Four Case Studies of Decision-Making

Here are four examples of how different types of organizations have iterated or overhauled their decision-making frameworks to align with their values and purpose.

1. Bolivian Schools: Democratic lotteries
2. Mass LBP: Civic lotteries
3. Institute for Anarchist Studies: Consensus-based grant making
4. Kahnawake: Indigenous direct democracy

Description:
Half a dozen Bolivian schools replaced traditional approaches to selecting student government representatives (ie. campaigns and ballots) with a democratic lottery. Assisted by Democracy in Practice, an organization focused on democratic experimentation, innovation, and capacity building, students were randomly chosen to represent their fellow students, received capacity-building support, filled shorter, 3-month terms, and rotated roles within a flat/non-hierarchical structure. How might this approach be used for foundation boards and committees?

What’s being distributed?
Opportunities to (1) represent peers and build leadership capability; and (2) be represented by someone with similar lived experience.

What’s the pattern of distribution?
Random: the schools use a lottery process to select students for leadership positions.

What's the purpose?
Leadership Development

What are the values?
Equity, inclusion, engagement

What's the problem being solved?

• 
  A small subset of those who may be interested in leadership roles tend to run as candidates in elections
• 
  Electorates tend to reproduce biases towards those who resemble the powerful in society in their ballot choices (that is, they vote more for White, able-bodied, wealthy men, who are part of the dominant culture)
• 
  Elected students are exposed to more opportunities
• 
  The format of most election campaigns favours populist messages over deeper engagement with issues
• 
  Student government agendas are commonly biased towards a narrow subset of student issues (eg. social events) and may not tackle more serious issues (eg. of poor and working class children)

How Does it Reflect Values and Purpose?

The lottery approach gives each student a more equal chance to develop their own capabilities, but also to be represented by another student who understands their experiences, regardless of socioeconomic status, ability, race, gender, or other factors. The more frequent rotation of student leaders (every 3 months rather than a school year) enables more students to develop leadership skills. This reflects the mandate of schools to support the development of each child in a way that mitigates against greater systems of inequality and inequity rather than reproducing them. How could this model be used outside of schools and within foundations? Discover more about it on the Democracy in Practice website and listen to the Decision Stories Podcast.

Description:
Civic lotteries make it possible for governments and public agencies to randomly assemble a broadly representative sample of people onto a “reference panel” to discuss and come up with recommendations for what should be done about a given issue, free from the pressures of outside influences. In Canada, the organization MASS LBP has pioneered the use of civic lotteries.

What’s being distributed?
Opportunity and responsibility to exercise public judgement and steward the common good.

What’s the pattern of distribution?
Random or lottery method to create reference panels, which involve many more Canadians in public decisions that would otherwise be driven by civil servants.

What's the purpose?
MASS LBP’s purpose is to bring more people to the table and bridge the distance between citizens and governments.

What are the values?
-Maximizing “civic fitness” (learning and exercising civic values)
-Equity of representation in the public realm
-Contribution

What's the problem being solved?

• 
  Low civic participation and too few representative opportunities
• 
  A bias towards expressing preferences (eg. through voting) over making contributions
• 
  Consultation methods that tend to engage a non-representative sample of the public

How Does it Reflect Values and Purpose?

• 
  Civic lotteries more meaningfully involve more and different citizens in civic decision- making
  
• 
  Civic lotteries are more broadly representative of the population
• 
  Civic lotteries reflect a moral commitment to treat people as active agents who can self-govern, rather than as passive objects who must be governed
• 
  Civic lotteries, when combined with a deliberative forum (like a citizen jury), build trust and produce more legitimate outcomes, which looks like people respecting decisions made by them or people like them

A key principle of anarchy is that people should have a say in decisions that directly affect them.

Description:
The Institute for Anarchist Studies has a small grant fund (about $2000 annually) distributed by its board of directors. Over the last decade, the IAS has refined both its decision-making process and the purpose of its grants.

Some of the standout features include:

- A consensus decision-making process

- An annual politically-focused board meeting to define how best to express their purpose that year

- A transition from reviewing all applications at once to a slower, drip-feed that allows decision-makers to better manage workload and stress, and make more informed and consistent decisions

- A new decision-making rubric that relates directly back to the IAS’ moral purpose

What’s being distributed?
Money to support the development of theory and research

What’s the pattern of distribution?
Based on a logic that mixes equity and need with purpose. Grants are targeted at non-academic theorists with identities under-represented among theorists and lower access to resources; and, those addressing the issues that feel most pressing and least theorized from an anarchist perspective at any given time.

What's the purpose?
The Institute for Anarchist Studies came into existence to attract and distribute material resources to advance contemporary anarchist thought. It also shares and demonstrates the principles of anarchy by applying them to its own operations.

