CSIRO PUBLISHING
Sexual Health, 2014, 11, 298–304 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/SH13204
Sexual and reproductive health and philanthropic funding in Australia Liz Gill-Atkinson A,D, Cathy Vaughan A and Hennie Williams B,C A
Gender and Women’s Health Unit, Academic Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie St, Carlton, Vic. 3053, Australia. B Sexual Health Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie St, Carlton, Vic. 3053, Australia. C Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, 580 Swanston Street, Carlton, Vic. 3053, Australia. D Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Abstract. Background: Australia’s philanthropic sector is growing and could support efforts to improve sexual and reproductive health (SRH). However, philanthropy is often misunderstood in Australia and there is limited evidence of philanthropic support for SRH initiatives. Methods: We aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators to philanthropic funding of SRH initiatives in Australia. A qualitative approach was used and involved 13 in-depth interviews with professionals from the philanthropic sector, and from organisations and services involved in SRH. Results: Barriers to organisations in seeking philanthropic funding for SRH activities included insufficient resources for writing grant applications and the small financial value of philanthropic grants. Facilitators to seeking philanthropic funding for SRH included a perception that government funding is shrinking and that philanthropic research grants are less competitive than government grants. Philanthropic participants identified that barriers to funding SRH include the sensitive nature of SRH and the perceived conservative nature of philanthropy. Facilitators identified by these participants in supporting SRH initiatives included networking and relationships between grant-makers and grant-seekers. All participants agreed that philanthropy does and could have a role in funding SRH in Australia. Conclusions: The findings of this research suggest that barriers to philanthropic funding for SRH in Australia exist for organisations attempting to access philanthropic funding. Philanthropic organisations could provide more financial support to Australian SRH service providers, as happens in countries such as the United States and United Kingdom. Addressing these barriers and promoting the facilitators could lead to increased awareness of SRH by Australia’s philanthropic sector. Additional keywords: fundraising, philanthropy, private funding. Received 23 December 2013, accepted 19 May 2014, published online 11 August 2014
Introduction Globally, sexual and reproductive health (SRH) is considered to be a significant health, human rights and development issue. Funding from a range of sources, including philanthropy, supports improvements in SRH outcomes around the world. International studies highlight the role of philanthropy in supporting responses to HIV in particular,1,2 as well as the long and significant history of American philanthropic funding for domestic and international SRH initiatives.3–5 In Australia, increasing rates of early sexual activity, sexually transmissible infections, newly acquired HIV infection and high abortion rates disproportionately affect several populations.6 Research, capacity building, health promotion, service delivery, education and training initiatives are undertaken at local, state and national levels to improve SRH outcomes in Australia.6,7 State and federal governments provide most of the funding for these initiatives. However, decreased Journal compilation Ó CSIRO 2014
government funding for SRH research and services, in an environment of increasing need for SRH services and demand for evidence based-approaches,7 suggests that future government support for SRH may not be adequate. Philanthropy Australia (the peak national body for philanthropy) define philanthropy as ‘the planned and structured giving of time, information, goods and services, influence and voice as well as money to improve the wellbeing of humanity and the community.’8 In comparison to the United States and the United Kingdom, Australia’s philanthropic sector is small,9–11 less likely to support health and medical research in comparison to other giving causes9,10 and is not as well understood by the public. However, philanthropy in Australia is growing and is building an evidence base to inform its work. Philanthropy Australia collects annual statistics on philanthropic funding to program areas, including ‘Health, and/or medical research’.12 Although www.publish.csiro.au/journals/sh
Philanthropic sexual health funding in Australia
studies have explored philanthropic funding for certain issues, such as Indigenous affairs,13 education14 and philanthropic investment in women and girls,15 little in-depth analysis of philanthropic funding for health causes has been undertaken. Evidence of philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives is found on a case-by-case basis in the annual reports of philanthropic trusts and foundations and funding recipients. Australian researchers identify several barriers to individuals or organisations seeking funding from Australian philanthropic trusts and foundations. These include a limited understanding of philanthropic funding practices and a lack of awareness of philanthropic funding opportunities.9,10,13,14 In relation to Australian philanthropic funding for medical research and mental health initiatives, studies identified a perception that health initiatives should be funded by government, and a lack of awareness of health issues and areas of need by philanthropic funders.9,10 An American study16 exploring philanthropic funding for gay support organisations highlights additional barriers that may be of relevance to the Australian context. These include limited capacity to write grant applications, perceptions that SRH and HIV can be too controversial for traditional philanthropists and that the financial value of many philanthropic grants is not worth the resources required to submit funding applications. Factors that drive philanthropy by individuals in Australian17 and international contexts18 are well established, and may be relevant to the provision of funding through philanthropic trusts and foundations in Australia. This study aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators to philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives in Australia. In order to further explore this issue and the relevance of the factors identified in the literature, qualitative interviews were undertaken with 13 professionals from the philanthropic and SRH sectors. Methods A qualitative research design was used to elicit rich, detailed information. Six semistructured in-depth interviews were undertaken with philanthropic participants and seven interviews were undertaken with SRH participants. This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee for the School of Population Health at The University of Melbourne. There are ~5000 philanthropic trusts and foundations in Australia,8 which include foundations established by individuals, family foundations, community foundations, corporate foundations, government-initiated foundations and trustee companies.19 The six philanthropic participants represented a mix of individual, family and governmentinitiated foundations (established but not necessarily controlled by the government) based in Melbourne. SRH organisations ranged from small not-for-profit health promotion agencies and service providers to large research institutions within university settings. Participants were purposively identified through the first author’s networks in philanthropy and SRH, her supervisors’ (the second and third authors) networks, the networks of other research participants, the annual reports of philanthropic funders
Sexual Health
299
and SRH organisations who had received philanthropic grants, and an online search of SRH organisations and services. Potential participants were invited to participate in the study after direct contact by the first author or after an introduction to her by a third party (someone within the first author’s networks or another research participant). Two interview guides were developed for use in this study, one for philanthropic participants and one for SRH participants. The average interview length was 45 min. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Data analysis was conducted using an inductive thematic approach. All transcripts were read several times in order to gain familiarity with the content. Codes were generated from recurring ideas and mapped into a coding framework. The interview text was dissected into text segments, which were coded, collated and organised into themes. The themes were refined through an additional review of the transcripts. Results Five distinct, recurring themes were identified through data analysis: (1) facilitators to seeking philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives; (2) barriers to seeking philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives; (3) facilitators to funding SRH initiatives for philanthropic trusts and foundations; (4) barriers to funding SRH initiatives for philanthropic trusts and foundations and; (5) the role of philanthropy in supporting SRH in Australia. Table 1 displays an overview of the key findings relating to each theme with illustrative quotations. Discussion Factors that influence the decision to seek philanthropic funding Facilitators to seeking philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives SRH participants highlighted a range of factors that would encourage them to seek philanthropic funding. SRH participants who had received philanthropic funding highlighted the importance of organisational capacity to locate philanthropic funding opportunities, write grant applications and build relationships within the philanthropic sector. This mirrors the finding that a lack of organisational capacity is a barrier to seeking philanthropic funding. ‘Philanthropics will advertise you can apply for funding through philanthropic grants, and certainly we apply for those, and there’s a person who coordinates those.’ (SRH Participant 7) Occasionally, philanthropic grant-makers seek feedback on their funding strategies from organisations they may potentially fund. When SRH participants had been contacted in this manner, it was noted as an important facilitating factor to seeking philanthropic funding. Philanthropic participants also highlighted relationships and networking between grantmakers and grant-seekers as a key facilitator to funding SRH initiatives.
