FUNDING CIVIL SOCIETY FREEDOM

Table of contents

CONNECTORS

Snapshot description

Organisations (Global North-based) that channel funding indirectly by partnering with other organisations who are more proximate to the communities they serve in the Global South, thereby strengthening local and national funding ecosystems. As opposed to traditional intermediary partners, such as Global North INGOs, Connectors act as a supportive conduit for funding, rather than as an implementer of activities on the ground.

Artboard 1

Important note

There are many Global South organisations who also play this role but with distinct characteristics. This report focuses primarily on resource transfers from North to South. To learn more about Global South connectors, see Trust, Accountability, and Inclusion (TAI) collaborative’s four models of Global South intermediaries,19 and a scoping study conducted by a team of women across Latin America and Asia on understanding the re- granting ecosystem in the Global South.20

Sub-categories

Connectors work with partners most proximate to the issues, including regional hub partners and other types of in-country entities (herein collectively referred to as facilitating partners) that ensure the experiences of grantee partners remain visible, resourced and heard. With this in mind, the way Connectors approach flexible funding can differ.

Multi-country hub partnership

These organisations do not tend to identify primarily as funders – rather, they are NGOs (often Global North based) that create mechanisms through which they are able to channel flexible funding. These funders seek to bridge gaps between restrictive funding structures and more flexible approaches in order to support the development of funding ecosystems at the local and national level. Peace Direct’s Local Action Fund (LAF) is an example of this. The LAF supports locally led peacebuilding initiatives through swift, small grants of under $15,000, alongside training and other forms of support, such as information sharing and opportunities for wider collaboration and advocacy. Through the LAF, Peace Direct partners with country-based organisations (referred to as Hub Organisations) across Asia, Africa and Latin America, who identify local groups to receive grants and support them to collaborate and increase their impact. Another example was the (now closed) Dignity for All: LGBTQI+ Assistance Program, originally funded by the Global Equality Fund of the U.S. State Department, a public–private partnership between governments, corporations and independent foundations that support LGBTQI+ human rights. The programme, which provided flexible emergency funds, support, and security assistance to human rights defenders and organisations under threat or attack due to their work for LGBTQI+ human rights,21 was run by a global consortium of human rights organisations led by Freedom House, a U.S.-based INGO. Several of the partners were based in the Global South – Akãhatã (Latin America) and UHAI (East Africa) – and all were considered “trusted and recognised organisations in the LGBTQI+ communities where they work and live.”22 Dignity for All provided two types of grants: emergency grants for human rights defenders or CSOs and SOAR (Security, Opportunity, Advocacy Rapid Response) grants, for short-term advocacy initiatives to counteract urgent threats or take advantage of opportunities.

Single-country hub partnership

In addition to providing a crowdfunding platform (a form of direct funding described in the Direct Champion category), GlobalGiving also manages grantmaking funds and often acts as a Connector by partnering with organisations in different contexts to ensure funding is delivered as flexibly as possible to communities often excluded from international funding. As an example, GlobalGiving received funding through Local Works, a USAID funding mechanism, to support the Centre for Disaster Preparedness (CDP) Foundation in the Philippines to create and manage the Abot- Kamay Community Solidarity Fund, with strategic support from a consortium of global partners. This is also an approach often used with its Disaster Fund grantmaking, whereby proximate network organisations provide onward grantmaking to a wide variety of community-based groups.

Although not a distinct subcategory, fiscal sponsors or hosts operate as a form of Connector, as they allow more community-driven organisations to launch initiatives without having to formally register.23

Origins/reason for existing

Global North Connectors recognise that they are not experts in local and national contexts across the Global South. They therefore act as conduits to ensure that organisations more proximate to their contexts make the ultimate grantmaking and support decisions. For Peace Direct, the value of this model lies in elevating community members, local peacebuilders and informal groups, most of whom are receiving international resources for the first time. This in turn strengthens their capacity to act as resource hubs for civil society.

