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 However, some unpublished, in-progress manuscripts offered preliminary results and suggested further reading.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 literature^{12, 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.

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.

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.

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 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