Decision Making

Grantmaking organisations wield significant influence in shaping social outcomes through their funding decisions. Recent literature reveals a growing recognition that traditional grantmaking processes often perpetuate existing inequities rather than addressing them. We conducted a review of literature to understand the current landscape of grant-making decision-making process, existing barriers and emerging best practices. 

In traditional grantmaking, the power to make decisions is typically held by a relatively small and homogenous group of people. Research shows that philanthropic decision‑making structures often concentrate authority among individuals who may have limited direct experience with the issues they are seeking to address. This can lead to funding choices that do not fully align with community priorities and, over time, contribute to persistent inequities. Studies also demonstrate that philanthropy systematically underfunds organisations serving diverse communities, which further entrenches disparities—often unintentionally.  

Funding decisions are frequently shaped by review criteria grounded in dominant cultural norms, influencing what is recognised as credible evidence, legitimate expertise, or an effective organisational model. When these norms guide assessment, organisations that draw on community knowledge, alternative governance structures, or culturally distinct practices may be systematically disadvantaged.  

Furthermore, hierarchical structures, risk‑averse mindsets, and limited willingness to share power with communities restrict opportunities to shift decision‑making authority. Even when more participatory mechanisms are introduced, the potential for meaningful influence depends heavily on the level of support provided. Participants from marginalised communities may be asked to engage with complex deliberative processes without adequate preparation, compensation, or facilitation. Without this support, engagement risks becoming tokenistic and their contributions remain constrained.

One of the most significant shifts in decision making processes is the rise of participatory grantmaking, which involves transferring aspects of decision‑making power to people directly affected by the issues a funder seeks to address. By treating community members as experts rather than beneficiaries, participatory models often lead to decisions that more accurately align with community priorities.  

Another key development involves diversifying who holds influence within decision‑making spaces. Funders are increasingly bringing people with lived experience into staff roles, boards, grant committees, and advisory groups. When implemented meaningfully this diversification helps reduce institutional blind spots and ensures that decisions draw on a more representative range of perspectives. For this to happen, it needs to be accompanied by fair compensation, appropriate support, and clarity of expectations. 

Across these efforts lies a broader recognition that equity in grantmaking requires more than procedural adjustments. It demands an explicit acknowledgement of the accumulated inequities produced by systemic bias, or how white supremacy culture shows up, and a commitment to counteracting these forces through intentional and reflective decision‑making. Emerging practices increasingly emphasise the need to examine how power is distributed, whose knowledge is legitimised, and how communities are supported to participate on equal terms. This includes simplifying application materials, stripping out requirements that create unnecessary barriers, and training reviewers to identify and counteract unconscious bias.

When people with lived experience play a meaningful role in funding decisions, the resulting grants tend to align far more closely with community priorities. This can strengthen trust between funders and the communities they serve, while also increasing the legitimacy and transparency of the process.  

However, the growth of participatory grantmaking (PGM) brings an important caveat: a claim of participation does not guarantee that participation is meaningful. While more funders are adopting participatory language and practices, evidence to date suggests that many approaches remain tokenistic. In numerous cases, affected communities are invited into decision-making late in the process or with very limited influence. For participation to be genuine, community members and leaders need to be involved from the outset: working alongside trustees, officers, and staff to co‑design criteria, shape due‑diligence processes, inform decision-making, and contribute to monitoring and learning. The aim is not for funders to “outsource” responsibility for decisions, but to consult thoughtfully, share power appropriately, and ensure that decisions are shaped by those who are most directly affected. 

Embedding this level of participation requires time, resources, and sustained organisational commitment. Without careful design, participatory processes can place additional burdens on communities, particularly when engagement is not adequately compensated, supported, or made accessible.  

Unfortunately, concentrated authority, culturally biased assessment norms, and tokenistic forms of participation continue to shape who has influence and whose knowledge is valued. While emerging practices such as participatory grantmaking, diversifying decision‑making bodies, and redesigning review systems offer promising pathways, their effectiveness depends on funders’ willingness to share power, resource participation properly, and confront the systemic biases that have long structured decisions. Achieving equitable outcomes therefore requires intentional, sustained reform of how decisions are made, who makes them, and the conditions under which community members can genuinely shape the choices that affect them.