1

United Nations Democracy FundResource Mobilization Strategy

Prepared by Emily Collins-Ellis & Jasmine Awad, April 2020

Executive Summary (1)In 2019, Emily Collins-Ellis and Jasmine Awad were commissioned to develop a resource mobilization strategy

that would be appropriate and implementable, despite the Fund’s limited resources and the competing

demands for donor funding in other areas.

While implementation of many parts of the strategy will have to wait until the worst of the Covid-19 crisis has

passed, some may be possible to plan for even now. Examples of possible resource leverage may be where

UNDEF’s work is particularly relevant to consequences of the pandemic – whether in the fight against

disinformation and for media literacy; initiatives for digital safety; and efforts against gender-based violence,

given the surge in domestic violence amid lockdowns, quarantines, and economic and social pressures.

2

Executive Summary (2)Key recommendations of the strategy, as originally devised, include:

• Continuing to prioritize funding from governments, UNDEF’s strongest prospects.

• Proactively setting financial targets for the next three years and openly communicating those to donors.

• Developing ‘products’ (e.g. earmarked funding, event sponsorship) that appeal to different audiences

(e.g. governments, trusts and foundations, and corporates) to maximize UNDEF’s approach to resource

mobilization.

• Raising UNDEF’s profile to build credibility within and outside the UN system, and increase its ability to

raise more funds from different audiences.

• Leveraging available resources (e.g. current donors, UN leadership) to engage in donor-only spaces, to

develop co-funding partnerships and co-create opportunities for funding.

• Dedicating a team member to relationship-based resource mobilization.

• Systematising internal processes such as customer relationship management software and templates for

donor materials.

• Holding regular staff meetings on resource mobilization to ensure the team is engaged and pro-active.

3

Executive Summary (3)This document is divided into three main sections, with several subsections. Below is a breakdown of all the topics covered throughout:

4

Backg

rou

nd

& R

ese

arc

h • Research: UNDEF’s context

and needs, research on

funding for democracy

landscape

• Positioning Study: main

findings from our stakeholder

interviews

• Benchmarking: research

findings on the resource

mobilization approaches of

three comparable

organizations

Str

ate

gy • Strategy Background:

general summary of UNDEF’s

core objectives

• Financials: recommended

financial targets and gift tables

• Prospect Pipeline: key

themes & trends from the

prospecting research

• Recommended Audiences:

UNDEF’s key audiences and

recommended approaches

• UNDEF’s Offering:

suggested product ideas and

donor rewards

Mo

vin

g F

orw

ard • Messaging: review of

UNDEF’s messaging & assets

• Donor Journey:

recommended stages for

donor cultivation

• Raising Profile: suggested

actions for network growing

• Resources: recommended

resources to support UNDEF’s

strategy implementation

Background & ResearchStrategy

Moving Forward

Appendix

5

Context & Needs 6

Income History 7

Research & Data 8

Positioning Study 31

Benchmarking 39

Background – Context & NeedsEmily Collins-Ellis and Jasmine Awad were commissioned to develop a resource mobilization strategy that

would be appropriate and implementable. During the kick-off workshop, the UNDEF team identified the

following key objectives for the strategy:

• Raising more funds to support larger and more long-term civil society projects, improve team capacity,

and increase UNDEF’s presence in the field.

• Understanding the ‘lowest hanging fruit’ donors to secure quick wins and bolster the portfolio.

• Expanding UNDEF’s pool of donors, and bringing back lapsed donors where possible and appropriate.

• Encouraging larger donations, and increasing donors’ multi-year commitments.

• Appropriately raising UNDEF’s profile within the UN system and increasing global ‘brand’ awareness.

• Achieving resource mobilization success even with limited team capacity.

• Strategically assessing where additional investment might be needed within UNDEF.

6

Background – Income History

7

Below is a snapshot of UNDEF’s income since its inception in 2005, showing a clear downward trend, and bi-annual peaks for the last 6 years:

$-

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Research & Data – MethodologyUsing our expertise and network in the donor world and a variety of international data sources, we have

selected key information relevant to UNDEF’s resource mobilization ambitions, to inform this strategy.

Our criteria for inclusion was:

• Well established, evidence-based reports on global philanthropy and government funding.

• Democracy, and SDG-focused funding reports.

• Input from individuals with a depth of experience in high-level fundraising and philanthropy.

• Input from individuals with a wealth of knowledge in the democracy, human rights, & civil society space.

• Data from comparable organizations in terms of funding, cause area, size and reach.

• General data on global wealth and giving.

A full list of sources is included in the references section in the Appendix.

8

Research & Data – Focus AreasThis section is a summary of the main research and publicly available data and information that were used to

inform our key recommendations. The slides that follow are complemented by additional materials included in

the Appendix at the end of this document. In this section we discuss:

• ODA: government funding trends, top DAC funders and funding to multilaterals.

• Philanthropic flows: private philanthropy giving trends, top private funders, funding to multilaterals,

approaches and partnerships.

• Spotlights: UN Philanthrolateralism and the UNDP-DPPA program .

• Democracy funding: thematic areas, funding trends and top funders in the sector.

9

ODA – General TrendsThe amount and focus of Official Development Assistance (ODA) allocated by Development Assistance

Committee (DAC) members each year is a key indicator of government funding priorities and trends, and

depends on both internal and external factors. Key trends in the sector include:

• Overall contribution decreasing: net ODA flows decreased in 2017 ($147.2 billion) and 2018

($143.2 billion).

• Responsive priorities: half of DAC members have updated their development cooperation policies and

strategies since 2017 to address global challenges and simultaneously serve national interests.

• Decentralisation: ODA budgets are managed across several government departments and agencies,

which increases the pool of expertise available, but also coordination and coherence challenges.

• Bilateral vs. multilateral funding: governments are increasingly funding multilateral and global

entities to address global challenges and public goods, with the goals of achieving scale and reducing

transaction costs.

• Cause areas: whilst philanthropic foundations focused on health and reproductive health, ODA focused

significantly on government and civil society (27% of ODA through social infrastructure & services).

10 Source: OECD (2019a).

ODA – Top FundersIn 2017 and 2018, only seven countries

met the UN target to provide 0.7% of

gross national income (GNI) as ODA. While

several reviews have reported DAC

members’ intentions to increase their ODA

budgets to 0.33-0.7% of GNI, no member

has published a plan to reach their

respective target by 2030.

For 12 DAC members, ODA in 2018 was

lower than in 2017. In Japan and the

United States, the fall in ODA reflects cuts

in their funding to the multilateral system.

11 Source: OECD (2019a).

ODA – Funding to MultilateralsDAC countries place strong importance on multilateral organizations to foster development globally. In 2016,

$63 billion, or 41% of total ODA, was channelled to multilaterals. However, global trends, constraints,

challenges, and opportunities are shaping governments’ priorities and alignment when it comes to giving to

multilaterals:

• Earmarked funding: is becoming more common ($21 billion in 2016, double the 2007 level). Its growth

accelerated after 2013, due to the humanitarian funding increase (43% of earmarked funding in 2016).

• Trust risk: donor resources to multilaterals could potentially decrease due to an increased mistrust in

multilateralism. Political developments are leading some governments to pursue policy goals through

unilateral or ad hoc measures, rather than working together.

• Limited resources: institutions that rely on sovereign states and philanthropy have experienced slow

increases in resources. These include UN entities and vertical funds with a grants-in-grants-out model.

• Meta-multilateralism: multilaterals are becoming increasingly important funders to other multilateral

institutions. For instance, in 2016 the EU accounted for almost 10% of all funding to the UN

development system and 5% of funding to The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

12 Source: OECD (2018a).

ODA – Country Decision MakingThe following table refers to the main agencies providing

ODA in the main DAC countries in the period 2013-16.*

Although the responsibility for allocations to multilaterals

generally rests with the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry

of Foreign Affairs, several other ministries and institutions

do extend funding to multilateral organizations. For DAC

countries, this number averages 7, but in some cases it

reaches 15 ministries/institutions (e.g. Spain):

• Pros: receiving funding from multiple entities

provides expertise and resources from a range of

partners.

• Cons: uncoordinated funding from many different

donors can reduce overall coherence and strategic

focus, resulting in weaker partnerships.

13*Note: a more detailed table is provided in the Appendix.

Source: OECD (2018c).

Agencies providing the

largest % of ODADAC Members

Ministry of FinanceAustria, Czech Republic, Greece,

South Korea, Poland, Slovak

Republic, Slovenia

Ministry of Foreign

Affairs

Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Japan,

Luxembourg, Netherlands, New

Zealand, Norway, Poland, Slovak

Republic, Sweden

Ministry for Economic

Cooperation and

Development

Germany (GIZ), Italy (AICS), Spain

(AECID), Sweden (SIDA), Switzerland

(SDC), UK (DFID), US (USAID),

Canada (Global Affairs Canada),

Belgium (ENABEL)

Central Government or

other departments

Portugal, Australia, Japan, Italy,

Ireland, US (Dept of Treasury), Spain

(Ministry of Public Administration),

Hungary (Ministry for National

Economy, EU (EC, European

Investment Bank)

Philanthropic Flows – General TrendsPhilanthropic giving remains relatively small compared to ODA and financing for development. However, some

of the largest foundations in the world have already become major partners to international organizations

working in specific issue areas:

• In 2013-15 (last available data), private philanthropy for international development amounted to $23.9

billion ($7.96 billion per year on average).

• Foundations based in emerging countries mainly operate domestically through grant making to

institutional intermediaries (71% of all domestic giving).

• 74% of foundations’ giving in 2013-15 supported activities in social infrastructure and services, such as

health, education, human rights and social protection.

• Foundations allocated 73% of giving to social infrastructure and services, a share twice as high as that

contributed by ODA (37%).

• Arab philanthropists, donors, and foundations are increasingly interested in the potential of social

enterprises to help youth consolidate or acquire entrepreneurial skills.

14 Source: OECD (2018b).

Philanthropic Flows – Top Funders74% of global philanthropic giving for

international development originated

from foundations based in the US:

• The Gates Foundation provides

49% of total philanthropic giving

from US-based foundations.

• Other top originating countries

after the US are the UK (7%), the

Netherlands (5%), Switzerland

(2%), Canada (2%) and the UAE

(2%).

15 Source: OECD (2018b).

Philanthropic Flows – MultilateralsAccording to OECD data, 97% of philanthropic giving is implemented through intermediary institutions:

• Funding to intermediaries: in the period 2013-15, 50% of foundation funding was directed to NGOs,

civil society, PPPs, networks and for-profit private sector, whilst 19% went to multilateral organizations,

with $4.4 billion transferred.

• Top funders: in the same period, 94% of funds were provided by 5 foundations alone, the Gates

Foundation (82%), IKEA Foundation (6%), CIFF (3%), Dutch Postcode Lottery (2%) and MasterCard

Foundation (1%).

• Funding to the UN: the UN system is the main beneficiary of philanthropic support to multilateral

organizations (47% of the multilateral total), in particular through WHO, UNICEF and UNHCR. 40% of

total giving to multilaterals was provided solely to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and 8% went to The World

Bank Group.

• Earmarked funding: most philanthropic funds channelled through intermediary institutions took the

form of earmarked funding for specific purposes (81%).

• SDG funding: 59% of foundations surveyed claim to align their projects to the SDGs.

16 Source: OECD (2018b).

Philanthropic Flows – ApproachesPhilanthropy has been undergoing a paradigm shift in the last few years, focusing on more strategic

approaches to giving. Key trends in the sector include:

17 Source: OECD (2018b), Forbes (2016), Bridgespan (2019).

Venture Philanthropy Big BetsSystems Change

A long-term approach to

funding that enables

foundations to test a model and

bring it to scale, if successful. It

involves blending several

financial instruments (grants,

loans, guarantees, etc.), and

building partnerships with

organizations able to deliver

impact. These groups include

NGOs, social enterprises, public

and private sectors.

