2. Taking stock of philanthropy’s contribution to development
Private philanthropy contributed USD 42.5 billion to development over 2016-19. The region receiving most total funding was Latin America and the Caribbean, while India was the largest beneficiary country. Health remains the largest recipient sector, followed by education. Foundations continue to support research, environmental causes and gender equality, and collaboration among donors through joint initiatives is growing.
2.1.1. Private philanthropy for development allocated USD 42.5 billion over 2016-19
Private philanthropy for development amounted to USD 42.5 billion over 2016-19. This is on average USD 10.6 billion per year, approximately USD 2 billion per year higher than the level of funding over 2013-15 identified in the first edition of this report. The difference can be explained by the expansion, from 143 organisations to 205 in the latest sample, which includes more philanthropic organisations operating within emerging markets.
Over 2016-19, official development assistance (ODA) from members of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC)1 totalled USD 595.5 billion (gross disbursements), Private philanthropy amounted to 7% of that level (Figure 2.1).
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
Despite the relatively small size of private financing in comparison to ODA, foundations are key funders in certain areas, particularly health, education and government and civil society. In health, cross-border philanthropic financing was the second-largest funder behind the United States, while in education it ranked similarly to bilateral funding from Japan (Figure 2.2).
Note: Core contributions from the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation to GAVI Alliance and The Global Fund are included in the foundation’s funding.
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
2.1.2. Most international philanthropic funding originates in the United States
Of all funding identified, organisations from the United States contributed more than half of all financing over 2016-19, with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) prominently providing approximately 38% of all private philanthropy for development. Spain was the second largest international provider, mostly thanks to the BBVA Microfinance Foundation, which supports efforts in Latin America and the Caribbean. The third and fourth largest international providers were the United Kingdom and Switzerland. India accounted for the largest domestic funding in a single country, with significant financing from companies in the form of corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Figure 2.3).
International and domestic funding are distinct in scope and scale (Box 2.1). International philanthropic funding is more diversified and tackles more topics and a wider geographic area, while philanthropy from foundations based in emerging markets is primarily implemented domestically, rarely with operations abroad. Furthermore, international funding often faces limitations on tax support for cross-border giving (Box 2.2).
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
Beyond the private philanthropic funding from India and the People’s Republic of China described in this report, additional data collected by the OECD Centre on Philanthropy for the period 2013-18 – in Colombia (54 foundations), South Africa (31 foundations) and Nigeria (12 foundations) – suggest that philanthropy is a growing sector that is aiming to become more professional, more collaborative and more open.
Large foundations in Colombia provide approximately USD 100 million per year to social programmes in the country, focusing on financing education and sustainable small businesses, and have built a strong network to co-finance projects (OECD, 2021[1]). They jointly advocate for the sector, and their funding is heavily concentrated in a few regions. In South Africa, a few large donors provided USD 76 million per year, mostly to education programmes in the country (OECD, 2021[2]), while in Nigeria funding from a smaller group of 12 philanthropic organisations totalled USD 14 million per year, with a heavy focus on improving the access and quality of health services (OECD, 2022[3]).
In all of these countries, philanthropy tends to be concentrated in a few regions or provinces, and organisations tend to have a single purpose instead of a wide-ranging portfolio. These organisations for the most part implement their own projects, but often partner and finance local grassroots non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Moreover, there is an explicit attempt from foundations to provide opportunities to underprivileged populations, including the creation of sustainable small businesses.
More attention should be brought to the work of philanthropic organisations operating in emerging economies, as they not only provide philanthropic capital to development, but also bring experience and context-relevant knowledge about the role of the sector in each country.
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
In some emerging countries, domestic philanthropic funding is larger than international giving. India’s Tata Trusts is the largest philanthropic organisation operating domestically in emerging markets (Figure 2.4).
Philanthropic financing is highly concentrated in a small group of organisations, particularly international foundations. At an international level, the largest ten philanthropic organisations provided USD 26 billion, 76% of all cross-border financing. The largest ten philanthropic organisations operating domestically provided USD 4 billion, or 50% of all domestic giving identified.
