Homelessness is on the rise in America. With the recent increase of homeless encampments throughout communities, local municipalities are under increased scrutiny on how to address the issue. To promote greater social order and improve public safety – for those in the encampments and the broader community – the recent Supreme Court decision in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson will greatly impact local policies.  

We believe this decision will allow local governments and law enforcement agencies to determine how best to respond to homelessness in their own communities, allowing greater local autonomy in policy decision-making and implementation.  

Esther Larson, Philanthropy Roundtable’s senior director of programs, interviewed Devon Kurtz, public safety policy director at Cicero Institute, to better understand this issue. The Cicero Institute is a nonpartisan public policy organization with deep experience in public policy and technology, law and entrepreneurship.  

Q: Homeless rates across America are only increasing. What do you see as the key contributing factors to this reality? 

Kurtz: When we talk about homelessness, we often refer to it casually as a monolith. But that’s exactly the same problem with the policies most states use to respond to it. Homelessness is very complex with distinct subpopulations with varied needs and challenges. For example, it is important to distinguish between sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations, the latter of which refers to people who live in tents and sleeping bags on the street.  

America is not experiencing a homelessness crisis as much as an unsheltered homelessness crisis. All but 12 states have seen the proportion of their homeless population without shelter increase over the last five years, and 22 states have seen unsheltered homelessness increase by more than 50%. 

The imprecision of how we talk about homelessness and in how we make policy means that most states are missing the mark. Federal homelessness policies take a one-size-fits-all approach known as Housing First, which prioritizes low-barrier housing interventions that offer people apartments without any requirements for behavioral health treatment or sobriety.  

But more importantly, Housing First explicitly moves funding away from other types of programs that might be better suited to help high-risk, high-need individuals. The vast majority of states have moved in this direction, as federal funding decisions tend to drive local policies in the homelessness space. The result has been a growing gap between the capacity of communities to respond to different types of homelessness and the increasingly complex needs of those individuals living on the street. 

Q: Policies at the federal, state and local levels have contributed both positively and negatively to homelessness in America today. What policies have had the greatest impact on homelessness – for good or bad? 

Kurtz: Federal Housing First policies are at the root of most of the decisions made at every level of government in regard to homelessness. In addition to changing how resources are allocated, Housing First’s philosophy also de-emphasizes any sort of mandatory or coerced interventions, such as involuntary mental health treatment or legal prohibitions against street camping.  

Cities well outside of California have followed along the same path in allowing sprawling street encampments to take hold of their downtowns. Austin is a notable example. These policies have good intentions—draw people into services and shelter with care and compassion rather than coercion. The problem is that they neglect service-resistant individuals or people whose conditions improve with personal accountability alongside compassion.  

The line between “meeting people where they are at” and enablement is fine. But many homelessness policies lack that nuance out of an aversion to approaches that might be uncomfortable and involve penalties for failure. The results, however, speak for themselves—homeless encampments are toxic environments filled with waste and trash, and are often hotbeds of crime. Unsheltered homeless people have 2.5 times the premature mortality rate of sheltered homeless. The road to desperation was paved with good intentions. 

A few states are taking a more nuanced approach with state resources. Florida, Georgia and Utah have all committed millions of dollars in state funding to fill the gaps for high-need individuals created by Housing First. They also take a more proactive approach with street camping that empowers law enforcement to intervene in dangerous encampments.  

These policies are often criticized as lacking in compassion. But in many ways, they more effectively approach the situations of the street and the dangers faced by unsheltered homeless people and the communities around them. Most importantly, they take seriously the reality of the human condition in that they present an actionable response to severely addicted or mentally ill individuals who are “service-resistant.”  

The policy discussion here is very, very challenging because we are ultimately discussing our society’s level of tolerance for squalor and human suffering.  

Q: For those who are newer to the recent SCOTUS decision City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, could you explain how the case went to the Supreme Court and what its impact will be? 

Kurtz: The fundamental question before the Supreme Court was whether or not laws that prohibit people from sleeping on the street or in parks punish individuals for qualities inherent to their condition. In fewer words, whether they punish people for passively “being homeless” or for specific illicit actions. In 2018, the Ninth Circuit prohibited enforcement of bans on street sleeping or camping, with few exceptions, out of a belief that it punished people for their condition as “homeless” and was thus cruel and unusual. This decision fettered how communities could respond to unsheltered homelessness and street encampments.  

Ultimately, SCOTUS saw that street sleeping could be committed by people who were not homeless, which broke down the argument that the law prohibited a condition rather than an action. But more importantly, the Court found that the federal judiciary was playing far too large a role in setting homeless policies for communities. Thus, it affirmed in part this theme of ‘multifaceted and tailored local solutions’ that I have discussed.   

