Private Philanthropy for Development (Third Edition)

Taking Stock of Philanthropy’s Contribution to Development

Report

The Development Dimension

24 March 2026

Download PDF

3. Philanthropy: A strategic development partner

Copy link to 3. Philanthropy: A strategic development partner

Abstract

This chapter reviews foundations’ giving strategies and the influence of COVID-19 on their approaches, providing insights to strengthen understanding, dialogue, and collaboration and co-funding among development actors. In particular, the chapter presents an analysis of financial instruments and mechanisms that philanthropic organisations use – with an additional focus on their investment strategies (when endowed) – and how they provide non-financial support as well. It also analyses how foundations are learning from what works best and why, and how they share these lessons internally, and with others. Finally, the chapter maps the networks of partnerships and co-financing involving foundations, analysing sectoral and geographical patterns of engagement with other development finance providers.

3.1. How foundations give: Implementation modalities of philanthropy for development

Copy link to 3.1. How foundations give: Implementation modalities of philanthropy for development

3.1.1. Grants remain dominant, while blended finance gains momentum

Both the financial and the organisational surveys1 collected data on the financial instruments and modalities of philanthropic giving. The financial survey provides information on funding volumes, disaggregated by financial instrument and funding modality, while the organisational survey captures the reported number of respondents using each instrument or modality.

In the sample analysed, grants dominated philanthropic disbursements, totalling USD 47 billion (69% of total philanthropy funding). Loans2 accounted for USD 5 billion, while equity investments and hybrid instruments represented USD 60 million and USD 40 million, respectively. Over 2020-2023, ODA disbursements also mainly consisted of grants (USD 606 billion, hence 79% of total ODA) and soft loans (USD 152 billion, hence 20% of total ODA) (see Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1. Grant-making accounted for the majority of disbursements from philanthropy and ODA
Copy link to Figure 3.1. Grant-making accounted for the majority of disbursements from philanthropy and ODA

Total gross disbursements, by top financial instrument (2020-2023), USD billion 2023 constant

When looking at the number of respondents from the organisational survey using different instruments, it appears that 87% reported using grants, 33% matching grants, and 29% prizes or awards. Additionally, 42% financed and operated their own projects (Figure 3.2). Few used alternative funding methods such as loans (19%), equity (16%), guarantees (9%) or subordinated loans (4%); and 23% engaged in financial mechanisms such as programme-related investments and development impact bonds.

Of the foundations that used financial instruments and mechanisms other than grants, nearly 70% came from high-income countries, highlighting the need to enhance capacity among respondents in low- and middle-income countries, to leverage a wider range of financial instruments and mechanisms.

Figure 3.2. Respondents to the OECD organisational questionnaire employed mostly grants
Copy link to Figure 3.2. Respondents to the OECD organisational questionnaire employed mostly grants

Share of respondents, by financial instrument type

Concerning the reasons behind this lack of experimentation with – and adoption of – different financial instruments, 23% of respondents cited a lack of internal capacity, 11% a lack of affordable third-party expertise or knowledge, while 10% cited legal compliance concerns or doubts about the effectiveness of such instruments (see Figure 3.3).

Notably, almost half of the respondents reported that their exclusive reliance on grant-making was a deliberate strategic choice rather than being due to internal (such as insufficient internal capacity or knowledge) or external (such as compliance issues) barriers. In fact, foundations might deliberately decide to use grants but still engage in collaborative financial structures where they can use their capital as leverage. A recent OECD report highlighted that philanthropic donors are increasingly engaging in blended finance (OECD, 2025[1]). Blended finance is defined as the “strategic use of public or private investment (including concessional tools) with a development objective to mobilise additional finance for SDG-aligned investments” in low- and middle-income countries. The objective of blended finance is to crowd-in commercial “non-development” finance, thereby growing the share of overall financing available for development (OECD, 2018[2]). Foundations participate in blended finance structures providing concessional resources through grants, to unlock public and private non-concessional resources. While evidence shows that foundations are already stepping into this space – 18% of blended finance transactions since 2014 involved at least one foundation (Convergence, 2024[3]), and philanthropic investors deployed USD 100 million in catalytic capital between 2022 and 2024 (Convergence, 2025[4]) – these figures likely underestimate the full extent of engagement, giving the scarcity of available studies on this topic. More evidence is needed to design blended finance vehicles that cater to a wide range of international and domestic philanthropic funders, starting with their needs and constraints in mind, and to understand the actual effectiveness of blended finance structures in mobilising additional resources for development.

Figure 3.3. For nearly half of respondents, grant-making exclusivity was intentional
Copy link to Figure 3.3. For nearly half of respondents, grant-making exclusivity was intentional

Number of respondents, by barrier type

3.1.2. Philanthropic donors continued to prioritise earmarked funding, while expanding the use of flexible financing approaches

Philanthropic disbursements were mainly earmarked to specific projects and programmes

Flexible financing is defined as any financing from a donor, in the form of a grant or other instrument, that is not earmarked. In OECD terminology, “an earmarked grant is a grant that is given under the condition that it can only be used for a specific purpose” (Bergvall et al., 2006[5]). Thus, flexible financing occurs when donors offer grants without imposing restrictions or mandates regarding the use of funds. In particular, ODA flows can be earmarked for a specific country, project, region, sector or theme, and they technically qualify as bilateral ODA. In contrast, core (or unearmarked) ODA contributions are resources channelled to partner organisations, where allocation decisions rest entirely with the governing boards, subject only to the organisation’s mandate.

Between 2020 and 2023, most philanthropic funding was earmarked, amounting to USD 40 billion, compared to just USD 6.5 billion in flexible funding – of which USD 5.1 billion went to core support3 and USD 1.4 billion to technical assistance. Within earmarked funding, project-type interventions were the more frequent modality with USD 36.6 billion (91% of earmarked funding), followed by contributions to specific-purpose programmes and funds (USD 1.3 billion), scholarships and student costs in donor countries (USD 1.1 billion). The minimal allocation to core support revealed philanthropy’s preference for targeted, project-specific approaches to grant-making, rather than unrestricted support.

ODA showed a similar pattern, with most funding earmarked for project-type interventions (USD 406 billion) and an additional USD 78 billion directed to specific-purpose programmes and funds managed by implementing partners. Flexible funding modalities (represented by general budget support4, sector budget support5, and core support to NGOs, other private bodies, Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) and research institutes in Figure 3.4) totalled USD 83 million – only 11% of total ODA.

Figure 3.4. Philanthropy and ODA both directed most of their funding towards specific projects
Copy link to Figure 3.4. Philanthropy and ODA both directed most of their funding towards specific projects

Total gross disbursements, by funding modality (2020-2023), USD billion 2023 constant

Funding modalities have consequences for grantees in terms of compliance costs, administrative burden and reporting requirements, as well as for project implementation. By providing general budget support, philanthropic donors offer grantees more flexibility to adapt their strategies and use funds in ways that best align with their expertise, their overall project portfolio and the evolving needs of their beneficiaries. In contrast, foundations providing restricted or earmarked financing seek to exercise greater control over the use of their resources, ensuring they are directed towards pre-determined objectives and outcomes. This approach aims to enhance alignment between philanthropic donor intent and grantee implementation, minimising potential deviations from envisioned goals. Restricted financing provides clear expectations and accountability. However, it can limit an organisation's flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances or seize opportunities that might arise during a project (OECD, 2024[6]).

As part of the response to COVID-19, philanthropy shifted towards more flexible funding practices

While the previous analysis examined the total amounts allocated to flexible versus earmarked funding – showing that project-specific funding still dominates in absolute terms for both philanthropy and ODA – the following analysis reflects the number of organisations reporting to have adopted these different funding modalities, before and after the pandemic.

The data collected from the OECD organisational questionnaire suggested that respondents are shifting towards more flexible funding practices in response to the pandemic.

Among 97 respondents, earmarked funding was largely dominant, with 59% practising it before the pandemic and 16% having disbursed both earmarked and unearmarked funding equally. After 2022, the number of respondents disbursing most of their funding through project-specific (earmarked) financing declined by 19% (11 organisations). Conversely, the number of respondents primarily providing flexible (unearmarked) financing rose by 25% (from 24 to 30 organisations). Additionally, respondents adopting a mixed approach – allocating flexible and earmarked funding in equal proportions – grew by 31% (from 16 to 21 organisations) (see Figure 3.5). While these shifts are notable, earmarked funding remained the most common practice across the sample, even after 2022.

Combined results from the financial and organisational surveys show that flexible funding still represents a relatively small share of total philanthropic disbursements. However, the number of organisations adopting flexible financing models is steadily rising. This trend suggests growing openness to more adaptable funding practices and increased awareness of grantees’ needs.

Figure 3.5. Respondents reported shifting towards greater funding flexibility post-COVID
Copy link to Figure 3.5. Respondents reported shifting towards greater funding flexibility post-COVID

Number of respondents by level of funding flexibility, pre- and post-COVID-19

This increase in the number of respondents reporting larger shares of flexible funding was accompanied by concrete steps being taken to simplify operations and reduce restrictions on grantees. Several flexibility mechanisms showed substantial increases between the pre-2020 period and after 2022 (see Figure 3.6).

Time extensions for existing contracts, which was already the most widely adopted flexibility measure before the pandemic, was adopted by a further 13 respondents after 2022.

Most notably, simplification measures saw the largest relative increases post-pandemic. The number of respondents implementing simplified reporting standards doubled (from 20 to 40), while 17 additional respondents adopted simplified approval processes for new grants. These findings suggested a clear commitment prompted by COVID-19 to reducing administrative burdens and fostering more trust-based approaches to giving.

Expenditure-related measures – such as increasing budgets of ongoing projects or reducing spending restrictions for grantees – also observed sizeable increases although remained relatively less used overall after the pandemic.

These findings align with those reported by the Center for Effective Philanthropy (The Center for Effective Philanthropy, 2021[7]), which show that, since early 2020, foundations have been operating differently – notably, they have been streamlining processes to reduce the burden on grantees and providing more unrestricted support. However, it remains to be seen whether these changes will be sustained, as the OECD organisational data only go up to 2023 and do not capture recent global developments that may influence foundations’ approaches to flexible funding.

Figure 3.6. Respondents increasingly simplified requirements for grantees after the pandemic
Copy link to Figure 3.6. Respondents increasingly simplified requirements for grantees after the pandemic

Number of respondents by funding flexibility approach, pre- and post- COVID-19

3.1.3. How is foundations’ size related to the average duration of grant and annual disbursements?

Large foundations enabled longer-term funding

Over the 2020-2023 period, grants provided by philanthropic foundations had an average duration of 3.7 years. This exceeds the average duration of grants funded through official development assistance (ODA), which stood at 3.2 years over the same period, which seems to indicate a modestly longer time horizon for foundation-supported interventions. Overall, 74% of the grants disbursed by foundations in the period had a duration of 4 years or less. Grants disbursed by the top 10% largest foundations6 had an average duration of 3.9 years, compared with 2.2 years for those disbursed by other foundations. In terms of volumes, 30% of funding disbursed by large foundations had a duration of five years or more, whereas 78% of funding provided by the remaining foundations was concentrated in projects with a duration of one to two years (Figure 3.7). This suggests that larger foundations may be better equipped to provide more stable, longer-term funding.

Figure 3.7. Large foundations provided longer-term funding on average
Copy link to Figure 3.7. Large foundations provided longer-term funding on average

Distribution of grant duration overall and by foundation size (2020-2023), % share over total

Looking at funding modality, the average duration of core support to multilateral institutions and global funds, as well as NGOs, other private bodies, PPPs, research institutes was significantly shorter, at around 2.5 years, compared with project-type interventions (3.8 years on average), and contributions to specific-purpose programmes and funds managed by implementing partners (5.2 years on average).

While disbursements remained stable for larger foundations, smaller foundations saw an increase over 2020-2023

Looking at disbursement sizes, the vast majority of philanthropic disbursements were concentrated among relatively small brackets of funding: close to 80% of all disbursements were under USD 500 000 (Figure 3.8). On average, foundations’ disbursements totalled approximately USD 600 000, however this figure masked substantial variation between larger and smaller foundations. For the largest foundations7 – those in the top 10th percentile by total disbursements – average annual disbursement size approached USD 1 million. In contrast, the remaining 90% of foundations in the sample made considerably smaller contributions, averaging closer to USD 200 000.

Looking at the evolution across the study period, smaller founders increased their average disbursement size significantly over time – from USD 185 000 in 2020 to USD 250 000 in 2023 – whereas the largest foundations maintained broadly stable disbursement sizes.

Figure 3.8. Close to 80% of philanthropic disbursements were smaller than USD 500 000
Copy link to Figure 3.8. Close to 80% of philanthropic disbursements were smaller than USD 500 000

Distribution of annual disbursement size (2020-2023), % share over total

3.2. Inside foundations: Investment strategies, non-financial support and learning systems

Copy link to 3.2. Inside foundations: Investment strategies, non-financial support and learning systems

3.2.1. Foundations’ sources of funding and investment strategies

Structure and evolution of foundations’ funding sources

Income from endowments or trust funds (such as interest, dividends and capital returns) constituted an average of 47% of respondents’ budget (Figure 3.10).

Endowed foundations in the sample were mostly based in Europe (42%), in North America (17%) and Latin America and the Caribbean (20%). Only 6 endowed foundations were from Africa and 8 from Asia-Pacific, representing 9% and 12% of the sample, respectively.

