The eternal debate about ‘impact’ is a familiar one for any think tank leader. Think tanks invest significant time, energy, and resources into monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) efforts, striving to document and communicate their value. But, when it comes to impact, are think tanks always speaking a language their funders understand, or even want to hear?
As part of OTT’s Advisory Programme for Think Tank Leaders, we conducted a series of interviews with funders supporting the same organisation. We complemented those interviews with discussions with other think tank leaders and funders. This article draws lessons from this research effort. For confidentiality, the insights shared in this article have been anonymised. But the contrasts are nonetheless striking and relevant.
What became clear is that “funder” is not a monolithic category. Their philosophies, their pressures, and what they truly value can differ dramatically. Therefore, what they want to hear about from think tanks differs.
Based on these conversations, two broad archetypes emerge:
- Ideologically identifiable political philanthropists include free-market and conservative funders (not always the same), some progressive funders (although these tend to cover too many issues and often champion technocratic approaches to funding), as well as individuals and some corporate sponsors.
- Technocratic funders primarily include institutional funders such as multilateral and bilateral funders, as well as many technocratic philanthropic funders (typically proponents of “evidence-informed policy”) – often aligned with progressive agendas or international development.
Understanding their distinct perspectives on impact might be the key to moving beyond the eternal debate and toward more meaningful conversations.
As with every typology, we accept there will be generalisations that do not apply everywhere.
Archetype 1: The political philanthropist – Betting on principles, people and organisations
This type of funder is often driven by a core philosophy and a desire to see specific ideas gain practical application in the world. For them, the impact journey begins long before a project kicks off.
- Ideological alignment comes first: The first and most crucial test is whether a potential grantee’s work aligns with the funder’s core principles — be it the role of government, free markets, individual agency, the rights of minorities, etc. This is not a superficial box-ticking exercise; it is the bedrock of the relationship, rigorously vetted during due diligence. These funders use networks, conferences, and referrals from members of their community to identify and learn more about prospective grantees.
- They bet on individuals: Even if these funders provide project-based support, a large part of their decision-making rests on their assessment of the capabilities of the individuals leading the organisation. Grant-making is fundamentally about building a relationship and trusting the leaders’ vision and capabilities. As one funder succinctly put it, ‘90% of grant-making is relationship building.’ Another described much of their work as simply “betting on the person.”
- Investing in organisations: Once the relationship is established, these funders are committed to the long haul. The funds and support offered, often through project funding, are almost an excuse to remain engaged with the think tank. Money is complemented by networking and learning opportunities.
- Ex-ante assessments: We found that these funders spent significantly more time on ex-ante assessments of their potential grantees rather than ex-post monitoring and reporting.
- Sceptical of rigid frameworks: There is a noticeable move away from prescriptive views of impact. Logic models and elaborate impact measurement templates or rubrics are not considered strong indicators of success. In fact, pre-determined metrics are sometimes treated with suspicion, as they can lead to ‘fairly dodgy outcomes’ and are often difficult to verify, such as article readership or YouTube views. One funder described this shift as moving away from ‘a constructivist view of impact.’
- Learning and adaptation as success: For these funders, a project that pivots or changes over time is not seen as a failure; it is a sign that the grantee is learning and adapting to reality on the ground. The journey, and the lessons absorbed along the way, matter more than strict adherence to a project proposal or a four-year-old plan. As one explained, ‘one thing we would actually like to see is a kind of a project changing or pivoting over time into… a better and better strategy.’
For this archetype, impact is discovered through conversation, trust, and a shared worldview. Monitoring occurs through regular calls, meetings at conferences, and site visits — not via complex reporting templates.
Even when these funders are foreign they appear able to assess their grantees’ work and relevance through the networks they share.
A key characteristic of these funders is that supporting the think tank is an objective in of itself. Their theory of change is simple: the likelihood that their values will inform decisions will increase if more organisations adhere to them.
Archetype 2: Technical cooperation – Pathways, processes, and proof
These funders, often bilateral or multilateral cooperation and more technocratic foundations, operate under a different set of pressures and guidelines. For bilateral or multilateral funders, their primary audience is not just the grantee, but the public treasuries that fund them; for technocratic foundations, there are increasing layers of oversight and advice that demand evidence to demonstrate a return on investment.
