Getting the Ball Rolling
Thirty years ago, Women & Philanthropy was born out of the desire and outrage of a small cadre of women (and a couple of male allies). Troubled by the lack of representation of women in positions of leadership in the philanthropic field (a report from the Council on Foundations reported that only 18 percent of foundation trustees and 28 percent of foundation professional staff were women), and the dearth of program funding supporting programs for women, one motivated woman held an impromptu lunch to figure out what could be done.
The lunch was standing room only!
In 1977, when the organization was founded, funding to women and girls was a scant 0.5 percent. Yes, you are reading that correctly: half of a percent of total foundation giving!
Can you imaging half of a percent for 52 percent of the population!
The new organization set out to address the lack of female representation in the sector, the appalling lack of funding, and the general education of, and communication with, foundations about issues and problems affecting women.
Eight years later (in 1985), the Women’s Funding Network (WFN) was formed as an umbrella organization, bringing together the various women’s funds fueling the burgeoning "women’s funding movement," which was really gaining momentum.
Its mission: "to ensure that women’s funds are recognized as the ‘investment of choice’ for people who value the full participation of women and girls as key to strong, equitable, and sustainable communities and societies."
Women’s funds had been in existence for many years. The majority of the funds at the time were rooted in the women’s and civil rights movements in the 70s; however, there were a small number with histories stretching back to the late 1800s and early 1900s!
These funds were the result of women’s recognition and desire to be in greater command of financial resources, and in turn to be able to use these resources to support work that served and transformed the lives of women and girls.
In 1985, there were roughly 35 women’s funds in some stage of their development.
While Women & Philanthropy and the Women’s Funding Network employed very different strategic approaches, both organizations worked tirelessly over the subsequent years toward the same ultimate goal: to increase resources to women and girls.
Where are we now?
I think that clearly both groups can claim success on many levels.
Within the field of philanthropy, women now comprise more than 74 percent of program officers, 54 percent of CEOs and 35 percent of trustees.
Today, the Women’s Funding Network celebrates over 125 women’s funds worldwide! And, collectively, women’s and girls funds have raised over $400 million!
Surely with such achievements under our belts in the women’s funding movement, we can claim victory!
Can’t we?
While it is true that there are many people and institutions that deserve a great deal of appreciation and recognition for the tremendous work they have done in securing resources for women and girls, the unfortunate reality is that we still have miles to go before we’re done.
Show Us the Money!
In the Foundation Center’s 2008 Foundation Giving Trends publication, released last month, the Foundation Center actually reports a decline in giving to women and girls – from 6.4 in 2005 to 5.7 in 2006.
Yes, it can be said that the movement from the 0.5 percent of 1977 to where we are today mark steps in the right direction, but even at its peak of 7.3 percent (in 2003), I think that we can all agree that the funding levels remain woefully inadequate!
Further, this downward trend specifically should raise pink–if not red–flags for all of us.
But this is not just a gender issue – the Giving Trends document also notes a decline in funding to “ethnic or racial minorities” as a whole from 8.2 percent in 2005 to 7.4 percent in 2006, with a decline seen for most groups with the exception of Native Americans/American Indians, where there was a 0.2 percent increase.
In Search of Answers
So what is going on? How is it that we can have more and more women in the sector, and more women in control of directing large financial resources, yet not only have we not reached a level of parity in our funding, but we are actually seeing a decline in this support?
Are our data collection methods flawed?
Perhaps. Even the best data collection has some margin of error.
The data reported in the 2008 Giving Trends document explores national trends from 2006/2005 – the limitations of data collection mean that there will always be a lag time between data collection, analysis and reporting. Also, The Foundation Center uses a sampling base which includes grants of $10,000 or more from the largest 1000-ish foundations in the U.S. that report to them, so there is definitely room, for missed funding dollars considering the size of many foundations, including most women’s funds, and the size of many of the grants given to women and girls.
Nevertheless, these numbers are the best we have to-date and they are consistently collected, so while there may ultimately be some funding that may be slipping through the cracks, it is unlikely to drastically change this picture, or the prevailing trends.
Further, it raises concerns about the average size of grants to women and girls, and the scale at which most women’s funds operate compared to the more “mainstream/traditional” foundations.
Maybe grantmakers and donors are investing more in “universal funding,” and not specifically targeting women and girls.
This is also a possibility.
There has long been a debate about the value of “mainstreaming” gender on many levels, including grantmaking.
Unfortunately, increasing evidence has shown that these “generic” or “universal” funding dollars do not ”trickle down” to meet the needs of women and girls.
Are foundations just “over it”?
A continued roadblock for funding to women and girls is the “special interest” stigma. It becomes a double edged sword. By segmenting funding and programs for women and girls for particular attention, we may be reinforcing this concept of women and girls as a “special interest,” and therefore optional group, rather than the integral parts of society we are.
We also know that some of society’s most chronic problems – poverty, health care, violence – hit women the hardest. One need only look to our Stepping Stones program to see this in our own region.
Moreover, as Kofi Annan so eloquently reminds us: "When women are fully involved, the benefits can be seen immediately; families are healthier; they are better fed; their income, savings and reinvestment go up. And what is true of families is true of communities, and eventually, of whole countries."
So what does this declining investment in women and girls say about our commitment to our communities?
The real answer m
ay lie somewhere in and around all of these hypotheses. Though we may not be able to connect all of the dots to get us from A to Z, what is clear is that these numbers continue to reinforce the significance of the work that we, and other women’s funds, are doing. And support the ongoing argument for a continued and, in fact, increased investment in women and girls, and the continuation of a dialogue around gender.
We have made progress, and we must celebrate those milestones.
However, we can not rest on our laurels.
There is still a long way to go, and those achievements that we have already made must be protected so we don’t lose the precious ground we have gained.
But the next time someone tells you that we don’t need to be talking about women and girls anymore because we’ve “been there, done that,” I hope you remember my little blog, and can set the record straight.
It is in all of our best interests to ensure the continued investment in women and girls.
Let’s keep that needle moving!