39% of these endowed foundations reported having only limited in-house capacity (i.e. no dedicated internal investment function) and relying on external advisors or managers to support their grant-making. More than a third (37%) had an internal investment team; 14% reported not having an endowment; and 10% of the respondents didn’t know/couldn’t reply (Figure 3.9).

Figure 3.9. How do respondents manage their endowment?
Copy link to Figure 3.9. How do respondents manage their endowment?

Share of respondents, by type of endowment management

Corporate donations to their respective philanthropic vehicles represented also a significant source of funding for foundations (22% of respondents’ budgets in 2023) (Figure 3.10). In upper-middle-income countries, corporations’ donations constituted 25% of respondents’ budgets, while in low- and lower-middle-income countries this share was 38%, underscoring the critical role of corporate donations in their foundations’ budgets. By contrast, in high-income countries, corporate giving accounted for just 18% of such budgets.

Figure 3.10. A panorama of respondents’ budget sources
Copy link to Figure 3.10. A panorama of respondents’ budget sources

Proportion of funding for the 2023 financial year, by source category

In 2023, an average of 10% of respondents’ budgets was supported by donations from individuals (for example, via bequests and legacies). The share was close to the average in high-income countries (11%), but much higher in low and lower-middle-income countries (18%) and significantly lower in upper-middle-income countries (6%).

The remaining sources of respondents’ budgets in 2023 were nonprofits, including support from donations made by other foundations (9%), services rendered (6%), domestic government (3%) and international organisations such as the European Union, the World Bank and USAID (2%) (see Box 3.1).

Looking at the evolution of respondents’ sources of income over 2020-2023, there have been minimal changes overall. Notably, income from individual donors has declined slightly (-2%), as has funding from international organisations (-1%) such as the European Union, the World Bank and USAID (Figure 3.11). There has also been a modest decrease in income derived from debt instruments, such as bond issuances, as well as from corporate donations. This gap was filled by increased financing from endowments, nonprofits (including support from other foundations) and the rendering of services.

Respondents’ budgets supported by donations from individuals declined marginally for organisations located in low- and lower-middle-income countries and by nearly 3% for those based in higher-income countries. Respondents in upper-middle-income countries saw a modest decline. Regionally, Africa-based organisations did not see their budget sourced from individual donations affected over the 2020-2023 period, while organisations from Asia-Pacific saw such income contract by about 1%. European organisations experienced the steepest decline in their budgets sourced from individual donations: 3%.

Figure 3.11. Evolution of the respondents’ sources of funding over 2020-2023
Copy link to Figure 3.11. Evolution of the respondents’ sources of funding over 2020-2023

Percentage changes of funding, by source category

Africa-based respondents sourced 10% more income from nonprofits in 2023 than they did in 2020. Similarly, respondents in the Asia-Pacific region generated an additional 3% of their income from nonprofit contributions, 2% through service provision, alongside a modest rise in income from domestic governments over 2020. Respondents from North America and Latin America and the Caribbean, similarly, generated an additional 2% from endowments, 1% through rendering services and 1% from nonprofit contributions. In 2023, respondents in Europe saw their income rise by 2% from nonprofits and 1% from corporate donations, alongside more modest gains from domestic government contributions and their endowments.

Box 3.1. Why do some foundations receive funding from other foundations and international organisations?

Copy link to Box 3.1. Why do some foundations receive funding from other foundations and international organisations?

Funding from nonprofit organisations (including other foundations)

Although philanthropic foundations are commonly perceived as net providers of funding, responses to the organisational survey confirm that some foundations receive income from other foundations. This is consistent with established philanthropic practice, where foundations pool resources, establish affiliate or operating foundations, or channel funding through specialised entities for strategic, governance or geographic reasons. In such arrangements, a parent, trust, or anchor foundation may provide capital to another foundation that is better positioned to implement programmes, manage partnerships, or operate in specific regions or sectors. As a result, intra-foundation transfers can appear as income from “nonprofits organisations” (including other foundations) in reporting, without altering the fundamental nature of these resources.

Examples from the organisational survey illustrate this. The World Diabetes Foundation reported that 33% of its 2023 budget originated from other nonprofits, including foundations; its financial statements indicate that this funding was provided by the Novo Nordisk Foundation, reflecting its founding and governance structure (World Diabetes Foundation, 2024[8]). Likewise, Stichting IKEA Foundation reported that 100% of its income in 2023 came from nonprofits, which aligns with its balance sheet data (IKEA Foundation, 2023[9]) showing that its resources are provided entirely by the Stichting INGKA Foundation. These cases underscore that reported nonprofit income often reflects strategic intra-philanthropic financing, rather than external fundraising in the conventional sense.

Funding from international organisations

In addition, 11 respondents to the organisational survey reported receiving funding from international organisations. While less common, this occurs when foundations act as implementing partners or technical agents for specific programmes or projects funded by multilaterals, UN agencies or development institutions. For example, under the European Union’s external action instruments (including EU Trust Funds and NDICI-Global Europe), foundations and other non‑state actors may receive programme‑specific grants or contributions to deliver agreed activities (European Commission, 2018[10]).

International organisations may also contract or grant resources to foundations due to their thematic expertise, local presence, or capacity to deliver targeted interventions – particularly in fragile or underserved contexts.

This is reflected in survey responses from foundations such as the Africa Capacity Building Foundation, which reported that 10% of its 2023 budget originated from international organisations. Similarly, The Welfare Association (Taawon) reported funding from international organisations (Taawon, 2023[11]) and listed amongst its partners the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). The Sasakawa Africa Association likewise reported receiving funding from UN Women (Nigeria) in 2023 (Mazars, 2023[12]). Such arrangements align with Public-Private-Philanthropy Partnerships (PPPPs), in which public actors (e.g. the European Union or UN agencies), philanthropic foundations and, in some cases, private sector actors combine resources and comparative advantages to deliver time-bound development interventions. In these partnerships, foundations may act as co‑funders, programme implementers or technical partners, with financial flows likely reflecting operational roles rather than philanthropic fundraising.

Sustainable and responsible investments

Over the past two decades, there has been a growing interest among foundations in investing responsibly to further social and environmental goals. Often referred to as sustainable and responsible investments, these approaches aim to generate a market‑rate financial return while also advancing social and/or environmental objectives (Global Impact Investing Network, 2025[13]). They are generally expected to yield competitive rates of return to guarantee the preservation of the foundations' capital and their long-term ability to fund. In the OECD organisational survey, 79% of respondents (70 out of 89) reported using one or more strategies to invest responsibly. The most common strategies cited by respondents were applying ESG criteria to define their investment portfolio (45%) and positive screening of investments (42%), whereby organisations select investments that they estimate to be beneficial to society and/or the environment. Mission-related investments (MRI), which refers to investments aligned with an organisation’s mission and programmatic goals, were used least frequently (Figure 3.12).

Little over one-third of the respondents employed just one type of investment strategy, while two-thirds combined two or more different strategies. Although these figures suggest that most respondents employed a combination of responsible investment strategies, no information was shared on the proportion of their assets being invested responsibly.

Figure 3.12. Most preferred strategies among respondents were ESG and positive screening
Copy link to Figure 3.12. Most preferred strategies among respondents were ESG and positive screening

Share of respondents, by investment strategy

The preferred responsible investment strategy among foundations based in North America and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) was negative screening (adopted by 43% of respondents) whereby foundations screen out investments potentially damaging to society and/or the environment. Most foundations based in the Asia-Pacific region relied on positive screening (55%). Most respondents based in Africa (50%) and Europe (55%) preferred using ESG criteria when scoping investment opportunities.

Overall, ESG criteria were adopted by 55% of Europe-based foundations and 50% of Africa-based foundations, compared to only 36% of North America foundations and 27% of organisations in LAC and Asia-Pacific (Figure 3.13). This disparity likely reflected the more mature European ESG market and regulatory framework (Capital Group, 2022[14]). The comparatively lower adoption in other regions (notably in North America) may indicate weaker enforcement mechanisms or differing prioritisation of sustainability within investment strategies.

Figure 3.13. Europe- and Africa-based organisations reported higher adoption of ESG criteria
Copy link to Figure 3.13. Europe- and Africa-based organisations reported higher adoption of ESG criteria

ESG criteria adoption, by respondent region

Key barriers to responsible investments

Three-quarters of respondents cited specific barriers to adopting responsible investment practices (Figure 3.14). About one-third of respondents (32%) cited the sub-optimal financial performance of sustainable assets. Furthermore, 23% cited limited internal capacity for overseeing responsible investment, and another 23% cited limited market absorptive capacity for providing responsible investment products/funds. Together, these barriers revealed a dual challenge – internal readiness and external market maturity – suggesting that organisations’ hesitancy in turning towards responsible investing was not merely financial but also rooted in structural capability deficits and ecosystem limitations.

Notably, 26% of respondents reported not encountering any specific barriers when engaging in responsible investment.

Figure 3.14. Financial performance perspective was the main limitation to responsible investment uptake
Copy link to Figure 3.14. Financial performance perspective was the main limitation to responsible investment uptake

Share of respondents, by barrier type

3.2.2. Non-financial support continued to be widespread, in line with a “venture philanthropy” approach

In addition to grant-making, non-financial support is increasingly central to how philanthropy engages with its partners. This reflects a paradigm that has been in place for more than a decade and is referred to as “venture’’ or ‘’catalytic’’ philanthropy”. In addition to financial support, a number of foundations indeed provide non-financial support in the form of technical assistance, market development, and the development of core capabilities, demonstrating a high level of engagement with their investment portfolios (OECD, 2014[15]). These non-financial resources play an important role in the development and sustainability of the beneficiaries’ organisations. Most respondents (96%, or 101 of 105 surveyed) to the OECD organisation questionnaire reported providing some form of non-financial support, while 86% of them reported providing more than one type of support.

The most frequent form of non-financial support (reported by 80% of respondents) was access to networks and coalitions of funders, which provided connections to additional sources of financing, information, and expertise. More than two-thirds of respondents (69%) also helped their grantees improve their monitoring, evaluation and learning capacities, as well as their visibility, through support for communications and advocacy. Respondents were less frequently involved in helping develop theories of change as part of programme design (only half of them). Interestingly, among respondents from low- and lower-middle-income countries, this figure was higher (64%), as were support for monitoring and evaluation capacities (73%) and for fundraising (55%). In addition to providing programmatic support, over two-thirds of respondents (67%) were actively engaged in strengthening the management capacity of their grantees (Figure 3.15).

The strong emphasis on networks and capacity-building suggests that foundations increasingly see organisational resilience as a prerequisite for long-term sustainability. The higher engagement of foundations in low- and lower-middle-income countries in areas like theory of change and monitoring is also likely a reflection of their proximity to front-line realities.

Figure 3.15. Respondents actively engaged in providing grantees access to networks and expertise
Copy link to Figure 3.15. Respondents actively engaged in providing grantees access to networks and expertise

Share of respondents, by support type

3.2.3. Philanthropic donors faced challenges in rigorously evaluating their programmes

According to the OECD organisational survey, 54% of respondents (57 out of 105) reported having a dedicated evaluation role or unit separate from programme departments. Furthermore, nearly 60% of respondents (55 out of 92) reported that the Head of Evaluation reports directly to the CEO, the board, or both, indicating that evaluation is increasingly seen as a strategic function and as a prioritisation of evaluation insights. Another 20% of respondents reported a Head of Evaluation working under the operations or programmes team. However, 16 respondents indicated either that the evaluation function was distributed across their individual programmes or that there was no formal reporting structure for the Head of Evaluation (Figure 3.16).

Figure 3.16. To whom does the Head of Evaluation report?
Copy link to Figure 3.16. To whom does the Head of Evaluation report?

Number of respondents, by reporting structure

Organisations employed diverse methods to assess their programmes and grants, yet adoption varied significantly across evaluation types and regions. Overall, 83% of respondents report monitoring grantees' progress. Foundations extensively used result reports from field visits, case studies, feedback from people involved in or benefiting from their programmes, and testimonials. While useful, these qualitative approaches should not replace more solid evidence-based evaluation methods. Notably, counterfactual evaluation methods, including Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), were the least used methods among the respondents in the sample. Only 17% of respondents regularly applied counterfactual impact evaluations, and just over one-third (35 of 103) conducted cost-effectiveness analyses, a key tool for decision-makers to weigh a programme's costs against its impact (Figure 3.17).

Looking at specific methodologies, philanthropic donors mainly relied on needs assessments, also referred to as “context analysis”, which nearly 74% of respondents used for most of their projects. Notable gaps by region remained: 9% of foundations in North America and Latin America and the Caribbean, and 15% of European foundations, did not apply contextual or political economy analysis to a majority or all of their projects. Intervention design/theory of change and programmatic evaluation were also widely adopted for assessing the relevance and expected impact of programmes, with 67% and 66% of foundations using them, respectively.

These patterns revealed a strong reliance on basic monitoring and evaluation tools and strategies. Meanwhile, more rigorous, evidence-based evaluation methods remained underutilised, pointing to capacity and methodological constraints across the philanthropic sector and its grantees, as further illustrated in Figure 3.18 and Figure 3.19.

