use case

Participatory grant-making to support Alaska conservation by the Chorus Foundation

This use case demonstrates a model for how philanthropic organizations that provide financial support to community-driven initiatives can do so in a more regenerative way that creates impactful long term social change rather than prioritizing short term outcomes and maintenance of their own power.

source of visual

USA/Canada, Alaska Engagement Partnership (AEP), Offline+Online
- Where did this use case occur?
2013 - ongoing
- When did this use case occur?
The Alaska Center [1]
- Who were some of the key collaborators
Each focus community sizes varies from 10-15 to hundreds of participants.
- How many people participated?
Ecological/Environmental, Philanthropy
- What are some keywords?

What was the problem?

Philanthropic organizations often give money while keeping the power - their grant-making processes lack transparency, are oriented towards short term goals, rely on reductionist metrics, and represent isolated efforts.

How does the community approach the problem?

The grants program of the Chorus Foundation aims to support communities in building economic, political, and cultural power to support a “just transition” away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy solutions. They work with local, placed-based communities (often communities of color and low-income communities) who are on the frontlines of this transition to make the decisions about allocating their resources and grant funding.

Process

Participatory Grant-making

Technique

Generally, the process follows a three step transition starting with Chorus Foundation holding power accountably (making decisions), then moving to sharing power equitably (co-design), and then finally handing power over entirely (creation of new, alternative infrastructure). In each of the different “Focus Communities” or bioregions, the participatory grant-making process looks different: in Richmond, CA the grantees and communities have created their own fund and self-governance; in Kentucky, the grantees are invited once a year to be part of the process of resource allocation; in Alaska local Native leadership led a year-long visioning process that concluded in the creation of two new grassroots intermediaries; in Buffalo, a coalition of local, grassroots organizations make recommendations that are implemented by the foundation.

Tool

No Specified Tools

What were the results?

The Chorus Foundation has granted a minimum of $500,000 per year to each of its focus communities composed of organizations and networks on the front lines of the climate crisis. During this time, the Chorus Foundation has allowed the communities they support to define success for themselves while simply becoming an authentic part of the web of trust and relationships needed to help them accomplish their goals. The foundation will sunset (or gradually shut down) in 2024 once all of its funding has been allocated and their grantees have become self-sustaining organizations.

In Our Opinions

How participatory was it?

Collaborate

The organizations and grassroots communities that the Chorus Foundation funds have co-designed their particular process for resource allocation.

What makes this Use Case unique?