Proven Practices in Gender Mainstreaming: Foundations in Conversation, a publication by Philea’s Gender Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Network, notes that only 0.42% of foundation grants reach women’s rights organisations, and 1% of development aid reaches feminist organisations led by marginalised groups.

The report argues that funders should treat gender not as a standalone issue but as a lens that improves outcomes across all areas of work, from climate and health to employment and education.

The economic case for this is clear, Philea says, citing a McKinsey Global Institute report finding that gender inequality costs the world approximately $12 trillion in global gross domestic product (GDP).

This is particularly pressing given the rise in what it calls ‘anti-gender’ movements — typically well-resourced, strategically coordinated campaigns aimed at rolling back rights related to reproductive health, LGBTQ+ inclusion and gender education. Philea’s report highlights research showing that funding for these movements grew from $22.2m (€18.9m) per year in 2009 to $96m in 2018.

Next steps

The report, which draws on case studies from six major foundations, argues that funders should move away from siloed grantmaking. It argues that pooled and collaborative funds enable foundations to take bolder decisions, share risk, and direct resources more effectively to grassroots actors.

The report sets out four practical starting points for any organisation wanting to embrace gender mainstreaming: developing an internal business case, finding an internal champion, beginning with small initiatives, and gradually expanding the base of advocates.

Hilal Baykara, a consultant who wrote sections of the report, says in a blog on Philea’s website:

“In a time of democratic backsliding and rising anti-gender movements, philanthropic organisations of all types have both the responsibility and the ability to act with courage to mainstream gender across internal practices and external strategies, to invest in those most affected by inequality, and to safeguard the progress already won.”

It is also reviewing its fundraising practices to ensure it does not compete with local NGOs.

The NGO explained in a blog on its website that this decision was a response to OCHA not allocating enough money to local organisations, as opposed to international ones. CBPFs allocated approximately $940m (€803m) in 2024 alone.

Save the Children’s blog said that local actors “understand the context, the culture and the needs in ways that international actors never fully can” and “are present before crises emerge and remain long after international attention has moved elsewhere”.

According to its statement, Save the Children will begin withdrawing from these funds in January 2026, and conclude this process by the end of 2027. The blog, by Save the Children International’s senior humanitarian director Abdurahman Sharif, continues:

“Our role, as we see it, is to complement and support that leadership, not to substitute it… This is not a retreat from humanitarian action. It is a step toward genuine localisation.”

In a policy briefing released alongside its statement, Save the Children notes that only 8% of all global humanitarian funding in 2024 was allocated to national NGOs, a long way off the 25% target set in 2016’s Grand Bargain agreement, whose signatories included OCHA. While CBPFs have performed better – 54% of money went to national NGOs in 2025 – the policy briefing argues that these funds still “disproportionately” benefit non-local organisations.

Sharif’s blog also urges other NGOs to follow:

“Our withdrawal from CBPFs will be meaningless if other international NGOs simply fill the gap we leave behind. We urge our fellow international organisations to examine their own positions. Are we prepared to accept a redefinition of our role in the service of a more locally-led humanitarian system?”

Sharif’s blog also notes Save the Children’s other commitments to localisation, alongside CBPF withdrawal, including in the field of fundraising. He writes:

“We will continue advocating for the reforms that help local and national actors access funding directly. We are reviewing our fundraising practices to ensure we are not competing with local actors, as well as looking at our own partnership practices to make them more equitable. We will improve how we track and report funding to local actors, disaggregated by partner type, including women-led and children-led organisations. We will highlight the leadership of local actors and ensure our reporting, communications, and advocacy are shaped and delivered jointly with them, making their contributions and voices much more visible.”

Picture by Global Residence Index via Unsplash.

The fundraising world is full of tested and effective tools, and one of the most powerful yet underused in smaller fundraising markets like Lithuania is the matching grant. This method, widely popular in other countries and usually used in large fundraising campaigns, can also deliver impressive results for small nonprofits. One standout example is the organisation Augalyn, which promotes plant-based nutrition in Lithuania and successfully ran a matching grant campaign at the end of 2024.

What are matching grants?

A matching grant, or matched funding, is a fundraising method where a donor – often a business, foundation, or sometimes an individual – commits to multiplying every euro raised by the nonprofit. This could mean doubling donations (1:1), tripling (2:1), or even more. For example, if a donor gives €20, the matching partner also contributes €20. This approach boosts giving by appealing to efficiency and FOMO (fear of missing out).

Matching grants differ from matching gifts, which typically refer to employer programmes matching employees’ personal donations to charities.

How does it work?