These are especially popular

among large US foundations.

The big bet approach dedicates

a significant philanthropic

investment of $10 million+ to

solving a social problem in a

limited timeframe, generally by

supporting a single

organization. Large donations

are usually preceded by smaller,

‘get-to-know-you’ grants.

To optimise the ecosystem of

change, foundations want to

have a clearer understanding of

their role in the system and

where their resources and

expertise best fit local needs. As

their single approach is not

enough to affect systems

change, they look to partner

with other organizations to

tackle intersecting issues

simultaneously.

Philanthropic Flows – Partnerships Public-private partnerships (PPPs) have been growing in popularity since the launch of the SDGs in 2015,

bringing together national governments, civil society, the private sector and other actors. Key trends include:

• 32% of foundations fund and partner with intergovernmental organizations, usually by contributing

resources to donors’ program s or co-developing joint projects to leverage their own investments.

• Foundations perceive several benefits of working with others in the donor community, as collaborations

bring initiatives to scale, allow for risk-sharing and increased funding.

18

• Alliances can be difficult to build,

manage, and maintain, and several

partnerships have struggled when

organizational values are not

aligned, or governance structures

become complicated.

• The chart lists the main drivers for

foundations to engage with

government agencies.

Sources: OECD netFWD (2019), OECD (2018b).

Philanthropic Flows – PartnershipsWhen it comes to PPPs, there are several examples UNDEF could further examine to extract learnings that may help shape its future development and growth. In 2013 (using the most recent available analysed data source), specified voluntary contributions from foundations, corporations and civil society to the UN system amounted to about $3.3 billion, or 14% of all specified voluntary contributions to the UN system.

• The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria has, in partnership with public (e.g. PEPFAR) and private (e.g. Gates Foundation) organizations, raised $37.3 billion, 95% of which is from governments.

• The German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) worked with 60 foundations between 2005 and 2013.

• The French Development Agency (AFD) and the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs have developed bilateral agreements with the Gates Foundation and the Aga Khan Foundation.

• DFID works with smaller foundations on a practical level, but also with some large foundations. It has a strong relationship with the Gates Foundation on several projects and program s in the health, agriculture, financial services and sanitation sectors.

• The World Bank Group partners with more than 100 foundations on initiatives ranging from tuberculosis treatment to preserving the Amazon. Foundations contributed $1 billion (about 2% of the total budget) to World Bank-managed trust funds between 2008 and 2013.

19 Sources: Global Policy (2017), OECD netFWD (2019), OECD (2018b).

The Joint UNDP-DPPA program (JP) on Building National Capacities for Conflict Prevention is a signature cross-

pillar initiative created to enhance UN support on conflict prevention and sustaining peace. The JP operates a

‘pooled funding’ modality, where UNDP and DPPA are both responsible for its resource mobilization. This

successful model is based on a well-designed strategic plan that includes:

• Partner engagement: efforts to increase its partner engagement and donor base, translated into an

income increase from $4,5 million in 2016 to $18 million in 2018.

• Target setting: based on the agreed results framework and the jointly agreed goals of the program ,

several of the eight existing partners of the JP intend to increase their funding.

• Events: to gain additional support from new donors, the JP organises regular partner events that help

raise its profile to the attention of member states, bilateral visits and policy dialogues.

• Leveraging partners: the JP relies on current partners to advocate for the program among other

member states and increase interest among a wider set of possible partners.

• Thought Leadership: the JP is widely recognised for providing thought leadership on conflict

prevention and is considered a unique example of how the political and development pillars of the UN

can successfully work together in pursuit of preventing violent conflict and sustaining peace.

Spotlight – UNDP-DPPA Program

20 Sources: UNDP-DPPA (2018), UNDP (2019).

SDG 5 - Women’s

empowerment

and gender

equality

Community

activism

Rule of law and

human rights

Youth

engagement &

economic

empowerment

Support for

electoral

processes

Strengthening

civil society

interaction with

Government

Tools for

knowledge

Media and

freedom of

information

SDG 16 - Peace,

Justice & Strong

Institutions

Defining Democracy – UNDEFWhilst the priority theme for UNDEF’s Round 14 of funding is media and freedom of information, in the past

other priority themes have included gender equality; rule of law and human rights; electoral processes; and

pluralism, diversity, inclusion. Below is a list of the areas we’ve considered in our research, to reflect UNDEF’s

thematic areas, and also the SDGs, whilst also seeking to align these (in terms of language, and intersecting

funding) with the themes prioritized by donors in the sector:

21

Human Rights

Gender Equality

Youth Empowerment

Democratic Participation &

Free Media

Transparency & Anti-

Corruption

Security & Conflict Prevention

Defining Democracy – ThemesWe have identified six intersectional areas as the main

cross-cutting themes in the funding for democracy

space. The additional slides included in the Appendix

deep-dive into each focus area to identify which

elements of democracy are the most and least funded,

and where both governments and private funders tend

to invest the most resources.

It is important to note the limitations of the available

data on global philanthropy. As Democracy is a broad

and fragmented landscape, research often involves

stitching together data gathered from different sources,

with different methodologies, and collected at different

times – which can create a fabric with some holes and

discontinuities.

22

Democracy Funding – Overview (1)Whilst the Appendix provides more in-depth data and research into the key trends in the democracy funding

space and its cross-cutting themes, a brief summary of our key takeaways is provided below:

• Private philanthropy: in the period 2013-15, foundations’ giving in this area was $1.7 billion (i.e. 7% of

total giving, and 4th largest sector for philanthropic giving). If excluding the Gates Foundation’s giving,

government and civil society was the 3rd most important sector.

• Most funded areas: support to human rights was evenly distributed among regions and accounted for

the largest share (36%) of government and civil society activities, followed by democratic participation,

civil society development and free flow of information (18%).

• Gender equality: Support to women’s equality organizations and institutions, together with support to

ending violence against women and girls, accounted for 15% of total giving in this sector.

• Geographic focus: Giving for conflict-related activities, support to women’s equality organizations and

institutions, as well as to ending violence against women and girls, mainly targeted Africa and Asia

(particularly Uganda, South Africa and India).

23 Source: OECD (2018b).

Democracy Funding – Overview (2)• Most funded regions: with a share of 26% of the sector total, Africa was the main beneficiary region,

followed by Asia (19%), Latin America (15%) and Europe (4%). Around 35% had a global or multi-regional

scope (e.g. global human rights, global human trafficking, etc.).

• Top funders: philanthropic giving for government and civil society originated predominantly from the US

(70%) and Europe (28%, mainly the Netherlands, Switzerland and United Kingdom).

24

• Top US funders: The main US-based

foundations supporting this sector were the

Ford Foundation (20% of total), followed by

the Open Society Foundations (11%) and

Hewlett Foundation (10%).

• Top European funders: the most

significant European private funders of

these activities were the Oak Foundation

(6%), Dutch Postcode Lottery (6%) and

Sigrid Rausing Trust (5%).

Source: OECD (2018b).

Spotlight – EU Funding to Democracy13% of total EU development aid is granted to actions supporting government and civil society, while a smaller

percentage supports securing peace. The EU is also committed to respecting the principles of multilateralism,

international law and the UN Charter, with a focus on SDG Goal 16:

25 Source: EPRS (2019).

• The support of EU citizens for even stronger EU

involvement in support for democracy and peace grew

from 68 % in 2016 to 73 % in 2018.

• The strongest support for increased EU action is registered

in Cyprus (92%) and France (85%), whilst the weakest

support is seen in Bulgaria (49%) and Austria (51%). The

most significant increase was recorded in Romania (+14%)

and Poland (+13%).

• The EU is strongly committed to multilateral action, but as

other major powers sometimes favours unilateral action.

• The following chart shows the EU development aid for

government and civil society by sectors (2014-2016).

Spotlight – EU Funding to DemocracyBesides the European Commission, the main program s aimed at promoting democracy in the EU are:

26

• The smallest EU external financing instrument, with a €1.33 billion budget over the 2014-2020 period. 25% of its

funds are reserved for election assistance, and the rest are dedicated mainly to financing civil society

organizations and helping human rights defenders at risk.

European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)

• Its total in the 2014-2020 period amounts to €15.43 billion. It focuses on promoting human rights and the rule

of law, sustainable democracy & developing a thriving civil society.

European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI)

• The main financial instrument in the EU budget for funding aid to developing countries, with a €19.66 billion

budget over the 2014-2020 period. Its geographical program s must spend at least 15% of their allocated funds

on human rights, democracy and good governance.

Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI)

• The IcSP budget for 2014-20 is €2.339 billion. Technical and financial aid under this instrument focuses on 3

priorities: swift response to crises or to emerging crises to prevent political conflicts; conflict prevention and

crisis preparedness; and addressing global threats.

Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP)

Source: EPRS (2019), Eur-Lex (2018).

Democracy as a Priority – CountriesIn 2016, the most recent year for which data is available, the top donors to the democracy space (particularly government and civil society), as a percentage of their multilateral development aid were:

27 Source: OECD (2018c).

Top Democracy Funders – Philanthropy Since 2013, the top philanthropy funders in terms of total giving in the democracy space are:

28 Source: OECD (2018b), SDG Funders (2016).

Summary – ODA & Philanthropic FlowsBoth ODA and philanthropy are evolving, and the opportunities and challenges discovered from this research

will be addressed throughout the strategy section:

• Decreasing ODA contributions: overall, net ODA flows decreased in 2017 ($147.2 billion) and 2018

($143.2 billion).

• Limited resources: institutions that rely on sovereign states and philanthropy have experienced slow

increases in resources. These include UN entities and vertical funds with a grants-in-grants-out model.

• Multilaterals’ funding: in 2016, $63 billion, or 41% of total ODA, was given to multilaterals.

• Philanthropy: 97% of major donations from individuals go to foundations / grant makers, and 81% of

these funds are restricted for specific purposes. 75% of global philanthropic giving is originated from

foundations based in the US.

• ODA vs philanthropy: philanthropic giving remains relatively small compared to ODA. While

philanthropic foundations focus on health and reproductive health, ODA focuses significantly on

government and civil society issues (27% of ODA goes to social infrastructure and services).

29 Sources: OECD (2019), OECD netFWD (2019), OECD (2018a), OECD (2018b).

Summary – Funding to DemocracyAs democracy is a broad area made of several intersecting issues, funding data and trends are fragmented.

However, key elements from the research on democracy funding for UNDEF to note are:

• Philanthropic footprint: philanthropic giving to the democracy space originates predominantly from

the US (70%) and Europe (28%, mainly the Netherlands, Switzerland and United Kingdom).

• Most viable issues: ‘Human Rights’, ’Democratic Participation and Free Flow of information’, and

‘Women’s Empowerment’ are themes that receive the highest levels of funding from both private and

governmental bodies, and all include a strong focus on addressing Health and Education issues.

• Least viable issues: the least measurable and riskier issue areas, such as ‘Transparency and anti-

corruption’, and ‘Peace security, and conflict prevention’ have limited data available and receive little

public funder attention, making these less viable funding opportunities at present.

• Shifts in funder types: whilst governments remain the strongest prospect for funding, trusts,

foundations and corporates can be increasingly hot prospects for the sector; spending more on themes

where ODA is reducing.

• Intersecting populations: the most viable intersecting populations with democracy are women and

girls, youth, migrants and refugees, human rights defenders, and LGBTQI communities, potentially

offering alternative funding lenses that indirectly meet UNDEF’s mission.

30 Source: OECD (2018b).

Positioning StudyIn addition to exploring existing research into the context in which UNDEF is mobilising resources, we

conducted a positioning study with internal and external stakeholders. This process included a whole-team

workshop, and a series of external stakeholder interviews to solicit frank and honest feedback on UNDEF’s

brand, activities, ambitions and donor management. This section will detail:

• An internal and external SWOT analysis;

• Key differences in how internal and external stakeholders view UNDEF’s work; and

• A summary of positive and constructive feedback from external stakeholders.

