Most think tanks do not have stable core funding, nor will they even get it. Preliminary results from the 2026 State of the Sector Survey indicate that only 18% are funded primarily through core support. The remainder relies on project-based funding. Additionally, 70% of organisations operate on project grants lasting two years or less, which limits their ability to hire staff, develop research lines, or invest in new offices.
As a result, organisations are actively seeking alternative sources of income. The survey shows that 29% now include service sales in their income mix, 18% include membership fees, and 10% report income from investments and rent. While none of these sources dominates, collectively they signal a shift: revenue streams once considered marginal are becoming increasingly important.
Diversifying income is now essential for survival, not just an option for a select few. Following USAID’s withdrawal and aid reductions, the question has shifted from “should we diversify?” to “how do we diversify?”
At the 2026 OTT Conference in Rabat, the session “Forget core funding: alternative income streams for resilient think tanks” brought together four leaders to discuss their organisations’ approaches. This session provided a candid examination of how four funding models operate in practice.
The conversation was convened by Jorge Morel (Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, IEP, Peru), Liliana Alvarado (Ethos, Mexico), Anthea Haryoko (CIPS, Indonesia) and Margarita Beneke de Sanfeliu (FUSADES, El Salvador).
None of the four organisations began by creating something entirely new. Instead, they identified their existing strengths and considered who might be willing to pay for those capabilities.
IEP leveraged its reputation and methodological expertise by establishing a public opinion survey unit in 2019, initially supported by the Ford Foundation’s BILD programme. During the pandemic, the Institute transitioned to telephone surveys, capitalising on Peru’s high mobile penetration. IEP is now the country’s second most recognised polling firm after Ipsos, with election-time accuracy that has built significant credibility. Its competitive advantage lies in methodological rigour and official registration, not pricing. IEP has successfully marketed its expertise in social science to the media, international organisations, and private clients.
Ethos aims to position foundations as clients rather than solely as donors. Liliana outlined a pilot model offering consulting services to philanthropic foundations in Mexico, including organisational strengthening, gender frameworks, and disaster resilience advisory. She noted that foundations often require support in allocating funds effectively, not just in making donations. The main challenge is cultural, as many foundations still favour visible donations over strategic investments. Ethos recognises that changing this mindset takes time and treats the gradual pace as an inherent cost of innovation.
Anthea described how CIPS anticipated declining aid as Indonesia developed and proactively built corporate partnerships with clear guidelines: limits on government funding, disclaimers for corporate-funded studies, and a focus on projects serving the public interest, such as consumer protection in fintech. Its flagship event, Digiweek, attracts corporate sponsorship in technology policy. Anthea emphasised the importance of respect for institutional independence and for the audience’s intelligence.
FUSADES underwent significant changes in response to political developments. After policy shifts in El Salvador in 2019, the organisation lost tax incentives and faced increased risks in partnering with private donors. In response, FUSADES established a trust fund, generated rental income, repositioned community leadership programmes as corporate social responsibility initiatives, offered legislative mapping services to corporate lawyers, launched an “AI Academy” focused on AI ethics and data protection, and produced a prime-time television programme on resilience that reached over 1.3 million viewers. The organisation retrained its lawyers as AI experts rather than hiring externally.
Acknowledging the risks
The session did not present diversification as a universal solution and acknowledged the associated risks and challenges.
One risk is corporate capture. Accepting corporate funding requires clear boundaries, disclosure of sponsorships, and alignment with the organisation’s mission. As Anthea stated, the solution is not to reject corporate funding outright, but to define in advance which activities will not be undertaken in exchange for it.
Another risk relates to the political environment. FUSADES shows that opportunities shift depending on those in power. Certain topics may become inaccessible, and some services must be adapted to remain viable without compromising the mission.
Capacity is often where good ideas for income generation falter. A strong researcher is not always a good trainer, client manager, or commercial project lead. Assuming otherwise can stall new revenue streams. Retraining helps; FUSADES turned lawyers into AI experts, and Ethos developed new skills within existing teams. However, this takes time, and not everyone adapts. Staff burnout is a real cost often overlooked in revenue projections.
A further risk is internal strain. New income streams can raise concerns about commercialisation or mission drift. As Liliana noted, diversification is as much a change-management challenge as an organisational-culture one. Without team support, new services will not succeed. Several speakers emphasised the importance of a clear organisational purpose to safeguard against drifting toward client-driven priorities. Diluting this focus can undermine the brand.
Effective strategies
The session highlighted several actionable insights.
- Leverage existing strengths: IEP’s survey unit, FUSADES’s legal services, and CIPS’s convening capabilities all draw on existing expertise offered to paying clients. Assess your underutilised assets before developing new products.
- Emphasise methodological rigour: In a competitive consultancy market, credibility sets a think tank apart. IEP, for example, competes on methodological credibility, academic standards that private firms cannot replicate, and registration with electoral authorities that signals independence. In a market where anyone can run a survey, IEP’s willingness to publish and stand behind its methodology is the product. This applies beyond polling; any service is more valuable when backed by an analytical reputation built over years.
- Protecting independence requires mechanisms, not just good intentions: CIPS uses three. First, self-imposed caps: at least 50% of income must come from private philanthropy, and no single corporate or government funder can exceed a set ceiling, ensuring no single actor holds financial leverage. Second, disclosed funding: company sponsorships are openly stated in publications, allowing the public to judge the work on its merits. Third, commercial agnosticism: CIPS never promotes specific companies’ products or services. It addresses macro questions such as regulation, consumer protection, and market design, positioning itself as a voice for the broader environment. These principles are why companies trust CIPS to sponsor events.
- Pursue collaboration over competition: Think tanks can share projects, client networks, and expertise rather than building every capability independently. Consortia and joint offers enable smaller organisations to pursue work they could not deliver alone.
- Subscriptions and memberships can provide stable income but require active management: Some participants described models offering exclusive analysis, closed events, and tailored memos. Success depends on delivering consistent, high-quality content and retaining an engaged audience. This is a product management function, not an incidental benefit.
A consistent warning emerged: assess your organisational capacity before launching new income streams. Memberships, training, events, and consultancies may seem attractive, but without adequate team, time, or systems in place, they are unsustainable. Overextension is a greater risk than weak demand. Patience is essential, as these models take years to develop. Ethos, IEP, and FUSADES progressed incrementally.
Funding remains the sector’s primary challenge, as it has for the past decade and likely will continue to. However, this session offered optimism: four organisations in diverse contexts found unique solutions by first assessing their internal strengths. OTT is no exception. The On Think Tanks programme is supported by grants (of various sizes and lengths), participants’ fees for some of our events and courses, consulting projects for think tanks and funders, a new membership model, and an internal subsidy from our consulting profits. That is the conversation worth continuing in the next State of the Sector survey, in our courses, and at future conferences.