With all the recent news about Melinda French Gates and her plans to devote billions to women and girls, it’s easy to lose sight of a sobering fact: less than 2 percent of charitable giving in the United States funds organizations focused on women and girls — a number that hasn’t budged in decades. Even worse, only about half a percentage point goes to nonprofits specifically dedicated to women of color.
“This is a critical moment for women and girls in the U.S. and around the world — and those fighting to protect and advance equality are in urgent need of support,” wrote French Gates on social media as she stepped into the next chapter of her philanthropy.
Within days, the philanthropist took that call to action to heart, dedicating $1 billion in new spending over the next two years for people and organizations working on behalf of women and families around the world, including reproductive rights in the United States.
The question now is, will other philanthropists and grant makers follow suit? What will it take for them to respond with the same sense of urgency?
Two years ago, in the wake of the Dobbs ruling overturning abortion rights, philanthropy unleashed a flurry of rage-fueled giving. Unfortunately, it didn’t last. Just a year after the Supreme Court decision, emergency grants and individual giving had already dried up, even as needs grew.
With state bans and restrictions making abortion care more expensive and more difficult to secure, access has become increasingly inequitable, particularly for low-income women of color. The majority of abortion seekers are low income, and almost 42 percent live below the federal poverty line.
Where is the rage as the rights of women of color are under attack and the challenges they face intensify?
“For too long, a lack of money has forced organizations fighting for women’s rights into a defensive posture while the enemies of progress play offense,” French Gates wrote in the New York Times, declaring: “I want to help even the match.”
Effective Gender Giving
More philanthropists and foundations need to join her and adopt expansive and sustainable notions of what funding women and girls should look like. In a recent report — “Illuminating Impact: Why Gender Matters for Funders in Any Issue Area” — my colleagues at the Bridgespan Group explored what that might take.
They suggested grant makers start by asking themselves key questions about how gender is integrated into their work. How, for instance, do outcomes vary by gender? And within those outcomes, how do they differ along other dimensions of identity, such as race, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation? When disparities in outcomes are revealed, do they know the underlying causes and work to address them?
Funders should also consider how power dynamics may be affecting giving decisions. When women are in leadership positions — especially those who face additional forms of discrimination, such as women of color and queer women — funding decisions inevitably shift.
That’s why investing in women’s leadership is so critical. Black and brown women frequently find themselves on a “glass cliff” — elevated to executive positions after founding members depart but not given the help they need to succeed. Grant makers should also look inward at the power dynamics within their own organizations to ensure women leaders receive sufficient support.
For a taste of the impact such a move can bring, take a look at my previous musing about the potential for philanthropy if the genius of Black women was harnessed more.
Melanie Allen, co-director of the Hive Fund for Climate and Gender Justice, understands that potential well. Although Allen considers Hive primarily a climate funder, exploring questions about the interplay of gender and climate helped the organization develop a more effective giving approach. Specifically, it helped Hive understand that race and gender are at the core of how people experience the climate crisis, in much the same way that race and gender historically dictated where people could live and the types of jobs they could get.
Driven by the harms happening in their communities, Black women have become leaders in the fight against polluting industries. In recent years, Allen has seen women leaders of color, such as those who opposed the Dakota Access Pipeline at Standing Rock, “having David-and-Goliath moments with energy companies.”
An estimated 80 percent of climate-focused grants have typically gone to white-led organizations, but Hive’s gender analysis led the group to place its funding bets on women of color. In its first four years, the Hive Fund has cultivated a portfolio of 126 grantee organizations, 77 percent led by women of color. Until Hive came along, many had never received significant general operating support.
“If folks have had these huge impacts without philanthropic support, they can go leaps and bounds beyond that with adequate and consistent financial support,” Allen says.
Focus on Winning
French Gates has thrown down the gauntlet, proclaiming that it’s time to “even the match.” But as Allen’s experience proves, why not go further? Why not win the match?
Winning requires many more grant makers, no matter their issue area of interest, to also see the fight for the rights of all women, girls, and gender expansive people as critical to upholding democracy and improving the world.
The relentless attacks by the “enemies of progress” are themselves an acknowledgment that progress is still winning — despite the occasional steps backward. That part of the story should give us hope. The caveat is it takes constant support for wins to stay wins.
No matter how shamefully commonplace our inequities may be, the fight to dismantle them should always be urgent. For the sake of our Black and brown daughters today and in generations to come, we must never lose sight of that.
