United Nations

Democracy Fund
Resource Mobilization Strategy
Prepared by Emily Collins-Ellis & Jasmine Awad, April 2020

1
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:

• Research: UNDEF’s context • Strategy Background: • Messaging: review of

Background & Research

Strategy

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
Moving Forward
general summary of UNDEF’s UNDEF’s messaging & assets
core objectives • Donor Journey:
• Financials: recommended recommended stages for
financial targets and gift tables donor cultivation
• Prospect Pipeline: key • Raising Profile: suggested
themes & trends from the actions for network growing
prospecting research • Resources: recommended
• Recommended Audiences: resources to support UNDEF’s
UNDEF’s key audiences and strategy implementation
recommended approaches
• UNDEF’s Offering:
suggested product ideas and
donor rewards

4
 Context & Needs 6
Background &
Research Income History 7

Strategy Research & Data 8

Moving Forward
Positioning Study 31
Appendix

Benchmarking 39

5
Background – Context & Needs
Emily 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
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:
$30,000,000

$25,000,000

$20,000,000

$15,000,000

$10,000,000

$5,000,000

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

7
Research & Data – Methodology
Using 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 Areas
This 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 Trends
The 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 Funders
In 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 Multilaterals
DAC 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 Making
Agencies providing the
The following table refers to the main agencies providing DAC Members
largest % of ODA
ODA in the main DAC countries in the period 2013-16.*
Austria, Czech Republic, Greece,
Although the responsibility for allocations to multilaterals Ministry of Finance
South Korea, Poland, Slovak
generally rests with the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry Republic, Slovenia

of Foreign Affairs, several other ministries and institutions Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Japan,
Ministry of Foreign Luxembourg, Netherlands, New
do extend funding to multilateral organizations. For DAC Affairs Zealand, Norway, Poland, Slovak
countries, this number averages 7, but in some cases it Republic, Sweden

reaches 15 ministries/institutions (e.g. Spain): Germany (GIZ), Italy (AICS), Spain

Ministry for Economic (AECID), Sweden (SIDA), Switzerland
• Pros: receiving funding from multiple entities Cooperation and (SDC), UK (DFID), US (USAID),
Development Canada (Global Affairs Canada),
provides expertise and resources from a range of Belgium (ENABEL)
partners.
Portugal, Australia, Japan, Italy,
Ireland, US (Dept of Treasury), Spain
• Cons: uncoordinated funding from many different
Central Government or (Ministry of Public Administration),
donors can reduce overall coherence and strategic other departments Hungary (Ministry for National
focus, resulting in weaker partnerships. Economy, EU (EC, European
Investment Bank)

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

13
Source: OECD (2018c).
Philanthropic Flows – General Trends
Philanthropic 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 Funders
74% 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 – Multilaterals
According 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 – Approaches
Philanthropy has been undergoing a paradigm shift in the last few years, focusing on more strategic
approaches to giving. Key trends in the sector include:
Venture Philanthropy Systems Change Big Bets
A long-term approach to To optimise the ecosystem of These are especially popular
funding that enables change, foundations want to among large US foundations.
foundations to test a model and have a clearer understanding of The big bet approach dedicates
bring it to scale, if successful. It their role in the system and a significant philanthropic
involves blending several where their resources and investment of $10 million+ to
financial instruments (grants, expertise best fit local needs. As solving a social problem in a
loans, guarantees, etc.), and their single approach is not limited timeframe, generally by
building partnerships with enough to affect systems supporting a single
organizations able to deliver change, they look to partner organization. Large donations
impact. These groups include with other organizations to are usually preceded by smaller,
NGOs, social enterprises, public tackle intersecting issues ‘get-to-know-you’ grants.
and private sectors. simultaneously.

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

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.
• 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.

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

Philanthropic Flows – Partnerships
When 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).

Spotlight – UNDP-DPPA Program
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.

