How to Get Funding for Your Global Health Project – Part Three

(photo credit: Unhindered by Talent)

I didn't actually intend a part three to this series, but I read two really amazing reports in the course of a single day. The first is from the Stanford Social Innovation Review, and it looks at non-profit funding models in the United States. The second is from Development Initiatives, with support from the Irish government, and it's called "Public Support for Humanitarian Crises Through NGOs." They are both essential documents for anyone who wants to start an NGO; together they're a crash course in how the system works.

The SSIR article identifies ten funding models used by non-profit organizations, based on a survey of large non-profits in the United States. Here's the list:

The models are ordered by the dominant type of funder. The first three models (Heartfelt Connector, Beneficiary Builder, and Member Motivator) are funded largely by many individual donations. The next model (Big Bettor) is funded largely by a single person or by a few individuals or foundations. The next three models (Public Provider, Policy Innovator, and Beneficiary Broker) are funded largely by the government. The next model (Resource Recycler) is supported largely by corporate funding. And the last two models (Market Maker and Local Nationalizer) have a mix of funders.

I noticed that social entrepreneurship is pretty much absent, and that the models are very different from each other; often they are mutually exclusive. An organization really can't be a Public Provider and also a Heartfelt Connector. You need to find your approach and stick with it. This article will help you find your approach.

The paper by Development Initiatives looks specifically at funding for humanitarian crises - where the money comes from, who receives it, and how it is used. It surveyed 114 NGOs raising funds in 23 countries, and they estimate that it covered 60% of the total expenditure of the NGO sector on humanitarian assistance.

It found that, overall, 24% of funding for humanitarian assistance come from private donations. The rest comes from government sources. The NGOs used the private donations for rapid responses to emergencies, and on programs in politically unimportant places that receive less government support. It also found that NGOs that receive almost all provate donations are very different from those that get mostly government support:

There are clear differences between those crises where NGOs primarily rely on their voluntary income to fund humanitarian work and those where they use official funding. In 2006, NGOs funded the bulk of their work in India and in the tsunami-affected countries from voluntary sources. This was also the case for Pakistan, DRC, Niger, Angola and Chad. By comparison, they relied on official donors for well over half of their funding in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Russia and Kosovo.

Those are just the highlights. Overall, it provides a lot of insight - and detail - into how the big NGOs fund their work. That's useful information for the little guys just starting up.