The Hub organisations that Peace Direct partners with in each country then bring their own funding philosophies and approaches that centre flexibility – often operating similarly to Direct Champions. For Adeela, a youth-led organisation in Sudan focused on the role of culture and arts in peace and justice, Idrees Nour says flexible funding is:

“A whole approach or methodology that guarantees local ownership for local actors. This approach also enables Adeela to remove obstacles in front of local actors in order to make their voices heard.”

Hive Pakistan, a social impact organisation based in Islamabad, notes that:

“Flexible funding is not just about adaptable budgets, it is about reimagining power, trust and peace from the ground up. In Pakistan, where donor frameworks often remain overly bureaucratic and centralized, flexible funding allowed Hive to shift power and decision-making into the hands of community-based actors.”

Connectors also often serve as a buffer between traditional Global North donors, who have high compliance and other requirements, and the facilitating partners that ultimately disburse the funding to communities. As noted in case of the Abot- Kamay Community Solidarity Fund:

“Every aspect was led by CDP’s knowledge and insights into the culture, context, and Filipino communities, from the design of the call for proposals, to the grant selection and due diligence process, and [to] monitoring and evaluation. As ‘bridging partners’, GlobalGiving and the consortium offered advice and support to CDP to navigate the possibilities given the funder’s requirements, and carried the weight of funder reporting and risk management responsibility, freeing CDP to develop an approach that worked for communities.” 24

On the Dignity for All programme, Freedom House’s bridging role between the funder and consortium was recognised by partners. Its overall role in programme administration and focus on emergency grantmaking allowed partners to focus on implementing the SOAR (advocacy-focused grants) and providing security support.25

Structural features of Connectors

As the spirit of flexibility is built into the organisational framing of Connectors, the partner selection process is designed to align with these principles. At this stage, the Connector and its partners define their terms of engagement, begin to build trust, and explore each other’s contexts, expectations, and potential constraints.

Selecting Hub/in-country partners

Connectors adopt different approaches to selecting in-country partners to work with, but the main criteria tends to be organisations that themselves prioritise flexible approaches to funding that are embedded in their community contexts. For the LAF, Peace Direct begins with a scoping exercise to identify organisations that are values-aligned and have an appetite to ‘unlearn together’, recognising that both Global North and South organisations have operated for a long time in the same restrictive funding ecosystems. In some cases, Peace Direct continued work with existing partners, and in others it identified new like-minded partners. Selection criteria for Hub partners considers the organisation’s credibility, governance structure, geographical reach, organisational values, potential financial and programmatic capacity to manage a grantmaking system, and its approach to conflict dynamics in the given context

Following this initial selection phase, Connectors broadly adopt the same approach, which is to entirely delegate the grantmaking application function to in-country partners that are proximate to the relevant contexts. The in-country partners subsequently adopt processes that are similar to Direct Champions (even though these partners generally do much more than just fund, which distinguishes them from most flexible funders), focusing on ensuring the application process is as minimal and inclusive as possible. As one example:

Accessible application processes

CDP in the Philippines launched the first call for proposals through the Abot-Kamay Community Solidarity Fund in May 2022, and received 127 proposals from community-based organisations on the themes of community-led action, community philanthropy, sustainability, and shifting power.

“To reduce barriers, the application process was built to be flexible and inclusive, allowing applications to be in the local Filipino dialects and could also be submitted via video.” 26

Connectors ensure that in-country partners with a deep understanding of the context run the grant decision-making process, providing support if requested. As the first recipient of funds, Connectors focus instead on satisfying any specific requirements, very often from traditional donors with, at times, stringent standards.

Due diligence and vetting processes

Connectors think very carefully about how to create due diligence or vetting processes that balance living the values of a truly flexible funder with the pressures they face from traditional donors in accounting for how the money is spent. For instance, at GlobalGiving the vetting function sits within the programme team, and not with a separate compliance team. They see this as necessary, both as part of relationship-building with partners, as well as fulfilling compliance requirements.

Facilitating partners then design a decision-making process that enables flexibility and inclusivity.