Figure 3.17. Basic monitoring and evaluation tools were used extensively, but counterfactual methods lagged behind
Copy link to Figure 3.17. Basic monitoring and evaluation tools were used extensively, but counterfactual methods lagged behind

Coverage of monitoring and evaluation methods employed across respondents’ projects

Insights from the OECD organisational survey also highlighted the significant challenges organisations faced in translating evaluation findings into actionable learning through evidence dissemination. The most critical issue was quality assurance, with 66% of respondents (68 out of 103) reporting that ensuring sufficient evaluation quality was challenging or very challenging (Figure 3.18). Data reliability remained a major obstacle in evaluation practices, with 63% of respondents (65 out of 103) reporting challenges in ensuring the accuracy of data and results provided by partners. Regional differences were more pronounced: in Africa, 70% of respondents found this issue challenging or very challenging, suggesting acute capacity gaps in grantees’ reporting systems. By contrast, the challenge appeared more manageable to organisations in North America and the Caribbean, with 30% of respondents in the region rating data reliability as easy or very easy.

These two evaluation challenges – ensuring sufficiently high-quality evaluations and the reliability of data and results reported by grantee – were also among the most frequently cited in the second edition of the Private Philanthropy for Development (OECD, 2021[16]) report, pointing to their persistence over time.

Communicating evaluation insights to policymakers and other foundations was also identified a significant challenge for respondents, with 50% (51 out of 103) reporting this as challenging or very challenging, indicating persistent gaps in translating evidence into policy influence. Respondents from North America and Latin America and the Caribbean found this particularly difficult, with 61% reporting that this task was challenging or very challenging, suggesting significant potential to strengthen the link between philanthropic insights and policy processes, ensuring they inform and reinforce one another more effectively.

Operational and financial constraints were significant barriers to effective evaluation: 44% of respondents (45 out of 103) reported difficulties securing adequate evaluation resources, while 42% struggled to identify suitable third-party expertise, highlighting both financial and technical capacity gaps. Regional disparities further underscored these challenges: resource constraints were particularly acute for respondents based in Africa (60%), North America and Latin America and the Caribbean (64%), suggesting that even well-established philanthropic ecosystems faced structural limitations in funding and specialised skills for rigorous evaluation.

Strategic integration appeared less problematic but was still notable: 37% of respondents found it challenging to inform their own strategy and programmes through evaluation, and an equal share struggled to communicate lessons to partners.

These patterns revealed that, while most foundations recognised the importance of evaluation, its effectiveness was undermined by constraints on quality, reliability and resources (Figure 3.18).

Figure 3.18. Ensuring the reliability and quality of data and evaluation results was central to further learning
Copy link to Figure 3.18. Ensuring the reliability and quality of data and evaluation results was central to further learning

Number of respondents, by challenge level and across evaluation-specific issue

When asked about factors contributing to evaluation-related challenges, lack of sufficient time to analyse thoroughly and communicate evaluation results emerged as the most frequently cited challenge, reported by more than half of the sample across all regions (averaging 53%). Limited partner capacity to collect and share high-quality monitoring and evaluation data represented the second most common barrier, cited by 46% of respondents (Figure 3.19). This component observed some regional variation, with 54% of European respondents and 50% of African respondents reporting it, compared to 39% in North America and Latin America and the Caribbean and 36% in Asia-Pacific. Finally, 37% of respondents also identified a lack of adequate internal capacity as a constraint. This suggested that organisations themselves often struggle with the technical expertise, methodological knowledge, or staffing needed to manage monitoring and evaluation work, or to interpret or use evaluation results. These findings further indicate that capacity challenges in learning from evaluations persist on both sides of the funding relationship.

Figure 3.19. Structural barriers related to staff time and partner capacity contributed to evaluation challenges
Copy link to Figure 3.19. Structural barriers related to staff time and partner capacity contributed to evaluation challenges

Number of respondents, by barrier type

3.2.4. Philanthropic donors more frequently disclosed general information on their operations than on individual grants or project-level evaluations

Foundations’ transparency practices are shaped by a combination of ecosystem-level factors – such as legislative and regulatory frameworks – and internal governance structure that condition to some extent disclosure incentives. Foundation transparency patterns reflect fundamental differences in accountability compared to official development providers. While governments answer to taxpayers and legislatures, foundations answer primarily to their boards and, where applicable, to funding donors (individuals, families, or corporations). As a result, in most countries, they often have limited obligations to disclose exhaustive giving data to the public.8

To better understand what information gets shared with the public, the organisational survey asked respondents to report on what they disclosed publicly during the period 2020-2023. The results show that foundations were more likely to share information about their strategy, priorities, inputs (e.g. annual expenditures, annual budgets) and outputs (e.g. annual reports) than programme or impact evaluations.

As regards reporting on operations, annual reports were the most frequently used tool to disclose information, published by 84% of respondents, while only 28% published more detailed programme/grants’ evaluations, and only 17% reported disclosing information about the performance and impact of their giving. While the decision not to disclose evaluation results limits the learning opportunities for peers and partners, it can be driven by issues related to privacy concerns. Similarly, the fact that only 35% of respondents has a public grantees’ database might be driven by the need to avoid disclosing sensitive information that might be prejudicial for grantees.

When it comes to information on the internal functioning of the organisations, 78% of respondents reported sharing details on their governance structure, 56% information on their expenditures or their financial reports, 39% information on annual budgets and only 29% information on the endowment and its use. However, available evidence suggests that, from the perspective of grantees, transparency around the substance of foundations’ work – such as strategies, priorities and grant practices – matters more for effectiveness than financial disclosures or governance information alone (The Center for Effective Philanthropy, 2016[17]).

While the grant-making strategy is shared by over two-thirds of respondents (69%), only 49% transparently share their grant-making processes (Figure 3.20) – pointing to room for improvement in how foundations engage with their potential partners. For foundations operating open application processes, transparency around priorities, timelines, selection criteria and application requirements can help ensure accessibility and help prospective grantees assess whether their projects align with foundation priorities before investing significant time and resources in proposal development (Trust-Based Philanthropy Project, 2022[18]). At the same time, some foundations may intentionally choose not to disclose their grant making processes, for example when relying on invitation-only approaches and pre-screened grantees rather than open calls. However, in such cases, clarity on the rationale for invitation-only approaches and on how prospective grantees are identified remains important (Trust-Based Philanthropy Project, 2022[18]).

Figure 3.20. A panorama of information made available via publicly accessible sources
Copy link to Figure 3.20. A panorama of information made available via publicly accessible sources

Share of respondents, by type of data publicly shared

Respondents cited several factors behind limited transparency, though most (57%) reported no specific barriers. Among those facing challenges, operational constraints were key: 21% pointed to insufficient staff time, reflecting resource pressures. Safety concerns also mattered, with 18% warning that sharing project details could endanger beneficiaries in sensitive contexts. Additionally, 12% feared transparency might hinder grantees’ fundraising with other donors, while a smaller share (7%) mentioned fear of negative publicity (i.e. reputational risks) (Figure 3.21).

Figure 3.21. Higher transparency was limited by insufficient staff time and fear of putting grantees at risk
Copy link to Figure 3.21. Higher transparency was limited by insufficient staff time and fear of putting grantees at risk

Number of respondents, by barrier type

3.3. Philanthropy’s adaptation to multi-dimensional crises: Lessons for future practice

Copy link to 3.3. Philanthropy’s adaptation to multi-dimensional crises: Lessons for future practice

This section assesses philanthropic responses to multi-dimensional crises, based on the 2020-2023 organisational survey. It highlights priority measures, core activities, and key drivers of success, while identifying lessons learned and unique aspects of philanthropic giving amid acute change. It also includes an extensive focus on COVID-19-related philanthropy up to 2023 (i.e. top donors and recipients), as well as the operational changes within the foundation's work prompted by the pandemic.

3.3.1. Philanthropy crisis response: An overview of strategic giving practices

Drawing from the OECD organisational questionnaire, 79% respondents reported responding to a crisis of some type between 2020 and 2023. In the context of the questionnaire, the term “crisis” does not refer to a humanitarian crisis per se, but rather encompasses political, economic and security issues that further fuel humanitarian needs.

More than half (57%) responded to natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, or wildfires; 46% responded to conflict-related crises; and 19% responded to disease outbreaks, including COVID-19. Further analyses on COVID-19 responses are presented in subsequent sections.

Across crisis types, respondents most frequently identified addressing immediate needs as their primary objective in crisis response (29% on average; Figure 3.22). However, for some respondents, priorities varied somewhat depending on the nature of the emergency. For conflict-related crises, respondents (20%) emphasised supporting affected populations – including injured and displaced civilians – as a key priority alongside immediate relief. In the context of natural disasters, respondents (17%) highlighted early recovery and resilience programming as critical objectives, recognising the need to act quickly to restore basic services and build resilience against future shocks. This slight variation in priorities aligns with the distinct characteristics of different crisis types and reflects philanthropy’s recognition that effective crisis response must be tailored to the specific dynamics of each emergency type.

Figure 3.22. Crisis response focused primarily on immediate relief
Copy link to Figure 3.22. Crisis response focused primarily on immediate relief

Share of respondents, by primary objective of crisis response

Beyond responding to immediate needs, which corresponds to the traditional disaster philanthropy paradigm (Dervishi and Balderrama, 2023[19]), organisations increasingly incorporate long-term recovery solutions into crisis responses. This can involve response programming (for example, developing a comprehensive disaster response plan at the organisation level) or considering the long-term perspective alongside immediate relief efforts (see Figure 3.23).

Figure 3.23. A long-term outlook constituted a prevalent aspect of respondents’ crisis response programming
Copy link to Figure 3.23. A long-term outlook constituted a prevalent aspect of respondents’ crisis response programming

Number of respondents, by type of approach

Among the types of support provided for crisis response, financial assistance or cash equivalents was the most common: 45% of respondents used it for conflict-related crises, 66% for natural disasters, and 46% for all other types of crises. Technical assistance and material goods were also used to a lesser extent (averaging 20% combined; Figure 3.24).

Figure 3.24. Regardless of the nature of the crisis, financial assistance was the primary form of aid
Copy link to Figure 3.24. Regardless of the nature of the crisis, financial assistance was the primary form of aid

Share of respondents, by type of support provided

When delivering crisis aid, local civil society organisations (CSOs) emerged as the primary channel for funding, followed by international NGOs (Figure 3.25). The third most frequently used channel varied by crisis type. In conflict-related settings, respondents chose UN agencies, while for natural disasters, respondents favoured government agencies, which play a central role in co-ordinating disaster response and recovery efforts.

Figure 3.25. Local entities and international NGOs were prioritised channels for delivering aid
Copy link to Figure 3.25. Local entities and international NGOs were prioritised channels for delivering aid

Share of respondents, by channel type

The main challenges respondents identified when delivering crisis aid were predominantly structural and environmental barriers: access to affected areas was the most frequently cited obstacle (31%), alongside logistical difficulties (27%) and security concerns (26%). Notably, co-ordination-related barriers such as a lack of co-ordination among actors and communication difficulties, were cited less frequently, suggesting relatively few direct interpersonal frictions when working with local partners for delivering aid in a crisis context.

3.3.2. How did private philanthropy respond to COVID-19?

Globally, between 2020 and 2023, philanthropic organisations invested USD 5.4 billion in response to the COVID‑19 pandemic. The response was highly concentrated in 2020-21, accounting for 80% of total COVID‑19‑related philanthropy over the period.

In 2020, cross-border philanthropy reached USD 1.5 billion, while domestic philanthropy accounted for USD 900 million. Domestic philanthropy then declined steadily, and by 2023 cross-border philanthropic flows accounted for nearly all of the remaining COVID‑19‑related giving, marking a sharp post-crisis contraction in domestic giving.

Between 2020 and 2023, total ODA for COVID‑19 reached approximately USD 51 billion. COVID‑19‑related ODA rose from USD 13 billion in 2020 to a peak of USD 16.5 billion per year on average in 2021‑22, before falling sharply to USD 5 billion in 2023. Overall, ODA funding for COVID-19 was about nine times larger than philanthropic contributions (Figure 3.26).

Figure 3.26. In 2020, a significant amount of COVID-19-related financing was provided by domestic philanthropy, with lower levels in subsequent years
Copy link to Figure 3.26. In 2020, a significant amount of COVID-19-related financing was provided by domestic philanthropy, with lower levels in subsequent years

Total COVID-19-related philanthropy and ODA in time (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

COVID-19-related philanthropy was heavily concentrated among three US-based cross-border organisations: the Gates Foundation (USD 1.3 billion; 24% of total funding for COVID-19); the Mastercard Foundation (USD 1.2 billion; 22%); and the Wellcome Trust (USD 0.5 billion, 9%). Two domestic Chinese foundations were also among the top donors, contributing collectively USD 0.3 billion (6%).

In terms of ODA, Germany and Japan were the largest official providers, together accounting for more than a third (34%) of total COVID-19-related ODA. The EU institutions and the United States each provided USD 7.1 billion (14%) (Figure 3.27).

Figure 3.27. The Gates Foundation and the Mastercard Foundation accounted for nearly half of COVID-19-related philanthropy
Copy link to Figure 3.27. The Gates Foundation and the Mastercard Foundation accounted for nearly half of COVID-19-related philanthropy

Top philanthropic and official donors for COVID-19 (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

Regional programmes in Africa received the largest overall COVID-19-related contribution with USD 1.2 billion. Several other African countries also received significant funding: South Africa and Kenya received USD 200 million each, while Uganda and Nigeria received USD 100 million each.

