The Investigative Journalism for Europe (IJ4EU) programme has set a “gold standard” for protecting editorial independence in donor-funded media and offers a replicable model for financing watchdog journalism worldwide, a major study has found.
IJ4EU, which channels a blend of public and philanthropic funding into cross-border investigative reporting, fills a “gaping hole” in Europe’s media landscape caused by the chronic underfunding of in-depth journalism, the paper says.
Published in Journalism Practice, the peer-reviewed study draws on surveys, interviews and project data from more than 150 investigations funded between 2020 and 2024. It places IJ4EU squarely in Europe’s debate over how to sustain watchdog reporting as traditional business models erode.
“In sum, the programme’s governance architecture offers a strong response to one of the thorniest questions in journalism today: how to support investigative reporting at scale without steering the editorial wheel,” the paper says. “In answering that question, IJ4EU sets a gold standard — not just for what journalism funding can achieve, but for how it must be governed.”
The study, Funding Without Strings: The Case for IJ4EU’s Investigative Journalism Support Model, is by Marius Dragomir, director of the Media and Journalism Research Center.
The findings come as European policymakers grapple with how to stabilise public-interest journalism without undermining editorial freedom, and as philanthropic donors reassess their role in Europe’s media ecosystem.
“Donor funding has long been accused of breeding volatility, inviting mission drift, or exerting subtle editorial pressures,” Dragomir writes. “This article argues that the IJ4EU model offers a refreshing counter-narrative: a journalist-led, arms-length framework that insulates editorial processes from funder interference while actively encouraging transnational collaboration.”
‘Institutional firewall’
IJ4EU, established in 2018 and scaled up from 2020 onward, channels European Commission funding — topped up by foundations such as Fritt Ord and Adessium — through neutral intermediaries dedicated to strengthening independent journalism.
The programme is managed by a consortium of media-support organisations led by the International Press Institute (IPI), alongside the European Journalism Centre (EJC) and the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) and, in the latest edition, Arena for Journalism in Europe.
Together, the consortium serves as an “institutional firewall” designed to uphold editorial independence against pressures from political powers and philanthropic patrons.
“Projects are selected through a transparent, merit-based competition overseen by an independent jury,” the study says. “The role of the implementing consortium is strictly administrative and facilitative.
“Neither the European Commission nor private donors wield any influence over the editorial content supported, nor do they receive privileged access to the outcomes. This ironclad division between funders and editorial decision-making has earned near-unanimous praise from journalists, funders, and independent evaluators alike.”
This independence-by-design is not a coincidence, the study argues, but the core explanation for IJ4EU’s prominence in Europe’s investigative journalism ecosystem.
“Ultimately, IJ4EU stands as both a test case and a potential prototype for a more resilient, equitable, and impact-driven funding paradigm, one that meets the structural fragility of investigative work head-on, rather than papering over it.”
‘Rare safe haven’
Since its inception, IJ4EU has supported 226 cross-border teams with almost €6 million in grants, allowing hundreds of journalists across Europe and beyond to collaborate on high-impact stories of public interest.
The programme has generated more than 2,500 publications and broadcasts, reaching tens of millions of people through a vast range of outlets — from giant legacy media to community news start-ups.
A key theme of the study is the degree to which the programme has earned the trust of the journalists it funds.
“In a media support landscape often marred by prescriptive funding and bureaucratic red tape, IJ4EU has carved out a reputation as a rare safe haven, a ‘journalist-first’ model that trusts grantees to do what they do best,” the paper notes.
“Participants repeatedly lauded the scheme’s streamlined application process, light-touch grant reporting, and accessible, human-centred communication. As one grantee remarked, ‘They didn’t make us jump through bureaucratic hoops. We could focus on journalism, not paperwork.’”
The sense of freedom, rather than burden, also extends to subject matter. Unlike many grant schemes, IJ4EU imposes no thematic guidance and does not prioritise coverage of particular issues.
“What further sets IJ4EU apart is its editorial neutrality,” the study says. “Unlike many issue-driven grants that nudge journalists toward predetermined themes, be it climate change, migration, or digital rights, IJ4EU attaches no strings.
“It lets journalists call the shots, empowering them to pursue investigations driven by urgency, relevance, and public interest rather than donor priorities… It is, quite literally, a funding model that lets journalists follow the story wherever it leads.”
One reporter quoted in the study put it more simply: “We felt supported, not surveilled. That made all the difference.”
IJ4EU’s consortium members — all veteran defenders of media freedom — are credited with shaping that environment.