- Operating within strict(er) frameworks: Their work is guided by specific objectives (sectoral or geographical), impact frameworks, indicators that must be reported against and a greater concern for the wider sectors in which they operate. As one funder explained: ‘We ourselves have… a project ourselves. We also have an impact matrix. We also have to fulfil indicators, and we also have an impact logic and have to assess impact and report to the ministry about it.’ Their own project logic dictates which think tanks and initiatives they can support. Another funder explained that their mandates come from either sectoral (e.g. climate change, economic development, education) or geographical (e.g. Latin America or West Africa) programmes and therefore funding decisions are subject to those programmes’ objectives.
- Outcomes are the new outputs: There is a clear and welcome shift away from simply counting publications and towards documenting outcomes. One agency defines an outcome as ‘an observed change influenced by the research partner in changes in behaviour, actions, relationships, policies, programmes or technology.’
- Ex-post assessments: Where political philanthropists seem relatively satisfied with a much lighter-touch ex-post assessment of their grantees’ impact, technocratic funders require ex-post demonstration of a plausible link of “contribution” or even “attribution” between the think tank’s work and a real-world change.
- Defined impact pathways: Impact is often categorised into levels. One agency, for instance, looks for three tiers: contribution to decision-making (e.g., publications influencing debates), strengthened relationships (e.g., new partnerships with policymakers), and, most ambitiously, the co-creation of solutions between think tanks and decision-makers.
- ‘Stories of change’ as advocacy tools: Beyond the data, these funders increasingly value compelling narratives that demonstrate why their investment matters. A single story about a community paralegal, for example, can resonate more strongly than a statistic about training hundreds of people. As one funder put it, these “impact stories” help to “contextualise the hard impacts of the research” and make the case for continued investment.
This archetype relies on more formalised channels: interim and final reports are crucial, but they also monitor grantees through their websites, newsletters, and social media presence. A well-maintained digital footprint is often seen as a marker of credibility.
Across all of these funders, we found a growing tension: between what the individual programme officers know (e.g. that change is unpredictable, think tanks should decide how best to use the resources, learning is more important than impact, etc.) and what their organisations demand (e.g. a focus on pre-defined outcomes, a demand for increasingly elaborate MEL frameworks, etc.).
Navigating the divide: What does this mean for think tanks?
Neither approach is inherently “better” – they serve different types of funders, although some think tanks do ask ‘which is better for us?’. They serve different purposes and respond to different institutional needs. Think tanks need to be aware of these.
The crucial questions for think tanks are:
- Are they tailoring their impact communication to the right audience?
- Are they spending months developing a complex MEL framework for a political philanthropist who would rather have a 45-minute phone call to catch up on their progress?
- Or are they relying on a strong personal relationship with a programme officer at the funder who, ultimately, needs a documented “story of change” and report to feed into their own reporting system?
The challenge is not only to become bilingual (or trilingual) to understand the language, motivations, and pressures of each funder, but also to recognise the trade-offs each relationship entails and how to keep a balance.
Political philanthropists may offer flexibility and long-term commitment, but often provide less funding and expect strong ideological alignment, which can compromise intellectual autonomy and reduce think tanks’ room for manoeuvre in complex political environments. Technocratic funders, on the other hand, sometimes demand more rigid frameworks, yet are less concerned with ideology, which creates the space for think tanks to pivot when contexts shift. Navigating this balance is as important as learning to adapt to different languages and cultures when traveling.
Funders, too, can draw lessons from these contrasting approaches. A sound theory of change begins with investing in people and organisations, not just projects. Prioritising support over measurement frees up resources that would otherwise be consumed by monitoring, evaluation, and reporting, enabling think tanks to focus on their core work. It also repositions MEL as an internal tool for strengthening strategic planning and organisational performance, dimensions that are often underestimated but critical for long-term effectiveness.
Ultimately, the eternal debate is not about adopting the perfect metric or framework, but about recognising these trade-offs, learning from each other, and fostering conversations that strengthen both the evidence base and the organisations that produce it.
To organise the sources, assist in structuring the findings and sharpening the contrasts presented here, we used NotebookLM, an AI-powered tool that summarises uploaded sources, makes connections, and provides precise citations, powered by Gemini models.