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
A global approach to philanthropy needs to address the tax incentives for giving abroad. There are three forms of cross-border philanthropy: 1) gifts by individuals or corporations to an entity in another jurisdiction, 2) when a domestic entity operates in another jurisdiction, and 3) when a foreign entity operates domestically. Almost all OECD countries provide preferential tax treatment for philanthropy, but many provide different tax treatment to philanthropy depending on its jurisdiction, and often countries provide no tax support for cross-border giving. Moreover, some countries can withdraw the preferential tax treatment of philanthropic organisations if they provide funding abroad.
Limitations on tax support for cross-border giving have led some philanthropic entities to seek alternatives. Public Benefit Organisations (PBOs) that operate across borders rarely receive the tax relief provided to domestic philanthropic entities. This has prompted an increase in intermediary organisations that transfer funds to a foreign PBO.
The global nature of issues addressed by large-scale philanthropy in matters of health, climate and other international challenges suggests that national constraints on philanthropy should be reconsidered. Alongside better oversight, “There is merit in countries reassessing whether there may be some instances where equivalent tax treatment should be provided to domestic and cross-border philanthropy”.
Source: (OECD, 2020[4]).
2.2.1. The Latin America-Caribbean region received the largest total funding
From 2016 to 2019, USD 24 billion (56%) of total philanthropic financing was allocable by country or region. The region that received the most philanthropic financing from international and domestic sources combined was Latin America and the Caribbean, with USD 6.7 billion (16%). This funding was provided primarily by the Spain’s BBVA Microfinance Foundation and large domestic organisations in Mexico, Colombia and Brazil. South Asia was the second recipient region of both international and domestic philanthropy, with USD 6.3 billion (15%). In terms of international philanthropy alone, Sub-Saharan Africa was the top recipient region, with USD 5.5 billion (13%). The other regions – East Asia & Pacific, the Middle East & North Africa, and Europe & Central Asia – received relatively less funding (Figure 2.5).
2.2.2. India remains the country receiving the most philanthropic financing
India continued to be the largest recipient of philanthropic financing, with USD 5.5 billion (13%) from both cross-border and domestic sources over 2016-19. It was followed by the People’s Republic of China (hereafter “China”) with USD 3 billion (7%). In Latin America, Peru received USD 2.2 billion (5%), mostly from cross-border financing, while Colombia received USD 1.4 billion (3%) and Mexico USD 1.3 billion (3%). In Africa, the largest recipients were Nigeria (USD 0.8 billion), Ethiopia (USD 0.7 billion) and South Africa (USD 0.6 billion).
Moreover, India, China and Mexico received more domestic philanthropic financing than cross-border funding in our sample, while other countries, like Colombia, Peru, Nigeria and South Africa, continued to receive more cross-border philanthropic funding than domestic funding (Figure 2.6).
2.2.3. Philanthropic financing went mainly to middle-income countries
Middle-income countries remained the main recipients of both international and domestic philanthropic financing over 2016-19. Approximately USD 9.9 billion (42%) of all country-allocable giving was directed towards upper middle-income countries. Lower middle-income countries received USD 9.1 billion (38%). Only a small fraction of philanthropic financing was directed towards low-income countries, reaching USD 3 billion (13%) between 2016-19 (Figure 2.7).
2.3.1. Health and education received the most philanthropic funding
Looking at allocations of private philanthropy for development by sector, most financing went to the health sector over 2016-19, with health and reproductive health jointly receiving USD 18.4 billion (43%) (Box 2.3). The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation accounted for 69% of total health-related giving. Education received the second most financing and was the top sector for domestic philanthropy, with USD 4.5 billion (11%). The agriculture sector and government & civil society sector followed, with USD 3.5 billion (8%) and USD 2.5 billion (6%) respectively (Figure 2.8).
Note: Core funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to GAVI Alliance and the Global Fund are included in health and reproductive health sector.
