Much has been said about the treacherous year that was 2020. We loved discussing its awfulness as much as we enjoyed saying our final goodbyes to it. Some outlets have even taken extra steps to remind us what exactly happened in this rollercoaster of a year, all with varying results. A few weeks ago, Netflix released its mockumentary Death to 2020, in which celebrities posing as fictional affluent figures take us through the last 12 months with both horror and humor, and the New York Times, among its many summaries, took us on a journey through its staff emails.
And although 2020 is no longer with us, its repercussions will haunt us for months, if not years, to come. The world is still ravaged by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has surpassed a 100 million infection cases and two million deaths globally. Even though the world now has a vaccine, which would not have been possible without tireless scientists working day and night, it may be that we will not see the end of this healthcare crisis in 2021. At the same time, the existence of a vaccine will not reverse the damage that has been already done – increasing poverty and food insecurity, widened class divisions, crashed economies, lost jobs and whole industries, and deepening authoritarian tendencies more often than not fueled by conspiracy theories and myths.
The philanthropic sector had a number of lessons to learn from 2020, particularly when it came to distribution of resources, experimenting with new models of support and the need for consistent and swift decision-making – the latter being very often a problem for those institutions who do not specialize in rapid response. And amidst growing needs of existing grantees, particularly those who work with marginalized communities, there new issues and themes also emerged. From aiding governments with the purchase and production of personal protective equipment (PPE), through investing in vaccine research and development, to helping municipalities cushion the effects of the economic crisis.
As much as we want to and should continue with the sector’s goals that is has set for itself at the end of 2019, when 2020 still felt just like any other year (and not one we would all like to collectively forget) – there are reflections and learnings we should take with us into 2021. The six points below are those that I have chosen to follow and internalize in my philanthropic practice, and to advocate for in my own workplace and with other grant-makers.
- We can be flexible and responsive grant-makers if we want to be, not just in a global crisis.
Data from the Global Philanthropy Project’s COVID-19 briefing issued in May of 2020, which includes a survey of 26 of the leading foundations and NGO intermediary funders supporting global LGBTI issues, shows that 88% of those institutions changed reporting requirements and extended their deadlines to aid grantees during the crisis, 85% additionally extended grant timeframes and 69% changed project or program funding to general operating support. And although this report explores only the reaction coming from funders focused on matters of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics, it certainly shows an important and commendable example of philanthropic practice.
Flexibility in support, minimum reporting and relaxed oversight and partnership-based monitoring and evaluation methods have been discussed within the sector for a number of years, and it is in the end regrettable that it took a health crisis of this magnitude to implement those approaches. In reality, there is nothing that stops philanthropic actors from maintaining this practice beyond COVID-19 and the post-pandemic recovery. Civil society organizations have time and time again proven to us that they are trustworthy and responsible, even more so when our support is unrestricted and used for a variety of expenses. It is us who need to finally let go of our paternalistic practices and understand that if we trust our grantees to be change makers, we should also trust that they will utilize our resources well.
- We must end private philanthropy’s fake scarcity model of operation to address the problems we are trying to solve.
Last year opened a door for a conversation which seemed to have been kept at bay, dreaded by some of us and highly anticipated by others – why are we not spending more if the money is available? For private philanthropies this is, of course, a question of limits, taxes, investments, endowments and many other financial instruments. In April, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy issued a statement coming originally from a number of leaders in the sector who called on the rest of us – or rather those who have such power – to increase giving during the COVID-19 crisis, even if it meant dipping into seemingly unmovable money. A pledge of action followed and was signed by over 750 foundations and in June of 2020 Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Ford Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation announced that they will increase their giving to $1.7 billion for the following three years in recognition of not only immediate but also future needs relating to the crisis.
Some, however, remained skeptical, particularly about recognizing the pandemic as a ‘once in a lifetime crisis’ and not only did they not increase their usually available resources but have also rolled back existing support in order to repurpose it for work seen by their leadership as more important. This, of course, follows a problem which private philanthropy is very much accustomed to – fake scarcity. As the COVID-19 crisis has shown – old habits die hard, even during the most pressing of emergencies. In addition, despite popular claims that the current pandemic remains a crisis that will define a century, for philanthropy this exceptionalism narrative should not matter. As long as there is a current need for additional resources – which remain available within endowments, investments and other reserves – that need should be fulfilled. These resources should be managed in a way that makes them available now and in the future, especially for the incoming global climate catastrophe.
- If we were able to fund collaboratively during COVID-19, we can do the same during other crises.
Our common narrative thus far has been that the current pandemic is the biggest crisis of our lifetime and in some cases it certainly is unprecedented, particularly in its global scope and in the way mass and social media have attached itself to it. Not to mention rising disinformation and the misuse of preventive measures by some governments to limit citizens’ general human rights (of which mandatory face coverings are not, despite what malicious actors may have made others to believe), and crackdowns on marginalized communities. In that regard, it has certainly been – and continues to be – a one-of-a-kind experience.
That said, progressive philanthropy is facing other crises for which we should be able to find more resources and which should also push us towards more inter-institutional collaboration. The sector may not be ready to acknowledge the magnitude of said issues, but it does not take away from their importance, and hence we must defend ourselves against all-or-nothing thinking. If one crisis demands a response, so does the other one, and it is mutual collaboration, just like mutual aid, which can guide us through them. The best way to approach this topic is to ask ourselves – if COVID-19 disappeared today and did not carry any significant aftermath, what would we be left with? As an example, within the field of public health in the United States of America we would still focus on the emergency of racism, the threat of gun violence, violence at border crossings, the overdose crisis and even access to drinking water (and not only in the town of Flint, Michigan).
