Flexible funding

Flexible funding

Key findings:

The evidence suggests that organisations receiving flexible funding are more likely to work strategically and implement their plans. A shift towards a greater proportion of flexible funding may lead to improved delivery by conservation organisations. (see learning question A)

Data shows that organisations often use flexible funds to invest in organisational development and maturity. In some cases, unrestricted funds are also used to acquire additional funding. Further investigation is needed to determine whether this consistently leads to greater financial sustainability. (see learning question B)

Flexible funding can play a role in increasing the resilience of non-profit organisations. In addition, quick, non-bureaucratic funding may be an important lifeline during times of crisis. (see learning question C)

Overview of the learning topic

Learn the how-to of this step in the approach: Step 1 – Define the learning topic.

There is an ongoing debate in the international donor community about the role flexible funding plays in strengthening conservation organisations. The MAVA foundation always believed that supporting key partners with flexible funding makes a difference in their capacity to deliver lasting conservation impacts. 

‘Flexible funding’ refers to three types of funding donors provide to conservation organisations with a certain level of flexibility: 

  1. flexible funding in the context of an existing strategic plan (often called ‘programmatic funding’) 
  2. flexible funding for organisational administration and development (often called ‘core funding’) not to be confused with targeted organisational development grants 
  3. flexible emergency funding in the event of a crisis (e.g., COVID-19) 

We tried to understand if flexible funding leads to more mature conservation organisations along three main lines: 

  1. being more strategic in their conservation work
  2. being more sustainable financially and as an organisation
  3. being more resilient and able to overcome crises 

Learning questions and assumptions

Learn the how-to of this step in the approach: Step 2 – Develop learning questions.

The donor strategy behind providing flexible funding is that it leads to financial sustainability, ensures financial security for organisations, and with that improves conservation practice: 

  1. Organisations professionalise by investing in tools and systems and maintain the required skills to implement state-of-the-art strategies.
  2. Organisations focus on what they believe is essential, take bolder actions, and think outside the box because they are not tied to specific donor requirements.
  3. Organisations successfully fundraise because they can cover overhead costs and bring in other grants that require match funding.

It is difficult to show with evidence whether conservation practice improves with flexible funding. But we still wanted to understand better what effect flexible funding has on some essential outcomes: 

Theory of change diagram (click to view full size):

The theory of change, learning questions, and assumptions for the learning topic Flexible funding. Note that the darker purple boxes contain the learning questions. The light purple boxes show the associated assumptions. This theory of change with learning questions and assumptions has been developed using Miradi Share. You can access this theory of change directly on the Conservation Actions and Measures Library (CAML).

Evidence and findings

The figure below shows an overview of the main findings. Note that these summary ratings do not represent uncertainty and level of confidence in the evidence appropriately. For the full picture, please review the evidence base and assessment for each assumption.

Learn the how-to of the approach: Step 3 – Collect evidence, Step 4 – Assess evidence, Step 5 – Compile & conclude.


Learning question A:  Does flexible funding enable organisations to be more strategic and follow through with their programmatic work?

The evidence suggests that organisations receiving flexible funding are more likely to work strategically and implement their plans. A shift towards a greater proportion of flexible funding may lead to improved delivery by conservation organisations.

Assumption A1: Organisations that receive flexible funding have a higher likelihood of working strategically and of implementing what’s planned

The data proposes that organisations receiving flexible funding are more likely to work strategically and implement their plans. Concerns about flexible funding leading to less efficient use of funds may be outweighed by the benefits those funds produce, though this may require further investigation. While a particular type of funding may be most useful for a particular purpose, a shift towards a greater proportion of flexible funding may lead to improved delivery and effectiveness of conservation organisations.

This figure shows the combined evidence from MAVA grants and wider literature. How to read the Ziggurat plot
Dark evidence bricks are from MAVA grants, light ones are from the wider literature. How to read the Ziggurat plot

Review the evidence used for this assumption in the evidence capture sheet .

Evidence base

We considered 39 pieces of evidence obtained from different sources to assess this assumption.

A targeted questionnaire sent to 75 MAVA grantees provided 19 answers that were used as evidence pieces. The questionnaire contained three questions relevant for this assumption:

  1. If you had NOT received programmatic funding for your strategy/programme, what would have been different / what would have happened?
  2. Now, considering you had received DOUBLE the MAVA funding for your strategy/programme, what would have been different? What could you have implemented that you couldn’t with the funding you received?
  3. What difference did the flexible funding make for your organisation compared to the project-specific funding from MAVA? 

