« June 2020 | Main | August 2020 »

12 posts from July 2020

Washington mascot change is a reminder why you should learn about Native communities

July 31, 2020

Mockup-3942f2f1_largeRecently, the NFL team in Washington announced that it is retiring the R*dsk*ns name and logo. We are encouraged by the announcement and remain cautiously optimistic as we wait for the the franchise to select a new permanent name and logo devoid of any Native branding or imagery.

Many have pointed out that the announcement is due to the financial pressure exerted by retailers pulling team merch from their shops and by the team's financial partners publicly calling on it to change its name and branding. That's only half the story.

In the wake of the senseless deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and countless others, the country finds itself in the middle of a political and social uprising. The Black Lives Matter movement has catalyzed a reexamination of the many ways we've allowed racism and white supremacy to permeate every aspect of modern life.

The retirement of the Washington football team's blatantly racist logo sends a message that the dehumanization of any group of people will no longer be tolerated. The momentum created by the Black Lives Matter movement carried us over the goal line, but we cannot ignore the decades of work by Indigenous activists, researchers, and organizations to address head-on the issue of Native American mascots.

For funders, the conversations happening across the country about the retirement of the mascot represent a crucial opportunity to learn about Native communities. As the research shows, one of the harmful effects of Native-specific sports mascots is the misunderstanding they create about Native communities and cultures among non-Native people. When the diversity of hundreds of distinct Native Nations and cultures are reduced to a handful of team names and logos, it undermines our efforts to educate philanthropy and the broader public about who we really are.

Philanthropy can provide an important education and learning platform for others to push back on these harmful stereotypes. We encourage you to visit Investing in Native Communities, a joint project of Native Americans in Philanthropy and Candid. The "Native 101" section of the site provides several tools intended to deepen your understanding about Indigenous peoples, their history, and their resiliency. It also provides case studies detailing good practices in investing in Indigenous-led initiatives and programs.

It's not enough to simply retire a mascot and a team name. Sharing the truth about Native American history and contemporary cultures is critical to any advocacy on behalf of Native communities. Yes, the most egregious of these mascots has been relegated to the dustbin of history, but it still leaves hundreds of professional, university, and high school teams and institutions with logos based on Native American stereotypes. As the nation continues down the path of racial reckoning, conversations and the sharing of learnings with those outside our communities is what will turn action into systemic, long-term change.

______

This post originally was published on the Native Americans in Philanthropy website and is reprinted here with the permission of NAP. 

Women and the changing face of philanthropy

July 29, 2020

Women_high_fives_GettyImages_PhilanTopicAs the current global public health crisis galvanizes people to give, women are well positioned to accelerate changes in the philanthropic landscape that are already in motion.

According to Giving USA's recently published Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2019, charitable giving in America totaled nearly $450 billion in 2019, the second-highest total ever (adjusted for inflation) and a 4.2-percent increase from 2018.

And while conventional wisdom might have predicted a decline in giving over the first three months of 2020 due to COVID-19, the pandemic has actually motivated Americans to give at a rate higher than seen in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and after the 9/11 attacks. Further evidence of Americans' generosity was provided by Fidelity Charitable, which released a report in June showing that grant awards from its donor-advised funds since the beginning of the year totaled some $3.4 billion, up 28 percent over the six-month period in 2019.

Another survey, this one conducted by the Community Foundations Public Awareness Initiative, found an 80 percent year-over-year increase in gifts to thirty-two community foundations from March to May 2020.

"Before the pandemic started, women were increasing their giving and broadening beyond what they might normally support," Jennifer Alcorn, deputy director of philanthropic partnerships for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, told Forbes. "From research and development, local food banks, giving direct relief to families across the country, to global health — women are a driving force behind the increase in giving we're seeing right now."

This shifting dynamic is best understood as a movement started by women eager to engage in philanthropy that has the potential to benefit women. According to the Boston Consulting Group, private wealth held by women grew from $34 trillion to $51 trillion between 2010 and 2016 — an increase of 50 percent in just six years. It's a trend likely to continue, as a significant amount of the private wealth projected to change hands over the next few decades is likely to be transferred to women.

What's more, it seems that philanthropy comes naturally to women. A 2017 study by the University of Zurich found that women are more likely than men to engage in prosocial behavior (defined as voluntary behavior intended to benefit others), including simple acts of kindness and donating to charity. Indeed, research supported by PayPal found that women give more to charity despite earning 19 percent less than men, and that as they age they become even more generous.

Perhaps most importantly, women are taking control of their own destiny. A study by the Women's Philanthropy Institute at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis found that women increasingly are spearheading efforts focused on addressing women's issues. Specialized women's funds and foundations are going beyond grantmaking to achieve impact, engaging in activities such as relationship-building, partnerships, and policy advocacy to pursue broader social change.

All of this affirms what I have witnessed as a professional philanthropist and social activist: as women secure more power for themselves, the face of philanthropy will continue to change. It is vital that women shape those trends with intention and an eye to strategy.

One way women who engage in philanthropy can be consequential is to encourage increased support for nonprofits working to empower women and girls, including organizations focused on preventing and funding a cure for breast cancer, providing relief for women who are victims of domestic violence, and supporting female entrepreneurs. While women are exceedingly generous when it comes to donating to other important causes, just 1.6 percent of Americans' charitable giving goes toward nonprofits that work to empower and advocate for women and girls. If women better support one another, others will surely follow and increase their support for women who find themselves at risk.

Women also can more effectively support each other by approaching philanthropy strategically and with the goal of maximizing their return on investment. Individually and collectively, we can be more discerning when deciding where to give and using data to shape our decisions. Viewing giving as a business whose ultimate objective is to deliver the best result for the greatest number of girls and women almost always will amplify the impact of one's gift.

At the Ruderman Family Foundation, we use an intersectionality lens to focus our philanthropic investments: empowering marginalized communities and women to take a more active role in shaping their lives. My experience over the last twenty years has taught me that our approach to  managing challenges and creating solutions works. Philanthropy has proved to be one of the best vehicles we have to express our values and put to work our skills and expertise. I know, and my experience has taught me, that women and girls can be powerful agents of change, and it is up to  philanthropy to help them fulfill that destiny in the boldest way possible.

The tangible impact of women's giving will continue to change the world. The COVID-19 pandemic is an opportunity to accelerate this much-needed revolution.

