From consultation to community ownership

What happens when communities decide?

What happens when communities are not only consulted, but are trusted to make decisions about funding themselves? In many community contexts, this question is no longer theoretical—it is becoming a lived reality.

For many community groups in Nairobi, however, this shift initially felt almost impossible.

When Grapevine Hope Centre introduced a Participatory Grant Making (PGM) process, skepticism was immediate. Community members had seen many projects come and go. Over the years, promises had been made during floods, the COVID period, and after election-related violence—yet support often failed to reach those who needed it most.

This history had created deep mistrust.

As one community member described it:

“Hii ni pata-potea.”
It may or may not happen.

Another participant recalled:

“Tulifikiria hizi ni stori za jaba…”
We thought these were just empty stories.

At first glance, this skepticism may appear to be about money.

But it was about something deeper: power.

A familiar pattern: consultation without real decision-making

For many community groups, development projects have followed a familiar pattern.

Projects are often designed by NGOs or donors with only limited consultation of the community. Communities may be asked for input, but decisions about priorities, budgets, implementation, and reporting largely remain with external actors.

As a result, participation can become limited to consultation rather than genuine decision-making.

Over time, this can create frustration, dependency, and mistrust. Communities become used to being heard—but not necessarily having real influence over what happens next.

This shaped how people responded when they first heard about Participatory Grant Making.

A different invitation

The PGM process introduced something unfamiliar.

Instead of presenting communities with predefined funding priorities, Grapevine Hope Centre invited community groups to come together to discuss their own priorities, needs, and solutions.

For the first time, communities were told they would help decide:

• Which projects mattered most
• Which proposals should receive funding
• How resources should be allocated
• How progress should be monitored

This was a major shift.

Rather than leading every decision, Grapevine acted primarily as a facilitator—supporting dialogue, strengthening accountability, and helping create a transparent process.

Communities were no longer being asked only to participate. They were being trusted to help decide. For many participants, this felt almost unbelievable.

Could communities really influence funding decisions? Could an NGO truly step back? Could power actually be shared?

Community participation in practice

Josephat Nyagwaya from Grapevine Hope Centre reflects that many community groups still struggle to raise capital despite having strong project ideas. He notes that Participatory Grant Making is slowly changing this reality by giving communities greater authority to prioritise and implement their own ideas, though the transition remains gradual and uneven.

He describes community meetings where groups sit together to deliberate on priorities, often balancing hope with uncertainty about whether funding will actually arrive. In these discussions, practical challenges surface quickly- how to manage shared resources, keep transparent records, and organise responsibilities in ways that build trust among members.

He adds that facilitators are also adjusting their role in response, shifting from directing decisions to strengthening group processes through training, guidance, and accountability support.

From skepticism to trust

Trust did not emerge overnight.

Many groups hesitated. Some questioned whether the funding would actually arrive. Others doubted whether the agreements were real. Some feared they could lose money during the process, especially in difficult economic times.

There was hesitation. There was uncertainty. But there was also curiosity. Community groups chose to stay engaged.

They discussed priorities, debated proposals, and began identifying projects that could create meaningful change. With support from facilitators and the advisory board, communities increasingly focused on practical solutions—especially low-cost, high-impact projects that addressed real needs.

Then something changed. Funds were disbursed. Projects began. Bank statements confirmed the transfers. Suddenly, disbelief gave way to surprise.

As one participant reflected: “Tulifikiria hizi ni stori za jaba, lakini tulipoona statements tuliamini.”

We thought these were just empty stories, but when we saw the bank statements, we believed.

The process had become real.

Ownership strengthens accountability

One of the strongest lessons from this process is that community ownership does not weaken accountability—it strengthens it.

There is often an assumption that decision-making should remain centralized to ensure accountability and effective use of resources. This experience challenged that assumption directly.

When communities were trusted to decide, they also became more responsible for outcomes. Groups became more organised. They thought more carefully about priorities. They challenged one another. They monitored progress more closely.

Decision-making no longer felt external. It became collective. Shared. And that changed behaviour.

What community ownership means

When asked what community ownership means, one participant gave a simple but powerful answer:

“Community ownership means deciding what we need most, supporting it fully, taking responsibility for the outcome, and learning throughout the process.”

This captures the deeper promise of Participatory Grant Making. PGM is not only about moving money. It is about shifting power.

It is about moving from a model where participation means being consulted, to one where communities help shape decisions and take shared responsibility for outcomes.

This shift is not easy.

It requires trust, patience, and a willingness – especially from organisations – to let go of control.

But the experience in Nairobi shows what becomes possible when this happens. Communities do not simply become beneficiaries. They become leaders of their own change.

As participatory approaches continue to evolve, the central question is no longer whether communities should be involved in decision-making—but how far that decision-making power is allowed to go.

The experience in Nairobi suggests that when communities are trusted with real authority—not only to participate, but to decide and act—the nature of development itself begins to change.

Participation becomes ownership. And ownership becomes transformation.