Systemic Altruism
← Back to the cohort
Justice & public goodsPreliminary editorial review

People Powered

Provides resources, mentoring and training to organizations and governments building participatory decision-making programs.

Visit the organization ↗

Systemic Altruism practice potential: 79–89/100
90% of weighted axes reviewed. A mechanism hypothesis, not proven effectiveness or a donation recommendation.

Who this work enables

Tools & support for charities: Participation guides, platform-selection resources, mentoring and training for civil-society and public-sector implementers.

Humanity’s Checklist source match

Coordination · Gatekeepers — editorial, partial alignment.

Shared participation know-how can improve coordination and lower technical barriers for organizations building public decision processes. A guide or training alone does not transfer enforceable power to residents.

Explicit checklist adoption: not verified. A mechanism match is not an affiliation, endorsement, evidence of effectiveness or a scoring bonus. Read the practice.

Focus classification: 2026-10-27. Based on the organization’s dated official sources below; earlier axis-review dates are unchanged.

Compare alternatives for a funder →

The proposed pathway

Shared capacity and resource infrastructure for participatory democracy

Six dimensions, with rationale

Structural depth

4 / 4

Supporting changes to consequential public decision-making processes targets institutional rules rather than isolated consultation events.

Institutional reach

4 / 4

The international practitioner network can support institutions across countries; organizational membership is not a count of empowered residents.

Durability

2 / 4

Skills and institutional routines may persist, but meaningful powers, implementation and program continuity need ongoing support and political commitment.

Scalability

3 / 4

Reusable guidance and peer learning can spread across implementers; legitimate processes still require resources, local adaptation and facilitation.

Funding additionality

Unreviewed

Unknown: current marginal funding, delivery capacity, displacement and a credible counterfactual have not been audited.

Community agency

Unreviewed

Unknown pending scoped review: published member-governance and funding-allocation claims warrant follow-up, but affected-community rights, representation and enforcement were not audited.

Evidence and selection

Organization reported; current primary mechanism sources inspected

Illustrative inclusion to examine this mechanism. Inclusion is not an external recommendation or a verified comparative ranking.

A testable next question

Do supported programs increase equitable, consequential public decision rights and implemented outcomes beyond alternatives, with independently assessed representation and long-term continuity?

Review confidence: Moderate for documented design; low for systemic attribution. The nonprofit hub incorporated in the US and Ireland. Its origin as a Participatory Budgeting Project-sponsored initiative is historical, not assumed to be its current legal status.

What remains uncertain

The official site describes member governance and member input into funding; this is documented but not independently audited here. Tool ratings and third-party platform licenses were not imported or certified. Participation can be tokenistic or exclusionary without binding authority, accessibility and implementation.

Sources to inspect

Propose a sourced correction →

Axis review: 2026-10-27 · weighting method v0.2 (2026-10-26) · Method, conflicts and coverage