Shira Ruderman_PhilanTopic Shira Ruderman is the executive director of the Ruderman Family Foundation.

Students still need emergency aid. Funders must step up to fill the gap.

July 24, 2020

Mother_college_student_son_GettyImages_PhilanTopicjpgIn response to the coronavirus pandemic, colleges, nonprofits, government, and philanthropy moved quickly to disburse emergency aid to students, many of whom found themselves without reliable access to food, housing, and technology after their campuses were forced to close. And with job losses affecting both working students and families, that support may have temporarily allayed the fears of students who wondered whether they would ever be able to return to school.

But for two groups of students — those ineligible for federal financial assistance, including undocumented students, and those, like student-parents, with additional financial needs — much-needed relief was in short supply. When government is either unwilling or unable to support students working to make their lives and communities better, philanthropic institutions have a duty to fill the gap. As a new school year marked by uncertainty draws closer, more emergency aid is needed, especially for students whose educational aspirations may slip through the widening cracks created by the pandemic.

While the federal CARES Act provided $6.3 billion in emergency grant funds for colleges and universities to distribute to students, the U.S. Department of Education's original guidance for the funds left out undocumented students, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, and international students, creating confusion for months and in some cases slowing the distribution of aid to other students.

What's more, the funds provided by the CARES Act could only be used for food, housing, and expenses directly related to the cost of attendance, leaving many students without adequate support to continue their education. For student-parents, in particular — who need to support children as well as themselves — expenses almost always exceed the assistance provided by their schools. Even before the pandemic, the cost of food, housing, and child care — which in many states is costlier than tuition or rent — made it difficult for student-parents to complete a degree. Single mothers, for instance, are more likely than any other group of women to have started but not finished college and just 8 percent of single student-moms graduate on time.

As more funders and institutions of higher education begin to examine how their investments can be used to advance racial equity, it's also important to note that 40 percent of all Black women in college are mothers. Clearly, success in closing racial and gender equity gaps in college success will remain elusive if we ignore the needs of student-parents.

DACA recipients enroll in college at about the same rate as their peers, but they are four times less likely to complete a degree. They also are ineligible for Pell grants or other forms of federal financial aid, which makes the high cost of tuition a significant barrier to their ability to complete their education. And while mental health issues disproportionately impact undocumented students' postsecondary success, many undocumented students are unable to qualify for affordable health insurance.

With limited emergency aid available to student-parents and unavailable to most undocumented students, the long-term success of both groups is in doubt and should be a priority for philanthropy going forward.

There's no shortage of research on the economic and societal benefits of investments in these groups. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program has increased high school graduation and college enrollment rates and raised productivity and earnings among DACA recipients. Immigrants and international students make significant contributions to the U.S. economy as well as the innovations needed to address the challenges we face and keep the country competitive in a globalized economy.

Likewise, student-parents are risers and earn better grades than non-parenting students. Investing in their success not only helps them, it also benefits their children. Parents who complete a degree have access to higher-paying jobs and, on average, double their income over the course of their working lives, while studies have shown that even a $1,000 increase in salary can result in as much as a 27 percent increase in a child's cognitive development. We all benefit when committed learners are given an opportunity to realize their potential.

Philanthropy is uniquely suited to address these gaps in emergency aid funding — and many funders are already leading the way. In California, the College Futures Foundation and Mission Asset Fund created a statewide emergency aid fund that prioritizes undocumented students, foster youth, and those who are housing insecure. Edquity, which both of our organizations — Imaginable Futures and ECMC Foundation — support, joined Course Hero and Believe in Students to allow anyone to contribute to a pool of emergency funds that will be distributed to students not eligible for CARES Act aid.

Our own organizations invested in emergency aid efforts when the outbreak and subsequent spread of the virus forced campuses to close: Imaginable Futures targeted $400,000 of its emergency aid funding to student-parents and, because they have higher living expenses, required that funding be set at least $1,200 per student-parent, while ECMC Foundation made more than $1.5 million in direct emergency aid grants that went primarily to students who are not eligible for federal financial aid.

Still, as uncertainty looms over the upcoming school year, the educational dreams of 454,000 undocumented students and nearly four million student-parents hang in the balance. With the crisis likely to extend into the fall, we need more philanthropic investment in emergency aid for students left behind by federal programs. Educational equity, economic mobility, breaking the cycle of poverty, racial justice — none of these ambitious goals are realistic if students do not have the resources to succeed.

Undocumented students, DACA recipients, student-parents attend classes and study while navigating family care, financial insecurity, housing instability, and hunger. They fight for their education and their future every day. It is time we fight with them.

(Photo credit: GettyImages)

Vinice davis_jessica_haselton_PhilanTopic

Vinice Davis is a venture partner at Imaginable Futures and an investor in Edquity. Jessica Haselton is director of Education Innovation Ventures at ECMC Foundation and an investor in and board member of Edquity.

Addressing domestic violence by preventing homelessness

July 22, 2020

Tumblr_inline_n84b290FdQ1qzcsi9-300x253Over the last four months, we've witnessed the dangerous coalescing of domestic violence and homelessness — both of which were problems before the pandemic but have become more urgent since the arrival of the virus. Elevated stress levels have led to an increase in abusive behavior, while stay-at-home-orders have made it difficult for survivors to seek help. The economic fallout from the virus also is pushing many into joblessness, homelessness, and unsafe environments.

Together, domestic violence and lack of affordable housing make life exponentially harder for those who experience them. Recognizing the deep connection between the two issues — which affect millions of individuals, families, and communities — provides us with an opportunity to come up with solutions at their intersection. One such solution that is proving successful in California is the Domestic Violence Housing First model, an innovative approach that acknowledges the enormous threat to the lives of too many Californians posed by domestic violence and housing insecurity.

Housing insecurity is a significant factor in the decision of many survivors of domestic violence to remain in abusive relationships — and in the continued exposure of too many children to that violence. The lack of affordable housing in many parts of California makes it harder for those experiencing domestic violence to leave the person causing them harm. To break this cycle of violence — a cycle that often perpetuates itself across generations — we must do more, and do better, to support those most at risk.

Since 2016, the state of California has been implementing the Domestic Violence Housing First model, which assists domestic violence survivors with funds needed to cover the cost of options directly related to their housing stability, well-being, and safety. Recently Blue Shield of California Foundation released an evaluation of the program.

