Each participatory philanthropy program is unique, but this checklist will give you a general idea of what to consider when planning your operating budget. Not all of these items are necessary for every participatory process, but it’s important to secure adequate support for the things your organization will need to implement a participatory process. Many of these resources can be covered within your organization’s existing structures and operating costs, so may not present as additional costs. Those costs particular to participatory philanthropy have an asterisk (*) next to them.
What to consider when planning your operating budget:
Staff resources or consultant fees for planning, design, project management
Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion consultants or staff expertise in this area
Legal and/or HR consultants/staff to provide support and help manage risks
Finance/Operations consultants/staff (software tools, travel, payments, etc.)
Fundraising consultants/staff (raising funds, reporting to donors, etc.)
Designers and/or video editors for materials produced
Professional translation and/or interpretation
Communications resources (especially for reaching larger audiences)
Evaluation consultants/staff or an external evaluation firm
Coaching for staff (e.g., on decision-making approaches and tools, facilitation)*
Accessibility costs and support (e.g., meeting accommodations or providing equipment or internet to participate)
Trainings for participants (e.g., philanthropy, decision making, addressing bias)*
Honoraria/payments for stakeholders (consultation phase)*
Honoraria/payments for participants (designers or decision makers)*
Care packages/support for participants (sickness, hardship, etc.) or gifts for participants*
Professional facilitators (for meetings/convenings and asynchronous participation)*
Celebration expenses (branded merchandise, convenings, gifts, etc.) Travel, food, accommodation and care expenses (for in-person and hybrid gatherings)
Meeting expenses for in-person gatherings (venue, activities, equipment, insurance, etc.)*
Hybrid meeting support and additional equipment rental fees (for hybrid gatherings)
Graphic recorder (for in-person or virtual gatherings)
Communications resources (especially for reaching larger audiences)
Participatory Project Outline
A sample outline for incorporating participation into your grantmaking cycles
While we do not expect that funders will replicate the approach we took for our Participatory Climate Initiative in full, this outline can help you incorporate participation into your organization and different phases of the philanthropic cycle.
Secure consultants/staff to manage the project and/or train staff
Define the scope for the design phase, assign roles and consult project sponsors
Create a stakeholder map and conduct initial consultations
Create a project plan, schedule, and budget for the design phase
Define roles, convene a participatory design team
Conduct participatory design process
Share results of participatory design process with all stakeholders
Create a project plan, schedule, and budget for the grantmaking phase
Conduct a focused round of consultations with stakeholders
Define roles, convene a participatory grantmaking group
Conduct participatory decision-making process
Share results of participatory decision-making process with all stakeholders
Share learning with wider philanthropy community
Define the scope for the design phase, assign roles and consult project sponsors
Identify opportunities to platform design team and grantmaking group members by inviting them to convenings and conferences, publishing their ideas, and using resources to amplify their voices and contributions
Convene funders and participants for shared learning experiences
Sample Project Scope
A sample project scope for determining your funding parameters
Shared Insight developed this Project Scope for our Participatory Climate Initiative. Below are the initiative’s learning goals, requirements, and recommendations – defined by the funders and passed along to our Design Team. Consider what are the required parameters of your funding before opening up decision making to those outside of the foundation.
The project, focused on climate change, will support funders to deepen their practices in these two areas:
Requirements are firm decisions that are made by Shared Insight’s Advocacy/Policy Change Committee before the participatory design phase. The participatory design team must abide by these requirements.
Recommendations will be considered by the design team, but they are not requirements. Shared Insight’s Advocacy/Policy Change Committee will accept the decision of the design team in these areas, even if they diverge from recommendations.
Project Roles
Sample descriptions of the roles, phases of involvement, and engagement levels of different kinds of participants
While we don’t anticipate that all elements of our approach would be fully adopted by another funder, below are the roles, phases of involvement, and engagement levels of our initiative that can help you think about yours.
