No result found
Funders for LGBTQ Issues;
In 2018, Funders for LGBTQ Issues set out to survey the board and staff of foundations in order to identify how many LGBTQ people worked in philanthropy — which resulted in The Philanthropic Closet: LGBTQ People in Philanthropy.
In designing the survey, we realized that we had an opportunity to not only ask about sexual orientation and gender identity but also to inquire about a range of personal identifiers. With the inaugural Diversity Among Philanthropic Professionals (DAPP) Survey, we asked participants to identify their role within their foundation, their age, gender identity, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, and disability status. This report lays out the results of the DAPP survey in aggregate form.
Produced in partnership with CHANGE Philanthropy and Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy (EPIP), the report and accompanying infographic explore diversity in the philanthropic workforce. Overall, the report finds a statistically significant difference between funders with a social justice focus and all other funders. Social justice funders were much more likely to have higher representation of LGBTQ people, people of color, and people with disabilities.
The report finds:
People of color accounted for 37.8 percent of people on the staff or board of participating foundations.
However, the percentage varied depending on a foundation's focus. People of color made up 45.6 percent of the staff and board at foundations with a social justice focus, while they accounted for 33.0 percent of staff and board at foundations with another focus.
While women accounted for nearly 70 percent of the staff and board at all participating foundations, only 44 percent of board members were women.
Nearly half of women at foundations with a social justice focus were women of color; only a third of women at foundations with another focus were women of color.
Among lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in philanthropy, 43.1 percent of those at foundations with a social justice focus were people of color, compared to one-third of those at foundations with another focus.
Among transgender people, 57.1 percent of transgender people at foundations with a social justice focus were people of color, while 25 percent of transgender people at foundations with another focus were people of color.
At foundations with a social justice focus, people with disabilities made up 8.8 percent of staff and boards, compared to 4.8 percent at foundations with another focus.
Across all participating foundations, 10.3 percent of staff and board were born outside of the United States.
European Foundation Centre (EFC);
30 years. 30 contributors. 30 takes on the future of philanthropy.
With so many complex and urgent challenges facing contemporary society, clearly treading water isn't enough. How can philanthropy adapt to tackle these challenges head on? How can the EFC be the catalyst in this process?The answers to these questions are going to be critical.This commemorative book, marking 30 years since the establishment of the European Foundation Centre, turns to some of the most influential thought leaders on philanthropy from around the world to have their say on the future of the EFC and the wider philanthropic sector.
Carnegie Corporation of New York;
There is a new urgency today for American philanthropies to protect the right to vote for all eligible citizens. The philanthropic community has worked alongside the government to protect these rights for decades, but since a 2013 Supreme Court ruling eliminated key parts of the Voting Rights Act, there has been a dramatic increase across the country in barriers to voting. These new barriers often disproportionately affect low-income voters, rural voters, communities of color, young people, and people with disabilities.
American philanthropies now have an opportunity to protect and strengthen U.S. democracy by providing badly needed investments in the country's voting infrastructure, paying attention to these issues beyond election time, and joining with others to support litigation against illegal voting barriers.
Sillerman Center for the Advancement of Philanthropy;
Social Justice Funders Spotlights present stories of innovative, effective social justice philanthropy in action. Each spotlight focuses upon a grantmaker and a grantee.
Disability Rights FundThis spotlight is part of Sillerman's Participatory Grantmaking project.
Native Americans in Philanthropy;
From 2002 to 2016, large U.S. foundations gave, on average, 0.4 percent of total annual funding to Native American communities and causes, although the Alaska Native and American Indian population represents 2 percent of the total U.S. population. This report provides the latest data on foundation funding for Native Americans, alongside important historical context that has contributed to the unique experiences and challenges Native Americans face today. The report also consolidates advice and feedback from philanthropic and Native leaders, who reflect on successful work and practices in partnering with Native organizations and communities.