300
Sexual Health
L. Gill-Atkinson et al.
Table 1. Summary of results SRH, sexual and reproductive health Theme 1: Facilitators to seeking philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives Organisational capacity to respond to philanthropic funding opportunities Connection with a philanthropic trust or foundation Shrinking government funding Process perceived to be less competitive than for government research grants *
*
*
*
Theme 2: Barriers to seeking philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives Perception that SRH is well funded by the government Perception that philanthropy is viewed as conservative and inaccessible Small, short grants can be undesirable to grant seekers No organisational capacity to respond to funding opportunities Previous negative experiences when seeking philanthropic funding *
*
*
*
*
Theme 3: Facilitators to philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives Networking between and within philanthropic organisations, and between philanthropic organisations and grant seekers Tailoring SRH applications to align with funding priorities (e.g. activities or target groups) and downplaying SRH focus The role of philanthropic organisations to be risk takers *
*
*
Theme 4: Barriers to philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives Perception that philanthropy is conservative SRH is often viewed as sensitive, controversial or as a ‘women’s issue’ SRH is seen as the responsibility of the government Philanthropic sector lacks awareness of SRH issues in Australia *
*
*
*
Theme 5: The role of philanthropy in supporting SRH in Australia
‘Every day – I can’t remember her name – but there is a woman who chairs or coordinates it who will visit the various units ... and say “So what are your ideas that you would want me to put to the board of the foundation to seek funding?” And she will tell us whether she thinks it’s going to be interesting enough for them to fund it.’ (SRH Participant 6)
However, the perception that philanthropy is a favourable funding source contradicts participants’ positive perceptions on government funding, which had discouraged some SRH participants from considering philanthropic funding in the past.
SRH participants’ views regarding the future of government funding, government funding application processes and the government’s willingness to fund certain types of SRH initiatives also motivated the decision to seek philanthropic funding. SRH participants were concerned that future government funding for SRH is likely to decrease and may not meet future organisational needs, which would then prompt their organisation to consider philanthropic funding in the future.
In contrast with the abovementioned research findings, there was a general perception among SRH participants that government funding is adequate, familiar, evidence-based and expertise-driven, and is a favourable funding source in comparison to philanthropic funding. Although peer-reviewed government grants (such as those from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)) were viewed to be more prestigious by research-oriented SRH participants and more likely to enhance an individual’s professional status, this was not viewed as a direct barrier to seeking philanthropic funding, especially for early career researchers, who were thought to have less chance of securing competitive government research grants.
‘So as government money gets tighter (and it will continue to get tighter), the board were interested in looking at alternate revenue streams.’ (SRH Participant 13) SRH participants also felt that philanthropic research grants would be less competitive than government research grants, as they would involve less ‘red tape’ and were likely to have a less rigorous assessment process, improving the applicant’s chances of success. ‘The thing that attracts me to philanthropy is. . . I’m guessing it is probably less tedious than some of those other competitive research grants that we go for.’ (SRH Participant 7)
Barriers to seeking philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives
‘I mean... we wouldn’t worry that it sounds less prestigious. I don’t think it would be an issue whatsoever because it is what you do with the money... but I can imagine for a serious researcher who is dependent on grant money who [is] going up the research chain, which is very much an NHMRC ladder... they need to be getting NHMRC money for their CVs... But I think that we wouldn’t be that worried about that.’ (SRH Participant 6)
Philanthropic sexual health funding in Australia
Both SRH and philanthropic participants felt that philanthropy is often not well understood by grant-seekers, aligning with the findings of other Australian studies.10,13 Philanthropy is perceived as unapproachable and ‘at the top end of town’, and is thought to make conservative funding choices, electing to fund ‘nice projects’ instead of other initiatives, such as SRH. ‘Philanthropy is generally seen in this country as being quite conservative so that is probably one reason why they [those seeking funds for SRH] don’t come to philanthropy.’ (Philanthropic Participant 11) SRH and philanthropic participants also inferred that the size and the duration of philanthropic grants (perceived to be between A$5000 and A$20 000 for 1 year, despite larger grants often being available) are often unattractive to potential grant-seekers, as the resources required to write a grant application can outweigh the financial benefit of the grant. ‘Often, I look at them and think, oh, there is just not enough money to bother. Like if it is five grand or 10 grand or probably even if there is anything under 50 grand, I probably wouldn’t put one [an application] in.’ (SRH Participant 12) SRH participants also felt disconnected from the philanthropic sector and felt that they were ‘not moving in the right circles’. SRH participants described this as being due to a lack of organisational capacity for writing grant applications and, importantly, for investing time and resources into building and maintaining relationships with philanthropic trusts and foundations. This finding suggests that potential grant-seekers can be under-resourced to undertake philanthropic fundraising, viewed as a resource-intensive activity above and beyond writing grant applications. ‘It is also very much about capacity. If I had a grant writer, I would probably have someone doing more of that sort of stuff.’ (SRH Participant 10) In contradiction to the research finding that a connection with a philanthropic funder was a facilitator to seeking philanthropic funding for some participants, for other participants, previous interactions with philanthropic funders had acted as a barrier to seeking further philanthropic funding. These interactions included requests to change the design of a project, a low success rate with submitted applications; and inappropriate or inadequate feedback received regarding the outcome of unsuccessful funding applications. This finding aligned with an American study on philanthropic funding for gay support organisations,16 in which participants reported previous negative interactions with philanthropic grant-makers as a deterrent to seeking future philanthropic funding. ‘Well, they funded it but only for a very small amount of money, and I wouldn’t go back for more funding... We had to really change the
Sexual Health
301