31

Internal SWOT Analysis

Strengths Weaknesses

• Long-standing donors have stayed with UNDEF

• Democracy is a ‘hot topic’ and part of UNDEF’s name

• Stands out from the crowd - only one working with CSOs

• Board is small, nimble, efficient, and has low overheads

• Has SDG recognition, UN brand’s neutrality and credibility

• Creates safe space for debates on democratic ideals

• Donor oversight of funding and knowledge sharing

• Has a New York base, and M&E quality

• Is over reliant on a small pool

• Is perceived differently to other UN bodies

• Dealing with sensitive topics/democracy is not ‘sexy’

• Team’s time is limited

• Board offering has limitations

• Low brand awareness and presence on field

Opportunities Threats

• Expansion to private sector and collaboration with tech

companies and foundations

• Making democracy ‘sexy’

• Having a more systematized comms strategy, thematic

engagement and diversity

• The exclusivity of UNDEF’s board can be attractive

• Competitors (e.g. EU Endowment for Democracy,

Peacebuilding, UNDP, EU, UN Women, EIHR)

• Reducing funding from governments

• Resistance from non-state donors

• Competing issue areas & misconceptions about UN

bodies

• Reporting requirements are demanding

32

The SWOT analysis from our kick-off workshop with the UNDEF team highlighted the following:

External SWOT Analysis

33

External stakeholders were also asked to suggest strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for UNDEF based on their experience of working with the organization, or their perceptions:

Strengths Weaknesses

• UNDEF is a leader in the field, and a statement

demonstrating that democracy is a UN priority

• Small, flexible and dynamic (financially and as an

organization, with very skilled and effective staff)

• As a UN entity has more objectivity and neutrality than

single countries, where politics comes into place

• Cross-regional and inclusive board

• With a small Secretariat, it doesn’t have a lot of capacity

to work on internal management

• Small size means that it can’t reach out to everyone

• Most of its projects are short-term

• Although they are fair, processes take a long time

• Limited time of board members

Opportunities Threats

• Results can be used more as communications materials

• More donors and grantees involvement for resource

mobilization

• More Multi-Year pledges by donor countries

• More events and outreach/engagement opportunities

• Attracting risk-averse private philanthropy

• Governments may decline to accept projects proposed in

their countries

• High dependency on Member Countries

• Donors don’t always give for specific reasons / grants

don’t always reflect a government’s strategy

• Private philanthropy can be hard to engage

Interviewees – UNDEF’s Unique ValueWhen asked what the unique value of UNDEF is, external stakeholders’ responses included the following common themes, indicating the elements of work that should be highlighted in donor messaging:

34

Independence

• Being a UN, neutral and

independent body

• Less political than sovereign

countries

• Supporting independence at the

grassroot level

Expertise

• Having a small but efficient and

competent team

• Working with the right partners on

the field

• Bringing value to the table

through its work

Positioning

• Being the only UN entity focusing

exclusively on democracy

• Global reach

• Supporting several issues at the

grassroot level

• Doing projects that do not

politicise or polarise

Interviewees – Challenges in the SpaceThere are several challenges when it comes to mobilising resources in the democracy space. Interviewees highlighted some of the issues that affect global organizations such as UNDEF:

• Democracy is a sensitive topic, and very political.

• Democracy is very difficult to measure and cannot be put down in the traditional impact measuring boxes, which has implications for reporting methods.

• Supporting democracy requires a fairly high risk-taking attitude.

• Members of the UN define democracy very differently.

• Democracy takes a long time to sustain, and it is not sustained enough anywhere.

• It is hard to support democracy in a holistic way.

• It is hard for governments to pick the most impactful program s to support.

• The political climate and financial crisis have diverted countries’ interests and priorities to other areas (e.g. national security, trade relations, digital space).

• The available funds are very limited and earmarked funding is becoming increasingly common - a reflection of the pressure of wanting to constantly document results.

• Money needs to be flexible in order to support controversial issues, but it rarely is.

35

Interviewees – Donor MotivationsThere are several reasons why donors decide to fund - or not fund – democracy and CSOs. The most resounding ones amongst the stakeholders we interviewed are:

36

Political climate and

humanitarian emergencies

dictating priorities

Security-based

motivations (e.g. ‘threat’ of

neighbouring countries)

Historical imperative to

show commitment to

democracy

Desire to share the

country’s experience of

development in the context

of democracy

Commitment to CSO

approaches without the in-

country capacity to

implement them

Strategic desire to support

CSOs and democracy work

that underpins success in

the contributions they make

to intersecting issues and

initiatives

Interviewees – What Funders Want

37

Interviewees were asked what they would like to see more of from UNDEF, and the most useful and common

responses included:

• Creating opportunities for Member States to add value by sharing their experience of democracy.

• Partnering with academic institutions to aggregate its impact data and share learnings from the

experiences in certain areas (e.g. freedom of expression, gender equality).

• Shouting more about results and using it for communications purposes to attract more funding.

• Creating opportunities for donors to speak at events, and leveraging them for resource mobilization

purposes.

• Encouraging Members to share their opinion about UNDEF’s work and strategy.

• Defining core needs and ambitions, and tailoring UNDEF’s resource mobilization strategy accordingly.

• Increasing its impact by increasing the number of projects supported globally.

• Removing host countries’ veto power (although immediately recognised it is impossible).

• Reducing the scope of its funding, but extending its work to some other key countries.

• Adapting to current political context, and partnering to determine the right tools for intervention.

Interviewees – Comparable OrgsFinally, external stakeholders were asked to suggest organizations that were most similar to UNDEF. The

majority of the respondents were not able to name any international organization or UN body that could be

directly comparable to UNDEF. However, a number of key international players that - to a certain extent – do

similar or complementary work include:

38

European Union

Sovereign

Countries

(Bilateral

Funding)

UN

Peacebuilding

Fund

BenchmarkingIn order to understand what is possible – and advisable – for UNDEF’s future resource mobilization strategy, we

benchmarked the income, resource mobilization approach, resourcing and messaging of three analogous

organizations. Our criteria for analogous organizations to explore were:

• Aspirational resource mobilization approaches – having successfully mobilised resources to ensure

the sustainability of a multilateral, public-private partnership or member organization.

• Programmatic area or model of operation – working in the democracy space or an intersecting cause

area, or having an international scope in a comparable field.

• Avenues of support – involving donors in a variety of ways to widen income generation opportunities

from different audiences, including governments, but also private donors.

Based on these criteria, and an exploration of a long-list of potential organizations, we chose to benchmark:

39

The Global Fund – At A GlanceThe Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis & Malaria is a large funding mechanism working to accelerate the

end of these three epidemics. Created in 2002, it has succeeded in diversifying away from its government-

funded roots and created a successful private sector engagement campaign:

• Raises and invests funding in three-year cycles.

• 93% of total funding comes from governments, with $14 billion pledged in most recent funding cycle.

• In 2014, decided to diversify income generation to engage the private sector, private foundations and

innovative financing initiatives with a $1 billion target over 6 years. As of July 2019, private sector and

nongovernment partners have contributed over $2.7 billion.

• Has secured matched funding from a large, global anchor donor (Gates Foundation) to incentivise new

donors to make significant investments.

• Has very strong ‘partnership’ and ‘investment’ language for donors, and a a sense of urgency in their

messaging – ‘ending the diseases in our lifetime’.

• Has faced widespread perception that it is fully funded by governments, and does not need additional

money.

40

Global Fund – Donor ChoiceThe Global Fund commissions work on a

vast scale, and faces the challenge of giving

donors a choice of funding opportunity

without opening itself up to restriction. To

do this, it:

• Creates ‘cross cutting’ themes that

allow donors to feel they are tailoring

their gifts, whilst leaving the resulting

category relatively wide for the

program team to deliver projects.

• Provides donors with themed

opportunities closely linked to their

related interests (e.g. women and girls,

or specific geographies).

• Creates bespoke reporting within each

thematic area.

41

Global Fund – Donor InvolvementThe organization provides donors with multiple routes for involvement, as detailed here. In practice, all of these routes lead into donor cultivation processes, but the ask feels softer and donors feel more valued by having lighter-touch ways to get involved.

Alongside these, it also provides short-term, realistic goals (alongside the big goals of ‘end the diseases’) to allow donors to feel responsible for ‘quick wins’ whilst they are involved.

Donors who have a high profile, such as business leaders and people working in entertainment, are often leveraged to build donor relationships and networks.

42

Global Fund – Governments

• More than 60 countries have made

contributions to the Fund.

• Donor countries are represented on the

Global Fund Board.

• Of the 20 Board constituencies with voting

rights, 8 represent donor governments.

• Donor governments often participate in the

decision-making process at the country

level through involvement in Country

Coordinating Mechanisms.

• Public donors’ contributions cannot be

earmarked for specific countries or

program s.

43

The majority of the Global Fund’s financial support comes from governments:

Global Fund – Leverage & EgoThe Global Fund is one of the biggest recipients of government and Gates Foundation funding, which at times

can be a disadvantage for private sector fundraising, as most donors feel they do not need more money, or that

their donation will be insignificant. To combat this, The Global Fund:

• Asked its biggest donors to provide matched funding for private sector givers, meaning private donors

would have their gifts doubled (this included $100m for the UK’s ‘private sector malaria matching

challenge’, and $100m to unlock other private sector contributions from Gates alone, which was an

additional gift from it).

• Leveraged its existing income to commit to directly delivering 100% of private sector gifts toward

program s, covering overheads with other sources.

• Branded its private sector campaign completely differently to its main brand – focussed on providing a

business-like, investment feel.

• Created its private sector campaign around the potential for targeted private investment to ‘move the

needle’ on issues that governments were making slow progress on – framing private donors as the

ultimate solution.

44

World Bank – At a GlanceFounded in 1944, the World Bank provides financing, advice, and research to developing nations to aid their economic advancement. It is formed of two institutions, the IBRD and the IDA, and it is a component of the wider World Bank Group, which also comprises the IFC, the MIGA and the ICSID.

In 2019, the World Bank Group supported multiregional and global projects around the world for a total of $62.3 billion.

Even though the World Bank is not at all similar to UNDEF when it comes to size and remit, we identified and highlighted a few key elements of its resource mobilization strategy which may be of particular interest for the UNDEF team.

45

World Bank

Group

World Bank

IBRD

Int. Bank for

Reconstruction

and Development

IDA

International

Development

Association

IFC

Int. Finance

Corporation

MIGA

Multilateral

Investment

Guarantee Agency

ICSID

Int. Centre for

Settlement of

Investment

Disputes

World Bank – GovernanceThe organizations that make up the World Bank Group are owned by the governments of member nations, which have the ultimate decision-making power on policy, financial or membership issues.

• Member countries govern the World Bank Group through the Boards of Governors and the Boards of Executive Directors, which make all major decisions for the organizations.

• To become a member of the Bank, countries must first join the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

• In tandem with the IMF, and in consultation with other World Bank Group staff, the Corporate Secretariat Vice Presidency coordinates the process for new membership and maintains the information relating to the status of membership, which includes the membership lists.

• The voting power of each Member country is based on the number of shares it holds. These are allocated differently in each organization, resulting in different voting powers.

• At the IBRD, each member receives votes consisting of share votes (one vote for each share of the Bank's capital stock held by the member) plus basic votes.

• At the IDA, each member receives the votes according to the rules established in each IDA replenishment resolution. These consist of subscription votes and membership votes.

46

World Bank – Resource MobilizationThe World Bank collaborates with and receives funding from several international partners, both traditional and non-traditional, formal and informal. The following groups were the focus of its 2019 partnerships:

47

Philanthropy and the Private Sector

There is an increased focus on partnering with non-traditional

actors, including foundations, new philanthropists, impact

investors, and social entrepreneurs who finance and harness

innovation and bring their expertise to the table.

