Participants at our November 26 virtual gala toasting CJRF’s four new grant partners.
By Hilary Nilsen and Kanchen Shakya
In late 2023, CJRF’s Advisory Board approved an 18-month strategy to deploy up to US$4M in funding by experimenting with different participatory grantmaking methods. As a funder who has made grants via traditional philanthropic methods and structures in the past, CJRF is now investing in a period of exploration and learning via a series of participatory grantmaking pilots.
In April 2024, CJRF launched the first in this series of pilots – a global open call for proposals, for which 175 grant applicants from 49 countries collectively decided which proposals won grants. Facilitating such a large participatory process took until November, and it posed many challenges for CJRF. Through it all, we held close a spirit of ‘learning by doing.’ We gathered feedback and took notes, both to inform our future work and to share with other funders. This blog briefly describes the participatory grantmaking pilot, then shares four initial lessons we took from the process.
Background on What We Did
We designed our 2024 global open call based on the outcomes of two “dream open call workshops” held in November 2023, where we crowdsourced priorities from our network of partners and colleagues. ‘Building Connections, Networks, and Collaborative Spaces for Climate Justice and Resilience’ emerged as a core theme from these workshops. With this theme, we launched the global open call for proposals in French and English.
We were inspired by the FRIDA: The Young Feminist Fund’s participatory grantmaking model when designing this open call, and many of the elements of our process came from their tested methods. We began with 513 expressions of interest that activists and practitioners submitted through an online eligibility screening questionnaire. 351 of the interested groups were deemed eligible, and we invited them to submit simple 3-page proposals and basic organizational information. 274 groups submitted applications.
Then, in June, CJRF formed a Review Committee of 21 individuals, including past grantee partners, CJRF board members, staff, and others active on climate justice around the globe. Most had attended the initial “dream” workshop, and they conducted a deeper eligibility screening to ensure the 274 applications were aligned with the theme of the call. Based on their review and invitation, 175 applicants joined a voting pool. Applicants in the voting pool then took part in two voting rounds, reviewing 8-12 applications each time, and voting on those they believed should receive a CJRF grant. We are pleased to announce the final four grant winners!
CJRF gathered feedback from participants via surveys at several points in the grantmaking process. Participants also reflected on their experience at an online gathering of applicants. CJRF staff, board members, and Review Committee participants also reflected periodically. These surveys and reflection moments generated four preliminary lessons:
Lesson One: Participatory processes take time, often longer than planned
When we launched the open call, we estimated six months for the whole process, with a plan to announce the final four in October. The reality took a little longer. Ultimately, when you involve outside participants in decision-making, there needs to be time allocated to gaining a shared understanding of the process and of the intended outcomes.
For example, during the process of determining applicant eligibility with the Review Committee, we simplified explanations about the broader context so they wouldn’t have to spend a lot of time on this process. This led to some inconsistency in how each member approached their review of applications.
Additionally, because CJRF was learning and experimenting through this pilot, sticking to a strict timeline was not always feasible. Creating voting groups, something CJRF has never done before, took longer than originally planned, which caused us to shift the voting schedule. This caused confusion and stress, as one applicant shared: "We feel the timelines of this work have not been explained well at all. [Because of the shift] the CJRF work was dropped on us in this period without any prior information…”
We learned that participatory processes need realistic and attainable timelines that also leave room for some flexibility and adjustment.
Lesson Two: Participatory grantmaking offers a variety of ways to create participation
Throughout this open call, we’ve seen that there are a variety of ways for funders to facilitate participation. We had participatory elements at multiple stages of this process and involved different stakeholders: staff, board, applicants, grantee partners, and more. Some of the participatory elements included: a workshop in late 2023 where CJRF partners, Board Members, and others brainstormed CJRF’s priorities for this open call; our 21-person Review Committee reviewing concepts and inviting organizations to submit applications; and most importantly, the actual voting, a structure that transferred final decision-making power from CJRF and to the participants themselves.
