The question of how effectively monitor philanthropic response to human rights concerns and violations is one asked often, especially by beneficiaries who want to understand the bigger picture of availability of aid to their cause. Whether it poses further asks concerning accountability or influence on the work carried out by non-governmental actors and other stakeholders, knowing which groups both receive and disburse institutional funding is crucial in shaping how funders work and take strategic decisions concerning their engagement.
Such is the case of funding for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex communities (LGBTI) but even more so for a smaller fraction of this diverse movement – trans and intersex people. Although encompassed in an acronym that is very often seen only through a sexuality lens, the issues that organizations and initiatives working for and with these two communities grapple with are specifically linked to aspects of gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics (GIGESC). The question of sexuality plays an important part in the movement for these populations as well, especially when it comes to unsatisfactory philanthropic response to HIV/AIDS and other work concerning sexually transmitted infections (STI) that the movement has been invested in for decades.
The fact that trans and intersex movements continue to be under-resourced is not a question of debate. It is a fact very well documented by Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice, the American Jewish World Service (AJWS) and Global Action for Trans* Equality (GATE) who collectively in 2017 published two reports on the matter, “The State of Trans Organizing” and “The State of Intersex Organizing”, a follow-up to AJWS’ and GATE’s 2013 publication on both movements. Not only do these reports take a look at how groups are financed but also what other resources they have at their disposable, including how many of them are led by the communities they serve. And as one may suspect, the data is not optimistic when it comes to either foundation or government support and neither is it better for alternative sources of funding.
The importance of data in case of these two examples is staggering. As funders, having access to comprehensive information coming from the groups themselves, we can determine whether strategies our institutions have developed are actually responding to most crucial needs. We can also compare our own knowledge of the movement with its own reporting as well as take a more introspective look at our work. Did we actually gave support when it was needed? Are we funding the same big actors who otherwise may be barring smaller groups from receiving support that would help them flourish? Have we done enough outside of typical grant-making and were we responsive enough to needs going beyond grant-making?
These are, naturally, questions that members of the philanthropic world ask themselves constantly. Some of us, in fact, may pose them daily, as grant-making bears not only the glamour of investing in a body work or a certain initiative, but more importantly, is fueled by risk-taking and decisions that may very well prove themselves erroneous down the line. Existing data not only helps (and even forces) us to confront our initial analysis, it also enables marginalized groups to speak out about their situation and their opinions on funders’ priorities and strategies. We no longer speak to just a few leaders or ask intermediaries for their opinions, the movements now speak for themselves. As more and more funders understand that a philanthropic response cannot ignore the input of communities whose situation one tries to better, resources such as “The State of Trans and Intersex Organizing” remind us about grantees’ agency, an aspect too often ignored or de-prioritized within our sector.
To enable conscious and analytical philanthropy, however, it is also important to understand how funding availability for a certain population is positioned in a broader context. In the case of trans and intersex movements, it’s not just about getting to know the landscape of human rights funding, it is crucial to understand how response to these issues compares to funding of LGBTI groups. This is where publications such as the Global Resources Report (GRR), a joint endeavor of the Global Philanthropic Project (GPP) and Funders for LGBTQ Issues. The latest edition of the report, covering philanthropic and government support for these communities between 2015 and 2016, looks at the global picture of the funding from various perspectives, including regional focus, sources of funding, types of support, issues and strategies funded, as well as which populations funders invested in. In addition to a very broad look, the publication’s team divided data into Global North and Global South, driving further the point that regions where alternatives to grant-making have been successfully established, still receive a lot of attention from the philanthropic community, which further cements the financial divide between these two geographies.
However, as much as self-reporting becomes an important and empowering tool for groups in need of support, for funders the issue becomes a topic of tension. Not every government and philanthropic institution will be keen on breaking down its expenditures to a level that makes it possible to track re-distribution of aid. In some cases, grant-makers may not track the populations in a thorough and informed way, making the assessment harder if not impossible. And of course, some institutions may work in geographies were their response is sensitive enough that even the most anonymized methodology will not convince their decision-making bodies to share how they contributed to the promotion of human rights. The latter being an understandable and not ungrounded concern, especially in a time of growing extremisms and crackdowns on the non-governmental sector. And, in fewer but definitely frustrating cases, funders may choose to refuse to share summaries of their work, thus contributing to lack of transparency and accountability in the sector.
