The phenomenon of “rage giving” was short-lived. Abortion access organizations, which received a surge of donations in response to the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade one year ago, now report the cessation of emergency grants and a decline in individual and foundation contributions.
Following the Dobbs decision, several significant funders of abortion access have also terminated or redirected their funding away from organizations operating in states where abortion is now prohibited, as noted by Naa Amissah-Hammond, Senior Director of Grantmaking at Groundswell Fund, which supports grassroots groups advocating for reproductive justice.
Nonprofits focused on women’s health and foster care, anticipating increased demand in areas where abortion access has been curtailed or eliminated, are likewise experiencing a lack of heightened support.
Holly Calvasina, Director of Development at CHOICES, a reproductive health clinic in Memphis, Tennessee, shared her insights that shed light on this situation. Calvasina, along with many others involved in the reproductive rights sector, had endeavored to prepare for the anticipated surge in demand even before a leaked draft of the Supreme Court decision emerged in May of the previous year. While some funders recognized the impending challenges and offered increased support, others chose to adopt a wait-and-see approach.
Calvasina expressed her viewpoint on the matter, highlighting a fundamental challenge inherent in philanthropy when it comes to responding to emerging crises. She emphasized that philanthropic efforts tend to move at a slow pace, while human rights crises evolve rapidly.
“I believe this situation underscores a fundamental issue with philanthropy’s ability to effectively address emergent crises,” Calvasina stated. “The pace at which philanthropy operates is often sluggish, whereas human rights crises demand immediate action and swift response.”
By making this observation, Calvasina pointed out the discrepancy between the urgent nature of evolving crises, such as the restriction of abortion access, and the comparatively slower pace at which philanthropy typically operates.
CHOICES experienced a fluctuation in giving that mirrored the unpredictable nature of the situation. In their annual spring appeal, they received $150,000 in donations last year, a significant increase compared to the $2,000 they received in 2021. However, this year’s appeal yielded $40,000.
Marsha Jones, the executive director of The Afiya Center in Dallas, pointed out the need for organizations in states where abortion has been restricted or banned to adapt their approach. Her organization utilized the donations received following the Dobbs decision to expand its birthing center. However, Jones noted that funders are now displaying less interest in supporting maternal health compared to their previous emphasis on advocacy and practical assistance for abortions. She has long argued that supporting reproductive justice encompasses more than just ensuring access to abortion.
Jones expressed her perspective on the matter, stating, “It is about individuals seeking full bodily autonomy, whether they choose to carry a pregnancy to term or not.” She emphasized that supporting reproductive justice involves recognizing and respecting people’s rights to make decisions regarding their own bodies.
Obtaining data on charitable giving in the previous year has become challenging. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused delays in the public release of donor reports to the IRS, and even before the pandemic, a delay of up to two years was typical.
According to the recently released Giving USA report, donations to sectors such as human services and public society benefit organizations, which could include abortion access nonprofits, experienced a decline in 2022. On the other hand, donations to health organizations saw a 5% increase. However, when adjusted for inflation, this increase actually represents a decline in real terms.
It is important to note that the report provides a snapshot of overall trends in charitable giving, but specific data related to abortion access nonprofits may not be readily available or included in this particular report. The pandemic’s impact on philanthropic activities and the subsequent delay in data reporting further contribute to the challenges in obtaining a comprehensive picture of charitable giving in recent times.
Funding for abortion access is characterized by an additional layer of opacity. Many donors choose to fund anonymously, often stipulating that grantees should not disclose the funding source publicly.
The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, which has been a significant historical funder in this field, eventually discloses its gifts through tax filings. However, the organization does not provide commentary on its support specifically for abortion access, nor did it respond to inquiries regarding any changes in its funding strategy in response to the Dobbs decision.
This lack of transparency regarding funding sources and strategies adds complexity to understanding the dynamics of funding in the context of abortion access. Without explicit disclosure or public statements from key funders, it becomes more challenging to assess the impact of the Dobbs decision on funding patterns and support for organizations working in this area.
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation has stated that it is redirecting or ending grants to organizations in most states where abortion is now illegal or significantly restricted. Additionally, the foundation allocated an additional $14.1 million in funding last year to support providers in states where abortion access is protected. They are also considering funding maternal health and other areas in these states.
On the other hand, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation affirms its commitment to providing ongoing support to grantees in all states, either for funding abortion care where it remains legal or supporting advocacy against abortion bans.
In general, donations specifically targeting organizations serving women and girls account for less than 2% of all charitable giving, according to research conducted by the Women’s Philanthropy Institute at Indiana University’s Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.
Calvasina believes that anonymous funding, particularly from large foundations, perpetuates inequality within the reproductive rights movement. Others in the sector acknowledge that donors have various reasons for choosing to remain anonymous, including avoiding backlash from groups opposing abortion.
One indicator of potential funding available to reproductive health organizations is the level of gifts from donor-advised funds hosted by the Silicon Valley Community Foundation to Planned Parenthood affiliates across the country. According to data from Candid, which compiles information about charitable giving, these donations exceeded $98 million in 2022. However, the foundation declined to comment on the gifts, citing its policy of not discussing donor-advised fund grants.
Una Osili, Associate Dean for Research and International Programs at the Lilly Family School, notes that it is not uncommon to see a decline in giving after a major event. When significant events occur, people are motivated to contribute to make a difference.
Danielle Gletow, the founder and executive director of One Simple Wish, a nonprofit connecting donors with foster children, states that people are actively seeking out organizations like hers that offer direct support. However, she expresses concern that abortion access restrictions may further strain the foster care system. In Texas, for example, where the child welfare program is overwhelmed, strict abortion laws could result in women having children they are unable to care for, thus increasing the number of children in foster care.
Philanthropic support has been increasing in states such as New Mexico, which has enacted laws protecting abortion access and safeguarding abortion providers. This surge in support has come in response to neighboring states like Texas and Oklahoma implementing bans on abortion. A coalition of local groups in New Mexico has publicly urged incoming funders and organizations to collaborate with them, emphasizing the importance of accepting Medicaid and providing a range of reproductive health services beyond abortion care.
Charlene Bencomo, Executive Director of Bold Futures and a leader of the coalition, emphasizes the need for improved quality of care and access for individuals in New Mexico and those who need to travel to the state for services they cannot access in their home states.
Amissah-Hammond, from the Groundswell Fund, expressed her anticipation regarding whether funders who provided emergency or one-time grants last year will continue their support for abortion access in the long term. To address concerns about legal liabilities, she suggested that funders offer general operating support instead of project-based grants and remain open to receiving updates through phone conversations.
She highlighted the importance of learning from peer funders who have been supporting reproductive rights, health, and justice in global contexts where such work has been criminalized for an extended period. Amissah-Hammond also noted that LGBTQ rights and democracy-related work have faced similar criminalization challenges. Drawing from these experiences, she emphasized the need for adaptability and creative approaches to sustain funding and support for critical causes.