brief a lot to make it fit and we did that because it was one of our first experiences, but I wouldn’t compromise like that again.’ (SRH Participant 13) Factors that influence the decision to fund SRH initiatives Facilitators to funding SRH initiatives for philanthropic participants Participants highlighted networking and relationships between and within philanthropic trusts and foundations, between philanthropic funders and grant-seekers, and between funders and influential peers or community members as instrumental to philanthropic support of SRH initiatives. Philanthropic participants had funded SRH initiatives presented by either another philanthropic grant-maker or an organisation with whom they have a relationship. Participants also noted that philanthropic funders can and do advocate to other grant-makers on behalf of specific initiatives. This aligns with the findings across Australian and international literature suggesting that the benefit of relationships and networks to securing philanthropic funding varies across a variety of contexts. ‘Yes we will take a role in inviting other funders. . . and we will provide some funds for the wrapping up of the projects as well.’ (Philanthropic Participant 11) ‘No, sex is fine, wait. . . On the wrong day, if you put the wrong thing in the title, we don’t do it but if it was, like, one of our favourite organisations. . . they would go OK.’ (Philanthropic Participant 8) How a funding application is presented, in relation to both the content and the channel through which the application is introduced to and within philanthropic trusts and foundations, can influence the outcome of a funding application. Although aligning an application to a trust or foundation’s funding priorities is crucial, SRH and philanthropic participants recalled instances where applicants were encouraged to submit an application focussing on generic activities such as ‘capacity building’, instead of describing a specific SRH project, or to omit detailed information about the SRH issues or outcomes in order to increase the application’s chance of success. ‘If we started to stipulate what it was about, then it starts to ruffle people’s feathers a little bit. . . If you talk about it in its broad sense. . . then people start to feel more comfortable with that.’ (Philanthropic Participant 1) Philanthropic participants who had previously funded or are currently funding SRH initiatives perceived that the role of philanthropy is to be a risk-taker, because, unlike government, philanthropic funders are not accountable to the public. These participants felt that recognition of this role by other funders could increase philanthropic awareness of and support for ‘sensitive’ and controversial issues, including
302
Sexual Health
SRH. However, this contradicts the general perception held by both SRH and philanthropic participants that the philanthropic sector is conservative and, as a result, is less inclined to fund SRH initiatives than other kinds of activities. ‘Self-image’, ‘values’ and ‘reputation’ are identified in the literature as mechanisms for charitable giving;18 however, as this study highlights, they can be both barriers and facilitators to Australian philanthropic funding for SRH. ‘We firmly believe the mantra you often hear: that the role of a philanthropic trust is to be a risk taker.’ (Philanthropic Participant 10) Barriers to funding SRH initiatives for philanthropic participants SRH and philanthropic participants identified a range of barriers for philanthropic funders to funding SRH initiatives. Both groups described negative perceptions, and a limited awareness and understanding of the other. The history of philanthropy (some philanthropic trusts and foundations were established in previous centuries, many by ‘establishment families’) has contributed to the perception that philanthropy is conservative by both SRH and philanthropic participants. The directors and trustees of philanthropic trusts and foundations were generally thought to be male, middle-aged or elderly and politically conservative. Philanthropy was also thought to be intensely personal and, as a result, directors and trustees would be more likely to fund issues with which they have an affinity or personal understanding, such as the arts, not SRH. Participants also suggested that there may be additional ‘benefits’ to funding the arts (such as access to events), which was also identified as a motivation for philanthropic giving in the literature.18 ‘They [the boards of trusts and foundations] are often made up of conservative members of the public and they are often older, so they have older generational, more conservative views anyway.’ (SRH Participant 9) Participants agreed that SRH is often viewed as a private, controversial or women’s issue, and as likely to be an uncomfortable topic of discussion for the directors or trustees of philanthropic funders and could therefore be seen as a risky or sensitive area to fund. However, some philanthropic participants noted that this had not prevented their trust or foundation from funding SRH initiatives in the past if the quality of the application was high, as ‘good applications get funded’. This finding aligns with international literature regarding philanthropic support of SRH,4 HIV and AIDS,1 and gay support organisations,16 as well as the findings that ‘self-image’, ‘reputation’ and ‘values’ are facilitators for philanthropic giving,18 suggesting the consistency of motivations for philanthropic giving across Western contexts. ‘My experience is that sexual and reproductive health funding is a very touchy area for some [philanthropic] organisations... I think that it can be an uncomfortable area for people.’ (Philanthropic Participant 1)
L. Gill-Atkinson et al.
SRH and philanthropic participants also observed that public health and, by association, SRH are often viewed by both funders and grant-seekers as the responsibility of the government. Participants noted that there is a general lack of awareness of SRH issues in Australia, which reflects the finding that ‘awareness of need’ is a prerequisite to charitable giving.15 ‘Certainly in public health, I think the expectation is the government funds, and that’s fair enough, too’ (Philanthropic Participant 5) A comparison of SRH issues in Australia to SRH issues in developing countries was also highlighted as a barrier by SRH and philanthropic participants, as it resulted in a perception that philanthropic funding would have a greater impact overseas than in Australia. These findings align with identified barriers to philanthropic support for mental health9 and medical research,10 suggesting a lack of philanthropic support for a broad spectrum of health initiatives in Australia. The perception that SRH is both well funded by and the responsibility of the government impact on the decision to both seek and provide philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives. This is unique to the Australian context and is the opposite to the United States, where a history of inadequate government funding for SRH and public health has led to a rich tradition of philanthropic support for this area.5 ‘So it [public health] is not a conversation that gets had in philanthropic circles I find, it is certainly not a conversation I am having.’ (Philanthropic Participant 8) A perceived role for philanthropy in supporting SRH in Australia Participants from both the SRH and philanthropic sectors felt that philanthropy does have a role in supporting SRH initiatives in Australia, but not to the exclusion of other issues and as part of an increase in philanthropic funding for public and preventative health. ‘Well, yes; yes, it does like with everything else, really. I mean, it is a huge issue. It is a great preventative strategy, you know, sexual health or, you know, emotional health that is related to sexual activities, reproductive health. I mean, the less children from 16-year-olds we have, the better... So yes, philanthropy does have a role in supporting SRH.’ (Philanthropic Participant 11) Both groups of participants defined this role as funding more creative or socially oriented interventions for supporting SRH (as conventional SRH activities are perceived to be well funded by government), supporting one-off and pilot projects or projects that complement existing initiatives funded by government and, as noted by SRH participants, by providing ‘substantial’ grants (e.g. A$100 000 per annum for several years). In relation to the specific SRH issues that
