NeMoscow studied over 400 projects related to the war in Ukraine that received financial support from the Presidential Grants Fund. We found that nearly 70% of the organizations that won war-related grants were somehow connected to the government. There's a correlation between the presence of a connection and the amount of support: when a connection is present, the grant size is larger. Furthermore, 38% of the funding went to organizations registered in Moscow. We asked experts what these figures mean. The results of the study and their interpretation are in our special project. 

What was studied?

1. We analyzed the lists of winners of four Presidential Grants Fund competitions (the 2022 special competition, the first and second competitions of 2023, and the first competition of 2024). We did not examine information for the second competition of 2024 or the first competition of 2025, as the analysis is labor-intensive. We believe the information we reviewed is sufficient for drawing conclusions. 
2. From these lists, we identified projects that were in some way related to the war in Ukraine or the aftermath of the war. We then excluded projects implemented in the occupied territories and combined projects implemented by the same organization or its regional branches. 
3. The final list included 340 organizations that received funding from the Presidential Grants Fund totaling 1 billion 257 million rubles. We were primarily interested in these organizations' connections to the government. We also looked at the geographic distribution of military-related grants and the areas most frequently receiving funding.

---

Here are the conclusions we came to:

In our opinion, it is appropriate to speak about such a connection in those cases where the directors, founders, trustees and other persons related to the organization are clearly connected with the following institutions: 

1. federal authorities;

2. regional authorities;

3. municipal authorities;

4. United Russia party;

5. government agencies of various levels;

6. government-related non-profit initiatives;

7. government-related business;

8. Russian Orthodox Church*;

9. structures close to government** (councils, working groups, etc.)

* Officially, the Russian Orthodox Church is separate from the state; in reality, church and state in Russia are closely intertwined. In socio-political debates, the Church supports state policy, while the state uses the Church as a tool for strengthening traditional values ​​and combating Western liberal tendencies. Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church serve on various state councils. The state transfers real estate to the Church, assists in its restoration, and funds many of its projects through state grants. The Russian Orthodox Church also enjoys tax breaks. 

** A common objection is related to this point: representatives of non-profit organizations often serve on various working groups, councils, and committees established under the government. This is a perfectly normal tool for dialogue with the government, the purpose of which is to achieve the organization's statutory goals. While this is certainly true, the more these institutions are increasingly becoming entities that serve the interests of the government. This is clearly evident in the examples of both the Public Chamber and the Presidential Human Rights Council. Those with close ties through such institutions are forced to make certain civic compromises in order to maintain their closeness, which is beneficial for the organization's statutory goals. Furthermore, the infographic below shows that this type of connection is rarely the only one, and that, as a rule, there are other links leading to the government. 

We did not include among the state-affiliated organizations those where, in our view, the connection is weak—for example, through partnerships with government agencies, as stated on the NGO's website, or the ideological positions of its leaders and founders, which are expressed in active public support for Putin or the war in Ukraine.

We visualized all the connections we found in a network diagram. The left cluster represents a group of organizations where we found no obvious connections to the state, or where they were weakly evident. The right cluster represents a larger pool of state-affiliated organizations. 

Hover over or click on the dots to learn more.. Orange The dots are a connection marker (what the organization is connected to). The green dots are organizations that received presidential grants for projects related to the war or its aftermath. The size of the green dot depends on the size of the grant or the combined size of several grants. 

What does this mean?

If you dig into the histories of well-known and respected NGOs, then “many, if not most,” will find experience with government ties, says Igor Zaidman, An expert at the Presidential Grants Foundation from 2017 to 2023. For example, the Penza "Civil Union," which later became a foreign agent, had the mayor of Penza on its board, and the deputy governor on its board of trustees. 

"This NGO's reputation and authority are beyond question; no one in the community would even think of talking about its ties to the government," the source notes. 

From Zaidman's point of view, if a non-profit organization operates under the auspices and with the support of the government and contributes to its PR, there is nothing good about it, and yet What should be assessed first and foremost is not this, but what exactly the NGO is doing and what results it achieves. 

"Yes, many non-profit organizations are founded by businessmen with close ties to the government, members of the United Russia party, members of parliament, and so on. This is commonplace in our country. Bringing influential officials, members of parliament, mayors, governors, and other "useful" people as trustees of charitable organizations is also quite common. This really helps—both in promoting the NPO and in securing opportunities like the use of municipal premises, permission to hold mass events, and so on. But it doesn't indicate that the NPO is corrupt, that it works for the state, or anything like that," the interviewee is convinced. 