China concentrated most of domestic COVID-19-related philanthropic funding, receiving USD 816 million in domestic philanthropic funding, alongside USD 23 million in cross-border giving. India also received substantial COVID-19-related philanthropic funding, amounting to USD 543 million, of which USD 352 million came from domestic contributions and USD 191 million from cross-border giving.

In terms of ODA, Indonesia was the largest recipient of COVID-19-related ODA, receiving USD 2.3 billion, followed by Egypt (USD 2.1 billion), and India (USD 1.8 billion). Regional programmes in Africa also received substantial funding with USD 1.8 billion (Figure 3.28).

Figure 3.28. Africa was the largest recipient of cross-border COVID-19 philanthropy, while China concentrated most of domestic COVID-19 philanthropy
Copy link to Figure 3.28. Africa was the largest recipient of cross-border COVID-19 philanthropy, while China concentrated most of domestic COVID-19 philanthropy

Top recipients of COVID-19-related philanthropy and ODA (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

Domestic philanthropic COVID-19-related disbursements in China reached a peak of USD 608 million in 2020, reflecting a rapid, large-scale national response. Similar patterns, albeit on a smaller scale, were observed in India (USD 198 million in 2020) and Mexico (USD 33 million in 2020). In China, funding dropped sharply to USD 37 million in 2021, rebounded slightly to USD 116 million in 2022, and then dropped again to USD 55 million in 2023, showing a clear post-crisis decline. Similar declines were observed in India and Mexico (Figure 3.29).

Figure 3.29. China, India and Mexico observed significant national philanthropic responses to the pandemic
Copy link to Figure 3.29. China, India and Mexico observed significant national philanthropic responses to the pandemic

COVID-19-related domestic philanthropy in China, India and Mexico, by year, USD million (2023 constant)

3.3.3. Network mobilisation and collaboration were central to philanthropy’s pandemic response

Philanthropic donors adopted a variety of supporting strategies for grantees in response to the COVID-19 disruption

Of the 103 organisations that reported on the impacts of COVID-19 on their operations and organisational structure, 41% noted permanent changes, while 51% noted temporary changes for the 2020-2022 period only. A small proportion (5%) either did not respond or reported no changes.

Among the lasting changes prompted by COVID-19, respondents mainly broadened their portfolios by launching new projects (29%), whether cross-border or domestic. Non-financial support also played a significant role, with 25% of respondents helping grantees with additional fundraising by connecting them to other donors within their networks, and 12% improving transparency regarding their grant-making processes (Figure 3.30).

Figure 3.30. COVID-19 prompted an increase in network access and launch of projects
Copy link to Figure 3.30. COVID-19 prompted an increase in network access and launch of projects

Number of respondents, by support type

Among the 101 respondents who reported on measures to strengthen organisational resilience for future crises, responses revealed varied strategic orientations: 38% on structural preparedness by developing or updating crisis management plans; 36% prioritised human capital through staff capacity-building initiatives; and 18% established emergency funds, reflecting a financial risk-mitigation approach. In contrast, 30% reported taking no additional steps, signalling either resource constraints or a perception of sufficient existing resilience (Figure 3.31).

These patterns suggested that while most respondents adopted proactive measures, a significant minority (close to one-third) remained reactive, highlighting uneven levels of crisis readiness across respondents.

Figure 3.31. Most respondents adopted proactive crisis preparedness measures following the pandemic
Copy link to Figure 3.31. Most respondents adopted proactive crisis preparedness measures following the pandemic

Number of respondents, by measure type

The pandemic prompted sustained increases in collaboration

Increasing collaboration with partners and network mobilisation were central to foundations’ COVID-19 response; as such, many of these pandemic-era strategies have evolved into a sustained approach for foundations’ operations. A permanent increase in collaboration with at least one of their partners was reported by 41% of the respondents, while nearly a third (32%) reported an increase with two or more partners. Collaboration extended across multiple stakeholder groups – current and new grantees (34%), other philanthropists (19%), private sector actors (18%), and international NGOs (14%) – suggesting that respondents have broadened their reach within the wider ecosystem. This pattern underscores a growing recognition that, in a post-pandemic context marked by emerging challenges, resilience depends on interconnectedness rather than isolated efforts (Figure 3.32).

Figure 3.32. Pandemic prompted increases in collaboration within philanthropy and with current grantees
Copy link to Figure 3.32. Pandemic prompted increases in collaboration within philanthropy and with current grantees

Number of respondents, by actor type

3.3.4. Mapping COVID-19 partnerships: A network analysis

Beyond these broader shifts in collaboration patterns, information from the organisational questionnaire offered additional insight into how philanthropic actors operationalised partnerships during the pandemic. Sixty‑four respondents reported on their most important COVID‑19 initiatives, detailing 70 projects carried out across regions in collaboration with 98 additional partners. Most of these efforts took place in ODA‑eligible countries: 54 initiatives, implemented by 51 respondents and involving 76 external partners across 14 countries. This concentration reflected how much of the heightened collaboration during the pandemic occurred in lower‑resource settings where needs were most acute. The data presented below refer specifically to the number of projects within ODA‑eligible countries and are visualised through a network analysis mapping partnerships from the perspective of respondents, hence from the perspective of private philanthropies only (Figure 3.33). In this network representation, each node represents an organisation, and a link between two nodes indicates that the organisations have been partners for at least one initiative.

Figure 3.33. Who were foundations’ partners during COVID-19?
Copy link to Figure 3.33. Who were foundations’ partners during COVID-19?

Who were foundations’ partners during the pandemic?

From the network analysis, the data indicated that the partnerships formed during the pandemic – namely the organisations with which foundations collaborated during this period – were both diverse and strategically structured. Among the organisations with which foundations reported collaborating, domestic governmental bodies were the most frequent partners (26%), closely followed by domestic or local NGOs (24%). Other foundations (18%) and international NGOs (16%) also featured prominently. Private companies and international organisations each accounted for 7% of reported partnerships, while development agencies represented a smaller share (3%) (Figure 3.34). Taken together, this distribution suggested that respondents frequently collaborated with locally embedded actors and institutions during the pandemic, which philanthropies may have viewed as trusted implementation partners at a time marked by mobility constraints and operational uncertainty. It is important to note, however, that while the data provide insights on the types of partners involved, no information is available on the volumes of funding associated with these collaborations.

Figure 3.34. COVID-19 partnerships primarily involved domestic government bodies and local NGOs
Copy link to Figure 3.34. COVID-19 partnerships primarily involved domestic government bodies and local NGOs

Share of reported partners, by organisation type

How and where foundations delivered COVID-19 partnerships

Project modalities further illustrated the pragmatic, action-oriented nature of pandemic collaboration. Over half of the initiatives (56%) involved direct project implementation, while 37% consisted of contributions to thematic funds – an approach often used to pool resources rapidly and reduce transaction costs during emergencies (Anand and Gautam John, 2018[20]). Smaller proportions of initiatives were directed toward contributions to regional thematic funds (6%) and to co‑financing research or awareness‑raising initiatives (2%) (Figure 3.35). Such patterns suggest that, in a high-pressure environment marked by urgency and scale, foundations prioritised mechanisms that enabled rapid disbursement and operational flexibility.

Figure 3.35. Direct implementation was the predominant modality of COVID‑19 partnerships
Copy link to Figure 3.35. Direct implementation was the predominant modality of COVID‑19 partnerships

Share of projects, by mode of engagement

Geographically, these collaborations were concentrated in Africa, which hosted one-third (33%) of all reported projects, followed by initiatives in LAC and global programmes (each representing 26% of total reported projects). Asia-Pacific accounted for 13% of projects, while Europe represented a marginal share (2%) (Figure 3.36).

Figure 3.36. One-third of COVID-19 collaborative initiatives targeted Africa
Copy link to Figure 3.36. One-third of COVID-19 collaborative initiatives targeted Africa

Share of projects, by region

Across sectors, health-related initiatives accounted for the majority of reported COVID-19 partnerships projects, representing 74% of all collaborations. Education (7%), other social infrastructure and services (6%), government and civil society (6%), and agriculture (4%) followed at much smaller scales. A negligible share of projects fell under emergency response or multisectoral initiatives (2% each).

Taken together, these findings illustrate that collaborative practices during COVID-19 were not only widespread but also deeply operational, locally led, and heavily health-focused. However, the above analyses captured the breadth of collaborative activity during COVID-19 rather than its financial depth. As the data relate only to the number of reported collaborative projects and not to associated funding volumes, the findings reflect patterns of partnership incidence rather than resource allocation. Nonetheless, they suggest a shift toward multi-actor coalitions capable of mobilising complementary capacities under crisis conditions. Importantly, findings also reinforce the earlier conclusion that strengthened collaboration – initially driven by the necessity of the pandemic – has, for many respondents, translated into sustained organisational practice.

3.4. Mapping philanthropic networks: Collaboration and co-financing among philanthropic donors

Copy link to 3.4. Mapping philanthropic networks: Collaboration and co-financing among philanthropic donors

Recent pressures on development co-operation budgets have prompted new collaborative approaches that rely on partnership and co-funding as shared principles. Making the most of the limited budgets means moving beyond solo or siloed action to leverage the range of skills, knowledge and resources available across the development system. The outcome document of the Fourth Financing for Development Conference (FfD4) – the Seville Compromise – includes a commitment by stakeholders to collaborate meaningfully with various actors, including philanthropy (see Box 3.2), as part of advancing a shared vision for the future of development finance (UN, 2025[21]). In the evolving development landscape, partnerships are to become the new currency and a central driver of impact (Center for Global Development, 2025[22]). Philanthropy collaborates not only with peer foundations but also with development agencies, civil society, and the private sector. Collaborative funds are often positioned as critical intermediaries during global aid volatility, bridging gaps left by declining ODA while offering flexible, rapid funding, deep local connections, and the ability to share risk (Martin et al., 2025[23]).

As highlighted in the analysis of COVID-19 responses from the OECD organisational questionnaire, philanthropy has become increasingly interconnected in recent years, both with peer foundations and with the broader official aid system. Foundations collaborate with other private donors for multiple reasons, including co-financing joint initiatives, advancing shared agendas within specific sectors, exchanging expertise and learning, and pooling resources to expand programmes or large-scale initiatives. Collaboration with other donors – including multilateral and bilateral donors, international and local NGOs, the private sector, and regional development banks – also enables foundations to scale up programmes and enhance the reach and impact of their investments.

Box 3.2. Philanthropy’s strategic support to the FfD4 Agenda and beyond

Copy link to Box 3.2. Philanthropy’s strategic support to the FfD4 Agenda and beyond

From 30 June to 3 July 2025, heads of state and government gathered in Seville, Spain, for the Fourth Financing for Development Conference (FfD4) to shape the future of development co-operation.

The Seville Compromise invited foundations to play a key role in catalytic capital initiatives. For the first time, an international agreement explicitly acknowledged philanthropy as a strategic partner, calling for multilateral development banks to create catalytic capital pools with contributions from foundations and philanthropies (UN, 2025[21]).

Seville Platform for Action Initiatives and the role of philanthropy

Following FfD4 in Seville, the OECD is collaborating with the United Nations, other international organisations, and OECD member and partner countries to implement 28 key proposals from the Seville Platform for Action (SPA). The OECD SPA Initiatives cover an array of areas including taxation, measures of prosperity beyond GDP, philanthropy, decentralised co-operation, climate finance, sovereign debt management, private investment, capital markets and innovative finance.

Notably, in response to the Seville Commitment's call for stronger co-ordination among development finance actors – including foundations, multilateral development banks (MDBs) and development finance institution (DFIs) – the OECD Network of Foundations Working for Development (netFWD), the Agence Française de Développement (AFD), and Sawiris propose a 3D “Data, Dialogue, Deals” Meta Platform. The initiative will map markets, break down silos, and mobilise non-concessional (and domestic) resources for the SDGs through Public-Private-Philanthropy Partnerships (PPPPs) (UN, 2025[24]).

Local leadership and domestic resource mobilisation

Philanthropy is also shifting toward locally led development and domestic resource mobilisation (DRM) aligned with FfD4 priorities. In response to the FfD4 Outcome Document (UN, 2025[21]), and building on prior collective commitments1 (OECD, 2025[25]), members and partners of OECD netFWD members affirmed their intention to ensure local philanthropic representatives participate in blended finance partnerships, scale funding through locally-based re-granting organisations, and invest in infrastructure for giving, including community funds, local platforms, and philanthropy networks. Locally based domestic foundations, while often overlooked, offer deep contextual knowledge, trusted relationships within communities and in-kind support that directly benefits local actors. However, until now, these organisations were excluded from blended finance transactions, and their collaboration with development agencies and banks remained, at best, anecdotal.

This approach positions philanthropy not just as a founder but as a systems-level partner supporting fiscal accountability, domestic resource mobilisation, and policy innovation in low- and middle-income countries.

Note:

1. These include the OECD netFWD Statement on Contribution of Private Philanthropies to the Summit for a New Global Financing Pact, the OECD netFWD Statement on Philanthropy’s Vision for the UN Summit of the Future, the WINGS Call to Action on Solidarity Amid Aid Cuts, and the International Education Funders Group’s Statement on Financing Education through All Available Tools.