Philanthropic sexual health funding in Australia
philanthropy could support, SRH participants felt that philanthropic funding could support a range of areas within SRH, that reflected the breadth and diversity of their work. Philanthropic participants felt that funding interventions which address SRH issues affecting specific demographics, such as young people, Indigenous Australians, asylum seekers and refugees, could be more appealing for philanthropic funders. Prior to this study, there was limited available evidence to suggest that philanthropy does or should have an active role in funding SRH in Australia. The findings demonstrate a willingness by philanthropic participants to consider funding SRH initiatives and a willingness by SRH participants to consider seeking philanthropic funding. This research identified a range of factors that influence the philanthropic funding of SRH initiatives in Australia. Addressing the barriers and promoting the facilitators identified in this study may enable this role to grow. Conclusion This study, the first in-depth investigation of philanthropic funding for SRH in Australia, aimed to understand the factors that influence the provision of funding for SRH initiatives by Australian philanthropic trusts and foundations. This study addresses a significant gap in the literature, and highlights a set of factors that influence philanthropic funding for a range of issues across Western contexts and influence philanthropic funding for SRH in Australia. Globally (and, to a lesser extent, in Australia), very few philanthropic trusts and foundations have defined SRH funding priorities. However, cross-sectoral understanding and awareness of needs and priorities, the presence of relationships and networks among sectors, and an understanding of how philanthropic funding can complement government funding have been shown to influence philanthropic funding for SRH, both in Australia and in other Western contexts. This study has the potential to facilitate increased awareness and understanding of SRH issues and areas of need among Australian philanthropic funders. It can also promote an understanding of philanthropic funding to those seeking and considering seeking philanthropic funding for SRH. Potential limitations of this study include the breadth and diversity of activities and issues encompassed under the umbrella of SRH, and that philanthropic participants represent only three types of philanthropic funders in Australia. Additional research with participants working on one specific SRH issue, such as STI prevention, or with participants from a wider range of philanthropic funders would better enhance understanding of philanthropic funding practices in Australia. Conflicts of interest None declared. Acknowledgements The authors thank the research participants and all those who provided advice and support throughout the implementation of this study.
Sexual Health
303
References 1 Funders Concerned About AIDS (FCAA). Global philanthropic HIV/ AIDS funding organisations. Washingtong DC, FCAA; 2009. Available online at: http://www.fcaaids.org/OurWork/Resource Tracking/GlobalWorkingGroup/tabid/191/Default.aspx [verified 28 March 2012]. 2 Joint United Nations Program on AIDS (UNAIDS). Press release: new reports show philanthropic funding for AIDS down at pivotal moment in the response. Geneva: UNAIDS; 2011. Available online at: http:// www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/pressreleaseandstatement archive/2011/november/20111110prphilanthropicfunding/ [verified 9 March 2012]. 3 McNally L, Pine R. Partnering to advance public health: a foundation supports public programs. Health Aff 2009; 28: 578–83. doi:10.1377/ hlthaff.28.2.578 4 Ford Foundation. Issue overview: sexuality and reproductive rights. New York: Ford Foundation; 2013. Available online at: http://www. fordfoundation.org/issues/sexuality-and-reproductive-health-and-rights [verified 19 March 2013]. 5 Meyer C, Seims S. The unique role of U.S. foundations in international family planning and reproductive health. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2010; 19: 2125–32. doi:10.1089/jwh.2010.2061 6 O’Rourke K. Time for a national sexual and reproductive health strategy for Australia: background Paper. Curtin, ACT: Public Health Association of Australia, Sexual Health & Family Planning Australia, Australian Reproductive Health Alliance; 2008. Available online at: http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/SRH_background_ paper.pdf [verified 19 March 2013]. 7 Sexual Health and Family Planning Australia (SH&FPA). Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Research Roundtable. Canberra: SH&FPA; 2013. Available online at: http://www.shfpa.org.au/sites/ shfpa.drupalgardens.com/files/201306/RR%20Report.pdf [verified 10 April 2014]. 8 Philanthropy Australia. Sector overview. Melbourne: Philanthropy Australia; 2013. Available online at: http://www.philanthropy.org.au/ tools-resources/sector-overview/ [verified 11 June 2014]. 9 Scott D. Mental health research and philanthropy: possible partnerships? Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2005; 39: 31–5. doi:10.1080/j.14 40-1614.2005.01508.x 10 McGregor-Lowndes M, Scaife W. Of droughts and flooding plains: philanthropy for health and medical research. Med J Aust 2008; 188: 631–2. 11 Philanthropy Australia. Strategies for increasing high net worth and ultra high net worth giving prepared for the Commonwealth Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Melbourne: Philanthropy Australia; 2011. 12 Philanthropy Australia. Philanthropy Australia member survey 2010 report. Melbourne: Philanthropy Australia; 2010. Available online at: http://philanthropywiki.org.au/index.php/Philanthropy_ Australia_Member_Survey_2010_Report [verified 18 March 2012]. 13 The Christensen Fund, Rio Tinto Aboriginal Fund, Greenstone Group. A worthwhile exchange: a guide to indigenous philanthropy. Melbourne: Rio Tinto Aboriginal Fund; 2010. Available online at: http://www.riotinto.com.au/documents/a_worth while_exchange_a_guide_to_indigenous_philanthropy.pdf [verified 18 March 2012]. 14 Anderson M, Curtin E. LLEAP 2012 survey report: schools, not-forprofits, philanthropic foundations and trusts in Australia: building knowledge to maximise the impact of philanthropy in education. Camberwell, Vic: ACER; 2012. 15 Donald K, Scaife W. Mapping Australia’s philanthropic investment in women and girls. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology; 2011. Available online at: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/49141/ [verified 12 March 2012].
304
Sexual Health
L. Gill-Atkinson et al.
16 Magnus SA. Barriers to foundation funding of gay organizations. J Homosex 2002; 42(2): 125–45. doi:10.1300/J082v42n02_07 17 Scaife W, Williamson A, McDonald K, Smyllie S. Foundations for giving: why and how Australians structure their philanthropy. Brisbane: The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology; 2012. 18 Bekkers R, Wiepking P. A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving.
