Examining Representation in Participatory Grantmaking

Abstract

Critics of philanthropy have argued that traditional approaches to decision-making concerning the distribution of funds to grantees have lacked input from external parties, in some cases resulting in misdirected resources and harmful outcomes (Fleishman, 2007; Reich, 2019). To address this issue, some foundations have been employing participatory grantmaking (PGM), which Gibson et al. (2025) have defined as an inclusive practice that "cedes decision-making power about funding to the communities a foundation or donor aims to serve" (2025, p. 3). Studies of such grantmaking have focused on its prevalence, history, forms, and outcomes relative to traditional approaches, but a gap exists in scholarship concerning how foundation personnel view, enact, and evaluate representation: a central consideration in PGM (Gibson et al., 2025). Building from literature concerning modern representation, philanthropy, and participatory grantmaking, this study sought to obtain views from mid-level staff at foundations concerning representation in PGM. I conducted semi-structured interviews with eight individuals at five foundations who occupied positions that directly interfaced with foundation leaders and community members involved in PGM. Via thematic coding and analysis of interview transcripts and supplemental materials, I found that interviewees viewed representation through largely formal and descriptive frames, rather than through a lens of representation-as-action (Pitkin, 1967). Foundation staff balanced their consideration of the social groups represented by community participants with recognition of those individuals' layered and complex identities. Interviewees' reflections on their positionality and power informed their facilitation choices, which seemed to favor restraint from interjection over what they considered undue contributions to panels' deliberations. This inclination de facto placed program officers in facilitative roles rather than acting as agents seeking intentionally to encourage social change—the nominal goal of the PGM processes in which they were engaged. Interviewee accounts also illuminated how community voices can influence PGM design as it pertains to representation, and how expertise is understood, incorporated, and elided from such efforts. I conclude with reflections on the study's limitations and potential paths for future research.