“Even after the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the plight of immigrants, many of whom were essential workers, laid off from service-industry jobs, and/or excluded from government relief programs, they continue to face heated anti-immigrant rhetoric and xenophobia,” said Kyoko Uchida for Philanthropy News Digest. “While funders are collaborating to better support immigrants, the immigrant rights movement—including advocacy, civic engagement, and grassroots organizing—remains severely underfunded.”

Based on available data collected by Candid, between 2016 and 2021, more than 3,000 U.S.-based foundations awarded cash grants totaling $1.5 billion in support of immigrants’ rights. Among the top recipients were the National Immigration Law Center, the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, United We Dream Network, and the Immigrant Justice Corps. Funding for immigrants’ rights, however, accounted for only 19.2 percent of total grantmaking in support of immigrants and migrants between 2016 and 2021.

Global human rights funding in support of migrants and refugees increased from $277.4 million in 2015 to $474 million in 2019, according to analyses by Candid and the Human Rights Funders Network (HRFN) of grants data collected from members of HRFN, Ariadne–European Funders for Social Change and Human Rights, and Prospera–International Network of Women’s Funds, as well as 1,000 of the largest U.S. foundations. Among a matched subset of funders who consistently provided data for each year, however, the study found that year-over-year growth in grant dollars slowed from 28 percent in 2017 to 16 percent in 2018 to 9 percent in 2019.

One essential but elusive element in advancing immigrant rights is federal immigration policy reform to secure the border, modernize the legal immigration system, expedite the processing of asylum applications, protect status of childhood arrivals and Temporary Protected Status recipients, and enable undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status.

Several funders noted that it is difficult to parse grantmaking data in support of immigrants, let alone immigrant rights, because many provide general operating support for organizations with multi-faceted, cross-cutting strategies that overlap with multiple issue areas. The Carnegie Corporation allocated $12 million for immigrant integration and $8 million for voting, voting rights, and civic learning last fiscal year, but grants to the Four Freedoms Fund, for example, support “state-based immigrant integration efforts in more than 30 states, which includes policy but also nonpartisan voter engagement and naturalization,” said Mannion.

While the Ford Foundation’s Immigrant Rights strategy specifically works with immigrant rights groups, explained Khashu, “the reason why we are consistently listed as a top funder of immigrant rights is because we fund immigrant rights organizations across our U.S. Programs….For example, Ford’s Civic Engagement and Government team funds several state-based immigrant rights organizations through a portfolio dedicated to building state power, because when you look at who is building grassroots power, strengthening democracy, and doing multi-issue organizing—some of the strongest groups doing that work are immigrant justice organizations.”

Read the full article here.

From The Center for Effective Philanthropy: Data from funders who solicited grantee feedback both before and after 2020 reveal a greater degree of change than what was typical prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that 2020 was a watershed year for grantmakers.

Based on analysis of data collected from 61 U.S.-based repeat users of CEP’s Grantee Perception Report (GPR), a feedback tool funders commission to gather candid, comparative feedback from grantees, two distinct patterns were evident in grantee responses. Firstly, grantees report spending less time on application and reporting processes than they were before the pandemic and, secondly, funders are providing slightly more unrestricted support than prior to 2020.

These changes are consistent with past trends observed in repeat GPR users; however, it is notable that the scale of the change in this analysis, in which the first GPR took place prior to 2020 and the second took place in 2021 or 2022, is larger. This suggests that nonprofits are indeed experiencing shifts in funder practice even beyond what we normally see, at least in their experiences with foundations committed to listening to and acting on grantee feedback. This is in line with self-reported changes from funders themselves, as seen in previous CEP reports. This data is also consistent with shifts reported by nonprofits in a separate study CEP conducted based on its grantee survey panel earlier this year.

While it will take years to fully understand the durability and degree of change in philanthropic practice, this research is a positive indicator that the events of 2020 have indeed shifted funders’ practices, motivated by a desire to better respond to the needs of grantee organizations.

