FINDINGS

The findings revealed several themes regarding how practitioners perceived SDP funders need to change.

Increase Funding Scope

Funding issues have long been recognized as a critical challenge for the SDP field (Kidd, 2008), and the field is in desperate need of transforming historical funding models and funding cycles to be more effective and sustainable (Svensson & Loat, 2019; Whitley et al., 2020). The findings from our analysis underscore that the most prominent concerns for practitioners are the need for longer funding cycles as well as an increase in the size, scope, and diversity of funding opportunities.

Extend Funding Cycles

The most salient of the concerns was the need for longer, multi-year funding cycles. For example, participants expressed their “request to funders in Sport for Development is to support the initiatives over multi-year(s) to ensure there is a sustainability and it ensures the local team to effectively achieve the planned impact as circumstances at times on-ground are not so welcoming” (Respondent 10), and “To get better results the program funded should be consistent [rather] than for just one time” (Respondent 91). One of the most common aspects emphasized related to multi-year funding was that “it is necessary to establish a long-term relationship” (Respondent 78) for meaningful change and sustainable impact to be realized in the SDP field. Developing more long-term relationships would provide one strategy for starting to overcome the significant power imbalances within existing funding relationships and the pressures that many practitioners feel of having to deliver immediate results in the SDP space. In other words, “long-term and substantial funding is required to achieve social change” (Respondent 95).

The perspectives shared by respondents indicate that practitioners are acutely aware that the short funding cycles commonly found in SDP present significant obstacles to realizing any meaningful change. Providing longer funding cycles would allow for better sustainability for SDP organizations and doing so would also allow for the development of more in-depth evaluations and learning opportunities for what works and what does not work as planned over time.  As Whitley et al. (2020, par. 22) stated creating environments grounded in learning “in which null and negative findings are viewed as an opportunity for honest, critical reflection over longer funding cycles can lead to meaningful change.”

Increase Funding Opportunities

Participants also expressed a need for more sufficient funding opportunities, and greater diversity in the types of initiatives that can be funded. Many participants spoke to the lack of available funding opportunities in comparison to the number of active SDP organizations, which extends the literature on the competition for similar resources within the field (Welty Peachey et al., 2018a). For example, Respondent 38 stated that funders need to “be generous, so many organizations are doing great work and lack of funds seems to be the biggest hindrance.” At the same time, these findings indicate that grassroots practitioners may not recognize or be aware of the increasingly diverse range of funding options available within SDP. As Whitley et al.’s (2020) reported, practitioners could benefit from improved education on funding options. In addition, there was a shared belief that there remains a need to diversify the funding provided. One participant stated, “sport for development funders should avoid selective funding to only one organization several times in one region” (Respondent 69).

While increased funding amounts and longer funding cycles are a clear desire for nonprofit organizations, it was improved consistency and utility of funding that was primarily identified as critical for the betterment of the SDP field. Interestingly, while the need for multi-year funding cycles was the most salient concern, in practice it is antithetical to the participants’ desire for greater diversity and quantity of organizations who receive funding. Participants’ lived experiences likely catalyze a predisposition to be more concerned with one more so than the other; nevertheless, if funders are limited in available resources, these findings highlight a tension between prioritizing long-term partnerships with a smaller number of nonprofits or diversifying funding recipients with shorter funding cycles. One possible option could be for local SDP organizations to go after scaled funding through place-based solutions such as citywide collaboratives (Svensson & Loat, 2019; Whitley & Welty Peachey, 2022). Because organizations all endure different circumstances, which render divergent financial needs, it appears that offering diversity in funding amount, type, and duration is a key practical implication for funders to consider when posting calls for proposals or other funding collaboration processes.

Invest in Capacity Building and Overhead Expenses

Another area emphasized was the perceived need for funders to “support organizational capacity” building (Respondent 68). Several researchers during the last ten years have examined the nature of organizational capacity in the SDP space. A common thread in prior studies has been the conclusion that capacity building is needed to help many of the nonprofits tasked with implementing SDP initiatives in local communities (Svensson et al., 2018; Wegner et al., 2023; Welty Peachey, 2019). Respondents in this study emphasized that “for the organization to implement new initiatives and focus on impact-oriented initiatives, staff are key and hence [we] request the funders to also support the capacity-building of the organization as it eventually ensures achieving the set goals” (Respondent 10).

