A challenge of organizing work is that it requires funds, and formal funding necessitates framing work to meet funder requirements. In some cases, this might lead to small (or large) shifts in the work actually undertaken and therefore make it more difficult for movements to achieve their original goals.

One civil society leader in Northern Ireland, Avila Kilmurray, notes that sometimes funders impose an artificial structure on organizationss as well:

Because so many independent funders use logic model approaches and stuff like that and demand “here is a change for movements,” it forces them almost into becoming sort of overly structured, which in effect may not be the best methodology or approach to achieve their objectives. 

Other community development and cross-sectarian workers in Northern Ireland also note that changes in funder priorities can change the focus of the work – for instance, much of the community development work undertaken in Northern Ireland in the 1990’s was single identity-focused, until funder priorities changed to focus on cross-community work.

Another pitfall of funding is that it shifts with public opinion and political will. For example, an Israeli civil society practitioner shares, “we decided in the strategic planning in 2015 that we should work with men and with youth. So, we couldn’t succeed to fundraise money for that, it’s very hard, because you are feminist organization and most of the donors want to put money directly for women.” Within the same context, USAID funding for cross-community programming was cut during the fieldwork to develop this guide. Here is how this political change influenced the Parent’s Circle-Family Forum, according to Robi Damelin: 

“They [the organization] created a small book for hospitals which was phonetic Hebrew and Arabic for patients so if they were in a war and you didn’t speak their language they could say, “Do you need a nurse?” “Do you need a doctor?” “Where do you come from?” Which was very nice. And we now have more than 1000 alumni from this project, which was being--up to now--being supported very strongly by USAID. For the past, I don’t know, 8 years maybe. And now part of the whole drama is that, they are stopping. And USAID loves and supports us tremendously, but now the powers that be in America have decided that there is no more cross-border funding. [...] It’s 1/3 of our budget.” 

As this example demonstrates, not only can funding have a negative impact by directing funds toward individuals, programs, or narratives that potentially detract or derail the overall coalition, funding is also highly vulnerable. As public opinion or administrations change, so too does the funding apparatus. Organizations should be weary of how funding can possibly cause more harm than good. 

On the other hand, organizing can also shape funding priorities. For instance, the term “shared society” has become widespread in Israel to denote work being done to promote equality within Israel. Civil society practitioner Fathi Mashoud notes that the term was first used by the civil society organization Shatil, but that now it is used by dozens of groups. The term shared society also “has become very attractive to many donors,” according to Mashoud, which has helped both promote the idea and lead to its use by other organizations. In other words, civil society has pushed donors to prioritize shared society as a concept. 

Thus, while some mission shift may be inevitable when seeking funding, it is important to remember that priorities are set both by funders and by movements. 

Challenges you may encounter using this tool

• Funders and activists may agree on most values or the overarching mission for social change, making the partnership quite attractive for both parties. However, the devil is in the details. Organizations can end up in opposition to their own funders when their approaches to achieving the mission are not aligned. Organizational leaders should be sure to heavily vet their investors and read the fine print in any funding contracts to ensure there is comprehensive alignment on both the aims and approaches for social change.

• Despite the best efforts of activists, funders continue to hold the pursestrings - and therefore the majority of the power in the relationship. Even when activists call out a potential conflict of interest or reassert their aims despite funder hesitancies, there is no guarantee that the funder will agree or alter their beliefs and approaches.