Altruism Today

Possible FBI Probe into Clinton Foundation

July 13th, 2016  |  Source: NPQ

Source; The Hill

Hillary Clinton’s detractors suspect she used her position as Secretary of State to help generate speaking engagements for Bill Clinton and contributions to the Clinton Foundation. When FBI Director James B. Comey castigated Hillary Clinton at the House Oversight Committee hearing last week for being “extremely careless” about her use of private email as secretary of state, he refused to comment “on the existence or nonexistence of any other ongoing investigations.”

Comey also refused to answer a follow-up question from Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) about whether the Clinton Foundation was “tied into” the Clinton investigation. The comments stoked speculation about a possible ongoing probe connected to the charitable organization, even after the Justice Department on Wednesday abandoned the possibility of charges against Clinton, now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, for mishandling classified information.

In January 2016, citing “three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record,” Fox News reported that the FBI investigation began a new probe into whether “the possible ‘intersection’ of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws.”

NPQ has reported many times in its nonprofit newswire, including here and mostrecently here, about the controversies and ambiguities consistently crafted by the Clinton Foundation. At worst, Mrs. Clinton violated the conflict-of-interest agreement she made with the Obama administration when she became secretary of state, potentially opening the door to influence peddling and related malfeasance, if not criminal activity. At best, the Clinton Foundation complemented U.S. values of “partnership building” and served as a positive channel of American influence around the world.

Voters will need to know if the FBI is investigating whether the presumptive Democratic nominee for president violated any laws in supporting the Clinton Foundation and where the probe stands, if there is one underway.

Meanwhile, an hour-long film adaptation of Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich was screened at the Cannes Film Festival. Its U.S. premiere is scheduled for July 24th in Philadelphia ahead of the Democratic National Convention. The book investigates donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities and other issues such as paid speeches and in general the Clintons’ wealth building since leaving the White House in 2001. In response to the book’s accusations, the Clinton Foundation admitted that it made mistakes in disclosing some of its contributions. The foundation pledged new financial reporting guidelines and that it would limit foreign donations.

As reported by The Guardian:

Though Clinton’s people have so far remained silent on the pending launch of the film, there is no shortage of evidence about the partisan backgrounds of the filmmakers. Schweizer was a speechwriter for former president George W. Bush and coach to Sarah Palin on foreign affairs during her vice-presidential run, while the producer, Stephen Bannon, is a prominent creator of such rightwing favorites as the film Ronald Reagan and His Ranch and chairman of the Clinton-baiting Breitbart News.

Few public figures have sustained careers for as long and with as high a decibel level of accusation and suspicion as Hillary and Bill Clinton. Though the Benghazi investigation and the email scandal that grew out of were not fatal to Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, she must still contend with the accretion of scandals and cauterized truths endured by the Clinton family since Bill Clinton’s first run for office in 1974. In national polls taken before last week’s rebuke, roughly two-thirds of Americans said that Mrs. Clinton is not honest and trustworthy. A decades-old cottage industry exists to attack the Clintons; The Atlantic even recently prepared a “Clinton Scandal Primer.”

Clinton Cash was published more than a year ago. There is no “smoking gun” in the book or film. There is still no evidence that we know of proving that Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state made any deals or altered U.S. government policy specifically to benefit her husband or the Clinton Foundation. While the absolution Mrs. Clinton seeks will likely never come, only government investigations, such as the possible FBI probe into her relationship with the Clinton Foundation, can stop Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign.


Civil Society Under Pressure as China Hosts First Philanthropy Conference

July 12th, 2016  |  Source: NPQ

Source, China Topix

The Alibaba Foundation, established in 2011 by Alibaba Group, hosted the Xin Philanthropy Conference this past weekend, a first-of-its-kind event in China. The Alibaba Foundation earmarks 0.3 percent of annual revenue to fund environmental initiatives and social responsibility in China. The company foundation includes a voluntary three-hour donation of time per year for employees interested in serving a charity.

The Xin Philanthropy Conference brought together prominent Chinese philanthropists, global leaders in philanthropy, and major multinational organizations and NGOs to meet, share best practices, and inspire China’s wealthy elite to consider becoming engaged philanthropically. The conference headliner was Jack Ma, founder and executive chair of Alibaba Group and China’s most celebrated philanthropist. Mr. Ma donated $2.4 billion worth of Alibaba share options to his charitable trust. Mr. Ma’s areas of philanthropic interest include healthcare, education, and the environment in China.