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

Defining Democracy – UNDEF
Whilst 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:

SDG 5 - Women’s Youth

Support for
empowerment Community Rule of law and engagement &
electoral
and gender activism human rights economic
processes
equality empowerment

Strengthening
Media and SDG 16 - Peace,
civil society Tools for
freedom of Justice & Strong
interaction with knowledge
information Institutions
Government

21
Defining Democracy – Themes
We have identified six intersectional areas as the main
cross-cutting themes in the funding for democracy
space. The additional slides included in the Appendix
Human Rights
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 Gender Equality
to invest the most resources.
Youth Empowerment
It is important to note the limitations of the available
data on global philanthropy. As Democracy is a broad Democratic Participation &
and fragmented landscape, research often involves Free Media
stitching together data gathered from different sources, Transparency & Anti-
with different methodologies, and collected at different Corruption
times – which can create a fabric with some holes and
Security & Conflict Prevention
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).
• 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%).

24 Source: OECD (2018b).

Spotlight – EU Funding to Democracy
13% 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:
• 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).

25 Source: EPRS (2019).

Spotlight – EU Funding to Democracy
Besides the European Commission, the main program s aimed at promoting democracy in the EU are:
European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
• 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 Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI)
• 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.
Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI)
• 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.
Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP)
• 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.

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

Democracy as a Priority – Countries
In 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 Flows
Both 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 Democracy
As 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 Study
In 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
The SWOT analysis from our kick-off workshop with the UNDEF team highlighted the following:
Strengths
• 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
Opportunities
• 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
32
Weaknesses
• 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
Threats
• 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
External SWOT Analysis
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 • With a small Secretariat, it doesn’t have a lot of capacity
demonstrating that democracy is a UN priority to work on internal management
• Small, flexible and dynamic (financially and as an • Small size means that it can’t reach out to everyone
organization, with very skilled and effective staff) • Most of its projects are short-term
• As a UN entity has more objectivity and neutrality than • Although they are fair, processes take a long time
single countries, where politics comes into place • Limited time of board members
• Cross-regional and inclusive board
Opportunities Threats
• Results can be used more as communications materials • Governments may decline to accept projects proposed in
• More donors and grantees involvement for resource their countries
mobilization • High dependency on Member Countries
• More Multi-Year pledges by donor countries • Donors don’t always give for specific reasons / grants
• More events and outreach/engagement opportunities don’t always reflect a government’s strategy
• Attracting risk-averse private philanthropy • Private philanthropy can be hard to engage

33
Interviewees – UNDEF’s Unique Value
When 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:

Independence Expertise Positioning

• Being a UN, neutral and
independent body
• Less political than sovereign
countries
• Supporting independence at the
grassroot level
• Having a small but efficient and
competent team
• Working with the right partners on
the field
• Bringing value to the table
through its work
• 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

34
Interviewees – Challenges in the Space
There 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 Motivations
There are several reasons why donors decide to fund - or not fund – democracy and CSOs. The most
resounding ones amongst the stakeholders we interviewed are:

Political climate and Security-based Historical imperative to

humanitarian emergencies motivations (e.g. ‘threat’ of show commitment to
dictating priorities neighbouring countries) democracy

Strategic desire to support

Desire to share the
country’s experience of
development in the context
of democracy
Commitment to CSO CSOs and democracy work
approaches without the in- that underpins success in
country capacity to the contributions they make
implement them to intersecting issues and
initiatives

36
Interviewees – What Funders Want
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.

37
Interviewees – Comparable Orgs
Finally, 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:

Sovereign
UN
Countries
European Union Peacebuilding
(Bilateral
Fund
Funding)

38
Benchmarking
In 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 Glance
The 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 Choice
The 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 Involvement
The 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
The majority of the Global Fund’s financial support comes from 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
Global Fund – Leverage & Ego
The 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 Glance
Founded 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 World Bank
Group
IDA, and it is a component of the wider World
Bank Group, which also comprises the IFC, the
MIGA and the ICSID.
ICSID
MIGA
In 2019, the World Bank Group supported World Bank
IFC
Int. Finance
Multilateral
Int. Centre for
Settlement of
multiregional and global projects around the Corporation
Investment
Investment
Guarantee Agency
world for a total of $62.3 billion. Disputes

Even though the World Bank is not at all

IBRD IDA
similar to UNDEF when it comes to size and Int. Bank for International
remit, we identified and highlighted a few key Reconstruction Development
and Development Association
elements of its resource mobilization strategy
which may be of particular interest for the
UNDEF team.

