Title 1: Navigating Power Dynamics: Building Equitable Partnerships in Grantmaking

Every grantmaker says they want equitable partnerships. Yet many foundations operate with unexamined power imbalances that undermine trust and limit impact. This guide is for program officers, executive directors, and grantee partners who want to move beyond good intentions and build relationships that actually share decision-making, risk, and credit.

Why Power Dynamics Matter More Than Ever

In the last decade, the conversation around equitable grantmaking has shifted from abstract ideals to operational reality. Community organizations are increasingly vocal about the ways traditional funding models—short-term project grants, rigid reporting requirements, and unequal access to decision-makers—perpetuate dependency rather than partnership. At the same time, foundations are recognizing that their own structures (board composition, staff demographics, investment policies) often mirror the very inequities they aim to address.

This matters because power dynamics directly affect outcomes. When grantees fear speaking honestly about budget shortfalls or program pivots, foundations miss early warning signs. When funders control every milestone, local expertise is sidelined. And when partnership language masks a one-way flow of resources and accountability, both sides lose the chance to learn and adapt together.

For busy practitioners, the challenge is not a lack of awareness—it's a lack of practical tools. Many foundation staffers feel stuck between their organization's rhetoric of partnership and the reality of rigid compliance systems. Grantee leaders, meanwhile, often hesitate to raise concerns for fear of jeopardizing funding. This article offers a path forward: concrete steps to diagnose, discuss, and redesign power dynamics in your specific context.

What We Mean by 'Power Dynamics'

Power in grantmaking is not inherently bad. It becomes problematic when it is unexamined, unshared, or used to control rather than enable. In practice, power shows up in who sets the agenda, who defines success, who holds the money, and who bears the risk of failure. These dynamics are often invisible to those who benefit from them, which is why intentional reflection is necessary.

The Cost of Ignoring Imbalance

Foundations that avoid the topic often see high grantee turnover, low trust, and reduced innovation. Grantee organizations may self-censor, avoid asking for help, or burn out staff trying to meet conflicting expectations. Over time, the entire ecosystem becomes less effective at addressing complex social problems.

Core Idea: From Power-Over to Power-With

The most useful shift we have seen in the field is moving from a 'power-over' mindset to a 'power-with' approach. Power-over assumes that the funder holds authority and resources, and the grantee must comply to receive them. Power-with, by contrast, treats partnership as a co-created space where both parties bring assets (money, expertise, community trust, networks) and share decisions about how those assets are used.

This is not about pretending power differences don't exist. A foundation with a $50 million endowment and a grassroots group with three staff members are not equals in resources or risk. But equity does not require sameness—it requires that the relationship be structured so that both parties have meaningful influence over what matters to them. That means designing governance, budgeting, and learning processes that explicitly account for power differences rather than ignoring them.

Key Principles of Power-With Grantmaking

• Shared agenda-setting: Grantees participate in defining funding priorities, not just responding to RFPs.
• Transparent resource allocation: Both sides understand how decisions about money, time, and capacity are made.
• Mutual accountability: Foundations are accountable to grantees for their own performance, not just the other way around.
• Risk sharing: When a program fails or shifts, the foundation absorbs some of the cost rather than leaving the grantee to shoulder it alone.

These principles sound straightforward, but implementing them requires changes to policies, habits, and culture. The next sections offer practical steps to get started.

How It Works Under the Hood: A Partnership Audit Framework

To build equitable partnerships, you need to understand where power currently resides in your relationships. We recommend a structured audit that examines four dimensions: governance, resources, knowledge, and accountability.

Governance: Who Decides What?

Start by mapping all the decisions in a typical grant cycle—from strategy design to reporting—and note who has formal authority, who is consulted, and who is informed after the fact. In many foundations, grantees are only consulted after major decisions are made. A power-with approach would involve grantees in strategic planning and grant design from the outset.

Resources: Who Holds the Money and Time?

Beyond the grant amount, consider the hidden resources: who pays for indirect costs, who covers evaluation expenses, who bears the burden of complex application processes. Shifting some of these costs to the foundation (e.g., providing unrestricted funding, covering staff time for joint meetings) can rebalance the relationship.

Knowledge: Whose Expertise Counts?

Foundations often privilege academic research and professional credentials over lived experience and community knowledge. Actively seek out and compensate community expertise—for example, by paying community advisors the same rate as external consultants.

Accountability: Who Answers to Whom?

Create mechanisms for grantees to give feedback on foundation performance without fear of retaliation. Anonymous surveys, advisory boards with real decision-making power, and regular check-ins focused on the health of the partnership (not just program metrics) are all options.

Once you have completed the audit, identify the top three imbalances and design a small experiment to address one of them. For instance, invite two grantees to join your next grant review committee, or pilot a streamlined reporting process that reduces administrative burden.

Worked Example: Redesigning a Participatory Grant Process

Consider a mid-sized community foundation that wanted to move from a traditional RFP model to a participatory grantmaking process. The foundation's board was supportive in principle, but staff were unsure how to share power without losing efficiency. Here is how they approached it.

Phase 1: Co-Design the Process

Rather than designing the participatory model internally, the foundation convened a diverse group of current and former grantees, community leaders, and staff. Together, they defined the goals: increase trust, fund more grassroots organizations, and reduce application burden. The group decided on a two-stage process: a simple letter of interest followed by an invitation to submit a full proposal, with community reviewers scoring both stages.

