Campaigning and activism: what funders think
Summary
Social Change Lab carried out a survey of 100 funders, as well as in-depth interviews, to understand funders’ attitudes and practices towards supporting campaigners and activists. We define these as ‘people and groups who are pressing for social change outside of traditional organisations’ - Alan Bates, Doreen Lawrence, the Hillsborough families, Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion and hundreds more. Campaigners and activists play a key role in fighting against injustice and achieving social change. The evidence suggests their work is effective but underfunded. While people celebrate the wins, these can be very hard won, often over years and even decades. The purpose of this research is to help understand funders’ perspectives so that, ultimately, we can help funders get more support to campaigners and activists when they really need it.
100 funders responded to our survey. These 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 and other funders who already support campaigners and activists contributed examples of success stories, outlined in our ‘Case studies’.
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’.
We asked about the main barriers to giving (or giving more) to campaigners and activists. The most common were giving ‘not being central to their charitable purpose’ or the feeling that this sort of giving ‘was not for them’, a lack of board approval, concern over reputational risk and a negative view of activist tactics. Some also cited knowledge barriers - not knowing who to give to. We summarise the themes as 1. Risk (how will funding reflect on my organisation) 2. Impact (does campaigning/activism work?) 3. Practicalities (how can I fund small or informal groups) and 4. Knowledge (who should I fund).
The positive finding is that there are solutions to many of the problems identified. When we asked about what might change their practice, funders said that guidance on managing risk, better evidence of the effectiveness of these groups, and better knowledge of who to fund could all help persuade them to give more. The wider use of alternative funding approaches, such as pooled funds, fiscal hosting using infrastructure organisations and other intermediaries, could also help to overcome concerns about risk and knowledge barriers.
We believe that there are many encouraging findings from this research in terms of the potential to increase support for campaigners and activists.
This research was commissioned by Changing Ideas and the Tenacious Awards which already offer money and mentoring to tenacious public interest campaigners and journalists.
Over the coming months, we will be working with them and others to increase awareness of the value of campaigning to society and increase the flow of funding to campaigners by equipping funders with the knowledge and resources they need to confidently back our country’s leading campaigners and social movements.
Cover image by XXXXX, used under CC BY 4.0. Available LINK HERE
Introduction
In a nutshell: Campaigning and activism is all around us in the UK. There are many outsider, often overlooked groups and individuals who play a key role in social change. People celebrate the wins - Hillsborough, Alan Bates, Windrush - but these can take decades to come. How can we better support campaigners and activists when they really need it?
Campaigners and activists are currently in the news in the UK. Whether it is Alan Bates’ campaign against the injustices of the Post Office IT scandal, the decades long battle of the Hillsborough families, local residents protesting against sewage dumping in rivers and oceans, or the latest social changes set in train by mass movements such as MeToo and Black Lives Matter, we have a great appetite for hearing the successes of campaigners and activists.
Along the pathway to success, however, campaigners and activists often report being ignored and unsupported practically and psychologically. According to a recent report (SMK campaigner survey 2024), 65% of campaigners say that campaigning has become tougher over the last year and three-quarters say they’re unsure if they have the energy to carry on. A recent piece in Modern Grantmaking interviewed former grant makers who had become grant seekers; amongst several interesting insights, one commented, “Looking back, I see obvious areas which clearly deserve more philanthropic funding and attention… It is puzzling that individual campaigners are underfunded given their ability to shape conversations and drive change.”
Yet campaigning is a crucial part of social change. Campaigners and activists mobilise people, attention and resources, they can have a huge influence on public opinion and on government policy, and they keep pressure on institutions to address injustices and reform. Our research at Social Change Lab has demonstrated their influence in many ways and in the Ayni Institute's much-cited model of social change (see Figure 1), campaigners and activists play a crucial role in the ‘changing dominant institutions’ part of the ecosystem. Dominant institutions can include anything from fossil fuel companies to local councils, water companies to the police force. Campaigners and activists are often working from an ‘outsider’ position, rather than within organisations such as NGOs or charities. They are often small groups, sometimes just individuals, working to tackle injustices. Their work is part of a dynamic of change; protesters might draw attention to an issue which has gone beneath the radar - and this increased salience allows those working within the system to push harder for change. Typically, insider approaches are better supported by funders.
CASE STUDY
Campaigners everywhere: illustrations of the range of campaigns and activism
The Living Wage campaign started small, at a 2001 meeting in East London of representatives from local churches, mosques, schools and community groups brought together by Citizens UK (a grassroots organisation). On the agenda were issues faced by local communities and a common theme was low pay. At the time, the minimum wage was a meagre £3.70 an hour. The group that grew from that first meeting in London argued that people needed not just a minimum wage, but a wage that was actually enough to live on. Over the last 20 years, the Living Wage Foundation is estimated to have put £1.5billion into the hands of low paid workers. The Foundation has been supported by many organisations. One of them is Trust for London, a charitable trust focused on tackling poverty and inequality in London. They estimate that their 2021 grant of £4.8 million over 4 years will win an additional £635 million for London workers, a return on investment multiple of 132.
