Why Participatory Philanthropy?

The decision to bring participatory philanthropy into our practice through Our Town was twofold. First, in Our Town we saw an opportunity to implement philanthropic best practice and participatory philanthropy was high on that list. Second, we were keen to do what we could to address the sector’s power imbalance and invite diverse voices and expertise to the table. When we initially designed Our Town it was with philanthropic best practice at the forefront of our minds and we thought we’d done a pretty good job, but as we moved from planning to implementing we continued to learn and reflect, stopping often to adapt and improve our practice.

Grants Advisory Committee

Having an eye to better participatory philanthropy during the initial design of Our Town we redistributed decision-making power by establishing the Grants Advisory Committee. The GAC consisted of a Foundation Board member, the Foundation CEO, a representative from the Department of Human Services (DHS) and one from SA Health. Their first responsibility was to choose the towns that would progress to the capability development year; a decision based on a capability self-assessment, a five minute video from the town visit, and the original written application - all assessed against selection criteria defined by the Foundation. The decision was solid and the process sound, but there was still a big funding decision looming at the end of 2020, and we wanted to be sure we continued to pursue better practice. As we reflected and brought new learnings to the table we knew we needed to seek greater diversity of voice and experience and that we needed to realign the selection criteria to better reflect community. 

Acting on these reflections, we moved to expand the GAC through targeted recruitment. We looked around to see who was missing from the table, what voices weren’t being heard? We mapped the skills covered and highlighted the ones we needed to find. We reached out through our networks and invited three additional members. 

• A member of the Lived Experience Leadership and Advocacy Network (LELAN) with both lived and professional experience of South Australia’s mental health system

• A community member from a shortlisted town with understanding of the initiative from the other side and experience as a nurse and farmer

• A community member from another shortlisted town with expertise in the disability and inclusion space, deep community connections, and lived experience of mental health

Through increased representative participation we grew the GAC from four members to seven, introducing broader skill sets and more diverse expertise and experience.
 

Co-designed selection criteria

Through our reflective practice we also recognised the need to reimagine the selection criteria to better reflect what was important to community. The original selection criteria was developed by the Foundation and centred around existing community knowledge, experience, and perceived need. We wanted to move away from this and instead provide the opportunity for the Towns to co-design the selection criteria for the GAC. 

Co-designing the selection criteria ensured communities:

• Were being assessed based on what they thought was most important (not what we did).

• Had a clear and deep understanding of the criteria and how it connected to what they were doing.

• Were assessed on the journey and their growth during the capability development year and not just on the outcome. (With consideration to equity each Town’s growth was not measured in comparison to one another but on the shift between an initial capability self assessment and one completed near the end of the year).

The communities designed the selection criteria by adding their thoughts to a shared document under three overarching themes, Our Town Community team behaviours, Our Town Community team characteristics, and key elements of the final plan. Their suggestions were synthesised and the final criteria looked something like... 

• Potential impact: potential to create transformative change in your community.

• Enabling conditions for change: Potential for deep engagement and appropriate shared governance.
   

Impact and Outcomes

Measuring the direct impact of participatory philanthropy can be tricky. We can’t really ‘measure’ if expanding the GAC membership from four to seven made our decisions better. What we know for sure is that we have a more robust and transparent process with greater accountability to community. We know that a diversity of voices, experiences, and worldviews leads to broader, deeper, and better informed discussions. The annual process report which gathered data from interviews and survey responses from the town teams, the GAC, and support team organisations highlighted the following strengths and weaknesses of the decision making process:

Strengths

• The approach to selection was shaped by and included the voice of lived experience.

• Both Support Team and Towns felt that the process was transparent and fair.

• Both Support Team and Towns mentioned the co-designed selection criteria as a positive and unique factor.

Weaknesses

• The presentation of the selection pack, including criteria, was confusing for some of the Towns.

• The timeline of the capability building year evolved a lot and pace was something we all struggled with - leading to some issues for towns - for example the first capability growth assessment was conducted later than planned.
   

Conclusion

Like many we are on a journey of challenging how philanthropy has been done in the past. We are in a constant learning loop as we continue to look for opportunities to address the power imbalance inherent in our sector. We are looking to continue learning from community by inviting them to bring their expert knowledge and deep understanding to help us create informed and equitable decision-making processes. We hope that talking about the How has been helpful and we’ll leave you with a few of our key reflections and learnings...

• Participatory philanthropy can be hard, but it’s worth it.

• It’s important to create safe spaces for community and model mentally healthy practice.

• Get rid of the jargon and just say what you mean, always communicate for community first.

• Be considerate of matching your pace to community and provide time and space to sit in the process, you can’t rush co-design.