DIRECT CHAMPIONS
Snapshot description
Organisations designed to provide flexible funding, alongside other forms of non-financial accompaniment support, directly to individuals, organisations, communities, networks or movements that do ‘the work’.
Sub-categories
The specific ways in which Direct Champions operate differ according to their overall ethos, specific sector, or focus areas. There are additional funds and funders in the Global Majority who are core to the flexible funding ecosystem and fit within this category. While we have cited some of these, we believe they warrant dedicated research to be properly understood and recognised. We have identified the following (non-exhaustive) sub-categories:
Intersectional feminist funds
Broadly speaking, these are organisations that fund feminist individuals, groups and movements to promote gender equality alongside broader social justice causes such as racial justice, disability justice, and more. They also prioritise direct funding to women, girls, as well as for trans, intersex and non-binary people, taking levels of exclusion and other characteristics into account in an intersectional way. Examples include: the African Women’s Development Fund (AWDF), Women’s Fund Asia, Mama Cash and FRIDA Young Feminist Fund.
Community-led funds
These are organisations that prioritise building local resources, which are pooled together to build and sustain a strong community. Community philanthropy is not about moving money quickly, but rather about building on what communities already have without undermining or displacing the local resources communities mobilise on their own. In this context, flexible funding is about “creating the conditions in which resources are part of organising power and building voice and collective action. It’s not the amount of money, but the quality of it,” as described by Jenny Hodgson from the GFCF.
Community (philanthropy) foundations
These are organisations that prioritise building local resources, which are pooled together to build and sustain a strong community. Community philanthropy is not about moving money quickly, but rather about building on what communities already have without undermining or displacing the local resources communities mobilise on their own. In this context, flexible funding is about “creating the conditions in which resources are part of organising power and building voice and collective action. It’s not the amount of money, but the quality of it,” as described by Jenny Hodgson from the GFCF.
Crowdfunding
This entails raising funds from the public via an online platform (as one-off or regular gifts), which are then disbursed, often flexibly, directly to individuals or organisations. For GlobalGiving, one such platform, the aim is to create connections between where resources are and where funding is needed. GlobalGiving provides a platform with upfront vetting for community partners to enable global fundraising and giving. These partners determine community priorities, raise and receive funds, and share transparently how they have chosen to spend the funds.
Membership and network funds
While not all membership organisations fund their network, some, such as CIVICUS and NEAR, create funding instruments that are available to their members. This creates a horizontal, member-to-member approach, often enabling a greater level of flexibility than usual. This is because the source of the funding is largely pooled from membership fees rather than a traditional funder. The Innovative Peace Fund, run by the International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN), provides fully flexible funding by soliciting proposals from women-led organisations involved in addressing peace and security issues, drawing on its existing partnerships in the Women’s Alliance for Security Leadership.
Northern philanthropic funders
Some Global North/Minority-based philanthropies that provide multiyear flexible funding13 also fund Global South/Majority organisations directly. The Global Fund for Children provides small organisations with flexible, long-term support, and actively campaigns for more flexible funding across the philanthropic sector.14 The Ford Foundation’s Building Institutions and Networks (BUILD) initiative provided grantees with five years of general operating support and targeted organisational strengthening support through multiyear, unrestricted funding.15 The Oak Foundation has noted its commitment to continue and increase direct support to initiatives that are led by local communities and constituency-led organisations.16
Origins and reason for existing
For Direct Champions, funding flexibly is firmly part of their organisational ‘DNA’. Although they are ultimately funders, we were told many times over that building relationships is as important as, and often the starting point of, a funding journey. In community philanthropy, for instance, as noted by GFCF:
“Grants are sometimes used to form the basis of a relationship, but relationships do not start or end based on a grant contract.”
For many Direct Champions, feminist funds in particular, a focus on the broader ecosystem to uplift movements and activist groups is also essential. The African Women’s Development Fund (AWDF), a feminist fund that has existed for 22 years, prioritises core support – which they ultimately see as political – to support movement building through three main types of partners: CBOs or NGOs, non-traditional or informal/unregistered actors, and individuals.