- Very light engagement: less than an average of 2 hours/month during the active phases identified
- Light engagement: less than an average of 3 hours/week during the active phases identified
- Medium engagement: less than an average of 15 hours/week during the active phases identified
- Significant engagement: more than an average of 15 hours/week during the active phases identified
| Role | Description | Phases Involved | Engagement |
| Funders | Contributed to the initiative budget and overall governance of the donor collaborative that housed the initiative; reviewed and approved plans and budgets and each phase of the initiative; participated in learning activities related to the initiative several times throughout the year. |
|
Very light |
|---|---|---|---|
| Committee Members | Funders who sat on Shared Insight's Advocacy/Policy Committee that initiated this work; played an active role during the planning phase; participated in learning activities related to the initiative about every other month; responsible for bringing learning back to their home organizations. |
|
Very light |
| Committee |
Members of Shared Insight's Advocacy/Policy Committee who were more active and involved with planning this work; met regularly with the project sponsor and project managers throughout the initiative to offer feedback and guidance. |
|
Light |
| Funder Representatives | One funder representative joined the Design Team as liaison with Shared Insight's funder committee; two funder representatives joined the Grantmaking Group. The funder representatives participated as observers and were charged with bringing their observations and learning back to the funder committee and beyond. |
|
Medium |
| Role | Description | Phases Involved | Engagement |
| Project Sponsor | The managing director of Fund for Shared Insight was responsible for hiring the Consultants and supervising the project under the direction of the Advocacy/Policy Committee. |
|
Medium |
|---|---|---|---|
| Support Team | Support from Fund for Shared Insight and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors’ team of staff and contractors included grants administration, disbursing payments, communications, design, equity/diversity/inclusion support, logistics, and more. |
|
Medium |
| Facilitators & project managers | The project managers planned and implemented each phase of the initiative under the direction of the project sponsor. Consultants with expertise in participatory philanthropy and group work served as facilitators and project managers. They were responsible for supporting the Design Team, Grantmaking Group, and Learning Community meetings and asynchronous collaboration. (These roles could be separated.) |
|
Significant |
| Role | Description | Phases Involved | Engagement |
| Stakeholders Consulted | Stakeholders participated in 30-to-60-minute phone/video calls during the Planning and Design Phases. Stakeholders had experience with issues on climate and environment, philanthropic funding flows locally, and community leadership efforts. |
|
Very light |
|---|---|---|---|
| Partner Selectors | 12 partner organizations deeply embedded in regional work at the intersection of climate/environment and advocacy/policy were invited to select someone from their community to join the Design Team. |
|
Light |
| Design Team Members | 12 Design Team members with strong connections to their region and climate/environment issues considered key design questions and created a purpose statement for the fund; 11 members continued their engagement during the Grantmaking Phase; several joined the Grantmaking Group. |
|
Medium |
| Nominators | Stakeholders with specific expertise were invited to nominate groups for funding that met the criteria created by the Design Team. |
|
Very light |
| Grantmaking Group members | 14 Grantmaking Group members (seven from each region) made decisions about how $1 million would be distributed in each region; they also communicated funding decisions; some joined the Learning Community. |
|
Medium |
| Grantees | 35 groups/organizations participated in the application process and received grants; some joined the Learning Community. |
|
Light |
| Learning Community | Mix of Design Team, Grantmaking Group members, and funders who are interested in exploring the productive tensions in philanthropy; convened once a quarter or so to discuss these issues with an optional in-person gathering. |
|
Light |
Participant Compensation
Good practices and tips for compensating participants fairly and generously
Compensating participants fairly and generously for their time and lived experience should be standard practice. Below are resources to help you identify good practices, consider the appropriate financial and legal issues, and reflect on the tangible and non-tangible benefits of compensation. Tips on handling some common challenges funders face around equitable compensation can be found in a related post at Insights for Change.
