Funding Priorities & Impact

Problem rationale

There is an identified need to provide greater clarity around the Movement’s expectations and funding priorities: what the Movement is collectively working toward across different contexts. A shared understanding of strategic direction and contextualized funding priorities would help align funding decisions. The Movement Strategy 2030, the recommendations of the Ecosystem pilot, and current external trends can serve as a framework to help us define these priorities. Likewise, better linking funding to impact is an unresolved challenge for the Movement: what impact means, how it should be measured across different contexts, and how it connects to funding decisions. Having a shared impact framework would strengthen accountability and help ensure that funding truly advances the Movement’s mission. Establishing a clear framework for impact would help inform decision making for resource distribution, as well as lead to development of affiliate and grantee health criteria (e.g. financial stability, impact, and metrics), which are currently under review by the Ecosystem pilot. Defining impact also connects to more clear eligibility and funding pathways

Key dimensions of the problem (based on feedback)

1. Unclear strategic priorities and shared vision

Several feedback sources highlighted the need for clearer strategic priorities to guide resource allocation and strengthen a shared understanding of what the Movement is collectively working toward. While Movement Strategy 2030 continues to serve an important framework, it is necessarily broad in scope. Some feedback also points to new challenges that have emerged since the strategy was developed that must be taken into account. Ultimately, clearly defined strategic priorities for grantmaking can bring focus to funding decisions and help to ensure we can measure collective progress towards common goals. This includes defining both what should be funded and, equally importantly, what falls outside the scope of funding priorities.

2. Lack of shared impact framework

We have identified a need to bring greater clarity to how “impact” is understood across the Movement, how it is defined, measured and connected to funding decisions. Some feedback highlights the need for stronger accountability and processes to evaluate affiliates' performance. Key recommendations include the need for flexible and contextualized metrics, clearer reporting frameworks, regular checkpoints to assess affiliate and grantee effectiveness, and explicit articulation of the types of changes the Movement collectively seeks to achieve through funding. Conversely, while a shared understanding of impact is essential, some of the suggestions above would be very resource-intensive, and would represent a move away, rather than towards, a more trust-based and decentralized philanthropic model. Defining impact can be tied to proposed tiered models (related to Affiliate Sustainability and Funding Structures and the Future Affiliate Landscape proposal).

Connection to Funding Principles

This priority directly impacts multiple Funding Principles:

Iterative, Evidence-based Practices: Clear priorities create the conditions to learn from experience, measure progress, and make more informed, evidence-based decisions.
Collaboration & Cooperation: A shared vision helps communities align their efforts, encouraging collaboration and collective progress toward common goals rather than working in parallel.