Nonprofit Volunt Sector Q 2011; 40: 924–73. doi:10.1177/08997640 10380927 19 Ward D. Trustee handbook: roles & duties of trustees of charitable trusts & foundations in Australia, 2nd edn. Melbourne: Philanthropy Australia: 2013. Available online at: http://www.philanthropy.org.au/ tools-resources/publications/trustee-handbook-roles-and-duties-of-tru stees-of-charitable-trusts-and-foun/ [verified 10 April 2014].
www.publish.csiro.au/journals/sh
Sexual Health, 2014, 11, 298–304 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/SH13204
Sexual and reproductive health and philanthropic funding in Australia Liz Gill-Atkinson A,D, Cathy Vaughan A and Hennie Williams B,C A
Gender and Women’s Health Unit, Academic Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie St, Carlton, Vic. 3053, Australia. B Sexual Health Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie St, Carlton, Vic. 3053, Australia. C Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, 580 Swanston Street, Carlton, Vic. 3053, Australia. D Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Abstract. Background: Australia’s philanthropic sector is growing and could support efforts to improve sexual and reproductive health (SRH). However, philanthropy is often misunderstood in Australia and there is limited evidence of philanthropic support for SRH initiatives. Methods: We aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators to philanthropic funding of SRH initiatives in Australia. A qualitative approach was used and involved 13 in-depth interviews with professionals from the philanthropic sector, and from organisations and services involved in SRH. Results: Barriers to organisations in seeking philanthropic funding for SRH activities included insufficient resources for writing grant applications and the small financial value of philanthropic grants. Facilitators to seeking philanthropic funding for SRH included a perception that government funding is shrinking and that philanthropic research grants are less competitive than government grants. Philanthropic participants identified that barriers to funding SRH include the sensitive nature of SRH and the perceived conservative nature of philanthropy. Facilitators identified by these participants in supporting SRH initiatives included networking and relationships between grant-makers and grant-seekers. All participants agreed that philanthropy does and could have a role in funding SRH in Australia. Conclusions: The findings of this research suggest that barriers to philanthropic funding for SRH in Australia exist for organisations attempting to access philanthropic funding. Philanthropic organisations could provide more financial support to Australian SRH service providers, as happens in countries such as the United States and United Kingdom. Addressing these barriers and promoting the facilitators could lead to increased awareness of SRH by Australia’s philanthropic sector. Additional keywords: fundraising, philanthropy, private funding. Received 23 December 2013, accepted 19 May 2014, published online 11 August 2014
Introduction Globally, sexual and reproductive health (SRH) is considered to be a significant health, human rights and development issue. Funding from a range of sources, including philanthropy, supports improvements in SRH outcomes around the world. International studies highlight the role of philanthropy in supporting responses to HIV in particular,1,2 as well as the long and significant history of American philanthropic funding for domestic and international SRH initiatives.3–5 In Australia, increasing rates of early sexual activity, sexually transmissible infections, newly acquired HIV infection and high abortion rates disproportionately affect several populations.6 Research, capacity building, health promotion, service delivery, education and training initiatives are undertaken at local, state and national levels to improve SRH outcomes in Australia.6,7 State and federal governments provide most of the funding for these initiatives. However, decreased Journal compilation Ó CSIRO 2014
government funding for SRH research and services, in an environment of increasing need for SRH services and demand for evidence based-approaches,7 suggests that future government support for SRH may not be adequate. Philanthropy Australia (the peak national body for philanthropy) define philanthropy as ‘the planned and structured giving of time, information, goods and services, influence and voice as well as money to improve the wellbeing of humanity and the community.’8 In comparison to the United States and the United Kingdom, Australia’s philanthropic sector is small,9–11 less likely to support health and medical research in comparison to other giving causes9,10 and is not as well understood by the public. However, philanthropy in Australia is growing and is building an evidence base to inform its work. Philanthropy Australia collects annual statistics on philanthropic funding to program areas, including ‘Health, and/or medical research’.12 Although www.publish.csiro.au/journals/sh
Philanthropic sexual health funding in Australia
studies have explored philanthropic funding for certain issues, such as Indigenous affairs,13 education14 and philanthropic investment in women and girls,15 little in-depth analysis of philanthropic funding for health causes has been undertaken. Evidence of philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives is found on a case-by-case basis in the annual reports of philanthropic trusts and foundations and funding recipients. Australian researchers identify several barriers to individuals or organisations seeking funding from Australian philanthropic trusts and foundations. These include a limited understanding of philanthropic funding practices and a lack of awareness of philanthropic funding opportunities.9,10,13,14 In relation to Australian philanthropic funding for medical research and mental health initiatives, studies identified a perception that health initiatives should be funded by government, and a lack of awareness of health issues and areas of need by philanthropic funders.9,10 An American study16 exploring philanthropic funding for gay support organisations highlights additional barriers that may be of relevance to the Australian context. These include limited capacity to write grant applications, perceptions that SRH and HIV can be too controversial for traditional philanthropists and that the financial value of many philanthropic grants is not worth the resources required to submit funding applications. Factors that drive philanthropy by individuals in Australian17 and international contexts18 are well established, and may be relevant to the provision of funding through philanthropic trusts and foundations in Australia. This study aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators to philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives in Australia. In order to further explore this issue and the relevance of the factors identified in the literature, qualitative interviews were undertaken with 13 professionals from the philanthropic and SRH sectors. Methods A qualitative research design was used to elicit rich, detailed information. Six semistructured in-depth interviews were undertaken with philanthropic participants and seven interviews were undertaken with SRH participants. This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee for the School of Population Health at The University of Melbourne. There are ~5000 philanthropic trusts and foundations in Australia,8 which include foundations established by individuals, family foundations, community foundations, corporate foundations, government-initiated foundations and trustee companies.19 The six philanthropic participants represented a mix of individual, family and governmentinitiated foundations (established but not necessarily controlled by the government) based in Melbourne. SRH organisations ranged from small not-for-profit health promotion agencies and service providers to large research institutions within university settings. Participants were purposively identified through the first author’s networks in philanthropy and SRH, her supervisors’ (the second and third authors) networks, the networks of other research participants, the annual reports of philanthropic funders
Sexual Health
299
and SRH organisations who had received philanthropic grants, and an online search of SRH organisations and services. Potential participants were invited to participate in the study after direct contact by the first author or after an introduction to her by a third party (someone within the first author’s networks or another research participant). Two interview guides were developed for use in this study, one for philanthropic participants and one for SRH participants. The average interview length was 45 min. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Data analysis was conducted using an inductive thematic approach. All transcripts were read several times in order to gain familiarity with the content. Codes were generated from recurring ideas and mapped into a coding framework. The interview text was dissected into text segments, which were coded, collated and organised into themes. The themes were refined through an additional review of the transcripts. Results Five distinct, recurring themes were identified through data analysis: (1) facilitators to seeking philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives; (2) barriers to seeking philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives; (3) facilitators to funding SRH initiatives for philanthropic trusts and foundations; (4) barriers to funding SRH initiatives for philanthropic trusts and foundations and; (5) the role of philanthropy in supporting SRH in Australia. Table 1 displays an overview of the key findings relating to each theme with illustrative quotations. Discussion Factors that influence the decision to seek philanthropic funding Facilitators to seeking philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives SRH participants highlighted a range of factors that would encourage them to seek philanthropic funding. SRH participants who had received philanthropic funding highlighted the importance of organisational capacity to locate philanthropic funding opportunities, write grant applications and build relationships within the philanthropic sector. This mirrors the finding that a lack of organisational capacity is a barrier to seeking philanthropic funding. ‘Philanthropics will advertise you can apply for funding through philanthropic grants, and certainly we apply for those, and there’s a person who coordinates those.’ (SRH Participant 7) Occasionally, philanthropic grant-makers seek feedback on their funding strategies from organisations they may potentially fund. When SRH participants had been contacted in this manner, it was noted as an important facilitating factor to seeking philanthropic funding. Philanthropic participants also highlighted relationships and networking between grantmakers and grant-seekers as a key facilitator to funding SRH initiatives.
