Feminism, Philanthropy: Fighting the Funding Gap

Sunny Fischer, co-chairwoman of the National Network of Women’s Funds, tells about a state-sponsored literacy campaign in Illinois--where 23% of women over 17 are illiterate, compared with 17% of men.

But the slogan on the official campaign poster--”Try to look macho standing in an unemployment line”--seemed to imply that illiteracy and unemployment are problems only for men, Fischer says.

“The idea still persists,” she says, “that if we get the men a job the women will be OK.”

Dispelling that notion is one of the continuing goals of feminists like Fischer and of the network, a New York-based organization of 40 foundations and federations nationwide whose concerns include disproportionately meager funding for projects for women and girls.

In 1986, the last year for which statistics are available, there was a bad omen: a dip in grants for women and girls from 4% to 3.6% of total foundation giving.

This decrease--the first since record-keeping began in the late ‘70s, says Marie Wilson, executive director of the New York-based Ms. Foundation for Women--translates to about $5 million, bringing giving for women and girls down to $75 million nationwide. This was in the face of what she called an otherwise “bonanza year” for giving.

Wilson attributes the decrease partially to “some kind of perception that the issues have been taken care of, this is now done.” And partially to “a little bit of a backlash,” perhaps predictable in a politically conservative era in which, she says, it’s all right once again to voice prejudices.

When the Council on Foundations, the National Network of Women’s Funds and Women and Foundations/Corporate Philanthropy met recently in Los Angeles, Wilson, Fischer and Valerie Lies (chairwoman of Women and Foundations/Corporate Philanthropy, an organization dedicated to increasing funding to women and girls and promoting women’s leadership) sat down to talk about the status of feminist philanthropic giving.

First off, Wilson offered a definition of feminist philanthropy as money that goes to advocate for equal rights for women “and to equalize women’s accessibility to society’s resources.”

It is not enough, Wilson, Fischer and Lies agreed, to say that women’s issues are synonymous with societal issues--homelessness, hunger, poverty. What must be assured instead, says Fischer, is “a sensitivity to women’s needs” while projects to combat these problems are being designed. For example, she asked, is long-term child care provided for women participating in a jobs program?

Wilson said: “It’s no good to create jobs if they’re aimed at plants employing mostly men. We need to always keep the lens on who’s affected.”

Sometimes, Fischer said, it is a matter of keeping that lens in proper focus. She spoke of the widespread “assumption” that women want to go into traditional women’s jobs, which are low-paid jobs. This may get them off welfare, she said, “but they’re still poor,” and a better solution is to help women break into so-called men’s jobs.

Lies suggested that one concern of feminist philanthropy should be to identify the needs of the “invisible” population of women and girls. “Main street” helping organizations, she said, “tend to help middle-class women.” And too often, she said, “you have only one gender and one class” on foundation boards making decisions about grants.

Whereas the women agreed that foundations tend to go with “trendy” issues, Wilson pointed out that “it’s not just money that makes change,” but long-term assistance, networking and follow-through such as that provided by feminist funders to women.

“This requires a new strategy,” Lies said, as foundations in general have preferred to “stay isolated and aloof” from programs they fund.

Focused on Leadership

“We take more risks,” Fischer said, paying less attention to the niceties such as how a grant proposal is written and more attention to developing women’s leadership--and identifying that leadership as different from traditional male leadership.

Lies said that foundations have historically provided “risk capital,” seed money for short-term demonstration projects “that public policy and public money have picked up.” But today, she said, “the problems are tougher, the public sector has sort of backed off” and there needs to be some rethinking about long-haul commitment.

Funders that get good marks from these women for their support of feminist philanthropy include the Ford Foundation, Sara Lee, Levi Strauss and the Rockefeller Foundation.

The Los Angeles Women’s Foundation, a member of the National Network of Women’s Funds, has just given 1988 grants totaling $40,000 to 13 projects including a support group for Central American refugee women who are victims of violence or sexual abuse, programs for battered children and for rape victims, a project to help low-income Asian women married to Anglos adapt to American society, and one that will assist single mothers with handicapped daughters.

Principal funders include the Irvine Foundation, GTE, the Arco Foundation and the California Community Foundation.

Societal tolerance of violence against women is a continuing concern of feminist philanthropy. Fischer calls this tolerance “the most dramatic form of sexism . . . what keeps women in their place.” For example, she said, society is wearing “blinders” while 80,000 reported rapes take place every year.

To encourage giving, women’s funds have been trying to raise men’s and women’s consciousness about issues such as battered wives. Funding of women’s organizations comes one-third from foundations and corporations and two-thirds from individuals, some of them women who have never written a check without their husbands’ OK.

Summing up the state of giving to women and girls, Fischer said, “We (as feminists) think we’ve come further than we have.”

Lies pointed up the challenge: “Foundation corporate giving isn’t increasing” as it did during the ‘70s and ‘80s. “Something has to give.”