Read the full report here.

From Council on Foundations: Do you have questions about what the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina means for philanthropic organizations? Join this conversation [Thursday, July 13 at 1pm EST] with legal experts to find out what comes next.

 June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States announced their opinion in a pair of cases — Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. The Court held that “Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Over the last few months, the potential ramifications of a decision have been a growing topic among foundations and other charitable organizations. Join legal experts as they share what this opinion means for nonprofit organizations and the communities they serve. In addition, our speakers will share their predictions about what comes next and answer your questions.

To ensure we get to as many questions as possible, please include them in the registration form or forward them to legal@cof.org.

This event will be updated as we have additional speakers or information. 

Learn more and register here. 

From United Philanthropy Forum: The newly released Giving USA 2023 report provides continued cause for concern about our nation’s ongoing decline in charitable giving from individuals and in the number of individual givers. These data lend more urgency for the need to pass the Charitable Act, which would incentivize millions more Americans to give and support their communities—not just the shrinking number of Americans who itemize their taxes. 

The Giving USA report shows that Individual giving declined 6.4% in 2022 (13.4% when adjusted for inflation). This was the steepest inflation-adjusted drop of the four main sources of giving (giving from foundations, corporations, and bequests posted inflation-adjusted declines of 4-5%). What’s more, total charitable giving dropped by 3.4% (10.5% when adjusted for inflation), which has happened only three other times in the last 40 years: 1987, 2008, and 2009. 

The report also confirms the ongoing trend in our country of charitable gifts coming from fewer and fewer individuals, with wealthier individuals continuing to represent a growing share of giving. For the second year in a row, very large gifts by some of the wealthiest Americans represented nearly 5% of individual giving. Mega-giving from six individuals and couples totaled $13.96 billion. Between 2010 and 2016, as many as 20 million households dropped out of charitable giving—and stayed out. Ever since, individual giving has come from fewer and fewer givers. Individual giving has been declining as a share of total giving for several years. It dropped to 70% of total giving in 2018, which was considered low at that time, and has steadily decreased since then, falling further in 2022 to 64%. This decline coincides with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, which nearly doubled the standard deduction and resulted in a drastic drop in the number of taxpayers who itemized their deductions and thus were able to take advantage of the charitable deduction. 

The Charitable Act can help to reverse this disturbing trend. It would restore the non-itemizer charitable deduction for tax years 2023 and 2024, ensuring that every American who donates or tithes is able to benefit from the charitable deduction. Specifically, this legislation would raise the previous $300/$600 cap on the non-itemizer deduction to 1/3 of the standard deduction, equal to roughly $4,500 for individuals, and $9,000 for joint filers.  

There is clear proof that the universal charitable deduction works to incentivize giving from a broader range of Americans. In March 2020, Congress enacted a $300 charitable deduction for cash gifts from nonitemizers for 2020. In December 2020, Congress extended its availability through 2021 and increased the cap to $600 for joint filers. Thereafter, the number of small gifts – especially those of $300 and $600 – saw a significant increase before collapsing once the deduction expired at the end of 2021. 

With individual giving still representing the largest share of charitable giving, we have to be attentive to what can be done to encourage more people to give. Charities across the country rely on these funds to support their vital work to ensure vibrant and equitable communities. United Philanthropy Forum believes that a universal charitable deduction would be an effective way to encourage Americans to contribute more to charities, help strengthen a longstanding culture of giving in our country, and incentivize taxpayers to make charitable investments in the communities and causes they care about. 

Read the full piece here.

“Across the United States, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives, programs, and offices are under attack, primarily by Republican state lawmakers and Republican governors,” said Isaiah Thompson for Nonprofit Quarterly. “Measures targeting DEI have been passed and signed in Florida and North Dakota and have advanced in state legislatures across the country. A report by the Associated Press found that Republican lawmakers in a dozen states have advanced at least 30 bills similarly targeting DEI measures at colleges and universities.”

