Funders argue that money alone is rarely sufficient to address complex social problems and that charities need support to strengthen their governance, strategy, leadership and resilience over time.
Non-financial support refers to everything funders provide beyond money, such as organisational development, mentoring, technical advice, convening and peer learning. It has become a central feature of contemporary funding, especially in funder plus and venture philanthropy models. The aim is to strengthen the long term capacity, resilience and impact of charities and movements, particularly in complex or under resourced contexts. Yet the design and delivery of this support is shaped by power, resources and institutional norms, which means it can both enable and constrain organisations.
Non-financial support is not neutral. It reflects funders’ assumptions about what good organisations look like and who holds expertise. The literature highlights several recurring challenges.
High quality support requires staff time, specialist skills and sometimes external consultants. Many foundations underestimate these costs or do not fund them adequately.
Support offers are often designed by funders rather than co-created. This can result in low take up, duplication of other programmes or support that does not match what organisations actually need. One way to pick up these needs could be at the application stage, especially if there is a conversation with the organisation as part of the process, or via some kind of organisational diagnosis.
When funders shape strategy, governance or impact frameworks, there is a risk of over steering. Organisations may feel obliged to accept support in order to protect their funding relationship, even when it is not appropriate. This can cause a lack of commitment in the long term since grantees could see this support as not useful and not a priority for them.
Non-financial support is more likely to reach well connected or already established organisations because they usually have more time and resources that can be allocated to engage with this offer. Grassroots, global South and other groups experiencing systemic inequalities often have fewer opportunities to join networks, attend trainings or receive tailored advice.
While many funders believe non-financial support is valuable, systematic evaluation is rare. Existing assessments focus largely on satisfaction and participation rather than long term organisational or community outcomes.
In response to these challenges, several approaches are gaining prominence.
Where non-financial support is well designed and responsive, reported benefits include:
For some venture philanthropy and funder plus models, non-financial support is described as the main driver of added value, with grants acting as an enabler rather than the sole intervention.
Despite promising practice, several gaps remain.
Non-financial support has become a significant feature of the charity funding landscape and is widely seen as a route to stronger, more resilient organisations. However, it is not automatically benign or equitable. Its design and delivery are shaped by resource constraints and power relations. Poorly designed interventions, such as mandatory, non‑bespoke training and an uncoordinated proliferation of ‘funder‑plus’ offers, can overwhelm organisations and reflect underlying resource constraints and power imbalances rather than their actual needs.
To fulfil its potential, non-financial support needs to be co-created with organisations, grounded in their priorities and resourced realistically. It should be offered in ways that respect autonomy, avoid dependency and expand access for groups that have historically been under supported. Embedding evaluation and learning will be essential if funders are to understand when and how non-financial support genuinely contributes to more just and effective funding ecosystems.
Non-financial support works best when it reflects what organisations actually need. Funders should collaborate with organisations to design support offers, rather than assuming what will be useful. This includes avoiding duplication of support already provided by other funders, coordinating where possible, and offering optional, flexible menus of support rather than standardised packages.
High quality support requires time, expertise and facilitation. Funders should allocate realistic budgets for organisational development, mentoring, consultancy and convening. Under-resourced programmes risk becoming tokenistic or superficial.
Support should be offered, not imposed. Funders should ensure that organisations can decline certain types of support without fear that it will affect their funding. At the same time, funders may have a legitimate interest in ensuring that certain core processes (such as budgeting, governance, or impact information) are sufficiently robust to support effective delivery and organisational development. Where this is the case, expectations should be made explicit, proportionate, and clearly linked to the purpose of the grant, so that any required improvements are understood as enabling long-term organisational strength rather than constraining autonomy.
Smaller or grassroots organisations may need different types of support (for example, hands-on governance help, digital basics or leadership confidence-building) compared to larger charities. Funders should adapt their offers to these varied needs, avoiding one-size-fits-all approaches.
Funders should be intentional about who receives non-financial support. This includes proactively inviting small, under-resourced and community-led groups to join training, peer learning, or advisory sessions, and offering stipends or flexible timing to support participation.
Convening, networking and shared learning are powerful forms of non-financial support. Funders should create spaces where organisations can learn from one another, share challenges and build solidarity. These spaces often produce insights that consultancy alone cannot.
External consultants, mentors and technical experts should be selected for both subject expertise and relational skills. Cultural competence lived experience and understanding of community dynamics are essential qualities for providers working with grassroots organisations. Funders may find it helpful to maintain a flexible pool or bank of potential providers, with clear information about their working style and areas of expertise, and to support organisations to discuss their learning needs with a grant manager so they can choose the support that best fits their context and priorities.
Funders should explain clearly why non-financial support is being offered, what it aims to achieve and how it relates (or does not relate) to grant conditions. Transparency helps avoid misunderstandings and reduces perceptions of hidden expectations.
Support should be accessible regardless of geography, capacity or digital access. Funders can offer online, in-person and hybrid options, as well as asynchronous materials such as recorded sessions or written guides that organisations can review in their own time. This way they can ensure participation is possible for organisations with limited time or staff.
Funders should track how non-financial support affects organisational resilience, leadership, governance and long-term impact. Evaluation should include feedback from participants and attention to equity: who benefits, who is excluded and why.
Support should contribute to organisations’ long-term capability and confidence, helping them strengthen systems, skills, and decision-making over time. This does not mean organisations must operate in isolation; rather, capacity-building should be understood as enabling sustainable practice, shared learning, and ongoing collaboration where useful. Funders should be mindful of how support is structured so that it builds internal capability and resilience, rather than creating reliance on external advice for core organisational functions.
Non-financial support needs evolve. Funders should regularly review their support offers, invite honest feedback, and adjust delivery models to ensure they remain relevant, proportionate and accessible.
Funders should be mindful of the cumulative impact of multiple support offers on organisations. Where possible, funders should align or coordinate support with others to avoid duplication and ensure it is proportionate and useful.
Read our full research paper on this section
In 2023, the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) launched the Community Impact Fund (CIF) to rethink how national advocacy organisations support grassroots change. Rather than deciding funding priorities from the top down, NWLC devolved decision-making power to community leaders.