Since 2013, Black Lives Matter (BLM) campaign has significantly impacted public awareness and policy regarding racial justice and police reform. It mobilised millions globally through social media, protests, and advocacy, bringing new urgent attention to systemic racism and police brutality. The campaign has successfully pushed for legislative changes, such as the adoption of body cameras by police, the implementation of bias training, and reallocation of police funding towards community services. Additionally, BLM has influenced cultural shifts, prompting corporations, educational institutions, and other organisations to address diversity and inclusion more robustly. Its grassroots efforts have empowered marginalised communities and inspired a broader dialogue on justice and equality.
Jason Evans and fellow UK campaigners have been instrumental in uncovering the truth and seeking justice for thousands of people infected with HIV and hepatitis through contaminated blood products in the 1970s and 1980s.
Persistent efforts by victims, their families, and advocacy groups have led to public inquiries andlegal actions, exposing governmental and institutional failings in the screening and distribution of blood products. Their relentless campaigning has (eventually) resulted in financial compensation for many victims
and greater public awareness of the scandal. Their work has also prompted reforms in blood onation and transfusion practices, ensuring higher safety standards to prevent such tragedies in the future.
Figure 1. Ayni Institute model of pathways to social change
A report by Hour is Late / Civic Power Fund looking at funding for social justice found that ‘Social justice grants are heavily weighted towards ‘service delivery’ and ‘inside game’ initiatives. Less than 10% of the social justice funding they analysed goes towards the sort of ‘outside game’ activities which excluded communities depend on to be heard. Similarly, a report by social sector research group Candid found that just 3% of grants for human rights went to grassroots organising.
In the climate arena, a meagre 1% of European foundation funding went towards grassroots and movement building, according to a report by ClimateWorks. In the UK, a survey of UK green organisations (most of whom are at least partially supported by foundation funding), by the Environmental Funders Network found the one thing those groups most wanted apart from flexible grants was greater support for campaigning work. Even campaigners who are supported can sometimes face backlash or resistance to their campaigning by funders, particularly if the issues they are campaigning on become political hot potatoes. Nearly one in five campaigners surveyed by SMK said they had experienced this. As one put it, “Donors can be worried about backlash by association… Internally, we have had to refocus capacity due to backlash.”
One factor that can make support challenging for funders is that the work of campaigners and activists can take a long time to see results. Sometimes these groups are trying to shift societal attitudes to ready the ground for more ambitious policy changes - but societal attitudes do not change overnight. One has only to look at the years of work of campaigners like Baroness Doreen Lawrence’s campaigns to reform the police and fight for racial justice, to understand the tenacity required for campaigning work. Fortunately, there is a growing evidence base (as well as accessible tools) on the impact of campaigners and activists.
As an illustration of how activists often play the long game, Occupy Wall Street was not considered a great success at the time; it brought about no immediate, tangible policy wins. But over a longer term, the movement had a profound influence: it popularised terms such as ‘the 1%’, brought the issue of global inequality into the mainstream, and it “showed a new generation how to turn social movements into a viral spectacle that seizes control of the public narrative.” This had a huge effect on subsequent campaigners and activists. “The same people who were in Occupy Wall Street were in Black Lives Matter, the People’s Climate March, the Sunrise Movement.”
Social Change Lab’s analysis of the effectiveness of Insulate Britain, another group that shut down declaring “We have failed,” found that their actions were actually a highly cost effective tool for carbon reduction (see the ‘Case study’ box)
Purpose of this work
In a nutshell. There is evidence that campaigning/activism is effective but severely underfunded. We want to change the latter by influencing funders to alter their funding practices to increase support for these groups. We also want to help campaigners work more effectively with funders and secure more funding.
The aim of this research is to understand how funders think about supporting campaigning and activism. Why is there a funding gap and can it be overcome? What barriers do funders face in supporting these kinds of groups and individuals?
There has been some work trying to answer these sorts of questions in the US. The 2022 ‘Dollars and Dissent’ report looked at the key constraints to funding grassroots organisations for US funders. The main tensions were around boards not supporting informal entities, legal concerns, a felt lack of expertise, power imbalances between grantors and grantees and uncertainties over monitoring and evaluation.
The authors offer good solutions to tackle these in the US context, with some lessons for the UK. These include changes such as better coordination between donors, less of a focus on the institutional form of grantees, more flexibility and adaptation to changing needs of movements and recognition of the large extent to which donor decision makers are led by their own values and lived experiences - for good and bad.
This research aims to build on this work, providing a comprehensive assessment with a particular focus on UK funders.
Methodology
In a nutshell: we took a mixed methods approach, including a quantitative survey, qualitative interviews and illustrative case studies outlining how funders have supported campaigners and activists, to help give a rounded picture.