Ma revealed that the idea came after Alibaba held a staff swimming competition at Hangzhou’s Qiantang River to celebrate the opening of Alibaba’s new headquarters in 2009. Employees came ashore with plastic bags and garbage they picked up along the course. Shocked and dismayed over the state of the river, Alibaba took a step for a change.

The conference also served as an opportunity for Mr. Ma to defend himself amid the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission probe into Alibaba’s accounting practices in the United States. Suspicions about Alibaba’s rapid growth have been a subject of controversy.

“If you want to sue us, sue us,” Ma said. “It’s an opportunity for us to let them understand what we’re doing.”

Other speakers included Ban Ki Moon, United Nations Secretary General; Gordon Brown, former Prime Minister of the UK; Salman Khan, Founder and CEO of Khan AcademyYao Ming, retired NBA athlete and founder of the Yao Ming Foundation; andJet Liactor and founder of the One Foundation. Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates made video presentations.

The conference included panel discussions on education, disaster relief, environmental protection, healthcare, and philanthropy in the Internet era. The conference was live-streamed; photos are here.

Given Beijing’s looming restrictions on the development of civil society in China, it will take much more than this conference to mobilize China’s other 430 billionaires to demonstrate an interest in helping to meet the world’s needs.

In 2013, Eileen Heisman, CEO of National Philanthropic Trust, spoke at a conference in China for NGO leaders. Heisman concluded her description of the experience in NPQwith this positive assessment:

Philanthropy has been a hallmark of American culture since its inception, one that Alexis de Tocqueville noted in the 1800s. It is an honor that China looks to the U.S. as a model for “good giving.” I, for one, will not be surprised when the day comes that we look to China’s nonprofit organizations’ achievements and wonder, “How’d they do that?”

A year earlier, NPQ wrote about China’s first-ever charity fair in Shenzhen, “a south China municipality that aspires to become a ‘city of philanthropy’ and a ‘city of volunteers.’” The Ministry of Civil Affairs (MOCA) and the local government hosted the fair.

While advances continue, such as China’s new law against domestic abuse, in the past year, China’s president, Xi Jinping, has reined in opposition to the Communist party, and that offensive includes restricting civil society. Chinese nonprofit groups say the new laws are as severe as those in the days following the 1989 military offensive againstTiananmen protesters. Not coincidentally, the Tiananmen Square protest memorial museum in Hong Kong was just shut down.

Religious persecution in China includes this story about a couple buried alive trying to prevent their church from being demolished. Foreign NGOs operating inside China are not spared. The Chinese Human Rights Defenders group, run by overseas activists, described and criticized the new laws in this statement.

Here is a recent story about a Swedish NGO chief working in China to promote access to legal services who was detained for 23-days before being deported:

On the 10th day of Peter Dahlin’s captivity in a secret Beijing jail, Chinese state security officers sprang one of their big surprises—something he found even more astonishing than hearing a colleague being beaten in a room above his cell. They showed him a document…prepared by the National Endowment for Democracy, a nonprofit group based in Washington that is largely funded by the United States Congress.

Nevertheless, some 1,000 attendees attended the inaugural Conference, brimming with excitement and expectation.

According to Alibaba Vice President Brian Wong, who helped plan the event, the conference emphasized the use of technology at the grassroots level to drive change. “Combining the entrepreneurial spirit with innovative approaches to doing social good by leveraging technology is key to making an impact today.” Alibaba Group held its inaugural Global Conference on Women and Entrepreneurship in China last year.

China has 1.3 million millionaires and is expected to add another 1 million by 2020. A May 2016 United Nations Development Program report entitled Unleashing the Potential of Philanthropy in China found that “total charitable giving in China is just 4 percent of the level in the U.S. or Europe. In many respects, China is still a place where philanthropists are finding it hard to operate due to a combination of public distrust in the sector because of some recent scandals, and an unclear legal and policy framework.”

Which face of China will triumph? Mr. Ma’s eager conference-goers, mostly young entrepreneurs representing China’s next generation of leaders aglow with the prospect of discovery and accomplishment, or police state enforcers grimly reading their mail should they attempt to embrace the promise of philanthropy?


