One year of community-led grant decision making – how it’s going so far
One year of community-led grant decision making – how it’s going so far
Throughout 2025 we piloted a new review and decision-making process for our grants with a group representing the wider digital rights community (the Peer Group). This new process seeks to move decision making power away from DFF and closer to the wider digital rights community. In our first application round, the Peer Group consisted of ten people who reviewed all pre-litigation research applications and decided which ones DFF should fund. In the second application round the group was expanded to 17 people, who reviewed both pre-litigation and litigation grant types and made all grant decisions. In total, the Peer Group were responsible for deciding on 16 new grants in 2025.
In July 2025, Danilo Ćurčić, Itxaso Domínguez de Olazábal, Paige Collings, Olivia Njoroge, and Shradha shared some initial reflections. In this new blog, five other members of the Peer Group – Atanas Avramov, Di Luong, Gema Fernández Rodríguez de Liévana, Jedrzej Niklas, and Jill Toh – respond to questions from DFF’s Grantmaking Lead, Thomas Vink to discuss how the second round of the pilot went and what will happen next.
Some reflections and ideas discussed include the challenges of making decisions in such a large group, the realities of having to narrow down to such a small number of successful applications, how to take better stock of the wider context, and hopes that other funders will both support DFF to enable funding of more projects and emulate DFF by also implementing more decentralised funding models.
See more information about the members of the Peer Group here.
Discussion
Thomas: In the first application round of 2025, ten Peer Group members reviewed pre-litigation applications and selected three for funding. In the latest round, the group was expanded to 17, and responsible for reviewing all applications, selecting 13 for funding, including pre-litigation and litigation projects. How do you feel about the latest round and what are your reflections on the group being expanded to review all DFF applications? What were some of the pros and cons of having a larger group and covering all applications?
Jedrzej: Compared to reviewing grants in more traditional, expert-led settings this process is definitely more time-intensive for each person—reading, discussing, and deciding together simply takes longer than writing an individual assessment. At the same time, it feels much more conversational. The group setting creates space to question assumptions, notice different priorities, and reflect on how applications are read from different positions. That brings its own challenges: group dynamics, tired moments, and the sheer time commitment, but it also makes the process feel less bureaucratic and more grounded in discussion. Decisions emerge through talking things through, rather than ticking boxes, which for me made the funding process feel more thoughtful and accountable.
Gema: I agree with Jedrzej’s views on the thoughtfulness and richness of the discussions around the applications. I also agree that this decision-making model requires some time investment, but I felt it was time well spent on the discussions needed to truly incorporate diverse voices from the broader digital rights community. Having an expanded peer group felt like a wise move for examining both pre-litigation and litigation applications, ensuring participation from a wide range of experiences.
Di: The expanded peer group meant additional experts were included in the discussion and different insights were brought on. I appreciated DFF’s facilitation during the calls to ensure the information we needed for review calls, including background information on previous grantees, other peer evaluations, and budgetary information, were transparent and easy to access. The wider range of experiences and conversations during the evaluation/review calls meant several organizations received a grant from DFF for the first time last year.
Jill: Having the power to decide how resources are allocated, especially as funds are being cut across the board, is neither an easy nor comfortable task. Thus, being able to collectively make these decisions with a bigger group of people that have different experiences, knowledge and backgrounds was useful, and enables a way to practice accountability. However, as the others mention these processes do take a significant amount of time and energy, which in the long run, having a larger group with more diverse backgrounds, may also require rethinking how the process can be structured. For instance, an in-person meet up as some have suggested, or a longer funding cycle so that there is more time to assess proposals.
Thomas: The Peer Group reviewed more than 60 applications, but most of them could not be funded with the available budget. What was the review and decision-making process like for narrowing down and deciding which applications to fund?
Jill: It was a very challenging process, especially as DFF receives increasingly more applications as organisations are dealing with even more harms and issues in the current climate. The quantity of applications surfaced issues about who has the capacity, knowledge and resources to submit ‘good’ applications, how do we negotiate our choices, and according to which benchmarks.
Di: I believe a proposal is stronger when it is clear how the idea germinated, a strong rationale for the proposed activities, and a direct correlation between the activities and the intended objectives of the project. In other words, the proposal presents a coherent workflow. I also highly recommend potential applicants use the DFF website as a resource. There is a catalogue of previously funded projects and programming for applicants to find collaboration with complementary projects as well as similar projects to learn from.