This research comprises:
-
A quantitative online survey of funders
We conducted a survey of funders to understand more about their attitudes and practices towards supporting campaigners and activists. The survey (conducted on the Qualtrics online survey platform) was sent directly to grant managers, chief executives and other members of senior management teams at over 200 trusts, foundations and individual philanthropists. It was also distributed indirectly through partner organisations who have contacts with large numbers of donors. In total, 100 funders responded to the survey.
-
Qualitative interviews to follow up on survey responses and deepen understanding
At the end of the survey, respondents could indicate their willingness to take part in a follow up interview. We set up individual interviews for ten funders, to dig deeper into their thinking. The interview covered topics such as how they currently make funding
decisions, how they measure impact, where they sit on a risk-taking continuum and several specific questions about their support (or reasons for not supporting) campaigners and activists, and what might change their position.
-
Case studies
Funder stories of success in supporting campaigning/activism are an important additional component. They help to show what works and provide lessons for best practice that others can replicate. We identified these by asking funders for their own suggestions and by doing our own research.
A note on terminology
Terminology has been a challenge with this work. The words ‘campaigning’ and ‘activism’ have different meanings for different people. When thinking of campaigners and activists, some see outsider groups pushing against the system; others see insider groups pushing from within. Where some see activists as impassioned individuals contributing to a process of change, others picture an angry mob. In this work, including in the introduction to the survey, we define campaigners and activists as ‘people and groups who are pressing for social change outside of traditional organisations’. Examples of who we mean include a wide range: Alan Bates taking on the Post Office, Doreen Lawrence fighting for racial equality, the Hillsborough families trying to get legal justice, the Black Lives Matter movement, Extinction Rebellion protesting for climate justice. Terminology is discussed further in the survey findings.
Survey Results
Who responded?
The 100 respondents were predominantly (83%) UK-based, with the remainder mostly operating in Europe. 65% were from Foundations, 19% from Family Trusts and 8% were individual philanthropists. The remaining 8% were made up of family foundations, pooled funds and regranters, and philanthropic advisories and networks.
The value of the grants their organisations disperse annually is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Funders’ annual level of giving
What issues do they support?
Respondents were from organisations supporting a very wide range of issue areas, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Issues supported by funders
What do they think about campaigning/activism?
71% said that they currently give some level of support to campaigning/activism. Asked about the extent of their giving, on a scale of 0-5, (with 0 being ‘no support’ and 5 being ‘All or almost all giving’) the average level of giving was 2.57 (‘Some of my giving’). Many
of those who did not currently give to these groups had considered doing so - or were currently actively considering it. Most valued campaigning as a tool for social change. Asked about this (again on a 0-5 scale), the average value rating was 4.4/5 (‘very valuable’).
Funders’ attitudes varied depending on the terms that were used to describe campaigners and activists. As we will discuss below, respondents also probably made their own varying interpretations of what constituted a campaign group. Figure 4 shows the likelihood that funders would support groups, based on the given descriptions alone. There were small variations depending on most descriptors. The only consistently worse performing term was ‘Protest groups’ who scored much lower than all the others. They were the only group who funders said they were more unlikely than likely to fund, with ‘Activists’ sitting on the threshold.
Figure 4. Likelihood of funding different groups based on different terminology where 0 is ‘extremely unlikely’ and 5 ‘extreme likely’.
What are the barriers to giving more support?
A key purpose of the survey was to better understand the reasons funders do not give more financial support to campaigners and activists. Are there particular barriers to supporting them and if so, what are they? Figure 5 shows the main reasons they gave (note that here, respondents could state multiple reasons).
The most commonly cited (by over 30%) was this sort of giving not being central to their organisation’s charitable purpose. Second (29%) was that the board would not approve it. Third (25%) that the organisation had other priorities and/or didn’t feel this was something for them. Reputational risk (21%) and an association of activism with aggressive or confrontational tactics (17%) were other frequently cited barriers. In addition to the given choices, respondents identified several other barriers, as below.
Figure 5. Barriers to supporting campaigners and activists (here, respondents could tick as many as applied).
The ‘Other’ reasons identified fell into the following categories:
-
It is too political (e.g. “I would fund more activist work, however, my family are less keen on the basis of not wanting to appear "too political")
-
Preference for indirect support (e.g. “My activist support is indirect, to organisations that facilitate campaigners”)
-
Campaigner/activist groups themselves lacking capacity to use funds productively (“Many have never received funding and have little experience of managing funded programmes” or “They don’t have a business plan”)
-
Legal barriers (“Our charitable purposes are too narrow” or “We only fund groups that have a constitution” or “We are bound by charity law and funding campaigning is problematic” or country specific limitations)
-
Lack of options (“We don’t have additional funds”, “We get very few requests”)
-
Definitional issues with what constitutes ‘campaigning’ (“Your question is too constraining. We fund charities that campaign. Because we fund charities .”)
Figure 6. Most important barrier to supporting campaigners and activists
In a follow up question (Figure 6), we asked respondents to say which of these was the single most important constraint. The most commonly named were:
-
My board would not approve it / like it (20%)
-
It is too risky in terms of reputational damage (e.g. if groups say or do controversial things, it could bring negative media attention to my organisation) (11%)
-
I don’t know enough about where to give / I don’t have connections to campaigning (9%)
What might help increase support?