Good Practices for Compensating Participants
Develop an accurate estimate of the time and effort required of each participant
Use what you pay an expert consultant doing similar work as a benchmark
Monitor the time and effort participants are spending and make adjustments if needed
Be aware of power dynamics; participants are likely not to feel empowered to negotiate
Err on the side of providing too much compensation rather than too little
Provide participants with options for how they can be paid and when
Offer information about how and when payments will be administered in advance
Avoid unnecessarily burdensome administrative practices, especially for small payments
If the process to receive payment is time-consuming, compensate participants for the additional time
Offer alternative forms of compensation (see examples below) up front, in case participants deem the cash payment process too burdensome
Recognize that conversations about compensation may be uncomfortable for some
Do not set false expectations for future payments
Provide as much information as you can in advance about how your process will work
- Commit to making timely payments and keeping participants informed
- Make the purpose of the compensation and your expectations clear in writing
- Notify participants whenever they will need to report compensation as income
Offer to compensate individuals or organizations based on their preference
Compensate participants who spend time on your work
Compensate participants who are offering their expertise
Consider any legal restrictions, such as your conflict of interest policy
Trust that participants are doing their part
Avoid making compensation contingent on meeting certain milestones
Observe the time and effort of participants and increase compensation if needed
Request feedback from participants about how compensation works for them
Fully secure the funding before you contact any participants
Recognize that compensation is a necessary cost of doing business, not an extra
Recognize that compensation is yet another tool for supporting communities and achieving your mission
Frameworks for Compensation
This table is specific to funders funding from the U.S. Other countries may have different options for compensation. This table is intended as a general information tool. Always seek professional legal and financial advice when evaluating these options for your specific circumstances.
| Honorarium | Stipend | Grant | Contract | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | One-time | Recurring | One-time or multiple disbursements | One-time or multiple disbursements |
| Purpose | Recognition of one’s general contribution | Expenses and training (not work performed) | Public benefit | Payment for work performed |
| Restrictions | Often capped by organizations at $599 due to IRS requirements to file a 1099 | Few restrictions but not provided by many nonprofit organizations | Subject to many complex and eligibility requirements (covered in IRC Section 4945) | Flexible but requires legal supervision and is often subject to internal processes |
| Recipients | Individuals, companies, 501(c)s | Individuals only | Often 501(c)s but may be offered to individuals and companies with certain restrictions | Individuals, companies, 501(c)s |
| Taxable for the recipient? | Taxable income for the recipient (even if under $600) | Usually taxable income for the recipient | Varies depending on the status of the recipient | Taxable income for the recipient |
| Requires a written agreement? | Does not require a written agreement | Does not require a written agreement | Type of contract (generally requires a written agreement by definition) | Generally requires a written agreement by definition |
Beyond Monetary Compensation
We are sure that these lists of benefits are not exhaustive! If you’ve used other creative ways to compensate participants, we’d love to hear from you.
Please also note that some of the tangible benefits included here may be considered “cash equivalent items” by the IRS (such as gift cards) and must be reported to the IRS as taxable income. Make sure that participants are adequately informed of this, and that all parties seek the professional legal and financial advice needed.
NOTE: Some of these items could be “cash equivalent items”
Providing gift cards
Paying for educational expenses
Paying for or providing training
Providing technology equipment
Providing access to software that participants can continue to use
- Providing quality internet access
- Paying for dependent care
- Providing quality food, refreshments, and accommodations
- Funding travel or networking opportunities that benefit participants directly
Having an impact on a cause they care about or on their communities
Feeling of service to their communities or a cause they care about
Feeling more connected to others
Building relationships and connecting with other participants or funders
Expanding and strengthening their networks
- Building new skills and strengthening existing skills
- Enhancing their profile or building their reputation
- Learning something new
- Gaining inspiration from the work of others
- Receiving recognition for their work and feeling a sense of accomplishment
Conflicts of Interest
Definitions, sample scenarios, and reflection questions for managing and destigmatizing interconnectedness
Almost by definition, participatory processes are about relationships and interconnectedness. To preserve the benefits of those connections while avoiding conflicts of interest or the appearance of such conflicts, funders must take steps to manage and destigmatize the risks. For further discussion on this topic, see a related post at Insights for Change.
Conflicts can occur when participants in decision making have a personal, financial, or professional interest that could, consciously or unconsciously, influence their judgment or actions.
This could lead to participants making unfair decisions, and could also have legal consequences. Even if decisions are considered fair and in the best interests of the program overall – not just the potentially conflicted participants – situations involving conflicts could place emotional strain on participants, strain their relationships, or damage the reputation of the program or participants.
Conflicts of interest: Participants themselves or a family member could benefit directly from a funding decision. Participants might be incentivized to make decisions that are in their own best interests rather than in the interests of the program they are working on.
Conflicts of loyalty: While a participant might not benefit directly from a decision, a group they are affiliated with could benefit. Participants might be motivated to make decisions in the best interests of that group rather than the program they are working on.