45
World Bank – Governance
The 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 Mobilization
The 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:

Parliamentarians
Philanthropy and the Private Sector
The Global Young Member of Parliament Initiative brings
There is an increased focus on partnering with non-traditional
together young legislators to share best practices and policy
actors, including foundations, new philanthropists, impact
solutions to challenges affecting younger generations. An
investors, and social entrepreneurs who finance and harness
independent platform is also used for engagement with
innovation and bring their expertise to the table.
legislators and influential parliamentarians.

Community Connections Trust Funds

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 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.

47 Source: World Bank Website.

World Bank – Contributors
Total 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 – Strategy
In 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 Glance
Founded 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.
• 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.

50 Source: UN Women (2018).

UN Women – Funding Sources
Whilst 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.
• 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.

51
 UN Women – Strategic Plan
UN 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.

Predictability of resources
Gender equality’s intersectional themes
Focussing on widening and deepening its donor base to
Capitalising on the growing attention to the importance of
increase the predictability of resources. Widening the donor
gender equality and women’s empowerment and of proper
base also helps expand political support and raise
resourcing for the achievement of sustainable development,
awareness about UN Women’s mandate across a broader
peace and security and human rights.
constituency.

Countries engagement Private sector partnerships

Working with all donors and engaging traditional and Strengthening and expanding partnerships with
emerging Member States, whether through symbolic foundations and the private sector tapping into their
contributions, or by increasing the predictability of funding multinational presence through collaboration at the country,
through multi-year pledges. regional, and global levels.

52
UN Women – Creating Efficiencies
To 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 Funding
UN 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 – Transparency
In 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:

“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.”

56
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
 Strategy Background 61

Background & Research Strategy – Core Objectives 62

Strategy Financials 63
Moving Forward Prospect Pipeline 66
Appendix
Recommended Prospect Audiences 68

UNDEF’s Offering 80

60
Strategy Background
We 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 Objectives
The 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
United States of America India Sweden
25,000,000 Germany Japan Qatar
Australia Spain France
Italy Republic of Korea Poland
20,000,000
Canada United Kingdom Ireland
Romania Chile Turkey
15,000,000 Denmark Czech Republic Portugal

10,000,000

5,000,000

0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

63
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 – Considerations
The 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
Prospect Pipeline – Summary
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 Rating Focus Areas Geography History

• The total estimated • Each prospect on • The majority of •The most viable •Countries who
value of potential the pipeline is funders have prospects are have successfully
asks is $19,165,000 rated A, B, C, multiple focus located in the transitioned to
• The estimated based on the level areas that fit with global North, with democracy from
average ask is of compatibility UNDEF’s mission, some exceptions an undemocratic
$416,000 for with UNDEF’s values & in the Global form an
governments, and activities and their ambitions South governance may
$344,000 for trusts giving potential • The most popular •Countries that are have a moral,
and foundations • We identified a are Human Rights, located particularly political or
• There are a total of total of 29 ‘A’ Gender Equality, close to ‘less strategic interest in
49 quality prospects for Democratic democratic funding UNDEF.
prospects immediate Participation, and regimes’ may have
cultivation, 15 ‘B’ Youth a strategic interest
prospects & 5 ‘C’ Empowerment in funding UNDEF
prospects
66
Prospect Pipeline – Key Audiences
Governments (Funding)
• 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.

Foundations (Co-Funding Partnerships)

• 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.

Corporations (Events Sponsorships)

• 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.

67
Recommended Prospect Audiences
Whilst 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:

Audiences Priority
Governments High
Trusts & Foundations Medium
Corporate Partnerships Medium-Low
Major Donors Low

68
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

Great causes & strong Companies can be Companies care about
causes they say they
impact are enough large cash donors social impact
do

Overwhelmingly,
Cash giving from most
corporate initiatives
Companies are companies is lower than Some do – but the best
come as a result of a
bombarded with you might think; the best way to build a
personal connection. If
requests for funds and partnerships figure out sustainable relationship
there’s not a corporate
partnership; everyone how to use a company’s is to think about the
foundation involved, . other assets, and target
has a great cause that impacts on their business
their stated focus areas
needs support. budgets that are not just too.
may just be a
CSR.
communications exercise.
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:

1 2 3 4 5

To learn Grassroot growth More donors Clear outcomes Storytelling

They 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.
Donors 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.
Current 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
Even 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.
Funders 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.