Structural features of Direct Champions
1. Funding application processes
Type of process
Most Direct Champions have specific windows during which applicants can apply for funding, but some accept proposals year-round. Most have open calls, while others reach out to applicants directly (some alternate, depending on resource availability). Global Greengrants Fund, for instance, receives recommendations from its global network of Advisors, who often directly contact applicants to encourage them to apply, and provide support in completing the initial application form. Whether or not a funder does open calls is directly related to its capacity, as this stage must be handled responsibly to avoid creating unrealistic expectations. One of the ways GFCF approaches this is by only inviting organisations to make a full application when they intend to make the grant. As GFCF noted:
“We are conscious of using power carefully to not waste people’s time. A big challenge is that people want to deliver projects – GFCF caresabout them, not projects.”
Funding criteria
Each funder has a set of bespoke criteria that relate to their specific vision and purpose. Almost all Direct Champions, however, require that groups be self-led by the constituencies they intend to benefit. The application process is therefore used to assess whether this is the case.
Proposal requirements
Some form of proposal (often written but not always) is usually required, often accompanied by conversations to understand the applicant’s vision and ideas. But the requirements are generally light- touch (sometimes only a page of narrative and a high-level budget), and all funders emphasise that the proposed plan can change. There is some debate over whether formal proposals should be required at all if funding is to be considered truly flexible. Overall, however, Direct Champions tend to emphasise the importance of high-level, adaptable proposals when it comes to being accountable to communities – that is, setting out intended plans allows both funders and grantee partners to broadly track whether intended benefits are actually being delivered.
Crowdfunding
In the case of crowdfunding platforms such as GlobalGiving, organisations apply for creating a fundraising profile, which entails upfront vetting, often at no cost to the organisation. A successful application enables fundraising for two years.
Streamlining applications for urgent funding
Applications for crisis or emergency funding often look different. For example, Women’s Fund Asia has provided limited top-up grants to existing partners or partners funded in the last few years to respond to urgent situations – even accepting voice notes in lieu of written proposals to expedite the process. In Mexico, Fondo Semillas makes emergency funding available, and applications are reviewed by a committee of five people with an obligation to respond to requests within 24 hours. This is a recognition that emergencies often put the lives of feminists at stake. Within a membership context, NEAR also prioritises speed through using a light-touch verification process. All grantees are NEAR members and have therefore been pre-vetted, greatly enabling speed.
Renewal applications
Given the emphasis of many Direct Champions on long-term relationship and movement building, some also provide the opportunity for existing partners to apply for funding renewals. FRIDA, for instance, invites new grantee partners to join for a nine month to one year process (depending on the number of partners being welcomed). After this, partners can apply for renewal funding of up to four years.
Non-application collaborative approaches
In some forms of participatory grantmaking, there are no standard applications from individual grantees. Instead, funders may opt to convene a cohort of organisations working in a particular area, offer them an unrestricted pot of funds, and support them to decide together how to allocate the funds over a given timeframe. For instance, ADD International is piloting this form of collaboration with cohorts of organisations of persons with disabilities (OPDs). In one case, groups within the cohort decided to spend the available money across six grants: three for single organisations, and three for groups of OPDs that have decided to work together.
Common insight
Regardless of the specifics, Direct Champions view the application as the start of an engagement process through which they get to know both new and existing actors. CIVICUS has conducted specific research on barriers to participation, which led to a review of its funding application forms and the introduction of an eligibility quiz to guide potential applicants. FRIDA has also worked on making its application form more accessible, and the application process itself is the start of its support. For instance, FRIDA is able to arrange sessions with applicants to explain what to do step-by-step. This knowledge can also be used by young feminists in future applications for other funders that may not be as flexible.
2. How funding decisions are made
Direct Champions make funding decisions in a variety of ways, but all are underpinned by the principle that decisions must be taken, to the greatest extent possible, by the people most proximate to issues and causes.
Advisory or oversight groups
Because Direct Champions tend to be either global or national funders, they rely heavily on bodies that are in some way representative of the people and communities they intend to benefit for grantmaking decisions. Since its founding, FRIDA has relied on a Global Advisory Committee, made up of young feminist activists from all over the world, to screen applications and review final results. They also support in setting the organisation’s strategic direction. Mama Cash operates a Community Committee (known as the COM COM) with 11 members, which makes decisions about its largest fund. The members must be known by and connected to movements, and accountable to them. Global Greengrants Fund’s Advisory Network includes 220 advisors across 30 advisory boards and partner funds. Its claim to be a participatory grantmaker is directly related to the fact that its advisors (who receive a small stipend) represent the movements they are part of. Some have been with Global Greengrants for 30 years.
