Sexual and reproductive health and philanthropic funding in Australia
Liz Gill-Atkinson A D , Cathy Vaughan A and Hennie Williams B CA 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: liz.gill-atkinson@unimelb.edu.au
Sexual Health 11(4) 298-304 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH13204
Submitted: 23 December 2013 Accepted: 19 May 2014 Published: 11 August 2014
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.
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/ResourceTracking/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/pressreleaseandstatementarchive/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.
| Partnering to advance public health: a foundation supports public programs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[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.
| The unique role of U.S. foundations in international family planning and reproductive health.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[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.
| Mental health research and philanthropy: possible partnerships?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15660703PubMed |
[10] McGregor-Lowndes M, Scaife W. Of droughts and flooding plains: philanthropy for health and medical research. Med J Aust 2008; 188 631–2.
| 18513170PubMed |
[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_worthwhile_exchange_a_guide_to_indigenous_philanthropy.pdf [verified 18 March 2012].
[14] Anderson M, Curtin E. LLEAP 2012 survey report: schools, not-for-profits, 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].
[16] Magnus SA. Barriers to foundation funding of gay organizations. J Homosex 2002; 42 125–45.
| Barriers to foundation funding of gay organizations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[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.
| A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[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-trustees-of-charitable-trusts-and-foun/ [verified 10 April 2014].
