Campaigning & Activism: What Funders Think

Why this matters

Campaigners and activists shape public opinion, change policy, and hold institutions to account. But the evidence suggests funding flows overwhelmingly to "insider" approaches and service delivery. Less than 10% of social justice funding goes to "outside game" activities. Meanwhile, 65% of campaigners say campaigning has become tougher in the last year, and three-quarters are unsure if they have the energy to carry on.

What we found

Most funders value campaigning highly but give to it modestly. The gap between thinking and practice is driven by four categories of barrier: risk (reputational concerns and board resistance), impact (uncertainty about whether and how to measure effectiveness), practicalities (funding unconstituted groups and charitable-law constraints), and knowledge (not knowing who to support). The most cited barrier was that this giving is "not central to charitable purpose"; the most cited unlock was "convincing evidence that campaigning is as effective as my current donations."

What it means for funders

Many barriers are addressable. Better evidence of impact, clearer guidance on measuring it, and stronger peer learning between funders could all shift practice. Indirect routes - pooled funds, intermediaries, and infrastructure organisations - offer practical ways to reach campaigners while managing concerns about risk, due diligence, and capacity. Some deeper questions remain: whether evidence alone can overcome what is often a psychological rather than rational barrier, and whether "reputational risk" sometimes describes the discomfort of an awkward boardroom conversation rather than a tangible threat.