At the same time, from his point of view, “not expressing political views that contradict the ‘general line’” and generally “avoiding politics” is a “perfectly reasonable position” for non-profit organizations. 

Our other experts didn't question the social utility of most of the NGOs included in the study. As one commented, "Someone has to make these prosthetics." Our interviewees also didn't believe that the state ties of most recipients of military-related grants indicate corruption in the distribution of funds: after all, the scale is not that large, and the granting mechanism itself makes this method of siphoning off funds too complex, complicated, and unsafe. 

Our experts explain the current disproportion primarily the desire of the authorities to ensure the transmission of “the right” semantic narratives. 

"State-affiliated organizations are easier to control. They receive orders or recommendations from higher authorities, with which they must align their activities. Such a connection can guarantee that funds will be spent according to the needs and current objectives of the state, that nothing anti-government will be allowed, and that criticism of the government will not penetrate the projects along with the SVO," he believes. Elena Ishchenko, previously the curator of the Center for Contemporary Art "Typography" in Krasnodar (the organization once received a grant from the Financial and Industrial Group, and was recognized as a foreign agent at the beginning of the war). 

Our other interlocutor Vasily Eremenko, head of an NGO with multiple experiences of receiving grants from financial-industrial groups (He continues to work within the country and asked for anonymity, so his name has been changed – editor’s note.), notes that today, if you “fall out of the [state] agenda,” it is almost impossible to receive a presidential grant. 

"My expert friends used to say that if a project was five or six points short of the 70-point mark, then the assessment was probably objective, and we need to figure out what went wrong. But if it was one point or less short, then they're probably trying to screw the project over. The last two times we didn't receive a grant, we were short first by one point, then by 0,6. And that was after several well-executed projects, for which we reported without any issues, exceeding all KPIs. It was a clear signal: don't come back. Because we've fallen off the agenda. Some open letters were published, speaking out against the law on foreign agents... This is certainly a manifestation of the times we live in. It would be strange if things turned out differently in the area of ​​government grants.

According to the expert, today the financial-industrial group has finally established itself as a source of support for “its own” in the broad sense of the word – those who publicly approve of state policy or at least keeps criticism of the government's actions to himself. 

Another of our interlocutors, a political scientist and independent researcher, agrees with this. Vsevolod Bederson. In the 2010s, in collaboration with Andrey Semenov, then a colleague from Perm State National Research University, he published research, where he portrayed presidential grants as "a rather subtle and careful mechanism for encouraging the political loyalty of NGOs." Over the past decade, the situation has worsened, as organizations within Russia have seen their ability to raise funds radically diminish. 

Foreign funding is prohibited. Crowdfunding and microdonations have declined during the war. In this situation, state funding is essentially the only thing that can ensure the institutional survival of professional NGOs. This applies not only to grants from financial-industrial groups, but also to grants from state corporations, municipal and gubernatorial grants, funding for research and development, and the outsourcing of government services. And, of course, the Russian authoritarian regime lives by the principle of "He who pays the piper calls the tune": Receiving government money implies a monopoly on the state agenda. 

Elena Ishchenko adds: the bias toward state-affiliated NGOs could also be explained by the decline in the number of independent non-profit organizations themselves, or by their reluctance to apply for presidential grants (as the expert puts it, "they are unwilling to engage with a government that is waging a criminal war and repressing its own citizens, or they are unwilling to be visible to that government"). However, this is merely a hypothesis, and to reach such a conclusion, it would be necessary to examine not only war-related projects, but the entire portfolio of financial-industrial groups. 

There is a correlation between an organization's connection with the government and the size of the grant.

If such a correlation exists, the grant size is higher. This correlation is clearly shown in the following diagram. 

• Orange The circles represent a collection of organizations linked to the government. The green circle represents a group of organizations where we found no connections or weak connections. 
• The x-axis shows the average grant size. The further along this axis the circle is positioned, the higher the average grant size received by the organizations in the population. 
• The Y-axis represents the total amount of grants received by the entire population. The higher the circle on this axis, the greater the amount. 
• The size of the circle depends on how many grants organizations with a particular type of connection received: the larger the circle, the more grants.

Organizations with no obvious ties to the government, or only weakly so, represent a fairly large group, occupying a middle position in terms of total grant amount. However, the average grant size in this group is the smallest among all the analyzed clusters. 

"The more money is allocated, the more logical it is that it should be spent in the way the state needs," Elena Ishchenko explains the correlation. 