The model empowers survivors of domestic violence to make decisions related to their critical needs and connects them with a supportive community of service providers. Funds provided through the program can be used for rental assistance and a wide range of expenses, including food, safety measures, transportation, utility payments, and childcare costs. Flexibility is a key aspect of the program; often, it is the small challenges and expenses that lead to housing instability and homelessness.

Imagine a situation in which you can make the rent (if barely), but the car you rely on to get to your job needs new brakes or a new transmission, and so you're forced to choose between paying for the repair or the groceries you need to keep your family fed. The Domestic Violence Housing First model allows survivors to pay for both, making it possible for them to escape homelessness and an unsafe relationship.

A Housing First case study in the evaluation illuminates how even modest funds to cover the cost of moving can change the lives of survivors of domestic violence and their children. Meathead Movers, a local California moving company that provides discounts and waives identification requirements for survivors, gives individuals — regardless of citizenship status — a safe and affordable way to move from one location to another. Being able to afford such a mundane but critical service can help survivors build a new life.

It's clear that if we address the housing instability of survivors, we'll also be taking a significant step toward addressing California's homelessness problem. Indeed, the Blue Shield of California Foundation evaluation found that, statewide, 58 percent of the flexible funding provided by the Domestic Violence Housing First program directly served to prevent homelessness.

COVID-19 has put all sorts of pressure on state budgets, but California, like every other state, must take the long view and devote more resources toward ending domestic violence and homelessness. The Domestic Violence Housing First model gives us a blueprint for deeper investments that will keep many survivors and their children from having to couch-surf or live in their cars. while providing a pathway to safe, stable housing.

Now more than ever we need strategies to prevent domestic violence survivors from becoming homeless. We believe in people and families — and in affordable housing as a right. Together, we can create a stronger, safer, and healthier California for all.

(Photo credit: National Coalition for the Homeless)

Richard_Thomason_Krista Niemczyk_PhilanTopicRichard Thomason is the director of policy at Blue Shield of California Foundation and Krista Niemczyk is the public policy director at California Partnership to End Domestic Violence.

What grantees need most — a partner

July 21, 2020

NorthBergen_Healthy_Places_by_DesignFor better or worse; for richer, for poorer; through sickness and health.

You may not associate this vow with your typical funder — unless you've had the good fortune to partner with New Jersey Health Initiatives (NJHI).

Among the many things that make NJHI unique is the value it places on shifting power to communities, making longer-term commitments so that grantees have the time needed to achieve community transformation, and forming authentic relationships with grantees and partners.

NJHI was established in 1987 as a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). In New Jersey, RWJF's home state, NJHI plays a leading role in advancing the foundation's efforts to build healthier communities through grantmaking and investments. Since its inception, NJHI has supported more than forty statewide funding initiatives encompassing over five hundred grantees across all twenty-one counties in the state, making grants in support of youth-led initiatives, health and well-being, mental health, and community-based capacity development.

Recognizing that the communities it supports are best positioned to create the most impact and sustainable change, the organization strives to be flexible, nimble, and innovative. "We allow community partners to determine the best use of grant funds based on their specific community needs," says NJHI director Bob Atkins. "We have focused our grantmaking on engaging more voices and stakeholders in the communities in which we work, and to have them inform our thinking and approaches to making their communities healthier and more equitable."

As a community-led funder and partner focused on a single state, NJHI can make multiple investments in the same communities in ways that are strategic and complementary, rather than duplicative. "It has been exciting to see past and current grantees weave in elements of what they first received funding for five or ten or fifteen years ago," says NJHI deputy director Diane Hagerman. "We know that changes to health outcomes may not be seen for five or even ten years, so seeing work that was funded in the past resurface in a more current context speaks to the commitment of communities to make lasting change."

NJHI also recognizes that needs and context are not the same across communities, even within a single state. "We've analyzed our approach and become increasingly aware that some of our more distressed communities want help to build their own organizational and collaborative capacity," Hagerman notes. To address those requests, NJHI increased the amount of technical assistance it provides to applicants from distressed communities, many of which don't have a paid grant writer on staff.

More recently, a reimagining of NJHI's approach put greater focus on how it works with communities — as opposed to for communities. "One of the most valuable roles we can play," says Atkins, "is to set the table for grantees and community partners while they decide and create buy-in around what will help them achieve their goals." As such, NJHI leverages its influential role as connector and convener to help its community partners expand their networks and access additional resources, including coaching and collaborative learning and networking opportunities. Such investments provide exceptional returns in terms of building capacity at the community level.

"NJHI not only invests in communities, it invests in leaders and has built a movement across the state of people passionate about health equity," says Mary Celis, director of health initiatives at United Way of Passaic County. "Being a part of the NJHI family means you always have thought-leaders to problem-solve with and learn from."

NJHI's responsiveness during the COVID-19 pandemic provides another example of how it has grounded its investments in relationships. The large number of coronavirus infections and deaths in the state have underscored the important policy and systems work NJHI grantees do to address health disparities in their communities. NJHI was quick, for example, to provide timely funding resources and other critical information to grantees, and it devoted its April monthly Learning Collaborative session to an open discussion about the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in grantee communities. It was reassuring for NJHI grantees and partners to hear a funder be transparent about the ways in which the crisis has impacted the work it funds, and that the funder was committed to providing maximum flexibility in terms of its current grants.

The focus on developing meaningful partnerships has been critical to NJHI's efforts to reduce health disparities and create healthier communities in New Jersey. "This work cannot be accomplished alone or in silos," Atkins says. "To be effective in what we are trying to achieve requires partnering with our communities and other organizations. We don't want to simply be seen as 'the funder' — we are their partners, committed to learning from and alongside them."

That strategy serves NJHI, its grantees, and their communities well — and New Jersey is a healthier state because of it.

(Photo credit: New Jersey Health Initiatives/North Bergen Municipal Alliance)

Joanne Lee_PhilanTopicJoanne Lee is collaborative learning director at Healthy Places by Design, an organization that serves as a strategic partner for communities and those who invest in them.

Pay transparency: what it means for job seekers and employer

July 20, 2020

20150319_TransparencypiggybankThere's a growing push for pay transparency in both the for-profit and nonprofit sectors. For those unfamiliar with the concept, pay transparency includes both radical openness about compensation ranges within a company as well as publicly posting compensation ranges in your job descriptions.

