Understanding the Effectiveness of Participatory Approaches in Philanthropy
By Porticus and Closer Than You Think Collective, August 2024
At Porticus, we are convinced that meaningful participation should be at the heart of all philanthropic practices. Participatory practices are therefore central to our way of working. We see meaningful participation as the route to creating more impactful programmes. On this journey, we often face a fundamental question: Is this approach effective, and is there evidence to back up the claim that it does?
There is a widely held belief that participatory grant-making can democratise philanthropy and transform power dynamics, but the evidence supporting these claims needs to be bolstered. That's why Porticus is commissioned the study Expanding Our Understanding of Evidence for Meaningful Participation. The study aims to contribute to the much needed evidence-base by compiling existing evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of participatory approaches, in both social development initiatives and philanthropic practices.
The study found several concrete examples of evidence supporting the effectiveness of participatory approaches:
-
Service Delivery: COVID-19 Response: Jumpstart Refugee Talent provided aid to over 1000 households. Bhutanese and Congolese Refugee-Led Organisations effectively managed outreach, programming, and advocacy, leveraging community knowledge for crisis response.
-
Research and Policy: Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development's feminist participatory action research (FPAR) mobilised marginalised women to conduct climate displacement projects, leading to grassroots activism and policy changes.
-
Justice System Reform: APAC (Brazil) and Norwegian prison models demonstrated how prisoner participation cultivated responsibility, contributing to lower recidivism rates and improved life skills post-release.
-
Participatory Grant-making: FRIDA's approach showed positive impacts, with most participating collectives emphasising the importance of inclusion in decision-making. The Tar Kura program in Sierra Leone increased the capacity of youth-led organisations and enhanced youth engagement in decision-making processes.
-
Climate Action and Resource Allocation: Scotland's Just Transition Fund used participatory budgeting to expand climate investment beneficiaries through localised decision-making.
These examples, among others detailed in the report, provide tangible evidence of how participatory approaches can lead to more effective and impactful outcomes across various sectors and contexts.
Key Findings
1. Robust Evidence on the Effectiveness of Participation: The study shows strong and convincing evidence that participation makes social interventions and philanthropic practices more effective exists.
2. Multifaceted Impacts of Participation: Participation has various positive impacts, including improved service delivery, enhanced policy responsiveness, and greater community power.
3. Transformative Potential: Case studies illustrate the transformative potential of participatory approaches in philanthropy. These approaches can shift power dynamics, increase community ownership, and lead to more equitable resource distribution.
4. Gaps in Understanding: Despite these documented and proven benefits, significant gaps remain in understanding the long-term, systemic effects of participatory approaches.
To address the gaps in evidence, this study proposes a new tool for assessing evidence in a more inclusive manner. Traditional standards of "quality evidence" often privilege certain forms of knowledge while marginalising others. We present the Evidence Quality Rubric, a tool that balances conventional research standards with inclusive, community-centred processes. This rubric includes factors such as representation, power analysis, and bias interrogation, ensuring a comprehensive and context-sensitive evaluation of evidence. By integrating these inclusive standards with conventional ones, we can better recognize the unique value and challenges of participatory approaches. This framework ensures that experiences and perspectives of excluded communities are adequately considered in evaluating evidence quality.
While the Evidence Quality Rubric has highlighted strengths and weaknesses of various case studies in terms of conventional and inclusion standards, it is clear that a more structured approach is necessary to generate inclusive evidence that also meets the basic conventional standards. To this effect, we propose the Inclusive Evidence Guidelines to provide practical guidance for participatory evidence gathering that reflects the priorities of affected communities. These guidelines emphasise principles such as centring participant perspectives, co-designing locally relevant methods, conducting systematic analysis, applying intersectional lenses, and ensuring accountability to communities.
We hope this report inspires both converts and sceptics. Those already convinced of participation's effectiveness now have documented proof for advocacy, while those on the fence will find a solid evidence base to address their concerns and appreciate the transformative potential of participatory approaches.