300
Sexual Health
L. Gill-Atkinson et al.
Table 1. Summary of results SRH, sexual and reproductive health Theme 1: Facilitators to seeking philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives Organisational capacity to respond to philanthropic funding opportunities Connection with a philanthropic trust or foundation Shrinking government funding Process perceived to be less competitive than for government research grants *
*
*
*
Theme 2: Barriers to seeking philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives Perception that SRH is well funded by the government Perception that philanthropy is viewed as conservative and inaccessible Small, short grants can be undesirable to grant seekers No organisational capacity to respond to funding opportunities Previous negative experiences when seeking philanthropic funding *
*
*
*
*
Theme 3: Facilitators to philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives Networking between and within philanthropic organisations, and between philanthropic organisations and grant seekers Tailoring SRH applications to align with funding priorities (e.g. activities or target groups) and downplaying SRH focus The role of philanthropic organisations to be risk takers *
*
*
Theme 4: Barriers to philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives Perception that philanthropy is conservative SRH is often viewed as sensitive, controversial or as a ‘women’s issue’ SRH is seen as the responsibility of the government Philanthropic sector lacks awareness of SRH issues in Australia *
*
*
*
Theme 5: The role of philanthropy in supporting SRH in Australia
‘Every day – I can’t remember her name – but there is a woman who chairs or coordinates it who will visit the various units ... and say “So what are your ideas that you would want me to put to the board of the foundation to seek funding?” And she will tell us whether she thinks it’s going to be interesting enough for them to fund it.’ (SRH Participant 6)
However, the perception that philanthropy is a favourable funding source contradicts participants’ positive perceptions on government funding, which had discouraged some SRH participants from considering philanthropic funding in the past.
SRH participants’ views regarding the future of government funding, government funding application processes and the government’s willingness to fund certain types of SRH initiatives also motivated the decision to seek philanthropic funding. SRH participants were concerned that future government funding for SRH is likely to decrease and may not meet future organisational needs, which would then prompt their organisation to consider philanthropic funding in the future.
In contrast with the abovementioned research findings, there was a general perception among SRH participants that government funding is adequate, familiar, evidence-based and expertise-driven, and is a favourable funding source in comparison to philanthropic funding. Although peer-reviewed government grants (such as those from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)) were viewed to be more prestigious by research-oriented SRH participants and more likely to enhance an individual’s professional status, this was not viewed as a direct barrier to seeking philanthropic funding, especially for early career researchers, who were thought to have less chance of securing competitive government research grants.
‘So as government money gets tighter (and it will continue to get tighter), the board were interested in looking at alternate revenue streams.’ (SRH Participant 13) SRH participants also felt that philanthropic research grants would be less competitive than government research grants, as they would involve less ‘red tape’ and were likely to have a less rigorous assessment process, improving the applicant’s chances of success. ‘The thing that attracts me to philanthropy is. . . I’m guessing it is probably less tedious than some of those other competitive research grants that we go for.’ (SRH Participant 7)
Barriers to seeking philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives
‘I mean... we wouldn’t worry that it sounds less prestigious. I don’t think it would be an issue whatsoever because it is what you do with the money... but I can imagine for a serious researcher who is dependent on grant money who [is] going up the research chain, which is very much an NHMRC ladder... they need to be getting NHMRC money for their CVs... But I think that we wouldn’t be that worried about that.’ (SRH Participant 6)
Philanthropic sexual health funding in Australia
Both SRH and philanthropic participants felt that philanthropy is often not well understood by grant-seekers, aligning with the findings of other Australian studies.10,13 Philanthropy is perceived as unapproachable and ‘at the top end of town’, and is thought to make conservative funding choices, electing to fund ‘nice projects’ instead of other initiatives, such as SRH. ‘Philanthropy is generally seen in this country as being quite conservative so that is probably one reason why they [those seeking funds for SRH] don’t come to philanthropy.’ (Philanthropic Participant 11) SRH and philanthropic participants also inferred that the size and the duration of philanthropic grants (perceived to be between A$5000 and A$20 000 for 1 year, despite larger grants often being available) are often unattractive to potential grant-seekers, as the resources required to write a grant application can outweigh the financial benefit of the grant. ‘Often, I look at them and think, oh, there is just not enough money to bother. Like if it is five grand or 10 grand or probably even if there is anything under 50 grand, I probably wouldn’t put one [an application] in.’ (SRH Participant 12) SRH participants also felt disconnected from the philanthropic sector and felt that they were ‘not moving in the right circles’. SRH participants described this as being due to a lack of organisational capacity for writing grant applications and, importantly, for investing time and resources into building and maintaining relationships with philanthropic trusts and foundations. This finding suggests that potential grant-seekers can be under-resourced to undertake philanthropic fundraising, viewed as a resource-intensive activity above and beyond writing grant applications. ‘It is also very much about capacity. If I had a grant writer, I would probably have someone doing more of that sort of stuff.’ (SRH Participant 10) In contradiction to the research finding that a connection with a philanthropic funder was a facilitator to seeking philanthropic funding for some participants, for other participants, previous interactions with philanthropic funders had acted as a barrier to seeking further philanthropic funding. These interactions included requests to change the design of a project, a low success rate with submitted applications; and inappropriate or inadequate feedback received regarding the outcome of unsuccessful funding applications. This finding aligned with an American study on philanthropic funding for gay support organisations,16 in which participants reported previous negative interactions with philanthropic grant-makers as a deterrent to seeking future philanthropic funding. ‘Well, they funded it but only for a very small amount of money, and I wouldn’t go back for more funding... We had to really change the
Sexual Health
301