Many see pay transparency as a way to close persistent salary gaps that exist between genders and races. The gap affects women of color the most. A recent report from the National Partnership for Women & Families shows that Latinas are paid 54 cents on every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men. And across all racial and ethnic groups, women in the United States are paid 82 cents for every dollar paid to men.

Many employers have concerns, however, that a shift to pay transparency would generate internal dissatisfaction and render salary negotiations pointless. A recent LinkedIn Global Talent Survey captures the mixed reception the idea has received. According to LinkedIn's Global Talent Trends 2019 report, 27 percent of HR and hiring professionals say their company currently shares salary ranges with employees or candidates, with a further 22 percent saying they're likely to start doing so within the next five years. But more than half (51 percent) do not disclose salaries or salary ranges.

As executive recruiters serving the nonprofit sector, Koya Leadership Partners has worked with clients on both ends of the spectrum, and many in between. And we've noted that many in the Philanthropic (foundations) and Social Justice sectors have moved toward including salary ranges in their job descriptions as a way to publicly demonstrate their values and help achieve equity compensation in the field. What's more, the move toward pay transparency has picked up speed in the COVID-19 and Black Lives Matter era.

There is some evidence from companies like Buffer, which creates social media tools, that salary transparency policies increase interest from candidates and contribute to greater employee satisfaction and engagement. Buffer uses a publicly available salary calculator to determine salaries for all its employees, and in 2013 it began publishing employee salaries on the Internet for all to see.

Although start-up and tech companies have led the way on pay transparency in the for-profit sector, a number of giants in other sectors have also adopted transparency policies. One of them, Starbucks, has explicitly stated that salary transparency is a tool for achieving gender and racial pay equity, and to that end the coffeehouse chain shares salary bands internally and salary ranges with job candidates who ask. In 2018, the company announced that it had achieved 100 percent pay equity, and the moves it has made on that front have generated a lot of positive press while helping it hire and keep top talent.

So why haven't more organizations adopted transparent pay practices? Compensation can be a charged, highly emotional issue that raises fundamental questions of equity and merit that are not always easy to manage. But in this new era in which we find ourselves, corporate and nonprofit leaders are waking up to the realization that they can and must play a role in creating a more just and equitable society. Creating transparency around pay is one way to do that.

Here are three suggestions for getting started:

1. Conduct an annual compensation audit. Hire a professional to make sure your compensation policies are informed by data and reflect best practices. Identify salary gaps and make a plan for closing them.

2. Leverage the hiring process as a way to begin building transparency. Identify salary bands for new hires before you go to market and communicate them to job candidates, either directly in the job description or through the interview process.

3. Make sure that anyone in the organization in a position to negotiate salaries understands the importance of pay equity and is familiar with best compensation practices — including not asking candidates about their past compensation, which is now illegal in many states.

The trend toward salary transparency seems to be picking up speed and will likely continue to grow as employees demand more from their organizations. Moving toward salary transparency requires organizational change, which is always challenging. But beginning with some of the steps outlined above can help your organization move forward on the path toward becoming more equitable while strengthening your brand and helping you attract exceptional talent along the way.

Headshot_molly_brennanMolly Brennan is founding partner at executive search firm Koya Leadership Partners, which is guided by the belief that the right person at the right place can change the world. A frequent contributor to Philanthropy News Digest and other publications, Brennan recently authored The Governance Gap: Examining Diversity and Equity on Nonprofit Boards of Directors.

Calling all science funders: biomedical research needs a lifeline

July 16, 2020

Women_medical_research_scientists_GettyImagesWhen research institutions and universities were forced to shut down in March, clinical trials, therapeutic development, and discovery science ground to a halt. While researchers are slowly returning to their labs and restarting their experiments, the scientific world is contending with a loss of productivity and funds that cannot be addressed by simply restarting the stopped clock.

Years of research designed to advance treatments and cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's, diabetes, and depression have been compromised. Researchers at public institutions have reported that critical tools in the development of medical therapies have been lost. Clinical research for diseases other than COVID have seen dramatic setbacks because patients have been unwilling or otherwise unable to assume the risk associated with in-person evaluation for a clinical trial. Some funders are helping researchers address these problems by rearranging budgets and awarding no-cost grant extensions. But such approaches do not take into account the extent of the losses incurred by the shutdown.

Personnel needed to be paid throughout the closures. Re-establishing animal and cell models to replace those that had to be destroyed requires new funds, not just an extension of funds. To make an analogy with the private sector, if science were a business, the last three months would be seen as a series of grievous losses, with the threat of bankruptcy always in the background. But scientific experimentation is not the same as business. The closures weren't just setbacks: our loved ones live with diseases that science is trying to find cures or treatments for, and the COVID-related setbacks of the last three months have resulted in slower development of — and, in some cases, a complete abandonment of — treatments with the potential to save lives.

Layered on top of the very real losses in the lab are the impacts on people — the dedicated researchers who quietly drive scientific progress. Academic science is a notoriously difficult career path: pre-COVID numbers suggest that just 23 percent of biomedical PhDs pursue a career in academic science. But since March, many scientists have seen their job security and long-term prospects thrown into question. Early-career scientists about to move into new faculty positions have had job offers rescinded or delayed, or are competing for fewer available openings. New faculty report struggling to collect sufficient data to be competitive in the federal grants process. Those who are parents may not be able to return to work, given the impact the pandemic has had on child care. This translates into fewer women in the lab, when there are already too few.

At this critical moment, the biomedical research community urgently needs philanthropists to take three steps:

1. Increase budgets for currently funded projects. Science funders know how important flexible funding is. Increasing grant budgets now not only will help mitigate some of the research setbacks of the last three months, it also will underwrite the additional personnel time and equipment needed to get back to square one on experiments that were abandoned.

2. Modify policies and programs to support vulnerable scientists. Science needs scientists. In order to provide those who are brave enough to pursue a career in scientific research with a fair shot, it is important to recognize that certain groups of scientists are more at risk of losing their funding, abandoning the field, or both due to COVID-related pressures. Postdoctoral fellows and newly minted research faculty need stable funding in order to establish their ideas. Female scientists who are also parents are facing greater childcare responsibilities — a fact that is already showing up in fewer grant submissions by women scientists, falling publication rates, and reduced participation in COVID research. And Black and brown scientists who face persistent roadblocks to advancement in their careers need support now more than ever to help them overcome decades of discrimination in funding as well as fewer publication and job opportunities.