In all, from the design workshop in 2023 to the actual decisions, hundreds of people took part in this participatory process. Furthermore, this participation is ongoing. In early November, CJRF hosted a Networking Event for applicants to meet one another and offer feedback to this process. We also created feedback surveys for applicants, and we will take this feedback forward into the planning for our 2025 open call.
As we involved more people in decision-making at CJRF, we also realized that the way staff design and manage the process gives us more influence than we initially thought. For example, in creating the voting groups, we created bias in what types of organizations would receive grants. For example, 68% of applicants to the open call were based in Africa, so we created a final voting group of just African organizations. This guaranteed at least one out of four grants would be awarded from that continent.
We’ve learned Maria Alejandra Escalante, CJRF Board Member, reflects on the complexity and importance of participatory processes:
"Participatory and inclusive decision-making processes are not linear or simple, neither in philanthropy nor outside of this sector, as also seen in democracies and in strategies towards movement building. For CJRF, launching into this first global open call meant embracing delays, unknowns, frustrations, and failures in doing something new. Yet, this open call showed there is a possibility for funders and regranters to take risks, which are ultimately essential if we are serious about changing traditional extractive and unequal dynamics between donors and movements."
Lesson Three: Participatory grantmaking needs participants to feel they have the capacity and expertise to make decisions
We were surprised to find that a number of applicants wished CJRF staff and board members joined the voting pool or otherwise took a heavier hand in the decision-making process. These participants seemed to feel applicants were poorly positioned to review proposals, in comparison to CJRF insiders. One applicant shared a suggestion for weighted review, saying “Allocating different weights to applicant votes and CJRF votes could balance grassroots perspectives with the fund's strategic priorities… This approach would maintain the importance of applicant input while allowing CJRF to guide outcomes based on their expertise and overarching goals.”
This feels contrary to participatory grantmaking principles and leaves us with many questions. What is driving this desire for CJRF involvement? Is it a belief that CJRF knows its strategy and grantmaking best and should make decisions accordingly? Voters feeling unequipped to make decisions? A mistrust in peer applicants to make decisions fairly?
CJRF feels strongly about shifting power, and we want to do so in ways that facilitate smooth participation and satisfaction with the process. We recognize there is a learning curve for all participants in this decision-making shift. Future opportunities must build capacity of the people involved so non-funders feel comfortable making funding decisions. These could include webinars/FAQ sessions with participants; a presentation of CJRF strategy and/or criteria for the call; proposal templates that streamline review; or other creative options.
Lesson Four: Larger funding opportunities need participatory grantmaking processes
For this open call, CJRF committed to making four multi-year, flexible grants of $200,000 USD. In much of the feedback received thus far, participants told us they wished CJRF offered more grants at smaller sizes.
While we recognize this feedback is important, we also believe in our experiment to offer participatory grantmaking opportunities for larger grants. The majority of participatory grantmakers make grants under $50,000 USD (and often even under $10,000 USD). This means larger funding is almost always driven by traditional power dynamics in philanthropy.
As CJRF’s Director, Heather McGray, puts it, “Philanthropy doesn’t yet have many models where non-funders control the deployment of large grants. Grants around $200,000 can be transformative for a growing organization or network. At the same time, small grants are very powerful for supporting grassroots groups and community-led initiatives.”
In this spirit of experimentation, we are planning a 2025 open call with smaller grant sizes. The lessons from both grantmaking processes, small and mid-size grants, will inform our strategy development and shape how CJRF does its grantmaking going forward.
What’s Next?
We are proud of this important step to diversify who participates at CJRF. One applicant had this to say: “This is our first experience with a decision-making process of this nature, and we recognize that it is not an easy task for the CJRF team. However, we believe you have succeeded in creating a democratic system and strengthening organizations that are not yet part of your partners. This is exactly how a movement should operate."
Watch our website for news of our other participatory grantmaking pilots and opportunities to engage in our 2025 open call. We hope that our future grantmaking continues to increase who is seated at the table, and that we become even better at diversifying the ways in which people can participate in our fund.
We invite you to subscribe to our newsletter to stay up-to-date on future participatory grantmaking opportunities at CJRF. .