The vast majority of news reports examining the impact of the infamous Dobbs decision one year later focused on the ways that the decision has changed our country’s social and political landscape. Some of the news was actually good. For example, the country’s pro-choice majority has grown and become more energized, religious organizations are challenging abortion bans on religious freedom grounds, and several state and municipal governments have reportedly allocated more than $200 million to provide abortions, contraception and support services for people in need of reproductive health care.
At the same time, even the good news is happening in a country where re-establishing poor and middle class people’s access to legal abortion care is going to be a long and difficult struggle. With that in mind, I set out to learn as much as possible about the state of philanthropic support for abortion in the U.S., something of a follow-up to our examination a year ago of what the abortion rights movement needs from funders in a post-Roe world.
In addition to looking at whether or not “rage giving” has dropped off, I had additional questions. What are foundations and other funders doing well, and where do they need to improve? Which advocacy and direct service areas are better funded than others? Have there been any changes in the small donor retention rate, or is it too soon to tell? In other words, have the rage givers gone away, or are they settling in to write checks for the long haul?
To answer these questions, I reached out to 17 national nonprofits on the front lines of the abortion struggle. Ten organizations participated either by interview or email. The nonprofits I consulted work across a range of areas, from advocacy to direct service. Some receive nearly all of their money from foundations; others rely primarily on small donors. Some engage in multiple programs, while others’ work is more focused. Most are secular, but two are pro-abortion religious organizations.
There are some caveats to keep in mind here. First, abortion-related nonprofits are engaged in a wide variety of efforts. Comparing them isn’t exactly like comparing apples to oranges, but it is a little like comparing apples to other, very different kinds of apples. These differences make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about what funders are (and aren’t) supporting. Further, not all respondents answered every question, and a few were vague in their responses, which is somewhat understandable given power dynamics between funders and grantees. Finally, my questions were open-ended by design. The goal was to see what immediately came to respondents’ minds, to elicit more useful anecdotal info rather than hard data.
All that said, the organizations that responded provided a lot of valuable information about the state of abortion funding in the year since Dobbs.
“A rightly placed sense of urgency and panic”
Just as there’s good news for abortion rights on the social and political front, nonprofits consulted for this piece reported that institutional funders are doing several things right. Among them: Four nonprofits reported receiving more general operating, operational or “core” support grants. Several respondents said that funders still recognize the urgency of the abortion ban crisis — they have a “rightly placed sense of urgency and panic,” said Dr. Anu Kumar, president and CEO of Ipas.
A few others said that their funders have made the grant process easier by streamlining application and/or reporting requirements. Catholics for Choice President Jamie L. Manson reported that donors increasingly understand that abortion access is a matter of religious freedom. Yolanda Miranda, senior director of development at the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, said during our interview that foundations have been more “cutting edge” and knowledgeable about the harm that Dobbs is doing to marginalized communities (and making the grants to prove it), compared to wealthy individual donors and DAF holders. Her organization’s funders “definitely have their ear to the ground,” Miranda said, and are immersed in the work.
Short-term grants, risk intolerance, and other ways funders need to improve
The generational work to restore nationwide legal abortion access won’t be won on the back of single-year grants. Nor will it be won by already well-resourced organizations alone, or by funders who shy away from supporting abortion rights and access in states that have passed extremist abortion bans. All of the above were cited by respondents as areas where funders still need to improve.
One issue — a common one in other nonprofit sectors — is that many funders aren’t doing their homework to find and support nonprofits on the ground. Instead, these funders are getting their guidance on where to invest from already well-known and well-resourced nonprofits.
“This leads to a cycle of giving that doesn’t center the people most impacted by abortion bans and results in independent clinics, abortion funds and advocates working on the front lines in their communities being under-resourced while organizations already over-resourced amass even more wealth,” said Abortion Care Network co-Executive Director Nikki Madsen. Not only are such funders’ practices not in alignment with the goals of racial and economic justice, Madsen said, they are contributing to a situation where the staff at many clinics are forced to work multiple jobs to make ends meet.