We were interested in what might help funders increase their giving. In Figure 7, we show their responses when asked to choose all applicable options.
Figure 7. Factors that might convince funders to increase support to campaigners and activists (here, respondents could tick as many as applied)
We also asked which single factor would be the most important tool of persuasion - see Figure 8. The most cited were:
-
Convincing evidence that campaigning is as effective as my current donations (27%)
-
Better understanding of the role of campaigners/activists in social change (14%) ● Reassurance that giving meets our charitable purposes and is within charity guidelines (12%)
-
Guidance on measuring impact of campaigning/activism (8%)
-
Better written material on these groups and how they work to share with my board (8%)
Figure 8. Most important factor in convincing funders to increase support to campaigners and activists
How do funders feel about intermediaries and infrastructure groups?
In the final two questions, we asked about supporting campaigners and activists indirectly. First we asked funders whether they would be interested in giving through intermediaries, as a way of potentially reducing risk. 23% said that they would be interested, 34% said ‘maybe’ and 43% said they would not. Reasons for not wanting to fund in this way included preferences for dealing directly with grantees, not wanting any money to go to a third party, uncertainty over whether intermediaries create an additional administrative layer without support to activists, and uncertainty about measuring outcomes. Those who already give through intermediaries, or who would be open to doing so, felt that intermediaries can reduce risk to both grantees and funders, can help fill in gaps in situations where funders lack knowledge of who to support, and can allow donors to support unconstituted groups.
Finally, we asked about willingness to support campaign infrastructure organisations, such as those who offer training to campaigners, do research or policy work on campaigning/activism, or offer other kinds of practical help and resources. More than half (52%) said they already do or would be willing to do this, 28% said they might and just 20% said that this was not something they wanted to do. Positive comments on infrastructure support included the idea that while campaigners are great at campaigning, they often need operational support; that infrastructure organisations can add value in pooling funds and offering know how; and the belief that infrastructure organisations are important for systemic change, “Movements and collaborations need support in order to be more than the sum of their parts.”
Indirect funding was a topic addressed in interviews. Attitudes to intermediaries and infrastructure organisations will be discussed further at the end of the Qualitative results section below.
Qualitative Results
In a nutshell: most funders were open to supporting campaigners/activists. Better evidence of effectiveness, better knowledge of who to fund and guidance on managing risk could all help persuade them to give more. The wider use of alternative funding approaches, such as giving to infrastructure organisations or intermediaries, could also help to boost the work of campaigners and activists. Some challenges remain.
Ten survey respondents took part in follow up interviews. The purpose of these was to get more detailed insights than short survey responses allow. The follow up comprised 30 minute, semi-structured, online interviews, done individually.
The first sense was that this survey was timely; there was a consistent theme that many organisations are actively considering changes to their practice to consider funding more ‘outsider’ approaches. For example, one interviewee said, “'We have changed a lot in the last 5 years from being quite a conservative funder towards more explicitly social justice. We changed our charitable objects and got the board more comfortable with looking through a different lens, more focused on social change than service delivery”. Another said, “The evidence and our insight is telling us that things are getting worse so we need to change what we are doing.” In practice, however, change is not easy. “It’s a big ask for a lot of foundations to shift tack. Trustees come into organisation reinforcing the view that they shouldn’t get involved in anything political. The big problem is that a lot of people have a very old school view of philanthropy and why they’re there.”
Broadly, there was recognition of the need to reach smaller, grassroots groups to really make progress on entrenched systemic issues. “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.” But there was also the view that some organisations have their priorities set on other approaches for legitimate reasons. As one interviewee, whose foundation primarily funds ‘insider’ approaches said, “Sometimes people assume if you’re not funding activism you're not committed but that’s not true. We all have different roles to play.”
The interviews focused on the barriers to giving to campaigners and activists and what might be done to overcome them. The positive finding is that there are many barriers which seem addressable: better evidence on the effectiveness of these groups, better communication with other funders about success stories, the provision of better materials for boards both on groups themselves and their role in social change processes. These are all actions that can be taken and we will elaborate on these when we talk about next steps.
Here, we discuss the main barriers under four thematic headings:
-
Risk: the idea that funding these groups could involve reputational or financial risk
-
Impact: uncertainty over measuring effectiveness / impact
-
Practicalities: complications of funding unconstituted groups and uncertainty over charitable regulations
-
Knowledge: being unsure of which groups to fund in specific issue areas
Risk
“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.”
Almost all interviewees expressed concern about reputational risk. Mostly this was a fear of negative press that could reflect badly on them as an organisation if their grantees did something controversial or if they were seen as ‘political’. When asked about the actual feared consequences, these were often to do with how individual board members would react to and potentially be affected by controversy, as opposed to greater structural harms such as loss of income. As one said, “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?”
