A few weeks ago, I attended a virtual event titled “It’s More than Money”, organised by the Best Practices Policy Project. The event brought together representatives of sex worker collectives to discuss the challenges of securing funding to sustain ongoing activities and support target populations. In this post I share 3 key tips to improve current funding strategies.
Funding mechanisms and practices are a genuine headache – anybody working in the NGO sector is aware of this. Those of us who write projects and grant applications know that it can be a rather ungrateful job. One can spend endless hours tweaking existing initiatives in order to make them appealing to funders and align them with the scope of calls. It can be remarkably difficult – not to mention slightly twisted – to fit the complex needs of beneficiaries into the rigid structure imposed by the funding agency. There are word limits, of course, alongside demands to prove financial capacity and sustainability. Non-profits are asked to show that they are “deserving” of funding – they must give evidence of previous project management experience, relatively healthy bank accounts and the ability or resources to guarantee an initiative’s prosecution. The direct outcomes of such funding practices are that bigger players are often more likely to secure the cash. This of course does not necessarily entail that their work will truly channel meaningful change. Those who play by the rules, end up winning, no matter the reasons that brought them to the playing field in the first place.
Transparency and accountability are important, there’s no question about that. It also makes sense that NGOs have to argue their case. Nevertheless, to what extent are the demands they face realistic ? Where should we draw the line? After all, if social realities could be squeezed into neat boxes, then shouldn’t have we solved all of humanity’s predicaments by now? On top of the nitty-gritty of grant writing, there are also political whims. As the speakers of the ‘It’s More than Money’ event rightly pointed out, sex worker rights are not the most palatable cause. Organisations that depict sex workers as victims of violence against women have traditionally been more successful in obtaining financial backing.
What needs to change to make funding more accessible, attuned to the needs of target populations and ultimately conducive to meaningful change? These are my three key tips to revolutionise existing funding practices:
- Build a more realistic understanding of change
Funding programs support projects lasting at best a couple of years. However, paradoxically, organisations are generally required to document in excruciating detail the scale and type of change brought about in the lives of target populations. Change occurs over time, particularly when it is tied to social systems and policies, the effects of which are generally arduous to control. It is wholly idealistic to assume that a single initiative will necessarily leave a lasting mark on people’s lives. Big dreams are inspiring, but they require time and financial resources. When both are limited, it is best to curtail far-fetched expectations and endorse a more grounded understanding of change. One that is mindful of the context and available means.
- Fund longer projects
Moving from the first point, funding longer projects and allowing for enough flexibility to adapt the work plan based on the progress made thus far, can doubtless benefit NGOs and target populations. More time will also permit to gather further input from target groups along the way. Moreover, this kind of framework can provide organisations with the opportunity to reflect and develop impact indicators that actually make sense. Longer term funding also means more financial security for employees, a factor that cannot be underestimated in the general climate of insecurity afflicting staff in the NGO sector.
- Focus back on people
I’ve already hinted to the fact that there is a large chasm between causes that win hearts and minds and causes that struggle to gain traction. Most funding agencies have their own thematic priorities and grapple with political constraints; yet, ultimately, their focus should not be on causes that make them look good, but rather on the needs of real people in the flesh. If there is a tangible need, then that’s where the money should go. Instead of merely holding NGOs to account for not meeting their intended targets, funding agencies could consider doing field visits. In other words, they could appoint representatives to venture out of their offices, get a sense of what the work is really about and have a chat with people on the ground.
Rethinking funding for NGOs is key to ensuring meaningful social action. Funding strategies that are more attuned to the realities that NGOs operate in, can go a long way toward supporting effective interventions.
The views expressed herein are my own and do not reflect the position of Leiden University.This blog post was produced in the framework of a course on academic blogging. Click here to find out more about the course.