Several respondents asked for funders to “be more open to capacity building proposals” (Respondent 110) across a range of different needs. For example, “[w]ith the increasing needs of space and infrastructure within [sport for development], funders along with financial support could also provide platforms/spaces/access to such infrastructure for the needs of the programme and its beneficiaries” (Respondent 16). These statements align with discussions during recent years of exploring the possibilities of shared spaces and administrative services (cf. Eisinger & Vinokur-Kaplan, 2019). Likewise, another way that respondents indicated funders can better support SDP organizations was to more intentionally fund professional development and “training for staff” (Respondent 35). To this point, funders were called on to “empower the organizations with proper training to work [in] more professional ways” (Respondent 59), in response to the professionalization of the SDP field (McSweeney et al., 2022). We would argue that future consideration should be given to how funders can support training on readiness for capacity-building, which is often lacking for local organizations to fully benefit from capacity-building initiatives (Wegner et al., 2023).

Several respondents also emphasized the need for better support for smaller, start-up organizations whether that is by “pay[ing] attention to the newer organizations and what can be done to help them improve or become successful” (Respondent 54) or to “make [the] funding application processes simpler for small organizations (Respondent 53). Here, funders could explore the use of place-based accelerator programs that combine funding and operational support for selected organizations (Whitley & Welty Peachey, 2022). For example, “make smaller pots available to small organisations to allow them to take gradual steps towards growth” (Respondent 61) and “reduce the stringent requirements to accommodate upcoming sport for development organizations” (Respondent 118). Thus, respondents in several cases pleaded for funders to improve “supporting small organisations such as ours with funding and technical assistance” (Respondent 56).

These findings warrant future research on the formative stages of nonprofits within the SDP field, which could draw inspiration from an emerging body of scholarship on nascent nonprofits (e.g., Andersson, 2016). As Respondent 64 stated, “remember it’s often the small [organizations] that understand the grassroots issues and can deliver for you. Setting a minimum turnover at 100K reduces your access to grassroots.” To this point, Respondent 108 suggested that “[w]hen we apply, we are up against the large NGOs who receive support based on their name, not on the effectiveness or sustainability of their programs. Can there be blind applications where programs are judged on outcomes and not the NGO’s name?”

Relatedly, others wished that funders would reduce the burden placed on staff when receiving grants, which effectively would help increase their capacity levels. For example, some suggested that funders should “reduce the reporting requirements so that staff can focus on delivery rather than reporting” (Respondent 55). Similarly, Respondent 117 pleaded for funders to “simplify the reporting process please. Rely more on qualitative reporting.” In other words, there was an emphasis that there should be “no clunky data collection” (Respondent 105) tied to existing grant programs.

These findings demonstrate that nonprofit organizations are eager to learn more, develop professional skills, and build the capacity of their personnel as it relates to knowledge and ability. While funders could consider providing financial support for capacity building and skill development, they may also consider incorporating capacity building initiatives that help organizations fulfill their reporting requirements with the help of a trained professional. This not only helps ensure that funding organizations get accurate and reliable reports, but helps develops organizational personnel capacity for designing, evaluating, and reporting that may assist with future proposals and partnerships.

Consideration of Local Contexts

Another theme identified from our analysis was a clear emphasis among SDP leaders on the importance for funders to better recognize, understand, and support local contexts when making funding decisions. Local agency has been positioned as a critical factor in existing theoretical advancements in SDP (Schulenkorf, 2012; Welty Peachey et al., 2020). In this study, respondents argued that funders “need to understand the operating environments of each organization [and that] the funding should be direct [to local organizations] (Respondent 16). More specifically, several respondents expressed the need for “prioritisation of local needs as opposed to the funders’ needs and expectations” (Respondent 122).

There was an emphasis among respondents on the need for funders to pursue “close engagement with local sport for development organizations” (Respondent 30) rather than funders’ agendas or standardized goals across all grantees. Some participants, therefore, argued that more funding is needed for local implementing organizations, “all funders should provide local implementing organisations with more core funding – local partners really need this and funders don’t prioritize it. They just want programmes implemented on the ground without enough consideration of local partners staff costs and ongoing operational costs” (Respondent 56). The desire for greater consideration of local contexts was reinforced by a desire for funders to “allow organizations to report on the outcomes that most align with their programming” (Respondent 18). It is unfortunately well-documented that practitioners often feel that they have to frame their work around whatever priority areas funders have set or have to communicate different messages to funders compared to local stakeholders out of fear of losing funding that those organizations depend on (Raw et al., 2019; Svensson, 2017).