Many alluded to their organisation’s resistance to doing anything which could be seen as controversial, whether in terms of specific tactics groups might use or in terms of taking risks with newer, less known organisations. “We are inherently less risk-taking, we feel we need to back those with a track record and who are playing within the rules” and “The board considered whether to support grassroots activists as a way of being more responsive to people's needs but we ultimately decided that it was too risky and we would not be able to support certain methods.” Another added, “Some grassroots activities we would probably steer clear of… bullying tactics, rudeness.” 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.”
Others had a more sanguine attitude to risk. “We are not ultra cautious about reputation because we have assets and power. If someone bad mouths us it’s not the end of the world.” One pointed out that it was important to recognise that the greater risks were taken by campaigners and activists themselves, “The governance for the campaigns is often not in place - this leaves campaigners themselves in a risky situation without support when they are attacked or criticised in the media.”
CASE STUDY
Overcoming risk - by funding support for activists, rather than funding activists directly.
Community freshwater activists, funded by Esmée Fairbairn Foundation (EFF) One of the EFF’s goals is ‘clean and healthy freshwater’ and they recognised that the communities who live around waterways are key advocates for this. These communities have been incredibly effective at highlighting the impact pollution has on people's well being. They are also popular with journalists covering these stories who often want a local community angle. However, these community activists often have to respond to the PR agendas of powerful water companies and regulators, rather than having the experience and capacity to place their own stories. Professional communications support is a key need for community-led freshwater campaigning organisations. So EFF commissioned Greenhouse Communications, a PR consultancy, with £60k to work directly with ten groups, carrying out mapping, needs analysis and initial strategy development and then to provide a press office function for community freshwater activists. They also distributed a weekly newsletter to help campaigners keep up to date with key issues and stories. An agreement was drawn up with the consultancy company that communications would be limited to freshwater, be non-party political and be consistent with the Foundation’s charitable position.
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. They recognised that sometimes this can take longer than typical evaluation windows. One said “If you think of Occupy [the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ campaign], some say that failed but the impact of that seeped into society quite deeply, it had ripple effects.”
There was a recognition that helping sometimes sceptical board members and trustees understand the impact of these groups might mean a wider conversation about social justice. These conversations can be difficult, some felt, as sometimes those who have “gone on that journey” can appear dismissive of those who have not. As one put it, “What we need is a better articulation of how change happens - not using our language of social justice movement building activism - but to translate into a language that those who aren’t yet convinced can understand.”
Groups themselves not being focused enough on impact
Some interviewees felt that campaign and activist groups themselves were not clear enough about how they would achieve the impact they wanted. One funder said, “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. In the anti-poverty area there’s a big space around UBI [universal basic income] but a real lack of detail. There’s nothing on how you go from a clever idea to changing politicians’ minds.” Another was more blunt, “They don’t have a business plan.”
Some funders alluded to the idea that activists have a different, narrower focus than funders do, “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. I also find it encouraging when activists understand their position within wider movements of change, especially if they can avoid positioning themselves as the one true path to justice.” For some it was the size of groups that they felt limited the impact of supporting them: “These groups are too small scale, I don’t think it is the most effective or impactful use of my money”.
Preference for tangible, short term results
Several responses indicated that funders might not have the patience for the long term systemic change that campaigners and activists are often working towards. “I prefer to have direct immediate impact on peoples' lives, rather than campaigning for policy change. I realise both are important, but personal preference towards 'hands on action'”. Another said, “The trustees have a strong preference for funding tangible actions that have positive outcomes for people and planet in the short-term. Funding activists and campaigners does not fit into the current funding strategy.”
Most understood that campaigning exists within an ecosystem of change. For some, they supported the idea of campaigning but their own funding priorities sat elsewhere. “I feel that campaigning can be most effective when combined with other approaches and is more attractive when that is in place.” Some saw the direct connections between different approaches to social change, “People use outsider tactics because no one is listening to them. Most outsider groups are desperate for insider influence.”
Are decisions evidence-based?
Many said that their boards would be convinced by evidence of impact. However, when asked about whether grantmaking was primarily led by the head or the heart, it was clear that things were more complicated. One said “My board would be sceptical even if there was strong evidence” and another said, “If it did really have an impact, that might shift the position a bit. But it would depend on which method it was.” Evidence of impact is likely only to progress things so far.
CASE STUDY
Demonstrating impact - and showing how it can be measured. Insulate Britain, funded by Climate Emergency Fund, carried out a series of nonviolent disruptive actions on UK motorways in autumn 2021 campaigning for better home insulation. Social Change Lab assessed the extent to which the campaign achieved its aims and affected UK Government policy. The full research report is here. Our findings showed the campaign was hugely successful in terms of visibility. Within three weeks, 90% of the UK public had heard of Insulate Britain. Media mentions of ‘home insulation’ went from close to zero to hundreds of daily mentions. Mentions of home insulation in both Houses of Parliament significantly increased and the campaign had a positive effect on other organisations working on home insulation. This increased salience also affected policy: the Great British Insulation Scheme, a £1billion policy, was announced a year after the campaign. The cost-effectiveness of the campaign (based on 10% of policy attribution to Insulate Britain and 1 year of emission savings) was 0.51 tonnes CO2/£, putting it on a par with the most highly rated climate charities.