Parliamentarians

The Global Young Member of Parliament Initiative brings

together young legislators to share best practices and policy

solutions to challenges affecting younger generations. An

independent platform is also used for engagement with

legislators and influential parliamentarians.

Community Connections

The Community Connections program helps staff to engage

their communities through corporate philanthropy,

volunteerism, in-kind donations, and an internship program

for high school students. In 2018, the program contributed

over $9m to NGOs, with over $4m of it donated by staff.

Trust Funds

Trust funds are vehicles used to manage funds contributed by

development partners for specific development activities and

administered by the World Bank. Its 500 trust funds

complement IDA and IBRD financing and account for about

10% of the Bank’s disbursements.

Source: World Bank Website.

World Bank – ContributorsTotal contributions received each year by the

IBRD and IDA trust fund come from several

sources:

• Sovereign governments are the largest

contributors accounting for 76% of

income in 2017 ($2.1 billion).

• Intergovernmental institutions

contributed 19% ($0.5 billion), with the EU

accounting for 83%t of it.

• Private non-profit entities donated 3%

($90 million), with the Gates Foundation

accounting for 48% of it.

48 Source: Worlsd Bank Report (2017).

World Bank – StrategyIn the period 2013–2017, the World Bank focused on improving strategic oversight and management of the

entire ‘Trust Fund Lifecycle’ (from fundraising to closure) by implementing the following measures:

• Consistency: encouraged the development of umbrella facilities, i.e. multi-donor and multi-recipient

trust funds that support a set of clear strategic priorities.

• Simplification: standardised the trust fund business processes, such as grant funding requests.

• Transaction costs reduction: introduced a new standardised cost recovery framework for the IBRD and

IDA trust funds and across the portfolio to reduce transaction costs.

• Reporting to donors: created an Administration Agreement template with 16 of its largest donors

(cumulatively providing 90% of resources), including standard provisions on disclosure of information

and communication on fiduciary issues.

• Strategic alignment: strengthened oversight of trust funds by instituting early disclosure and

transparency around resource mobilization to facilitate better cross-institutional coordination and

decision making around fundraising.

49 Source: Worlsd Bank Report (2017).

UN Women – At A GlanceFounded in 2010, UN Women is the UN entity dedicated to gender equality and the empowerment of women. Of all the UN bodies, UN Women is the one that is the most comparable to UNDEF, both for the scope of its work as well as from a structural and organizational point of view.

• It is an independent entity. 98% of total budget is funded from voluntary contributions, whilst normative intergovernmental processes (2%) are funded from the UN regular budget.

50 Source: UN Women (2018).

• Founded during hard financial and economic times, when contributions from donors and ODA budgets were generally shrinking, its growth to date has been relatively slow.

• In 2018, UN Women achieved its highest level of revenue to date, totalling $404.7 million, an increase of 7% over 2017. The top 20 partners provided $318.7 million (81% of total).

• In 2018, the top five resource partners, by order of their contribution, were Sweden, the United Kingdom, Norway, Japan and the Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office.

UN Women – Funding SourcesWhilst the majority (75%) of its funding comes from government and intergovernmental organizations (e.g. the European Commission), the remaining 25% is funded by other traditional and non-traditional sources:

• Interorganizational arrangements (13%) include UN system agencies like the Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office, UNDP, and the UN Peacebuilding Fund in particular. In 2018, funding by these partners increased by 21% compared to 2017, a direct result of UN Women’s focus on mainstreaming gender equality in all UN activities and programming in general.

51

• The private sector (5%) includes contributions from corporations, foundations, individuals and National Committees.

• Other donors (2%) include revenue from subnational governments, NGOs, academia, etc.

• Other revenue (3%) includes revenue from investment income and exchange transactions.

UN Women – Strategic PlanUN Women’s Strategic Plan 2018–2021 outlines priorities and provides strategic direction, tools, and estimated resources to achieve significant results in alignment with the 2030 Development Agenda.

52

Gender equality’s intersectional themes

Capitalising on the growing attention to the importance of

gender equality and women’s empowerment and of proper

resourcing for the achievement of sustainable development,

peace and security and human rights.

Predictability of resources

Focussing on widening and deepening its donor base to

increase the predictability of resources. Widening the donor

base also helps expand political support and raise

awareness about UN Women’s mandate across a broader

constituency.

Countries engagement

Working with all donors and engaging traditional and

emerging Member States, whether through symbolic

contributions, or by increasing the predictability of funding

through multi-year pledges.

Private sector partnerships

Strengthening and expanding partnerships with

foundations and the private sector tapping into their

multinational presence through collaboration at the country,

regional, and global levels.

UN Women – Creating EfficienciesTo ensure better planning and efficiency, and the potential for scaling up successes and innovations, UN Women has been channelling its resource mobilization efforts and minimising management costs by:

• Attracting larger-scale resource contributions: 14% of the total funding for the first part of 2019 comprised contributions of at least $5 million, up from 2% in 2016.

• Creating synergies with the UN System: through its relatively high use of UN common services, such as UNDP services for benefits and entitlements, and IT services from the UN International Computing Centre.

• Harmonising the work of New York-based UN entities: identifying of over 100 long-term agreements with UN contractors to reduce the average transaction lead time by up to 20 days.

• Generating in-house efficiencies: consolidating air travel ticketing for field offices to reduce costs by 33% in 2017. The delegation of greater authority to field managers decreased procurement transactions coming to headquarters by 30%.

• Launching a change management process: rationalising regional and country office presence, decentralising capacity where needed, optimising operational support to country offices, and improving evidence-based policy and technical advisory services.

53

UN Women – Multi-Year FundingUN Women has been actively seeking to secure multi-

year funding agreements to provide flexibility and

predictability.

• In 2018, 326 funding commitments totalled

$563.3 million. Of these, 97 spanned over multiple

years, providing $432.5 million. They comprised

91 Other Resources commitments for $242.1

million and 6 Regular Resources commitments for

$190.4 million.

• Drivers of this trend were funding of higher-level

results, such as output-level Flagship

Programming Initiatives, country program

Strategic Notes, and other program s like the

Spotlight Initiative, with a strong backing of the

European Commission.

54

UN Women – TransparencyIn 2018, UN Women developed a road map to guide steady improvements in its level of transparency. It initiated its first transparency gateway, an open data portal providing comprehensive information on how UN Women uses its resources to achieve concrete results for women and girls. Its annual report provides a detailed breakdown of its expenditure and outcome for each of its focus areas.

55

UN Women – Messaging UN Women’s messaging has a sense of urgency. In order to invite key international players to support gender equality, it highlights the general disappointing funding trends across the sector:

56

“Gender equality and women’s empowerment (GEWE) are among the most

powerful investments that countries can make. They will largely define the

pace of progress across all aspects of the 2030 Agenda and its 17

Sustainable Development Goals. Yet investment still falls far short,

including through official development assistance. The financing for

gender equality and the empowerment of women by the Development

Assistance Committee of the organization for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD -DAC) […] was largely concentrated on projects where

gender equality and women’s empowerment were secondary objectives. The

OECD Development Cooperation Report 2018 recognized that […] only a

nominal amount of program s designated GEWE as a main goal,

thereby negatively impacting GEWE programming implementation.”

UN Women – Messaging Even though it is not the priority of its efforts, UN Women’s resource mobilization strategy also welcomes

smaller, individual donations. Its ‘donate’ page addresses individual donors, and provides a benchmark to put

donations into perspective, going from $10/month up to $200/month, and offering the opportunity to set up

direct debit contributions through its website:

57

Benchmarking – Summary (1)While the benchmarked organizations differ from UNDEF in many ways, there are key elements of their

resource mobilization success that paint a hopeful picture and can be learnt from:

• Longer-term sustainability: encouraging larger donations and, multi-year pledges, and/or

commitment to cycles funding in order to increase income predictability.

• Realistic targets: setting short-term goals to allow donors to feel responsible for small wins and not be

overwhelmed by the larger picture.

• Income diversification: increasingly relying on private sector donors and partners for funding, even

though governments remain the major source of funding (at least 70% of total budget, typically).

• Clear themed funding: offering the option to fund specific thematic areas, with slightly different

branding and messaging used to address private donors, as well as bespoke reporting.

• SDG framework: capitalising on the attention to a specific issue area and highlighting its importance

for the achievement of the SDGs.

• Engagement: building networks with influencers, high-profile individuals and donors to raise profile.

58

Benchmarking – Summary (2)• Young audiences: bringing together younger audiences to share best practices and policy solutions to

challenges affecting younger generations.

• Transparency: being clear on the resources that are required to address the issues at play, and

providing comprehensive information on how resources are used to achieve concrete results.

• PPP: collaborating and partnering with the private sector to gain more multinational presence.

• Non-core funding: inviting partners (especially non-traditional ones) to contribute at different levels

(e.g. resource mobilization, delivery innovation, innovative finance, and advocacy and awareness).

• Matched funding: incentivising donors to unlock more from private donors by using matched funds.

• Efficiencies: creating synergies with other organizations to optimise operational support & cut costs.

• Messaging: using direct, targeted, and appropriately urgent language to highlight disappointing

funding trends and the need for greater support.

• Reporting: co-creating templates with the largest donors to systematise disclosure of information and

communication.

59

StrategyMoving Forward

Appendix

60

Background & Research

Strategy Background 61

Strategy – Core Objectives 62

Financials 63

Prospect Pipeline 66

Recommended Prospect Audiences 68

UNDEF’s Offering 80

Strategy BackgroundWe are pleased to present the following strategic fundraising recommendations for UNDEF, drawn together

from the previously detailed background and research – as well as our expertise and sector knowledge – with

specific consideration for:

• UNDEF’s current capacity and ambitions, as well as appetite for risk and change;

• UNDEF’s team’s skills and experience in resource mobilization and business development;

• Feedback of external stakeholders, including direct advice and suggestions from funders;

• Successes and failures of comparable organizations, with regards to their brand and resource mobilization;

• Our analysis of the funding landscape, as detailed in the previous section; and

• Tried and tested resource mobilization practice in the sector, our network and with our clients.

61

Strategy – Core ObjectivesThe following strategic recommendations aim to help UNDEF grow and diversify its funding. In the initial

meeting with Emily Collins-Ellis in New York, the team identified the following core objectives for the strategy:

• Securing near-term, flexible income;

• Achieving resource mobilization success with limited team capacity;

• Increasing the quantity of donors to the Fund, and the levels of giving;

• Identifying the ‘lowest hanging fruit’ donors to secure quick wins and bolster the portfolio;

• Appropriately raising UNDEF’s profile; and

• Strategically assessing where additional investment might be needed within UNDEF.

62

Financials – Funding History

63

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

United States of America India Sweden

Germany Japan Qatar

Australia Spain France

Italy Republic of Korea Poland

Canada United Kingdom Ireland

Romania Chile Turkey

Denmark Czech Republic Portugal

Financials – Targets (Current Capacity)Setting clear financial targets is necessary to attract the funding needed by UNDEF. It is important to communicate this to funding partners so they can get a clear picture of UNDEF’s needs and priorities. The following graph maps what we believe UNDEF’s financial targets for the next three years should be if the team does not hire any additional fundraising staff:

64

Financials – ConsiderationsThe major considerations to bear in mind regarding contributions are:

• The objective is to avoid income fluctuations as much as possible, and build a solid donor base that would help make UNDEF’s income more stable and predictable over time.

• In the first year we foresee a 5 per cent increase in funding, followed by an 8 per cent increase in the second year, and a 12 per cent increase in the third year.

• The focus in 2020 should be on relationship building, meaning that most new donors would start making contributions from 2021.

• Renewing and retaining donor relationships, as well as focusing on multi-year commitments, is key.

• 2020 contributions should ideally be from donors UNDEF is already in contact with, and multi-year commitments should be encouraged, due to the reduced cultivation time.

• The ideal is multi-year pledges wherever possible, to build sustainability and scale.

• It is advisable to keep the total number of active relationships in UNDEF’s portfolio below 20, to focus on deepening relationships and to keep the pipeline manageable.