Membership representatives
For membership organisations, decision-making bodies ultimately reflect the composition of the members themselves. At CIVICUS, for instance, the Membership Advisory Group makes the final assessment on its Solidarity Fund applications. For its Change Fund, the NEAR secretariat convenes an Oversight Body with representatives from members across Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Middle East. This body meets regularly to review emergencies in different contexts, and ultimately decide whether a threshold has been reached to issue funds and open a call for proposals for members. The Oversight Body has a set of principles the Change Fund itself is based on: equity, simplified applications, rapid and adaptive disbursement.
Anita Kattakhuzy from NEAR explains how this creates an effective peer-to-peer dynamic, where funding shifts from being a transaction to a tool of shared responsibility and care:
“The benefit of this model is that it keeps funding moving across peers, not down a hierarchy. Members decide together what counts as success, and because they all know how urgent these moments are, there’s less delay and less second guessing.”
Voting-based approaches
Some funders build in collective decision-making through voting processes, often in tandem with advisory or oversight bodies. For example, for a given funding call, FRIDA takes forward a number of eligible groups, which are then split into sub-groups for voting (based on language, region and thematic area). They are asked to vote for fellow applicants, and the top-listed groups are then reviewed by the Advisory Committee and FRIDA staff, followed by a due diligence process. As Oleksandra Brashovetska from FRIDA noted, this is a:
“Way of empowering young feminists, supporting solidarity for fellow activists, and expanding understanding of what is happening in the given region.”
Fondo Semillas assembles a committee of experts across different parts of the country to review applications. Experts are selected based on what the most pressing issues of the moment are (for instance, migration, sexual violence, and more). There is then a second round of selection through participatory voting, which determines the final set of grantee partners. This voting allows members of movements themselves to decide who should ultimately receive the funding.
Direct engagement with applicants
ACT Ubumbano, a network of Southern African and European organisations, runs the Solidarity Support Facility and invites applicants to apply directly online. In the first year of the Facility, ACT received 50 applications, reviewed by a team of three people, and was able to speak to each applicant directly. However, as the number of applicants has increased, this direct engagement with each applicant has not been possible. A question that smaller funders grapple with is how to maintain this level of engagement as funding amounts and numbers of applicants increase, while staff numbers remain similar.
Common insight
Direct Champions carefully consider how to balance decision-making responsibilities between external experts (often unremunerated) and members of their own teams. For Mama Cash, for instance, a COM of only 11 people cannot make sole decisions on hundreds of grants a year. When it comes to renewal grants for existing grantee partners, therefore, Mama Cash’s Programme Officers make the final decisions, as they hold close relationships with partners. For Mama Cash, “balancing practicality with participation” is key, as described by Chantelle de Nobrega; in 2025, they received 2,000 applications and could only award 1% with funding.
3. Overview of types of grants
As a general rule, Direct Champions tend to give small to medium-scale grants (anything from $2,000 to $100,000) over multiple years, given that support is targeted at community and activist groups, as well as grassroots movements and unregistered actors, who are not seeking funds that are larger than they can absorb. As the overall funding landscape shifts, some funders are applying the same principles to more formally registered organisations, leading to larger sums. For example, the Emerging Climate Champions Award is a global open call that provides flexible, multiyear gifts of $1 million each to youth-led organisations advancing climate solutions.17
Feminist funds commit to long-term funding. For instance, support from Mama Cash to grantee partners can last up to 10 years. Another common feature is that Direct Champions grants tend to prioritise core funding in their frameworks, rather than project-based funding, which can be used to support any type of internal or external activity. Even funders that stipulate more project-based funding, such as Global Greengrants Fund, only request minimal detail (a one-line budget, for instance, is allowed) and do not split grant payments. Everything is transferred up front, and there is no mechanism for removing funding if partners have done something different to the original plan.
Direct Champions are also often a grantee partner’s first funder. This requires careful thinking on the part of the funder, to avoid creating harmful dependence or starker power dynamics. As explained by GFCF:
“We are always careful to see the funding as a proportion of an organisation’s budget – the grants are deliberately a small percentage, as a strategy to check power and make sure it never goes to places where the relationship moves from being personal and warm to being unhealthy, because your funding is the majority of their funds.”