brief a lot to make it fit and we did that because it was one of our first experiences, but I wouldn’t compromise like that again.’ (SRH Participant 13) Factors that influence the decision to fund SRH initiatives Facilitators to funding SRH initiatives for philanthropic participants Participants highlighted networking and relationships between and within philanthropic trusts and foundations, between philanthropic funders and grant-seekers, and between funders and influential peers or community members as instrumental to philanthropic support of SRH initiatives. Philanthropic participants had funded SRH initiatives presented by either another philanthropic grant-maker or an organisation with whom they have a relationship. Participants also noted that philanthropic funders can and do advocate to other grant-makers on behalf of specific initiatives. This aligns with the findings across Australian and international literature suggesting that the benefit of relationships and networks to securing philanthropic funding varies across a variety of contexts. ‘Yes we will take a role in inviting other funders. . . and we will provide some funds for the wrapping up of the projects as well.’ (Philanthropic Participant 11) ‘No, sex is fine, wait. . . On the wrong day, if you put the wrong thing in the title, we don’t do it but if it was, like, one of our favourite organisations. . . they would go OK.’ (Philanthropic Participant 8) How a funding application is presented, in relation to both the content and the channel through which the application is introduced to and within philanthropic trusts and foundations, can influence the outcome of a funding application. Although aligning an application to a trust or foundation’s funding priorities is crucial, SRH and philanthropic participants recalled instances where applicants were encouraged to submit an application focussing on generic activities such as ‘capacity building’, instead of describing a specific SRH project, or to omit detailed information about the SRH issues or outcomes in order to increase the application’s chance of success. ‘If we started to stipulate what it was about, then it starts to ruffle people’s feathers a little bit. . . If you talk about it in its broad sense. . . then people start to feel more comfortable with that.’ (Philanthropic Participant 1) Philanthropic participants who had previously funded or are currently funding SRH initiatives perceived that the role of philanthropy is to be a risk-taker, because, unlike government, philanthropic funders are not accountable to the public. These participants felt that recognition of this role by other funders could increase philanthropic awareness of and support for ‘sensitive’ and controversial issues, including
302
Sexual Health
SRH. However, this contradicts the general perception held by both SRH and philanthropic participants that the philanthropic sector is conservative and, as a result, is less inclined to fund SRH initiatives than other kinds of activities. ‘Self-image’, ‘values’ and ‘reputation’ are identified in the literature as mechanisms for charitable giving;18 however, as this study highlights, they can be both barriers and facilitators to Australian philanthropic funding for SRH. ‘We firmly believe the mantra you often hear: that the role of a philanthropic trust is to be a risk taker.’ (Philanthropic Participant 10) Barriers to funding SRH initiatives for philanthropic participants SRH and philanthropic participants identified a range of barriers for philanthropic funders to funding SRH initiatives. Both groups described negative perceptions, and a limited awareness and understanding of the other. The history of philanthropy (some philanthropic trusts and foundations were established in previous centuries, many by ‘establishment families’) has contributed to the perception that philanthropy is conservative by both SRH and philanthropic participants. The directors and trustees of philanthropic trusts and foundations were generally thought to be male, middle-aged or elderly and politically conservative. Philanthropy was also thought to be intensely personal and, as a result, directors and trustees would be more likely to fund issues with which they have an affinity or personal understanding, such as the arts, not SRH. Participants also suggested that there may be additional ‘benefits’ to funding the arts (such as access to events), which was also identified as a motivation for philanthropic giving in the literature.18 ‘They [the boards of trusts and foundations] are often made up of conservative members of the public and they are often older, so they have older generational, more conservative views anyway.’ (SRH Participant 9) Participants agreed that SRH is often viewed as a private, controversial or women’s issue, and as likely to be an uncomfortable topic of discussion for the directors or trustees of philanthropic funders and could therefore be seen as a risky or sensitive area to fund. However, some philanthropic participants noted that this had not prevented their trust or foundation from funding SRH initiatives in the past if the quality of the application was high, as ‘good applications get funded’. This finding aligns with international literature regarding philanthropic support of SRH,4 HIV and AIDS,1 and gay support organisations,16 as well as the findings that ‘self-image’, ‘reputation’ and ‘values’ are facilitators for philanthropic giving,18 suggesting the consistency of motivations for philanthropic giving across Western contexts. ‘My experience is that sexual and reproductive health funding is a very touchy area for some [philanthropic] organisations... I think that it can be an uncomfortable area for people.’ (Philanthropic Participant 1)
L. Gill-Atkinson et al.
SRH and philanthropic participants also observed that public health and, by association, SRH are often viewed by both funders and grant-seekers as the responsibility of the government. Participants noted that there is a general lack of awareness of SRH issues in Australia, which reflects the finding that ‘awareness of need’ is a prerequisite to charitable giving.15 ‘Certainly in public health, I think the expectation is the government funds, and that’s fair enough, too’ (Philanthropic Participant 5) A comparison of SRH issues in Australia to SRH issues in developing countries was also highlighted as a barrier by SRH and philanthropic participants, as it resulted in a perception that philanthropic funding would have a greater impact overseas than in Australia. These findings align with identified barriers to philanthropic support for mental health9 and medical research,10 suggesting a lack of philanthropic support for a broad spectrum of health initiatives in Australia. The perception that SRH is both well funded by and the responsibility of the government impact on the decision to both seek and provide philanthropic funding for SRH initiatives. This is unique to the Australian context and is the opposite to the United States, where a history of inadequate government funding for SRH and public health has led to a rich tradition of philanthropic support for this area.5 ‘So it [public health] is not a conversation that gets had in philanthropic circles I find, it is certainly not a conversation I am having.’ (Philanthropic Participant 8) A perceived role for philanthropy in supporting SRH in Australia Participants from both the SRH and philanthropic sectors felt that philanthropy does have a role in supporting SRH initiatives in Australia, but not to the exclusion of other issues and as part of an increase in philanthropic funding for public and preventative health. ‘Well, yes; yes, it does like with everything else, really. I mean, it is a huge issue. It is a great preventative strategy, you know, sexual health or, you know, emotional health that is related to sexual activities, reproductive health. I mean, the less children from 16-year-olds we have, the better... So yes, philanthropy does have a role in supporting SRH.’ (Philanthropic Participant 11) Both groups of participants defined this role as funding more creative or socially oriented interventions for supporting SRH (as conventional SRH activities are perceived to be well funded by government), supporting one-off and pilot projects or projects that complement existing initiatives funded by government and, as noted by SRH participants, by providing ‘substantial’ grants (e.g. A$100 000 per annum for several years). In relation to the specific SRH issues that