65

We have separately provided UNDEF with a prospect pipeline, which lists the details of donors we believe are

strong sources of potential funding. Key things to note are:

Opportunities

• The total estimated

value of potential

asks is $19,165,000

• The estimated

average ask is

$416,000 for

governments, and

$344,000 for trusts

and foundations

• There are a total of

49 quality

prospects

Rating

• Each prospect on

the pipeline is

rated A, B, C,

based on the level

of compatibility

with UNDEF’s

activities and their

giving potential

• We identified a

total of 29 ‘A’

prospects for

immediate

cultivation, 15 ‘B’

prospects & 5 ‘C’

prospects

Focus Areas

• The majority of

funders have

multiple focus

areas that fit with

UNDEF’s mission,

values &

ambitions

• The most popular

are Human Rights,

Gender Equality,

Democratic

Participation, and

Youth

Empowerment

Geography

•The most viable

prospects are

located in the

global North, with

some exceptions

in the Global

South

•Countries that are

located particularly

close to ‘less

democratic

regimes’ may have

a strategic interest

in funding UNDEF

History

•Countries who

have successfully

transitioned to

democracy from

an undemocratic

form an

governance may

have a moral,

political or

strategic interest in

funding UNDEF.

Prospect Pipeline – Summary

66

Prospect Pipeline – Key Audiences

67

• This is where UNDEF should prioritize most of its time and resources. Governments are the most viable source of income for

relatively small international bodies that have a greater need for unrestricted funding and large donations, and do not have the staff

capacity to manage too many relationships with smaller donors, especially when it comes to private philanthropy.

Governments (Funding)

• UNDEF has collaborated with only two Foundations in the past. We recommend developing a few more strong relationships with

Foundations that can help raise UNDEF’s profile and be an instrument for it to gain more buy-in from key international players in the

democracy space. This is a strategic exercise, and should not be considered a primary source of income, but rather a tool for UNDEF

to leverage the extra funding needed to support its projects for longer.

Foundations (Co-Funding Partnerships)

• Corporate funding requires a lot of resources to secure, which are extremely limited in smaller teams. Whilst we do not

recommend including corporations in UNDEF’s resource mobilization strategy, businesses could potentially be a great

target for events sponsorship, and allowing for greater opportunities to develop other donor relationships.

Corporations (Events Sponsorships)

Recommended Prospect AudiencesWhilst UNDEF should be proactive in identifying opportunities to access private philanthropic funding for the

issue, as well as influencing donors in intersecting spaces to prioritize it, there is no doubt that its priority

should remain government funding – the biggest opportunity for funding democratisation efforts through a

UN Trust Fund. The following section details the key information relating to each recommended prospect

audience, including some that UNDEF already engages with, and some that have new potential:

68

Audiences Priority

Governments High

Trusts & Foundations Medium

Corporate Partnerships Medium-Low

Major Donors Low

Governments – Why?The largest share of UNDEF’s existing government funding is made of contributions from a small number of

countries, many of which have been funding UNDEF since its inception in 2005. Several of the contributions

have reduced in size, and the Fund has experienced some challenges retaining some donors or securing new

ones. In addition, development agencies are facing greater scrutiny and pressure to be more ‘efficient’ and

focused, presenting the risk of budgets tightening. That said, government funding remains the most viable

option to grow UNDEF’s income. Government relationships:

• Are a great source of credibility, networks, and mutually beneficial knowledge sharing.

• Usually have separate budgets for program s, research, and leveraging private investment.

• Are quite responsive to political or economic changes, in positive and negative ways.

• Have internal and external pressure to ensure work is efficient, effective, and the right choice first time.

• Tend to be a little opaque about their priorities and their needs – but can respond to proactive agenda-

setting if it meets their objectives or makes their lives easier.

• Usually come with onerous proposals, reporting, and detail-focused accountability processes.

• Have the deepest pockets of all funder types in this space, even though they can be slow to move.

69

Governments – How?Engaging with governments for funding is, unsurprisingly, a deeply political exercise. Alongside having clear

‘asks’ and a vision they can get behind, it is also essential to:

• Strategically engage: UNDEF benefits from serious commitment by some of its top funders, and should

leverage it to engage new or lapsed donors and bring them into the conversation.

• Offer and deliver on incentives for donor countries: ensure recognition, profile and political advantage

is on the table wherever appropriate.

• Tune into their priorities and pain points: pitching UNDEF’s insight as a support for their strategic

processes, and finding ways to make their restrictive budgets more impactful.

• Facilitate collaboration and broker relationships: even where governments won’t fund UNDEF’s work

directly, many will engage with others on democracy issues and form relationships to drive progress.

• Engage at political and briefing levels: those negotiating and driving relationships at the Mission or

briefing level need to understand UNDEF’s vision before and after their political counterparts are involved.

70

Governments – ‘Hot Spots’The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy

Index profiles 167 countries scored on a scale of

0-100 based on 60 indicators.

Our prospect pipeline provides a rating tool to

prioritize cultivation efforts with governments that

are most likely to fund UNDEF. As expected, the

great majority of the prospects identified are

countries highlighted in green (score 60 and

above), which are defined as ‘full’ or ‘flawed’

democracies. This map can be a useful tool to

visually identify ‘hot spots’: democratic countries

that may have a strategic interest in funding

democracy, due to their proximity to less

democratic regimes. The two sources in the footer

can help further refine the search by selecting

several indices and filters.

71 Sources: Economist Democracy Index (2019), Idea Global State of Democracy Indices (2018).

Trusts & Foundations – Why?Whilst UNDEF has limited history of engaging private funders (two examples being the Belgiorno-Nettis

Foundation, who donated $125,000 in 2018, and Silatech, who are yet to contribute) – we believe there is

potential to build more partnerships in this area. Trusts and foundations are:

• Wealthy: often have access to large cash budgets purely for grant making in UNDEF’s focus areas.

• Transparent: compared to other private funders (e.g. corporates and major donors), they are clearer and

more upfront on the facts, figures, and monitoring required, which is useful when team capacity is tight.

• Mission-focussed: have clear mission statements and are slightly more ’altruistic’ than corporates and

major donors, also making them easier to cultivate and steward when team capacity is tight.

• Agile and driven: tend to move faster than other funders, with more appetite for risk-taking and

innovation, and looking to join forces to achieve shared visions and solve issues.

• Influential and open to influence: having big foundation donors adds credibility, and nurturing a great

relationship with them can lead to influence over their priorities and focus.

• Strategic: they look to join forces to achieve shared visions and invest in strategic ways, including early

stage ideas, systems approaches and leveraged giving, a perfect fit for any innovative program s.

72

Trusts & Foundations – How?As with any funding relationship, foundations – and the humans who run them – need to be cultivated and

stewarded carefully. The field is competitive, foundations can be idiosyncratic, and UNDEF does not formally

respond to RFPs, meaning that the Fund needs to stand out and fit with each donor’s needs and preferences,

whilst taking a less traditional approach to partnering. Approaches to foundations should:

• Focus on strategic engagement by involving them in multidisciplinary conversations. Solicit their advice,

seek to understand their plans and objectives, invite them to sit around the table on democracy issues.

• Be framed as ‘co-created’ investments, rather than simply ask for funds. Relationship building should

be about finding common ground and developing a plan to achieve shared missions.

• Focus on giving to specific issues or cross-cutting themes, with multi-year asks wherever possible.

• Take time to develop relationships without an immediate ‘ask’, alongside the 2020 focus on

governments.

• Capitalise on trends and shifts in focus, particularly around SDG moments and democracy forums.

• Promote UNDEF’s unique connections in various geographies and examples of impact – UNDEF is a

donor, and can leverage more expertise and insight on democracy than any other organization.

• Ensure cultivation happens at multiple levels and in multiple teams, to ensure sustainability.

73

Trusts & Foundations – Who?Our research shows a significant number of large and medium players focus on democracy and other cross-

cutting themes in the context of global development, and some initial examples of potential private sector

partners include:

74

.

Corporate Funding – Why Not?Historically, UNDEF has not received any funding from corporates. Following our sector research and interviews with stakeholders operating in the same space, we believe UNDEF should not prioritize its efforts trying to mobilise resources from this audience in this area. These are some of the most common misconceptions about companies:

Companies give to the

causes they say they

do

Overwhelmingly,

corporate initiatives

come as a result of a

personal connection. If

there’s not a corporate

foundation involved,

their stated focus areas

may just be a

communications exercise.

Great causes & strong

impact are enough

Companies are

bombarded with

requests for funds and

partnership; everyone

has a great cause that

needs support.

Companies can be

large cash donors

Cash giving from most

companies is lower than

you might think; the best

partnerships figure out

how to use a company’s

other assets, and target

budgets that are not just

CSR.

Companies care about

social impact

Some do – but the best

way to build a

sustainable relationship

is to think about the

impacts on their business

too.

Corporate Sponsorship – How?Misconceptions aside, corporate partnerships can add a lot of value if managed in the right way. While we

believe corporates should not be cultivated for grants, UNDEF can still develop creative and meaningful

partnerships that will help raise its profile (e.g. events sponsorship). The best corporate approaches have these

key elements:

• Shared-value: asks should be tailored to their corporate mission and values, as well as any of the key

challenges / ambitions explored in the cultivation stage, which may help them to meet their objectives.

• Comms assets: companies will want to tell the story of the partnership, as this has a benefit for their

business; this requires high quality comms materials, impact statements and human-centred stories.

• Engagement: partnerships should engage staff and stakeholders wherever possible (e.g. use their

networks, make their customers happy, help them be more efficient, engage their teams, use their

expertise).

• Benefits: partnerships should be exclusive and bring benefits that are attractive to the leadership, as well

as interesting for their wider staff teams. Don’t forget how aspirational UN experiences can be.

• Think longer-term: corporate decision-making processes are convoluted, but cultivation at various levels

can help things move more quickly (i.e. it is better to engage several people with relevant budget lines).

76

Corporate Sponsorship – Who?During our research, we identified a few corporations that have previously engaged with or supported

organizations working on democracy and other cross-cutting themes in the context of global development.

Some initial examples of potential corporate sponsors for UNDEF’s future events include:

77

Major Donors – Why Not Now?Due to the small size of its team, UNDEF has no significant history of securing major gifts from individuals. We

do not recommend investing any time and resources to target this audience, as a major donor program will

not be a quick or easy win, and will require time, patience and resources to develop. Major donors:

• Take time, work and resources to discover and cultivate – they are not generally public.

• Can be flexible, eager and well-connected supporters if you treat them right, but require an expert

relationship management approach and a bespoke experience.

• Can give big and regularly if you keep them engaged, but don’t tend to commit to multi-year gifts.

• Are increasingly establishing formal philanthropic structures to strategically deploy funds.

• Are likely to give to Foundations, not multilaterals or charities.

• Are most likely to live (or have a second home) in specific areas (e.g. Geneva, London, New York).

• Are unlikely to be sophisticated donors in the democracy space, and have a need for guidance.

• Are usually focused on mutual benefit (although mission-driven language plays well).

78

Major Donors – How?While UNDEF should always welcome engagement opportunities with high-profile individuals, we believe

focusing efforts on a formal major donor fundraising stream would take too much capacity when there is more

‘low hanging fruit’ to take advantage of. Instead, our advice is to cut the teeth of the organization in using

‘major donor-like’ skills to cultivate relationships with foundations and corporations for potential partnerships

and sponsorships, whilst looking to establish networks of individuals long term. A best practice major donor

program should:

• Be exclusive, only for donors giving above a certain level.

• Offer matched funding where possible, to make donors feel their gift is leveraged for most impact.

• Provide benefits and experiences of a calibre that is exciting and rewarding (which could closely align

with benefits intended for foundations and corporates).

• Have vehicles for tax-efficient giving in target geographies wherever possible.

• Clearly describe the global, social and personal advantages of giving to UNDEF.