1. Securing a sponsor: A nonprofit partners with a donor willing to match contributions up to a set amount. The terms can vary –for instance, matching only individual gifts or limiting the maximum contribution.
2. Time-limited campaigns: Matching campaigns usually run for a fixed period, such as a few hours or days, creating an urgency that motivates donors.
3. Transparent communication: Clear messaging is essential. Donors must know their contribution will be multiplied and understand any conditions, such as match caps.

How to run a successful matching grants campaign

To maximise the impact of a matching grants campaign, there are five key steps to follow:

1. Define your goal: Set a specific fundraising target and explain its purpose. For example: “We aim to raise €10,000 to help 10 people with disabilities find jobs next year.”
2. Find your matching partner: Approach existing or potential sponsors with a clear pitch. Emphasise how their commitment will inspire others to give. Such as: “Every euro you donate by February 28 will be doubled by Company X.”
3. Plan your communications: Use multiple channels – social media, newsletters, press – to highlight the match and encourage participation.
4. Share progress and reminders: Keep donors informed of milestones and deadlines. For example: “We’ve reached 50% of our goal; only 3 days left to double your impact!”
5. Thank and report back: After the campaign, communicate results and thank both donors and the matching sponsor. Show how the funds made a difference.

Real-life example: Augalyn’s success story

Meda Šermukšnė, CEO of Augalyn – a nonprofit that promotes a plant-based lifestyle – shared their experience:

“From November 19 to December 3, 2024, our organisation launched a matching grants campaign to raise €6,000 for outdoor advertising. We partnered with Oxylabs, who enthusiastically supported the idea. In just eight days, we not only met but exceeded our goal, raising nearly €8,000. Most of these donors were new supporters, and even repeat donors gave again after hearing about the match. Our previous best single-day total was €752; after announcing the match, we hit €1,206 –a 60% increase. The news re-energised the campaign and clearly showed the power of this method.”

This diagram shows the huge growth in funds raised from the public on November 26, when the matching grant campaign with Oxylabs was announced.

Augalyn’s story proves that matching grants are not only effective abroad or during large fundraising campaigns, but can also thrive in smaller markets too. It also highlights the importance of acting quickly to secure a corporate partner and of having a solid communication plan, while staying flexible as momentum builds.

Key takeaways

Matching grants are a high-impact, low-cost way to boost giving and donor engagement. They motivate even hesitant supporters by doubling or tripling their impact and can attract entirely new donor groups. For sponsors, it’s a chance to stand out, build goodwill, and align their brand with meaningful causes.

If you haven’t tried a matching grants campaign, make it part of your fundraising plan this year. The results might surprise you – and your donors will love seeing their €5 turn into €10!

Živilė Tumasonė

About Živilė Tumasonė

For more than a decade, Živilė Tumasonė has been helping non-governmental organisations to discover their power and invite individual donors to contribute to their mission. Živilė is a consultant, speaker and trainer in the fields of nonprofit organisation marketing, communication, individual and digital fundraising. She is partner at Baltic Fundraising Hub, a certified marketing specialist, and former brand manager of the only donations platform in Lithuania, Aukok.lt, with 10+ years of experience in unleashing generosity and helping NGOs to raise funds. Živilė is passionate about individual and digital fundraising, donor behaviour, fundraising communication and helping nonprofits grow.

Main picture by Honglei Yue on Pexels

Chaired by CIOF executive director of engagement and EFA president Ceri Edwards, the session saw Laurence Lepetit, EFA board member and executive director of France générosités speak alongside Willeke van Rijn, CEO of The Resource Alliance, and Keith Kibirango, CEO of New Global Markets, on the theme “Reframing aid – standing up to the cuts and a new global narrative”.

Highlighting a global context with a tendency to shrink civic space and call into question the legitimacy of some nonprofits’ and foundations’ work – as well as increased pressure on fundraising teams from economic models under strain, Lepetit, van Rijn, and Kibirango discussed how the sector can respond.

The USAID funding cuts have sent shockwaves across the sector with that money unlikely to make a return, they agreed, while the move of politics to the right sees a gradual shrinking of civic space in many countries globally. This then is a moment to reflect on what to do differently, attendees heard – and importantly, to act.

“If the funding is not coming back, we need to think about other opportunities,” said van Rijn. “This is no time to do nothing. Income diversity is essential – are we tapping into the resources that are there? The average donor in the US and France is in their 60s for example, so we’re missing whole generations – are we going to where they are?”

Kibirango highlighted a need for INGOs of the Global North to rethink their role and relevance as a sector: “Despite the cuts, for many parts of the Global South life hasn’t really changed,” he said. “Fundamentally, the vast majority are still in poverty despite the billions of dollars going to INGOs annually for years, so as a sector we also need to think about our role and relevance. Are we doing projects that others can do better and cheaper? What we can do that no one else does? How can we collaborate rather than compete?”