3.4.1. How co-financing networks are shaping philanthropic collaboration

In the analysis below, co-financing is defined as operations involving at least two private donors who come together to provide resources for a common initiative, project, grant, or organisation. Survey respondents could highlight up to four private philanthropic collaboratives, indicating all other organisations involved – including government agencies, universities, companies and non-profit organisations – as well as the amount of resources allocated to those collaboratives. This analysis adopts a foundation-centred perspective, drawing on collaborations as reported by respondents to the organisational questionnaire. The resulting network therefore maps partnerships only from the viewpoint of foundations, highlighting how they position themselves within co-financing arrangements.

Co-financing was widespread among respondents, with most engaging in multiple projects

Of the 105 respondents to the organisational survey, 82 organisations (78%) reported undertaking at least one co‑financing activity, confirming that joint financing remained a widespread modality across respondents. Among the 79 organisations that provided more detailed information on the number of co‑financed initiatives, 54 respondents (68%) reported collaborating on four or more projects, which represented the maximum number of entries permitted in the questionnaire. A smaller group reported more limited engagement: 11 respondents (14%) undertook a single co‑financing activity, while 14 respondents (18%) engaged in two or three initiatives (Figure 3.37).

This distribution suggested that for most respondents, co‑financing was not an occasional practice but rather a routine operational feature embedded in their programming. The concentration of responses in the highest category (more than four initiatives) pointed to levels of engagement that exceeded the segmentation structure used in previous editions of this analysis (OECD, 2021[16]). While the current categorisation was retained for comparability, the data indicated that the scale and frequency of co‑financing had expanded, and that future iterations of the study would benefit from more granular categories to better capture variation at the upper end of activity levels.

Figure 3.37. Co-financing was widespread among surveyed respondents
Copy link to Figure 3.37. Co-financing was widespread among surveyed respondents

When analysed by income group, respondents from lower- and low-middle-income countries were most likely to engage in multiple co-financing projects: 64% of these foundations reported working on four or more projects, compared to 49% of foundations from higher-income countries. This suggested that organisations in lower- and low-middle-income countries may rely more heavily on collaborative financing models, possibly due to resource constraints that make partnerships essential, or because they are embedded in contexts where pooled funding mechanisms are more established or necessary to achieve scale.

While co-financing was widespread, it was concentrated in ODA-eligible countries

Among the respondents that engaged in co‑financing, 70 organisations provided detailed information on their collaborative initiatives, collectively undertaking 112 co‑financed projects in partnership with 415 external actors across 17 sectors. These initiatives represented a substantial financial footprint, amounting to USD 1.83 billion allocated by the respondents across the reported collaborations. The scale of engagement underscored that, for this group, co‑financing extended well beyond symbolic partnership and instead constituted a significant channel for resource mobilisation.

Most of these activities were concentrated in ODA‑eligible countries. 87% of all reported co‑financed projects (97 projects) took place in 59 ODA‑eligible countries. These were implemented by 62 respondents who collectively allocated USD 1.454 billion in collaboration with 311 external partners. This concentration in lower‑resource settings indicated that co‑financing was frequently used to support initiatives where leveraging complementary capacities and shared risk‑taking could be particularly valuable.

Respondents engaged in co-financing with a broad range of actors across the development ecosystem

The 311 external partners involved in co‑financing initiatives in ODA-eligible countries represented a diverse mix of actors across the development landscape. Foundations constituted the largest share, with 118 partners (38%), confirming that philanthropic organisations most frequently collaborated with peers when structuring joint financing arrangements. Private companies were the second‑largest group, accounting for 81 partners (26%), indicating the growing role of corporate actors in co‑funded development efforts.

Civil‑society partners also featured prominently: international NGOs accounted for 32 partners (10%), while domestic or local NGOs represented 23 partners (7%). Public‑sector actors were similarly engaged, with 29 domestic government bodies (9%) partnering in co‑financed projects, alongside 12 international organisations (4%). Although smaller in absolute numbers, bilateral development aid agencies (8 partners; 3%) and bilateral or multilateral development banks (8 partners; 3%) also participated (Figure 3.38), demonstrating that co‑financing provided an interface opportunity between private philanthropy and the broader development finance architecture.

Figure 3.38. Co‑financing partnerships are predominantly formed with foundations and private sector actors
Copy link to Figure 3.38. Co‑financing partnerships are predominantly formed with foundations and private sector actors

The alluvial diagram (Figure 3.39) linking respondents’ region of origin, co-financing project modality and co-financing project region provides an integrated view of how co‑financing resources moved through the system. Most reported co‑financing originated from European foundations, which together accounted for approximately USD 1.3 billion – by far the largest regional source. Smaller but still significant flows stemmed from foundations headquartered in North America and LAC (USD 87.6 million), Asia‑Pacific (USD 102.4 million) and, to a lesser extent, Africa (USD 12.6 million). This pattern underscored Europe’s key role in structuring multi‑actor co‑financing arrangements.

Across modalities, direct project implementation constituted the primary pathway, channelling USD 816.9 million – 56% of all reported co‑financing. Thematic funds formed the second‑largest route (USD 595.3 million; 41%), while regional thematic funds (USD 38 million; 3%) and research and awareness initiatives (USD 4.1 million) accounted for much smaller flows. European-origin funding featured strongly across all modalities, while flows from Africa and Asia‑Pacific were more heavily concentrated in the direct-implementation modality. Flows from North America and LAC were concentrated in both thematic fund mechanisms, indicating distinct operational models and partnership preferences across these respondent groups.

On the destination side, direct‑implementation flows reached all major project regions, with LAC (USD 623 million), Africa (USD 70 million) and Asia‑Pacific (USD 70 million) receiving the largest amounts, respectively. These correspond to 88%, 52% and 61% of the total co‑financing flows received by these regions from survey respondents. Flows from thematic funds were predominantly channelled to global programmes (USD 416 million; 70%). This volume represents 89% of all co‑financing that respondents earmarked for global programmes across funding channels. For Europe, allocations received from thematic funds amounted to USD 24 million – 77% of the region’s total reported co‑financing flows – indicating a comparatively high reliance on thematic fund mechanisms. Regional thematic funds directed 64% of their co-financing flows towards LAC. Overall, direct implementation remained the backbone of operational delivery, especially across LAC, Asia-Pacific and Africa. This structural pattern provides a bridge to the subsequent analysis of how co‑financing volumes and collaboration intensity vary across regions, project modalities, and sectors.

Figure 3.39. Co-financing funding flows vary significantly across regions and delivery modalities
Copy link to Figure 3.39. Co-financing funding flows vary significantly across regions and delivery modalities

Distribution of co-financing by origin region, delivery modality and destination region

The funding driven by co-financing projects was regionally concentrated

Among co‑financed initiatives in ODA‑eligible countries, funding was concentrated in a few regions, with LAC accounting for nearly half of total co‑financing (USD 706 million; 49%), followed by global programmes (USD 468 million; 32%). Africa and Asia‑Pacific represented USD 135 million (9%) and USD 114 million (8%), respectively, while Europe accounted for a smaller share (USD 31 million; 2%) (Figure 3.40).

Figure 3.40. A panorama of co-financing flows by project region
Copy link to Figure 3.40. A panorama of co-financing flows by project region

Co-financing flows, USD million 2023 constant

Project counts, which allow multi‑region attribution when an initiative spans several regions, showed a broad footprint of activity. Africa hosted 44 projects (45%), LAC 34 (35%), and Asia‑Pacific 29 (30%). Europe and Global programmes each accounted for nine projects (9% each) (Figure 3.41).

Taken together, these patterns indicated that while project activity was widely distributed across regions, resource volumes were more concentrated, particularly in LAC and in Global programmes which together accounted for 81% of co-financing flows. This divergence suggested that some regions hosted a larger number of smaller initiatives, whereas others – especially LAC – were the locus of higher‑value co‑financed efforts, potentially reflecting the presence of larger pooled mechanisms or multi‑country operations. However, it is important to note that co-financing amounts used in the analysis reflect respondents’ reported co‑financing allocations only and may not represent full project totals.

Figure 3.41. Co‑financing projects were concentrated in Africa and LAC, while funding is directed mainly to LAC and global initiatives
Copy link to Figure 3.41. Co‑financing projects were concentrated in Africa and LAC, while funding is directed mainly to LAC and global initiatives

Share of projects and flows, across regions

A mix of project modalities underpins co-financing arrangements

Co‑financing arrangements encompassed a diverse set of project modalities. Direct project implementation emerged as the most prevalent modality, accounting for 54 projects (56%). Contributions to thematic funds constituted the second‑largest category, with 28 projects (29%), followed by regional thematic funds (10 projects; 10%). A smaller number of projects focused on research and awareness‑raising initiatives (5 projects; 5%).

Collaboration intensity varied substantially by project type. Projects involving regional thematic funds registered the highest average number of collaborating organisations (7.3 collaborators per project, including the respondent), indicating that pooled regional mechanisms tended to mobilise broader coalitions. Contributions to thematic funds followed closely, with 6.6 collaborators per project. In contrast, direct project implementation, while most common, involved 4.1 collaborators on average, and research and awareness‑raising initiatives involved 3.8 collaborators (Figure 3.42).

Across the full portfolio, the average project involved 5 organisations, and only 14 projects listed a single co‑financing partner. This distribution suggested that even the most common modality – direct implementation – typically involved multi‑actor participation, but that pooled fund mechanisms were more consistently associated with larger coalitions.

Figure 3.42. While most co‑financed projects involved direct implementation, thematic and regional funds attracted the highest numbers of collaborating organisations
Copy link to Figure 3.42. While most co‑financed projects involved direct implementation, thematic and regional funds attracted the highest numbers of collaborating organisations

Number of projects and average number of collaborators, by mode of engagement

The funding driven by co-financing projects was highly concentrated by sector

Co‑financed projects displayed a high degree of sectoral concentration. The top six sectors together accounted for nearly 90% of all co-financing flows, while the remaining 10% was split across 11 sectors. Health accounted for the largest share of co‑financing, totalling USD 392 million (27%), a substantial portion of which (USD 288 million) was allocated to global or multi‑regional programmes. Education followed with USD 205 million (14%), with funds distributed across multiple regions (notably 28% in Africa, 24% in LAC, 31% in Asia‑Pacific, 1% in Europe, and 17% globally).

Two other sectors also registered large financial allocations. Government and civil society accounted for USD 198 million (14%), almost all of which was concentrated in LAC (95%). Banking and financial services similarly totalled USD 192 million (13%), with the near entirety also concentrated in the LAC region. These patterns indicated that co‑financing in LAC was not only large in aggregate volume (as previously shown) but also concentrated in specific sectoral domains, particularly institutional strengthening and financial services.

Other significant sectors included business and other services, with USD 159 million (11%; USD 151 million of which was in LAC) and general environmental protection, accounting for USD 156 million (11%), with USD 126 million concentrated in global programmes (Figure 3.43).

Figure 3.43. Top 6 sectors together accounted for nearly 90% of all co-financing flows
Copy link to Figure 3.43. Top 6 sectors together accounted for nearly 90% of all co-financing flows

Co-financing flows by sectors, USD million 2023 constant

Beyond financial volumes, several sectors also exhibited higher-than-average diversity among partners in co‑financing arrangements. Across all projects, the average number of distinct partner types (i.e. categories such as foundations, private companies, NGOs, public institutions, and development agencies) was 2.22 per project, indicating a moderately diversified collaboration landscape. However, certain sectors drew on noticeably broader coalitions. Projects in water supply and sanitation and banking and financial services averaged three partner types per project, the highest levels observed. Social infrastructure and services also displayed elevated partnership diversity (2.95), followed by multisector activities (2.44). Even sectors such as government and civil society (2.29) and education (2.24) were slightly above the overall project average. These patterns suggest that sectors requiring technical specialisation, regulatory engagement or multi‑stakeholder co-ordination tend to mobilise a more heterogeneous set of co‑financing coalitions.

These allocations reflected both the broad thematic priorities of respondents and the operational logic of co‑financing, whereby certain sectors – especially those requiring technical expertise, pooled resources, regulatory engagement or co-ordinated multi‑country action – attract more, diverse partners and larger financial volumes. Further, these findings suggested that the co‑financing portfolio combined globally oriented sectors requiring broad collective action (such as health and environmental protection) with regionally concentrated sectors responding to local institutional or financial system needs (most visibly in LAC). The resulting sectoral distribution reinforced the observation that co‑financing served both as a mechanism for broad, transnational initiatives and as a tool for concentrated, high‑value interventions within specific regional contexts.

Co-financing priorities vary by region

Sectoral patterns varied markedly across regions, reflecting both the thematic priorities of respondents and the operational realities in different geographic contexts.

Africa’s co‑financing portfolio was dominated by education, which accounted for 42% of regional allocations (USD 57 million). Health followed with 18%, with the remainder distributed across other multisector activities (7%), unallocated efforts (5%), and business and other services (5%). This distribution suggested that co‑financing in Africa was oriented toward human capital and service‑delivery gaps.

In LAC, the sectoral profile was markedly different, characterised by high concentrations in banking and financial services (27%) and government and civil society (27%), closely followed by business and other services (21%). Health and education represented smaller shares (9% and 7%, respectively). This pattern aligned with earlier findings that LAC was the largest recipient of co‑financing volume overall and indicated that funding in this region disproportionately targeted institutional strengthening, financial infrastructure, and service‑sector development.

Asia‑Pacific displayed a clearer thematic focus, with education accounting for 56% of allocations and health a distant second at 15%. Smaller shares went to social infrastructure and services (5%), general environmental protection (5%), and energy (4%). This implied that co‑financing in this region was primarily directed toward skills development and human capital, complemented by selective investments in environmental and social services.