"If you don't have a package of letters of recommendation from respected people like the governor, members of parliament, representatives of the state trade union, or, for example, someone from the right party, it will be difficult to get a large grant," agrees Vasily Eremenko. "Or you have to be, say, The House with the Lighthouse — an organization that everyone knows about, with a reputation. And If you come from somewhere in Kamchatka, you are not yet very well known, and there is no governor behind you, you will be put aside, — the interlocutor comments. 

The situation in which little-known organizations start with small grants and gradually build both their reputation and the volume of support they receive is generally normal and typical for any grant scheme. However, in the case of financial-industrial groups, the system appears to be malfunctioning. 

Eremenko cites the example of the Museum of Special Settlers, which repeatedly applied for small grants (up to 500 rubles) and was rejected each time. The expert believes this is because the topic is inappropriate. Meanwhile, a number of organizations mentioned in the study received large sums for war-related projects without any previous experience collaborating with financial-industrial groups. For example, the Moscow-based Geography of the Heart Foundation won nearly 36 million rubles for the medical rehabilitation of military personnel, while the Humanitarian Volunteer Corps, registered in the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, received 14,4 million rubles for "humanitarian missions" to the so-called "LPR/DPR." 

Igor Zaidman believes that correlation is a "tricky thing": it speaks of a change in two quantities, but does not speak of a cause-and-effect relationship. 

Larger grants go to more experienced organizations "For projects with a larger scope. It's quite possible that these individuals were among the recipients of large sums, and they, logically, have government connections, as I mentioned above," the expert suggests. He views connections to the government as a tool for gaining experience and building authority.

They account for 40 projects (the largest number of projects among those analyzed), which collectively received the largest amount of money - approximately 38% of the total funding allocated by the Presidential Grants Fund for military-related projects in the analyzed period. 

Organizations from border areas received tens of times less support for projects related to the war and its consequences: projects in the Belgorod and Rostov regions received 4% each, in the Voronezh region – 2,5%, in the Kursk region – 1%, in the Bryansk region – less than 1%.

Leading regions based on the analysis:

Moscow - 475,6 million.

Belgorod region - 52,6 million.

Rostov region - 51,1 million. 

Nizhny Novgorod region — 43,4 million. 

Samara region – 33,8 million. 

Voronezh region - 31,4 million.

Vologda Oblast – 30,1 million.

Volgograd region - 27,7 million.

Republic of Bashkortostan - 25,8 million. 

Krasnodar Territory - 25,3 million. 

The five largest grant recipients identified by NeMoskva are also from the capital. 

* Co-financing of projects supported by financial-industrial groups may include: the organization implementing the project's own resources; targeted budget financing, including funds from federal or local budgets; targeted financing from other countries; financial support from other non-profit organizations, sponsors, individuals, and other sources. 

Igor Zaidman calls the distribution of funds in favor of Moscow a “natural process” associated with the general "Moscow-centricity" of Russia. He also emphasizes that, according to his personal calculations, the capital is in 52nd place in terms of the share of victories from the number of applications submitted, with 19,2%, while the leaders here are Vladimir, Bryansk, and Magadan: 

"There's no lobbying for Moscow's applications to become financial-industrial groups. Moscow simply exerts pressure through sheer numbers. It has incomparably more NGOs. Unfortunately, even here, everything is in the capital." 

Zaidman emphasizes that one of the financial-industrial group's main achievements is simplifying access to the competition for regional NGOs. Before 2017, Moscow's share, he estimates, was "about 80 percent."

Vasily Eremenko still believes that lobbying from the capital is essential. A significant number of experts analyzing applications are located in Moscow, and, naturally, they are more loyal to those they know, especially if they know them personally. However, he emphasizes, the high proportion of projects submitted by Moscow-based organizations is primarily due to the fact that Often, an NPO only has a “registration” in Moscow, but its activities are not limited to the capital, the projects cover different regions.

Elena Ishchenko celebrated This was previously stated in a commentary for the publication DOXA, however, not in a positive light: “Centralization remains, with people sitting in Moscow deciding what needs to be done in the regions and in the occupied territories. This works to maintain power and reproduces colonial policy».

Vsevolod Bederson calls the system of state grants "a factory for the redistribution of resources between client groups", Moscow-centrism is only a consequence. 

— The findings of your study indirectly (and in my opinion, directly) point to precisely this: there are clienteles around certain individuals and groups associated with the Russian Orthodox Church, State Duma deputies, and enterprising technocrats from the non-profit sector. Moscow-centrism is likely a consequence of this: Clientele bosses are concentrated in Moscow. 