Madsen has a point. According to their 2021 990 filing, the top three officers of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America were paid just over or just under a half-million dollars a year each. For comparison, those three salaries combined roughly match the total average 2022 budget of an individual clinic within one network cited in this article. In other words, big national organizations continue to attract a lot of funding, while smaller, independent clinics struggle nationwide.
Jonathan Wittenberg and Wendy Sealey, the executive vice president and VP for development at the Guttmacher Institute (which didn’t participate in this piece) summed up four recommendations for funders in an article of their own that was originally posted in the Chronicle of Philanthropy: a long-term, sustained funding approach is needed, they wrote, urging funders to give with flexibility and provide unrestricted grants; think locally; support new infrastructure for abortion care; and mount a holistic response that includes investing in progressive legal infrastructure and expanding voting access.
Where money is flowing — and where more is needed
Abortion-related nonprofits reported that legal defense and abortion-related litigation, and direct patient support such as travel to medical sanctuary states, have been funded relatively generously.
There’s some differing evidence about the level of support going to states with abortion bans. The Associated Press has reported that money has moved out of such states, and Elisa Wells, Plan C co-director, backed that up, noting that funders have been averse to supporting access to knowledge about self-managed medication abortions because of such state laws. On the other hand, Miranda at the Latina Institute said that out of the four states where her organization operates, funders are eager to support work in Texas, while virtually ignoring New York.
Abortion funds, sanctuary states, infrastructure (like a database to manage a help line, for example) and clinic security are areas in need of more support, according to nonprofits we queried.
About that rage giving…
Six of the nonprofits that responded for this piece answered the question of whether or not last year’s rage giving seems to be dying away, but their responses varied. Keeping in mind that philanthropic data is notoriously muddy and disclosed slowly by funders, we’re left with a mixed message that nevertheless leaves room for cautious optimism.
On the concerning side, National Network of Abortion Funds Executive Director Oriaku Njoku said that abortion funds have experienced a “steady decline” in donations since Dobbs, outside of spikes when a new ban or other abortion-ban-related atrocity makes headlines.
Other organizations had happier news. Abortion Care Network is still attracting more individual donors than before Dobbs, and enjoying the same donor retention rate it did before the decision.
Catholics for Choice reported that its donor community is growing, and the National Council of Jewish Women said its abortion work enjoys a “strong pool of monthly sustainers” after new gifts have “tapered off” somewhat.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America Chief Development Officer Jethro Miller said that donors are giving “at a reduced rate,” but that didn’t stop the organization from exceeding its fundraising targets for the current fiscal year. Finally, If/When/How reported that its funding has settled into a “steady stream,” with occasional surges when the media reports that someone has been punished for exercising their right to end a pregnancy.
The bottom line seems to be that, just as extremist opposition to abortion has activated voters, abortion bans — and the tragedies that result from them — are continuing to inspire donations.
“We need funding that rewards positive outcomes”
The drawback of asking open-ended questions like the ones in my mini-survey is that the results can be a bit murky. The benefit, though, is that people frequently say things you hadn’t thought to ask about. That was certainly the case this time.
One respondent reminded me that the fight to restore abortion rights nationwide isn’t limited to traditional nonprofits, and it isn’t limited to funders and donors.
“I do think, and it’s not just with giving, you are seeing people settle in, realizing this is a long fight and staying engaged, and they’re doing the work on the ground,” said National Abortion Federation Chief Program Officer Melissa Fowler, pointing to the successful ballot initiative in Kansas and the 2022 midterm elections.
Fowler also said that, in her view, people increasingly recognize that the anti-abortion movement is deeply intertwined with the extremist forces behind anti-trans legislation, voter suppression and book bans. People understand that “this is part of a coordinated attack on our democracy,” she said.
Another respondent, Kumar from Ipas, offered some unique, shrewd advice for funders. “Every time something goes wrong — which certainly feels frequent in many states — organizations launch a fundraising appeal. It’s crucial to fund immediate action, but is there funding when there is a victory? We need funding that rewards positive outcomes and that contributes to long-term, sustainable change,” she said.
Credit:Source link