3. Strengthen the health research sector. Finally, philanthropy must do more to ensure that organizations working to advance and support biomedical research stay afloat. These organizations play a key role in driving patient-focused progress and accelerating therapeutics in specific areas. Support for organizational overhead — keep-the-lights-on funding— is hopelessly "unsexy" but massively important, in that it keeps experts on the job who are critical to vetting and shepherding good science in its journey from the lab to real-world applications.

In a recent discussion about the actions needed to overcome COVID-19, Tom Frieden, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said, "People keep asking me, 'What's the one thing we have to do?' The one thing we have to do is understand that there is not one thing."

This is just as true for science in the context of the pandemic. COVID-related impacts on biomedical logistics, funding, and human talent have put the entire biomedical research ecosystem at risk. Without immediate attention and support for that research and the scientists who work to advance it, there is little hope we will develop new and improved treatments for the thousands of diseases that annually impact millions of people around the globe.

(Photo credit: GettyImages)

Altimus-Cara_PhilanTopicCara Altimus, PhD, is a director at the Milken Institute Center for Strategic Philanthropy.

Participatory design approaches to impact investing

July 15, 2020

Diversity_participants_around_table_GettyImagesAcross the social sector, impact investors are assessing the grave threats posed by COVID-19 — both the existential risk to the global economy and to the companies and funds in which we have invested. More than anything, we are aware of the need to listen, learn, and adapt to this moment.

Philanthropic funds have been investing for social impact since at least the 1990s, but it is only recently that the idea has caught on in the wider world. A 2019 report by the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) found that some two hundred and fifty institutions, mostly in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe, manage more than $239 billion in social impact investments around the world. At the end of 2018, GIIN estimated the full impact-investing market at $502 billion.

That's a lot of money, but who determines how it gets invested?

While the modern development-aid community places a premium on consultation with those who receive aid, impact investors do not necessarily do the same. Yes, most of the GIIN survey respondents link their declared objectives to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, but conspicuously missing from their responses is any exploration of the question: How are affected workers, communities, and consumers involved in deciding where and how investments are made, in implementing the process, and in assessing the results? In other  words, can impact investing be made more democratic?

Currently, it is impact investors themselves who control the decision-making process, and the linchpin of their approach is an often-untested assumption that the benefits of the investment will trickle down to workers, communities, and/or consumers. That approach needs to change. While impact investing, with its profit imperative, is not the same as development aid or conventional grantmaking, it still seeks to deliver and measure social good. That's why we believe impact investors could take a few cues from philanthropic funds.

An effective participatory approach, which some call "user-design" or "co-design," could be integrated throughout the life-cycle of an investment — and the Open Society Foundation's Economic Justice Program has been supporting research by the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex to map out how it might be done.

Our research team identified four key stages in which a participatory approach can make a difference:

Sourcing and approval: A number of impact investments made by OSF's Soros Economic Development Fund are testing out a participatory approach. In some cases, we have supported workshops, focus groups, and surveys through which the targeted community can outline its hopes and concerns. Impact investors can also require that assessment of community members' perspectives be included in all investment recommendations, while investment committees at funds focused on particular geographies or issues can include members of the community.

Managing: Impact investors can require that community members sit on an investee's board; or that communities be given some ownership of the investment through mechanisms such as "golden-share" arrangements (which come with enhanced voting rights); or that employees be offered stock ownership plans that give them a meaningful stake in both the operation and governance of the company. Investors could also consider adopting a participatory budgeting strategy that allows the targeted community to democratically allocate a portion of the intended investment.

Monitoring: There's a wide array of participatory methods for monitoring projects, including approaches involving "participatory statistics," in which local people generate their own data, or the "Most Significant Change" technique, which regularly asks those targeted by a program about its impact on their life. Such methods can be a complement to more traditional monitoring methods such as consumer surveys, town hall meetings, and focus groups.

Exit: The potential positive social impacts of an impact investment can easily be lost when an investor decides to pull out. To ensure the sustainability of an investment, investors should take steps to build a decision-making process that involves community members during a major transition such as a sale, an acquisition, or the bringing in of new investors. They can also think about offering the target community a say in any changes to the by-laws and/or a veto over any sale of the enterprise.

Many of these ideas are untested, but the field is changing fast. One of the most developed examples is the global Buen Vivir Fund, which was founded in 2018 by Thousand Currents, a nonprofit in California. Among its innovations, the fund invites local grassroots leaders to serve on the board with fund members and gives them equal voting rights in the fund's governance and management.

Clearly, a participatory approach can add costs and time for those on both sides of a deal. And it often makes an already difficult task even harder. We also understand that even in fields where it is standard procedure, community participation, when executed poorly, can amount to little more than expensive and time-consuming consultation. On the other hand, when done well it can leverage local knowledge in ways that benefit the investment process at every stage.

Despite the recent proliferation of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) funds, the potential costs of a participatory approach mean we should not expect the for-profit investment world to take the lead. But if philanthropy can show that such an approach actually generates positive impacts, we believe it's only a matter time before private funds take notice — and a participatory approach to impact investing becomes a differentiating factor they cannot afford to ignore. After all, isn't that what happened with social impact investing itself?

(Photo credit: GettyImages)

Sean_Hinton_John_Gaventa_PhilanTopicSean Hinton is co-director of the Economic Justice Program at the Open Society Foundations and CEO of the Soros Economic Development Fund.

John Gaventa is a professor at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS). Background research was provided by Peter O'Flynn, now with New Philanthropy Capital, and Grace Higdon, IDS.

How to work effectively with an outside consultant

July 13, 2020

Working with a ConsultantAs your nonprofit adapts to new realities created by the COVID-19 pandemic, strategic guidance from expert consultants can provide invaluable insights for refining your strategy planning, revamping your brand, or rethinking your fundraising strategy. There are a few considerations to keep in mind, however, to ensure that any relationship with an outside consultant produces outcomes that meet your needs.