Still, despite these issues, data combined from the GRR and the State of the Trans and Intersex Movements reports paint a grim picture of how the philanthropic sector still does not notice the needs of LGBTI communities, despite the fact that its members are subjected to horrific abuses such as forced sterilizations, genital mutilation, sexual assault, conversion therapy, incarceration on the basis of identity and even the death penalty or infanticide, not to mention others relating to their intersectional identities and experiences. As available data shows, between 2013 and 2016 out of every $100 given out by foundations, only $0.17 was given specifically to LGBTI work, which compares to a disappointing $0.04 given by governments (including bi-laterals and multi-laterals). And yet, compared to money available for work focused specifically on GIGESC, these numbers are still optimistically high.
Trying to face the hardships of lack of unified reporting, researchers behind the GRR have estimated that 75% of funding given outside of the United States of America between 2013 and 2016 did not focus on a specific LGBTI population. This lack of specificity contributes to unequal response to issues concerning trans and intersex communities. As highlighted by “The State of Intersex Organizing” report, when receiving feedback from donors who generally fund either LGBT or LGBTI organizations, 44.4% of survey respondents were told that there is no interest in funding an intersex-specific group. “The State of Trans Organizing” reports that the same response is given to trans-specific groups and was heard by 36.1% of survey participants. This attitude towards communities working on matters that require a comprehensive and community-based approach not only hinders potentiality of these movements, but also contributes to systemic erasure.
When it comes to funds allocated to specific features (not to be confused with communities, as specified above), gender identity issues surpass those relating to sex characteristics overwhelmingly. Although experiencing a moderate increase between 2015 and 2016, funding for trans issues did not cross the 11% mark. Support for intersex work more than tripled in that period, as opposed to availability between 2013 and 2014, settling at 1%, as compared to 0.34% previously. Interestingly enough, when issues of sexual orientation are specified (a little over 15% in both periods), between 2015 and 2016, 3% of total LGBTI funding was dedicated to lesbian, bisexual and queer women (compared to 5% between 2013 and 2014) and less than 1% ($2,000 in total!) to bisexuality. Decrease in support for bisexual issues is certainly a matter of concern since data from the 2013-2014 period show support of more than $130,000 to this community.
Looking at the available support for different groups within the LGBTI acronym, one also needs to have the intersectionality of these very communities. When supporting lesbian, gay or bisexual groups, funders interested in working against trans and intersex erasure should be proactive in asking their grantees about inclusion. If a group considers itself as working for LGB people everywhere, but refuses to broaden its perspective to include trans and intersex-specific matters of sexual orientation, it should not shy away from underlining that it’s work is tailored to cis (non-trans) and dyadic/endosex (non-intersex) individuals. An important aspect of minority inclusion, is to be able to name the majority, an issue that the LGBTI movement should be familiar with and informed about.
Likewise, funders need to understand the difference between inclusive and exclusive movements and support the emergence of trans and intersex leadership, including in larger human rights groups. The question of inclusion extends far beyond that – once our institutions understand the value of skilled trans and intersex leadership and the importance of supporting issues of gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics altogether, they must also stay vigilant about diversity and power within these movements. We must constantly evaluate the interplay of race, ethnicity, disability, economic status, gender and many other characteristics, to ensure that while we address access to resources and rights, we do not forget about instances of various supremacies which movements tend to replicate.
As the philanthropic sector, we must ask ourselves – what is it that needs to change in our institutions to help trans and intersex movements develop. It would seem that the answer can simply be “give out more grants” or “top-up existing ones”, and it is true, both options would constitute the bare minimum of funders’ effort. Especially when no other option is attainable within a short span of time. And for many key supporters of the LGBTI movement, quick solutions may be of most availability, as the change that the sector needs to undergo is that of systemic, multi-faceted nature.
Development, however, means so much more than simply capacity building through financial means. Funders should use their advocacy potentiality (whether with governments, institutions or even other movements), we can also hire consultants, otherwise unattainable for grantees, help with networking, build consortia and address inequities within the movements we support, especially within the groups that hold a lot of political and financial power. All of this, however, with the understanding of our positions of power and potential colonialist perspectives, true for many institutions based in the Global North. Whenever possible, we must help groups and individuals connect and explore new possibilities of collaboration, we should focus on speaking to movements, but also hearing their needs (and following-up with appropriate responses), and – most importantly – we must not let trans and intersex work remain in silos, but support its understanding across all sectors of human rights movements.
And finally, we must not only re-evaluate our work in the field, our institutions also need to take a deep look within themselves. To understand our impact, we must first what exactly it is that we support. A proper categorization of expenditures, issue- and population-wise, can be a good first step. We must also analyze our grant-making and movement development strategies to see how well they respond to matters of intersectionality and inclusion, and to needs expressed by activists. We should not be afraid of taking risks and support emerging work in a flexible yet timely manner. And last but not least, constant learning from our grantees, their partners and other funders is of extreme value, especially when it comes to furthering the importance of our own accountability and the weight of our decision-making.
Leave a Reply