Methodology

We used a mixed-methods approach in the development of this report to capture previously published knowledge as well as the wisdom of practitioners. The following provides an overview of the qualitative and quantitative methods used.

Literature review. We reviewed existing books, reports, and articles on systems change and funding practices (see bibliography section) to identify common themes in strategies, practices, and activities regarding funding systems change approaches among our partner organizations and beyond. Through an iterative process, we distilled these common themes into five principles in collaboration with funders, intermediaries, and systems change leaders. This iterative process of refining helped ensure that the perspectives of all partner organizations were reflected in the final set of principles.

Survey with systems change leaders. We created an online survey covering key aspects of the five principles we had distilled from an initial literature review to validate these with systems change leaders and gather evidence for our recommendations. The survey contained both multiple-choice and free-text formats, with no forced answers (i.e., all questions were optional). It was disseminated through five of our partner organizations (Ashoka, Catalyst 2030, Echoing Green, Co-Impact, Schwab Foundation), who chose which systems change leaders were asked to participate in the survey. While participation in the survey was completely voluntary, we offered a lottery for ten vouchers for a one-year digital SSIR subscription or another publication or gift card of comparable value.

113 systems change leaders participated in the survey and completed it in an average time of 23 minutes. On average, 83 percent of participants answered each question. The percent values we report refer to the total number of responses per question (i.e., N may be smaller than 113 for each individual question). Survey respondents come from nearly every continent and mostly (90 percent) belong to the executive level of their organization. Almost four in five (78 percent) have worked in the social sector for more than a decade and more than half receive funding from more than one funder.

It is important to note that our sample reflects a strong selection bias, as most survey respondents receive at least some support from one of our partners to do systems change work. Even so, many responses indicated that funding practices are often not adequate for systems change work. We hypothesize that responses would differ for a broader sample of change leaders, including those that are capable of working on a systems level but do not currently receive funding to do so.

Live interviews with systems change leaders on sustainability. We further interviewed a small number of systems change leaders who are part of Catalyst 2030. They were selected for their long experience in, and deep understanding of, systems change work, as well as a focus on sustainability work. These systems change leaders shared their thoughts on the five funding principles as well as their personal experiences in the area of systems change, which helped inform our case examples.

Live interviews with funding organizations. We conducted semi-structured phone interviews with representatives of more than 25 different organizations in the funding community, including funders and intermediaries (see list in the appendix). Interview partners were selected through a snowball sampling approach, as partner organizations established most of these connections. The interviews served to validate the five principles proposed in this report and capture interview partners’ recommendations on how funders looking to evolve their practices towards better support for systems change efforts might get started. While we mostly interviewed organizations (primarily foundations) that were already familiar with the concept of systems change, we also had conversations with impact investors, CSR representatives, and public sector representatives to understand the differences and similarities in their funding practices.