Who holds the power in grantmaking — and should that change?

The debate in brief

Grantmaking in the UK operates on an inherent power asymmetry: funders decide who gets money, on what terms, and by what criteria. Charities and communities shape their work around funder priorities, language, and timelines — often without any formal say in how those priorities are set. Almost everyone in the sector acknowledges this imbalance exists. Almost 80% of grantmakers surveyed by the Grant Givers' Movement agreed that better redistribution of power would lead to more impactful grantmaking. Yet only 4% of those same grantmakers said their organisations were most accountable to beneficiaries, compared with 39% who said they were most accountable to trustees.

The result is a sector where the rhetoric of power-sharing runs well ahead of the practice. Participatory grantmaking — where communities have a direct role in deciding who gets funded — is growing, but it remains marginal. The question is whether funders are genuinely willing to let go of control, or whether the language of power redistribution has become another form of performance.

Quick takeaways

The arguments

The case for redistributing power to communities

The strongest argument for shifting decision-making power is that communities know their own needs better than distant funding panels. When people with lived experience of a problem are involved in deciding where resources go, money reaches organisations and projects that traditional grantmaking overlooks. Camden Giving's participatory model illustrates this: 70-80% of projects funded through its community panels are led by racialised groups, and 70% of small grants go to individuals running community projects, including people who would never have navigated a conventional application process.

The accountability argument cuts both ways. Funders defend restrictions and reporting requirements as accountability mechanisms, but the Grant Givers' Movement report exposed that this accountability flows almost entirely upward — to trustees and donors — rather than downward to the people funding is supposed to serve. IVAR's research reinforces this, finding that power dynamics make charities wary of giving honest feedback to funders. The relationship is structurally one-directional: grantees report to funders, but funders rarely answer to grantees.

The case for funder-led decision-making

Foundation trustees have a legal duty to ensure charitable resources are used effectively. Ceding decision-making to external panels does not remove that duty — it complicates it. Participatory grantmaking shifts power to make funding decisions away from trustees, but ultimate legal responsibility still lies with the board. This creates a genuine governance tension that advocates of participatory models sometimes understate.

There are practical concerns too. The National Lottery Community Fund, which has trialled 17 participatory approaches in Scotland since 2016, has documented logistical barriers including staff turnover, difficulties engaging local people, and challenges around groups not formally constituted as charities. Participatory processes require training, facilitation, and sustained investment. For smaller foundations, full participatory grantmaking may not be feasible.

The risk of tokenism is real. Community panels that cannot overrule funder decisions, or that operate only for small pots while strategic funding remains funder-controlled, create the appearance of power-sharing without the substance. As Proximate Press noted, participatory grantmaking in the UK is "somewhere between its infancy and early childhood," and the amounts distributed tend to be small relative to funders' total budgets.

The emerging middle ground

Between full participatory grantmaking and traditional funder-led models, a range of intermediate practices are developing. Trust for London and City Bridge Foundation appointed a panel of Disabled activists to shortlist applicants to their disability justice fund — sharing rather than fully devolving power. IVAR's Open and Trusting initiative, with over 150 funders committed to eight practice commitments, represents an attempt to rebalance the relationship without necessarily transferring decision-making authority.

ACF's Stronger Foundations framework asks foundations to "build, share and wield" their power with communities with the least wealth and opportunity. This language of sharing — rather than ceding — power reflects where most of the sector actually sits: willing to listen more, consult more, and be more transparent, but not yet ready to hand over the chequebook.

The evidence

The Grant Givers' Movement's "Beyond Words" report (2020), based on over 140 responses from UK grantmakers, provides the most direct evidence of funder attitudes. Almost 80% agreed that better redistribution of power leads to greater impact. Over 80% agreed power should be rebalanced. But only 50% said their organisations were taking steps to do so, and just 4% said they were most accountable to beneficiaries. The report identified barriers including old embedded structures, boards that see little reason to change, a lack of resources to drive reform, and concerns about job losses.

Camden Giving offers the most developed UK dataset on participatory practice. Over eight years, more than 400 Camden residents have decided how £7.9 million should be invested. Community panels are diverse — 73% from racially diverse backgrounds, 52% aged 16-25, and 13% disabled — and the model has reached organisations that traditional grantmaking misses.

The National Lottery Community Fund has tested 17 participatory approaches in Scotland since 2016-17, including pairing refugees with fund staff on decision panels for the Reaching New Scots Fund, which distributed £800,000 across 34 organisations, 13 of which had never previously received National Lottery funding.

The Foundation Practice Rating (2025) found that transparency remains weak across the sector: 21 of the 100 foundations assessed had no website at all, and diversity — the dimension most closely linked to power-sharing — was the weakest category, with no foundation achieving an A rating.

IVAR's work has confirmed that charities are reluctant to give candid feedback to funders because of the power imbalance. In response, IVAR has trained 30 charity leaders to facilitate peer reviews of funders and is relaunching Grant Advisor as a real-time feedback tool — an acknowledgement that honest accountability requires deliberate infrastructure.

Current context

The conversation around power in grantmaking has intensified since 2023. Lankelly Chase's decision to dismantle itself and redistribute its entire £134 million endowment — acknowledging that its capital was rooted in colonial capitalism — represented the most radical power-sharing move by a UK foundation. Its conventional grantmaking ceased in 2025, and it will close by 2028. Whether other foundations follow this model or treat it as an outlier remains to be seen.

IVAR's Open and Trusting community reached over 150 funders by March 2025, collectively distributing over £1 billion in grants in 2023-24. The initiative's focus for 2025-26 includes promoting unrestricted funding and embedding flexibility, but charity leaders have expressed frustration with inconsistency: trust-based practice from one funder alongside restrictive conditions from another erodes the benefit.

