Human rights funding pivots in crisis: Tradeoffs, gaps, and lessons learned 

The landscape of human rights funding fundamentally changed in 2020. Human Rights Funders Network’s (HRFN) new report, Advancing Human Rights: Annual Review of Global Foundation Grantmaking – 2020 Key Findingsⁱ, explores the critical question: How did human rights funders respond to the global pandemic and calls for racial justice?ⁱⁱ   

Based on an analysis of over 28,000 grants from 761 funders in 51 countries, our findings capture a pivotal moment for human rights philanthropy. In a field not known for agility, funders moved significant resources quickly and on a massive scale. There were also tradeoffs, funding gaps and disparities, and lessons learned for future crises. 

The tradeoff of crisis response human rights funding

Global human rights funding reached a record $4.9 billion in 2020, a 21% increase over 2019. Of the additional $800 million, 43% ($348 million) explicitly addressed the pandemic—but there were tradeoffs: Many grants shifted from supporting long-term systemic change to addressing emergency needs like food security and housing. The report emphasizes the importance of developing comprehensive strategies to balance urgent crisis response with sustained efforts for long-term social change.  

Disparities—and hope—in funding for the Global South and East 

The increase in human rights funding did not benefit all regions equally: A disproportionately small share (17%) of funding supported human rights in the Global South and Eastⁱⁱⁱ, with only 58% of these funds granted to organizations there, down from 64% in 2019. By contrast, 99% of funds for the Global North^iv went to groups based there. These disparities highlight a trust gap in philanthropy that hinders the ability of social movements in the Global South and East to drive change on their own terms. 

That said, funders from the Global South and East significantly increased their grantmaking, asserting their role in the funding ecosystem and, in particular, reaching local and national social movements. Between 2017 and 2020, the total number of grants from 11 of the largest funders more than tripled, reaching 2,347. This surge suggests greater access to resources and strengthened capacity among regional and national funders—a vital proximity and well-documented boost to locally led solutions. Global North foundations that are members of three major human rights networks (HRFN, Ariadne, and Prospera) also increased their proportion of direct funding to the Global South and East by 8%. 

Racial justice and intersectionality: A complex picture 

Global funding for racial and ethnic groups^v increased by a remarkable 67% in 2020 as foundations shifted priorities, expanding grants in response to movements for racial justice. However, many have raised concerns that funding for racial justice has since dwindled.  

Even as racial justice funding rose overall, support for cross-movement work declined by 10%. Racial and ethnic groups were the only population that saw a decline in funding for intersectional identities.^vi This is particularly troubling given the growing recognition of the interconnectedness of race, class, disability, gender, and other factors that affect human rights. Only 28% of human rights grants consider more than one identity, indicating limited progress in intersectional funding^vii over the past three years. In a year marked by heightened intersectional activism, the predominance of single-issue funding highlights a critical gap.  

Flexible funding: A persistent gap 

Unrestricted funding remained surprisingly scarce in the context of a global health crisis. While human rights funders provide a higher proportion of flexible support than other subsectors, only 27% of grant dollars were unrestricted in 2020, largely unchanged since 2016. What’s more, access to such grants varies widely by region.  

Just over a quarter of the funding for North America and Latin America and the Caribbean went directly to groups based in these regions as flexible funding, compared with a mere 6% for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. These disparities underscore the challenges organizations faced in accessing the flexible resources necessary to respond to the pandemic. 

Lessons for philanthropy 

Human rights funders faced a reckoning in 2020. While they played a critical role in scaling up resources, it was the frontline movements that truly rose to the challenge. Their tireless work—addressing health, poverty, and the compounding effects of shutdowns—demonstrated their vital role in protecting and promoting human rights. 

The lessons learned underscore the need for funders to prioritize flexible funding mechanisms and dismantle barriers, eliminate racial and regional disparities in grant distribution, and prioritize intersectional funding—to support movements that cut across issues and communities making deep and lasting change. 

ⁱ We conduct our Advancing Human Rights research in partnership with Candid, Ariadne–European Funders for Social Change and Human Rights, and Prospera International Network of Women’s Funds.

ⁱⁱ The pandemic significantly delayed the availability of grants data from both funders and government sources. Only now do we have the full picture of field-wide grants awarded in 2020. Read more from Candid on how the pandemic created a social sector data gap.

ⁱⁱⁱ Seventeen percent ($850 million) of human rights funding is designated to benefit the Global South and East, whether or not it is granted there directly. Of this amount, 13% ($113 million) also supports initiatives in the Global North.

^iv For this analysis, the Global North includes Western Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States, and the Global South and East includes all other countries.

^v This includes people of African, Asian, Latin American, and Middle Eastern descent outside of majority contexts. Indigenous peoples are represented in a separate category in our research.

^vi We map funding for nine populations in our analysis. In addition to racial and ethnic groups, these include children and youth, human rights defenders, Indigenous peoples, LGBTQI people, migrants and refugees, persons with disabilities, sex workers, and women and girls. 

^vii “More than one identity” refers to the nine populations included in our analysis.