Practicalities
The legal and practical complexity of supporting groups puts some people off. The view “It is unclear whether giving would be consistent with our charitable purposes” was frequently expressed. Some felt this was a black and white issue, “The main issue for non registered groups is due diligence. We have finite resources so we fund what we know and that is charities,” and “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. This is a broader problem with the system than with us or the people doing the campaigning.”
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.” Another advised that “It helps to get specialist legal advice, but you need to make sure you have lawyers who are thinking in a progressive way as there is always a lot of interpretation.”
The issue of funding groups without formal structures was contentious. Some saw funding these groups as a complete no-no. “We would not fund unconstituted groups, that is beyond our remit and would constitute reputational risk.” Others find it possible, “We have a history of funding strangely constituted groups in areas like the arts which are less contentious - that helps” and suggest trying not to be too constrained by these definitions, “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?’”
CASE STUDY
Overcoming issues of small scale, lack of access and knowledge gaps by funding infrastructure organisations who can reach grassroots groups.
Migrants Organise, funding from Esmée Fairbairn Foundation (EFF). As a funder, EFF’s default mode of campaign funding has been to make large grants to established organisations that are well set up to affect policy change. But they recognised that this approach does not reach grassroots campaigners who are an essential part of campaigning for change. In the migration space, they funded Migrants Organise with £200k in unrestricted funding over 4 years to provide tailored community organising training to migrant and refugee community groups. The intention of the grant was not just to build up campaigning skills in community leaders, but also to build their power to influence mainstream civil society groups so that they have increased awareness and knowledge of migrant and refugee issues and opportunities to act in solidarity. EFF themselves gained more knowledge of the different migrant and refugee communities platformed by Migrants Organise, and this influenced our approach to Migrant Justice, as well as our funding decisions
Knowledge
“The main barrier is identifying the groups who would fit with our objectives.”
The final category is lack of knowledge - funders simply do not know who the campaigning and activist groups are in their issue areas. “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.” This might be because campaigning and activism is a new area for funders or because they do not receive many grant applications from these groups. “I don’t know what the board would feel. They haven’t been presented with campaigns that fit the bill.”
Some recognised that the process of educating themselves would have value in itself. “Even for funders who aren’t thinking of funding activists and campaigners, it would be good to find out more about what is happening in that space. It’s making me think about that. We often act like we know what’s going on but often we don’t know the detail. Maybe even if we can’t offer funding, maybe there is something else we can do.” Others cautioned about the dangers of funding areas without sufficient knowledge, “If a funder does not have strong networks in its given field/social movement, I’d suggest both funding key actors in the space before approaching grassroots groups, as well as bring movement leaders into your org as either staff or paid advisers. It is unlikely you will have good reach, knowledge of the support needed, and credibility to fund this work well, safely, and impactfully if you go straight into funding groups without this foundation.”
CASE STUDY
Funding via a pooled fund working with other funders with better knowledge of particular issue areas
Resourcing Racial Justice,
funded by John Ellerman
Foundation
In June 2020, the Foundation contributed £50,000 over 12 months to the operating costs for Resourcing Racial Justice (RRJ). We were introduced to this opportunity through a fellow funder, Thirty Percy Foundation. Resourcing Racial Justice (RRJ) was set up by a coalition of people of colour innovators, changemakers, activists, artists and social leaders dedicated to social change. Through contributions from a range of funders (£1m) and crowdfunding (£100k), RRJ established a pooled fund to support individuals and communities working across the UK towards racial justice.
Organisational models that facilitate support to campaigners and activists
As with the quantitative survey, we were interested in funders’ views on indirect giving. For those who had difficulties with direct funding of campaigners and activists, might intermediary and infrastructure groups provide a possible solution?
1. Intermediaries
Intermediaries are organisations that connect funders to grantees. They manage funds on behalf of donors and distribute it to grantees, usually alongside other kinds of support. Intermediaries offer an alternative route for funders who might be concerned about many of the themes discussed above; they can reduce risk by making funding indirect, they can help when funders are unsure where to give or when funders’ grants are too large for small groups and they can improve effectiveness through the strategic overview of an issue area.
Several interviewees 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.” Funders saw that intermediaries have the sort of broad overview they themselves might lack, “Intermediaries should be in a better position to judge opportunities,” as well as understanding that the best intermediaries also benefit campaigners and activists in other ways, “We have funded lots of these in the youth activism space - this protects the young people and gives them support and guidance as well as making our trustees feel secure that laws will not be broken and there will be oversight of the work.” Some recognised the power of bringing aligned groups together, “More and more we want to find connectivity of ‘pioneers’ as we believe together they are a stronger voice.”