• Be led by a senior relationship manager, to ensure consistency.

79

UNDEF’s Offering To achieve its ambitions of diversifying and growing income, UNDEF will need to develop and refine its offering

at every level. In this section we discuss:

• What Donors Want

• Value of UNDEF

• Suggested Products

• Recommended Structures

• Stakeholder Motivations

• Suggested Donor Rewards

• Resource Mobilization Pain Points

80

Offering – What Donors Want (1)Whilst governments and private philanthropy are not always comparable, generally speaking funders have

needs and ambitions beyond the impact of the work they fund. Some of the donor aspirations listed below

apply to different audiences in different ways, but should nonetheless be kept into consideration when

designing a donor offering:

81

To learnThey know that they don’t

know everything, and want to

fund as impactfully as possible,

so any learning opportunities

and information sharing is

really valuable for them.

Grassroot growthDonors who fund multilaterals

want long-term, systemic

change, and want to see

growth at the grassroots level

as a result of the global work

and funding.

More donorsCurrent donors want to see more

stakeholders join them on the

journey and fund UNDEF. Existing

Board members and donors

should play an active part in

engaging and persuading

prospective donor governments

Clear outcomesEven where they understand

long-term complex projects,

they still want to know what

will happen in the next 12

months and be able to track

progress. Momentum is key.

StorytellingFunders have a need to tell

good stories about their

funding – although to a

different extent, every funder

has stakeholders who want to

feel the work is brought to life.

1 2 3 4 5

Offering – What Donors Want (2) Whilst governments and private philanthropy are not always comparable, generally speaking funders have

needs and ambitions beyond the impact of the work they fund. Some of the donor aspirations listed below

apply to different audiences in different ways, but should nonetheless be kept into consideration when

designing a donor offering:

82

6 7 8 9 10

Be understoodThey don’t always want to tell

partners exactly what to do,

but want organizations to

understand their ambitions

and needs so that pitches are

well aligned/easy to sell

internally.

Understand

Even sophisticated donors are

desperate for organizations to

thoroughly, but simply, explain the

problem – and the solution - with a

clear M&E framework that will

indicate success.

Engage stakeholders

Anything from trips,

volunteering, seats on advisory

boards, conference speaking

spots or good examples of

storytelling can help them

engage their stakeholders.

Be visibleThis isn’t for everyone, but

funders who care about their

positioning are keen to partner

with organizations with good

brands who can showcase

their support.

Feel importantDonors want to make a

difference and see how they

can be leveraged to achieve

greater impact through pilots,

innovation, matching, and

sharing ideas.

Offering – Value of UNDEFSmall UN organizations are often penalised by misconceptions and lack of awareness of their unique value

compared to other organizations in the same space. Therefore, it is vital to be explicit and consistent in

referencing the value and meaning of a Trust Fund like UNDEF. To this purpose, we recommend the following:

• Define and communicate UNDEF’s value add to ensure donors understand the value of channelling

funds through UNDEF vs. other comparable organizations, especially when it comes to risk-averse

funders.

• Take a more marketing/business development approach to describing the opportunity to be a Board

Member, and develop the list of benefits of doing so, trying to ‘sell’ the value of it to donors, rather than

just the need for their involvement (many of them will already know there is a need).

• Tier and/or name the benefits of being involved to distinguish between partners who ‘simply’ donate,

from others who add greater value and have the potential and the power to involve other stakeholders –

clearly stating what the offer to each kind of partner is, and making it aspirational to offer more.

• Solicit feedback from partners on their motivations for joining and their needs to thoroughly map the

categories of partner against the interests of those involved, and the needs of the global community – this

data can help develop a Case for Need for donors and will enable UNDEF to recruit partners.

83

Offering – Suggested Products

84

Earmarked FundingTarget Audiences: B- & C-list Governments; Foundations

Sunset FundingTarget Audience: Foundations

Event SponsorshipTarget Audiences: Corporates; Foundations

•Engaging donors who would not otherwise donate unrestricted funding, by offering the

possibility to earmark their funding to a specific population (e.g. women & girls, youth, refugees

& migrants) or country/region.

•Funding would not be 100% restricted, as it could still be redistributed to most of the thematic

areas funded by UNDEF, even though it has a focus on a specific population or country.

•Allowing for indirect contributions to UNDEF by committing to provide extended support of a

specific project after 2 years of UNDEF’s funding, with UNDEF acting as a ‘guarantor of value’.

•It would allow for longer-term funding to specific projects, without having to apply for direct

funding from Foundations, and simultaneously providing a compelling offer to the donor.

•Pay-to-play involvement, allowing organizations to publicly show commitment by sponsoring (a

series of) events organized by UNDEF.

•Requires very clear benefits structure, capacity to deliver, and compliance with UN standards and

regulations.

Getting to the point of solicitation with any donor will take careful cultivation and time, but shaping that

cultivation - and efficiently securing the donation - requires clear products to ‘sell’, especially when it comes to

prospects who are less likely to provide unrestricted support. In some cases, these will need to be co-created and

refined, but we recommend developing assets and costings for the following products:

Offering – Recommended Structures

85

Successful resource mobilization relies on strong structures that are symbiotic to the wider organization’s needs

and processes, as well as sustainable beyond specific individuals and campaigns. We recommend developing a

Tiered Cultivation program , which would involve the following:

• A tiered, themed donor-partner management program for multiple donor audiences (e.g. for

donors that donate above a certain threshold, or donors who want to earmark their funding to specific

geographies or focus areas, etc.). Similar to a traditional membership scheme in philanthropy, such a

program provides each donor with the experience of a bespoke, engaging relationship, and the

Resource mobilization team with a tiered set of steps, experiences and touch points to provide for

donors giving at each level, and within each theme or area. Each donor should be cultivated and

involved in advocacy and profile raising activities in their areas of interest, depending on their

commitment to the cause.

• Rolling calendar of ‘touch points’, including events, briefings, updates, meetings) to keep donors

engaged throughout the year.

• Simple and streamlined processes behind the scenes, but bespoke feel for donors.

• Categorised donor journeys by giving level and potential to influence other donors.

Offering – Stakeholder MotivationsWhen it comes to UNDEF’s donors, decision makers are usually not the same people who sit at Board meetings

or attend events in New York, although this often varies from country to country and depends on each

government’s level of engagement and commitment. As UNDEF engages with different types of stakeholders, it

is important to understand each specific audience’s motivations to develop an appropriate donor program :

86

Impact

Demonstrable

value for

money, and

impact of their

investment on

a cause they

support.

Influence

Be involved in

discussions,

debates and –

where

appropriate –

decisions.

Profile

Raising

Allow for

positioning as

a leader in the

space.

Expertise

Access to

cutting-edge

information,

innovation

and unique

insights.

Engagement

Get deeply

involved in an

issue that

matters to

them,

combining

resources with

others.

Connections

Socialise and

connect with

peers, donors

and experts.

Exclusivity

Access to

exclusive and

unique

opportunities,

connections

and

experiences.

Offering – Suggested Donor Rewards There can be challenges in creating donor benefits with a limited budget and two separate audiences in mind, but too often organizations fall back on things like newsletters and reports, which do not meet enough of their donors’ motivations for giving. We recommend this matrix be used to assess ideas and ensure a good spread across the board. UNDEF should explore what benefits it feels capable of offering and sustaining, and options include:

87

Impact InfluenceProfile

RaisingExpertise Engagement Connections Exclusivity

Seat on the board • • • • • •

Brand on publications, toolkits or events •

Mention by UN body • •

Event sponsoring • • • • • •

Private event invitations • • •

Access to specialist knowledge and briefings • •

Dinners with senior leadership and other donors • • • • •

Project reports and field visits (where possible) • • • •

Priority partner matching opportunities • • • • •

Social media engagement • •

Request for opinion on UNDEF’s strategies • • • •

Resource Mobilization Pain PointsBeing a small organization founded on a significant initial investment, it is important to identify where strengths and pain points lie in UNDEF’s donor management process, in order to capitalise on assets and find solutions to areas of weakness:

88

Identification

•Advantages: strong network

of existing donors and a

seat in some forums of

others.

•Pain Points: low brand

awareness and limited field

of donors.

•Solutions: hold internal

network mapping session to

identify existing

relationships, build

networks in adjacent issue

areas, engage diverse

forums.

Prioritisation

•Advantages: democracy

has many cross cutting

themes, so number of

opportunities is high.

•Pain Points: limited staff

capacity in fundraising,

so challenging to

prioritize efforts.

•Solutions: dedicate a

staff member to

relationship-based

resource mobilization in

order to prioritize

funding opportunities.

Outreach

•Advantages: can get a

meeting with most

governments, UN gravitas

opens doors.

•Pain Points: knowing who

the right contacts are,

capacity for spending time

reaching out.

•Solutions: track

relationships carefully, work

with partners to understand

their networks and

approaches, be present in

funding forums and issue

conferences.

Cultivation

•Advantages: great cause

and strong reputation.

•Pain Points: complex host

and donation

arrangements, competition

from comparable

organizations, lack of events

and touch points.

•Solutions: simplify and

downplay complexity in

messaging, create easier

ways to donate, collaborate

with partners and share

resources and knowledge.

Solicitation

•Advantages: existing donors

reduce risk, many

opportunities to support

great work.

•Pain Points: complexity of

UN framework, lack of clear

‘products’ to sell, no quick

answers to ‘what’s

possible?’.

•Solutions: develop robust

and clear product offering,

creative alternative

mechanism for donations,

reduce silos in team to

ensure everyone can ‘sell’.

Acknowledgement

•Advantages: being

associated with existing

network and donor pool is

aspirational, UN gravitas.

•Pain Points: no clear

relationship management

process with a ‘double

audience’, risk of forgetting

to include donors where

etiquette is vital.

•Solutions: ensure thank you

process is gold standard,

and fit for calibre of donors,

leverage UN context and

track donor journey and

touch points.

Stewardship

•Advantages: UN and

partners potentially offer

exclusive events and touch

points.

•Pain Points: lack of robust

donor ‘benefits’, unwieldy

governance structure to

include more donors,

imbalanced portfolio.

•Solutions: introduce an

internal CRM system,

develop donor benefits list

and touch point calendar,

ensure governance places

are facilitated.

Moving ForwardAppendix

89

Background & Research

Strategy

Moving Forward 90

Messaging 91

Donor Journey 98

Raising Profile 101

Resources 103

Moving ForwardFrom the recommendations of audiences and approaches, we suggest the following next steps and actions to

implement this strategy. This section will focus on:

• Messaging: key recommendations on the way UNDEF should structure its messaging and how it should

talk about its work (including assets and recommended collateral).

• Donor Journey: the journey donors are taken on when UNDEF is cultivating them, and suggested event

touchpoints to support the team’s resource mobilization efforts.

• Raising Profile: suggested strategic approach to building a solid network and securing support from

key stakeholders in the democracy space, as well as any potential risks involved, and their mitigations.

• Resources: recommendations for UNDEF’s internal structure in the context of its resource mobilization

strategy.

90

Messaging – Story & VisionFounded in 2005, UNDEF needs to respond to the global need for support to democracy on several fronts. Fifteen years down the line, the Fund needs to demonstrate its dynamism, ability to respond to changing needs and coexist with other key players across the sector. To do so, it is important to show UNDEF’s proven track record, as well as how its ambitions and goals are changing over time to reflect global needs.

91

PresentSUPPORT NETWORK

UNDEF was founded with the contribution

of key players in the democracy space, and

15 years later, they are still supporting its

work.

CALL TO ACTION

UNDEF needs more support from key

stakeholders to address the urgent challenges

to democracy worldwide.

KNOWLEDGE

UNDEF has built solid knowledge of CSOs’ needs globally

and works with key global partners to ensure the right

support is provided. There is an urgent need for long(er)-

term support to the projects it funds.