Amid these legislative maneuvers, some leaders in higher education and DEI are speaking out with increasing alarm, and with calls to action. Among those leaders is Paulette Granberry Russell, president of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. 

In a conversation with NPQ, Granberry Russell makes the case that these measures represent far more than symbolic political gestures—rather, she says, they threaten to reverse decades of progress towards more equitable and inclusive colleges and universities. 

Granberry Russell not only elucidates the potential harm these measures can inflict on higher education but also calls out what she characterizes as a dangerous stifling and resulting silence among leaders in higher education whose responsibilities, she argues, include speaking out against anti-DEI efforts and making public the harm they carry. 

“It is not unlike if a university decided tomorrow that we’re going to eliminate our infrastructure around information systems. Now, some would say you can’t liken diversity, equity, and inclusion work to information systems and technology. We need technology,” said Russell in the interview.

“So is it essential that this work be protected, that it be held up, that it be acknowledged, that we do not hide from these positions and try and situate them in spaces that really don’t give them the visibility because it makes them a target. There’s a point in time when if we are unable to defend our values and our mission, then why do we exist?”

Read the full article here.

“In the year since the Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to overturn abortion rights, millions of people have lost access to the procedure. Most of them live in the South,” said Kwajelyn Jackson and Zaena Zamora for The Chronicle of Philanthropy. “We’re the leaders of an abortion clinic in Georgia (Kwajelyn) and abortion fund in Texas (Zaena) — two states with some of the country’s strictest abortion bans. The Dobbs decision and subsequent abortion bans have severely affected our work. While we can’t provide the level of abortion care we previously offered, organizations like ours are doing everything possible to connect abortion seekers with out-of-state care, expand services to meet changing health needs, and win back basic reproductive rights.”

“Across the South, and in all places where the right to an abortion is compromised, those who provide abortion care or seek to expand access are engaged in difficult but invaluable work. They manage the emotional weight of turning people away who are too late in their pregnancies to treat and face threats and harassment from the moment they enter the clinic’s parking lot. Donors must provide the funds organizations need to ensure these talented and loving people don’t leave the reproductive-health field.”

“It’s possible to protect and expand abortion access across the country while also defending reproductive equity in the South. Sending resources only to states where abortion is fully legal further ensures people living in 40 percent of states in this country will have limited or nonexistent abortion care — now and in the future. Consistent financial support is essential to secure long-term access to comprehensive reproductive care in Texas, Georgia, and other restricted states.”

“The Dobbs decision left us with one glimmer of hope: States and voters hold the future of abortion in their hands. We have the power to create a new reality in which access to abortion care isn’t dependent on race, income, sexual orientation, immigration status, or ability. We can achieve something better than Roe. But in the meantime, we need to help the people in our community who are up against systemic barriers and have no access to reproductive and gender-affirming services without organizations like ours.”

Read the full article here.

From PEAK Grantmaking: The idea of “risk” in grantmaking is pervasive. A critical factor in reaching awards decisions, it’s also a stand-out feature of the traditional philanthropic approach that has come under intense fire for its long-standing exclusion of smaller, grassroots organizations – the kind that are often led by BIPOC and devoted to the neighborhood-level work that is so badly needed.

Part of the problem is the slipperiness of the term, as it’s used in philanthropy: Without a functional and universally-accepted definition, “risk” provides cover for any number of implicit biases – a way to scuttle the development and practice of trust, and short-circuit efforts to build equity. 

Recently, we asked four members of the PEAK community to delve into the ways “risk” has been misused, its potential for rehabilitation, and the encouraging ways that we are already reframing it in the wake of 2020’s multiple overlapping crises. Following are highlights of the wide-ranging discussion, with a number of insightful ways to reimagine “risk” for the betterment of the sector and its grantee partners. 

Read the full conversation here.