Here are some tips for working with a consultant or consulting firm:

Don't be stingy with information. Hiring a consultant can provide expertise you may not have in-house, but that doesn't mean you can take a hands-off approach to the project. No one knows your organization as well as you do. To ensure that a consultant fully understands your organization, you'll want to share as much information with him or her as is reasonable. While a good consultant will elicit ideas from team members and pull information together in new ways, he or she will want to review lots of organizational documents and talk to lots of people, from frontline staff to board members. Make sure the relevant documents are ready to go, and be sure to ask key stakeholders to set aside time for a sit-down.

Have a clear process in place. Whether developing a strategic plan or a brand revamp, it's important to know what you're aiming for and how you'll get there. A good consultant will be able to provide a plan for engaging your team that includes stakeholders. That plan should include the key activities, milestones, and outcomes for each step in the process. It should be clear, too, who will be involved in each phase, the decisions that need to be made, and what the deliverables are. Your job is to provide appropriate information, context, and ideas to inform the plan; provide feedback on the work presented; and make the decisions needed to keep the project moving forward.

Understand how decisions will be made. Decisiveness is essential to keeping projects moving forward. Put a plan in place that ensures decisions are made in a timely manner. That means deciding in advance who will give feedback and through what mechanism, who makes the final decision, and how that decision will be made (including considerations with respect to the board's engagement). You'll also need to determine whether key decisions can be made if not all stakeholders are able to present at a critical meeting and what a quorum might look like in such a situation.

Presenting to the board. Even if midstream decisions have been delegated to a committee or staff, keeping the board involved as the project moves forward increases buy-in and will help pave the way for final approval. At Red Rooster Group, our clients have found it helpful to have us make a presentation to the board at key points in the project. Getting information from an outside expert can help busy board members focus on the problem or issue at hand.

There's a flipside to this. For some organizations, the better choice is to have members of the project committee, not the consultant, make presentations to the board, the idea being it will help build trust between board members and staff. Having a board member who has bought into the concept present to the board can also be an effective way to demonstrate stakeholder support for a project. You know your organizational culture and board better than anyone, and a good consultant will defer to your recommendations when it comes to building trust and securing buy-in.

Build your project team. For small nonprofits, a project team may be one or two people. For larger organizations, team members should be drawn from different organizational levels and functions (e.g., executive-level staff, board members, frontline staff members). Members of the team should understand and support the overall goals of the project and be willing to express their ideas and listen to those of others. Meetings and material reviews will take up time, so make sure every team member is given the time needed to do the work.

Designate a point person. At the beginning of the project, decide who will be your organization's liaison to the consultant. The point person may be asked to contact people who are to be interviewed, provide background information and documents, arrange meetings, and make sure that information is shared with key stakeholders.

Establish a schedule. A consultant will need to know in advance about events that may affect the availability of team members. Organizational events, board meetings, vacations, maternity leave, and so on can all affect project workflow and timely feedback and approvals. Working out a schedule in advance will go a long way to eliminating delays and reduce stress for both your team and the consultant.

Have a plan for communicating progress. To facilitate a smooth process, determine who will be included on the project and how you'll communicate with your group — email, phone calls, a project management system, Zoom, Skype, etc. — and how you'll exchange documents and comments on the documents (whether PDFs, Google docs, or Word documents). It's also a good idea to schedule a weekly standing call for quick status updates. This can help reduce the kinds of meeting scheduling problems that often delay the completion of a project.

Avoid stumbling blocks that raise costs. Delaying feedback or reversing decisions can stall or even sink a project. And rethinking or revising decisions that have already been made can lead to additional costs and even undermine a project's viability. This often happens when the plan calls for the executive director to make the decisions but, come time for final approval, board members jump in and start to second guess or reverse decisions made earlier in the process. To avoid those kinds of costly delays, provide the board or a committee with regular updates and lots of opportunities to provide feedback. Any serious concerns should be discussed with the consultant and team so a satisfactory resolution can be reached to avoid costly backtracking later.

The consultant is your partner. Defining how that partnership will work can make it — and your project —more successful.

(Photo credit: Red Rooster Group)

Howard_Adam_Levy_Red_Rooster_Group_PhilanTopicHoward Adam Levy is the president of Red Rooster Group, a brand strategy firm that works with nonprofits, governments, and foundations.

A 'Just and Resilient Recovery' framework for international donors and financial institutions

July 09, 2020

HR&A_just_resilient_recovery_shutterstockEven as some of the most severe COVID-19 outbreaks subside, the pandemic continues to spread around the world, with 11.5 million cases confirmed and more than five hundred thousand deaths as we write. Roughly two-thirds of all new confirmed cases are in developing countries, with Latin America alone accounting for over a third of new confirmed cases.

The economic disruption that the virus and measures to contain it have brought to developed economies will be dwarfed by the consequences of similar efforts in the developing world. According to forecasts from the World Bank, COVID-19 will, by the end of 2020, push an additional forty-nine million people into extreme poverty. That represents an increase of 8 percent and would be the first increase in extreme poverty globally since the Asian financial crisis in 1998. The projections suggest that sub-Saharan Africa, where an additional twenty-three million people could fall into extreme poverty, will be hardest hit, with Latin America and the Caribbean and South Asia splitting the balance.

Designing emergency response programs, fiscal and monetary stimulus, and long-term economic recovery plans to address the effects of the pandemic will be more challenging in places where the economic damage is deepest and existing inequality the most acute. Indeed, a combination of already-stagnant economies, tight fiscal conditions, and weak institutional capacity has created a perfect storm in many developing countries.

A Framework for International Donors and Financial Institutions

Against this backdrop, the mitigation of economic and social damage in many countries has been left to global philanthropies and international financial institutions. The G20 countries have agreed to a useful, if limited, suspension of debt service for the poorest countries, and the World Bank moved quickly to mobilize $160 billion in new and repurposed capital, which was followed by other multilateral development groups. We believe, however, that these efforts will be insufficient if these and other institutions do not take a structured approach to understanding needs on the ground and the prioritization of the implementation of their actions.

While most actors have rightfully focused their immediate attention on public health measures and efforts to strengthen the safety net, as cities and regions start emerging from quarantine and effective therapies and vaccines are developed they will need to collectively address the underlying economic and social challenges that have made COVID-19 so devastating and destabilizing for the most vulnerable groups in society.

Based on our experience with previous natural, economic, and humanitarian crises, we have developed a framework to help guide cities and communities on the path to a more "Just and Resilient Recovery." The framework calls for public and private institutions to organize and coordinate their COVID-19 recovery efforts around the four sequential phases illustrated below.

