Money dossier | part 1 | Can fundraising replace subsidies?

Between resilience and agility

First and foremost: civil society should not resign itself to the reduction of public support. Belgium has developed a unique model. The Netherlands did so as well. We may be proud that our governments subsidize organizations, even if they sometimes criticize the policies of that same government; that is a model of democracy. 

Amid arbitrariness, political pressure and faltering policy lines, one conviction still stands today: there are things that only a strong civil society can sustain and that we must continue to subsidize. Naturally with the necessary assessment and follow-up, as already happens.

I consciously choose that model. I speak for many people in the sector when I say that I, for one, do not want dependence on the whims of wealthy philanthropists or on the conditions imposed by religious donors. We see in the United States where that can lead. We must protect our model against political interference. At the same time, the current reality also calls for other ways of working and for new combinations of funding.

Subsidies for social projects are shrinking from various sides of the political spectrum, and that is receiving a lot of media attention. At the same time, we subsidize companies on an exceptionally large scale, especially through wage subsidies. In Belgium, these amount to about 25 billion euros per year, around 4% of GDP. 

By comparison: in total, around 80 million euros in Belgium goes to socio-cultural adult work, and in 2022 the Flemish government spent about 421 million euros on culture. What we subsidize is therefore a collective choice in which today we are tightening the belt on the social side while continuing to invest in the economic side without a debate about its effectiveness.

In the event of a sudden loss of subsidies, think of organizations such as MO*, Labo vzw or many NGOs in the Netherlands, an understandable reflex often follows: immediately approaching potential donors. In an acute phase, a warm appeal to supporters can bring relief. Still, realism remains necessary: individual donors cannot and do not need to structurally take over collective investments from public funds. That touches on the core of solidarity as a social principle. In addition, we also see that many organizations were already explicitly asked by the government in the previous subsidy round to focus on other forms of fundraising. So we must continue working on those other forms of financing, even though structural subsidies hopefully remain the main component.

Then look for money elsewhere?

Foundation funding, from private funds, family funds and corporate foundations, can give projects breathing space. The pool remains limited, however. Belgium has around 2,600 foundations, and many of them focus on very specific themes, target groups or regions. The Netherlands has many more endowed foundations. Competition for those resources is fierce, and structural operating funds rarely come from this corner.

Foundation funding can therefore sometimes be part of the solution and at the same time a real risk. Organizations that mainly run on temporary project funding quickly end up in a starvation cycle. That “starvation cycle” is well documented: organizations put almost all their energy into securing the next project and hardly build toward their longer-term development anymore. 

Abroad, major foundations, such as the American Ford Foundation, have long been thinking about more sustainable ways to support organizations. In that respect, we can in turn learn from developments in the U.S. and set that thinking in motion here as well. Ask a foundation that has supported your organization for some time for more than project funding, and explain what impact this has.

Then just more individuals?

A broad group of individual donors can make your income stream more stable and strengthen your organization in the long term. Such a base grows when you invest strongly and deliberately in the relationship with your supporters. You build a reciprocal bond: you share stories, make impact tangible, and invite people to actively connect with your mission.

Fundraising gains a fixed place in day-to-day operations, with volunteers, ambassadors, and participatory actions as its driving force. In this way, occasional gifts gradually develop into genuine community support. This is work with a long-term horizon, growing with time, attention, and consistent choices.

Companies: opportunities and limits

Partnerships with companies deliver a great deal when they align with your mission, your ethical compass, and the time you can invest in them. Involve companies in concrete social challenges, work on local anchoring, and start from the social added value, with the sponsorship amount as a derivative. Expect a lead time of about a year between an initial contact and a fully developed joint project.

Fundraising complements subsidies and gains its own place in your financing mix. It requires time, sharp strategic choices, targeted relationship-building, and a clear picture of your social role. Use the momentum after a loss of subsidies to sharpen priorities, deepen stories, and set up broader collaborations. Only then can fundraising grow into a fully-fledged pillar of your organizational and financial resilience.

European funding?

For a European application, you should still count on at least one month full-time spread over around 6 months

A private foundation is often fairly informal when it comes to applications and reporting; the Flemish or Belgian government is already quite a substantial undertaking. For a European application, you should still count on at least one month full-time spread over around 6 months. The amounts involved are large, but you often have to submit with partners in several countries or join a consortium.

Dare to rethink and innovate your model yourself

Fewer resources do not automatically have to mean that you also make less impact. This is the moment to take a critical look at your organizational model: what is essential, and where is there room to do things differently? Innovation often arises under pressure; think of new forms of collaboration, sharing resources with like-minded organizations, or developing hybrid solutions where entrepreneurship and social goals go hand in hand.

Also dare to question existing habits and assumptions: is the format of your offering still appropriate? Can you reach more people with fewer resources through digitalization? Are there partnerships imaginable in which you are stronger together, for example by sharing infrastructure, knowledge, or networks? In this way, redesigning the way you operate (together with partners, volunteers, and your supporters) can not only help you save costs, but also spark new forms of engagement and innovation.

Effective organizations distinguish themselves not by the size of their budget, but by their agility and courage to think outside the traditional frameworks. Have you already taken the capacity-for-change test for your organization?

Bring your theory of change, your theory of change, explicitly to the table and explore together where renewal opens up opportunities to remain relevant and strengthen your impact, even in times of contraction.

Buy a bigger strategy table

Loss of subsidies sharpens the strategic thinking about the core of the organization: what do we choose, what do we let go of, and where do we seek collaboration? Fundraising is a full-fledged part of that conversation.

Fundraisers should always be at the table too. Some activities are easier to fund than others, and you have to take that into account. Some missions also translate more quickly into a compelling fundraising promise than others. The conversation about priorities and the funding mix therefore remains a shared strategic exercise, in which content, organization, and finances take shape together.