Jedrzej: Reviewing such a large number of applications with a limited budget was challenging, particularly because many of the proposals were genuinely strong. What became clear quite quickly was that different members were attuned to different values: some emphasised supporting emerging or smaller, often more local organisations, while others focused on applications with a very clear pathway to broader or more immediate impact. Neither of these perspectives felt wrong, but they did pull in slightly different directions.
The collective process made this both harder and easier. Harder, because negotiating priorities across a larger group inevitably takes time and requires compromise. Easier, because the discussion allowed multiple variables to remain visible at once, rather than forcing decisions to hinge on one or two narrow criteria. Instead of ranking applications mechanically, the group could experiment with balancing experience, scale, risk, and potential impact. Which is demanding, but ultimately more honest about the trade-offs involved.
Atanas: It was extremely difficult. It was challenging to review such strong applications, when at the same time knowing that you cannot approve all of them. However, I think that, in order to reach a decision, we looked at numerous factors, such as geographical representation, budget justifications, chosen legal avenues, chances of success and most importantly, added value to the issue. Additionally, we paid attention to whether the application involves those who have been a target of the unlawful practice and mechanisms in place to protect them. The discussion really helped on tuning out our activism voice and seeing whether a certain application, despite its best intentions, can produce a real change and is tackling important issues the right way.
Gema: DFF is certainly getting strong, well-designed applications, which makes decision-making increasingly challenging. Only 13 of the 73 submitted applications were approved, making the selection process highly competitive. It was a joy to read through the applications, though, and learn from the ideas and litigation plans that activists, organisations, and groups are developing to fight discrimination, abuse, hate speech, and other harms by big tech platforms and governments.
Thomas: What are some of the things that worked well for the Peer Group so far? What were some challenges?
Di: Both iterations of the peer group went well because there was mutual respect for everyone’s input. We also gained experience from the first review round that benefited the second round. We became better at discussing our evaluations, sharing our feedback, and raising questions during review calls, thus streamlining the process. The peer group has designated more time for getting to know each other better before the next round of review calls.
Jedrzej: What worked well for me was simply having many different perspectives in the room. You could really see how differently people think about what matters in digital rights work, what feels urgent, and what kind of change is worth backing. When the discussions were well guided, that mix of views made the conversations richer rather than confusing.
The flip side is that group discussion is never friction-free. Doing this mostly on Zoom affects the energy and depth of conversation, and it can be tiring. There’s also a moment where it really hits you that these are real decisions with real consequences choosing where the money goes, and where it doesn’t. That responsibility feels heavier than in more traditional review processes, and it stays with you.
Gema: I felt the group worked well at showing respect for each other’s expertise and views on field priorities and at bringing flexibility to the discussions, allowing for compromise and final decision-making. I liked to see that there was space for changing one’s mind and for bringing back for consideration applications that were initially lower rated. The more we interact as a group, the more opportunities we’ll have to increase awareness of group dynamics, name them, and address them in our interactions.
Atanas: I completely agree with Gema. There was an open and safe space for everyone to express their views and opinions, while at the same time accepting others’ views and expertise and changing their minds. I think that the group worked so well in addressing questions which arose during the discussions. I think that the only challenge was to find gaps in and/or grade the great applications, and agreeing to not fund them because of the budget restrictions.
Thomas: As the group continues into 2026 with another application review round starting in March, how do you think the group should change and improve?
Di: While I respect the wide spectrum of expertise and lived experiences everyone brings to the peer group, it would be helpful to develop shared parameters for evaluating projects based in repressive regimes or countries with economic and institutional barriers. These applicants often require more resources and additional measures to protect at-risk communities than their counterparts in countries with more resources and established rule of law.
Jedrzej: Going into the next round, I think it would be useful to spend a bit more time, as a group, talking openly about the big shifts we’re seeing in the digital rights space. For me, that includes things like the rise of authoritarian practices, the deepening penetration of markets by large AI companies, and the emergence of new forms of monopoly power. These dynamics shape the field whether we name them or not. I’m not suggesting turning this into a strategy exercise, but rather creating space to surface these concerns before we start assessing individual applications. Having that kind of shared conversation could help ground decisions in a clearer sense of what’s at stake, instead of only encountering these questions indirectly through specific proposals.
