Community-led decision making – reflections on the pilot to change DFF’s grantmaking
Community-led decision making – reflections on the pilot to change DFF’s grantmaking
Between December 2024 and May 2025 we piloted a new review and decision-making process for our grants. A group of ten people representing the wider digital rights community (the Peer Group) reviewed all pre-litigation research applications and decided which ones DFF should fund.
Previously, since DFF started grantmaking in 2018, all grant applications went through a process where they were reviewed by two members of an external Panel of Experts before DFF decided which applications to approve. The new process seeks to move decision making power away from DFF and closer to the wider digital rights community.
In this blog, six members of the Peer Group – Danilo Ćurčić, Itxaso Domínguez de Olazábal, Paige Collings, Olivia Njoroge, Shradha Shreejaya and Yigit Aydinalp – respond to questions from DFF’s Grantmaking Lead, Thomas Vink, to reflect on how the pilot went and what will happen next.
Find more information about the ten members of the Peer Group here.
Discussion
Thomas: We just wrapped up the latest application round, approving a range of new grants supporting litigation and pre-litigation research activities. The Peer Group was responsible for reviewing all pre-litigation research applications and deciding which ones to approve. How many applications did you review and can you say more about how the review process went?
Yigit: As a group, we reviewed 22 applications from human rights groups working across a wide spectrum, from climate justice to LGBTQI+ rights, racial justice, migrant justice, and many other themes that intersect with digital rights. The volume and diversity were both exciting and humbling. The process itself was incredibly thoughtful and participatory. We had time to engage deeply with each application, and talk about our perspectives as a peer group, and learn from each other. What stood out to me most was how much care and intention was brought into each discussion about the strength of individual proposals, but also about how we ensure diversity, equity and impact across the entire funding round. This was not easy as the quality of applications were great and we could see how much effort was put by the applicants into each application.
Olivia: It’s been an immense privilege to evaluate applications from peer organisations in the community. I personally evaluated four applications, and each of them was incredibly strong and competitive and addressed contemporary challenges being witnessed in the digital rights industry. I believe we had a thorough review process, giving adequate time to each application, even sparing more time for applications with contestation. The process was truly inclusive and comprehensive.
Itxaso: This was my first time participating in a funding process designed to shift power away from the funder and into the hands of the community. I reviewed five excellent applications, each dealing with urgent issues across different regions and legal contexts. The quality of the proposals, and the care that applicants put into them, was striking.
Thomas: You’ve previously engaged with DFF as a participant at events or as a grant recipient. What was it like being on the other side, reviewing applications and hearing about projects led by others in the community?
Yigit: It was honestly very moving and there is a sense of serious responsibility that comes with being part of this process. To be trusted with collective decision-making power felt meaningful and important. Reading the applications reminded me of how much creativity and resilience lives within our communities. It was also a chance to see what others are dreaming about and read their bold projects that address the systems producing injustice in our lives. Being on this side of the process helped me to reflect more critically on funding dynamics, including whose voices are heard and whose work is historically overlooked. I felt a strong responsibility to push for intersectionality, and to advocate for underfunded communities and issues that often fall through the cracks.
Olivia: I first joined the DFF community by working for a grantee organisation and then attending a strategic litigation retreat. Now with participating in the Peer Group I can say I have been on all sides of the process. As a previous applicant and grantee, I was very keen on my specific project and ensuring that we were implementing to the highest standard possible but having participated on the funding side and being exposed to a wide range of applications, it’s been interesting to see how the community is approaching contemporary digital rights challenges and how a lot of the applications are complementary.
Danilo: Same as Olivia, I was attending some of the DFF events, then we got engaged through pre-litigation funding, and now I am a part of the DFF Grants Peer Group, which really provided me the opportunity to learn more about different perspectives of digital rights struggles across Europe. It gives me hope that the digital rights community is strong and resilient and full of bold ideas on how to improve the situation on the ground. In this time of uncertainties we live in, some of these struggles are moving slower than expected – because sometimes the situation does not allow for these struggles to progress with the pace we would all like to see, but it is important to see that there is still some progress and that digital rights, and the wider human rights community are not giving up. More exchanges like this, more participatory and solidarity-based programmes and funding will definitely improve the situation, and I believe that is the key value we could see from this pilot.
