Hello, everyone! I’m Colleen, and this is my first post for the SAFER blog. I’ve been a SAFER volunteer for the past six months, but I’m just now joining the intrepid team of bloggers and I’m excited to contribute!

Sarah’s recent post about the elimination of funding for sexual violence prevention and services in the 2011 NYC budget is a distressing reminder of just how precarious public funding can be. Though programs that provide all kinds of vital services to women, people of color, and low-income folks often  rely heavily on government funding, these kinds of services are frequently the first to be reduced or cut when city and state governments struggle with revenue shortfalls.  While it’s crucial that policymakers and legislators learn that this is, in fact, not a cost-effective or efficient practice (in the case of sexual and domestic violence, the costs of lost wages,  medical care, and emergency services make it much wiser for communities to invest in preventing such crimes than to save a few dollars in the short term), it’s clear that there is and will continue to be a need for private funding. Plus, grantmaking foundations have power and influence not just at the practical level of support, but also at a systemic level. The organizations that foundations choose to fund become leaders in their fields, and the tools and methods those recipients employ, as well as their  beliefs about how to make change, influence standards and practices. It’s crucial that the expertise and insights of practitioners and activists are heard, understood, and acted upon by institutions that want to support efforts to combat sexual violence — otherwise, those philanthropic dollars aren’t going to do as much good as they could.

A new report from the Ms. Foundation for Women, “Efforts to Address Gender-Based Violence: A Look at Foundation Funding” tracks and analyzes funding to combat both domestic violence and sexual assault (gender-based violence is the umbrella term used to indicate both) from 1994 through 2008. This timeframe begins with the  enactment of the federal Violence Against Women Act, which significantly increased federal funding for anti-violence programs, “transform[ing| what was a scattered presence of shelters and programs into a more cohesive safety net for women throughout the country,” according to the report. Though this result is, of course, a real victory,  the report notes that the resulting reliance on government funding leaves the anti-violence sector “extremely vulnerable to budget cuts” (as we’ve just seen in NYC). Since the onset of the economic crisis, supplementing (and replacing) public funding has become increasingly critical, and the Ms. report  offers a really useful snapshot of the current state of foundation funding and how it can be improved.

Encouragingly, the report found significant increases in both the number of foundations supporting gender-based anti-violence work (from 19% of the foundations surveyed by the Foundation Center in 1994  to 32% in 2008) and in the actual dollars going to gender-based violence programs. After adjusting for inflation, the data reveals that total funding more than tripled between 1994 and 2008 (from $23,869,610 to $80,333,827) and that the number of grants went from 417 to 1,451. Unfortunately, the report also identifies a gap between domestic violence and sexual assault, in terms of both funding and attention:

A number of practitioners pointed out the increased difficulty of obtaining funding for sexual assault services, as differentiated from domestic violence programming. One organization that provides both domestic violence and sexual assault services said that its domestic violence programs received significantly more foundation funding and noted that foundations “seem to understand the dynamics (of domestic violence) better.” Some expressed doubt that all funders understand the difference between sexual assault and domestic violence. One thought that domestic violence funding is more palatable to conservative funders because it can be seen as an issue within the family, whereas sexual assault is “the violence people do not want to talk about.” Others pointed out the increased need for foundation funding for sexual assault by noting that state funding also tends to focus on domestic violence.

Sadly, these responses remind us that the stigma associated with sexual assault and victimization remains very  real, and the resulting unease around discussing the dynamics, causes, and ramifications of sexual assault is a major obstacle to addressing and preventing it.

Of course, combating this stigma is linked to a broader need to transform cultural norms around violence and sexuality. When SAFER talks about primary prevention, we’re talking about the need to change the behaviors and beliefs of the people who commit sexual assault, and that’s a project that requires a commitment to long-term, systemic change that goes beyond serving those who’ve been victimized and helping women reduce their likelihood of being assaulted. It’s probably not a surprise that this kind of work is another key area the report identifies as needing increased attention from foundations. Those working on both domestic violence and sexual assault described  policy work, advocacy, and social change as an area in need of more sustained funding. Encouragingly, the handful of foundations with which Ms. conducted in-depth interviews demonstrated an understanding of and commitment to advocacy work — suggesting that while this kind work may take longer to show measurable results, there are funders who understand systemic change to be part of their mission.

The report identifies other funding gaps (sadly but unsurprisingly, programs that serve women of color, Native Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people, and women with disabilities are high up on the list of underfunded areas) and suggests practical ways to address them. On the whole, it’s a fantastic resource for folks working in the field and for foundations who want to combat violence  against women. Beyond the data analysis, there are a number of concrete recommendations that should spark productive conversations inside the funding community and among funders and recipients. Check out the full document on the Ms. Foundation website.