We're not talking about the entire grant pool of financial-industrial groups, nor are we claiming that military-related projects consume a larger share of the Foundation's overall support, as, as a reminder, we only examined a very specific portion of grants. However, an analysis of the Foundation's previous interactions with the organizations mentioned in the study shows that by integrating into the current agenda, these NGOs have ensured an increase (in some cases, a multiple increase) in their funding. 

Projects not related to war are marked in green, but orangem - related. 
1 conventional infographic icon = 1 million rubles

This characteristic isn't definitive; it's not recorded for all organizations, and there are exceptions. Nevertheless, it appears to be consistent. Below is a list of 20 organizations from our list that received the largest grants. This table, in particular, demonstrates what we discussed above: you can have no previous experience with grants from financial-industrial groups, but still win a large grant on a military topic. 

Igor Zaidman suggests don't forget about inflation, which is an important factor. He believes that a larger sample size is needed to draw definitive conclusions, but the expert's hypothesis is that the increase in support volumes is due to a "natural increase in spending on complex projects." 

According to Vsevolod Bederson, announcing a military-related project is a way to demonstrate loyalty and political harmlessness, which increases the chances of receiving funding. 

At the same time, the expert emphasizes that this approach is dangerous, because destroys the last channels for adequate feedback “from the ground”. In authoritarian regimes, in the absence of fair elections, nonprofit organizations can be a mechanism for compensating for the lack of information about people's real problems. However, says Bederson, when the state effectively forces NGOs to comply with the state agenda, the channel collapses:

— In other words, the agenda doesn't flow from people to NGOs, but from NGOs to the state, and from the state to NGOs. Those who succeed in this situation are those who best understand the demands of their political superiors. 

Initiatives implementing propaganda projects account for a small share of the total number of organizations studied—approximately 6%. A similar share are projects aimed at helping animals, harmonizing relationships, training in drone operation, and a number of uncategorized projects, such as "frontline radio." 

However, the remaining initiatives—that is, 88% of projects—are related to the provision of applied assistance: psychological, social, adaptive, humanitarian, medical, and legal. 

The main category of beneficiaries are internally displaced persons (primarily from the occupied territories of Ukraine); almost 50% of the projects are related to them. Many are also aimed at assisting the families of war veterans and the war veterans themselves (primarily those who suffered severe physical and mental trauma). 

Thus, state grants finance services that the state should provide by default.

Shifting government responsibilities to NGOs is a common practice around the world, says Elena Ishchenko. 

— Ensuring an accessible environment or integrating people with disabilities—aren't these government tasks? But with this work? independent non-profit initiatives do a much better job, They are freer and therefore more effective. 

Other experts agree with this. 

"The transfer of state functions to NGOs is a completely logical fact, which determines the need for the non-profit sector to exist," comments Igor Zaidman. "In an ideal world, social and charitable NGOs should not exist. Everything they do should be carried out by the state. Treating children, combating social orphanhood, supporting the poor, dealing with homeless animals, developing sports, promoting knowledge—the list is endless! All of this is part of the state's responsibilities. And NGOs do all of this. All over the world, not just in Russia." States are failing to cope. They lack funds, skills and knowledge, flexibility, speed, the ability to innovate, understanding the needs of target groups, and so on. This is precisely why NGOs exist and operate. The government delegates some of its work to them, and in return, provides financial support. 

Many organizations even include the statement "The state is failing to cope" in their applications. "Unfortunately, government agencies, due to objective factors, are not always able to provide the necessary assistance, and the volume of assistance is often insufficient," states the rationale for one project. "The current situation and ongoing military operations are limiting the work of local medical and social services and exhausting the human, organizational, and logistical resources of the healthcare system," notes another. 

Vasily Eremenko also believes that the ideal performance of all of the state’s functions is possible “only in City of the Sun Campanella"The gaps that arise are filled by people who care, and this is natural and normal. 

On the other hand, given the monopolization of grant support for NGOs in Russia by the state, there is the risk of crowding out what the authorities do not consider important. 

"We live in a time when horizons are very close, and people are dealing with the present. The state is in the same paradigm." 

"Unfortunately, some of the problems facing non-profit organizations are caused by the SVO. But these are also problems that need to be addressed," Igor Zaidman concludes. 

In conclusion, "NeMoskva" merely reminds us that the new problems that now have to be addressed alongside and to the detriment of the old ones were not created by a natural disaster, a global economic crisis, global warming, or an attack by an aggressive neighbor. But by the Russian government's decision to unleash a war. 

Noticed an error or inaccuracy in the data? Do you have information about an organization mentioned in the study? Write to Us.

You can download the dataset with the results of our study in Excel format.

The head illustration was generated using the DALL-E neural network.

March 2025