Thomas: It was a new role for me in this process, helping facilitate, rather than doing the decision-making. I really enjoyed seeing the discussions among the ten members of the group and how you pushed back and forth to try and reach consensus. It was clearly hard to narrow down a large number of strong applications to the small number that could be approved. How do you feel the discussions among the group went and what was the decision-making process like?
Yigit: The discussions were one of the most valuable parts of the process. We had such a rich and diverse group of people like activists, researchers, lawyers from different regions and movements, each bringing their life-long expertise and lived experience. There were definitely moments of disagreement or uncertainty, but those moments helped us deepen our thinking. I especially valued that the Peer Group really strived for consensus-building in a way that was respectful and intentional. I appreciated how we challenged one another thoughtfully, always holding the bigger picture in mind, which is justice, accessibility, and impact. Personally, I learned a lot just by listening to others’ perspectives and seeing how we collectively moved towards decisions.
Olivia: For me, the diversity of experience and ideas created a really enriching process for the evaluation. So many of the peers provided insight and additional context for the applications that would not have been possible to get anywhere else which made the decision-making easier.
Itxaso: I genuinely appreciated the way consensus was prioritised without forcing it. We all came in with different experiences, and sometimes that led to divergence… but that’s what made the process richer. There was space for disagreement, but also a shared commitment to values like justice, redistribution, and accountability. It didn’t feel extractive or competitive; it felt like a group trying to make the best decisions possible, together.
Thomas: We just completed an evaluation of the pilot, with the different members of the Peer Group filling out a survey about how it went. What stood out to you when seeing the results?
Shradha: I was surprised to see how much consensus was among all of us, within the diversity and positionality of each of us. The shared goals we framed through our individual reflections to me feels invaluable – that we want to continue this process, better adapted to DFF and partners vision/strategies and offer more informed decision-making blends well with the intention of participatory grantmaking procedures.
Paige: Similar to Shradha, I was encouraged to see the consensus between peer group participants. Despite coming from the broad digital rights field, the group included people with varying perspectives and from different regions, so it was great that we were aligned on our vision for the programme and for participatory grantmaking at DFF in particular.
Itxaso: This was my first time participating in a funding process designed to shift power away from the funder and into the hands of the community. I reviewed five excellent applications, each dealing with urgent issues across different regions and legal contexts. The quality of the proposals, and the care that applicants put into them, was striking.
Thomas: There was a clear consensus from the Peer Group and from the DFF team that we should continue with this group and ultimately expand it to cover all DFF grant types. What do you think could be done better next time?
Shradha: I would love to see more involvement from former grantee partners and feedback from applicants who were not selected on what they perceive as the strengths/weaknesses of DFF grantmaking. For instance, could they offer insights to prospective applicants on how they framed their application? Could they come in as observers in decision making meetings to evaluate the effectiveness of these spaces? These ideas are to also locate what kind of influencing work is needed for DFF to advocate for robust participatory grantmaking systems to other funders in Europe with these pilots as evidence – and shift to trust-based, collaborative grantmaking practices that nurture deeper relationships.
Paige: Understanding the perspectives of the participants will be crucial in ascertaining how we can more efficiently and effectively provide support and assistance for DFF grants. Through this process we were able to remain flexible to integrating the needs of the peer group, for example in how we each conceptualised the support we were to provide. In this next iteration, it would be great to look again at the group to ensure that it sufficiently covers the regions and areas of expertise that DFF provide funding to, as well as having contingencies for any shortcomings. I am confident in the transparency and accountability mechanisms that we established through this peer group that we will be able to become even better at this process to expand it to cover all DFF grant types.
Itxaso: There’s always room to improve. I would welcome more input from applicants – especially those who weren’t selected – to understand how the process felt from their perspective. That feedback could help the Peer Group become more accountable. I also think we need to keep asking ourselves how we’re distributing power, not just through the grants, but through the process itself: Who gets to participate? Whose labour is valued? How do we make sure we’re not replicating the same exclusions we’re trying to dismantle?
Next steps
Based on the feedback and experiences of the Peer Group and DFF staff during the pilot so far, we decided to extend the pilot to another application review process. As part of the extension we will expand the pilot to cover all DFF grant applications, including litigation support applications as well as pre-litigation support applications. This means the next round of grantee partners approved in October/November 2025 will all be decided by the Peer Group. The Peer Group will be expanded to help cover the additional workload and expertise needed to review litigation applications. The new members will be announced on the Peer Group page soon.