How to Fund Investigative Journalism: Insights from the Field and Its Key Donors

"[T]here is a viable future for investigative journalism at all levels, local to international, if systematic, predictable, stable funding for networks, centers, journalists, technologies and collaborations can be found."

Investigative journalism (IJ) holds those in power to account and can trigger changes in legislation and administration, in both public and private systems. Yet research and surveys indicate that IJ units and networks are systematically underfunded, even compared to other parts of the journalism field. This report from DW Akademie is designed to help funders and investors understand the field around the world and the ways they can support it. The resource is part of a series from DW Akademie looking at practices, challenges, and futures of IJ around the world.

As author Sameer Padania explains, IJ organisations come in all shapes and sizes, including: small independent groups of journalists publishing online; national, regional, and international not-for-profit investigative centres; investigative units within both public service and commercial media; units embedded within university departments; field infrastructure organisations such as networks and conferences; and expert intermediary funds specially focused on supporting IJ. Examples include: Rappler in the Philippines; amaBhungane and the Daily Maverick in South Africa; Egypt's Mada Masr; India's The Quint; Consejo de Redacción in Colombia; Brazil's Agência Pública; the United Kingdom (UK)'s Bureau Local; Germany's Correktiv Lokal; and the Latin American (and now European) journalism network Chicas Poderosas. Thus, per Padania, "this is a time of unprecedented collaboration and innovation."

Rooted in 17 in-depth expert interviews and wide-ranging desk research, the report sets out big-picture challenges and opportunities facing the IJ field - both in general and in specific regions of the world. It provides donors with an overview of the main ways this field is financed in newsrooms and units, large and small, exploring major contemporary debates, trends, and challenges.

For example, the resource offers a 10-point primer on IJ funding trends and opportunities:

1. IJ is a key part of the flow of quality information in society and in communities. It challenges vested interests, and so is often subject to various threats from those whose interests it threatens.
2. As IJ - through factors such as dying business models, lack of resources, and government pressure - gets squeezed out of many newsrooms, some journalists have been setting up or working with independent investigative organisations that don't always fit easily into internal grant-making categories. Thus, donors might need to find new or alternative ways to provide them with funding.
3. Independence is critical for IJ, but it does not automatically bring stability or control.
4. Many IJ units rely on a handful of primary sources of funding, making them vulnerable both to donor priorities and to changes in donor priorities.
5. Core funding is key to the field; there aren't many specialist funders, and their resources are finite.
6. Research shows - and interviewees affirm - that revenue diversification can bring additional overheads by requiring more specialised staff to manage new areas of activity.
7. Some in the field - and some donors - argue that IJ is a public good that performs key democratic functions and should be wholly subsidised.
8. Some organisations have adopted an approach - also attractive to donors - that seeks to increase their engagement with their audiences (e.g., through collaboration with expert audience members). Any such route leads to having to rethink how the organisation works.
9. There is an increasing effort for donors to exchange experiences and channel their funds for greater impact and to avoid any possible political backlash.
10. To reach a more diverse range of IJ grantees, some donors have adapted their application and reporting processes - making them more journalist-friendly, grantee-led - and are providing more predictable streams of funding.

Also offered are 10 key principles for funders of investigative journalism:

1. Have realistic expectations: The field is small, under-resourced, and faces many adversaries, but is tenacious and resourceful.
2. Be aware that IJ differs from region to region and level to level, and make the application path as easy for the grantee as possible.
3. Get advice and recommendations from peers and/or trusted advisors, and share what you can (safely) so other funders can make use of it.
4. Avoid the temptation to give to those with an established track record with other funders; the IJ field needs new, different, and diverse organisations and approaches, as the nature of its adversaries is also constantly evolving.
5. Provide core funding if at all possible, and multi-year if you can.
6. Be prepared to fund the things that grantees may not know they can ask for - e.g., support for business/organisational development and capacity-building. ("[A]ll interviewees agree that IJ needs support for an infusion of skills in organizational management and development as a springboard for its future progress...")
7. Consider supporting the infrastructure of the field, including at the local level - e.g., networks, conferences, fellowships, legal assistance funds, safety and security, and technology development.
8. Be prepared for adverse public, political, or even legal attention as a funder or investor supporting public-interest or investigative journalism.
9. Be aware of your and your institution's power: Many funders unintentionally distort the incentives for IJ groups by expecting particular kinds of impact or collaboration, for example.
10. Be led by your grantees on how they think of impact, rather than dictating an impact framework, be mindful of over-burdening them with bureaucratic demands, and be understanding that collecting data and determining impact in IJ is more art than science.

Finally, the resource provides practical advice to help new, prospective, or curious donors get started, and what is important to do and not to do. For example, it can be instructive to engage with IJ, networks, and organisations, such as the GIJN (Global Investigative Journalism Network), ANCIR (African Network of Centers for Investigative Reporting) in Africa, ARIJ (Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism) in the Middle East, and COLPIN in Latin America. Here, funders can find a variety of advice and resources, which "are valuable starting points in any given region, and their session notes and tipsheets are very useful for getting a rapid summary of a particular issue, approach, or area of work. The GIJN website - which shares its own analyses of trends and issues in the sector around the world on its blog - is, for example, gradually building up a Resources section (helpdesk.gijn.org) that will act as a repository of knowledge covering many topics of interest to the IJ field."

In summary, Padania advises funders to:

• Listen more to the needs of the field, and design their application, granting, and reporting processes to be more journalist-friendly;
• Learn from and collaborate with other donors, including, where appropriate, tech companies and governments;
• Commit to supporting the field (including its infrastructure) with core funds for 5 or more years, to allow new actors and initiatives to take root;
• Find ways to support IJ groups not on donor priority lists, or in democracies under pressure, or that don't fit traditional funding categories;
• Support the other institutions and parts of civil society that are key to a healthy information environment: access to information, open data, civic tech, legal empowerment, media development, and the research community.