Philanthropic sexual health funding in Australia
philanthropy could support, SRH participants felt that philanthropic funding could support a range of areas within SRH, that reflected the breadth and diversity of their work. Philanthropic participants felt that funding interventions which address SRH issues affecting specific demographics, such as young people, Indigenous Australians, asylum seekers and refugees, could be more appealing for philanthropic funders. Prior to this study, there was limited available evidence to suggest that philanthropy does or should have an active role in funding SRH in Australia. The findings demonstrate a willingness by philanthropic participants to consider funding SRH initiatives and a willingness by SRH participants to consider seeking philanthropic funding. This research identified a range of factors that influence the philanthropic funding of SRH initiatives in Australia. Addressing the barriers and promoting the facilitators identified in this study may enable this role to grow. Conclusion This study, the first in-depth investigation of philanthropic funding for SRH in Australia, aimed to understand the factors that influence the provision of funding for SRH initiatives by Australian philanthropic trusts and foundations. This study addresses a significant gap in the literature, and highlights a set of factors that influence philanthropic funding for a range of issues across Western contexts and influence philanthropic funding for SRH in Australia. Globally (and, to a lesser extent, in Australia), very few philanthropic trusts and foundations have defined SRH funding priorities. However, cross-sectoral understanding and awareness of needs and priorities, the presence of relationships and networks among sectors, and an understanding of how philanthropic funding can complement government funding have been shown to influence philanthropic funding for SRH, both in Australia and in other Western contexts. This study has the potential to facilitate increased awareness and understanding of SRH issues and areas of need among Australian philanthropic funders. It can also promote an understanding of philanthropic funding to those seeking and considering seeking philanthropic funding for SRH. Potential limitations of this study include the breadth and diversity of activities and issues encompassed under the umbrella of SRH, and that philanthropic participants represent only three types of philanthropic funders in Australia. Additional research with participants working on one specific SRH issue, such as STI prevention, or with participants from a wider range of philanthropic funders would better enhance understanding of philanthropic funding practices in Australia. Conflicts of interest None declared. Acknowledgements The authors thank the research participants and all those who provided advice and support throughout the implementation of this study.
Sexual Health
303
References 1 Funders Concerned About AIDS (FCAA). Global philanthropic HIV/ AIDS funding organisations. Washingtong DC, FCAA; 2009. Available online at: http://www.fcaaids.org/OurWork/Resource Tracking/GlobalWorkingGroup/tabid/191/Default.aspx [verified 28 March 2012]. 2 Joint United Nations Program on AIDS (UNAIDS). Press release: new reports show philanthropic funding for AIDS down at pivotal moment in the response. Geneva: UNAIDS; 2011. Available online at: http:// www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/pressreleaseandstatement archive/2011/november/20111110prphilanthropicfunding/ [verified 9 March 2012]. 3 McNally L, Pine R. Partnering to advance public health: a foundation supports public programs. Health Aff 2009; 28: 578–83. doi:10.1377/ hlthaff.28.2.578 4 Ford Foundation. Issue overview: sexuality and reproductive rights. New York: Ford Foundation; 2013. Available online at: http://www. fordfoundation.org/issues/sexuality-and-reproductive-health-and-rights [verified 19 March 2013]. 5 Meyer C, Seims S. The unique role of U.S. foundations in international family planning and reproductive health. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2010; 19: 2125–32. doi:10.1089/jwh.2010.2061 6 O’Rourke K. Time for a national sexual and reproductive health strategy for Australia: background Paper. Curtin, ACT: Public Health Association of Australia, Sexual Health & Family Planning Australia, Australian Reproductive Health Alliance; 2008. Available online at: http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/SRH_background_ paper.pdf [verified 19 March 2013]. 7 Sexual Health and Family Planning Australia (SH&FPA). Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Research Roundtable. Canberra: SH&FPA; 2013. Available online at: http://www.shfpa.org.au/sites/ shfpa.drupalgardens.com/files/201306/RR%20Report.pdf [verified 10 April 2014]. 8 Philanthropy Australia. Sector overview. Melbourne: Philanthropy Australia; 2013. Available online at: http://www.philanthropy.org.au/ tools-resources/sector-overview/ [verified 11 June 2014]. 9 Scott D. Mental health research and philanthropy: possible partnerships? Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2005; 39: 31–5. doi:10.1080/j.14 40-1614.2005.01508.x 10 McGregor-Lowndes M, Scaife W. Of droughts and flooding plains: philanthropy for health and medical research. Med J Aust 2008; 188: 631–2. 11 Philanthropy Australia. Strategies for increasing high net worth and ultra high net worth giving prepared for the Commonwealth Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Melbourne: Philanthropy Australia; 2011. 12 Philanthropy Australia. Philanthropy Australia member survey 2010 report. Melbourne: Philanthropy Australia; 2010. Available online at: http://philanthropywiki.org.au/index.php/Philanthropy_ Australia_Member_Survey_2010_Report [verified 18 March 2012]. 13 The Christensen Fund, Rio Tinto Aboriginal Fund, Greenstone Group. A worthwhile exchange: a guide to indigenous philanthropy. Melbourne: Rio Tinto Aboriginal Fund; 2010. Available online at: http://www.riotinto.com.au/documents/a_worth while_exchange_a_guide_to_indigenous_philanthropy.pdf [verified 18 March 2012]. 14 Anderson M, Curtin E. LLEAP 2012 survey report: schools, not-forprofits, philanthropic foundations and trusts in Australia: building knowledge to maximise the impact of philanthropy in education. Camberwell, Vic: ACER; 2012. 15 Donald K, Scaife W. Mapping Australia’s philanthropic investment in women and girls. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology; 2011. Available online at: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/49141/ [verified 12 March 2012].
304
Sexual Health
L. Gill-Atkinson et al.
16 Magnus SA. Barriers to foundation funding of gay organizations. J Homosex 2002; 42(2): 125–45. doi:10.1300/J082v42n02_07 17 Scaife W, Williamson A, McDonald K, Smyllie S. Foundations for giving: why and how Australians structure their philanthropy. Brisbane: The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology; 2012. 18 Bekkers R, Wiepking P. A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving.
Nonprofit Volunt Sector Q 2011; 40: 924–73. doi:10.1177/08997640 10380927 19 Ward D. Trustee handbook: roles & duties of trustees of charitable trusts & foundations in Australia, 2nd edn. Melbourne: Philanthropy Australia: 2013. Available online at: http://www.philanthropy.org.au/ tools-resources/publications/trustee-handbook-roles-and-duties-of-tru stees-of-charitable-trusts-and-foun/ [verified 10 April 2014].
www.publish.csiro.au/journals/sh