Judge Holds WA in Contempt over Use of Jails as Mental Health “Waiting Rooms”

July 8th, 2016  |  Source: NPQ

Source; Seattle Times

U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman held the State of Washington’s Department of Social and Health Services in contempt on Thursday after finding that it had violated her order to provide speedy services to people with mental illness. The suit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of those forced to languish in jails and prisons as they wait for services.

Pechman’s original order found that forcing people in need of mental health services to wait weeks or months in jail before receiving competency evaluations or treatment was systematically violating their constitutional rights. The practice of jailing people with mental health issues has become a serious human rights issue, as our nonprofit newswriters have written about here NEWSWIRES-08JUL2016-REVISED-TCA.docxand here, all across the United States, with some suffering through the even more horrific experience of extended periods of solitary confinement. Yesterday’s contempt finding was based on the numbers of mentally ill people still confined in jails. Judge Pechman noted that in May, only 20 percent of defendants ordered to receive in-hospital competency evaluations were admitted within seven days and only 32 percent of those ordered to receive competency treatment were admitted within a week. One defendant waited in jail for treatment for 97 days after he was found incompetent to stand trial.

“The people of Washington deserve to have their mental health needs and the needs of their spouses, parents, children and friends attended to with the same urgency and dignity our society expects hospitals to respond with when presented with a broken bone or a cancerous tumor,” Pechman said, ordering sanctions of $500 to $1,000 per day for each person who must wait more than a week for treatment or evaluation.

La Rond Baker of Washington’s ACLU said, “The court has made it crystal clear that the state can no longer drag its heels and ignore the court’s directives. The state must act now to ensure that it no longer tramples the rights of pretrial detainees ordered to receive competency services.”

Emily Cooper of Disability Rights Washington said the state was being recalcitrant. “Instead of listening to the court monitor or its own experts, DSHS has continued to waste money and time on unproven solutions.”

Judge Pechman seems to agree with that assessment, saying that the agency has “failed to take appropriate responsibility for failings caused by DSHS’s own actions and inactions,” she said. The agency failed to meet “each and every wait-time benchmark” set in the injunction and repeatedly ignored or minimized its failures.

Seattle lawyer Chris Carney, who represents some of the mentally ill defendants, said the ruling “says that enough is enough. […] Enough excuses, enough failure of leadership, enough needless suffering. It’s time for serious commitment from the state, time to do what it takes to meet its obligation to vulnerable people in desperate need. We hope this ruling is a wake-up call.”


Airbnb Partners With New York City Nonprofit To Fight Homelessness

July 6th, 2016  |  Source: Forbes

Airbnb is taking a stab at reducing homelessness in the Big Apple. The online home and room rental company has donated $100,000 to WIN, a New York City-based organization devoted to providing shelter and support services to homeless women and their children. Led by former New York City councilwoman Christine Quinn, WIN, formerly called Women In Need, is the biggest organization working to reduce homelessness in the city, which has more than 12,000 homeless families. It currently houses over 5,400 women and children and works to create opportunities beyond housing like professional development.

In addition to its donation, Airbnb – cofounded by Brian CheskyNathan Blecharczyk and Joe Gebbia – will participate in a variety of WIN’s programs and recruit volunteers from its host and guest pool. Airbnb volunteers will focus on introducing women to the professional world and increasing literacy amongst their kids.

WIN has a vigorous preparation program for its Airbnb volunteers who will be put through an orientation and then will work with counselors and experts on workshops that teach women skills; including resume building and interviewing for jobs. Ms. Johnson, a client of WIN since 2011, is one of the women who have benefitted from similar workshops. She has always imagined having a career – not simply a job, and thanks to WIN, she said at a recent WIN event, she now knows “about budgeting, about credit, and how to interview for a job.” She also says she knows how to handle her older son better as a result of the training.

WIN CEO Quinn says her organization “erases the myth about homeless New Yorkers, and replaces them with the truth – that these moms are working hard every day to make sure their children have a better future.” Airbnb’s Head of Public Policy in New York, Josh Meltzer, told FORBES that the company is proud to have partnered with WIN and that it supports “WIN’s work helping those most in need, and deeply understands that permanent housing is a vital link to strong communities.”

Airbnb has grown rapidly since it was founded in 2008, and now operates in 191 countries. As it has grown, it has come under attack from city authorities around the world, including in Barcelona, San Francisco and New York City, due to some of its rental listings that may have violated local housing regulations. In mid-June, the New York State Senate passed a bill that would fine Airbnb hosts up to $7,500 if they advertise renting certain homes and apartments for less than 30 days. Airbnb’s efforts to help the homeless in New York City are one way the company may be able to build good will in a state where it has raised the ire of lawmakers.