NGOs are not only experiencing significant cuts and obstacles to foreign aid but attacks on their legitimacy, said Lepetit, highlighting the growing trend of shrinking civic space. Across Europe, she noted, charities are losing their charitable status for being deemed too political, attacked for who they’re said to support, and seeing laws and tax incentives change to their detriment.

Collaboration across the sector, nationally and internationally, is the key to an effective response: “We need to work together to mitigate the impact and reframe the narrative,” she said. “There is great power in the day-to-day democracy within our organisations – we need to build on that.”

Key takeaways for survival in today’s global context

Build coalitions between nonprofit and philanthropic actors to “share knowledge and change narratives together,” said Lepetit, highlighting EFA’s new Fundraising4Democracy hub and upcoming European Fundraising4Democracy Tour.

Leaders need to be brave and bold, and accept change, said van Rijn: “If you are not transforming or innovating, you are dead. The challenges ahead are significant but so is the collective strength of our organizations.”

In the face of the USAID cuts, Kibirango said, it is time to think differently and look for new opportunities: including rethinking cooperation between NGOs from the North and South: “Beyond the West,” he said, “look at the East and Africa!”.

The research saw a governmental working group along with not-for-profit organisations (NPOs) look into alternative funding methods such as tax deductions for donations and gift matching schemes, as well as state grants. In January the Ministry of Finance published a report on the findings with a focus on the latter and has now requested feedback from stakeholders.

VaLa, Finland’s fundraising association, says fundraising in the country has now professionalised and NPOs need support to implement sustainable and successful fundraising. It states that broadening the funding base and having more long-term financial sources will help.

VaLa’s secretary general Pia Tornikoski comments:

“Traditionally, many Finnish NPOs have received state funding for their operational costs in two forms: general and project grants. Different ministries direct funds consisting of hundreds of millions of euros to organisations. The ongoing work of the ministries is also aimed to harmonise the whole state funding system. The potential direct support for the fundraising operations of NPOs would be the same for organisations of all sectors, from international aid to sport clubs. NPOs would also have freedom to choose what kind of fundraising methods they would like to invest in.”

The report presents different options along with an estimation of the impact each could have:

1. A general grant would cover the fundraising deficit as a loss guarantee. The goal is to encourage organisations to raise funds without fear of loss. However, the working group acknowledges that this option is problematic because it would finance unprofitable activities. This option of a loss guarantee has also been questioned by NPOs, as it would require very precise limitations and definitions.
2. Fundraising costs would be covered up to a certain maximum amount. Under this option, the organisation would be able to use the part of its general grant for fundraising costs. NPOs could therefore decide whether to invest in fundraising or not. This method is largely viewed positively by NPOs, as it would support the organisation’s own decision-making and autonomy regarding how the general grant is used and where it is directed.
3. The government would develop a special project grant for starting or developing fundraising.
   The project grant could be useful for those organisations that do not receive general grants or those that want to invest in fundraising activities. It would also give regional and local NPOs an opportunity to apply for funding solely for fundraising. This option is viewed positively by NPOs especially in the case where the special grant would not be excluded from other funding.

The stakeholder feedback will be taken into consideration before any further action is taken.

Picture by Baptiste Valthier on Pexels

In all of the other three sectors defined by the report – culture & leisure; environment & animal welfare; and development – the figure is lower, at 42%.

This is according to a survey of 700 Belgian associations registered on Bonnes Causes, which was carried out by polling firm Ipsos for the King Baudouin Foundation.

The 2022 Associations Barometer also reveals that associations in the social and health sectors were more likely to say that their financial situation got worse during the past year, and to have a negative view of the financial health of the nonprofit sector as a whole.

Looking back at 2022, 40% of those surveyed said their financial situation had worsened, while 14% said theirs had improved. This compares to 49% worsening and 8% improving in 2020. Pre-pandemic, back in 2018, more associations reported improved finances (22%) than worsened finances (19%).

However, despite this, only 10% of respondents said they had faced financial difficulties in 2022. This figure is much higher for small organisations (14%) compared with large (6%) or very large (2%) ones. The same overall figure was true in 2020.

The data also shows that charities were more concerned about the impact of rising inflation than about the effects of Covid-19 on their fundraising.

Sources of money

The report points out that funding in the form of government grants – local, regional, federal, and European ­– which is crucial for the country’s nonprofits, appears to have remained relatively stable during the year.

In 2022, it accounted for 58% of the sector’s total revenues, with 74% of respondents receiving this type of income.