Likewise, some respondents noted the importance for funders to consider underrepresented regions and/or groups, “reach out to organisations in Asia and look at underserved groups like foreign domestic workers/migrant workers (Respondent 26). Several respondents emphasized that they were not advocating for shifting funding away from existing grantees, rather funders “should also expand their funding areas and regions of the world” (Respondent 45). That said, respondents also expressed concerns about their own experiences with funding agencies in that many funding decisions were made by managers and executives abroad without little to no knowledge of the local context or vetting of the grant applicants. These concerns were succinctly summarized by Respondent 40 who argued that funders should:

only fund organizations you either have visited in the field before or are visiting in the decision making process. Don´t decide based on a word document and a few pictures. Now I feel many funding decisions are taken as if we would decide who to marry with based on social media profiles.

There are both financial and geographical barriers for funders which often prevent site visits before determining a beneficiary for a funding initiative. The necessary resources to travel to investigate applicants could alternatively be used to fund a separate initiative for an additional organization – which previously discussed findings suggest that participants would support. Thus, participants’ desire for funders to make more locally informed and investigative decisions, is at tension with their desire for expanding opportunities to underrepresented groups and regions of the world. As a result, two key practical implications need to be recognized. First, this speaks to the need for more inclusive and holistic funding applications that can convey and demonstrate program delivery and organizational culture (e.g., video footage). Second, these tensions highlight the benefits of regional funding initiatives, which increase the awareness of a funder within a local context/culture, as well as their familiarity and accessibility to local organizations. In light of the diverse and complex funding mechanisms within the SDP space, one possibility could be for local, regional, and sport-specific SDP networks (e.g., Goodpush Alliance; SOMOS Network in Latin America; Uganda Sport for Development Network) to collate and share existing funding options of relevance in their specific context, or even go after joint funding applications (Kang & Svensson, 2023).

Innovation and Entrepreneurship

In recent years we have witnessed significant growth in the attention given to innovation and entrepreneurship within SDP (Cohen & Welty Peachey, 2015; McSweeney et al., 2022; Svensson et al., 2020; Whitley, 2019). Some funding agencies have created innovation-specific funding programs to help support ideas, which may not easily receive funding elsewhere (e.g., Laureus’ Sport for Development Innovation Fund). Yet, respondents in our study had conflicting opinions on whether funders should support innovation and entrepreneurship.

Some respondents argued that there is a significant need for “more innovative financing” (Respondent 75), and that funders should “support more entrepreneurial activity within the sector” (Respondent 3), which reinforces arguments made by practitioners who have successfully embraced innovative behavior (cf. Svensson & Mahoney, 2020). Others argued for more specific emphasis among funders in that “they should support income generating activities to enhance sustainability” (Respondent 159), which would also help address pressing capacity challenges within the SDP field. Those sharing such perspectives argued that funders should “seek to invest in innovation instead of ‘like for like’ products and services just to save money” (Respondent 104) while others called for agencies to fund “more innovative ideas to improve on the lives of disadvantage communities” (Respondent 30).

However, a few participants raised concerns about the growing push for innovation and programs for the sake of being innovative. For example, “please support staff costs and programs that are proven to work, not only new innovations that may be unproven” (Respondent 11). The concern raised by a group of respondents centered around innovation-specific funding unintentionally forcing organizations to develop new programs and models for the sake of securing funding rather than continuing to sustain existing, successful programs. This is consistent with respondents’ concerns regarding a need for funders to invest in core costs, overhead expenses, capacity building, and the institution of SDP itself.

The evidence here suggests that funding innovation and entrepreneurship can create more inclusive funding opportunities, as well as enhance organizational sustainability (e.g., income-generating activities) for some nonprofits. However, re-emphasizing the importance of having different types of funding opportunities, these findings highlight that a constant push for innovation can prevent capacity building, sustainability, and the overall impact of nonprofit organizations. Thus, a practical consideration for funding entities is to reconceptualize the ultimate desired outcome of funding initiatives to be neither capacity building nor innovation, but sustainability and impact. For nonprofit organizations, this emphasizes the need for leaders/managers to make strategic decisions regarding which funding opportunities are worth pursuing within the complex funding landscape associated with SDP, given their organizations needs and capacities.