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
2.3.2. Funding in health is strongly driven by the fight against infectious diseases
In global health, international foundations provide substantial funding towards the control of infectious diseases, in particular malaria and tuberculosis. Philanthropy contributed more than USD 9.9 billion towards combating these diseases, and most of this was provided by international foundations.2 In addition, funding towards non-communicable diseases (NCD) is estimated at USD 0.9 billion, which represents 5% of all health funding.3
International foundations also made a significant effort to fund family planning services and reproductive health care, which together include education, counselling, the provision of contraceptives, prenatal and postnatal care, and other services. They allocated approximately USD 2.9 billion to these services over 2016-19, while financing towards the control of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) received around USD 1.2 billion. Domestic foundations, while less involved in the health sector than cross-border donors, tend to provide direct funding for access to basic health care services and grants to cover payment of medical services and basic nutrition (Figure 2.9).
In addition to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, international foundations that provide significant funding include the Susan T. Buffet Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and Bloomberg Family Foundation. Among foundations that operate domestically, Tata Trusts (India) and Carlos Slim Foundation (Mexico) are the largest donors in the health space (Figure 2.10).
Note: Core funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to GAVI Alliance and the Global Fund are included in "Other infectious disease control".
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
The WHO Foundation contributes its insights on strengthening support for health systems
Now more than ever we need to invest in global health. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the need for broad and urgent investments to bolster the capacity for rapid response to global health emergencies, and to create long-term, equitable access to health services and stronger health systems.
The WHO Foundation complements and strengthens the work of WHO and its global network of partners by mobilising new funding from diverse sources to drive innovation and transform the global health ecosystem. What drives 21st century philanthropists is the opportunity to be engaged in new, collective solutions that utilise systems change and innovative approaches. The WHO Foundation is developing theories of change for how WHO can achieve greater innovation, scale and impact. Potential focus areas include: primary health care, health emergencies, mental health, climate and health, digital health and health equity. Opportunities in these areas are currently being mapped.
Contributed by Emanuele Capobianco, WHO Foundation.
The World Diabetes Foundation offered its views on co-investment for stronger health systems
The COVID-19 pandemic has made clear the need for integrated and resilient health systems that can coherently address infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). In the current landscape, philanthropies have the opportunity and obligation to promote stronger convergence of international health and development financing, and should be at the forefront of widened partnerships with low- and middle-income countries in support of a balanced health system reform.
Co-investment frameworks among different stakeholders can bring significant progress in health care on the ground. In Jordan, the World Diabetes Foundation (WDF) supports a nationwide effort to integrate prevention and control of NCDs at primary health care level. WDF’s work is based on a special grant from Novo Nordisk Foundation and also involves Jordan’s Royal Health Awareness Society and the European Union Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis. In Mali, WDF supports implementation of the national NCD strategy based on a co-funding mechanism with the French Development Agency and operated through the NGO Santé Diabète in collaboration with Mali’s national diabetes association.
Both examples represent a continuum of stakeholders from different sectors. Philanthropies should apply their investment flexibility to bring stakeholders together towards evidence-based solutions and innovative partnerships, always with consideration of governance, local settings and sustainability.
Contributed by Bent Lautrup-Nielsen, World Diabetes Foundation.
The Helmsley Charitable Trust offered its thoughts on investing in universal health coverage
Private philanthropy should always prioritise funding novel, unproven, high-risk but potentially high-reward approaches. At Helmsley, we have focused on investments to test how to bring a wider range of clinical services to rural communities.
We have recently witnessed more clearly than ever the relationship between infectious diseases and NCDs. Having a baseline of health for all, and the infrastructure for providing it, enhances resilience when a crisis like COVID occurs. Excellent clinical health services and reliable supply chains that allow people to get the care they need will always be paramount. Health systems matter. Strong management matters. These need to be priorities for private funders if we are to achieve SDG 3.
2.3.3. Funding for education mainly targets higher education
Education-related giving from domestic donors surpassed giving by international foundations over 2016-19, and was more varied in terms of the thematic areas where the funding was allocated.
