movement, increasing the reach and filtration of new movement knowledge generated from the grantmaking process. ”This movement is starting to ask itself questions about outcome and impact, and the community members who are part of these committees are our stewards and ambassadors," says Sengupta, "They make the case for shifts in strategy and paradigm in the broader community, much better and more effectively than [\NMF staff] ever could."
One key area of transparency is the issue of Conflict of Interest. Because participation by active community members - those impacted by the grantmaking areas - is a defining element of Participatory Grantmaking, it's clear that Conflict of Interest is an area of dynamic concern, requiring agile problem-solving and a commitment to transparency and integrity by all involved. In our ”Who Decides" Report, 100% of respondents reported having a written Conflict of Interest policy, and many funds reported, anecdotally, that they have moved through multiple policy versions as their peer review methods have evolved. We learned of a wide range of practices in response to these concerns, many of which are documented in a the ”Who Decides" Report. The WMF also has a Conflict of Interest Policy, with five key guidelines on the disclosure of potential and actual conflicts of interest in requesting movement resources, including grants, staff time, scholarships, trademark licenses, fellowships, employment opportunities, travel reimbursements, and conference resources.[1]
The APG Grantmaking process demonstrates an extremely high level of commitment to transparency and accountability - beyond what we have seen in the wider philanthropic field, or the Participatory Grantmaking Funds we surveyed. Beginning with the open review period for proposals, conversations about which organizations and what amounts to approve for funding are happening in public. Because the movement is relatively well-networked, this means that commenters are often giving feedback to people they know, interact, and work with - and in this way, transparency requires creates mutual accountability between applicants, commenters, and committee members. If an applicant feels that something has gone wrong in the grantmaking recommendations, the APG has both an appeal and complaint process, giving the Board the ability to overturn the recommendations by the committee.[2]
Effective, Efficient Organizing
Those we interviewed for ”Who Decides” often referred to anecdotal concerns about the efficiency of Participatory Grantmaking models. With so many people involved, with all of the language differences, background differences, and other unwieldy details of a democratic group process, how can the grantmaking possibly be effective, both in regards to time spent and monetary cost?
”Who Decides” respondents framed efficiency and effectiveness in another light. They pointed
out that while having one person make a decision may be faster and require fewer resources, it's
not effective if the grantmaking decisions turn out to be flawed or ill-advised. In a Participatory Grantmaking model, the time and cost of proceedings also have added value beyond the strength of the grantmaking decisions: connecting groups, movement building, and increased philanthropic literacy for panelists, which can strengthen their own fundraising, movement building, and leadership
efforts.
- ↑ http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Guide%7Cines_on_potentiaI_conf%7Cicts_of_interest
- ↑ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/G rants:APG/Appea|s_to_the_Board_on_the_recommendations_of_the_FDC 19
19