What are the values?
-Direct democracy: systems and processes that give people agency to participate in decisions that directly affect them.

-Sharing & mutual aid: If you have something to offer and share, you should give it. And, if you need something, you should be able to receive it.

-Solidarity: supporting others’ efforts at freedom, regardless of whether one is directly affected.

-Direct action: When necessary, it is both moral and appropriate to intervene to oppose authoritarianism (not simply authority), which threatens individuals’ agency.

What's the problem being solved?

(1) Attracting the wrong proposals:

• 
  Too many applicants proposing over-represented topics, from over-represented perspectives
• 
  Not receiving applications from the applicants for whom a small grant would make the most difference

(2) Decisions that aren't transparent, consistent, or reflective of criteria:

• 
  Deciding large volumes of applications over concentrated periods was producing distortions in the committee’s decisions (decision paralysis, insufficient preparation, decisions affected by factors outside criteria like state of fatigue)
• 
  Internal group dynamics holding too much influence over decisions (certain speakers holding too much sway, failure to agree on criteria,v“horse-trading”)

(3) Inefficiencies:

• 
  Failure to limit qualifying applications resulted in too great a volume of poor fit proposals
• 
  Reviewers unable to accomplish or totally fatigued by preparatory reading
• 
  Many applicants’ efforts wasted

How Does it Reflect Values and Purpose?

Creating the time as space for annual meetings focused on politics allows the IAS to get ultra-clear on how it can best enact its purpose that year. As a result, it produces a much more specific and limited grant call, garnering fewer responses that are better targeted to achieving their explicit purpose, mission, and values.

Monthly meetings throughout the year allow the board to engage more intentionally with each other, living out the values of anarchy, and evolving their interpersonal dynamic. For example, they are better able to engage in sharing & mutual aid with each other when not all exhausted by the same glut of applications and short deadlines.

Members cultivate a clearer, more commonly held sense of purpose and values through their work together. When reviewing, the rubric creates the foundation for more consistent, transparent, and purposeful decisions which respects the agency of applicants.

Mohawk communities have a long history of deliberative and collective decision-making.

Description:
Kahnawá:ke, a Kanien’kehá:ka or Mohawk community near Montréal, implemented a community decision-making process, even within the confines of the Indian Act system. It offers a direct-democracy style forum and consensus-building model that incorporates traditional principles to address governance issues under community control. The approach was used to review the band’s membership laws, which were unpopular. The first iteration of the process was lengthy (6 years) and consisted of bi-weekly meetings of community people, hosted by the Kahnawá:ke legislative Coordinating Commission Office. It produced a new membership law based on the concept of adhering to ‘the will of the people.’

What’s being distributed?
The opportunity to (1) speak, be heard, and influence decisions and (2) to engage in and learn about traditional culture.

What’s the pattern of distribution?
Equality: the process is inclusive of everyone who is old enough to participate (including children). There may also be culturally determined roles for people to play.

What's the purpose?
In 1979 the Mohawk Council of Kahnawá:ke passed a mandate to move towards traditional governance including culturally-based, participatory decision-making. In cooperation with other community decision-making forums, the Council has begun a journey of transition that involves research, participatory demonstrations or tests, feedback, and iteration.

What are the values?
Participation, agency, collectivism, listening, self-determination

What's the problem being solved?

1. Colonially-imposed decision-making system and bodies that remain the law through the Indian Act

2. Values mismatch between colonial and traditional decision-making process, in terms of:

• 
  Intent (best decision for individual vs. the collective)
• 
  Format (debate vs. listening and adjusting)
• 
  Speed (fast vs. slow)
• 
  Participation (representatives vs. all of community)
• 
  Focus (outcome vs. process)

How Does it Reflect Values and Purpose?

The Kahnawà:ke ommunity Decision-Making Process is a response to the community’s call for a more culturally relevant and inclusive process for making collective decisions and enacting local laws. The Process is a transitional measure towards traditional governance, and creates an opportunity to develop the skills and posture of traditional decision-makers. The process is community-led, and traditionally informed even where that has meant departing sharply from colonial convention.

Experiences & Observations

Which specific communities of stakeholders do you think about or reach out to most, in the context of a foundation you are close to?

Reactions & Impressions

How do you react to the argument that a community foundation must actively design opportunities to be influenced and changed by specific communities, in order not to become obsolete?

Questions & Hunches to test

Over the past year, consider which specific communities have influenced a foundation you are close to, and which stakeholder communities’ influence has been absent. What might need to change in order to engage the meaningful participation of communities whose influence is absent?

Guiding Question

Where does community participation in the foundation, and foundation participation in the community begin and end?