Should some philanthropists give countercyclically?

Typically, philanthropic funds are invested in stocks, so their valuations go up and down with the stock market. But when the economy crashes, that's when a lot of cause areas get worse. For example, a decline in global trade may reduce economic opportunities for people in low and middle-income countries and thus increase poverty—making it more urgent to spend on cash transfers and the like. In the animal welfare space, it's been noted that demand for alternative proteins has fallen in the United States, coinciding with inflation and decreased purchasing power among consumers. Plus, people might be less willing to donate to charities when the economy is not doing well. All of this makes philanthropic spending more urgent during an economic crisis—but at the same time, most philanthropists will have fewer resources to give.

So does it make sense for philanthropic giving to increase countercyclically, at least for some philanthropists? Are they already doing some version of this?