Furthermore, exploratory searches of the wider literature provided 20 pieces of evidence from nine sources. This is a relatively small number of sources. However, some unpublished, in-progress manuscripts offered preliminary results and suggested further reading. Discussions with one of the authors of these manuscripts confirmed that this is a novel and developing area of research. They also highlighted some additional sources that were searched for evidence.

Evidence assessment

On balance, the evidence from MAVA questionnaires and the wider literature provides some to strong support for the assumption. Evidence showing strong support was found more frequently in MAVA questionnaires than in wider literature.

Focus on the mission

The evidence highlighted several ways that flexible funding allowed organisations to deliver more and be more strategic. For example: 

  • The ability to hire new staff and restructure departments
  • The freedom and flexibility to be fast and adaptive
  • The ability to maintain independence and be critical of governments/companies 
  • The potential to bridge the gap between conception and implementation of new ideas. 
  • Reduced pressure to align with the funder’s agenda and the ability to focus more on their mission.

“Before we received programmatic support, we were trapped into project-based funding. The move to programmatic funding helped us in various aspects: We were able to invest some of our resources in organisational development. If you are fully dependent on project-based funding, you usually need to invest your funds into project activities, especially if donors request own contributions.”

MAVA 2022
Working strategically

Most questionnaire responses from MAVA grantees suggested that flexible funding allowed them to work strategically by designing a strategy/plan, implementing planned action, and increasing the scale of their efforts.

“Furthermore, the programmatic support helped us overcome a saving logic and to apply an investment logic. According to our experience, many/most smaller NGOs, especially if they are funded by project-based support […] try to save as much of the funding and prolong project periods etc. This leads to slower processes and reduced impact, […] the programmatic support helped us to increase our impact significantly.”

MAVA 2022
Finding the balance

Many also stated that by doubling the funding, they could have gone above and beyond what was planned. For example: 

  • Increase their conservation impact
  • Move staff to full-time work
  • Develop their best practices
  • Spend more time collaborating with other actors 

Two grantees raised some concerns about doubling flexible funds, with one suggesting it may lead to budgetary imbalances and a need to adjust their structure and processes.

“In our specific case, doubling the programmatic support might not only have positive effects. The growth might have gone too fast, and also, the ratio of programmatic support and our total budget was in a good balance, so we were not too dependent on MAVA funding. At a certain point, core funding would have been much more helpful than a further increase in programmatic support.”

MAVA 2022

From the small amount of evidence that refuted the assumption, one source suggested that enhanced financial flexibility can reduce cost efficiency. A further source provided mixed support, suggesting that particular funding sources are useful for particular purposes.


Learning question B: Are organisations that receive flexible funding more organisationally and financially sustainable?

The evidence suggests that organisations often use flexible funds to invest in organisational development and maturity. In some cases, unrestricted funds are also used to acquire additional funding. Further investigation is needed to determine whether this consistently leads to greater financial sustainability.

Assumption B1: Organisations use flexible funding to invest in organisational development and maturity

The evidence suggests that organisations often use flexible funding to invest in organisational development and maturity. Funding sources often focus on specific activities and rarely on organisational development. The inability of many conservation non-profits to fund organisational development may have detrimental impacts on their delivery of effective conservation. 

Unlike other donors, MAVA strategically invested in the development of key partner organisations. For more information about that, we recommend the learning product Tips of the Triangle.

This figure shows the combined evidence from MAVA grants and wider literature. How to read the Ziggurat plot
Dark evidence bricks are from MAVA grants, light ones are from the wider literature. How to read the Ziggurat plot

Review the evidence used for this assumption in the evidence capture sheet .

Evidence base

To assess this assumption, we considered 44 pieces of evidence obtained from different sources.

A targeted questionnaire sent to 75 MAVA grantees provided 22 answers that were used as evidence pieces. The questionnaire contained two questions relevant to this assumption:

  1. What would have happened if you had NOT received core funding from MAVA? What could you not have done? Where would your organisation stand today?
  2. Now consider if you had received DOUBLE the amount of funding from MAVA: what difference would that have made?

In addition, exploratory searches of the wider literature provided 22 pieces of evidence from 10 sources. Searches returned relatively few sources, though some unpublished, in-progress manuscripts offered preliminary results and suggested further reading. Discussions with one of the authors of these manuscripts confirmed that this is a novel and developing area of research. They also highlighted some additional sources that were searched for evidence.