Past Future

Messaging – Comparative AdvantageGenerally speaking, funding for democracy is not on the rise. UNDEF needs to ensure its messaging clearly explains why it is needed and how its activities complement those of other key players globally. UNDEF’s comparative advantage needs to be highlighted in all its communications and messaging:

92

UN BodyIt is the only UN Fund focusing

exclusively on Democracy,

meaning its knowledge on this

specific matter is unparalleled

and it has greater legitimacy.

Global RemitUNDEF funds projects and has

field presence through its

partners all over the world,

making it easier for donors to

reach the most remote

regions.

Funding CSOsUNDEF is one of the very few

organizations funding

democracy directly through

CSOs, and the knowledge it has

build over time is unparalleled.

Low RiskAs democracy is a very political

topic, it is less risky for public

and private donors to fund

CSOs through UNDEF, rather

than bilaterally.

Low CostIts start up-like structure makes

UNDEF dynamic and efficient,

meaning that its operational

costs are low, and more money

goes to field projects.

Messaging – Assets (1)Given UNDEF’s peculiar organizational structure, as well as the very complex nature of its work, it is critical to

communicate clear and simple messaging that appeals to donors. The landing page on the current website calls

for organizations to apply for funding. However, nowhere on the page there is an open ‘call for donors’. The

‘Donors’ tab mentions UNDEF’s current and past donors, but does not make it clear that it is also actively

seeking funding. In order for prospective donors to understand that their support is needed and

necessary for UNDEF to continue its work, we recommend developing the following assets:

• Call to Action: whether it is on its website, email signature, or just routine communication, UNDEF must

ensure every message has a call to action (reach out/donate/join us/help us) for potential supporters.

• Case for Need: clarify why UNDEF is needed, what problem it solves and why that matters. Democracy and

civil society are incredibly complex areas with many intersecting themes, so the value of explaining it

clearly is likely to endear donors to you almost as much as impact.

• Compelling Message: simplify the message to make it digestible and compelling, appeal to new donor

audiences, and feature compelling calls to action.

• Clear Targets: to urge donors to contribute, UNDEF needs to set clear goals and targets that would make

it easier for potential funding partners to get a full picture of its funding needs and priorities.

93

Messaging – Assets (2)• Programmatic Priorities: UNDEF’s message for donors should reflect its programmatic strategy for each

of its Funding Rounds to help potential donors understand the Fund’s priorities within the democracy

space.

• Impact Statements: UNDEF needs to demonstrate key achievements and, where possible, measurable

impact to state ‘this wouldn’t have happened without us’, or ‘something terrible could have happened

without us’.

• Elevator Pitch: all UNDEF stakeholders -- team members, Board members, donors -- need to be able to

give a consistent ‘pitch’ for what the Fund is trying to achieve and the current targets.

• Theory of Change: UNDEF is a complex organization with a relatively low brand profile, and does not

always clearly communicate the organization’s overall strategy to prospective donors. The team need to

become familiar with a new, succinct, clear, robust and balanced Theory of Change in order to engage with

all stakeholders on the impact UNDEF is working towards.

94

Messaging – Framing UNDEF’s WorkAs democracy is an extremely complex issue, UNDEF’s work inevitably encompasses broad thematic areas.

While we would not suggest to restrict the number of thematic areas, we believe UNDEF could frame its work

in a way that could help prospective donors better understand its value:

95

UNDEF should make use

of the team’s unique

understanding to simplify

the way it speaks about

the work it funds, for all

audiences to better and

faster understand its

funding priorities.

By framing its work

through the SDG Goals,

UNDEF may appeal to

donors who tend to

allocate their annual

budget and speak about

their funding priorities

through this specific

framework.

As some funders are risk

averse, especially when it

comes to politically

sensitive subjects, UNDEF

should highlight the fact

that funding through it

involves lower levels of

political and strategic risk

for donors.

For each key issue area,

UNDEF should set long-

term objectives, be clear

about the challenges

involved and explain how

donors & partners’

support would help meet

these objectives and

overcome obstacles.

Simplification SDG Framework Low Risk Element Problems & Solutions

Messaging – CollateralIn addition to the general messaging of the organization being revamped and used consistently across

channels, we suggest UNDEF should invest in some specific collateral for use in fundraising:

96

• UNDEF needs to restructure its

‘Donors’ tab and change its

messaging to make it clearer that

it is seeking more funding, with a

mention of its target budget

and/or impact for the year.

• The website should show

various opportunities for getting

involved, and promote UNDEF as

fulfilling several key roles such as

grant maker, expert, & advocate.

• Video content is the most

impactful, widely shared, and

easily digestible way of getting a

complex message across.

• We strongly recommend

producing a creative and

compelling ‘About Us' video to

be featured on the website’s

landing page which explains the

nature of the work, UNDEF’s key

priorities and how it promotes

democracy globally.

• Written materials should never

be used with donors in isolation,

but also need to be available &

suffice as stand-alone collateral.

• UNDEF should create a

customisable ‘offering’ summary

that describes the funding

opportunities and the

advantages of channelling money

through the Fund for its key

audiences.

Website Video Donor Offering

Messaging – Theory of Change

97

Donor Journey – Overview The key to successfully managing relationships with any type of donor is having a clear internal journey and engagement plan to avoid people falling through cracks or being hassled. Once a prospect has been identified, the donor journey is a cycle that typically has four stages, as follows.

After this process has been completed, the cycle should remain active in order to stay engaged with donors and be considered for multi-year support. Ensuring that existing donors are not ignored, or allowed to lapse, is the key to maintaining a healthy resource mobilization strategy. Once this journey is set, the team can diarise the small actions needed at each stage to keep day-to-day workload manageable, whilst giving the donors the impression of bespoke cultivation.

98

DONOR

JOURNEY

Donor Journey – Stages

99

Cultivation

• Cultivation works two ways: you learn about them and they learn about you, for mutual benefit.

• Find ways that raise their awareness of your work, impact and ambitions. Say hi at events and conferences, discuss priorities, invite ideas.

• Build a friendly, interesting rapport - no ‘ask’ should be made at this stage.

• Build your knowledge of prospect’s interests and passions, ask open ended questions, get to know them.

• Always finish every engagement with a friendly ‘next step’– e.g. a follow up call or a coffee.

Solicitation

• Timing is important – a relationship should be built over several months and touch points before any ‘ask’ is made.

• An ‘ask’ should be framed as a mutual exploration of opportunities: listen, take feedback and co-create a proposal.

• There is no such thing as a ‘rejection’ - only delays to allow for more cultivation and exploration.

Acknowledgement

• Say thank you; donors are the hottest prospects for future funding – they should not be ignored, and should feel special.

• If appropriate, this can be done publicly and privately, make use of digital for low-cost ways of engaging and boosting your partnership.Stewardship

• Benefits planned for donors should be fulfilled promptly and to a high quality. Check-in for feedback, and keep them aware of changes.

• Each donor should have a personalised engagement plan, and diarised regular engagement.

• If appropriate, involve in strategy discussions and make donor involved in UNDEF’s work and strategy.

Donor Journey – Example

100

“Get To Know” Call or Meeting

Advice or Flattery Request

Connect at Event or Conference

VIP Meet with Executive Head

General Event Invite (with other

prospects)

Exclusive Event Invite (with

current donors)

“Catch-Up” Meeting

General Event Meet

Case for Support Meeting

Personal Touch: e.g. Holiday or Birthday Card

Visit, Trip or Field Engagement

“Pitch” or Proposal Meeting

Personal Touch: Thank You Card

Exclusive Event DONATION MADEThanks (from

Executive Head)

Thanks (from project team)

Exclusive Event (Other Donors)

General UpdateVIP Meet with Executive Head

Invite to Sit on Committee

Exclusive Event Invite

6 m

on

ths 1

2 m

on

ths 1

8 m

on

ths 2

4 m

on

ths

CultivationSolicitationAcknowledgementStewardship

Raising Profile – Network BuildingIn order to tactically raise its profile and relationships with the right audiences, UNDEF needs to grow its immediate network and conduct outreach. The key methods we recommend using, or further developing, are:

• Leveraging current partners: countries that give to UNDEF are passionate about its work and impact, and are key leaders globally. Keep these relationships warm, and strategically ask for suggestions of potential new partners or introductions to priority prospects. Establish a standing agenda item for board meetings and provide quarterly tranches of priority prospects for them to support outreach to.

• Attending events and conferences: ensuring there is a program and resource mobilization presence at key conferences relating to the cause, and actively networking to raise awareness of the organization.

• Hosting events: investing in a strategic, bespoke event series (e.g. ‘Regional Conversations on Democracy’) to create touch points with key donors, these don’t have to be huge events, but lighter touch (even digital!) convenings or discussions, which could also be sponsorship opportunities.

• Incentivising donor face-time: ensuring all team members have KPIs and rewards around face-time with representatives of countries’ Missions to the UN in New York, to promote relationship building.

• Inviting partnership discussions: creating dynamic spaces for donors to collaborate with UNDEF.

• Thought leadership: ensuring the team are building their professional brands in relation to advising and supporting strategic funding in this space, and investing in the credibility of the whole UNDEF team.

101

Raising Profile – Risks and Mitigations

102

UNDEF’s ‘low profile and quiet diplomacy’ within and outside of the UN system brings a range of advantages,

including relative autonomy from vested political interests, cost-effectiveness, and effectiveness in negotiating

projects in challenging environments.

Raising the profile may involve some disadvantages that could compromise UNDEF’s current institutional

placement. Articulating problems, and demonstrating a role in solutions, could make UNDEF appear too

‘political’ or critical of flawed democracies.

Our recommendation is to keep UNDEF’s position neutral, whilst staying firm on the importance of democracy.

Resources – SystematisingUNDEF is a small team with big ambitions, and there are several bottlenecks and challenges stemming from a

lack of systems and processes in support of donor relationships. We recommend that UNDEF starts (or

continues) to:

• Systemise as many internal processes as possible, such as templates for sharing materials and

reports, and reminders of donor engagement timelines and emails (e.g. thank you notes). This will make

the whole team more responsive to requests, and leave more time for engagement with donors.

• Create a customer relationship management system to track all donor relationships, including

information such as primary contact, outcome of engagement, date to follow up, next steps etc. This

could just be a spreadsheet, if needed.

• Track donations carefully, in order to manage a growing portfolio of past, current and prospect

donors, budget efficiently and report on financial expenditures, accounting for fees and overheads.

• Create a centralised calendar of events and thought leadership, allowing people to plan workload

around event planning and writing, as well as make suggestions on others’ event attendance strategies

(i.e. ‘make sure you say hi to…’ and ‘don’t forget to thank…’).

103

Appendix

104

Background & Research

Strategy

Moving Forward

References 105

Additional Research 107

References (1)• Bridgespan (2019); Unleash Big Bets.

• Brookings (2017); Who actually funds the UN and other multilaterals?

• Candid, Human Rights Funders Network (2019); Annual Review of Global Foundation Grantmaking.

• Economist Democracy Index (2019).

• EPRS (2019); EU support for democracy and peace in the world.

• Eur-Lex (2018); EU Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (2014-2020).

• Forbes (2016); Big Bet Philanthropy: How More Givers Are Spending Big And Taking Risks To Solve Society's Problems.

• Global Policy (2017); Philanthrolateralism: Private Funding andCorporate Influence in the United Nations.

• Human Rights Funders Network (2017); Five years of mapping human rights funding: our key findings.

• Human Rights Funding (2019); Where Do Human Rights Grants Go?

• Idea Global State of Democracy Indices (2018).

• INCAF (2019); INCAF response to Pathways for Peace.

• Kasper and Marcoux (2014); The re-emerging art of funding innovation.

• Media Impact Funders (2018); Journalism and media grantmaking: Five things you need to know.

105

References (2)• OECD (2018a), Multilateral Development Finance: Towards a New Pact on Multilateralism to Achieve the 2030 Agenda

Together, OECD Publishing, Paris.

• OECD (2018b), Private Philanthropy for Development, The Development Dimension, OECD Publishing, Paris.