Europe showed a strong emphasis on general environmental protection, which represented 55% of regional allocations. Energy was the second‑largest area (26%), followed by government and civil society (6%), emergency response (5%), and education (4%). This distribution suggested that co‑financing in Europe was driven primarily by environmental and climate‑related initiatives, often associated with multi‑actor, cross‑border programmes.

Global programmes also exhibited strong thematic concentration: health accounted for 62% of allocations (USD 288 million), followed by general environmental protection (27%). Smaller shares were directed to education (7%), emergency response (4%), and government and civil society (0.4%). This profile mirrored the nature of global initiatives, which frequently involve transnational health and environmental challenges, requiring large, pooled commitments and multi‑country mechanisms (Figure 3.44).

Taken together, these regional profiles highlighted several distinctive patterns about co-financing partnerships. Education was a major area of focus of collaborative activities in Africa and Asia‑Pacific, but not in LAC or Europe; environment‑related sectors dominated both Europe and Global programming. Institutional and financial sectors were prominent primarily in LAC, corresponding to that region’s disproportionate share of high‑value projects. Overall, these divergences underscored that co‑financing was not only geographically uneven in volume but also regionally differentiated in purpose.

Figure 3.44. Co-financing sectoral priorities vary by region
Copy link to Figure 3.44. Co-financing sectoral priorities vary by region

Share of co-financing going to the top five sectors in each region

Co-financing collaboration intensity varies across regions and sectors

Across regions and sectors, collaboration intensity – measured by the average number of collaborating organisations per project – varied substantially. The number of collaborating entities was first determined at the individual project level. This project‑level collaborator count was then attributed to each applicable regional and sectoral category associated with that project. Based on these aggregated assignments, average collaborator numbers were subsequently calculated for each region and sector.

Regionally, Europe recorded the highest average number of collaborating organisations per project (8.7) – around 74% above the portfolio average of 5 (including the respondent) – followed by LAC (6.3) and Global programmes (6.0). Asia‑Pacific (5.3) sat slightly above the overall average, while Africa (5.0) aligned with it.

These differences were consistent with the region‑specific sectoral profiles and modalities reported earlier. Europe’s elevated average likely reflected the environment‑ and energy‑heavy portfolio in that region, where projects often took the form of thematic mechanisms. Higher collaboration in LAC and Global also aligned with the larger financial volumes and the use of thematic vehicles, which tended to mobilise broader coalitions. By contrast, Africa and Asia‑Pacific appeared closer to the baseline, consistent with a larger share of direct implementation projects, which involved fewer partners on average.

At the sector level, differences in coalition size were less pronounced for the top five sectors. General environmental protection (7.2) and government and civil society (7.1) exhibited the largest coalitions, followed by social infrastructure and services (6.8), multisector (6.8) and education (6.2) – all well above the overall average of 5 (Figure 3.45).

Figure 3.45. Average number of collaborating organisations differs by region and sector
Copy link to Figure 3.45. Average number of collaborating organisations differs by region and sector

Average number of collaborators, by region and sector

While average coalition size provides a first indication of how collaborative projects are, it does not capture the full structure of potential relationships within those coalitions. To address this, we apply a more advanced network-based measure to capture inter‑organisational linkages. Any two organisations appearing together in the same project form one organisation-organisation (org-org) pair.

By summing these org-org pairs across all projects within a given sector, we obtain an aggregate indicator of that sector’s collaborative volume.9

The patterns seen above are somewhat mirrored in the org-org pair data. Education generated the highest number of org-org pairs (1 038 out of 2 453; 42%), reflecting its large number of multi‑actor projects. Social infrastructure and services (24%), government and civil society (23%), multisector programmes (23%), and general environmental protection (19%) also produced substantial numbers of collaborative links. Because multi‑sectoral projects and org-org pairs originating from them are counted in every applicable sector, the sum of org-org pairs exceeds 100%.

More interestingly, the composition of these pairs varied meaningfully across sectors. Multisector projects registered the highest share of same‑origin pairs (68%), followed by education and social infrastructure (both 56%), indicating that organisations working together in these sectors tended to come from the same country. By contrast, government and civil society and general environmental protection showed much higher proportions of cross‑origin pairs (72% and 74%, respectively), pointing to projects that more frequently brought together organisations from different countries (Figure 3.46).

Figure 3.46. Cross‑origin collaborations dominate top sectors
Copy link to Figure 3.46. Cross‑origin collaborations dominate top sectors

Share of org-org pairs originating from different versus the same region and total number of pairs for the five sectors with the highest collaboration intensity

These differences suggest that some sectors are more locally anchored, tending to generate partnerships among organisations based in the same country, while others depend more on cross‑border collaboration. Sectors with strong policy, regulatory or environmental dimensions exhibit notably higher shares of cross‑origin collaboration, reflecting the need to mobilise actors across multiple jurisdictions. By contrast, sectors closely tied to local service delivery (such as education and social infrastructure and services) tend to generate a larger share of same‑origin partnerships.

When analysing org-org pairs across sectors, most sectors are indeed dominated by foundation‑to‑foundation partnerships: an expected pattern given that the underlying data come from foundations’ own reporting. However, several sectors stand out for the prominence of other partner types. In multisector projects, as well as in social infrastructure and services, business and other services and communications, the most frequent pairing involved foundations working with private companies. Likewise, in water supply and sanitation and in banking and financial services, the most common partnerships were between foundations and international NGOs, highlighting the greater role that specialised operational actors play in these sectors.

Together, these datapoints illustrate the depth and diversity of collaboration within co‑financed projects. At the same time, foundations-to-governments partnerships appear comparatively less frequent, raising questions about how to further strengthen collaboration with public institutions – including through more structured Public-Private-Philanthropy Partnerships (PPPPs) and blended approaches that can better align philanthropic and public resources.

To complement this org-org pairs analysis, the following section features a network visualisation illustrating how collaborations are structured across the co-financing portfolio as a whole. The network visualisation illustrates how a subset of organisations helps integrate these diverse partnerships into a broader collaborative space often playing an outsized role as ‘collaboration hubs.’

3.4.2. Visualisation of collaborative linkages within co-financed projects using a network

The network visualisation maps collaboration relationships among organisations, based on co-participation in projects. Each node represents an organisation, and a link between two nodes indicates that the organisations have participated together in at least one project. The structure of the network highlights patterns of realised collaboration rather than potential or formal relationships.

The visualisation reveals a combination of dense clusters and more sparsely connected areas. The dense clusters correspond to groups of organisations that are frequently linked through shared project participation, either directly or through common partners, suggesting recurring collaboration within particular thematic or regional areas of focus. In contrast, smaller clusters and isolated nodes represent organisations engaged in more self-contained project arrangements or participating in a limited number of collaborations. The colours of the nodes correspond to different types of organisations (such as private philanthropic foundations, development agencies, domestic NGOs, private companies, etc.), while the triangular nodes indicate the respondents to the organisational survey who provided the underlying data (Figure 3.47).

Figure 3.47. Highly connected clusters of actors shape the philanthropic collaboration network
Copy link to Figure 3.47. Highly connected clusters of actors shape the philanthropic collaboration network

A prominent feature of the network is the presence of a small number of highly connected organisations that link multiple parts of the system. These actors function as collaboration hubs: they participate in projects with a wide range of partners (that further participate with other partners) and, in doing so, connect groups of organisations that would otherwise remain relatively isolated. Their central position reflects the structuring role they play in shaping collaboration across the portfolio. Because they are involved in numerous projects, they accumulate multiple pathways that bridge diverse organisations, sectors, and geographies. In practical terms, these hubs may serve as conduits through which information, experience, and operational know‑how circulate across the network. Within this architecture, in‑sample foundations appear both in dense clusters and in bridging positions between them, underscoring their dual role in strengthening local collaborative ecosystems while also linking them to wider, cross‑sector and cross‑region networks. It is important to note, however, that because the network is constructed from data reported by in‑sample foundations, their centrality is partly amplified.

To explore these dynamics in greater depth, Figure 3.48 zooms in on the five most connected organisations in the network and visualises their immediate collaborators. This closer view illustrates how these hubs anchor multiple clusters of activity, linking diverse partners and forming key connective structures within the broader co‑financing network. Among these hubs, Oak Foundation stands out as the most connected organisation in the portfolio, partnering with 75 different organisations across three projects. It is followed by the Gates Foundation, which collaborated with 58 organisations across seven projects. The most connected in‑sample respondent, Porticus, partnered with 56 organisations through a single project, underscoring the extent to which certain large thematic mechanisms can generate dense networks of collaboration. The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF) partnered with 53 organisations across two projects, and Fundação Itaú Social collaborated with 52 organisations across two projects. Together, these actors serve as major conduits linking multiple parts of the network, helping integrate partners across regions, sectors, and organisational types.

Figure 3.48. A small number of foundations act as connectors within the network
Copy link to Figure 3.48. A small number of foundations act as connectors within the network

Top five private foundations by number of co-financing partners (2020-2023)

Figure 3.49 reproduces the above analysis, focusing on the five most-connected in-sample foundations (i.e. among respondents to the OECD organisational questionnaire) and visualising their immediate collaborative ties.

Figure 3.49. A small number of in-sample foundations act as connectors within the network
Copy link to Figure 3.49. A small number of in-sample foundations act as connectors within the network

Top five in-sample respondents by number of co-financing partners (2020-2023)

3.4.3. What were the main obstacles to securing more co-financing?

The OECD organisational survey also asked about the most significant barriers preventing foundations to engage more with co-financing. Both respondents who reported being part of a co-financing operation and those who were not, indicated that the most common barrier was identifying partners with aligned interests (39%). This points to a lack of awareness among donors regarding each other's objectives (private philanthropic donors as well as ODA providers) most likely anchored in the limited transparency within the philanthropic ecosystem notably regarding funding priorities and procedures.

Other significant barriers were the time (29%) and administrative costs (27%) of managing one or more donor collaboratives. At the very least, a partnership requires co-ordination, which involves investing staff time in building mutual understanding and trust to create space for meaningful collaboration. These costs arise even before the practical work of aligning processes and avoiding duplication begins (Figure 3.50).

However, pooling and collaboration can contribute to streamlining and harmonising compliance and procurements systems, especially for the implementing partners. Collaboration among philanthropies and other ODA providers can further simplify due diligence for local partners by harmonising requirements and recognising each other’s assessments and due diligence processes (OECD, 2024[26]).

Figure 3.50. Insufficient awareness of matching funding priorities constrained future collaboration
Copy link to Figure 3.50. Insufficient awareness of matching funding priorities constrained future collaboration

Share of respondents, by barrier type

Further research avenues on philanthropic collaboratives

The dataset on collaboratives and co-financing collected for this report offers a rich foundation for additional analysis. Further work could deepen understanding of the structure and dynamics of collaborative funding networks, including repeated partnerships between organisations, collaboration patterns across organisational types and geographies, sector-specific funding coalitions, cross-sector partnership reuse, and the influence of key hub organisations that connect otherwise separate collaboration clusters.

Beyond co-funding mechanisms and collaborative funds, there are other forms of non-monetary collaboration between foundations and other stakeholders that the OECD organisational survey did not capture. These include portfolio sharing, joint sourcing in key areas or geographies of interest, leveraging expertise and good practices, and sharing successful strategies and programmes. More research is needed to identify and map these non-financial collaboration mechanisms, as well as determine how to leverage them more efficiently.

3.5. Mobilising philanthropy for locally led development: From commitment to effective integration

Copy link to 3.5. Mobilising philanthropy for locally led development: From commitment to effective integration

3.5.1. Philanthropy has recently committed to increased efforts to enable locally led development

The idea of promoting the increased agency of local actors for effective development co-operation is not new, but it is gaining political traction. There have been calls to challenge deeply rooted development co‑operation norms, biases, colonial legacies, and power imbalances, which stress the need for systemic change. At the same time, crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic have disrupted traditional development co-operation delivery models, highlighting the importance of increased effectiveness and local anchoring and relevance. These crises have also shifted attention towards further empowering local actors, including those beyond government, in the framing, design, delivery, learning, and accountability of development co-operation (OECD, 2024[26]).

Recent commitments towards locally led development built on longstanding efforts to ensure and promote country ownership in development co-operation. These are reflected in the development effectiveness principles (2005 Paris Declaration, Accra Agenda, Busan Principles) (Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, 2025[27]). As several providers are looking into ways to better enable LLD, it also appears important to understand how philanthropic donors can also complement and reinforce these efforts. Some cross-border foundations have already committed to LLD, by endorsing the 2022 Donor Statement on Supporting Locally Led Development.10 This was the result of the efforts of dedicated donors and philanthropic foundations, such as Hewlett and Conrad Hilton, who had collaborated with USAID for several years to promote LLD practices. The signatories of this statement committed to shifting and sharing power with local actors, channelling funding directly to them, and publicly advocating for LLD. As of early 2025, 20 bilateral donors and 26 philanthropies had signed the Donor Statement on Supporting Locally Led Development (Lewis and Forster, 2025[28]).

While all signatories of the Donor Statement formally endorsed the transfer of power and resources to local organisations, these commitments have been reflected in diverse practices and varying degrees of implementation. Only two foundations – the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation and David and Lucile Packard Foundation – have set a target for the proportion of funding they intend to channel directly to local organisations, and only the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation has published post-commitment data on local funding levels (Lewis and Forster, 2025[28]).

