Most funding processes follow a familiar pattern. A small group holds the power, evaluating applications and making decisions while applicants wait at a distance. Even when everyone has good intentions, the structure itself concentrates this power in ways that are hard to shift. Over the past three years, Propel has been deliberately testing alternative ways of assessing applications and making funding decisions, with the aim of redistributing where influence sits within those processes.
H3 – Collective decision-making
On paper, the new approach for applying for a long-term grant was straightforward. Organisations submitted a short expression of interest and, if successful, a full application followed. So far, so familiar. What changed was not the application stages themselves, but who shaped the criteria, who assessed applications, and how final decisions were made.
Propel brought together grantees at an away day in 2024, and workshopped what a ‘good long-term systems change grant’ looked like. This feedback from grantees was then translated into the criteria for the Propel long-term grants. In practical terms, this meant that assessment criteria reflected grantees’ own definitions of sustainability, leadership, and systems impact, rather than being imposed.
Three people then assessed each expression of interest:
- A current funder – the idea being that they have been supporting and advocating for the applicant throughout their current grant.
- A long-term funder – a funder who will be investing in Propel’s long-term grants. These assessors are experienced in systems change.
- An equity partner or young assessor – Youth-focused applicants were assessed by a young person from the GLA’s team of Young Assessors, whilst equity partners (a group of partners from infrastructure organisations, involved in Propel from the beginning) bring their lived experience to assessing community involvement.