Global Philantropy Commentary Graphic

The time for planning and coordinating fiscal policy efforts is now. Global donors and financial development institutions should start planning and prioritizing how and where their assistance will be directed to ensure that countries and cities that receive that assistance can use it to create a more just and resilient "next" normal that addresses some of the structural inequities of the old normal, including poverty, informality, and discrimination.

Over the coming weeks and months, as institutions continue to organize their internal resources and begin to develop road maps for the next phase of the recovery, they should consider the following:

Assess the economic disruption: As lockdowns ease and more evidence and data becomes available, institutions should develop a more granular understanding of the economic and fiscal impact of the virus in the countries and jurisdictions they serve. This can be done at scale with a dynamic model that takes into consideration baseline economic conditions pre-crisis, the scope of containment measures taken and the degree to which they have been enforced, the level of unemployment (formal and informal), and, where appropriate, the fiscal measures already taken by governments to mitigate the economic impacts of the virus. The model should also take into account the compounding effects of future natural disasters and the percentage of the population lacking access to clean water and waste treatment infrastructure. This more granular understanding of the economic damage resulting from the virus will enable institutions to better calibrate the magnitude and speed of the response required in different countries, regions, and communities.

Understand needs and opportunities: Supported by such an assessment, institutions need to understand which economic sectors and segments of the population have been most impacted and what the opportunities are to rethink how to rebuild and create employment opportunities in more productive industries. A focus on sectors with high economic multipliers such as technology, research, and advanced manufacturing should be seen as an opportunity to bring substantial numbers of workers into the formal economy and prepare large segments of the population for the future of work.

Map resources: Once the economic damage and the opportunities for a more just and resilient economic recovery have been identified, institutions need to think carefully about how to leverage resources from other countries, donors, and the private sector. The capital from donors and multilateral development banks should be seen as a "filler" that closes financial gaps and addresses market failures, catalyzing private investment and participation. Understanding the potential to effectively leverage private-sector participation under the current short-term capital commitments from development banks will be critical. That includes exploring more active participation in public-private concessions, providing availability payments, and making backstop guarantees to de-risk projects.

Prioritize areas of investment: With an understanding of the needs, opportunities, and resources available in the short- and mid-term, institutions should be able to prioritize the allocation of resources across countries and sectors in an efficient way and provide guidance and direction to specific country offices and divisions accordingly. Such a prioritization should consider which industries and clusters are best positioned to increase productivity and create jobs and how communities can benefit from such growth in an inclusive manner. This could include investments in digital infrastructure that pave the way for greater innovation and technology, public transportation to make job opportunities accessible to everyone and cities more sustainable, and resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate the shock and disruption of future climate-related disasters.

The global development community has a generational opportunity to substantially transform the economies of the poorest countries, leveraging resources from all sectors, with a focus on investments that boost productivity and eradicate secular inequities and establish a precedent for a Just and Resilient Economic Recovery. Let’s not let that opportunity go by the wayside.

(Photo credit: HR&A Advisors)

Shuprotim_Bhaumik_Ignacio_MontojoShuprotim Bhaumik is a partner at HR&A Advisors, where he specializes in economic development and public policy consulting. Ignacio Montojo is a director at HR&A and specializes in the design and implementation of public-private partnerships and financing strategies for infrastructure and real estate development projects. Both have worked on behalf of several international financial institutions, including the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the International Finance Corporation in countries around the world, including Afghanistan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Colombia, Costa Rica, Kenya, Panama, and South Africa.

60 percent of teens are not thriving: it's time to prioritize teen mental health and well-being

July 02, 2020

Teen_girl_phone_GettyImages_PhilanTopicOf the 25.1 million teens in the United States between the ages of 13 and 18, 60 percent report languishing or only feeling moderately mentally well.

That's fifteen million teens who are not flourishing psychologically, socially, or emotionally. Indeed, the state of teen well-being in America is troubling, and we clearly are not doing enough to support them. Older teens are on the cusp of adulthood, about to enter the workforce, and will soon be asked to help solve the significant challenges we face — and yet we deride and discount them, and too often ignore them when it comes to public policy investments.

This derision is felt unequally. SARS-CoV-2 — a virus that does not, by its nature, discriminate — is impacting young people of color more than others. Meanwhile, recent protests against police brutality have brought tens of thousands of young people into the street, putting them at greater risk of exposure to the virus than those who choose to stay home.

According to a new report, Advancing Adolescent Flourishing: Moving Policy Upstream, teens today face myriad challenges unique to their generation. The report found that in addition to the stress of navigating academic expectations, online sexual harassment and bullying, and the pressures imposed by social media, teens are also concerned about mass shootings, rising suicide rates, the political attacks on immigrants and migrant families, and climate change.

The teen years are a critical developmental period and present an incredible opportunity to shape a young person's life — not to mention the future leaders and citizens of our nation. We all do better when our teens do better.

But even before COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, almost two in five high school students said they felt so sad at times that they were not able to engage in their usual activities, while one in five admits to being depressed. A survey by Active Minds similarly found that 74 percent of students said they were challenged in maintaining a routine because of COVID.

And yet we continue to shortchange our teens. In 2018, federal investments in children fell to 1.9 percent of GDP, the lowest level in a decade. Healthcare expenditures account for three-fifths of federal spending on children, with teens grouped in with children of all ages. As a result, we do not understand teens' wellness needs as well as we should.

It is time to use our resources to improve teen health outcomes and better support their futures.

In order to foster the flourishing of all teens, we need to promote teen-focused health policies at all levels of government and enact solutions that address existing gaps in every aspect of their lives, from education and digital life to teen welfare and foster care.

For starters, we can:

Provide more resources to parents and families with teens. Teens cost more to raise than younger children — $900 more a year, on average, for teens between the ages of 15 and 17 — but this discrepancy is not reflected in federal tax policy. Today, 40 percent of all teens live in or near poverty. Providing low-income families with teens with supplemental income, food and shelter vouchers, and money for education or extracurricular activities would help bridge gaps and improve the well-being of millions of young people.