“As staunch defenders of press freedom, the implementing organisations, IPI, EJC, and ECPMF bring not only technical know-how but also deep normative commitment to editorial independence,” the study notes.
“Journalists across all three evaluation cycles consistently described these institutions as responsive, pragmatic, and non-intrusive, behaving more like partners than bureaucrats. Remarkably, no instances of editorial meddling have been reported across any edition of the programme.”
‘Pan-European community of practice’
Beyond protecting editorial autonomy, the paper highlights IJ4EU’s role in strengthening a cross-border community of investigative reporters.
The programme funds teams spread across multiple countries, often combining freelancers, local reporters and investigative NGOs. Over time, these collaborations have evolved into what the study describes as “a pan-European community of practice”, built on shared expertise, collective security and mutual support.
“This sentiment, of collective protection through collaboration, has become a defining feature of the IJ4EU ethos,” the review says.
Legal support and advocacy assistance have added resilience to these networks, while flagship convenings such as IJ4EU’s annual UNCOVERED Conference reinforce the ecosystem, allowing reporters to exchange data, methods and security practices.
The study found that IJ4EU has helped bolster participation from journalists in Eastern Europe, where threats to media freedom and resource constraints remain acute — a shift that has become a “hallmark of the programme’s identity”.
Lifeline for freelancers
The paper devotes considerable attention to IJ4EU’s impact on freelancers — a cohort that now drives much of Europe’s investigative output but often lacks institutional backing, regular income or legal support.
“In a sector increasingly marked by burnout, precarious working conditions, and institutional fragility, IJ4EU has emerged as a vital lifeline, not only cushioning freelancers and small outlets from collapse, but also enabling many of them to thrive against the odds,” the review says.
Many grantees said the funding covered months of full-time work they otherwise could not have afforded. Several suggested they would have had to abandon their investigations — or leave journalism altogether — without IJ4EU’s backing.
“‘It wasn’t just the money,” another grantee observed. “It was the feeling that we had the time, the tools, and the backing to do something properly. That’s a rare gift in journalism today.’”
The support extends beyond cash. IJ4EU’s Freelancer Support Scheme pairs each team with a mentor — often a seasoned investigative reporter — and provides training on topics diverse as legal risks, digital security, open source intelligence and coping with trauma.
Ninety-plus percent of respondents rated the legal-resilience and digital-abuse components as “very useful”.
This holistic approach, Dragomir argues, is what turns a grant programme into a capacity-building engine, strengthening not just stories but the profession itself.
‘Delicate balance’
The study is largely positive but does not shy away from limitations.
Funding remains cyclical, tied to EU budget periods and philanthropic commitments. Several former co-funders have undergone restructuring, creating uncertainty about long-term stability.
IJ4EU also cannot, by itself, resolve the deeper market failures that have decimated investigative units in many European newsrooms.
Still, the paper argues that the programme points the way toward a more sustainable future, noting that IJ4EU’s model — increasingly seen as best practice — “demonstrates that journalism funding can be both donor-driven and journalist-led, striking a delicate balance between sustainability and independence”.
Dragomir argues that IJ4EU’s approach represents a shift in the political economy of journalism funding.
“Rather than relying solely on market forces or state subsidies, it presents a hybrid model: multi-source funding, distributed by sector experts, focused on collaboration, and structured to minimise editorial risk.
“This combination of features, especially its support for freelance-led, transnational investigations, sets it apart in a crowded landscape of journalism support schemes.”
Blueprint for rebuilding trust
As European democracies confront disinformation, political polarisation and declining public trust in the media, the study suggests that models like IJ4EU may be essential for restoring journalism’s watchdog role.
“What makes IJ4EU truly distinctive is its replicability,” the study says. “Its design, a blend of public-philanthropic financing, editorial independence guarantees, inclusive access, and effective capacity-building, offers a blueprint that could be adapted across regions, from Southeast Asia to Latin America.
“In doing so, it could help re-anchor journalism as a public good in contexts where market collapse or political pressure have all but silenced watchdog reporting.”
The study notes that while IJ4EU eases immediate financial pressures, it does not resolve the long-term challenge of donor dependency or future scalability.
“To scale the model meaningfully, two building blocks are essential,” Dragomir writes. “First, a long-term financial anchor, ideally in the form of a European endowment for investigative journalism, would provide the runway needed for sustained growth and strategic planning.
“Second, broader buy-in from philanthropic foundations and national governments could unlock region-specific adaptations, ensuring that the model remains sensitive to the distinct needs and constraints of diverse media landscapes.”