Few foundations that have committed to this statement have publicly reported their funding toward LLD, pointing to the need for greater transparency and accountability mechanisms to track localisation commitments and disbursements. This was the conclusion of the February 2025 report, 'Promises versus Progress', by Publish What You Fund, which explored the transparency of the commitment of foundations that had endorsed the Donor Statement (Lewis and Forster, 2025[28]).

The following sections use the two instruments mobilised for this report – the financial and organisational surveys – to provide insights into the contributions of philanthropy to the LLD agenda. This was achieved by looking at indicators of local funding and self-reported information on the level of local actors' involvement in philanthropic work. This dual approach provides one of the most comprehensive pictures of locally led development measurement in the context of philanthropy for development.

3.5.2. How much philanthropy is spending locally?

The analyses below for philanthropy are drawn from the data collected through both the OECD financial and organisational surveys and aim to take stock of foundations’ financial support to locally led development co-operation. First, using the first channel of delivery in the OECD Creditor Reporting System (CRS), funding volumes directed to local actors were examined. Second, drawing on self-reported data from the organisational questionnaire, the proportion of funding directed to local actors within another sample of philanthropies was also used. Finally, enabling locally led development is not limited to shifting funding towards local actors, but also entails redistributing decision-making authority and agency, as reflected in the definitions below. This latter dimension is further explored through evidence collected via the OECD organisational questionnaire (see Section 3.5.3).

Locally led development designates an ongoing development process where diverse local actors exercise agency across development policy and programme dimensions (framing, design, delivery, accountability) in given local operating contexts. Locally led development co-operation refers to co-operation that supports locally led humanitarian and development assistance by recognising and enabling diverse local actors in framing, design, delivery, including control over resources, and accountability and learning. Local actors11 encompass citizens and entities based and operating within the local context of reference, subject to local laws, whose actions are centred on local issues (OECD, 2024[26]).

During the period 2020-2023, cross-border philanthropic flows were predominantly channelled through international entities, amounting to USD 40 billion (89%). Most of this funding went to international NGOs, donor-country NGOs and networks (33%), and to multilateral organisations (17%). By contrast, only USD 5 billion were directed through local entities (11%). Of the amount directed to domestic partners, 80% (USD 4 billion) was allocated to recipient-based NGOs. Government agencies, other public institutions, and private sector actors within recipient countries accounted for only a marginal share of these locally channelled philanthropic resources.

In terms of ODA, flows were primarily channelled through international entities (USD 399 billion). However, a larger proportion of funds than for philanthropy were also channelled through local entities (USD 204 billion; 33% of total ODA), primarily directed to recipient governments, recipient-based NGOs, and the recipient private sector (Figure 3.51).

However, it should be noted that this distinction between international and local intermediaries does not account for funding that large international NGOs or multilateral agencies regrant to local NGOs or other local organisations. Therefore, the amount spent locally is likely higher than the figure for solely locally channelled flows. DAC members and philanthropies report on the first channel of delivery in the OECD Creditor Reporting System (CRS), meaning only funding provided directly to recipient governments, recipient-based NGOs, and recipient private sector is captured. There are no international databases collecting information on the amounts transferred to local organisations by intermediaries (such as multilateral organisations or international civil society organisations).

Figure 3.51. The bulk of funding was channelled through international entities for both philanthropic flows and ODA
Copy link to Figure 3.51. The bulk of funding was channelled through international entities for both philanthropic flows and ODA

Total gross disbursements by delivery channel (2020-2023), USD billion 2023 constant

The OECD organisational survey also asked respondents to indicate the different types of actors to whom they granted funding. Field-based and front-line organisations received on average 65% of philanthropic funding: 47% went to local actors, 11% to local intermediaries and 7% to women-led or women’s rights organisations. Donor country-based NGOs and organisations received 20% and international intermediaries 15% (Figure 3.52).

Figure 3.52. Respondents reported awarding 65% of funding to field-based organisations
Copy link to Figure 3.52. Respondents reported awarding 65% of funding to field-based organisations

Proportion of funding, by organisation type

At the regional level, respondents located in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) allocated over half of their funding (56% and 73%, respectively) directly to local actors. Respondents based in the Asia-Pacific region allocated 43% of their funding directly to local actors, while those in Europe and North America allocated 42% and 48%, respectively. International intermediaries received notably higher funding from respondents in Europe (21%), Asia-Pacific (19%), and North America (14%) than from respondents in LAC (2%) and Africa (4%). Although endogenous philanthropy remains relatively limited in Africa, the Africa-based foundations in the sample allocated a higher share of their funding directly to local actors, suggesting that they may be better positioned to transfer control of resource directly to local organisations, in part due to their proximity to and share context with grantees.

3.5.3. How foundations incorporate locally led development into their work

A complementary priority, alongside tracking how much philanthropic donors allocate to locally led development co-operation, is to look closer at how they integrate LLD into their day‑to‑day giving and programme strategies. This includes looking at their LLD framework and how they involve local partners (including local staff within country offices) throughout the entire project cycle, from identification and design to implementation and evaluation. To address this, the organisational questionnaire included a dedicated section aimed at better understanding how philanthropic organisations relate to key dimensions and modalities of LLD in their operational practice.

Integrating locally led development into strategy and funding proposals

Drawing on the OECD Centre on Philanthropy’s organisational questionnaire, over half of the respondents (54%) reported incorporating a Locally Led Development (LLD) dimension into their work. More specifically, 28% of respondents reported having an LLD strategy without indicators, whereas 20% reported using a more refined LLD strategy with indicators. A small proportion (6%) employed LLD indicators to guide their programming without developing an overall strategy (Figure 3.53). The higher adoption of LLD strategies compared to indicator-based frameworks likely reflects working/organisational realities for respondents. An LLD strategy – which commits respondents to supporting diverse local actors exercising agency across policy framing, design, delivery, and accountability – can be integrated more flexibly into existing programmes. By contrast, LLD frameworks with indicators require specific targets, monitoring systems, and accountability mechanisms that may demand more substantial organisational changes and resources.

On a geographical level, respondents from North America and LAC more frequently reported using an LLD strategy in their work (52%), than did those from Europe (51%) and the Asia-Pacific region (46%). Only 30% of organisations in Africa reported using a locally led development strategy – a counter-intuitive finding given that African philanthropic organisations largely operate within their own contexts. This may reflect terminology gaps rather than practice gaps: the “LLD strategy” framing emerged primarily from international donor discourse and may not fully align with how Africa-based organisations conceptualise and describe their work (Singh, 2024[29]). African philanthropy might inherently practice locally led approaches without formally labelling them as such. The small sample size (10 Africa-based respondents) also limits generalisability.

Notably, 43% of respondents indicated they use none of the listed LLD approaches, pointing to some room for foundations to strengthen their commitment to empowering local actors and ensuring outcomes are driven by those closest to the development challenges being addressed.

Figure 3.53. Over half of the respondents incorporated a locally led development approach in their work
Copy link to Figure 3.53. Over half of the respondents incorporated a locally led development approach in their work

Share of respondents, by type of approach

Another factor that could influence foundations' ability to support local priorities is their funding modalities – specifically, whether they accept open applications or operate on an invitation-only basis. Open application processes may be more responsive to locally identified needs, as they allow candidates to define priorities and propose solutions, whereas invitation-only approaches often reflect predetermined donor priorities and knowledge of pre-identified grantees within the ecosystem. Drawing on the survey responses, the relatively modest proportion of funding available through open applications across all regions – ranging from 9-30% (averaging 27%) – indicated that invitation-only grant-making remained the dominant modality (Figure 3.54). These relatively low rates may indicate a potential misalignment between, on the one hand, high strategic commitments to LLD and, on the other hand, funding practices that allow limited integration of favoured local priorities from the outset (i.e. the submission of proposals).

Figure 3.54. Invitation-only grant-making remained the dominant modality across regions
Copy link to Figure 3.54. Invitation-only grant-making remained the dominant modality across regions

Percentage of funding open to applications versus invitation-only, by region

Partnering with local actors in philanthropic programming

The extent to which the organisational strategies of the respondents were informed by external local actors (contracting or sub-contracting partners that are not local staff) varied significantly across programme phases. On average, respondents involved local external actors most in delivery, second in design and least in evaluation. Looking at engagement intensity, programme implementation and delivery showed the strongest local engagement: over half of respondents (53%) reported significant local engagement, 26% reported partial engagement, and only 9% reported minimal engagement (Figure 3.55). Programme design also frequently involved local actors: 42% of respondents reported significant engagement of local actors, 25% partial engagement, and 14% minimal engagement. Finally, only 34% reported significant engagement of local actors in programme evaluation, while notably high proportions reported minimal engagement (18%) or no engagement at all (25%).

Overall, the results of the analysis show that local entities and communities partnering with philanthropies were more often positioned as implementers rather than co-creators and learning partners of philanthropic work.

Figure 3.55. More than two-thirds of respondents engaged – partially or significantly – with local actors across both programme design and delivery
Copy link to Figure 3.55. More than two-thirds of respondents engaged – partially or significantly – with local actors across both programme design and delivery

Engagement intensity with local actors, across organisations’ strategic areas

Local staff ownership in philanthropic programming

The previous section shed light on how philanthropies engage with external local actors – such as grantee organisations and community partners – across different programme phases. This section shifts focus to internal local staff – employees of the foundation itself who are based in country offices or local contexts where programmes operate.

Among foundations with country offices, local staff representation varied modestly by seniority level. Mid-level positions – defined as managing grant funding and stakeholders’ relationships – showed the highest local representation at 33%. The second most represented level was senior staff, who make decisions about strategy and grant funding (31% of the total senior staff), followed by junior staff with no direct strategic or implementation activities (29%) (Figure 3.56). The differences in representation across seniority levels were relatively small, with a gap of just four percentage points between the most and least represented categories (mid-level and junior, respectively). The relatively even distribution across seniority levels, with roughly one-third of staff local at each level, suggested that organisations with country offices included some local presence in leadership and decision-making roles, not just in junior positions. However, the fact that local staff constituted only about 30% even at senior levels indicates that the majority of senior staff remained non-local.

However, the income group breakdown revealed significant disparities in local staffing. Notably, respondents from upper-middle-income countries showed remarkably high and consistent local representation across all seniority levels: 54% of senior and mid-level staff, and 46% of junior staff were local. In contrast, respondents based in high-income countries (US, European countries) reported substantially less local representation, hovering around 23-25% across all levels. Respondents from low- and lower-middle-income countries exhibited slightly higher proportions, with 24% of senior staff, 34% of mid-level staff, and 29% of junior staff located in a country office.

Figure 3.56. Local staff based in country offices represented 30% of positions on average
Copy link to Figure 3.56. Local staff based in country offices represented 30% of positions on average

Share of staff in a country office, by seniority level

The responsibilities and tasks assigned to local staff within respondents’ country offices varied across programme phases. Local staff were more frequently involved in programme evaluation (56%) and programme implementation (51%). Local staff were involved relatively less frequently in the programme design phase (45%). Contrary to the earlier finding that external local partners were most engaged in delivery and least in evaluation, internal local staff (i.e. working within country offices) showed strongest involvement in programme evaluation. This suggests that the presence of a local office is more conducive to deeper local engagement, as locally based staff – who are part of the organisation rather than external partners – are more closely involved across all phases of the project cycle.

However, involvement of local staff could be improved further, as more than a third (37%) of respondents reported no local staff presence whatsoever (Figure 3.57).

Figure 3.57. Local staff were frequently granted programme evaluation and implementation responsibilities
Copy link to Figure 3.57. Local staff were frequently granted programme evaluation and implementation responsibilities

Share of respondents involving local staff, by programme phase

The above findings revealed a complex picture of local representation and programmes’ ownership that warrants cautious interpretation. When philanthropic organisations do employ local staff, they involve them at all levels of seniority and programme phases on average, extending beyond strict implementation to grant them programme evaluation responsibilities (for more than half of respondents), while external local actors – even when well-resourced and highly capable – are most involved in implementing programmes that philanthropies have largely designed and will evaluate themselves. The nature of the working relationship with the philanthropies then largely shapes local influence and agency.

Key barriers of ongoing engagement with local actors

Among the two-thirds of respondents that reported having challenges engaging in LLD, higher transaction costs (32%) and more complex due diligence (26%) were the most cited barriers, followed by tax compliance (12%). Respondents also highlighted local ecosystem constraints, including limited absorptive capacity among local actors and intermediaries (30%) and challenges in sourcing local grantees (23%) (Figure 3.58). This last point underscores the importance of improving foundations’ capability to source deals locally. Philanthropies often don’t hear about the most innovative solutions emerging in grassroots and movement organisations because they haven’t made themselves accessible (Inside Philanthropy, 2021[30]). One way to address this issue and identify potential new, locally rooted solutions and grantees is to engage intermediaries with on-the-ground community connections (see Box 3.3).