In most of the U.S., this decision will affirm communities’ power and responsibility over responding to homelessness. In the Ninth Circuit, the decision will help smaller communities the most. Big cities were already forced to deal with the undeniable public safety and public health crises in encampments, even if they tend not to be proactive. Smaller communities, however, see encampments a fraction of the size of those in L.A. The problems in those camps are still pressing, but law enforcement may have felt restrained in their ability to respond to smaller camps until they grew sufficiently dangerous to warrant action. Now, communities can respond earlier. 

Q: Though your focus at Cicero is public safety, you also focus on homeless-related issues. How do you see homelessness relating to other issues – public safety, mental illness, addiction, incarceration, access to affordable housing, etc.? 

Kurtz: Street homelessness is the great public safety crisis of our time. Visible public disorder is tied directly to street homelessness, and by some measures, a significant portion of violent crime is associated with homeless victims, offenders, or both. Yet, the relationship between criminal justice and homelessness isn’t simple. Roughly one-third of homeless people in California had left prison or long-term jail stays within six months of becoming homeless.  

Rates of substance abuse and mental illness among prison populations and unsheltered homeless individuals are high and increasing rapidly. About 50% of America’s psychiatric beds are in prisons. These systems are highly interrelated and, in my view, inextricable. 

Eleven states have seen the number of unsheltered homeless people with severe mental illness more than double since 2018. Thirteen states have seen the number with chronic substance abuse at least double. To deny the public health and public safety implications of this crisis is misguided. 

Q: Is there a state or city you point to as a guiding light in this work, in terms of their effective approach to homelessness and curbing its impact on individuals and communities? 

Kurtz: It is a difficult question to answer because no two communities are the same. So what works in Detroit might not work in Austin, and what works in a rural state like Vermont certainly won’t work even in Boston. We will not find a silver bullet. There are great organizations like Haven for Hope that are often cited. And cities like Miami and Houston are often shown off for their reductions in homelessness.  

But instead of trying to copy what other people do, policymakers and the philanthropic community should look to social entrepreneurs and innovators to help build new solutions and push the borders of what we think is possible. We need to build systems that reward innovation and challenge incumbent programs to improve and grow. Experimentation and dislodging barriers to entry and innovation are essential to effectively responding to homelessness.  

We also need to look in unlikely places. For example, Nomadik AI, a start-up in Austin, Texas, is bringing a whole new approach to data collection in relation to homelessness. Organizations like theirs are so important to evaluating interventions and tracking how complex social problems like homelessness evolve over time and in different communities. 

If you want to learn more about how Philanthropy Roundtable supports donors committed to addressing our nation’s homeless communities, please contact Esther Larson, senior director of Programs at Philanthropy Roundtable here. 

The post “Street Homelessness is the Great Public Safety Crisis of Our Time”: An Interview with Cicero Institute  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Citygate Network is North America’s oldest and largest community of independent, faith-based crisis shelters and life-transformation centers. Started in 1906, the organization has grown to partner, educate, train and guide a network of 300 member organizations. Each organization works to move people in desperate situations and destitute conditions (i.e., hungry, homeless, abused and addicted) from human suffering to human flourishing through the process of gospel-powered life transformation. 

The Citygate Network focuses on breaking the bonds of destructive habits, bad decisions (made by or forced upon the person) and enslaving conditions. By providing services and care in the context of community, Citygate Network’s tagline “Enter here. Start anew.” underscores the network’s focus on life transforming change.  

Philanthropic investment into Citygate Network’s work is making life transformation possible in communities across America. To get a better sense of their work and impact throughout the country, Esther Larson, senior director of Programs, recently interviewed Tom DeVries, CEO of Citygate Network. 

Q: Rates of addiction and homelessness are drastically increasing across American communities. What are you seeing in terms of the evolving needs for those who are homeless, struggling with addiction or facing other life crises? 

DeVries: Numbers tell a story, and the reality is that more and more people are finding themselves without help, in need of support and looking for those who will offer assistance and services that can address the challenges they are currently facing.  

Between 2022 and 2023, the number of people experiencing homelessness on any given night in the United States rose by 12%, reaching 653,100 – the highest number recorded since tracking began in 2007. The challenges are increasingly complex, with a growing demand for holistic support. Immediate needs include access to shelter, food and health care services alongside long-term, sustainable solutions addressing mental health, addiction recovery and affordable housing.  

Homelessness is more often the symptom of a greater pervasive problem: broken relationships. This lack of supportive community leads to so many of the issues contributing to rising rates of homelessness and intersecting problems of mental illness, addiction, ability to remain in employment and limited access to affordable housing. At Citygate Network, our missions and ministries reach out to people where they are, in whatever situation they are in and offer solutions that can move them from a place of individual suffering to a place of flourishing in the context of a caring community.  
 

Q: What is Citygate Network’s unique approach to address these needs? 