To protect their partners’ freedom and relative independence in funding, Direct Champions negotiate the terms of engagement with traditional funders upfront, often assuming the burden of risk on behalf of their partners.
4. Grant management and reporting requirements
How grants are ‘managed’, including reporting requirements, are often what truly set Direct Champions apart from more ‘traditional’ funders. In general, management and reporting processes are designed to be as minimal and flexible as possible, with the aim of allowing grantee partners to sit in the driving seat at all times.
Trust-based approach
As FRIDA describes:
“The main idea we constantly reiterate is that grantee partners are the main experts, because they know their reality and challenges, and what they need money for.”
For ADD International in the disability justice space, Vanessa Herringshaw notes it is:
“Essential to use a rights- and justice-based approach, abiding by the principle of it is my right to decide what happens in my life.”
In a membership context, peer-to-peer funding also helps to redefine who holds expertise. NEAR:
“Believes its members hold lived experience in how to respond to crises. That experience is expertise, a resource and knowledge that is underacknowledged, and it should be sufficient for decision-making.”
Due diligence processes
Despite a common assumption that flexible funding does not include any form of due diligence, Direct Champions do include this step – but in a way that reinforces trust and accountability. Women’s Fund Asia describes having a thorough due diligence process because accountability is important to constituencies – especially those that the organisation cannot directly fund – but the process is carried out quickly, while still ensuring all voices are heard. Mama Cash also has a relational approach to due diligence, by asking for endorsements from trusted contacts to verify that groups are doing the work they say they are. Most are contacts known to Mama Cash: advisors, peer funders, movement representatives, networks, and other grantee partners. Through due diligence, Direct Champions often absorb some of the vetting burden, especially when working with more stringent back donors, that is, funders Direct Champions themselves receive funding from. GlobalGiving shared that the design of the vetting process aims to gather only what is necessary, and it can seek to leverage publicly available information or take other steps to process information without overburdening the grantee.
Simplified reporting requirements
As described by Nana Zulu from AWDF, grantee partners want:
“core support and trust-based relationships – it is not the best use of their time to do long reports. Instead, doing participatory documentation and feminist MEL is key.”
Similarly for GFCF, reporting is not a conversation about money, but about sharing what matters most to the grantee partners in service of building a community and a movement. Reporting is also about collective learning to support community philanthropy: GFCF has 20 social capital indicators and asks partners to select three to describe where they think change has happened.
Crowdfunding and storytelling
When funds are distributed through a crowdfunding model, there is flexibility by virtue of having a large group of supporters. Reporting becomes about stories to share with supporters rather than formal reports for a single funder. The distinguishing factor for GlobalGiving, for instance, is that an organisation can receive $10 or $50,000, and the level of sharing (‘reporting’) is the same.
Internal effects of funding flexibly
Because Direct Champions base their work on a philosophy of horizontality, trust and mutuality with grantee partners, it is unsurprising that they also think carefully about their internal operations so as not to reproduce or reinforce unequal power dynamics inside the organisation. It is vital that this ethos transcends from staff members all the way to senior leadership and board members. Indeed, for many feminist funds in particular, staff members come from an activist background. In practice, FRIDA told us, this means they are:
“therefore not detached from the realities grantee partners face as everyone wears several hats: funder, partner, activist.”
ACT Ubumbano adopted an ethos of ‘doing development differently’ early on, especially because having power often takes away the capacity to be self-critical. As described by Ashley Green-Thompson, Director of ACT:
“What emerged was a commitment to solidarity that did not centre money but rather human agency and justice. NGOs, funders, and faith-based organisations are complicit if we replicate power imbalances in communities of people that we say we serve. If you are serious about transformation and change, if you are unable to critique your own positionality and practice, you will never be able to see the change you want to see.”
As part of this, ACT introduced a checking of bias in the grant decision-making process, acknowledging the background and therefore potential biases of its three team members.
Being aware of internal power dynamics is especially crucial for organisations who are either transitioning or re-transitioning to more flexible approaches. For Vanessa Herringshaw at ADD International, one of the key lessons has been to “open up the core design of each fund and hold it open as much as possible.” So, at the start of each fund:
“Rather than the money holder or intermediary, it’s the constituents who decide how grants need to be structured to make the most impact, how grantee identification and selection processes will run, etc.”
And as the transition progresses:
“Rather than rushing to a single codified model of grant-making, keep that openness so the core design can keep responding to learning; new funds are designed with each new group any new fund is meant to support.”