Evidence assessment

On balance, the evidence from MAVA questionnaires and the wider literature provides strong support for the assumption. Evidence showing strong support was found more frequently in MAVA questionnaires than in wider literature.

Examples from the wider literature where flexible funding was used to invest in organisational development and maturity included: 

  • hiring, retaining and developing staff 
  • strengthening key institutions 
  • leadership pipelines, building networks and collaborations 
  • the opportunity to try new things 
  • and the ability to implement long-term projects and those with no clear end date (e.g. lobbying)

Responses from MAVA grantees highlighted similar themes. Those that used funding for organisational development cited spending on improving administration, hiring staff, reporting, fundraising, communications, and capacity building and training. Grantees also highlighted the challenge they face in finding money for organisational development.

One grantee raised the concern that a large pot of core funding could lead to an unbalanced budget, with implications for organisational structure and processes.

One study made the case that flexible funding can sometimes be just as limiting as more restricted sources. The study suggests that avoiding heavy reliance on only one type of funding (restricted or unrestricted) may be beneficial.

Assumption B2: Organisations that receive flexible funding acquire additional funding and become financially sustainable

The data shows that in some cases, recipients of flexible funding can acquire additional funds. This seems to be the case in particular for MAVA grantees. More widely, there is a general lack of evidence available to test this assumption, and further research may provide significant opportunities for learning.

This figure shows the combined evidence from MAVA grants and wider literature. How to read the Ziggurat plot
Dark evidence bricks are from MAVA grants, light ones are from the wider literature. How to read the Ziggurat plot

Review the evidence used for this assumption in the evidence capture sheet .

Evidence base

To assess this assumption, we considered 18 pieces of evidence obtained from different sources.

A targeted questionnaire was sent to 75 MAVA grantees. The questionnaire contained two questions relevant to this assumption:

  1. Did the funding provided by MAVA help you acquire other funding?
  2. If the funding provided by MAVA helped you acquire other funding, was the amount comparable to the MAVA funding?

All quantifiable responses to Question 1 were combined into a single piece of evidence. Nine answers to Question 2 that provided interesting contextual information related to raising additional funds were also considered relevant evidence.

Exploratory searches of the wider literature provided eight pieces of evidence from three sources. Searches returned relatively few sources, though some unpublished, in-progress manuscripts offered some primary results and suggested further reading. Discussions with one of the authors of these manuscripts confirmed that this is a novel and developing area of research. They also highlighted some additional sources of evidence.

Evidence assessment

On balance, the evidence from MAVA questionnaires and the wider literature provides some support for the assumption. Evidence showing strong support was found more frequently in MAVA questionnaires than in wider literature.

Evidence from MAVA grantees strongly supported this assumption. For grantees that received flexible funding, 23 of 26 reported that it helped them acquire additional funds. Furthermore, 16 of those grantees acquired additional funds of equal size or superior to the funding received from MAVA.

Other responses from MAVA grantees highlighted that time and money for fundraising is crucial. Flexible funding allowed grantees to invest more resources in further fundraising.

“[Flexible] funding allows for more fundraising and therefore to become less dependent on project base funding.”

MAVA 2022

“The core funding from MAVA allowed us to hire a colleague to focus on operations and communications, and thus to free up time of our director for fundraising and organisational development. This allowed us to further expand our funding, our team and thus, ultimately, the reach of our programs.”

MAVA 2022

With MAVA’s closing in sight, MAVA’s partners have actively tried to generate new funding sources. Where possible and appropriate, MAVA has provided support for these efforts. That could be a reason for the strong support for this assumption from evidence inside the MAVA domain. 

If you are curious about MAVA’s role as an “engaged donor”, please refer to one of the foundation’s learning products: Be an Octopus! Reflections from an engaged donor.

Evidence from the wider literature was more mixed, though one study found that recipients of flexible funding had favourable financial positions across several measures. Another benefit was the potential to use flexible funds for matching funds, which allows tipping into other sources of funding. 

The theme of investing more in fundraising also emerged in the wider literature12, 14, along with the ability to retain in-house knowledge17 of potential funding sources. While some sources suggested that more flexible funds were important for sustainability of grantee organisations19, others raised the concern that receiving large pots of flexible funding could have the unintended consequence of deterring other funders16.


Learning question C: Does flexible funding increase the resilience of organisations and the likelihood of overcoming crises?

Some evidence suggests that flexible funding can play a role in increasing the resilience of non-profit organisations. In addition, quick, non-bureaucratic funding may be an essential lifeline during times of crisis.

