This story has been produced through the Australian Communities Foundation and NEXUS Australia partnership.

‘Participatory philanthropy’ and ‘community-led’ are two terms that the philanthropic sector is hearing (and using) with increasing frequency. But does the action match the intention?  

“If we’re serious about tackling inequality, do we really have any other choice than to re-imagine and practice philanthropy in a way that democratises power and shifts economic control to communities?” asked Georgia Mathews from Australian Communities Foundation, in the opening minutes of the ‘Giving away philanthropic power to communities’ session at the recent NEXUS Australia Summit.

“Philanthropists are generally good at giving away money but not so good at giving away power,” she continued, noting that “philanthropy tends to maintain a certain status quo.”

Speaking from her years of grantmaking experience, Mathews said that despite “honourable and generous” intentions, funders are rarely best placed to decide which solutions will be most effective.

“As funders, we often talk about funding community-led projects – but within this model, we are still the ones deciding which community-led projects to support,” she said. “What if there was a way to effectively redistribute philanthropic decision-making power to impacted communities?

“It’s not as straight forward as handing funds over and wishing a community the best of luck,” Mathews conceded.

“There’s still an important role for funders to play in supporting communities to achieve positive change, using the principles of democratic and collective ownership. How can a person with wealth move from decision maker to ally?”

Joining from San Francisco, Sparks, CEO of her family’s Masto Foundation, outlined what it takes to practice community-led philanthropy and her own experience of interrogating the disparities and barriers philanthropy has created for People of Colour.

“It’s putting the people who are most impacted by the work in the lead and moving philanthropy from being transactional to relational,” Sparks said.

“Funders can inhibit community-led approaches when they set their own agenda, create their own requirements and timelines.”

By contrast, Sparks suggested flexible funding, leveraging non-financial resources, supporting community building collaborations and “seeing the work as movement building” were helpful antidotes that support collective leadership, equity and power sharing.

“These practices make for more effective philanthropy in the end because they support community self-determination,” Sparks said.

Leveraging the power of the collective was a practice favoured by Sam Turner, Chair of the Aurora Group, which raises funds for LGBTIQ+ communities.

Founded 20 years ago by a small group of Sydney friends, Turner explained that the Aurora Group focuses on funding organisations that wouldn’t otherwise find finding, and is one of the only LGBTIQ+ led funding groups in the country.

“We can’t underestimate the knowledge and gravitas that comes with lived experience,” Turner said.

Turner noted new research the Group conducted in partnership with consulting firm Oliver Wyman that showed that 0.1 per cent of the philanthropic dollar goes to LGBTIQ+ communities.

“Participatory decision making is critical,” Turner said, “as is co-designing, co-creation and co-funding of projects, particularly when we know that philanthropic boards are predominantly white, cisgender and male with a great deal of privilege.”

Turner urged philanthropic funders to look closely at their own practices.

“On a personal level, ask yourself where does your donation dollar go? How is it spent? Who does it impact?”

Learn more about NEXUS Australia