This compares to 73% of respondents receiving donations from the public (individual giving and wills), and the public and private sector (such as companies, private foundations, and public interest foundations). This makes up 25% of overall sector income although a growing number of associations – 31% in 2020 and 40% in 2022 – say that the number of these donations received decreased during the year.

The majority (64%) collect donations through digital channels, although this figure varies across the sector. It is much higher (86%) for development organisations, close to average in social (66%) and environment & animal welfare (62%), and lower in culture & leisure (58%) and health (56%).

Development charities were the most likely to use a wider range of fundraising channels, the report shows.

Commenting, Dorien Baelden, senior project coordinator, King Baudouin Foundation, said:

“After the Covid-19 pandemic, the effects of which are still being felt, it is now high inflation that is weakening the financial base of nonprofit organisations and putting pressure on their future prospects. Although the sector is resilient, nonprofits deserve our support more than ever. In times of crisis, they play a key role in strengthening the social fabric. Support from both the public and private sectors therefore remains essential.”

This is according to a group of ‘risktakers’ interviewed for a new report by Germany’s Allianz Foundation. They also say that organisations involved in social activism must look for new sources of funding.

The Risktaker Pulse is based on interviews with 59 ‘risktakers’ – defined by the foundation as “individuals who actively fight for social justice, open societies or a liveable planet” – from civil society organisations in Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom.

The four key lessons learned from the report are the need to unleash the power of networks; the power of telling a compelling narrative; the importance of fighting misinformation and disinformation; and lessons on funding. The funding section of the report says:

“Whenever public or philanthropic funds are available, the ways they can be used are often too restrictive, risktakers say. The interviewees criticise the fact that many governments and foundations do not seem to understand that sometimes expenses need to be diverted or increased quickly and substantially.”

It says that the COVID-19 pandemic is a case in point, with many of those interviewed saying they could not get funding quickly enough. The invasion of Ukraine is another example of the value of trusting partners to make good use of money – one risktaker described giving money to partners in Ukraine and telling them: “I don’t need to know what you will do [with the money], just do it.”

Another risktaker in Germany told the report that quickly-awarded small grants, even as small as €500, could have a big impact. Julia Kloiber, co-founder of Superrr Lab, said: “I think these small grants are underestimated in terms of the impact they can have for non-profit organisations because they can give you the flexibility you need at certain points in time when you just don’t have the time to read a grant proposal.”

On the topic of diversifying income, it quotes Fatima Edith Maiga from Italiani Senza Cittadinanza (Italians without Citizenship). The organisation has raised money by selling bags, hoodies and other merchandise with political messaging, and Maiga explained:

“Our organisation has never wanted to make use of external funds. So as not to be co-opted. This is the reason why we became almost a brand… in order to gain some money to support our activities.”

The conclusion to the report says that it is “intended to inspire funders to re-examine who they are supporting, how and why”. It goes on to say that if funders can “lessen the burden” on risktakers like those interviewed, it would “give these dedicated individuals and their organizations a substantial boost to succeed in a dynamic and ever-changing world”.

The ninth edition of the annual ‘Who finances civil society?’ report shows that charitable giving as a proportion of Swedes’ disposable income has dropped slightly, but that the long term trend is positive.

However, potential for a drop in donations, pressure on public sector budgets, and economic uncertainty all mean that nonprofits in the country must think strategically about their organisation’s purpose, and their finances.

The report contains five recommendations for civil society organisations:

1. Review their financial strategy: organisations should create as diverse a funding base as possible in order to deal with the changed economic reality of the next few years.
2. Decide which role they will play: charities should consider whether their primary role is to be a ‘voice’ (political and advocacy work), a ‘service’ (operating schools, care or other services) or a ‘community’ (based around common interests and/or membership), or to be more than one of these things. This will have an impact on organisational strategy and financial requirements.
3. Cooperate around finance: civil society should look at the unique opportunities it has to act across sector boundaries and create creative solutions to social challenges, using funding from multiple sources.
4. Create solidarity across civil society: while each individual nonprofit has its own priorities and pressures, they must all recognise the issues which affect civil society as a whole, and the environment in which they operate.
5. Keep an eye on the ‘mega trends’: even in times of crisis, it is important to continue to focus on the long term, and consider ‘mega trends’ which will change the world over the next few years.

Charlotte Rydh, general secretary at Giva Sverige, and EFA president, says:

“It is clear that civil society organisations will be facing a very different funding picture over the next few years. This will make it necessary to work more closely than ever with the public and private sectors to ensure that vital services can still be delivered, and also for individual organisations to have a clear strategy for what they seek to achieve, and how to secure the financial resources they need to make that possible.”

Separately, Giva Sverige has published the Q3 version of its regular report on donations trends in the country.