative granting models, how and where they are being implemented in Canada and abroad, their pros and cons, and their potential impact in the sector and beyond.
Currently, the most common model for grant-makers is that in which a board, committee, or jury selected by the foundation reviews applications. Corporate and family foundations will typically meet after independently reviewing the applications, or meet when one person has reviewed them and made notes, and then they determine which applications meet their funding priorities. These priorities might be informed by their marketing teams, or by personal interest, what they see in the media, the optics of how they want to be perceived, or who they want to be associated with. The people making the decisions may have little or no experience in the nonprofit sector, nor in the specific area of their funding. They may be biased towards organizations or causes they are familiar with, making it harder for smaller grass-roots organizations or ‘unsexy’ social issues to compete. This model reinforces the colonial approach to the charitable sector, which positions the grant-maker as the wise and generous patron, and the organization as the supplicant in need of guidance.
In the traditional top-down model, funding streams and grant applications are designed by the funders to exclude projects that won’t fit their priorities, no matter how critical the program may be for the targeted community. This design encourages mission-drift as organizations restructure programs to fit funder guidelines. This is particularly problematic when those guidelines are not grounded in the communities they are intended to serve.
Compare this with a Participatory Grantmaking (PGM) model. When funding is distributed using Participatory Grantmaking, parameters of the fund, the recipients of funding, and the value of the awards are determined by the community that the fund serves. The PGM model begins with the premise that people with lived experience are the most qualified for assessing what projects and programs will best meet their community’s needs, and by extension, the grant-makers’ funding priorities.
This model rebalances status and power as well as money. By engaging recipients in the granting process, we are acknowledging their agency, learned wisdom, and dignity. The relationship shifts towards collaborative problem-solving, as opposed to hierarchical.
There have been roughly half a dozen PGM initiatives across Canada — including projects in Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto — the most documented being the ‘Building Equitable Economies for Immigrants and Refugees in Peel,’ which ran from 2021–2023. The project was a collaboration between The Tamarack Institute and the WES Mariam Assefa Fund, who partnered with Peel Newcomer Strategy Group (PNSG) to explore what would happen if funding priorities were defined by community residents instead of philanthropic foundations.
The Peel project convened ‘The People’s Panel’, which consisted of members of social-service organizations serving the newcomer and immigrant communities in Peel. Over a series of sessions, the panel collectively identified the community’s needs and goals, which then informed the funding priorities and application process.
The Peel Project received 20 applications from local service providers. Working in small groups, the panel narrowed this down to a short-list of 10 potential projects using a matrix they had developed earlier in the project. Ultimately, 6 projects received funding.
According to the Case Study published by the Tamarack Institute, the Peel PGM project surfaced several critical lessons. First, engaging the broader community allows ‘the project design and development to be responsive to the local context.’ The local knowledge, legitimacy, and relationships provided by the PNSG were central to the project’s success. Process and facilitation were a key component for ensuring the People’s Panel stayed connected to the work and could see how their efforts shaped the funding call. The inclusion of the Panel in the design of the process helped with maintaining cohesion and with the challenge of achieving consensus.
Currently, this model seems primarily focused in Indigenous, BIPOC, women and LGBTQ communities. However, this same model could be expanded to the environment, arts, poverty-reduction, and mental-health & youth-focused programming.
If the funds and their applications were designed by the communities they are intended to serve, and if there was a level playing field between grant-maker and recipient — what do you think we could achieve?
With a background that spans film and advertising production, arts leadership, and communications, Daniella Sorrentino’s cross-disciplinary approach to grant writing — combines strategy, storytelling, and strong design thinking. She has helped clients secure millions in funding, from core operating support to complex project grants. Website | LinkedIn
The views expressed in this article are the author’s alone and do not necessarily represent those of CharityVillage.com or any other individual or entity with whom the authors or website may be affiliated. CharityVillage.com is not liable for any content that may be considered offensive, inappropriate, defamatory, or inaccurate or in breach of third-party rights of privacy, copyright, or trademark.