- Equitable access to medicines and medical innovation is an important field for philanthropic investment.
What the worldwide race against time to create and later distribute the COVID-19 vaccine has shown us is that our sector can support not only scientists and lab teams but also advocates and campaigners for alternatives to profit-driven supply chains of medicine – whether related to the current pandemic or not. From the widely defined goals of the WHO’s Solidarity Response Fund (which include supplying first responders with much needed equipment, whose supply ran extremely low within the first few weeks of the disease’s descend on part of Europe and North America) to Dolly Parton’s donation to the Vanderbilt Vaccine Cente, 2020 taught us much about funding priorities, the power of coming together as people and institutions of various scope and expertise (even when forced to organize remotely or to stay 2 meters apart from each other), and the sector’s otherwise hidden, certainly unusual suspects.
As economic and climate justice emerge among the most pressing issues for many stakeholders in a world that is ready to enter the post-COVID era, we must also explore alternatives to pharmaceutical markets’ tendency to put profit over people. This is where the #People’s Vaccine initiative comes in – started as a campaign and accompanied by a pledge, this joint project of UNAIDS, Oxfam, the WHO and many individuals, including world leaders and Nobel Prize Laureates, calls for those vaccines and treatments developed by public funds to be available for everyone everywhere free of charge, as they are considered public good. However, one should ask, why only those made possible through the public’s support? Can we, specifically those of us working in private philanthropy, embrace the idea that ensuring equitable access will not be possible without challenging our own notions on who controls and owns monetary resources? In the end, it is the people to whom our resources truly belong.
- There can be no crisis intervention without the protection, uplifting and safeguarding the most marginalized.
Progressive philanthropy has made it a goal to support and empower vulnerable communities, and what 2020’s global health crisis has shown us, is that even when governments, philanthropy and the public stepped up to mitigate it – social marginalizations multiplied. Individuals who were already exposed to poverty, lack of economic opportunities, difficulties in accessing health, and discrimination in other areas have experienced disproportionate levels of hardship as a result of raising infection rates, lockdowns and overburdened healthcare systems. Despite the fact that many wanted to see the COVID-19 crisis as “the great equalizer” – there is enough data to showcase how misguided this initial assessment was, including in countries of the Global North such as the United States of America or those in the European region.
Moving from a state of a pandemic to a world of healing, which – as some assess – should not be a return to the same world we knew but rather a reimagined global space where access to food, health, housing and many other necessities is guaranteed, especially for those who have been denied said access before the COVID-19 crisis – should be among the sector’s more important priorities. These should encompass empowering social justice actors to advocate for appropriate and equitable solutions, provide assistance to communities when these solutions are not immediately available, as well as opening the philanthropic space for participation of vulnerable grantees in order to ensure that the sector’s response is responding to most pressing needs.
- Recovery and healing will not be possible without the countering of false narratives and conspiracy theories.
Healthcare disinformation is certainly not a new phenomenon and neither is its politicization, as we can learn from existing narratives and efforts to purposefully share fake information. Access to abortion, reproductive and racial justice, rights of LGBTI people, HIV/AIDS issues, existence of vaccines – these, and many more – have been in the past, and still currently are, subject of purposefully and strategically shared myths and fabrications, many of which have had an impact on those most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The year 2020 brought to the table another type of disinformation – one that targeted preventive measures, such as the use and importance of wearing appropriate face masks, through not only active defiance of the method but also the use of, among others, faked WHO documents. Combined with growing anti-vaccine sentiments, anti-mask disinformation threatens not only individual lives but also global recovery from the effects of the pandemic.
Tackling fake news, conspiracy theories and disinformation should become one of the most important priorities for philanthropic actors, especially since some of those narratives target the sector itself, and undermine its legitimacy. Disinformation has, in addition, the potential to further marginalize and ostracize large portions of society and hinder global recovery and rebuilding of healthcare systems. Dismantling it will require intra-sectoral collaboration on a large scale, including grant-making for research, opposition tactics and well-crafted narrative campaigning. It will also require collaboration with academics, global healthcare actors, governments, media fact-checkers, and online creators who have access to audiences most vulnerable to the spread of misinformation.
These are just a few of the lessons that can help us adjust our philanthropic practice, rethink existing strategies and – hopefully – prepare for how the COVID-19 crisis will re-shape the way we conceptualize our role in rebuilding what was lost during this pandemic.
Additional readings from this blog:
- Changing Power Here and Now. How to Adjust Your Philanthropic Practice
- When Funding Direct Services Enables Advocacy and Community Building Potential
- Seven Things U.S. Philanthropic Institutions Get Wrong About Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Further readings from the web:
- 2020 Philanthropy Trends to Watch, National Philanthropic Trust, January 14, 2020.
- 11 Trends in Philanthropy for 2020, Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy, January 15, 2020.
- Family Philanthropy Trends 2020, Giving Compass, May 25, 2020.
- The Future Of Philanthropy, Forbes, August 12, 2020
- 2020: A Moment of Transformation for Philanthropy?, The Center for Effective Philanthropy, November 12, 2020.
- 3 Ways Philanthropy Tech Will Change In 2021, NTEN, December 8, 2020.
- Philanthropy and Racial Equity in 2020: Moving the Needle?, The Center for Effective Philanthropy, December 9, 2020.
- Philanthropy Awards, 2020, Inside Philanthropy, December 30, 2020.
Leave a Reply