How to Be Canadian on the Fourth of July

June 29th, 2016  |  Source: PS Magazine

How I learned to embrace Independence Day, America, and bunting. So much bunting.

I’m about as Canadian as they come. I love hockey and beer, I’ve tapped a maple tree and eaten the syrup off of a snowball, I learned to ice skate when I was five and my idea of fun is going for a two-hour hike in the middle of winter. And, like every good Canadian, a huge part of my identity was formed around the fact that I’m not an American.

I learned pretty fast that being a newcomer in the United States can be an isolating and confusing experience. Even as a white, English-speaking person from a neighboring country, I receive regular reminders that I don’t belong: when an election passes and I can’t vote; when I attend a job interview and get asked, awkwardly, if I can legally work in this country; when friends make fun of my Canadian-isms or the minor traces of an accent left in my voice; when I get shut out of a conversation about life in the U.S. because I’m told I can’t possibly know what it’s like to be an American; when strangers insist that I got married just for a green card. And I don’t even have it that bad. I’m not a “visible” outsider, and I have documents that legally allow me to live here — I can wave them in the face of anyone who tells me I should “go home.” The outsider experience is a gazillion times worse for non-English speakers, non-white migrants and anyone who arrives here without documentation. Still, for 364 days of the year, I’m reminded I don’t belong.

On the Fourth of July, though, everything changes.

I found myself fidgeting, crossing and uncrossing my legs, covering my arms and abdomen. I realized I was hiding my Fourth of July outfit, once again feeling like a fraud. The moment I got home I changed into something less patriotic.

When I moved to the U.S. in 2010, I was suspicious of my new home. But there was no easing into life here: I arrived on July 2nd — just two days before Independence Day. Peak America. And though I was still very much a newbie outsider, I quickly learned that, no matter who you are the rest of the year, everyone’s an American on the Fourth of July.

On my first day living in Los Angeles, I was heading toward the exit at CVS when a cashier called out to me: “Happy Fourth, honey!” I had no idea what that meant (I actually misheard it as “Happy Four”) but I turned around and smiled at her, waving as I left. As the weekend sailed on, I attended a backyard barbecue and a rooftop dance party. I also figured out what “Happy Fourth” was all about, and the warmth of the sentiment filled me with a sense of belonging. Though I couldn’t quite get myself to say it out loud — I felt like too much of a fraud — it sounded friendly to my new-immigrant ears. I spent my first Fourth sitting on my balcony, looking out toward the ocean and wondering how I ended up in this strange and beautiful city.

My second year living in L.A., I badly wanted to embrace the spirit of the holiday and feel like I belonged, so I put on a pair of red shorts and a blue and white striped shirt. I rode my bike to my friend’s house and smiled at the families I saw along the way sporting American flag-printed hats and T-shirts, mini flags waving from their car windows. Later, as I visited with my friend, I found myself fidgeting, crossing and uncrossing my legs, covering my arms and abdomen. I realized I was hiding my Fourth of July outfit, once again feeling like a fraud. The moment I got home I changed into something less patriotic.

That night I went to see a fireworks display at Culver City High School on the west side of L.A. I’d been to plenty of Canada Day fireworks shows, but I was not prepared for the degree of patriotism on display at this event. The show kicked off with Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.” and ran for 30 minutes, every single second packed with star-spangled-banner-loving American anthems. The show closed with the lighting of a 20-foot-wide American flag made up of fireworks, “God Bless America” ringing out over the loudspeakers. I confess that I shed more than a few tears.

While the rest of the year I feel my Canadian-nessmy outsider-nessacutely, on Independence Day, I belong here. All those stories about what it means to be an Americanfighting for justice, loving your neighbors, standing unitedthey feel true on the Fourth.

While the rest of the year I feel my Canadian-ness — my outsider-ness — acutely, on Independence Day, I belong here. All those stories about what it means to be an American — fighting for justice, loving your neighbors, standing united — feel true on the Fourth. And even though it’s not very Canadian of me to say so, I love this country. We’ve got a long way to go, but this country is full of smart people who are fighting for a better, more just nation.

I love the Fourth of July because it’s the one day of the year when no one asks me where I’m from or how I “got here,” the one day that people will just smile and pass out American flags and tell me to have a nice weekend. I anxiously await the day that every immigrant can feel this way, every single day of the year.