81
 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:

6 7 8 9 10

Be understood Understand Engage stakeholders Be visible Feel important

They 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.
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.
Anything from trips,
volunteering, seats on advisory
boards, conference speaking
spots or good examples of
storytelling can help them
engage their stakeholders.
This 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.
Donors want to make a
difference and see how they
can be leveraged to achieve
greater impact through pilots,
innovation, matching, and
sharing ideas.

82
Offering – Value of UNDEF
Small 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
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:
•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
Earmarked Funding & migrants) or country/region.
Target Audiences: B- & C-list Governments; Foundations•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
Sunset Funding specific project after 2 years of UNDEF’s funding, with UNDEF acting as a ‘guarantor of value’.
Target Audience: Foundations •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

Event Sponsorship series of) events organized by UNDEF.
Target Audiences: Corporates; Foundations •Requires very clear benefits structure, capacity to deliver, and compliance with UN standards and
regulations.

84
Offering – Recommended Structures
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.

85
Offering – Stakeholder Motivations
When 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 :

Profile
Impact Influence Expertise Engagement Connections Exclusivity
Raising
Get deeply
Demonstrable Access to
Be involved in Access to involved in an
value for exclusive and
discussions, Allow for cutting-edge issue that Socialise and
money, and unique
debates and – positioning as information, matters to connect with
impact of their opportunities,
where a leader in the innovation them, peers, donors
investment on connections
appropriate – space. and unique combining and experts.
a cause they and
decisions. insights. resources with
support. experiences.
others.

86
 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:
Profile
Impact Influence Expertise Engagement Connections Exclusivity
Raising
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 • • • •

87
 Resource Mobilization Pain Points
Being 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:
Identification Prioritisation
• Advantages: strong network •Advantages: democracy
of existing donors and a has many cross cutting
seat in some forums of themes, so number of
others.
opportunities is high.
• Pain Points: low brand
•Pain Points: limited staff
awareness and limited field
of donors. capacity in fundraising,
so challenging to
• Solutions: hold internal prioritize efforts.
network mapping session to
identify existing •Solutions: dedicate a
relationships, build staff member to
networks in adjacent issue relationship-based
areas, engage diverse resource mobilization in
forums.
order to prioritize
funding opportunities.
88
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 Forward 90
Background & Research
Messaging 91
Strategy
Donor Journey 98
Moving Forward
Appendix Raising Profile 101

Resources 103

89
Moving Forward
From 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 & Vision
Founded 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.

SUPPORT NETWORK CALL TO ACTION

UNDEF was founded with the contribution
of key players in the democracy space, and
15 years later, they are still supporting its
Present UNDEF needs more support from key
stakeholders to address the urgent challenges
to democracy worldwide.
work.

KNOWLEDGE

Past 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)-
Future
term support to the projects it funds.

91
Messaging – Comparative Advantage
Generally 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:

UN Body Global Remit Funding CSOs Low Risk Low Cost

It is the only UN Fund focusing
exclusively on Democracy,
meaning its knowledge on this
specific matter is unparalleled
and it has greater legitimacy.
UNDEF funds projects and has
field presence through its
partners all over the world,
making it easier for donors to
reach the most remote
regions.
UNDEF is one of the very few
organizations funding
democracy directly through
CSOs, and the knowledge it has
build over time is unparalleled.
As democracy is a very political
topic, it is less risky for public
and private donors to fund
CSOs through UNDEF, rather
than bilaterally.
Its start up-like structure makes
UNDEF dynamic and efficient,
meaning that its operational
costs are low, and more money
goes to field projects.