Other respondents expressed doubts about working with intermediaries. This was often because they wanted to maintain their own direct contact with grantees, “I feel able to make my own decisions and have direct relationships” and “We like to have a direct connection to the groups that we fund. Going via an intermediary would not work at all.”
CASE STUDY
Funding via intermediaries can reduce risk and increase impact
The Movements Trust
The Movements Trust helps overcome barriers such as concerns about risk, the requirement for groups to be registered charities and other uncertainties. They act as a regranter, a sponsor intermediary and a charity sponsor, so that unincorporated movements can use their charitable status to be eligible for funding opportunities. These activities allow funders to reach groups they might otherwise be unable to reach.
“The grant making world, from long established foundations and trusts to philanthropists and individual givers, is really waking up to the potential of social movements. Grassroots, people-led, agile and reactive - movements drive innovative and collective power to enact real change – and it is why we exist, because we want them to thrive.”
Some were concerned that intermediaries might add a layer of bureaucracy. One commented, “Intermediaries are often well equipped to do the due diligence and have experience of combining funds however I do not have the evidence of how well this works or if it is inefficient and yet another layer added.” Another said, “Intermediaries are useful only if they provide an added value to the activists (i.e. capacity building, training, networking etc.). Some of them are an extra layer of bureaucracy (and cost).”
The issue of risk reduction was not straightforward. While some believed that giving via intermediaries reduced the risk of reputational damage to themselves, others disagreed. “Funders will give different answers on this but if we don’t support what the end recipient of the money is doing, that’s still an issue for us. The problem [of reputational risk] persists even with indirect funding.” Another funder said, “We already work with intermediaries to support unregistered groups or individuals. It reduces financial risk but not reputational risk.”
For some issue areas, funders were not aware of who appropriate intermediaries might be. “We don’t know who the intermediaries are for campaigning and activism. We would like to know if there are campaigns in our space.”
2. Infrastructure organisations
Funders also sometimes give to infrastructure organisations that support campaigners/activists, through training, resources, support or work on the wider social change ecosystem such as policy or research work. As with intermediaries, funders expressed a range of responses, from the wholly pro: “Even better if it's an infrastructure organisation”, “Infrastructure organisations can be a powerful lever - bringing long term systemic results” to the somewhat anti: “The Board has never considered this” or “We do not fund these types of organisations.”
Helvetica Light is an easy-to-read font, with tall and narrow letters, that works well on almost every site.
CASE STUDY
Funding infrastructure can be a lower risk and effective way to support campaigners.
Breakthrough Impact funded by partners including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and John Ellerman Foundation
Breakthrough is a UK-wide social impact accelerator, providing people with directexperience of social injustice with the support, tools and network they need to lead campaigns and achieve impact. In January 2023, the John Ellerman Foundation provided Breakthrough with £90,000 over three years for core costs. “We supported them in their pilot year through our ‘Other’ category, and it is great to see how their work has continued to evolve and to support them through our Main Grants programme for the next three years.”
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. One commented, “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.” This was a point echoed by others: “We fund many collaborations and infrastructure organisations - we feel that movements and collaborations need support in order to be more than the sum of their parts.”
Recent unpublished research by the London School of Economics, conducted in partnership with the The Philanthropy Workshop (now Forward Global) identified and defined models and mechanisms by which grantmakers can be ‘philanthropic activists’ - those who “pursue activities targeted at changing systems perceived to be at the root of the issue, rather than just providing stop-gap solutions”. Our research suggests that some donors have actively moved towards - or are in the process of a strategic shift towards this sort of systems change approach.
Some identified specific ways in which centralised organisations can be beneficial, “Infrastructure organisations can add value in a variety of ways, not only by pooling funding but also through additional know-how on e.g. finance, MEAL, networking etc” and another felt that it was right to allow campaigners and activists to focus on their core skills by supporting less essential work, “I suspect, like many charities, that campaigners are great at what they do but will have gaps in some operational areas which a central service could really help with.”
A final positive reason for supporting these groups was to overcome a lack of knowledge or resist getting stuck in funding habits, “We try to support the sector through grants to infrastructure organisations rather than offer support only to our 'clique' of grantees” and more simply “They may understand non charities better than we do.”
Some who were less keen to fund these groups said it was mostly because they preferred to have direct contact with their grantees. “My trustees are unlikely to do this because they want to see direct beneficiaries and don't tend to support infrastructure bodies, not because they oppose them but because of the charity's objectives.” For others, it was simply a lack of knowledge of these groups, “l would need to understand more about this work and how the infrastructure org supports the organisation/group to deliver better outcomes for communities…I would need to know what added value they would bring.”
Conclusion
What we heard from funders suggests a current appetite to consider changes to their funding models, particularly in favour of more ‘outsider’ approaches. Over recent years, thanks to the work of activist groups such as Black Lives Matter, institutional practices and behaviours have been called into question, as part of a social justice agenda. For funders, this has meant addressing difficult topics such as the power imbalances that their money brings. Organisations committed to improving the world are reflecting on their own role.