Phase 2: Share Decision-Making

Community reviewers (paid for their time) were trained on the criteria and given equal weight to foundation staff in final funding decisions. The foundation committed to funding all proposals that met a minimum quality threshold, removing the 'zero-sum' tension that often undermines participatory processes.

Phase 3: Address Power Imbalances That Emerged

During the first cycle, several issues surfaced: some community reviewers felt intimidated by foundation staff in meetings; the application still used jargon that excluded small organizations; and the foundation's legal team required changes to the grant agreement that the community reviewers had not seen. The foundation responded by creating separate facilitator-led review sessions, simplifying the application language, and involving a community representative in contract negotiations.

This example shows that equitable partnership is not a one-time design but an ongoing practice of noticing and adjusting. The foundation's willingness to adapt mid-cycle built more trust than any initial plan could have.

Edge Cases and Exceptions

Not every grantmaking context lends itself to full power-sharing. Here are common situations where the standard advice needs modification.

Emergency Funding

In disaster response or rapid-cycle grants, speed often trumps participation. In these cases, focus on reducing barriers (e.g., streamlined applications, pre-approved partners) rather than co-designing the process. After the emergency, debrief with grantees to inform future preparedness.

Government or Regulated Funding

Public foundations or those receiving government contracts may have legal constraints on how funds are distributed. Here, equitable partnership may mean advocating for regulatory changes while working within existing rules—for example, using flexible subgranting mechanisms or involving grantees in compliance design.

Extreme Power Asymmetry

When a foundation is the only funder for a small organization, the grantee may fear that any pushback will end the relationship. In such cases, the foundation must proactively create safe channels for feedback—perhaps through a third-party intermediary or anonymous input systems—and signal that honest feedback is valued even when it is critical.

Cultural Differences

Concepts of hierarchy, decision-making, and accountability vary across cultures. A power-with approach in one context may feel disrespectful in another. The key is to ask grantees how they prefer to be engaged, rather than imposing a single model.

Limits of the Approach

Even with the best intentions, power dynamics cannot be fully eliminated. Foundations hold the money, and that structural reality shapes every interaction. Acknowledging this limit is not a reason to give up—it is a reason to be honest about what is possible.

Structural Constraints

Many foundations are bound by donor intent, board policies, or legal requirements that limit flexibility. Changing these structures takes time and political capital. In the interim, focus on areas where you do have discretion: reporting formats, meeting schedules, and communication styles.

Risk of Performative Equity

There is a danger that 'equitable partnership' becomes a buzzword without substance. Grantees are quick to spot tokenism—for example, inviting a community member to a board meeting but ignoring their input. To avoid this, ensure that every participatory structure has real decision-making power, not just advisory status.

Resource Requirements

Building equitable relationships takes time and money. Staff need training, processes need redesign, and grantees need compensation for their participation. Foundations must be willing to invest in the relationship itself, not just the program outcomes.

Despite these limits, the effort is worthwhile. Even partial progress toward power-sharing can improve trust, reduce grantee burnout, and lead to more effective programs. The goal is not perfection but continuous improvement.

Reader FAQ

Can power ever be fully equal in a funder-grantee relationship?

No, because the funder controls the money. However, equity is not about eliminating power differences—it is about ensuring that both parties have meaningful influence over the aspects of the partnership that matter to them. This is achievable through shared governance, transparent decision-making, and mutual accountability.

What if a grantee doesn't want more power?

Some grantees prefer a traditional relationship where the foundation sets the terms and they focus on delivery. Respect their preference, but still offer opportunities for input and check in periodically to see if their needs have changed. Avoid assuming that all grantees want the same level of involvement.

How do we handle a funder who refuses to cede control?

If you are a grantee in this situation, focus on building relationships with program officers who may be allies, and seek out other funders who are more aligned with your values. If you are a foundation staffer facing resistance from leadership, start with small wins—like a pilot project with a few grantees—and use data to show the benefits of shared decision-making.

What if grantees fear retaliation for speaking up?

This is a sign that trust is low. Create anonymous feedback channels, and consider hiring a third party to collect and aggregate input. Publicly commit to not retaliating, and back it up with action—for example, by sharing what you learned from feedback and what you changed as a result.

How do we measure progress on power dynamics?

Include partnership health indicators in your evaluation framework: grantee trust scores, decision-making participation rates, time from grantee feedback to foundation response, and qualitative stories of change. Survey grantees annually about their experience of power in the relationship.

Practical Takeaways

Equitable partnerships are built through deliberate, ongoing work. Here are three actions you can take starting next quarter:

• Conduct a partnership audit with your top five grantees. Use the four dimensions (governance, resources, knowledge, accountability) to identify one imbalance to address. Share the results with grantees and ask for their input on the solution.
• Embed equity metrics in grant agreements. Add a clause that commits both parties to regular check-ins on the health of the partnership, with a clear process for raising concerns. Include a mutual feedback mechanism that is safe for grantees to use.
• Create a grantee advisory board with real power. Invite 6–10 grantee leaders to advise on strategy, review grant proposals, and evaluate foundation performance. Compensate them fairly, and ensure their recommendations are documented and responded to publicly.

Start small, iterate, and be transparent about what you are learning. The goal is not to get it perfect on the first try—it is to build relationships that can weather the inevitable challenges and grow stronger over time.