Editor’s Note: Dear Readers, Please allow me to introduce our newest writer, David L. Jaffe. David is a fellow social worker, environmentalist, and an all-around great human. He has joined our small pool of male allies writing for Philanthropy Women. Please welcome David and give him lots of love for taking on the ultimate uphill battle by becoming a writer-activist feminist in these ultra-regressive times. I am confident David’s perceptive and insightful ways will contribute handily to Philanthropy Women’s discourse about women donors and their allies.
“Location, location, location”—it matters! Not just in the context of real estate but in the context of women’s health. Where you live in this country, the state you reside in, has a direct bearing on your overall health (both physical and mental); the care and support you can expect to receive; the accessibility and cost of that care; your reproductive rights and maternal care; and even the number of local health and wellness charities providing services and advocacy.
SmileHub, which bills itself as “a nonprofit tech company that uses data to rate charities,” recently conducted an analysis in which it “compared each of the 50 states based on 18 key metrics…[ranging] from the maternal mortality rate to the quality of women’s hospitals to the affordability of a doctor’s visit.” Their goal was “to highlight the best states for women’s health and the ones that need to improve the most.”
The top state? Massachusetts! Followed in order by Hawaii, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey. The state needing the most improvement? Oklahoma. Followed in reverse order by Arkansas, Nevada, Mississippi, and Texas.
In general, the northeastern states fared best in the SmileHub rankings, while the southern states fared more poorly. Not entirely a surprise, given longstanding statewide and regional disparities in public and private investment that goes towards supporting women’s health and wellbeing—or supporting any who might be marginalized or neglected due to their gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or economic circumstances. Where you live matters, in myriad ways.
For donors, the varied landscape raises questions and presents challenges. Not just regarding who and what to support—especially during these regressive and polarized times—but where to allocate that support, where to devote precious resources to effect the greatest potential change (or prevent the greatest potential harm).
Do you look beyond your own state or community, or keep it more local? Do you favor places where there is a stronger culture of giving and a more established charitable infrastructure, or do you consider locales without such a solid foundation? Do you shy away from states where elected officials routinely limit support for those in need and fail to prioritize the public good, for fear of enabling their miserliness and indifference? Or do you overlook such institutional harshness and focus your philanthropy on those who have the least voice and might most benefit from it, regardless of geography and politics?
It’s a personal choice, in some measure. But also an economic and political calculation. So consider the data. Because the one state where it does no good to reside is the state of ignorance.