Our research suggests that, at least regarding support for campaigners and activists, there is some way to go. There is a mismatch between thinking and practice. We found that while funders value campaigning/activism very highly as a tool for social change (giving it an average value of 4.4 out of 5) their level of giving to these groups is much lower (2.57 out of 5). This mismatch suggests there remain significant barriers.
Our survey and interviews identified many of these, both practical and psychological. We categorised them under 4 main headings: 1. Risk - reputational risk (These groups might bring negative attention) and financial risk (Experimenting with small/new/unknown groups might risk ineffective donations) 2. Impact uncertainty (These groups might not succeed in their goals or success might be hard to measure) 3. Lack of knowledge (I don’t know who to give to) and 4. Practical barriers (Legal or practical constraints mean I don’t know how to give).
There are solutions to many of these problems. A really positive finding of this research lies in the fact that specific actions should help funders overcome some of their most pressing current constraints. ‘Convincing evidence that campaigning is effective’ and ‘guidance on measuring impact’ were the two most cited factors that would help. 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. This is a growing field, with a rapidly expanding evidence base.
Funders also want to hear from other funders about positive experiences of giving. Again this is something we will be addressing directly in the dissemination of this work through funder round tables and other convenings.
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; their social change ecology 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.
Reassurance that giving meets charitable purposes and is within charity guidelines, another cited constraint, is also addressable. Possible approaches include rethinking charitable objects, investing in specialist legal advice from progress lawyers to help show that (for example) funding non-constituted groups can be possible. As our case studies demonstrate, there are also many options for indirect giving, including through pooled funds, intermediaries and infrastructure organisations.
The research also drew attention to some outstanding challenges and questions:
-
Does the head or the heart govern decision making? People like to believe they make rational decisions based on evidence and funders are no different. They identified ‘Convincing evidence that campaigning is as effective as my current donations’ as the runaway winner in what might change their funding practice. But would it? If the main barrier is a lack of appetite for risk, will this really be overcome by good evidence of impact? Interviewees alluded to board members not changing their minds in the face of evidence and sometimes not even believing evidence which conflicted with their existing views. If the barrier is psychological, it might take something more than data to overcome it.
-
Do staff or trustees govern decision making? Interviews suggested discrepancies between the thinking of staff such as grant managers (typically more progressive and risk-taking) and thinking in boardrooms (typically more conservative). Most interviews were with the former. This opens the question of who ultimately needs to be persuaded - because the tools of persuasion might be different. Is there also a risk that staff are self censoring based on assumptions about what board members might think?
-
What really is risk and who is taking it? We have talked about practical ways that funders can and have overcome legal risks, but the key risk funders spoke of was not about falling foul of the law. “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?” This comment said a lot about funders and risk: the fear and the reality sometimes appear out of step. For all the mentions of ‘reputational risk’, it was often hard to establish exactly what the tangible risk was. In a few cases it was clear - for example, funders who themselves depended upon fundraising or funders whose approach relied heavily on insider approaches. But sometimes what was described as ‘reputational risk’ seemed to be more about the danger of an awkward conversation.
-
Social change should be done politely. Another comment which seemed emblematic of a bigger issue was, “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?” Funders want change - for most, that is why they do the work they do - but many seem wary of change that is too ‘political’ or too loud. Many funders associate activism with aggressive or confrontational tactics and cited this as a barrier to funding - along with anything seen as political. The extent to which these were concerns about charitable status or personal preference is unclear.
-
● Campaigners and activists might need to make some changes too. Some progressive funders had the will to support campaigners and activists pursuing radical agendas but only if they felt in safe hands. This might mean groups themselves being prepared to deal in funder language, even if this might feel unfamiliar. Thinking and speaking in terms of impact and effectiveness, goals and outcomes might be a necessary part of the lexicon if funders are to be brought on board.
What next?
We heard from funders that they like to hear about evidence of impact and that they like to hear from other funders. In the dissemination of this research we will be organising round tables and other forums for interested funders, so that those who are keen to learn more about supporting campaigners and activists can hear from those with experience. We will also be mapping the best available resources on evidence and impact - including both evidence demonstrating impact of campaigners and guidance on ways to measure impact. We will also be following up with bespoke advice for funders who indicated their interest to learn more about campaigner and activist groups working in their issue areas.
About Social Change Lab
Social Change Lab conducts and disseminates empirical research on people-powered movements working to build a sustainable, just and humane world. Social movements have historically been crucial drivers of change, yet little research and funding goes into understanding which strategies and tactics are most effective. We are the only research lab primarily dedicated to studying the impact of movements on public opinion, public discourse, and policy.
We seek to inform decision-makers, advocates and philanthropists on the best ways to accelerate positive social change. You can see a list of previous research projects here.
Our work is funded and supported by philanthropic foundations. If you are interested in supporting our work, please contact us or make a donation.
This research was commissioned by Changing Ideas and Tenacious Awards which provide funding and strategic support to tenacious public interest campaigners and journalists.