Search

Begin New Search Topic Funding Political Geography Europe

1. Meet the Moment: A Call for Progressive Philanthropic Response to the Anti-Gender Movement

Author:
Teddy Wilson, Jenna Capeci, and Gitta Zomorodi
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Abstract:
In early 2020, Global Philanthropy Project worked with our member organizations and philanthropic partners to develop two related pieces of private research: 1) a report mapping the funding of the global “anti-gender ideology” or “anti-gender” movement, and 2) a report mapping the progressive philanthropic response. We offer the following public document in order to share key learning and to offer additional analysis gained in the comparison of the two reports. Additionally, we share insights based on comparing global and regional LGBTI funding data as documented in the 2017-2018 Global Resources Report: Government and Philanthropic Support for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Communities. These findings offer a clear call to action: progressive movements and their philanthropic partners are being outspent by hundreds of millions of dollars each year, and the institutions providing that opposition funding have developed sophisticated and coordinated systems to learn, co-fund, and expand their influence. The philanthropic community is called to recognize the scale of the fight and to be both rigorous and creative in our response. Let us seize this remarkable opportunity to work together and engage our collective learning, spending power, and institutional knowledge to help transform the conditions of our communities. Together we can leverage the collective power that this generational crisis demands.
Topic:
LGBT+, Progressivism, Philanthropy, Funding, Transgender, and Gender Minorities
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, Europe, Asia, South America, Global Focus, and United States of America

2. UK Research Aid: Tied, Opaque and Off-Topic?

Author:
G. Lee Robinson, Euan Ritchie, and Charles Kenny
Publication Date:
07-2019
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
The UK has considerably increased the amount of aid it spends on research in recent years. This policy follows statements by DFID that research is among the best ways of spending aid. It also follows the UK legislating a commitment to spend 0.7 percent of GNI as foreign aid. In pursuing this target, the UK has decreased the proportion of bilateral aid spent through DFID and has channelled more through other departments. BEIS and the Department for Health and Social Care have been big recipients, and research accounts for much of their increased share of aid budgets. The information associated with the majority of this research aid is vague, raising questions about transparency. A large amount of the research is financed using an allocation mechanism that effectively ties it to UK institutions. There are also questions as to the poverty focus of some of the research conducted, given the explicit intention of the UK government to find existing activity to reclassify as ODA following the legislating of the 0.7 percent target. We suggest reporting reforms that will increase transparency and allow greater scrutiny of the way UK research aid is spent. We also call for the UK to live up to its reporting to the OECD that all British aid is untied.
Topic:
Health, Research, Academia, and Funding
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

3. Funding for LGBTI Activism in Europe and Central Asia: Comparing the Priorities of LGBTI Organisations and Funders

Author:
David Scamell
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Abstract:
In October 2018, Global Philanthropy Project and ILGA-Europe launched a new report comparing the key findings from ILGA Europe’s 2018 Funding for LGBTI Activism in Europe and Central Asia: Priorities and Access to Resources report with a deeper-dive analysis of European and Central Asian grantmaking data from the 2015-2016 Global Resources Report:
 Philanthropic and Government Support for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Communities. This new report provides a compelling challenge to assumptions about the funding landscape in Europe and Central Asia, with new data and recommendations for resourcing LGBTI movements at the forefront of progress and the frontlines of resistance. The report is a first-of-its-kind gap analysis made from two sets of complementary data providing clear pathways and opportunities for new grantmakers and additional resources to support this large and complex region. This research was presented and analyzed during the October 2018 ILGA-Europe Donor Pre-Conference in Brussels, Belgium. The research will also be presented in a wider webinar for grantmakers in February 2019, with joint advocacy between activists and funders to increase resources to the region taking place over 2019.
Topic:
Government, Political Activism, LGBT+, Philanthropy, and Funding
Political Geography:
Europe and Central Asia

4. From Funder to Partner? Prospects for the European Neighbourhood Policy's Civil Society Facility

Publication Date:
10-2011
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Open Society Foundations
Abstract:
The Arab Spring was a timely reminder to the EU of its own transitions, in particular events post-1989, and how civil society was at the heart of all of them. The EU now intends to foster a “partnership with societies” in its eastern and southern neighborhood, in part by creating a facility to provide dedicated support to ensure civil society organizations can monitor reform and participate effectively in their own national debates. The Open Society Institute-Brussels has assessed current proposals, identified challenges, drawn lessons from experience, and identified six areas that will be integral to an effective Civil Society Facility within the Neighbourhood Policy: Funding for civil society needs to be accompanied by political support for CSOs (e.g. statements and tripartite meetings on pressing issues). In order to build capacity the principle EU actor (the EU delegation in-country) needs capacity of its own. Consultations with CSOs are useful if they are planned, regular and genuine—particularly in-country. Supporting local ownership through channeling funds to existing resources (e.g. providing existing networks with logistics and strategic funding) is more effective than putting in place new, parallel structures. Investing in structures that continue beyond the Facility implementation period (e.g. providing 3-4 year core support to develop CSO institutional capacities or putting in place offices to facilitate civil society-government links) will enable national CSO champions or standard-setters to emerge. Paying close attention to the local CSO sector, political and donor context to better meet needs and avoid supporting either less-relevant issues or government-organized organizations. An engaged and robust civil society which holds governments to account is increasingly both a mechanism and a goal of EU foreign policy. Upgrading the EU's relationship with civil society from benevolent paymaster to a strategic investor in partnerships for change will pay dividends to the societies which are transforming in its neighborhood as well as to the EU itself. For a genuine shift towards a “partnership with societies,” maximum local participation and ownership has to be matched by maximum political and practical commitment from the EU. This could be the essence of a real and mutually beneficial partnership.
Topic:
Civil Society, Regional Cooperation, Governance, European Union, Accountability, and Funding
Political Geography:
Europe