Assumption C1: Flexible funding increases the resilience of organisations to overcome crises

While a general lack of evidence rules out any strong conclusions, there is some support for the assumption that flexible funding can help organisations in times of crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought this discussion into sharp relief. There may be a strong case for more exploration of the potential for flexible funding to increase the resilience of the non-profit sector. 

This figure shows the combined evidence from MAVA grants and wider literature. How to read the Ziggurat plot
Dark evidence bricks are from MAVA grants, light ones are from the wider literature. How to read the Ziggurat plot

Review the evidence used for this assumption in the evidence capture sheet .

Evidence base

To assess this assumption, we considered 15 pieces of evidence obtained from different sources.

A targeted questionnaire sent to 75 MAVA grantees provided six answers that were used as evidence pieces. The questionnaire contained one question relevant to this assumption:

  •  If you received flexible funding during the COVID-19 crisis, did it help to overcome the crisis?

Exploratory searches of the wider literature provided eight pieces of evidence from two sources. That is a relatively small number of sources. However, some unpublished, in-progress manuscripts offered some primary results and suggested further reading. Discussions with one of the authors of these manuscripts confirmed that this is a novel and developing area of research. They also highlighted some additional sources of evidence.

Evidence assessment

On balance, the limited available evidence from MAVA questionnaires and the wider literature provides some support for the assumption.

All six MAVA grantee responses confirmed that the flexible funding received during the pandemic helped them to overcome that crisis. The funding was used for a range of things, including filling financial gaps created by the crisis; ensuring fundraising could continue; helping with HR; and shifting the focus to capacity building while field activities were prohibited.

Out of the 35 MAVA partners that received continuous flexible funding for their programmatic work or to cover their core costs, only 5 required emergency funding to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. This seems to indicate that organisations receiving a form of ongoing flexible support have a high level of resilience and a high likelihood of overcoming unforeseen challenges.

Very little evidence was found in the wider literature. However, some themes that were highlighted were:

  • retaining in-house knowledge and experience9;
  • stability in the face of “hits”11 or unpredictable situations15; and
  • keeping financial reserves for difficult times12

Another interesting theme was the ability to respond to crises within the communities that grantees support13.

Assumption C2: In some cases, quick, non-bureaucratic funding is a necessary lifeline for organisations to remain operational

Emergency funding helped MAVA partners to overcome the COVID-19 crisis. Further research on this topic may provide significant opportunities for learning.

This figure shows the combined evidence from MAVA grants and wider literature. How to read the Ziggurat plot
Dark evidence bricks are from MAVA grants, light ones are from the wider literature. How to read the Ziggurat plot

Review the evidence used for this assumption in the evidence capture sheet .

Evidence base

To assess this assumption, we considered 12 pieces of evidence obtained from different sources.

A targeted questionnaire sent to 75 MAVA grantees provided 12 answers that were used as evidence pieces. The questionnaire contained one question relevant to this assumption:

  • If you had NOT received Emergency funding from MAVA, what would have happened with your organisation or your conservation work?

No evidence was found in the wider literature.

Evidence assessment

Evidence from MAVA questionnaires strongly supported the assumption.

MAVA grantees reported that emergency funding helped them overcome a crisis situation by avoiding making redundancies, going bankrupt, and shutting down at least some project activities. Grantees also used funding to increase their fundraising efforts.

“We were able to compensate the reduction of donations caused by our inability to travel and fundraise in person in developing countries.” 

MAVA 2022

“The Emergency funding from MAVA has been life-saving. It gave us financial and human resources to finalise our project […]. This work is the result of 10 years of important marine work. It is a crucial synthesis [report].” 

MAVA 2022

“We would have to make a reduction in staff and perhaps lose some colleagues who were very well-trained and devoted to their work as their everyday passion” 

MAVA 2022

“Emergency support from MAVA allowed us to keep a small but steady increase in unrestricted funds. If we hadn’t received the emergency funding, we would have lost one or two core staff and prevented from recruiting 968 new members in 2020 and 2021. These new members represent 100 thousand euro in member fees, donations, and purchases in the shop and program activities. This money is very important for core business and project matching funds.” 

MAVA 2022

Join the learning

With this starting point based on best available evidence, we hope to spark discussion and to invite practitioners and organisations to learn about key conservation strategies.

If you are contemplating taking a similar approach for another strategy or would like to contribute with your evidence and insights, please contact us

We are planning exciting things to continue learning from evidence, including online events and new learning topics. Sign up here or email us at info@conservation-learning.org to receive updates.

Links

Download report

Web resources