Perceived conflicts: There is not actually a conflict of interest, but someone might perceive that there is a conflict. Decisions are unlikely to be affected, but a perceived conflict could still damage reputations and relationships, and challenge the integrity of the whole process.
How We Did It: Shared Insight’s Participatory Climate Initiative
The Participatory Philanthropy Toolkit is based on the first-hand experiences of the funders, consultants, and community members who were involved in our Participatory Climate Initiative.
Case Study: Steps taken by Shared Insight’s Participatory Climate Initiative
Policy and process
We developed a policy to define conflicts of interest and outline how to handle them appropriately. If your organization does not already have a policy in place governing conflicts of interest, make sure to draft one in partnership with your legal and compliance team. It is important to ensure that your policy is compliant with any local laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest as well as your organization’s internal policies.
Training and communication
We took a careful approach to training, including training toward the very beginning of each decision-making process. Training ensured participants were on the same page and began to destigmatize the issue for participants. Rather than make participants feel they needed to avoid conflicts of interest, we reminded them that conflicts of interest are inevitable in this context of interconnectedness. The important thing was to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and take appropriate steps to manage them with the support of the facilitators. Training also prepared us for the one-on-one discussions and work with each participant that followed.
Disclosures and action plans
We asked participants to report any potential conflicts of interest, disclosures we collected from each participant through a form. We recorded each reported potential conflict and created an action plan for each participant, which we reviewed together with that participant. Through one-on-one discussions, we ensured that each participant understood the action plan and what was required of them. In some cases, we needed to inform the full group about how we planned to manage certain conflicts, but we never did so without discussing this with each participant first to ensure their confidentiality was respected. Keep in mind that some conflicts may be sensitive for participants, which is one reason why in-depth one-on-one work with participants is necessary to understand their needs.
Implementation
Throughout the group decision-making process, we ensured that access to materials and discussions was controlled as outlined by each action plan. That meant, for example, a participant who disclosed a potential conflict of interest involving an organization seeking funding would not have access to the materials related to that potential grant. Along with limiting document sharing, we were also prepared to moderate group discussions to ensure that action plans were followed.
Examples
Keep in mind that action plans may vary significantly depending on your organization’s structure, legal and regulatory obligations, and internal policies, as well as the needs of participants.
SCENARIO 1
A participant who is a member of the grantmaking group making decisions about grant funding also serves as a member on any kind of governing body of a grant applicant.
This participant should not have access to any information, analysis, or discussion pertaining to that applicant. The participant will recuse themselves from any decisions, and a note describing this recusal can be included in the written decision at the participant’s request.
SCENARIO 2
A participant who is on the grantmaking group that makes decisions about grants happens to live and work in the same community as an applicant and knows many of the people involved in the project very well.
This participant is not required to recuse themselves from any decisions, but they have requested to do so in order to avoid any appearance of a conflict in their community. They may have access to information and analysis, and may participate in discussions to provide the rest of the group with information or context about this grantee.
Plan well in advance and get started with training and communication right away
Ensure you have the expertise to understand disclosures and recommend actions, or seek support
Create space for difficult feelings that participants may have about conflicts
Ensure participants can disclose conflicts at any time during your process, not just at the beginning
Be aware of technology needs and procedures for limiting access to materials to ensure the right people have access to the right materials
Remember that active facilitation may be required to ensure compliance
Use these questions to advance conversations about destigmatizing conflicts of interest within your funder organization:
How relevant are your organization’s existing policies around conflicts of interest to participants?
What is your own attitude toward conflicts of interest and what is your organization’s attitude? How might this influence your work with participants?
Is concern about conflicts of interest creating barriers to doing more participatory work? Why or why not?
Where do you see opportunities to reframe and destigmatize conversations about conflicts of interest in your work?
Participatory Learning and Evaluation Planning
Recommendations for implementing participatory approaches to learning and evaluation
Participatory learning and evaluation is relatively rare in philanthropy, even by funders practicing participatory grantmaking, but it is an important part of the philanthropy process that offers significant opportunities for funder organizations to shift power to the communities they serve.
Participatory learning and evaluation is an approach that involves the people who are impacted by the work in the learning and evaluation process. It shifts some of the power held by external or staff evaluators to the people who are closest to the work. Participatory approaches in philanthropy, including participatory evaluation, center the leadership, wisdom, and voices of communities. They shift power from philanthropy’s traditional power centers to the people directly affected by the work.