These days I embrace the Fourth more wholeheartedly than any other holiday on the calendar. I’ve been to barbecues in the park and cried patriotic tears at Culver High on more than one occasion. I’ve soaked up the thrill and terror of do-it-yourself fireworks on the streets of Hawthorne, a city just outside of L.A. where they’re legal. And, last year, I spent a lazy afternoon hanging out in a hammock, drinking American beer, playing giant Jenga and dancing all night — thinking nothing could be more perfect that this backyard party in the Valley. I think I can safely say I’ve embraced Peak America.

This year, on July 2nd, I plan to celebrate my sixth year living in L.A. — I’ve been told I’m officially a local now. As for Independence Day, I’ll be the one wearing flag-printed sunglasses and wishing everyone a Happy Fourth, honey.


Opioid Addiction as Growth Industry

June 28th, 2016  |  Source: NPQ

Source; Cape Cod Times

As circumstances change, venture capital money and for-profit organizations are crowding into areas of addiction and mental health treatment that were previously covered mainly by nonprofit entities.

Massachusetts Chapter 258, passed in 2014, requires insurers to cover 14 days of in-patient addiction treatment without prior approval. It has been a boon to enterprising rehab facilities unwilling to settle for state reimbursement rates. Another factor that makes substance abuse treatment potentially more lucrative is the fact that that children can stay on their parents’ insurance plan until the age of 26.

The need for behavioral health services has been there all along, but the money was absent until the passage of Massachusetts’ Chapter 258 and the federal Affordable Care Act. “Venture capitalists, who are the ones lending the money, see behavioral health as a growth area,” said David Matteodo, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of Behavioral Health Systems. Kenneth Weber, whose Recovering Champions, Inc., opened Awakenings Lodge on Cape Cod in 2015 as a for-profit treatment center, concurs that the missing ingredient for his business plan was money.

One consequence of VCs and for-profits moving into the field is that nearby nonprofit facilities will see their work made more difficult as lower-paying MassHealth patients become more dominant in their income mixes.

NPQ readers will remember this same dynamic took place in hospice care over the past few decades, driving up Medicaid costs through a combination of practices that do not benefit patients. In fact, one could argue that quality of service for patients has declined. Are these, perhaps, areas where nonprofits should get contract preference and capital to expand? And, finally, for the umpteenth time, why do state governments contracting for services get away with not paying full costs?


How the Marriage Equality Movement Won Over the American Public

June 27th, 2016  |  Source: NPQ

On June 26, 2015, history was made when the U.S. Supreme Court made marriage equality the law of the land. This victory for social justice would not have been achieved without the efforts of tenacious leaders and litigators, diverse LGBT organizations, straight allies, elected officials, celebrities, and most importantly, hundreds of thousands of people toiling at the grassroots level. But a crucial, and largely unknown, force was also at work: the Civil Marriage Collaborative, a consortium of foundations that helped change hearts and minds—and move the country toward marriage equality.

The Civil Marriage Collaborative (known as the CMC) was created in 2004, at a time when there was strong backlash against the idea of gay marriage. Less than a year earlier, the Massachusetts high court had ruled that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, a decision that prompted a media and political firestorm. President George W. Bush called for amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, and similar measures started making their way to the ballots in more than a dozen states. The LGBT movement was overwhelmed: It did not have the financial or operational capacity to mount the larger public education, policy advocacy and litigation effort that was needed to deal with the onslaught.

A Vision to Win

That’s when a handful of foundations came together to create the CMC, which would work in tandem with Freedom to Marry, an organization founded in 2003 that would eventually become the engine of the marriage equality movement. Launched with a grant from the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund in San Francisco, and led by Evan Wolfson, Freedom to Marry was based on a simple premise: Civil unions and domestic partnerships did not go far enough in removing obstacles for gays and lesbians in virtually every area of mainstream life. And by securing marriage equality, the LGBT community would gain rights in many other areas, such as in health care and the right to adoption.

No individual foundation could achieve this goal by itself, which is why the collaborative spirit of the CMC was so vital, both financially and logistically. From 2004 to 2015, the CMC and its funders contributed together and separately $153 million to build and strengthen a broad and diverse grassroots constituency and powerful public education apparatus to advance the marriage equality movement. Just as important, the CMC and its funders played a critical role in helping the LGBT movement develop, coalesce around and pursue a shared strategy to secure the freedom to marry state by state and then nationwide. Indeed, the formation of the Civil Marriage Collaborative proved to be a classic example of how foundations could come together and effect social change on a massive scale, for relatively little money.