Gema: Jedrzej’s comment about having more group interactions and discussions on the digital rights landscape before embarking on the next application review deeply resonates with me. I think it would serve the dual purpose of strengthening the group through increased exposure and better equipping us to assess applications in light of the discussions we had about pressing challenges and opportunities in the field. .
Atanas: I agree with Jedrzej. However, I think that one in-person discussion would be really helpful. We all know that despite best intentions and facilitation efforts, we can really connect, discuss and reach agreements when meeting face to face. Some of us know each other and our background, but I believe that an in-person discussion might be proven useful to see first hand how everyone reviews an application through their lenses. Plus, we will have more time for a discussion, which can only lead to a more reasoned decision.
Thomas: Looking 2-3 years ahead, what kind of impact do you hope to see due to the Peer Group compared to if DFF was to continue without the group?
Jill: Ensuring that redistribution and decision-making power is not centralised to a few folks in an organisation is a good step to figuring out how these processes can be slightly more equitable, even if imperfect. DFF’s efforts in the field has been an inspiration to many. I think other organisations can definitely learn from DFF’s decolonising processes, and to experiment and put into practice other modes of organisational structure and funding distribution rooted in feminist, abolitionist and decolonial frameworks. For me, the question of impact relates to how grantmaking can match the current times that we are in: one of rising authoritarianism, austerity cuts, increasing militarisation and increasing surveillance, control and violence against racialised, migrant, trans, folks in and at the borders. In addition to holding tech companies to account, it also calls into question the role of law and the state. In this context, individuals and organisations are increasingly resource strapped, where meaningful and necessary work may not always be visible to how ‘impact’ is conceptualised by funders. I hope to see how these conditions shape the ways that ‘impact’ is understood and discussed within the Peer Group and other funders and organisations. An orientation to ‘impact’ that is not only responding to the times, but willing to take bolder steps towards shaping a political-economic horizon beyond what we have. One that is connected to, and building alongside other grassroots movements on the ground.
Di: I have learned a great deal from this experience over the last two rounds. The technological as well as geopolitical landscape is rapidly evolving, In the next 2-3 years applicants may be submitting proposals focused on litigating against data centres on Mars or AI physician assistants. We are not able to predict what future challenges applicants will pursue in the future, but I hope rigorous debate, respect for local knowledge, and the inclusion of diverse view points remains core to the peer group’s foundation.
Gema: I like to think that more philanthropists will walk the talk and increase their donations to DFF to scale participation and legitimacy in grant-making, and that more money will be available for redistribution. I also like to think that, in a few years’ time, the region will benefit from standards won through strategic litigation funded by DFF’s participatory grant-making model that shape policies and laws regulating big tech platforms, AI, and the use of technologies by governments.
Atanas: I think this practice feels more personal to potential grantees and more transparent in a way. Additionally, this practice can serve as an example to other donors on how you can make your grantmaking more personal and close to the organisations which are serving the communities they aim to reach. Of course, managing such a group can be a challenge, but I think that the benefits outweigh the costs, and in retrospect, the space for networking and connecting within such a group is priceless.
Jedrzej: Looking a few years ahead, I hope this way of working means that grantmaking feels closer to the organisations actually doing the work. Seeing proposals through many different eyes simply means seeing more, and for me that’s one of the most important shifts compared to more centralised decision-making. It makes funding decisions feel less distant and less abstract. More broadly, I hope the Peer Group contributes to a more democratic culture around funding in the digital rights field not just within DFF, but as an example others might learn from. Ideally, this kind of collective process helps build a field that can respond more thoughtfully to big, shared challenges, because those challenges are being recognised, debated, and acted on from multiple perspectives rather than a single vantage point.
Next steps
In March 2026, the DFF Board formally adopted the Peer Group decision making process as DFF’s model for grant decision making, ending the one year pilot phase. Throughout 2026, we will continue to learn and reflect to adapt the group in a way that best serves the wider community, and consider further changes such as how our grantmaking strategy, criteria and priorities are selected.
Following the latest application round that closed in February 2026, a few members withdrew and six new members were added to the group, who you can read more about here. The next round of successful grant recipients will be announced in June 2026.