• OECD (2018c); Multilateral Development Finance: Towards a New Pact on Multilateralism to Achieve the 2030 Agenda Together, OECD Publishing, Paris.

• OECD (2019a); Trends and insights on development finance.

• OECD (2019b); OECD, DAC Recommendation on the Humanitarian-DevelopmentPeace Nexus, OECD/LEGAL/5019.

• OECD netFWD (2019), Insights on philanthropy for gender equality, OECD Development Centre, Paris.

• Peace and Security Index (2019); An analysis of global foundation grantmaking.

• SDG Funders (2019); Sustainable Development Goals.

• UN Women (2018); Compendium of financial partner contributions 2018.

• UNDP (2019); UNDP, DPPA and EU sign new agreement on building national capacities for conflict prevention.

• UNDP-DPPA (2018); Preventing conflict, sustaining peace.

• World Bank Group (2017); Trust Fund Annual Report.

• World Bank Website, Accessed in November 2019.

106

Additional ResearchThe following slides contain additional materials and resources that complement and further detail the research presented in the first section of this deck. The topics covered are:

• ODA – Funding to Multilaterals: figures mapping funding from governments to multilaterals and highlighting the DAC government agencies that are responsible for the largest share of funding.

• Funding trends in the democracy space for UNDEF’s thematic areas:

• Human Rights

• Gender Equality

• Youth

• Participation

• Transparency

• Prevention

107

ODA – Funding to MultilateralsHow important is each organization to each

funder?

The figure maps flows from funders to organizations.

On the left side, funders are listed in descending

order. Each horizontal row represents the distribution

of that country’s total funding across organizations.

The vertical columns represent the sample’s 34 largest

funding recipients. Key findings include:

• Most countries allocate larger shares of

resources to larger organizations.

• 8 countries allocate the largest share to UN

peacekeeping (US, France, Italy, China, Korea,

Spain, Russia, and the UAE).

• 12 countries allocate the largest share to the

World Bank’s IDA (UK, Japan, Germany,

Canada, Sweden, Netherlands, Australia,

Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium, Finland, and

Austria).

108 Source: Brookings (2017).

ODA – Funding to MultilateralsHow important is each funder to each organization?

The figure presents the same funders and organizations

as the previous one, but here it highlights the share of

each organization’s direct funding provided by the

relevant country. Key findings include:

• The US is the largest funder for 19 of the 34

entities listed.

• The UK is the largest for 7, and Japan is the

largest for 4 of them.

• Sweden is the largest funder for the UN

Population Fund (UNFPA) and UN Women.

• France is the largest funder for the Council of

Europe (CoEurope).

• Brazil is the largest funder for PAHO.

109 Source: Brookings (2017).

ODA – Funding to Multilaterals

110

Estimating each funder’s relative importance to each organization offers the opportunity to assess countries’

revealed preferences among multilateral priorities. The box on the left shows the lead funder for each of the

main multilateral organizations; the one on the right shows the main priorities for some of the emerging

funders (Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and India).

Source: Brookings (2017).

Funding by Country – Decision MakingThe following figure provides a detailed breakdown of the table provided in slide 12 of the Background &

Research section. The data refers to the share of funding provided by the largest agency in each of the main

DAC countries in the period 2013-16, as well as the number of agencies that issued at least one grant to

multilaterals during the same period.

111 Source: OECD (2018c).

Human Rights

Gender Equality

Youth Empowerment

Democratic Participation &

Free Media

Transparency & Anti-

Corruption

Security & Conflict Prevention

Defining Democracy – ThemesAs explained in slide 22 of the Background & Research

section, the following slides are a deep-dive into each of

UNDEF’s focus areas and highlight which elements of

democracy are the most and least funded, as well as

where both governments and private funders tend to

invest the most resources.

It is important to note the limitations of the available

data on global philanthropy. As Democracy is a broad

and fragmented landscape, research often involves

stitching together data gathered from different sources,

with different methodologies, and collected at different

times – which can create a fabric with some holes and

discontinuities.

112

Democracy Funding – Human RightsHuman rights is itself an extremely broad category. In general, human rights funding addresses a multitude of

issues, including the root causes of injustice and inequality (e.g. access to justice and equality before the law,

civic and political participation, equality rights and freedom, etc.). In the period 2013-15, support to human

rights accounted for the largest share (36%) of democracy funding, with American foundations issuing the most

grants (e.g. Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundation).

113

Global

Sources: Human Rights Funding (2019), Human Rights Funders Network (2017), Candid, Human Rights Funders Network (2019), Peace and

Security Index (2019).

Democracy Funding – Human RightsThe main trends in the human rights and social justice funding space are:

• Funding to this space grew by nearly 45% from 2011-2015, from $1.4 billion to over $2 billion.

• In 2016, foundations allocated $2.8 billion in support of human rights (5% of all foundation funding).

• The top 12 human rights funders accounted for 51% of all human rights funding, totalling $1.5 billion.

• 87% of funders were based in North America, reflecting greater accessibility of data for US foundations.

• Children and youth, sex workers, and indigenous peoples saw the largest increases in funding allocation,

and funders allocated 80% more funding (an additional $19 million) for grants related to climate and

indigenous communities from a human rights perspective.

• Human rights funding also increased for women and girls (19%), migrants and refugees (19%), human

rights defenders (15%), and LGBTQI communities (6%).

• Advocacy, systems reform, and implementation remains the top funded strategy, followed by public

engagement and awareness-raising, and capacity building and technical assistance.

114Sources: Human Rights Funding (2019), Human Rights Funders Network (2017), Candid, Human Rights Funders Network (2019), Peace and

Security Index (2019).

Democracy Funding – Human Rights• In 2016, access to justice and

equality before the law, and

environmental and resource rights

saw the biggest proportion of

growth, up 49% and 39%, mostly

due to increases from the Ford

Foundation and the MacArthur

Foundation totalling $55 million

toward criminal justice reform.

• Transitional justice and

peacebuilding declined by 22%,

with the proportion of funding for

‘Middle East and North Africa’ and

‘Central Asia, Eastern Europe, and

Russia’ declining the most.

115Sources: Human Rights Funding (2019), Human Rights Funders Network (2017), Candid, Human Rights Funders Network (2019), Peace and

Security Index (2019).

Democracy Funding – Gender EqualityGrants supporting gender equality ensure that women's rights, equal participation, and the rights and

participation of all genders are integrated into new policies, laws, institutions, and government bodies. In the

period 2013-15, foundations’ support for gender equality amounted to $3.7 billion, equivalent to 15% of the

three-year total of philanthropic giving identified for this period and 4% of gender-marked ODA. Seven

foundations specialise exclusively on gender, all of them are based in North America and Europe: Fondation

Chanel, Goldman Sachs Foundation, NoVo Foundation, Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy Foundation,

Sabanci Foundation, STBF and Walmart Foundation.

116 Sources: OECD netFWD (2019), OECD (2018b).

Global

Democracy Funding – Gender EqualitySome of the key trends in the gender equality funding space are:

• In 2017, 15% ($0.9 billion) of philanthropic funding from 26 of the largest foundations worldwide

supported gender equality and women’s empowerment. Only a small proportion of the funds

supporting women’s equality address women’s specific needs (e.g. preventing violence or supporting

women’s rights organizations).

• 6% of philanthropic giving had gender equality as a primary objective and for another 9% it was a

secondary objective.

• Most giving to this space is channelled through well established NGOs and multilateral institutions.

Foundations’ engagement with partners or program s tends to be short-term in nature and they favour

working their peers and the public sector (i.e. governments or official development institutions).

• India is the largest beneficiary of gender-related giving ($467 million in 2013-15), being also the largest

recipient of international philanthropic flows overall – mainly a result of significant giving by the Gates

Foundation ($284 million) who gave 61% of the country-allocated total for gender equality.

• Foundations working on gender are increasingly exploring new solutions and financial tools, and

providing longer-term and non-financial support.

117 Source: OECD netFWD (2019).

Democracy Funding – Gender EqualitySpecific areas within the women and girls’ space receive more funding and attention from foundations globally:

• Health and reproductive health is the largest sector to benefit from philanthropic giving (73% of total).

• Government and civil society is the second most targeted sector (10%), mainly due to giving to women’s

equality organizations (3%) and to ending violence against women and girls, including female genital

mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) (3%).

118

• Other significant sectors include agriculture

(3%) and education (5%). Girls education is

heavily funded in the Global South, with

48% of gender related funds directed to

South Africa and 27% to China.

• Gender related funding in some sectors,

such as environmental protection or

banking and financial services, is very

limited (1% each).

Source: OECD netFWD (2019).

Democracy Funding – Gender EqualityHealth and reproductive health, government and civil society, education and agriculture are the most targeted

sectors for both ODA and philanthropic giving for gender, but the share of support given to each sector varies

considerably:

• ODA donors’ support is more equally distributed among the four main sectors, together with a larger

spectrum of issues like water and sanitation, or energy.

• ODA providers gave broader financial support to humanitarian assistance targeting women and girls

(8% of all aid targeting gender), whilst for foundations it was only 2% of total gender-related

philanthropic giving).

119

• Foundations’ efforts are heavily

concentrated on health and

reproductive health (73% of

foundations’ giving for gender

equality), as opposed to ODA, with

only 18% of aid targeting gender

equality.

Source: OECD netFWD (2019).

Democracy Funding – YouthIn the period 2013-15, $7.5 billion, or around 31% of the total foundations’ giving was intended to address

children and youth empowerment:

120 Source: OECD (2018b).

• 57% took the form of health and reproductive

health activities – such as infectious diseases

control, family planning and basic nutrition. The

Gates Foundation was the main supporter of

health-related projects (45% of total), followed by

CIFF (8%).

• 27% of youth funding went to education projects.

IKEA Foundation (5%) and MasterCard

Foundation (5%) were the main supporters in this

space, followed by Koc Foundation, Telefonica

Foundation and the Dutch Postcode Lottery.

Democracy Funding – ParticipationIn the period 2013-15, foundations’ support for democratic participation, civil society, media and free flow of

information amounted to $304 million, equivalent to 18% of the three-year total of philanthropic giving

identified for this period. From a freedom of press perspective, funders are increasingly supporting initiatives in

creating and preserving open data, training journalists, and working with government agencies to improve and

make datasets more accessible.

121

Global

Sources: OECD (2018b), Media Impact Funders (2018), Peace and Security Index (2019).

Democracy Funding – TransparencyAs foundations tend to focus on evidence and measurable outcomes, they often have no appetite for risk, and

prefer channelling their support towards more conventional and less risky program s with tangible impact.

Areas where impact is hard to quantify (e.g. the fight against corruption or the defence of human rights) are

usually less appealing to foundations. In 2013-15, foundations’ support for transparency and anti-corruption

organizations was $153 million, or 9% of the three-year total of philanthropic giving identified for this period.

122

Global

Sources: OECD (2018b), Kasper and Marcoux, 2014.

Democracy Funding – Prevention In the period 2013-15, foundations’ support to peace, security and conflict prevention in fragile contexts

amounted to $99 million, equivalent to 6% of the three-year total of philanthropic giving identified for this

period. Most of the funding was directed to specific regions, with almost 50% going to the African continent,

followed by Asia (27%).

123 Source: OECD (2018b).

Global

Democracy Funding – Prevention In 2017, fragile contexts received 68% of

earmarked ODA, or $74.3 billion – the highest

share in six years. Over the year 2016-17, ODA

from DAC countries to fragile contexts increased

by 8%, and ODA through multilateral channels

increased by 11.5%.

In February 2019, the DAC adopted a new

recommendation, calling for a shift in co-

ordination, programming and financing to allow

diverse actors to prioritize “prevention always,

development wherever possible, humanitarian

action when necessary”.

One area of underinvestment is conflict

prevention, which is now a key focus area for

DAC members for 2019-20.

124 Sources: OECD (2019), OECD (2019b), INCAF (2019).