92
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 Work
As 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:

Simplification SDG Framework Low Risk Element Problems & Solutions

UNDEF should make use By framing its work As some funders are risk For each key issue area,
of the team’s unique through the SDG Goals, averse, especially when it UNDEF should set long-
understanding to simplify UNDEF may appeal to comes to politically term objectives, be clear
the way it speaks about donors who tend to sensitive subjects, UNDEF about the challenges
the work it funds, for all allocate their annual should highlight the fact involved and explain how
audiences to better and budget and speak about that funding through it donors & partners’
faster understand its their funding priorities involves lower levels of support would help meet
funding priorities. through this specific political and strategic risk these objectives and
framework. for donors. overcome obstacles.

95
Messaging – Collateral
In 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:
Website
• 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.
96
Video Donor Offering
• Video content is the most
• Written materials should never
impactful, widely shared, and
be used with donors in isolation,
easily digestible way of getting a
but also need to be available &
complex message across.
suffice as stand-alone collateral.
• We strongly recommend
• UNDEF should create a
producing a creative and
customisable ‘offering’ summary
compelling ‘About Us' video to
that describes the funding
be featured on the website’s
opportunities and the
landing page which explains the
advantages of channelling money
nature of the work, UNDEF’s key
through the Fund for its key
priorities and how it promotes
audiences.
democracy globally.
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.
DONOR
Ensuring that existing donors are not ignored, or JOURNEY
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 – Stages
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.

99
Donor Journey – Example

6 months
“Get To Know” Advice or Flattery Connect at Event VIP Meet with General Event Exclusive Event
Call or Meeting Request or Conference Executive Head Invite (with other Invite (with
prospects) current donors)

12 months
Personal Touch: General Event “Catch-Up”
Visit, Trip or Field Case for Support
e.g. Holiday or Meet Meeting
Engagement Meeting
Birthday Card

18 months
“Pitch” or Personal Touch: Thanks (from
Thank You Card Exclusive Event DONATION MADE
Proposal Meeting Executive Head)

24 months
Exclusive Event Invite to Sit on VIP Meet with Exclusive Event Thanks (from
Invite Committee General Update (Other Donors)
Executive Head project team)

Stewardship Acknowledgement Solicitation Cultivation

100
Raising Profile – Network Building
In 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
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.

102
Resources – Systematising
UNDEF 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
Background & Research

Strategy References 105

Moving Forward Additional Research 107

Appendix

104
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 Research
The 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 Multilaterals
How 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 Multilaterals
How 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
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).

110 Source: Brookings (2017).

Funding by Country – Decision Making
The 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).

Defining Democracy – Themes
As 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
Human Rights
democracy are the most and least funded, as well as
where both governments and private funders tend to
invest the most resources. Gender Equality

It is important to note the limitations of the available Youth Empowerment

data on global philanthropy. As Democracy is a broad
and fragmented landscape, research often involves Democratic Participation &
stitching together data gathered from different sources, Free Media
with different methodologies, and collected at different Transparency & Anti-
times – which can create a fabric with some holes and Corruption
discontinuities.
Security & Conflict Prevention

112
Democracy Funding – Human Rights
Human 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).

Global

Sources: Human Rights Funding (2019), Human Rights Funders Network (2017), Candid, Human Rights Funders Network (2019), Peace and
113 Security Index (2019).
Democracy Funding – Human Rights
The 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.

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

Sources: Human Rights Funding (2019), Human Rights Funders Network (2017), Candid, Human Rights Funders Network (2019), Peace and
115 Security Index (2019).
Democracy Funding – Gender Equality
Grants 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.

Global

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

Democracy Funding – Gender Equality
Some 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 Equality
Specific 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%).
• 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).

118 Source: OECD netFWD (2019).

Democracy Funding – Gender Equality
Health 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).
• 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.

119 Source: OECD netFWD (2019).

Democracy Funding – Youth
In the period 2013-15, $7.5 billion, or around 31% of the total foundations’ giving was intended to address
children and youth empowerment:
• 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 Koç Foundation, Telefónica
Foundation and the Dutch Postcode Lottery.

120 Source: OECD (2018b).

Democracy Funding – Participation
In 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.

Global

121 Sources: OECD (2018b), Media Impact Funders (2018), Peace and Security Index (2019).
Democracy Funding – Transparency
As 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.

Global

122 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%).

Global

123 Source: OECD (2018b).

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).