Los Angeles County Arts Commission;
In 2018, the LA County Dept of Arts and Culture implemented a new eligibility requirement to its Organizational Grant Program. Applicants must submit a statement, policy, or plan outlining their commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and access (DEI). This analysis of the statements, policies, and plans submitted for the 2019-21 grant cycle finds that while nearly all applicants used the term diversity, they defined it and used it in different ways. Some applicants described their commitment to DEI by indicating how many of various race and ethnicity or gender categories they had on their board, in their staff, or among their artists. Other applicants addressed questions of diversity as they related to the organization's historical work around equity and inclusion. In some cases, applicant organizations demonstrated a long-standing commitment to addressing these issues in specific communities. This report concludes with a series of recommendations to arts and other nonprofits seeking to deepen their work, and recommendations for how the Dept of Arts and Culture can continue to improve implementation of this requirement.
Rutgers University Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy;
For more than a decade, states and cities across the country have served a leadership role in advancing science-informed climate policy through city, state and multi-state efforts. The rapid pace by which state climate policy is emerging is evidenced by the number of new laws, directives and policies adopted in 2018 and the first half of 2019 alone. Currently, there is an active ongoing dialogue across the U.S. regarding the intersection of climate and equity objectives with efforts targeted at addressing needs of disadvantaged communities and consumers. This climate/equity intersection is due to several factors, including recognition by many cities and states that climate change is and will continue to have a disproportionate impact on certain populations and will exacerbate existing stressors faced by disadvantaged communities and consumers. Research indicates that a greater proportion of environmental burden exists in geographic areas with majority populations of people of color, low-income residents, and/or indigenous people. It is well known that certain households (including some that are low-income, African American, Latino, multi-family and rural) spend a larger portion on their income on home energy costs. States and stakeholders are realizing that a transition to a low-carbon future by mid-century will require significantly increased participation of disadvantaged communities and households in the benefits of climate and clean energy programs.
Institute for Transportation and Development Policy;
While momentum in recent decades has elevated bus rapid transit (BRT) as more than an emerging mode in the U.S., this high-capacity, high-quality bus-based mass transit system remains largely unfamiliar to most Americans. In the U.S., lack of clarity and confusion around what constitutes BRT stems both from its relatively low profile (most Americans have never experienced BRT) and its vague and often conflicting sets of definitions across cities, sectors, and levels of government. As a result, many projects that would otherwise be labeled as bus improvements or bus priority under international standards have become branded in American cities as BRT. This leads to misperceptions among U.S. decisionmakers and the public about what to expect from BRT. Since its inception in Curitiba, Brazil, BRT has become a fixture of urban transport systems in more than 70 cities on six continents throughout the globe. Just twelve BRT corridors exist in the United States so far.
This guide offers proven strategies and insights for successfully implementing BRT within the political, regulatory, and social context that is unique to the United States. This guide seeks to illuminate the upward trends and innovations of BRT in U.S. cities. Through three in-depth case studies and other examples, the guide shares the critical lessons learned by several cities that have successfully implemented, or are in the midst of completing, their own BRT corridors. Distinct from previous BRT planning and implementation guides, this is a practical resource to help planners, and policy makers specifically working within the U.S. push beyond the parameters of bus priority and realize the comprehensive benefits of true BRT.
In 2015, familiar threats to human rights and human rights philanthropy continued. As conflicts persisted in countries like Syria, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic, the number of refugees fleeing violence and hunger soared. Extremist groups perpetrated mass violence from Nigeria and Egypt, to Kenya and France, including the targeted killing of staff from the French magazine Charlie Hedbo. Threats to closing civic space intensified as more countries adopted laws targeting and restricting organizations that work to hold governments accountable, including the funders that back them, often under the pretext of counterterrorism.
Despite these many concerns, we saw inspiring advances for human rights around the world across a range of issues. Women in Saudi Arabia voted and stood for election for the very first time, and the governments of the Gambia and Nigeria outlawed female genital mutilation. The Supreme Court in the United States legalized same sex marriage, while the Irish people did so through a historic popular vote. Cuba and the U.S. restored diplomatic ties after more than five decades, and Iran signed a deal to curb its nuclear program. At the end of the year, nearly 200 countries reached the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change to mitigate global warming.