Within education funding, institutions of higher education, such as universities, received the most support from both international and domestic donors, either as direct support or as scholarships for advanced education. Vocational training and school infrastructure absorbed significant funding from domestic donors, while early childhood education received more support from international foundations (Figure 2.11).
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
The largest international foundation in education was the Mastercard Foundation, followed by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, while the largest domestic donors in education were Reliance Industries CSR from India, OceanWide Foundation from China and Carlos Slim from Mexico (Figure 2.12).
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
2.3.4. Funding for agriculture aims to accelerate rural development
Financing towards agriculture aims to develop the sector and carry out research related to agricultural productivity, including food crop production. Training in agriculture and veterinary services and export-oriented crops also feature among the most-funded areas within the agriculture sector (Figure 2.13)
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
The largest international foundation in agriculture was the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, followed by BBVA Microfinance Foundation, Howard G. Buffet Foundation and Mastercard Foundation, while the largest domestic donors in agriculture were corporates from India (Figure 2.14).
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
2.3.5. Funding for civil society promotes democracy and human rights
Philanthropic donors are significant funders of causes and institutions from civil society at large. Under the OECD-DAC classification, the government and civil society sector includes activities aimed at strengthening the public administrative apparatus and support for civil society organisations. This funding targets areas such as human rights advocacy; increasing democratic participation and the role civil society plays in development; financing media and the free flow of information; development of legal and judicial systems; support for women’s rights organisations; and conflict prevention and resolution.
Most philanthropic funding in the government and civil society sector over 2016-19 supported human rights advocacy. Other top targeted areas were support for women’s rights organisations and for ending violence against women and girls. Financing to support media and the free flow of information was another top area, particularly from domestic organisations (Figure 2.15).
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
The largest international foundations in the government and civil society sector were the Ford Foundation and the Open Societies Foundations, while the largest organisation operating domestically was Fundación Televisa from Mexico (Figure 2.16).
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
A few issues cut across all philanthropic donations. As these issues can straddle multiple sectors, they are better understood through a cross-sectoral lens. This section analyses foundations’ support for research and for the long-term objectives of tackling climate change and moving towards gender equality.
2.4.1. Supporting universities remains a key objective of philanthropy
Financing from philanthropic foundations has long been a key source of financing for universities, particularly in the United States (Stephan, 2012[5]).
Philanthropy also has a long-standing role in financing research centres. According to OECD data on research and development (R&D), funding from private non-profit institutions towards R&D in 37 OECD countries represented, on average, 1.4% of all R&D spending between 2015-18.4
In relation to private philanthropy for development, funding towards universities amounted to USD 2.5 billion over 2016-19. Much of this funding came from philanthropic organisations that fund research relevant to development, such as infectious diseases prevalent in developing countries, but is carried out in institutions within the United States and the United Kingdom. Other major recipients were China’s Fudan University, Tsingua University and West Lake University, and South Africa’s University of Cape Town (Figure 2.17).
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
2.4.2. Efforts to protect the environment receive funding from foundations
Climate change and environmental protection are two related areas where foundations also allocate resources. Funding towards general environment protection amounted to USD 1.7 billion, or 4% of all funding, over 2016-19 (Figure 2.18). Some funding targets specific areas, like protection of biodiversity. But do foundations take account of the effects of climate change across their entire portfolios?
The OECD organisational survey asked whether foundations include climate change in their strategy and general objectives. A majority – 58 out of 103 respondents – replied that they do not make use of a climate-change lens in their grants or projects. Of the 45 organisations that do apply a climate lens to their grant making, 20 (44%) are concerned with minimising the carbon footprint of their operations and grant making, while 17 (38%) try to assess how the foundation’s mission can be affected by climate change. Moreover, 13 organisations (29%) say they are divesting the foundation’s endowment from fossil-fuels or investing in climate solutions, and 9 are asking their partners and grantees to account for climate-related risks and plan for mitigating strategies. Finally, some of the foundations commented that they are developing large climate programmes, supporting environmental initiatives and generating alliances within the framework of the circular economy.
