Some animal advocates further their cause by working outside traditional organizations to bring attention to overlooked issues. These efforts, often led by individuals or small groups, contribute to systemic change but can take years or even decades to yield results. Burnout is common, as campaigners and activists receive limited public and financial support.

Despite research consistently showing that campaigning and activism are important tools for progress, these movements remain underfunded, largely due to funders’ hesitancy. This study explores the reasons behind funders’ reluctance to engage with “outsider” groups and identifies the barriers that limit their support. The researchers aim to offer actionable solutions to increase investment in these movements.

The researchers used a mixed-methods approach, combining surveys and interviews. They surveyed 200 funders across the U.K. and Europe, with 100 respondents, mostly from foundations, family trusts, and individual philanthropists. Additionally, 10 funders participated in 30-minute interviews to explore how funders assess risk, measure impact, and decide whether to support outsider groups. Case studies highlighted successful examples of funders supporting campaigns, offering best practices for replication.

A central finding of the study revealed that while funders recognize the value of campaigning and activism, this recognition doesn’t always translate into financial backing. Funders rated the importance of campaigning as a tool for social change at 4.4 out of 5 (“very valuable”), with 71% indicating they already provide some support. However, the actual financial contribution averaged only 2.6 out of 5 (“some of my giving”), highlighting a mismatch between funders’ appreciation of activism and their willingness to provide substantial financial support.

The researchers identified four main themes explaining the disconnect between funders’ thinking and practice: risk, impact, practicalities, and knowledge. While these barriers are significant, the study suggests they are addressable, offering suggestions for both funders and activists.

Risk

Around a fifth (21%) of funders were concerned about reputational and financial risk. Many trustees and board members preferred to maintain their organizations’ neutral image, with 29% reporting that their boards would not approve funding for activist groups. Funders were wary of supporting groups seen as political or controversial, with 17% associating activism with aggressive or confrontational tactics, which could draw negative media attention.

• Suggestions for funders: Use intermediaries or infrastructure organizations to manage funds, which can help mitigate reputational risks. Develop resources to show board members how outsider approaches support the mission without risking reputation.

• Suggestions for activists: Consider the terminology used to describe the work carefully. Presenting as “campaigners” instead of “protest groups” reduces negative connotations. Strategic plans with measurable outcomes can also reassure funders.

Impact

Funders were uncertain about how to assess whether the activism they supported was making a measurable difference. Outsider movements often focus on long-term, systemic change, which doesn’t easily fit into the short-term evaluation metrics many funders rely on to track progress.

• Suggestions for funders: Collaborating with experienced funders who have successfully worked with outsider groups and gathering better evidence of activism’s long-term effectiveness would help.

• Suggestions for activists: Clearly outline strategies and measurable milestones. Offering updates on long-term projects demonstrates progress and assures funders their contributions are making a difference.

Practicalities

Many funders stated that the organizational structures of smaller activist groups raised concerns. The absence of formal governance led to questions about legal compliance and the effective use of donations, deterring funders from supporting unregistered or informal groups.

• Suggestions for funders: Explore alternative approaches, such as working with intermediaries or infrastructure organizations that can manage funds and provide support to less formal groups.

• Suggestions for activists: Establish basic governance structures, even informally, to provide transparency and accountability. Collaborating with intermediary organizations or offering clear documentation on fund use can ease funders’ concerns.

Knowledge

Nearly a tenth (9%) of funders indicated that they didn’t know who to support. Many were unaware of smaller grassroots movements in their issue areas and lacked the connections to relevant networks.

• Suggestions for funders: Increasing communication with networks or other funders familiar with grassroots groups can help build needed knowledge and connections. Consider attending events or workshops to learn more about movements within issue areas.

• Suggestions for activists: Increase outreach to raise visibility and build connections with established organizations. Sharing updates on activities helps build rapport and clarifies how the cause contributes to broader social change.

Some funders may hesitate to change due to psychological barriers rather than data-driven concerns. Still, many are open to revising their practices, especially following movements like Black Lives Matter, which have prompted philanthropy to rethink support for grassroots efforts. For animal advocates, these shifts in funder attitudes create new opportunities. By framing their work in “funder language,” they can overcome barriers to build stronger partnerships.