The Participatory Grantmaking Community, hosted by the Funders Collaborative Hub, continues to grow, and Camden Giving is working to build a broader UK participatory money movement. But application volumes to UK foundations surged 50-60% in 2023-24, with some seeing increases of 100-400% (ACF, Foundations in Focus 2025). In an environment of extreme demand pressure, the resource-intensive work of participatory practice becomes harder to prioritise.

Last updated: April 2026

What this means for charities

For charities on the receiving end of grantmaking, the power imbalance is not abstract — it shapes what you apply for, how you describe your work, and what you report. The "dance of deceit" that IVAR has documented in restricted funding applies equally here: charities mirror funder language and priorities rather than stating what they actually need, because the relationship does not feel safe enough to do otherwise.

Charities that want to push for change have several levers. Engaging with IVAR's Open and Trusting initiative, providing candid feedback through tools like Grant Advisor, and making the case for community involvement in funding decisions all contribute to shifting practice. Where funders offer participatory processes, engaging seriously — and holding funders accountable when those processes are tokenistic — matters.

Trustees should also reflect on their own governance. The same power dynamics that exist between funders and charities can exist between charity boards and the communities they serve. Organisations that advocate for funder accountability without examining their own decision-making structures risk undermining their own case.

Common questions

What is participatory grantmaking?

Participatory grantmaking is an approach where people affected by funding decisions — usually community members with lived experience of the issue being addressed — have a direct role in deciding who receives grants. Models range from community panels with full delegated authority to advisory groups that inform but do not control funder decisions. GrantCraft's "Deciding Together" guide (2018) remains the most widely referenced framework for how funders can design and implement participatory processes.

How widespread is participatory grantmaking in the UK?

It is growing but still marginal. The National Lottery Community Fund has tested 17 approaches in Scotland since 2016-17. Camden Giving has run community panels for eight years. Trust for London, City Bridge Foundation, and several community foundations have adopted elements of participatory practice. But participatory processes typically cover a small proportion of a funder's total budget, and most UK grantmaking remains funder-led.

Does participatory grantmaking produce better outcomes?

The evidence is promising but limited. Camden Giving's model reaches organisations and community leaders that traditional grantmaking misses, and the National Lottery Community Fund found that participatory approaches brought in applicants who had never previously received funding. NPC has highlighted the challenge of measuring impact, since participatory grantmaking often prioritises different outcomes — community agency, trust, representation — that conventional frameworks do not capture well.

Can foundation trustees legally delegate funding decisions to community panels?

Trustees retain ultimate legal responsibility for how charitable funds are used, regardless of how decisions are made. Participatory grantmaking does not remove this duty. However, trustees can legitimately establish processes where community panels make recommendations or decisions within parameters set by the board. The governance challenge is ensuring proper oversight without undermining the autonomy that makes participation meaningful.

Why are funders slow to share power?

The Grant Givers' Movement identified several barriers: embedded institutional structures, boards that see little reason to change, lack of resources and staff capacity, concerns about job security, and the absence of external pressure. Foundations face fewer accountability pressures than most charities because their financial security means they do not need to justify their choices to external audiences. The Foundation Practice Rating found that many foundations operate with minimal transparency, which reduces the incentive to change.

What is the difference between consultation and power-sharing?

Consultation involves asking communities for input while retaining decision-making authority. Power-sharing involves giving communities genuine control over some or all funding decisions. The distinction matters because consultation without power can be extractive — communities invest time and knowledge but have no guarantee their input will be acted upon. Camden Giving's model, where community panels co-design programmes and make funding decisions, sits firmly on the power-sharing end. Many funders who describe their practice as participatory are closer to consultation.

Key sources and further reading

• "Beyond Words: Power and Trust in UK Grant Making" — Grant Givers' Movement, 2020. Survey of 140+ UK grantmakers revealing that 80% believe power should be rebalanced, but only 4% feel most accountable to beneficiaries.

• "Deciding Together: Shifting Power and Resources Through Participatory Grantmaking" — GrantCraft (Cynthia Gibson), 2018. The foundational guide to participatory grantmaking practice, with case studies and practical frameworks.

• Open and Trusting Grant-making: Progress and Plans for 2025-26 — IVAR, April 2025. The latest update on IVAR's initiative with 150+ funders, including progress on accountability and charity feedback mechanisms.

• Participatory Grant-making Practice — National Lottery Community Fund, ongoing. Documentation of 17 participatory approaches trialled in Scotland since 2016-17, including the Reaching New Scots Fund and Leaders with Lived Experience programme.

• Camden Giving Participatory Grantmaking — Camden Giving, ongoing. The UK's most developed participatory model, with eight years of practice and £7.9 million allocated through community panels.

• Stronger Foundations: Diversity, Equity and Inclusion — Association of Charitable Foundations (ACF), 2025. ACF's framework for how foundations can build, share, and wield power with communities.

• The Foundation Practice Rating 2025 — Foundation Practice Rating (Giving Evidence), 2025. Annual assessment of 100 UK foundations on diversity, accountability, and transparency, finding that diversity remains the weakest area.

• Lankelly Chase Legacy — Lankelly Chase, ongoing. Documentation of the foundation's decision to redistribute its £134 million endowment and close by 2028, including reflections on devolved decision-making and governance.

• Power and Equity — IVAR, ongoing. IVAR's research programme on rebalancing power in funder-charity relationships, including the Funding Experience Survey and charity peer reviews of funders.