Nila Kartika Wati
As global gender equality faces unprecedented challenges from organized anti-rights movements and shifting geopolitical priorities, the sustainability of feminist and women’s rights organizations has emerged as a critical concern for international development and human rights advocates. The current landscape of feminist organizing is characterized by a paradox: while public support for gender justice has reached historic heights in some sectors, the institutions responsible for driving this progress are operating within a framework of systemic financial precarity. Recent data indicates that without a fundamental shift in how resources are distributed and managed, the long-term viability of these movements remains at risk.
The Current State of Feminist Resourcing
The Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID) recently released one of the most comprehensive global datasets on the financial health of feminist organizations, titled Where Is the Money for Feminist Organizing? The report draws on data from 1,174 organizations across 128 countries, offering a sobering look at the "structural precarity" that defines the sector. While there have been incremental improvements in the availability of core funding over the last decade, the quality and duration of that support remain insufficient to meet the scale of the challenges faced by activists today.
According to the research, 71 percent of feminist organizations now receive at least some core funding. This represents a significant increase from 2010, when an AWID global survey found that 50 percent of such organizations had never received core support. This shift is largely attributed to the growth of a global network of feminist and women’s funds that prioritize flexible, trust-based philanthropy. However, the depth of this support is often superficial. Among the organizations that do receive core funding, 62 percent report that it accounts for less than 20 percent of their total annual budget. Furthermore, 29 percent of organizations still receive no core funding at all, forcing them to rely entirely on project-based grants that do not cover essential operational costs or staff salaries.
A Chronology of Funding Trends and Movement Advocacy
The struggle for sustainable feminist funding is not a new phenomenon, but rather the result of decades of advocacy and evolving philanthropic practices. To understand the current crisis, it is necessary to examine the timeline of how feminist resourcing has evolved:
- 2006–2010: The Recognition of Scarcity. During this period, AWID’s early "Where is the Money?" reports highlighted a "Dutch disease" in philanthropy—plenty of talk about women’s empowerment but very little actual cash reaching grassroots organizations. In 2010, the data revealed that the median income for feminist organizations globally was just $20,000 USD.
- 2011–2019: The Rise of Feminist Funds. This decade saw the expansion of regional and thematic funds such as the Global Fund for Women, Mama Cash, and FRIDA | The Young Feminist Fund. These institutions pioneered the "trust-based" model, arguing that movements themselves are best positioned to determine their spending priorities.
- 2020–2022: The Pandemic Pivot. The COVID-19 pandemic forced many traditional donors to provide emergency flexibility. However, as the world transitioned out of the acute phase of the pandemic, many of these flexible arrangements were rescinded, leading to the current state of fiscal uncertainty.
- 2023–2025: The Rise of the Anti-Gender Backlash. Feminist organizations now face a well-funded global opposition. Estimates suggest that anti-gender movements, often supported by conservative religious and political actors, have access to hundreds of millions of dollars annually—significantly outstripping the resources available to many human rights defenders.
Quantitative Analysis of Financial Fragility
The AWID data for the 2023 fiscal year paints a picture of stagnation and decline. A significant portion of survey respondents reported that their budgets either remained flat or decreased compared to previous years. The most alarming statistic regarding the quality of funding is the duration of grants: only four percent of feminist organizations have access to grants that last longer than three years.
This short-termism creates a "cycle of survival" where leadership and staff must dedicate a disproportionate amount of time to fundraising and administrative compliance rather than long-term strategic planning or community impact. The report also highlights a "mission drift" phenomenon, where 63 percent of organizations admitted they had to change their internal priorities to align with donor agendas. This suggests that the current funding ecosystem often functions as a mechanism of control rather than a platform for empowerment.
Political Pressure and the Restriction of Solidarity
Sustainability is not merely a financial metric; it is also a political one. In recent years, the autonomy of feminist movements has been challenged by funder-imposed restrictions on political speech and solidarity. A prominent example cited by observers is the pressure placed on organizations regarding Palestine solidarity. Many civil society groups have reported explicit or implicit warnings from donors to avoid terms such as "genocide" or "apartheid" or to distance themselves from Palestinian partner organizations.
This trend toward the "neutralization" of human rights advocacy poses a direct threat to the integrity of feminist movements. When funding is contingent upon silence or the avoidance of controversial political realities, the sustainability of the movement’s political mission is compromised. However, the emergence of autonomous resourcing—funding generated from within the movements themselves—offers a potential counterweight to this external pressure.
The Rise of Autonomous Resourcing and Feminist Economies
In response to the limitations of traditional philanthropy, feminist movements are increasingly turning toward autonomous resourcing. This includes financial, human, and material resources that are generated through community contributions, membership fees, or revenue-generating social enterprises.
The data reveals that 85 percent of organizations use internal or autonomous resources to sustain their work. For 24 percent of respondents, these autonomous sources account for half or more of their total annual budget. This move toward economic self-determination is a key pillar of what activists call a "just transition" in the funding landscape.
Feminist economic models are already in practice across the globe. Examples include:
- Cooperative Enterprises: Agroecological projects and food cooperatives that secure food sovereignty while providing income for women and non-binary people.
- Movement-Owned Infrastructure: The development of feminist-owned conference venues, transportation networks, and consulting hubs that keep resources within the movement ecosystem.
- Community Safety Nets: Mutual aid funds and collective care systems that provide emergency support for activists in regions of conflict or high state repression.
Policy Implications and the Path Forward
For sustainability to be achieved, analysts argue that the international development sector must move beyond viewing "sustainability" as a technical requirement in grant applications. Instead, it must be recognized as a structural challenge that requires the dismantling of restrictive funding rules.
Historically, millions of dollars earmarked for "gender equality" have been spent on private sector actors—such as international consulting firms, luxury hotel chains for conferences, and global airlines—because funding regulations often prohibit grantees from using funds to build their own assets or financial reserves. A "just transition" would involve allowing feminist organizations to build endowments, purchase property, and invest in their own infrastructure.
Furthermore, the conversation around sustainability must be linked to broader global economic justice issues. This includes advocating for debt cancellation for Global South nations, which would free up national resources for social services, and reforming the international financial architecture to prioritize redistributive justice over austerity.
Official Responses and Expert Perspectives
While many bilateral and multilateral donors have expressed a commitment to "localization" and "gender-transformative" funding, the implementation remains slow. The OECD’s recent reports on Official Development Assistance (ODA) show that while total aid for gender equality has increased, the portion that reaches women’s rights organizations directly remains at a dismal one percent.
Experts in the field emphasize that the risk-aversion of traditional philanthropy is one of the greatest barriers to progress. "Philanthropy needs to move from a model of ‘charity’ to a model of ‘solidarity,’" stated one analyst familiar with the AWID findings. "This means sharing the risk with movements and relinquishing the control that comes with short-term, project-based grants."
Conclusion: Resourcing a New Reality
The sustainability of feminist movements is the prerequisite for a democratic and equitable future. The current system, characterized by chronic underfunding and restrictive conditions, forces organizations into a state of permanent crisis management. However, the ingenuity shown by movements in building autonomous resources and feminist economic alternatives provides a blueprint for change.
The transition toward a sustainable feminist future requires an urgent and intentional shift from both private philanthropy and public institutions. It demands a move toward long-term, multi-year, and flexible resourcing that allows movements to not only survive but to build the infrastructure necessary for systemic change. In a world increasingly marked by militarization and the erosion of human rights, the resourcing of feminist movements is not just a matter of organizational health—it is a matter of global security and justice.