Clear internal communication on what it means to transition to a flexible or participatory grantmaking approach is also vital to sharing power. At ADD, it was made clear that the organisation was wholeheartedly committing to a new phase:
“We are not going to tweak, we are going to make really radical shifts.”
Relationships and funding dependencies
Like other models, Direct Champions receive funding from a plethora of sources including bilaterals, family funds, foundations, Global North NGOs and, increasingly, corporate actors. As such, flexibility is often not a given, but rather is negotiated at the point of design as the quality of funding can vary depending on the source. As the overarching goal for why they fund is predetermined – that is, movement building, solidarity, community building – Direct Champions tend to be selective in the types of funding they accept. Indeed, most of those interviewed shared instances where they had to turn down funding as it was not aligned to the broader agenda and priorities the fund was aiming at.18 At the same time, because many funds, especially feminist funds, have the backing of a wider ecosystem from above and below, they can often negotiate the quality of funding they receive, and advocate to safeguard grantee partner interests.
Feminist and women’s funds shared that their strategies for accessing quality funding include allyship and cultivating trust-based relationships at different levels in the funding ecosystem. This, they have shared, allows different actors to feed into a bigger agenda and for input to emerge from multiple sources. This unlocks quality resources, and shifts inequitable power dynamics. Reflecting on the development of the Leading from the South (LFS) Consortium (a partnership between African Women’s Development Fund, Fondo de mujeres del sur, FIMI – The indigenous women’s fund, and Women’s Fund Asia), Women’s Fund Asia shared that it took concerted advocacy from Global South based feminist organisations – including AWDF and Mama Cash, and individual champions within the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs – for LFS to be born (more details in the Experimenters section). In the words of Anisha Chugh from Women’s Fund Asia:
“we need to recognise that we have many allies spread across the funding landscape (and we need to create more) and to strengthen our ecosystem and grow our community we need to be working closely with such allies and champions working in complex structures of philanthropy and aid.”
To activate this support, they have placed evidence at the centre of their approach, working with their allies to build their case and access funding together.
Challenges for Direct Champions
Though successful in setting the standard for flexible funding, Direct Champions are not bereft of challenges. Four stood out in this research.
1. First, flexible funding is costly. As the funding is value-based, be that it is aimed at systems change, or strengthening the ecosystems, meeting this goal demands meaningful engagement, which can be costly. Many of the funds we explored for this report have adopted a type of participatory grantmaking (PGM) in an effort to ensure meaningful inclusion and representation, reflective of the demography, context and issue[s] the fund is designed to address. On a superficial level, any version of participatory grantmaking demands that more people are included in the decision-making process,ensuring that participants’ time and contributions are compensated accordingly. Target groups (whether youth, persons living with disabilities, indigenous groups or others) will often be severely under-resourced and underrepresented and, as such, require additional resources to ensure accessibility. Reflecting on the need for language justice and accessibility, Women’s Fund Asia aptly shared that:
Translations are expensive, ensuring accessibility needs to be taken care of. For example, in early 2020 (right before COVID hit us) we facilitated a disability rights convening led by feminist disability rights convenors from the Asia region. This convening was a major learning curve for us as an organisation (and we are still learning). Not just content, but the entire logistics arrangement was a political process. For example, we needed sign language interpretation, and we realised from the expert advisory input that we will need a minimum of 4 people that will undertake different sign languages in multiple shifts as it’s exhausting for them as they use their entire body to communicate and they have to alternate. We had taken this for granted[…] . Similarly, when we organise meetings with our partners in the region we have to book hotels that are 4-star and above for accessibility[…]. So you will budget in higher costs for hotel and accommodation and this is something that sometimes you have to negotiate with funders to justify these costs. That’s why our budget has very clear lines on inclusion translation and accessibility. We now also have an understanding why applications from disability organisations would cost more. We need to value this when talking about flexibility and inclusion.”
Although Direct Champions are sustained by network building, solidarity building, core funding, accompaniment and convening, these are the elements that most funders are most reluctant to fund.
However, when set against the high-impact potential of flexible funding to build ecosystems and cultivate meaningful partnerships, its perceived high cost is easily outweighed by the long-term benefits that even short-term flexible funding can spark.