Figure 3.58. Operational costs and administrative complexity were among the most significant barriers to engaging in LLD
Copy link to Figure 3.58. Operational costs and administrative complexity were among the most significant barriers to engaging in LLD

Share of respondents, by barrier type

To overcome some of these barriers, organisations reported adopting a range of strategies. Capacity strengthening emerged as the preferred approach to improve local actor engagement, cited by more than two-thirds (71%) of respondents. Notably, over half (57%) recognised the importance of involving local actors in programme design to further strengthen LLD (Figure 3.59). This finding is significant, as programme design was identified earlier in the analysis as an area that is less frequently informed by external local actors or led by local staff within organisations. Together, these results point to a growing recognition within philanthropy of the value of integrating local stakeholders’ perspectives from the outset and granting them greater agency in co-designing tailored projects and programmes – even if this is not yet a reality.

As part of the organisations’ ambition to enable locally led development, respondents also cited, to varying degrees, certain key principles of trust-based philanthropy12 (Trust-Based Philanthropy Project, 2022[18]): while nearly half of respondents stated supporting core, flexible, multi-year funding to local actors (49%), fewer prioritised simplified grants application procedures (40%) or flexible planning/reporting (35%) – including allowing document submission in local languages and allowing flexible reporting methods, such as oral or video submissions – despite these being frequently cited as critical enablers (OECD, 2024[26]). Notably, 42% of respondents cited involving local consultants as a way to improve engagement with local actors.

Figure 3.59. Capacity strengthening and programme design were frequently identified to further enable LLD
Copy link to Figure 3.59. Capacity strengthening and programme design were frequently identified to further enable LLD

Share of respondents, by area of work

Box 3.3. Advancing locally led development: The role of local intermediaries and women’s funds

Copy link to Box 3.3. Advancing locally led development: The role of local intermediaries and women’s funds

Bridging global resources and local agency

Donors frequently cite fiduciary risk and capacity concerns as reasons to channel funds through international or donor-based intermediaries rather than directly to local recipient-based organisations (The Share Trust, 2022[31]). However, a Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors evaluation report revealed that some international intermediaries inadvertently reproduce top-down dynamics and power imbalances, as well as often undervaluing local expertise and imposing external frameworks in contradiction with localisation principles (Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, 2023[32]).

Advancing the locally led development agenda and in particular localisation of resources (i.e. the process of transferring control of resource directly to local actors and institutions from the funding donor) ultimately require increasing the share of directly-funded delivery undertaken by local actors, and increasing the share of intermediation and sub-contracting undertaken by local actors (that is, giving local actors the resources and decision-making power to sub-contract other agencies, local or not, to deliver goods and services) (Center for Global Development, 2024[33]).

Notably, local intermediaries, including community organisations, feminist funds, and regional networks, have emerged as critical enablers of locally led development by providing fiduciary assurance, contextual expertise, and local infrastructure. Organisations like the Global Fund for Children recently transformed restricted international funds into unrestricted grants for grassroots groups, including unregistered or informal organisations that traditional donors cannot reach (The Global Fund for Children, 2024[34]). These intermediaries often absorb compliance requirements and managed reporting while expanding access to marginalised communities often overlooked by large traditional donors.

Women’s funds focus on strengthening local and feminist leadership

Women's funds also champion the locally led development approach in practice, incorporating local participatory governance into their operations. For example, FRIDA Fund’s supports young feminist groups from low- and middle-income countries through a participatory grant-making model placing young feminists at the centre of every funding decision: applicants review one another’s proposals and collectively decide which projects receive core support.

Several regional feminist funds also exemplify this new model of feminist leadership and participatory governance. For example, the African Women's Development Fund (AWDF) has disbursed over USD 28 million to over 1 200 women-led organisations in 42 African countries (African Women’s Development Fund, 2022[35]). In Latin America, the Fondo de Mujeres del Sur (FMS) in Argentina and the Fondo Semillas in Mexico mobilise resources for grassroots women's and LGBTQI+ groups through flexible, multi-year grants. In Asia, Women's Fund Asia (WFA) channels funding to feminist movements in more than ten countries. Along with the International Indigenous Women's Forum-AYNI Fund (FIMI/AYNI), these three funds co-lead Leading from the South, a feminist consortium aiming to distribute large-scale government resources through Global South intermediaries.

References

[35] African Women’s Development Fund (2022), Songs In The Future: AWDF 2021 Annual Report, https://awdf.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/AWDF-ANNUAL-REPORT-2021-English-Web.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2026).

[20] Anand, R. and Gautam John (2018), The power of pooling philanthropic funds, https://rohininilekaniphilanthropies.org/resources/idr-the-power-of-pooling-philanthropic-funds/ (accessed on 21 January 2026).

[5] Bergvall, D. et al. (2006), “Intergovernmental Transfers and Decentralised Public Spending”, OECD Journal on Budgeting, https://doi.org/10.1787/budget-v5-art24-en.

[14] Capital Group (2022), “ESG Global Study 2022”, https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2022/06/17/esg-global-study-2022/ (accessed on 23 December 2025).

[22] Center for Global Development (2025), Building Better Partnerships: How Development Agencies Are Navigating the Changing Development Landscape, https://www.cgdev.org/blog/building-better-partnerships-how-development-agencies-are-navigating-changing-development (accessed on 11 December 2025).

[33] Center for Global Development (2024), Localization in Theory and Practice, https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/localization-theory-and-practice.pdf.

[4] Convergence (2025), State of Blended Finance, https://www.convergence.finance/resource/state-of-climate-blended-finance-2025/view (accessed on 19 January 2026).

[3] Convergence (2024), State of Blended Finance, https://www.convergence.finance/resource/state-of-blended-finance-2024/view (accessed on 19 January 2026).

[19] Dervishi, K. and Y. Balderrama (2023), Disaster giving goes mostly to immediate relief, not prevention or long-term recovery, https://www.philanthropy.com/news/disaster-giving-goes-mostly-to-immediate-relief-not-prevention-or-long-term-recovery/?cid=pt&source=ams&sourceid (accessed on 12 January 2026).

[10] European Commission (2018), The Trust Fund Factsheets, https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/trust-fund-factsheets_en?prefLang=el.

[13] Global Impact Investing Network (2025), What you need to know about impact investing, https://thegiin.org/publication/post/about-impact-investing/ (accessed on 5 January 2026).

[27] Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (2025), The Effectiveness Principles, https://www.effectivecooperation.org/who-we-are.

[9] IKEA Foundation (2023), Standard form publication requirement, https://ikeafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2023-ANBI-Disclosure-Stichting-IKEA-Foundation-English.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2026).

[30] Inside Philanthropy (2021), Why Big Philanthropy Falls Short at Supporting the Grassroots—and How it Can Do Better, https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2021-8-31-why-big-philanthropy-falls-short-at-supporting-the-grassrootsand-how-it-can-do-better (accessed on 9 January 2026).

[28] Lewis, H. and G. Forster (2025), Promises versus Progress: How transparent are foundations about their local funding commitments?, Publish What You Fund, https://www.publishwhatyoufund.org/app/uploads/dlm_uploads/2025/02/Promises-Versus-Progress-how-transparent-are-foundations-about-their-local-funding-commitments.pdf (accessed on 11 December 2025).

[23] Martin, G. et al. (2025), The Power of Collaboration at a Time of Volatility in Global Health and Development, https://www.bridgespan.org/insights/the-power-of-collaboration-at-a-time-of-volatility-in-global-health-and-development.

[12] Mazars (2023), Financial Report, https://www.saa-safe.org/wwa/files/Financial%20Statements%20FY2023.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2026).

[1] OECD (2025), OECD DAC Blended Finance Guidance 2025, Best Practices in Development Co-operation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e4a13d2c-en.

[25] OECD (2025), “Statement on Philanthropy’s Strategic Support to the FFD4 Agenda and Beyond”, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/news/announcements/2025/06/philanthropys-strategic-support-to-ffd4.html (accessed on 9 December 2025).

[6] OECD (2024), No strings attached? Making sense of flexible financing in philanthropy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0264b47f-en.

[26] OECD (2024), Pathways Towards Effective Locally Led Development Co-operation: Learning by Example, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/51079bba-en.

[16] OECD (2021), Private Philanthropy for Development – Second Edition: Data for Action, The Development Dimension, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdf37f1e-en.

[2] OECD (2018), Making Blended Finance Work for the Sustainable Development Goals, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264288768-en.

[15] OECD (2014), Venture philanthropy in development: Dynamics, challenges, and lessons in the search for greater impact, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/62c219a9-en.

[32] Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (2023), Evaluation of the Shifting Systems Initiative, https://www.rockpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Shifting-Systems-Initiative_Evaluation-Report.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2026).

[29] Singh, S. (2024), “Localisation – An Unfinished Agenda Beyond 2026”, https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/Beyond%202026_Final.pdf.

[11] Taawon (2023), Annual Report, https://www.taawon.org/sites/default/files/Annual_Report_Eng_2023.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2026).

[7] The Center for Effective Philanthropy (2021), Foundations Respond to Crisis: Lasting Change?, https://cep.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/CEP_Foundations-Respond-to-Crisis_Lasting_Change.pdf (accessed on 23 December 2025).

[17] The Center for Effective Philanthropy (2016), Sharing What Matters, Foundation Transparency, https://cep.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CEP_Sharing-What-Matters-Foundation-Transparency_2016.pdf (accessed on 9 February 2026).

[34] The Global Fund for Children (2024), The Transformational Role of Intermediaries: Shifting Power, Creating Trust, and Increasing Flexibility, https://globalfundforchildren.org/story/the-transformational-role-of-intermediaries-shifting-power-creating-trust-and-increasing-flexibility/ (accessed on 5 January 2026).

[31] The Share Trust (2022), Passing the Buck: The Economics of Localizing International Assistance, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b2110247c93271263b5073a/t/6377d05b92d652286d6720e5/1668796508981/Passing+the+Buck_Report.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2026).

[18] Trust-Based Philanthropy Project (2022), The 6 Grantmaking Practices of Trust-Based Philanthropy, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/607452f8ad01dc4dd54fc41f/t/629e7f6e63704d64040cc554/1654554478550/6+Grantmaking+Practices+of+TBP_June+2022.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2026).

[24] UN (2025), FFD4 Sevilla Platform for Action Initiatives Full List Advancing Africa-Europe cooperation on Climate, Trade and Development Africa-Europe Foundation, https://financing.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/ffd4-documents/2025/FFD4%20SEVILLA%20PLATFORM%20FOR%20ACTION%20INITIATIVES_Full%20List.pdf.

[21] UN (2025), Outcome document of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development I. A renewed global financing for development framework, https://docs.un.org/en/A/CONF.227/2025/L.1.

[8] World Diabetes Foundation (2024), Financial Statements for 2023, https://www.worlddiabetesfoundation.org/media/3vgiduff/wdf-a-rsregnskab-2023-h1-spreads.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2026).

Notes

Copy link to Notes

← 1. A total of 506 organisations were surveyed for the financial survey, and 105 for the organisational survey.

← 2. Most of these loans are issued by BBVA Microfinance Foundation and are mostly non-concessional.

← 3. Core support to NGOs, other private bodies, PPPs and research institutes, as well as core contributions to multilateral institutions and global funds.

← 4. Unearmarked contributions to the government budget including funding to support the implementation of macroeconomic reforms (structural adjustment programmes, poverty reduction strategies). Budget support is a method of financing a recipient country’s budget through a transfer of resources from an external financing agency to the recipient government’s national treasury.

← 5. Sector budget support, like general budget support, is a financial contribution to a recipient government’s budget. However, in sector budget support, the dialogue between donors and partner governments focuses on sector-specific concerns, rather than on overall policy and budget priorities.

← 6. Large foundations are defined as those in the top 10th percentile of total disbursements over the period 2020-2023, based on the full dataset of 506 foundations. The analysis of grant duration draws on a smaller sample of 34 foundations for which sufficiently complete data were available. Within this analytical sample, 6 foundations fall into the “large” category, while the remaining 28 correspond to the bottom 90% of the distribution.

← 7. Large foundations are defined as those in the top 10th percentile of total disbursements over the period 2020-2023, based on the full dataset of 506 foundations.

← 8. This level of transparency is the norm in Europe for foundations, while the more established foundation sector in the United States has more stringent regulations. US regulations, set out in the Tax Reform Act of 1969, exempt grant making foundations from paying most types of taxes on their income from endowments. The act also requires foundations to file annual returns that are publicly available with detailed financial and programmatic information, and to list every grant made.

← 9. This metric captures both the number of projects and the breadth of organisational participation within each, offering a more comprehensive picture of collaboration than simple project counts, average collaboration counts or funding levels alone. In this way, sectors or regions can be compared according to their ability to generate collaborative linkages among organisations, highlighting where co‑financing arrangements foster particularly dense or diverse networks of actors.

← 10. See https://www.norad.no/aktuelt/nyheter/2022/usaid-norad-and-partners-to-empower-local-development-partners-to-promote-long-term-sustainability-and-impact-on-community/.

← 11. Local actors can include governmental (national and subnational entities), parliaments, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), grassroots associations, community-based organisations, traditional and spiritual leaders, academia, media, and the private sector. They can also include regional organisations, confederations, coalitions, and networks if member organisations maintain independent fundraising and governance systems. Local actors do not include international NGOs including country offices, multilateral organisations, and international private sector organisations.

← 12. “An approach to giving that addresses the inherent power imbalances between funders, nonprofits, and the communities they serve…On a practical level, this includes multi-year unrestricted giving, streamlined applications and reporting, and a commitment to building relationships based on transparency, dialogue and mutual learning.” (Trust-Based Philanthropy Project, 2022[18]).

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Countries

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Publications

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Data

Featured data

News & events

News & events

Featured events

About OECD

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment