INTRODUCTION
It’s time to fund flexibly – and it’s already being done
Overview
This research project began at the end of 2024, at the cusp of a new era of unprecedented cuts to foreign aid, or Official Development Assistance (ODA). The swift and severe nature of the cuts, from the United States, the United Kingdom, and many more Global North bilateral donors, reaffirmed1 that unilateral, top-down funding sources cannot serve the cause of decolonising international cooperation,2 or of building a new, equitable system.
An alternative already exists: funding that is pro-vided flexibly, enabling people and communities to tackle their own needs and challenges. This is why we chose to call this report ‘Funding Civil Society Freedom.’ Right now, civil society organisations (CSOs) in the Majority World/Global South do not have the freedom to design, develop and implement the work that they believe is necessary for their communities. Over 25 years ago, Nobel Prizewinning economist Amartya Sen published ‘Development as Freedom’ in which he penned one of the most memorable and important definitions of the term ‘development’. He wrote that ‘Development is the freedom to live the life that one has reason to value.’ For Sen, development wasn’t about the things that were delivered, the food, the medical equipment, the books or the infrastructure. It was the freedom to choose, to participate, to chart your own path, to play an active role in the decisions that affect you. To have choices. For Sen, poverty was the absence of those freedoms. Civil society in the Majority World/ Global South are denied choices by the funding that is offered to them. Funding should be liberating. It should give civil society the freedom and capability to choose how to tackle the problems that they have decided are most important to them. Flexible funding at its best provides that freedom.
There is no comprehensive dataset that captures how much current funding is being flexibly disbursed. But, as one partial proxy, research from the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) conducted in 2024 found that around 16% of all philanthropic (not governmental) donations in development were designated as unrestricted rather than as project/ear-marked support. The research also found that flexible funding is most likely to be provided to Global North nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), and least likely to be given to NGOs based in Africa, East Asia and South Asia.3
Our research on flexible funding models does not start from a ‘neutral’ standpoint. We believe that flexible funding is both vital and preferable to ex-isting mainstream, rigid forms of funding. And it is a crucial part of shifting both power and resources from North to South. The case for flexibility (the why) has been made.4 As noted by the Funding for Real Change initiative:
“Flexible, multiyear grants, anchored in trust, are not only the right way to build grantee partnerships but also the smart way for grantmakers to create more impact, advance equity, and strengthen grantee organizations for the long run, as strong evaluations show.”5
Our research thus focuses primarily on how organisations implement flexibility in practice. Luckily, examples of funding that operate far more freely and flexibly exist, and indeed are plentiful. This report has therefore sought to:
Identify, understand and categorise different models of flexible funding to provide inspiration for other organisations wishing to either adopt, support or promote these models – without directly comparing or evaluating models.
Address the challenges faced by funders who are hesitant to adopt flexible models by highlighting best practices and lessons learned.
Methodology
This report intends to demystify flexible funding and offer options for multiple audiences in the broader funding and international development sectors who are interested in funding more flexibly. It is not intended to be a scientific evaluation of funding models, but rather a presentation of the four models of flexible funding we have identified. Following a targeted literature review and analysis of documents and secondary sources provided by a wide range of organisations, we held semi-structured conversations with 19 funders and networks of varying funding profiles. We spoke to participants in both senior leadership and programme-level roles. These conversations were held online, and encouraged participants to share with us their understanding and approach to flexible funding, as well as the stories of how they got there. Additionally, we held a focus group discussion with available grantee partners6 to capture their first-hand experiences with funding. Through these conversations, we were able to surface the steps that a) led to the introduction of the flexible funding model, b) drove specific experiences for grantee partners, and c) enabled further sustained flexibility.
Limitations
While our conversations with funders offered rich insights, we recognise the limitations of our sample. First, there are countless flexible funding mechanisms globally. This report does not attempt to provide a comprehensive mapping but uses the case studies presented to broaden engagement on flexible funding. Second, only grantee partners can truly attest to the difference that flexible funding makes to their work. While we spoke to some grantee partners, further research should centre this.
1 Connective Impact. (July 2024). From Crisis to Collaboration: Reimagining Global Development Beyond Traditional Aid: Breakthrough Brief. Available at: https://www.connectiveimpact.com/blog/from-crisis-to-collaboration-reimagining-global-development-beyond-traditional-aid
2 Peace Direct, Adeso, the Alliance for Peacebuilding and Women of Color Advancing Peace and Security. (2021). Time to Decolonise Aid. Available at: https://www.peacedirect.org/time-to-decolonise-aid/
3 OECD Centre on Philanthropy (2024). No Strings Attached? Making Sense of Flexible Financing in Philanthropy. OECD Development Centre. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/no-strings-attached-making-sense-of-flexible-financing-in-philanthropy_0264b47f-en.html
4Peace Direct and Kantowitz, R. (2015). Radical Flexibility – Strategic Funding for the Age of Local Activism. [online] Peaceinsight.org. Available at: https://www.peaceinsight.org/reports/peacefund/ [Accessed: 12 August 2025].
5 Funding for Real Change. (2021). Accelerating Equitable Grantmaking: Seizing the Moment to Norm Multiyear, Flexible Funding. Available at: Accelerat-ing Equitable Grantmaking: Seizing the Moment to Norm Multiyear, Flexible Funding. Also see https://www.fundingforrealchange.com/multi-year-flexi-ble-funding.
6 The ongoing shifts in the sector have meant that grantee partners and funders’ capacity was stretched to the limit, affecting the number of grantees available to attend the focus group discussions.