At Social Change Lab, we conduct research on people-powered movements to understand how they can be most effective. One thing we are interested in is how to increase financial support for these movements, given the crucial role they play. In our new research report, we asked 100 funders about their attitudes to funding campaigners and activists. We learned that while they believe in campaigning as a tool for change, there are practical and psychological blocks to their giving. We propose a range of ways to address these barriers and improve support for campaigners and activists. As well as the full report, we've also produced one-page Action Sheets for funders and campaigners.
Main findings
Most funders are open to supporting campaigners/activists. 71% said they currently give some level of support to these groups
Most valued campaigning/activism as a tool for change: on a scale of 0-5, the average was 4.4/5: ‘very valuable’
The average level of giving was considerably lower; again on a scale of 0-5, the average level of giving 2.57
The main barriers to giving were:
Risk (how will funding affect my organisation?)
Impact (does campaigning/activism work?)
Practicalities (how can I fund small or informal groups?)
Knowledge (who should I fund?)
The good news is that there are solutions to many of the problems that funders identified. For example:
Funding through intermediaries, using fiscal hosts and pooled funds
Funding infrastructure organisations. Organisations such as Social Change Agency, Social Change Lab, NPC, NEON, SMK, 360 Giving are just a few of the many places working to enhance, measure and report on effectiveness and impact of campaigners and activists.
Having better guidance on how to manage risk
Forming stronger collaborative networks in specific issue areas to overcome knowledge barriers.
Improving understanding of the role of campaigners and activists in social change. Organisations such as the AYNI institute have lots of useful resources as well as courses; their model is nicely summarised in this recent article. The SMK Foundation has recently produced the Changemakers’ Toolkit which gives useful graphical introductions to social change processes, and Beautiful Trouble has pithy guides to some of the main theories and themes of social change.
We believe that there are many encouraging findings from this research about the potential to increase support for campaigners and activists.
Summary of the report
Campaigners and activists play a key role in fighting against injustice and bringing about social change. While evidence suggests their work is effective - they mobilise people, attention and resources, influence public opinion and government policy, and keep pressure on institutions to address injustices - it is consistently underfunded. According to a recent Sheila McKechnie Foundation report, 65% of campaigners say that campaigning has become tougher and three-quarters say they don’t know if they have the energy to continue.
To understand more about this funding gap, Social Change Lab carried out a survey of 100 funders (plus 10 in-depth interviews) to understand funders’ attitudes and practices towards supporting campaigners and activists.
Respondents were predominantly (83%) UK-based, with the remainder mostly operating in Europe. Most (65%) were from Foundations, with 19% from Family Trusts and 8% individual philanthropists. 10 funders also took part in follow-up in-depth interviews. Most give more than £5m a year (see figure 1), with their support going to a wide range of issue areas (figure 2).
Figure 1. Funders’ annual level of giving
Figure 2. Issues supported by respondents
“There is no doubt that if you want to know what is really going on for people, especially those who are most marginalised, you have to go to the local grassroots groups who are working, they are the ones that know what’s going on.”
The survey found that most funders were open to supporting campaigners/activists. 71% said they currently give some level of support to these groups and most valued campaigning/activism as a tool for change: on a scale of 0-5, the average was 4.4/5: ‘very valuable’. The average level of giving was considerably lower; again on a scale of 0-5, the average level of giving 2.57; ‘some of my giving’. When asked about their likelihood of funding different groups by subtype (eg ‘activists’, ‘campaigners’, ‘movements’), the only group funders were less keen to support were ‘protest groups’.
We asked respondents what the barriers were to giving more (see figure 3) and which of these was the most important (figure 4).
Figure 3. Barriers to supporting campaigners and activists (respondents ticked all that applied).
Figure 4. Most important barrier to supporting campaigners and activists
We summarise these barriers as:
(1) Risk: the idea that funding these groups could involve reputational or financial risk
“We worry a lot about reputational risk. But really what’s the problem? We’re an organisation with a massive endowment. What do we have to lose, really?”
“Trustees really want to be seen as neutral, and not political. We’re not neutral! How can you be if you are trying to change things? But we need to appear that way.”
Concerns about risk were of different kinds. Some related to concerns about groups doing controversial things that might reflect badly on the organisation; others related to the rules and limitations of charity guidelines.
Several suggested that board members and trustees were often more risk averse than staff within an organisation.
“The board would not approve anything which the Daily Mail could take issue with.”