Prioritize students' educational well-being. School — with its heavy workloads, poor sleep schedules, and social conflicts, both online and off — is a source of stress for many teens, with unfortunate consequences for their ability to flourish. We believe local and state jurisdictions should shift their focus from academic achievement alone to an integrated focus on teens' social, emotional, and psychological well-being. That would include creating positive high school environments that foster caring and supportive relationships, working with teens and school staff to create opportunities for peer-driven school activities and inclusion in school decision-making, and taking a holistic approach to learning and development.

Protect teens from harmful social media content. Teens' use of digital technology to mediate the world — more than seven hours a day, on average — has raised concerns about the negative impact of such sustained exposure on their well-being. Cyberbullying, unrealistic body expectations due to the proliferation of manipulated Instagram photos, and a culture of online shaming all contribute to lower levels of self-esteem. On the flip side, the digital world supports well-being in different ways, including increased opportunities for social connection and improved delivery of health care. In order to maximize the positive benefits of the digital world, social media platforms — and the influencers and advertisers who profit from them — must be held more accountable for producing and sharing harmful content.

Include teens in policy decision that affect them. For too long, teens have been overlooked when it comes to policy. Government, at all levels, can rectify the situation by working proactively to better serve their needs. A good place to start would be to declare the 2020s as the Decade of Teen Flourishing and invite teens across the country to serve in leadership positions focused on promoting efforts to improve teen outcomes and well-being. Government could also implement "teen impact" reviews of its policies and programs to ensure that every government interaction with a teen advances rather than hinders his or her flourishing. Perhaps most importantly, cultivating closer relationships with teens will provide them with valuable opportunities to bring their concerns to the policy-making table and impact their generational peers for years to come.

Our nation's teens are not a bundle of problems to be solved or risk factors to be addressed. Young people can be an incredible resource for our communities and the nation. Teens are taking up the mantle of social change and working with discipline and passion to create a better future for all of us. Let's give them the respect they deserve and invest in their well-being. Our future depends on it.

(Photo credit: GettyImages)

Composite_miller_doughertyBenjamin F. Miller is a psychologist and the chief strategy officer of Well Being Trust, a national mental-health foundation. Denise Dougherty is a senior scholar in residence at AcademyHealth and a member of the board of directors for Adolescents and Children Together for Health.

Leading in solidarity to reshape the nonprofit ecosystem

July 01, 2020

SolidarityWe are five women of color leading five organizations deeply embedded in the nonprofit ecosystem of Detroit and southeast Michigan. We have five missions, five work styles, and five voices. With mutual intentions and hearts, we have decided to work as a collective that honors the history and resiliency of Black and Indigenous people and communities of color. Together, our work offers nonprofits the critical support needed to advance their missions. Today, we stand in recognition of the privilege and responsibility we have to speak as leaders of nonprofit support organizations.

We embrace the challenge and opportunity presented by this unique moment. Here in southeast Michigan, as elsewhere, the Black community has suffered disproportionately from the COVID-19 pandemic. And we have borne witness to brutal injustices at the hands of police. It has been tough. Some have responded to the moment by issuing statements of solidarity with the Black people of America. Individuals and organizations across the nation are reckoning with their experience of racism and anti-Blackness. But what does solidarity mean, especially in a moment like this? Our humanity demands we recognize ourselves as part of a larger whole, and the nature of our work in the nonprofit sector demands we recognize solidarity as an ongoing practice and process.

As human beings, as organizational leaders, and as stakeholders in the nonprofit ecosystem, we are tired of the neverending effort needed to beat back the stereotype that nonprofits are not efficient or able to survive without constant handouts. Some of our community-based organizations have been serving residents of southeastern Michigan for more than seventy years! (We see you, Russell Woods-Sullivan Area Association.) In this moment, we see an opportunity to rise up, to reimagine our work, and to cultivate a more just and beautiful world in transformative solidarity with others.

Our work together began with a look back at the history of and policies that have shaped the nonprofit sector. The nonprofit universe contains complexities with which all of us need to grapple. Events of the past few months did not create racial and gendered inequities in philanthropic funding. Nor did they shape the failed policies and misplaced public funding priorities that necessitated the creation of nonprofits in the first place. The pandemic and the brutal killings over the last few months of Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Tony McDade, and George Floyd have created a fierce urgency, within us and others, around the need to address the structural inequities that pervade so many of our systems.

Solutions to the challenges our communities face must come from those closest to the issues. And solidarity begins when we recognize that missions, needs, and fate of community-based nonprofits are interconnected. Such a recognition changes our work as nonprofit support providers. In the short term, we’re working together more than ever to address acute needs created by the pandemic; over the longer term we’re committed to addressing chronic needs at the systems level and leveraging our understanding of power dynamics in the sector to shape solutions that are inclusive, sustainable, and grounded in community-based structures and knowledge that already exist.

The most challenging aspect of solidarity is the revolution that takes place in our thoughts and actions when it is embraced. Our leadership practice in this moment disabuses the notion that leadership is the responsibility of a single, heroic figure. The five of us have learned to share leadership, and our work together has challenged us to interrogate the conventional wisdom around capacity building, fund development, data analysis and evaluation, and other nonprofit practices. It also has led us to acknowledge that self-care and the overall well-being of our organizations and staff require tending and attention, even though the dominant structures and culture in which we operate often contest and frustrate that process.

Support is synonymous with "holding up" or "bearing." It's a word we use to describe our function as leaders and organizations in a nonprofit ecosystem. Solidarity has brought us together to make all our internal structures and processes stronger. That scaffolding includes a growing trust in each other and the journey we've embarked on to reimagine leadership. As we continue to push ourselves to grow, we do so with the recognition that our Black and Brown sisters and brothers in nonprofits need more voices like ours to stand up and join with like-minded others to achieve the glorious futures we imagine for our communities.

Allandra Bulger is executive director at Co.act Detroit. Madhavi Reddy is executive director at Community Development Advocates of Detroit. Shamyle Dobbs is CEO at Michigan Community Resources. Yodit Mesfin Johnson is CEO at Nonprofit Enterprise at Work. And Donna Murray-Brown is CEO at the Michigan Nonprofit Association.

Quote of the Week

  • "[L]et me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance...."


    — Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd president of the United States

Subscribe to PhilanTopic

Contributors

Guest Contributors

  • Laura Cronin
  • Derrick Feldmann
  • Thaler Pekar
  • Kathryn Pyle
  • Nick Scott
  • Allison Shirk

Tweets from @PNDBLOG

Follow us »

Filter posts

Select
Select
Select