Against this backdrop, in 2015 foundations allocated a total of $2.4 billion in support of human rights.
CGIAR Research Program on Fish Agri-Food Systems;
People who rely on a natural resource should be central to decisions about how that resource is used and managed. This principle is at the core of community-based resource management (CBRM) and other forms of collaborative management or co-management. CBRM aims for high levels of resource-user participation in decision-making and in managing resources. In practice, however, different social groups experience collaborative management approaches differently (Evans et al. 2011). The processes and outcomes of collaborative management can preferentially benefit (Cinner et al. 2012) or disadvantage (Béné et al. 2009) certain sectors of society and can also exacerbate existing power imbalances and lead to elite capture (Béné et al. 2009; Cinner et al. 2012) in which public resources are managed in a way that benefit a few individuals of superior social status to the detriment of the larger population. They may also inadvertently exclude or marginalize women (or other groups) from decision-making processes and from the resources they rely upon (Kleiber et al. 2015; Vunisea 2008). When management partners or facilitators engage communities, they must use deliberate, thoughtful and reflexive strategies to reduce the risk of exacerbating existing power imbalances (Schwarz et al. 2014). This brief draws upon lessons and experience from across the Pacific region, where there is a long history of community-based approaches to address fisheries and marine resource management (e.g. Johannes 1982). The region also has decades of national programming (e.g. King and Faasili 1998; Raubani et al. 2017), relatively recent high level recognition (Secretariat of the Pacific Community 2015) and widespread interest in spreading and improving these approaches (Govan et al. 2009). This brief helps facilitators use, reflect on, and adapt gender-inclusive strategies in their work with communities. It aims to increase the frequency and quality of strategies used to reach women, men, youths and other social groups in the preparation, design, implementation and adaptation stages of CBRM. While the advice here is prepared with the Pacific island countries and community-based fisheries and marine resource management specifically in mind, some elements are more broadly applicable and also reflected in extensive experiences and feminist research from other agricultural and development sectors. We focus on gender-inclusive strategies facilitators can use when working with communities. When used thoughtfully as part of a larger cycle of gender-aware reflection on the equity of the process, the strategies are meant to enable gender-equitable participation in CBRM discussions, negotiation, planning and decision-making processes. This is not a step-by-step manual on "how to do gender" or a recipe that will guarantee equitable processes or outcomes. While gender-inclusive facilitation or practice has multiple dimensions, in this brief we refer to this in shorthand as "reaching" women and men (See 'Reach' Figure 2). We begin by highlighting what it means to "equitably reach" women and men—or, in other words, being gender-inclusive in facilitation and who is responsible for doing this
In this report, we present a summary of our findings, which we hope will contribute to depicting the funding landscape for CSOs in Latin America. We do so with the ambition of stimulating debates based on empirical evidence, rethinking civil society funding practices and promoting actions that democratise access to predictable flows of resources to strengthen the autonomy, sustainability and diversity of civil society.
Provides background research about the current state of physical activity in the nation and highlights organizational practices and public policies to improve physical activity among children and youth. The report serves as a launching pad for action for practitioners and advocates who are interested in engaging in systems and environmental change approaches in four key arenas: schools, early childcare and education settings, out-of-school-time programs, and communities.
Commissioned by the Convergence Partnership, a national collaborative of health funders in the U.S., the report was informed by research and key informant interviews. Reflecting the Convergence Partnership's vision, the report's analysis of policy opportunities at the federal, state and local level emphasizes ways to ensure that health equity is at the forefront of collaborative efforts.
This document is part of a larger strategy to identify high-impact approaches that will move the Convergence Partnership closer to the vision of healthy people in healthy places. In addition to this document, the Partnership has released other policy briefs on topics such as the built environment and access to healthy food.