Recent funding sessions on participatory science from key CAPS 2026 sessions addressing funding including a May 26th strategic discussion on funding, a YLACES session on braided funding and May 29th’s have made one thing clear: the field cannot treat sustainability as a grant-seeking problem alone. Whether organizations are navigating fragmented partnerships, adjusting to funding cuts, or trying to keep programs free and equitable, they are hitting the same wall. Genuine partnerships take time, but funders often reward speed. Multiple institutional layers create silos, but projects need coordination. And operational costs, though oftentimes seen as mundane, absolutely matter, despite most grants favoring novelty over maintenance. These conversations are important because they point to a deeper reality: sustainable participatory science is not about finding money; it is about designing a partnership system that can support trust, equity, and continuity over time.
Overarching takeaways from CAPS funding sessions:
Partnerships are infrastructure, not addition. The work of maintaining relationships including coordination, communication, documentation, and tracking belongs within a program, not outside it. Tools like CRMs, partnership databases, MOUs, and one-year renewals help prevent duplication and keep expectations aligned.
Diverse funding sources seed sustainability. No single grant can cover the whole system. Longevity comes from combining federal grants, university backing, foundations, sponsorships, in-kind support, and perhaps even unorthodox sources like lottery funds, church grants, or health-related innovation funds.
Grants must fund the boring work. Operational costs (e.g. training, data management, documentation, scheduling, and partner maintenance, etc.) are not overhead. They are the cost of keeping a collaborative system functioning. Without support for these tasks, projects look successful but remain fragile.
Flexibility and people matter. Smaller groups often need intermediaries, subcontractor roles, short-cycle support, or retainer-like funding. Sustainability also includes fair compensation, leadership development, and volunteer purpose, especially for retirees and champion contributors who seek meaning, not just tasks.
The field of participatory science is asking the wrong question. Instead of “How do we get one grant to sustain this?” we should ask, “What system of relationships and resources will let this work endure responsibly?” Not all programs are meant to last decades. Some may only need to last a decade before it morphs into a new program and shifts to meet the needs of the time. That shift opens the door to braided funding (diverse funding sources), shared infrastructure, intermediary partners, and a more honest accounting of what participatory science actually costs.
The vision should be clear: a collaborative ecosystem where trust grows before proposals are written, where operational work is funded explicitly, where partnerships are maintained intentionally, and where projects can scale selectively, or even close intentionally, when the mission is achieved.
The charge is simple: design sustainable funding as a partnership issue, not a finance issue. Build the system around the money, not the money around the system. If the field does that, participatory science can endure without losing its core commitments to accessibility, equity, and community trust.