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
Within the general environment protection sector, the top funders are the United PostCode Lotteries and the UK’s Arcadia Fund, followed by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation in the United States and Switzerland’s MAVA Foundation. Among domestic donors, InfoSys Limited CSR from India and SEE Foundation from China provide the largest funding (Figure 2.19).
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
2.4.3. Gender-related giving amounted to 8% of all private philanthropy for development
As a cross-sectoral issue, reducing structural gender inequalities through philanthropic funding operates mainly through two channels: 1) reproductive health and family planning, and 2) supporting organisations that advocate for women’s rights and for an end to violence against women and girls. Taken together, these areas amounted to 8% of all private philanthropy for development over 2016-19 (Figure 2.20).
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
Note: Includes purpose codes Family planning, Reproductive health, Women’s rights organisations and Ending violence against women.
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
The largest cross-border funders in these areas are the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Susan T. Buffet Foundation, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and United Poscode Lotteries, while the largest domestic organisations is Hindustan Unilever Foundation from India (Figure 2.21).
The classification of grants and projects by thematic area allows a closer examination of activities that have an effect on the lives of women and girls and can contribute to reducing or eliminating gender inequalities. The OECD organisational survey asked foundations whether gender equality was a primary or secondary objective. The aim was to distinguish organisations that establish gender equality as the most important and explicit goal of their grants and projects from those that advance the well-being of women and girls but pursue other goals as well.
Of the 103 respondents, only 5 foundations make gender equality the main objective of their giving. A total of 29 foundations see gender equality as both a primary and secondary objective, while for another 30 respondents it is a secondary objective. For 39 foundations, gender equality is neither a primary nor a secondary objective of their grant making (Figure 2.22).
Note: Foundations were asked to identify if their activities aimed at reducing gender equality in developing countries. Based on responses from 103 foundations.
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development organisational survey.
Organisations for which gender equality is a primary and secondary goal mainly fund the direct delivery of services to women and girls, such as support of activities to improve women’s reproductive health or women’s economic empowerment, among others. They also finance programmes that target men and boys, with the aim of promoting behavioural and attitudinal changes in support of greater gender equality.
Interestingly, organisations for which gender equality is a secondary goal are increasingly using gender analysis5 as a tool to design their programmes, particularly trying to identify how their interventions have differential effects between men and women. Organisations financing efforts towards gender equality face two main barriers: first, they do not wish to discriminate between their beneficiaries based on gender, and second, they may be unable to measure and report tangible results from interventions aimed at improving gender equality.
2.5.1. Collaboration among philanthropic donors is increasing
Philanthropy is becoming more interconnected. Philanthropic donors work with one another to fund joint initiatives for multiple reasons, from scaling up a particular programme to pooling funds to tackle an issue that a single funder cannot address alone. However, the extent to which private foundations co-finance their programmes remains an understudied feature of the philanthropic sector.
To identify co-financing operations, the OECD survey defined private philanthropic collaboratives as partnerships involving at least two private donors that allocated financial resources to a common objective, or organisation, before deploying the funding. Survey respondents could highlight up to three private philanthropic collaboratives, indicating all other organisations involved – including government agencies, universities, companies and non-profit organisations – as well as the amount of resources the organisation allocated to each private collaborative.
Among 103 respondents, 67 organisations had at least one collaborative between 2016-19. Based on the partners indicated by each respondent, it was possible to see a global network of private philanthropic collaboratives. This network is not an exhaustive picture of philanthropic collaboration, yet it shows the multiple existing relationships among philanthropic organisations, both internationally and domestically, and distinguishes between those that work individually or collaboratively (Figure 2.23).
Note: Based on responses from 67 foundations that voluntarily declared having, or not having, private collaboratives. Each node represents one philanthropic organisation, and each link represents a connection with another organisation, which can be another private funder or other partners, including governments and implementing organisations. Nodes without connections represent organisations that did not manifest being involved in any private collaborative.
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development organisational survey.
Interestingly, foundation size in terms of annual expenditure is not related to whether organisations work through private collaboratives: foundations both large and small have a similar number of partners. International foundations have more private collaboratives than domestic foundations do, and these international collaboratives are larger, involving more resources and partners. More importantly, collaboratives involving international foundations are often connected through common partners, indicating that a few key participants are engaged in multiple private collaboratives.
