In recent months I’ve been working with The Lafayette Practice, a consulting group initiated by my good friend Matty Hart. The Lafayette Practice is a consortium of international professionals spanning 50 years of deeply engaged experience solving the complex problems that foundations and nonprofit organizations encounter. Our first project together was creation of a report for the International Day Against Homophobia & Transphobia (IDAHO) organization, titled “Potential, Strategy, and Impact: A Report on IDAHO’s Opportunities at a Critical Juncture.” The goal of this project was to develop a broad fundraising strategy for IDAHO, with a recommended implementation plan, addressing structural changes necessary for fundraising success in the US and beyond. Looking at short-term and long-term fundraising opportunities, identify funding trends, and reviewing potential legal structures, The Lafayette Practice (TLP) offered a series of recommendations that will contribute to the organization’s financial and organizational sustainability.

Currently, we are nearing completion of an exciting project: research and interviews to analyze and compare the practices of eight premiere international Participatory Grantmaking Funds.

Participatory Grantmaking – also referred to as Peer Review Grantmaking, Community Funding, or Activist Funding – emerges from a practice of grassroots activism, with assumed belief that participation by people impacted by the fund’s programs will guarantee that grants are allocated to those most deserving. Participatory Grantmaking models have proliferated over the past several decades. Yet there has been little research or documentation to analyze the assumptions and outcomes of the methodology. Stay tuned for more info on this research!