It was not an easy task. Along the way, the movement faced losses and other major setbacks—California’s anti-marriage measure Proposition 8, just to name one. By exploiting fear and ignorance about gay people, opponents had real success in claiming that marriage equality would damage the institution of marriage and harm kids. Much of the problem at the ballot box could be traced to a perceived values gap: Research showed that most Americans didn’t think gay people shared their values. Instead, they saw gays and lesbians as unconnected to family, church, and other societal institutions.

The movement knew it wasn’t connecting with the public and began investing in deep psychographic research to determine what was really going on inside people’s heads. This more exhaustive research—which involved focus groups, multi-hour interviews with carefully selected individuals, and developing and testing dozens of different approaches—was quite expensive. The initial investment cost 10 times more than a typical statewide poll in California, not even factoring in the expenses of further research and testing. Finding the money was extraordinarily challenging.

Changing Hearts and Minds

Over time, we learned that our side was making a huge mistake leading with an “equal rights and benefits” argument, which is what superficial polling said was the best approach. Why was this a mistake? In hindsight, it seems painfully obvious: the research showed that when straight people were asked why they got married, they said for love and commitment. But when asked why gay people got married, the straight respondents said “for rights and benefits.” In other words, our “rights and benefits” frame only reinforced the belief that gay people were operating from an entirely different values frame—love vs. a better dental plan.

From that point on, the movement changed its message: Gay marriage was not about rights and responsibilities—it was about love. And we learned that the most effective messengers were not gay couples, but rather parents or grandparents of gay and lesbian people who had been married for decades. It was a strategy that resonated with everyone. The marriage movement had finally found to way to move hearts and minds on marriage.

The CMC and its partners kept moving forward, consistently aligning grant dollars behind the marriage movement’s shared strategic plan. That involved supporting a wide range of related activities, including national coordination through Freedom to Marry, litigation, public education, community organizing and robust communications. In key states, for example, foundation dollars supported public education campaigns that included door-to-door canvassing, polling, phone-banking, mobilizing faith communities and earned and paid media.

There were many ups and downs and it wasn’t a flashy approach, but it played a significant role in getting marriage equality across the finish line, dramatically increasing public support for marriage equality and relegating laws like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act to the dustbin of history.

It’s not every day in a social justice movement when you can actually win and say that the job is done now, but in the case of marriage equality, that’s exactly what has happened. Both Freedom to Marry and the Civil Marriage Collaborative are triumphantly shutting their doors, a testament to what foundations can bring to the table, particularly when they work together. It also shows what can happen when we remain true to our values, when we connect our hopes and dreams to a broader vision for the nation, and when we take action to ensure that everyone has opportunities to thrive.


More turnout for charitable giving than for elections

June 24th, 2016  |  Source: Philanthropy Daily

Americans are more motivated to give to charity than they are to vote for president: perhaps they feel charity will make more of a notable difference.

"When it comes to performing their civic duty, Americans are more inclined to give charity than cast their ballots at the polls.

"During the most recent presidential election, 53.6 percent of Americans voted, according to the Pew Research Center. That same year, 59.7 percent gave to charity, a Philanthropy Panel Study concluded.

"Donors have continued to give at record rates, while voting patterns remain fairly consistent."--Eleanor Goldberg, The Huffington Post

Read her post Here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/more-americans-give-to-charity-than-...


Number of Global Refugees at Record Levels in 2015

June 22nd, 2016  |  Source: NPQ

Source, NPR

On World Refugee Day 2016, observed on June 20th each year, the White House issued this statement, and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) released this annual report declaring that the number of displaced people is now at its highest ever, even surpassing the number of people displaced by WWII.

By the end of 2015, 65.3 million individuals, more than half of them children, were “forcibly displaced worldwide as a result of persecution, conflict, generalized violence, or human rights violations.” This number represents one out of every 113 people, or a little less than one percent of the earth’s population.

Three countries—Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia—accounted for more than half of the refugees under the UN’s mandate. And most of those refugees, 86 percent, are hosted in developing countries. Lebanon hosts 183 refugees for every 1,000 inhabitants, the highest ratio in the world, while Turkey hosts the highest total number of refugees—2.5 million people.