Selection committees

A common approach, similar to many Direct Champions, is using a committee of people that represent target communities to make decisions on which grants to award. With the Abot-Kamay Community Solidarity Fund in the Philippines, neither GlobalGiving nor any of the international partners involved in the initiative were involved in the selection of grantee partners (a crucial feature of the Connectors model). After reviewing the applications, 32 organisations were selected by members of a community selection committee made up of Filipino representatives from the sector focused on themes such as women, persons with disabilities, and human rights to ensure the process was participatory and inclusive.

Application development support

Some facilitating partners provide less traditional means for developing an application for grant support, precisely because they are embedded in the communities they support in a way that neither Direct Champions nor Connectors are. For instance, Hive in Pakistan created an idea pitching process through sharing short videos, after which they provided support in developing concept notes. Ideas are also selected by members of the community that grants are intended for. The initiatives do not need to be structured as a formal NGO or organisation with a bank account – many different types of community response are able to receive funding.

Micro and small grants (approximately ranging from $1,000 to $15,000) remain a core element and practical tool. They allow Connectors to help address the gap of bureaucracy and policy restrictions that often prevent traditional philanthropy from funding local actors directly, while also sustaining the work by local actors, that is, ‘keeping their doors open’. Further, micro- grants allow room for experimentation for both the Connector and facilitating partners. Organisations shared that small grants can help to build confidence on all sides, without needing to take on overwhelming risks. As with Direct Champions, Connectors seek to prioritise multiyear, unrestricted funding, although this can be subject to constraints from the ultimate funder. It is important to note the significant difference between the funding received by Connectors and the funding to facilitating partners or local groups they support. They can vary in amounts and funding mechanisms as shaped by regional and national frameworks, and a dedicated study is needed to fully understand their unique experiences.

Connectors seek to support their facilitating partners in a range of areas related to the management of individual grants, including reporting requirements.

Providing support on reporting to facilitating partners

Connectors, who receive funding directly from traditional Global North donors to then distribute, often seek to bear as much of the reporting burden as possible. As part of the LAF, Peace Direct tries to take on as much administrative burden as it can, to limit the load on local partners. Practices to achieve this include ensuring information collected by partners supports their own learning, rather than being a check box exercise; or by allowing partners to report in their own financial templates, and have direct access to Peace Direct’s finance team for support. As described by Maaz Salih Idres, having:

“A trust-based relationship is the key, as is reducing the contractual burden – we do not let paperwork delay our work. We say yes, and then we figure out how to do it! That’s our motto. You respond to a need now, it’s not about controlling the funds.”

Support can also be practical. Through the LAF, Peace Direct encourages and accompanies Hub partners to develop strong financial management systems, but this is not a condition of the funding. Funding is often given upfront and in large tranches which affords organisations flexibility, for instance in putting the money into a savings account to earn interest.

Facilitating partner support to grantee partners

When Connectors take on reporting requirements from the upstream donor, this frees up facilitating partners to support grantee partners in a similar way. Adeela, a LAF Hub partner in Sudan, supports its grantee partners in writing and completing necessary forms. They also support initiatives that are not legally registered with receiving funds, supporting them with the managerial load.

Thought partnership

Connectors also seek to provide in-country partners and the ultimate grantees with accompaniment support throughout the duration of the grant, as appropriate to the given context. This can range from co-creation, if requested by the facilitating partner, to mentoring and skills sharing, and providing space for networking, advocacy and collaboration. As part of the LAF, Peace Direct supports exchanges between Hub partners and grantees, including a yearly in- person retreat to foster learning exchanges and solidarity across peacebuilders from different countries. This is also used as a means for shaping the fund’s overall model together with partners. As Peace Direct notes:

“Part of decoloniality is not imposing anything on people.”

Internal effects of funding flexibly

Connectors are set apart by their commitment to sustaining the pressure for more equitable practices and power shifts in the international funding landscape. Connectors often report undergoing significant internal changes as a result of adopting flexible funding approaches. Peace Direct described this as a process of:

“Changing mindsets and unlearning… flexibility is only one ingredient: there is also trust, co- design, redistribution of power, adaptability.”