The OECD survey asked which barriers to collaboration were the most binding. Respondents who are part of a collaborative, as well as those who are not, indicated that the biggest barrier is finding partners who have aligned interests. This indicates a lack of awareness among donors about each other’s objectives (private philanthropic donors as well as providers of ODA). More foundations are providing information on their funding, priorities and behaviour (Box 2.4 and Box 2.5). Yet there is still much room to improve transparency on philanthropic resources allocated for development. Other salient barriers were the administrative costs of managing resources from multiple organisations, and the fact that formalising a collaborative agreement, contractually, can be burdensome (Figure 2.24).
Note: Foundations were asked to identify their barriers for collaboration. Based on 103 foundations that responded to the organisational survey. Foundations could choose multiple options.
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development organisational survey.
360Giving is a charity that helps organisations publish open and standardised grants data, and supports people to use it to improve charitable giving. Since 360Giving was founded in 2015, it has worked with well over 200 funders to publish over GBP 110 billion of their grants data openly in the 360Giving Data Standard – including the United Kingdom government, making it possible to access and analyse grants awarded by different funders using a single search engine, GrantNav https://grantnav.threesixtygiving.org
360Giving was inspired by global open data initiatives that used open data standards to increase transparency and accountability in the use of public funds, for example, the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) and the Open Contracting Data Standard. However, unlike these standards, 360Giving has a voluntary framework because social and charitable organisations in the United Kingdom fall under a multitude of regulators and reporting regimes, as do different types of funders. This means that there was not a single body or reporting framework able to enforce unified sharing of data. The voluntary framework also encourages responsibility for the data and its use, as the publishers host and manage their data published in the standard.
The advantages of an open-data model, combined with effective tools to access, means that there is a much greater impact from the data, not just for those that are sharing it. This includes supporting public transparency over where funds are distributed, use by other funders to understand the landscape, use by charities to understand funder priorities before considering applications, and use by researchers and policy makers.
The data have improved how foundations work by supporting informed decision-making, strategy and collaboration. They have been used to identify potential funding partners as well as charities that may have already received funding elsewhere. More recently, the availability of the data has made a key difference to the COVID-19 pandemic response, with many funders using the 360Giving tools to inform their rapid decision-making, especially https://covidtracker.threesixtygiving.org/ to identify gaps and overlaps in funding.
Contributed by Tania Cohen, Chief Executive, 360Giving.
Association of Family and Corporate Foundations (AFE) Colombia
AFE Colombia was created in 2008 by 9 foundations seeking to formalise collaborative work in the social sector; by 2021 it grouped 67 donors and other non-profit organisations. Its work focuses on building and strengthening capacities, encouraging collaborative work and advocating on public policy. Members are encouraged to share what they do, where they work and how they are financed.
In its role as leader and convener in the Colombian philanthropic sector, AFE promotes transparency among members and with the public at large. In 2010 it created an open-data system where foundations voluntarily disclose detailed information about their social programmes. All reports, case studies, research and financial information are published on its website, https://afecolombia.org/.
Open data are a powerful tool to improve the work of foundations because they allow for better targeting of funding where it is needed the most. Open data also encourage foundations to collaborate and establish partnerships. They help to build trust among foundations and third parties, as publicly available information shows what each foundation can bring to the table.
Contributed by Aura Lucia Lloreda, Executive Director, AFE Colombia.
During the COVID-19 crisis, foundations increased financial support for rapid response funds (82 of 103 foundations) and increased total annual spending (60 of 103 foundations). Encouragingly, only 23 of the foundations in the sample reduced total spending in 2020. However, these financial shifts seem to be short term, as fewer than 10% of foundations indicated they intended the changes to be permanent (Figure 2.25).
In terms of philanthropic practice and approaches, key shifts were the introduction of simplified application and reporting requirements (50 of 103 foundations), reduced grant restrictions or their removal, and support of partners’ fundraising efforts by connecting them with other donors (46 of 103).