UNHCR reports “on average 24 people worldwide were displaced from their homes every minute of every day during 2015, some 34,000 people per day.”

This represents a level of risk for which the world’s nations know no precedent and have no common strategic vision to address it. It took the viral image of a drowned Syrian child to compel world leaders to begin to reckon with their legal and moral responsibilities, let alone to fully appreciate the scale of the growing crisis.

The UNHCR report indicates that there are three reasons why forced displacement is continually rising. The situations causing refugee outflows are lasting longer. (The conflicts in Somalia and Afghanistan are in their third and fourth decades, respectively.) New or reignited crisis situations are occurring more frequently. While the number of refugees and internally displaced people increased from six people per minute in 2005 to 24 per minute today, the rate at which the world’s nations are finding and offering solutions has been falling since the end of the Cold War.

World Refugee Day is meant to honor the courage of people displaced worldwide and recognize the contributions they make in their communities wherever they may be. UNHCR has this hashtag and video to promote awareness: “We Stand #WithRefugees 2016—Please Stand With Us.”

Amnesty International and the International Rescue Committee (IRC), among others, observe this day as well with their individual campaigns.

In a statement, Filippo Grandi, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, said this about the refugee crisis:

Each year, UNHCR seeks to find a glimmer of hope in the global statistics we publish to show that the world is finding solutions to help heal the trauma refugees are living through on a daily basis. But this year the hopeful signs are hard to find. […] Against this tragic backdrop, divisive political rhetoric on asylum and migration issues, and disturbing levels of xenophobia, are together threatening the international agreements that protect those forced to flee war or persecution. Instead of burden sharing, we see borders closing; instead of political will there is political paralysis. And humanitarian organizations like mine are left to deal with the consequences, while at the same time struggling to save lives on limited budgets.

NPQ has written forcefully many times about the global refugee crisis, such as here andhere. As a word of encouragement or warning, here is the conclusion to another NPQreport:

This is yet another of those issues that nonprofits might hope to dodge as “not their issue,” someone else’s concern and priority, but it’s not. If the U.S. slams the door on desperate Syrian refugees, the nonprofit sector that claims to represent openness, inclusion, and democracy will find its credibility seriously damaged should it fail to do whatever it can to confront the politicians using fear and hatred as a tool for political advancement.


Sen. Grassley Calls Out Red Cross for Stonewalling Haiti Investigation

June 20th, 2016  |  Source: NPQ

Source; WBUR-FM (Boston Public Radio)

Senator Charles E. Grassley of the Senate Judiciary and Finance Committees issued a letter on Thursday essentially declaring that the American Red Cross (ARC) is stonewalling his investigation on questions of accountability where its activities and spending in Haiti are concerned. The ARC received approximately $487 million dollars to provide food and shelter in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake.

Eventually, questions began to be raised about the organization’s effectiveness in Haiti, with charges about inefficiencies and waste. Grassley mentioned that reports also surfaced about the ARC viewing the disaster as a public relations and fundraising opportunity.

Most of the work the ARC did in Haiti under the Haiti Assistance Project (HAP) was in fact subcontracted to other organizations. Still, the Red Cross retained around 25 percent of that money, or $124 million, for its own operations and program costs. The rest, around $367 million, went to contracts with partner agencies, but the whole picture is obscured by a “complex yet inaccurate process to track…spending.” Consequently, the organization has been unable to answer questions about, for instance, how much went to oversight and evaluation activities—an important accountability measure, as far as Grassley is concerned. He writes that the ARC blames its lack of precision on its reliance on “nonprofit accounting standards which allow for the use of estimates rather than actual numbers.”

In the same vein, Grassley charges that the ARC attempted to stop and then successfully limited a GAO audit, whereupon it still refused to respond to requests for information. And, finally, it has downsized its own Investigations, Accountability and Ethics (ICE) unit from 65 full-time employees in the immediate aftermath of Katrina to just three today. Further, that unit reports to the organization’s general counsel, who was the contact pushing limits on the purview of the GAO review.

All of this, writes Grassley, creates substantial and fundamental concerns about ARC as an organization. Readers can go here to read the letter and the Red Cross’s response to queries.




About Value News Network

Value is the only commonality in an increasingly complex, challenging and interdependent world.
Laurance Allen: Editor + Publisher

Connect with Us