Affiliate Sustainability & Funding Structures

Problem rationale

Across the Wikimedia Movement, several communities have expressed the need for greater funding predictability as a key element for sustainable growth. If we want affiliates to thrive, we need more predictable funding pathways. This could include different funding levels or tiers , longer term grant agreements (building on the successful introduction of multi-year funding several years ago), or separation of core operational support from targeted project funding. Such a model could provide greater predictability for affiliates, particularly at a time when broader challenges, including readership decline and uncertainty around future revenue growth, add additional pressure to the Movement’s financial outlook.

At the same time, the overall funding pool is perceived as insufficient, reinforcing the perception that affiliates are competing for the same limited resources. Feedback highlights the importance of strengthening communities’ fundraising capacity, particularly in contexts where local fundraising is a realistic option. Strengthening long-term sustainability therefore requires both more predictable core support alongside coordinated investment in fundraising skills and a system that enables affiliates to build resilience and grow independently.

Key dimensions of the problem (based on feedback)

1. Resource constraints across the Movement

Based on the feedback we have received, communities report that in several regions available resources are seen as insufficient to meet local needs. As a result, affiliates compete for the same resources (including more established affiliates applying for the same funds as newer groups who need funding to set up basic operations) creating competitive pressure across the ecosystem and discouraging mentorship and cooperation. This connects to the ongoing question on how the total budget for grantmaking is set by the Wikimedia Foundation, and whether the overall percentage could be increased.

2. Lack of funding predictability

The need to ensure a degree of predictability has emerged across multiple feedback channels. Affiliates lack certainty about long-term financial support, making it difficult to plan sustainably. They report a perennial issue of very last-minute cuts to expected funding that is particularly destabilizing, even for affiliates already on a multi-year grant.

Communities call for more stable and predictable funding, as well as clearer communication around funding decisions and timelines. Greater predictability would allow them to plan programs and staffing more responsibly, supporting stronger organizational sustainability across the Movement.

3. Lack of differentiated and structured funding pathways

Among different suggestions like the need to improve communication, the feedback received requests more stable and predictable support like different funding levels for different types of organizations, reflecting different size, maturity etc. More specifically, funding levels or tiers could help affiliates plan responsibly by increasing funding in a more secure and gradual manner. A tiered approach could also help prevent organizations from scaling either too quickly or too slowly, while creating clearer expectations about how organizations move between levels over time. Such a model connects with proposals connected to the ongoing Movement Ecosystem Strategy (including proposals from a focus group and from Affcom), for which this priority must remain linked to that process. These funding levels can also be tied to Affiliate health and grant impact criteria (i.e. tiers that respond to the measurable impact that an affiliate grantee is providing).

4. Limited fundraising capacity and coordinated support across the Movement

Affiliates currently face uneven capacity and limited support to develop independent fundraising. Among different suggestions, several affiliates highlight the need for capacity development as well as the creation of a global strategy to seek funding sources. This includes the pre-existing discussions to have WMF allow more affiliates to do banner fundraising, or for them to share donor data more broadly. At the same time, feedback recognizes that fundraising opportunities vary significantly by context, requiring differentiated approaches. Some work has already been initiated by the creation of Affiliate Fundraising Materials by WMF or separate fundraising initiatives by groups like Wikimedia Europe, but further evolutions of this support can be advanced.

Feedback also emphasized that affiliates are often well positioned to enhance relationships with local donors and institutions. Strengthening fundraising capacity is therefore increasingly seen as part of long-term affiliate sustainability. Potential support mechanisms discussed include regional fundraising roles and grants for fundraising consultants or training.

Connection to Funding Principles

This priority directly impacts multiple Funding Principles:

Collaboration & Cooperation: Better stability, predictability and funding levels can reduce competition and create better conditions for collaboration. If affiliates can better predict available resources, they are better positioned to coordinate efforts.
Subsidiarity: More predictable and structured funding help local affiliates plan ahead and make decisions that fit their context, strengthening our trust in communities’ ability to lead their own development.
People-centered: Increased funding stability can reduce stress and burnout for affiliate staff and volunteers.
Equity & Empowerment: By improving stability and clarity in funding, the Movement can better support affiliates across different contexts, ensuring that both emerging and established communities can grow and thrive in alignment with our commitment to equity.