(2) Impact: uncertainty over measuring effectiveness / impact
Interviewees expressed uncertainty about the impact of campaign and activist groups - both in terms of whether these groups are impactful and about how to measure their impact - particularly for those who aim to shift the dial of public opinion.
“The thing that would most convince us to fund campaign groups is them having a strategy. A lot of groups are very big picture but don’t have a plan.”
“Sometimes people who define themselves as activists can be good at articulating what they're against, but not so great at what they're for.”
“These groups are too small scale, I don’t think it is the most effective or impactful use of my money.”
“The trustees have a strong preference for funding tangible actions that have positive outcomes for people and planet in the short-term.”
(3) Practicalities: complications of funding unconstituted groups and uncertainty over charitable regulations
The legal and practical complexity of supporting groups puts some funders off. The view “It is unclear whether giving would be consistent with our charitable purposes” was frequently expressed. “We are bound by charity law and have to ensure our funding complies with that, so funding campaigning is generally viewed as problematic and potentially non-charitable.”
Others had been on a journey of change. One described it: “Our charitable purpose was very narrow. We have now widened it and have been actively developing our funding of more 'outsider' approaches over the past 2 years.”
“We don’t have an issue of funding non-constituted organisations, we do that anyway. We know that is within charitable purposes. In terms of organisations, we fund a whole variety of legal structures…We try and not get tangled up in ‘What is the legal structure?’”
(4) Knowledge: being unsure of which groups to fund in specific issue areas
“The main barrier is identifying the groups who would fit with our objectives.”
“There is not a philosophical or administrative or legal block. It is just knowing who is there doing it. It would be about identifying some examples in the UK that fit the bill.”
The good news is that there are solutions to many of the problems identified. As the figure below shows, funders identified several ways they might be helped to increase their giving.
Figure 5. All factors that might convince funders to increase support to campaigners and activists (respondents ticked all that applied)
We asked funders (figure 5) to identify the factors that would make them likely to give more to campaigners/activists and (figure 6) which was likely to make the biggest difference.
Figure 6. Most important factor in convincing funders to increase support to campaigners and activists
Funders said that better evidence of the effectiveness of these groups, better knowledge of who to fund and guidance on managing risk could all help persuade them to give more.
A starting point might be reassurance that giving to campaigners meets charitable purposes and is within charity guidelines. This might mean rethinking charitable objects, investing in specialist legal advice from progressive lawyers to help show that (for example) funding non-constituted groups is possible. There are also many options for indirect giving, including through pooled funds, intermediaries and infrastructure organisations which can all reduce direct risk.
Intermediaries are organisations that connect funders to grantees. They manage funds on behalf of donors and distribute it to grantees, usually alongside other support; as such, they offer an alternative route for funders who might be concerned about many of the themes discussed above. Several respondents already worked with intermediaries or were actively considering doing so.
“I’m very keen on working through intermediaries. It gives us the overall sense that we are covered and makes us feel safer”
“It mitigates some of the risks for grantees and funders.”
Over half of respondents said they could be interested in funding through intermediaries (23% ‘yes’, 34% ‘maybe’). Some wanted to maintain their own direct contact with grantees, “I feel able to make my own decisions and have direct relationships” or were concerned that intermediaries might add a layer of bureaucracy.
The vast majority of funders recognised the need for infrastructure organisations and 80% said they either did or would consider supporting them. In particular, they identified that infrastructure groups were an important component if the aim was to change the system.
“Infrastructure organisations can be a powerful lever - bringing long term systemic results”
“It's part of our mix - we believe that all funders have a responsibility to create a healthy sustainable ecosystem and that includes infrastructure organisations.”
Infrastructure organisations can add value in a variety of ways, not only by pooling funding but also through additional know-how. Organisations such as Social Change Agency, Social Change Lab, NPC, NEON, SMK, 360 Giving are just a few of the many places working to enhance, measure and report on effectiveness and impact of campaigners and activists. To support better understanding of the role of campaigners and activists in social change, organisations such as the AYNI institute have lots of useful resources as well as courses. The SMK Foundation has recently produced the Changemakers’ Toolkit which gives useful graphical introductions to social change processes, and Beautiful Trouble has pithy guides to some of the main theories and themes of social change.
We hope you find this research useful. It was commissioned by Changing Ideas and the Tenacious Awards which offer money and mentoring to tenacious public interest campaigners and journalists. If you have any questions about this research or any of our other work, don't hesitate to get in touch.
Social Change Lab is funded and supported by philanthropic foundations. If you are interested in supporting our work, please contact us or make a donation.
Comments