Connectors often adopt specific commitments that guide their approach, although in contrast to Direct Champions these tend to include activities other than funding. Peace Direct’s Strategic Plan 2025-2035 commits the organisation to:

“Decolonise ourselves and the wider sector,” and to “mobilise more unrestricted and flexible funding for our partners and for Peace Direct, including unlocking new sources of funding through services, sponsorship and other non- grant income.”27

GlobalGiving has also adopted five community- led commitments that cut across all of its work as a grantmaker. These are to : 1. share power and co-create solutions; 2. listen and be responsive; 3. foster deeper relationships and invite partnerships to transform them; 4. be transparent, reliable, and accountable partners; and 5. identify and eliminate barriers.28

Relationships and funding dependencies

By design, Connectors are the chainlink between traditional funders and the grantee partners most proximate to the issues at hand. Though dominantly based in the Global North, their operational reach is outward-facing, that is, they aim to get resources to those most proximate to the issues. Their uniqueness lies in the infrastructure they offer, including relationships with local and national actors most proximate to focus issues, enabling funding flows to places that traditional funding channels often struggle to reach. Traditional funders sometimes need real-time examples and direct engagement with local actors in order to grasp the value and practice of flexible funding. Connectors play a key role in making that link. Describing a turning point in the LAF model, Harriet Knox Brown at Peace Direct shared that it took the drastic shift in the Afghanistan context following the fall of Kabul in August 2021, for the value of their partners’ work under the LAF to be understood.

“In Afghanistan, the initial LAF small grants provided through the Hub partner organisation supported 20 local groups to keep their doors open at a time of significant funding cuts; through this, many of these groups were able to continue their work including successfully advocating at local level for initiatives that benefitted women and other marginalised groups at community level. When sharing stories of impact with other funders, they were mind blown because they didn’t think it was possible given the context. Donors were interested in reaching the more informal/vulnerable/under the radar actors working for peace, and not just those based in capitals. There seems to be a willingness amongst donors to support this work, but they may not have the infrastructure, and often have highly restrictive and risk-averse due diligence processes, and so this is not always possible.”

Once Connectors identify funders that are truly aligned and understand the importance of flexible funding and their way of working, that relationship becomes a catalyst for experimentation and innovation. However few such funders may be, they provide just enough wiggle room for Connectors to hold the red lines, enabling them to stay true to their values while pushing the boundaries of what is possible in restrictive funding landscapes.

Challenges for Connectors

While facilitating partners (typically in-country partners or intermediaries in the Global South that are proximate to the communities they serve) is the feature that makes the model work, it is also the source of many of the model’s challenges. Connectors admitted to at times over-relying on their facilitating partners for various elements of the model’s operation, when their core role should be as a bridge and buffer between upstream funders. This can be compounded by the fact that some Connectors are still shaping the model and, at times, they will not have all processes and structures in place to adequately compensate and support facilitating partners. As a result, some of the facilitating partners admitted to experiencing mental and emotional burnout as they are stretched between partly supporting elements of the Connectors’ operational functions and providing ongoing accompaniment to local actors, all while navigating the realities of working in challenging contexts.

Connectors face the risk of reproducing negative competition and power hierarchies at a local level. This can be damaging to the broader agenda of strengthening locally led development and fostering an environment for local organisations to receive more equitable resources. Relatedly, while they aim for the facilitating partners they fund to be representative of the communities they serve, representation can be undiverse and may not always represent the collective interests and realities of local communities – this can be challenging (especially when compared to some Direct Champions). Nonetheless, many Connectors saw this as an inherent risk and one whose lessons they can use to strengthen the model and relationships. For instance, on their experience with the LAF model, a Hub organisation in DRC shared that they experienced backlash after they selected some local groups but not others. The LAF hub in Pakistan learned from this and decided to give individual feedback to all applicants, including those that were rejected.