2. Second, there remains a marginal risk of reproducing elements of traditional funding that inadvertently introduce restrictions/inflexibility. In part, the traditional sources of funding that Direct Champions depend on can often require them to sustain traditional funding structures. Although sometimes necessary, this can spill over into the wider practices of organisations and funds striving for flexibility. Reflecting on the difficulty of balancing the external expectations and internal agenda, one organisation shared that:
“Because of our internal processes, we still have to go through people who have less of a risk appetite than we might have for certain things. How do we decolonise ourselves too? Why do we need all these mechanisms? […] When all these conversations are had internally, particularly if it’s a Global North-based organisation funding into the Global South, people realise that they hold onto these structures but it is all artifice in a way and it is about control. Funders struggle to free themselves.”
In other words, the unavoidable reality of relying on traditional funding as the primary funding source can breed fear and stifle Direct Champions’ capacity to innovate and stay flexible.
3. Third, inclusivity and representation in decision- making and building trust-based relationships is important, but time consuming. This requires setting systems in place, including scheduling grantmaking, and building in enough time and contingency measures to accommodate inevitable shifts. Equally, the success and sustainability of Direct Champions is anchored on building trust-based relationships. Yet, many intimated that funders seldom have the patience to allow lengthy yet core relationship-building processes to materialise. In this regard, CIVICUS shared:
“It’s a challenge we’re experiencing with [traditional donors] with the pace of how we do things, because in order to build relationships it takes time, and donors don’t always have the patience because of their boards, or because it’s taxpayers money. It is a challenge we experience because these processes take time but sometimes it’s difficult for us to advocate. Now we have donors that understand we’re not doing activity-based projects, we’re trying to change a system and that takes time.”
4. Finally, given their flexibility and relatively extensive reach in the ecosystem, Direct Champions often face more interest and demand than their available resources and capacity can accommodate. On the one hand, this can bring about negative competition at the local level. On the other hand, it has also stood out as a key learning opportunity, in some instances resulting in approaches that neutralise such competition. For Mama Cash, this resulted in generative conversations on transparency; specifically, the need for openness about decision-making on who receives grants, and why and when the criteria is used. This ultimately led to the launch of a Solidarity Fund open to all eligible women’s and feminists funds. For other funders, grantee partners that do not receive the funding are sometimes as important – if not more important – than those that do. These funders go the extra mile to ensure that applicants who do not get the grant receive extensive feedback and support on their ideas to safeguard and nurture emerging visions in the organisation while also strengthening the network.
Benefits of the model
Beyond the structural benefits of this model highlighted above, successful Direct Champions have the potential to holistically strengthen organisations in a way that centres local leadership, and enables and supports local resource mobilisation. They can also strengthen links between local and immediate regional contexts and the wider global funding ecosystem. This is because, being anchored in ecosystems and the community, Direct Champions have both the interconnectivity (networks) and the extensive reach to the hyperlocal (grassroots). By design, Direct Champions invest in the bravery of grantee partners, staff, and boards, in making decisions on flexible funding and negotiating flexibility at multiple levels. Recognising the relationship between their power as funders and their grantee partners’ expert power, Direct Champions have understood that funding is about control. When grantee partners have control, they can decide what is most important to their vision for their communities.
13 See list of funders provided by Funding For Real Change: https://www.fundingforrealchange.com/join-this-movement
14 Global Fund for Children. (February 2024). Why Flexible Funding is at the Center of GFC’s Approach to Philanthropy. Available at: https://globalfund-forchildren.org/story/why-flexible-funding-is-at-the-center-of-gfcs-approach-to-philanthropy/
15 See Ford Foundation Building institutions and networks website for more detail, including an in-depth evaluation report: https://www.fordfoundation.org/work/our-grants/building-institutions-and-networks/
16 Oak Foundation. (October 2024). Cover Letter: What Opportunities Exist for Philanthropic Partnership in the Global South?. Available at: https://oakfnd.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Cover-letter-what-opportunities-exist-for-philanthropic-partnership-in-the-Global-South.pdf
17 https://climate.leverforchange.org/submit
18 Basi, S. (2024). ‘Passive ‘Donor-Pleaser’ or ‘Resource Activist’? The Role that Fundraisers can Play in Creating a Fairer Funding System. Alliance Magazine. Available at: https://www.alliancemagazine.org/blog/passive-donor-pleaser-or-resource-activist-the-role-that-fundraisers-can-play-in-creating-a-fairer-funding-system/