The COVID-19 crisis did not seem to have significant effects on foundations’ priority countries. Only 4 of the 103 foundations permanently shifted their geographical priorities, while 15 foundations did so only for 2020. Similarly, only 28 foundations changed their targeted beneficiaries, and most did so only for 2020.
While most changes in giving strategies and practice seem to be seen by foundations as short term, three new practices appear to hold the potential to become permanent: support for partners’ fundraising efforts, simplified application and reporting requirements, and greater transparency about grants to improve co-ordination.
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development organisational survey.
2.5.2. Foundations predominantly target youth and people living in poverty
Respondents to the OECD organisational survey have multiple target populations for their financing. More than half (60 of the 103 respondents) target age groups for their financing, with an emphasis on children and youth, while the rest (43 foundations) do not target populations according to age. Few foundations explicitly target the elderly.
In terms of socio-economic vulnerabilities, the populations most targeted by respondents are those living in poverty (77 foundations). Other top target groups are the unemployed, migrants and refugees. Most foundations that provide funding in the health sector target populations with specific disabilities or experiencing chronic illnesses (Figure 2.26).
Note: Foundations were asked to identify their targeted demographies. Based on 103 foundations that responded to the organisational survey. Foundations could choose multiple options.
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development organisational survey.
2.5.3. Foundations also provide non-financial resources like access to expertise
Beyond financing, philanthropic donors provide non-financial resources that play an important part in the development and sustainability of the organisations they support. Most foundations provide grantees with access to networks and coalitions of funders, in the form of connections to additional sources of financing, information and expertise. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) capacities and managerial practices are also supported by foundations, which may sit on the board of a beneficiary organisation to contribute directly to its strategic orientation.
Funders likewise help to improve the visibility of their grantees through communications and fundraising opportunities. Non-financial support plays a role in how foundations help their grantees engage in advocacy, and also in how they become sustainable in the long run (Figure 2.27).
Note: Foundations were asked to identify the types of non-financial support they provide. Based on 103 foundations that responded to the organisational survey. Foundations could choose multiple options.
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development organisational survey.
References
[3] OECD (2022), (Forthcoming) Domestic Philanthropy for Development and Gender Equality in Nigeria, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[1] OECD (2021), Domestic Philanthropy for Development and Gender Equality in Colombia, https://www.oecd.org/development/philanthropy-centre/researchprojects/countrystudies/OECD_CoP_DomesticPhilanthropyColombia.pdf.
[2] OECD (2021), Domestic Philanthropy for Development and Gender Equality in South Africa, https://www.oecd.org/development/philanthropy-centre/researchprojects/countrystudies/OECD_CoP_DomesticPhilanthropySouthAfrica.pdf.
[6] OECD (2021), Research and Development Statistics: Gross domestic expenditure on R-D by sector of performance and source of funds (Edition 2020), OECD Science, Technology and R&D Statistics (database), Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/19151f52-en.
[4] OECD (2020), Taxation and Philanthropy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/df434a77-en.
[5] Stephan, P. (2012), “How economics shapes science”, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674088160.
Notes
← 1. See http://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/.
← 2. Includes the following OECD DAC purpose codes: Infectious disease control (12250), Malaria control (12262), Tuberculosis control (12263) and STD control including HIV/AIDS (13040).
← 3. Includes the following OECD DAC purpose codes: NCDs control, general (12310), Tobacco use control (12320), Control of harmful use of alcohol and drugs (12330), Promotion of mental health and well-being (12340), Other prevention and treatment of NCDs (12350) and Research for prevention and control of NCDs (12382). These estimates are likely to be underestimated in terms of all NCD response and the amounts philanthropy is providing, given that a a significant portion of funding that addresses NCDs is often categorised as general health sector support.
← 4. Calculations based on (OECD, 2021[6]).
← 5. For the purpose of this survey, gender analysis was defined as “assessing the differences between women and men, girls and boys in terms of their relative distribution of resources, opportunities, constraints and power during the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of its programmes to ensure equitable participation of women and men”.