- Learning and evaluation is a two-way street that benefits everyone involved
- People closest to the issues are the experts of their experiences
- People closest to the issues should be able to participate in learning and evaluation
Key Recommendations for Participatory Learning and Evaluation Planning
Conduct a Power Analysis
As you embark upon your participatory evaluation journey, take some time to understand learning and evaluation as a power center in your organization and where you have opportunities to shift power to participants.
Key questions for evaluators to explore:
What power do either internal or external evaluators hold in your organization right now?
What would it look like if more power was shared with communities closest to the work in the learning and evaluation process?
Where in the learning and evaluation process are there opportunities to shift power to communities immediately?
How can the learning and evaluation process change to open up more opportunities to shift power?
Start Somewhere
Start with what is possible for your organization, and be clear and upfront about what aspects of your learning and evaluation process are participatory or not participatory.
There are many approaches
Launching a participatory evaluation for the first time may be overwhelming. Remember that participation may be understood on a spectrum and that participatory evaluation is not an all-or-nothing proposition. There are many ways, large and small, that you can make learning and evaluation at your organization more participatory. It is not necessary (or even helpful in most cases) for you to implement every participatory approach at the same time. Perhaps you are not ready to cede power over the entire evaluation process to participants, but it is possible to involve them in deciding what is measured or in interpreting data collected or in creating your final evaluation report.
Defining the scope of the evaluation
One question that funders frequently ask when defining the scope of their participatory evaluation is, “Should participants come from the grantees we work with or the people those groups serve?” Our answer is, “Either or both, depending on your context.” Including grantees and their beneficiaries in the same group may be complex, but also may have additional benefits for participants. Depending on your goals and your existing relationships, it may be more realistic to start by working directly with your grantees and work on expanding your group of participants at a later time.
Shift from Evaluation to Learning
When making a shift toward participatory learning and evaluation, we also recommend that you shift from an evaluation mindset to a learning mindset. This is because a learning mindset emphasizes benefits for everyone involved in the learning process. An evaluation mindset may imply that the evaluators involved bring an objective perspective, but learning emphasizes working together for the benefit of all. Evaluations also typically turn the lens on the grantee and not the foundation – but consider how and where grantees or others can give feedback on their experience with your foundation.
Redefine Expertise
Consider the expertise of those closest to the issues as just as valuable
Across philanthropy, but especially in fields like health, science, and climate solutions, a certain type of expertise is given more weight in both decision making and evaluation. Over the years, this has meant that people with credentials like PhDs, MDs, or JDs, have made decisions for the people most impacted by the issues, often without consulting the people affected or without appropriately valuing nonacademic expertise. While the rigorous knowledge people with academic credentials have is certainly valuable in many contexts, participatory learning and evaluation recognizes that it is not the only type of knowledge or expertise that should be valued.
A significant mindset shift, not only from funders, but from community members is required
Consider the expertise of those closest to the issues as just as valuable, or in some cases more valuable, than traditionally held forms of academic expertise. This approach can be challenging because it requires a significant mindset shift, not only from funders, but from community members themselves, who may often undervalue their own expertise. Participatory evaluation explicitly acknowledges this power dynamic and prioritizes integrating the most relevant types of expertise to the work that is being done.
We recommend that you, as a funder, continue to interrogate the ways you value expertise throughout the learning and evaluation process, and make explicit efforts to center the expertise held by people affected by the work you are funding.
Adapt as You Go
Participatory learning and evaluation can be challenging to plan, since the way participants engage and what they recommend is beyond your control.
Tips for effectively planning for participatory learning and evaluation
- Budget and plan for your participatory evaluation from the very start of your project, at the same time that you secure resources for the rest of your project.
- Be as clear as possible with participants about what power they do or do not have to change things, such as the evaluation process and timeline.
- Consider a concurrent evaluation approach, conducting evaluations while the work is underway. This approach may allow for more opportunities to course correct and adjust resources throughout your evaluation.
- Reduce pressure to complete your evaluation by a certain date by communicating with senior leadership and other key stakeholders about the need for flexibility in your evaluation timeline.