Funding relationships in this model can at times feel transactional depending on their actual design and strength of relationships built. In cases where the Connector takes a hands off approach, in efforts to centre the local actors, and when the facilitating partner is less involved in the work at local level, the Connector risks becoming detached from the local contexts. This can lead to relationships that feel transactional and, for some facilitating partners, inadvertently tokenistic.

Benefits of the model

The success of Connectors can to some degree be measured by their ability to ‘reinvent the INGO’, by “facilitating, investing in, and enabling the role of national and local CSOs to take the spotlight, both in their own societies and internationally.”29 When they do, Connectors enable environments of collaboration between Global North funders and Global South CSOs, with facilitating partners noting that they did not feel like mere recipients but equals. This partnership breaks down the hierarchies that have historically defined those relationships. Many Connectors emphasised that they were learning as they go, which spoke to the trust and equity they have built into the relationship with local actors. More importantly, Connectors enable horizontal peer-peer collaboration. Often, the facilitating partner role creates a social glue that anchors the work in the community and that lays the ground for sustainability in the long run. The horizontal collaboration has seen a redefining of accountability at the local level, from something that is centred on individual organisations to accountability to entire communities.

19 Trust, Accountability, and Inclusion (TAI) collaborative. (2024). From Local Roots to Global Reach: Global South Intermediaries Driving Just and Equitable Governance. Available at: https://tai-collaborative.my.canva.site/intermediaries-study-tai

20 Philanthropy Dialogues. (May 2024). Understanding the Re-granting Ecosystem in the Global South: Environment, Gender, Social Justice & Human Rights in Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. With support from Oak Foundation and Ruta civica. Available at: https://philanthropydialogues.org/

21 U.S. Department of State. (2021-2025). Global Equality Fund. Available at: https://2021-2025.state.gov/global-equality-fund/ [Accessed: 11 August 2025].

22 Global Philanthropy Project and Cook, B., and Viera, B. (2016). The Road to Successful Partnerships: How governments in the Global North can effectively partner with intermediary organizations to support LGBTI communities in the Global South and East, p.28. Available at: https://globalphilanthropyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-Road-to-Successful-Partnerships-FINAL-7.7.16.pdf. [Accessed: 11 August 2025].

23 Non-profit Organisation for Philanthropic Initiatives (Nopi). ‘Benefits of Fiscal Sponsorship: Pros & Cons’ [Accessed: 05 December 2025). Available at: https://www.thenopi.org/toolkit/fiscal-sponsorship-pros-and-cons#:~:text=Fiscal%20sponsorship%20allows%20organizations%20to%20outsource%20 administrative,nonprofit%20entity%2C%20offering%20flexibility%20and%20growth%20opportunities

24 Center for Disaster Preparedness Philippines and GlobalGiving (n.d.). Transforming Philanthropy & Aid Through New Models of Funding and Partnership 1 Insights from Taking Practical Action to Move Funding Decisions Closer to Communities. [online] Available at: https://www.globalgiving.org/learn/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/GlobalGiving_PositionPaper.pdf [Accessed: 11 August 2025].

25 Global Philanthropy Project and Cook, B., and Viera, B. (2016). The Road to Successful Partnerships: How governments in the Global North can effectively partner with intermediary organizations to support LGBTI communities in the Global South and East, p.31. Available at: https://globalphilanthropyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-Road-to-Successful-Partnerships-FINAL-7.7.16.pdfv

26 Kapoor, S. and Gordo, C. (2023). Transforming Philanthropy: Reimagining Partnerships, Practices, And Power. Global Giving View Points. Available at: https://www.globalgiving.org/learn/transforming-philanthropy [Accessed: 11 August 2025].

27 Peace Direct. (2025). Strategic Plan 2025-2035. Available at: https://www.peacedirect.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/pd-organisational-strategy-external-facing.pdf

28 Global Giving. (2022). We’re Committed To Becoming More Community Led. Here’s How We’ll Do It. Available at: https://www.globalgiving.org/learn/community-led-commitments/

29 Doane, D. (2024). The INGO Problem: Power, Privilege, and Renewal. Practical Action Publishing. p19

Previous | Next