DeVries: The unique approach of the missions and ministries within Citygate Network is that each approach is unique. With more than 320 missions and ministries in our network, each one helps, loves and serves differently, in response to their unique context. 

For example, in Baltimore, Helping Up Mission partners with Johns Hopkins Hospital to provide health care for moms with children who are experiencing homelessness as well as mothers who are expecting. In Colorado, the Denver Rescue Mission has a contract with the city of Denver to provide emergency shelter and housing for the unhoused in that community. In Southern California, Hope: The Mission has multiple sites of tiny homes that offer safety and security as an alternative to the challenge of living on the streets. 

Our ministries offer professional mental health services, Christ-centered recovery programs, trauma-informed case management, workforce development and spiritual support, ensuring individuals receive the resources and relationships needed to rebuild their lives and achieve long-term stability. 

Q: What is the impact of Citygate’s programs and what makes your program model unique?  

DeVries: The programs of the missions and ministries of Citygate Network have profound impact, transforming lives and future generations as people are restored. As one of the largest providers of homeless services in the United States, we collectively provide nearly 80,000 beds. In conversation with Dr. Robert Marbut, former director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, between Citygate Network and The Salvation Army, we provide 75% of the nation’s emergency shelter services. The fact that 75% of emergency shelter beds are being provided by faith-based organizations demonstrates the significant role faith-based providers play in serving those who are most vulnerable in our country. 

Though vitally important, providing emergency housing is only one aspect of our work. We aim to transform the lives of those who are hungry, homeless, abused and/or addicted. We do this by providing recovery and restoration through God’s message of hope and help to people in the most difficult and challenging places. 

Q: Speaking of life transformation, could you share a story of someone who has benefited from Citygate’s ministries? 

DeVries: Citygate Network partners with missions and ministries across North America and the Caribbean and the impact of our programs is vast. For example, in Seattle, Sarah, a young mother, overcame homelessness and addiction through mental health support, Christ-centered recovery and job training with help from Union Gospel Mission. Now employed and volunteering, she helps others on their recovery journey. In Washington D.C., James, a veteran with PTSD, found refuge and stability through similar comprehensive services with Central Union Mission. He now serves as a mentor to other veterans, exemplifying the transformative power of Citygate Network’s comprehensive approach.  

These stories highlight the life-changing impact of our programs, demonstrating how we empower these missions to carry out this vital life-transforming work. 

Q: In the midst of oftentimes flawed policies to address community needs, what are some of critiques you have on the Housing First policy and the recent SCOTUS decision addressing homeless encampments?  

DeVries: While Housing First is a valuable approach, it often overlooks the need for comprehensive support like incorporating mental health and addiction services, which are crucial for sustainable recovery. Providing housing alone, especially to those deemed most in need, without addressing underlying issues, can result in repeated and prolonged homelessness. 

The recent SCOTUS decision on homeless encampments underscores the urgency for humane and lasting solutions. Criminalizing homelessness without offering viable alternatives does not address root causes and can exacerbate the situation. Effective policies should integrate housing with robust support services to foster long-term stability and well-being. 

Q: Could you describe how Citygate Network’s mission is funded? How does philanthropy propel your mission? 

DeVries: Citygate Network’s mission is funded through three streams: annual dues from our members, revenue from annual events we provide and the generous support from donors and foundations. Of those three streams, philanthropy is currently the smallest. Historically, we have viewed ourselves more as an association than as a missional movement. While this model has sustained us thus far, we are now poised for growth and require additional financial support to accomplish goals focused on bringing long-term solutions to people’s lives and to how we address homelessness overall. 

Increased philanthropic contributions would significantly expand the reach and impact of Citygate Network by enhancing our leadership development equipping and training. These contributions would also empower us to drive systematic change and raise awareness about the intersection of homelessness and addiction and/or mental health through advocacy to key policymakers. 

Q: Are there any specific donor partnerships that have been pivotal in the organization’s impact? If so, what made the partnership so compelling? 

DeVries: Citygate Network’s Hope in the Gate initiative, in partnership with the Maclellan Foundation, Unwavering Resolve plus Willow Bend Creative, offers transformative three-day retreats for individuals nearing the end of their rescue mission recovery programs. Set in the serene hills of Tennessee, participants work with singer-songwriters, life coaches and other professionals to discover their unique gifts, hear God’s voice and celebrate their journeys. The retreats include original music, outdoor activities, counseling support and community building, providing a powerful capstone to their recovery process. You can watch Hope in the Gate: Krystal’s Story to see a story from one of our Hope in the Gate events. 

We also partner with the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust to host Ripple Effect, a leadership and board governance development program, enhancing our member missions’ ability and capacity to grow leadership, determine ministry direction and raise the level of kingdom impact and ministry effectiveness. 

Q: Are there any specific initiatives you’d like to highlight for donors who might be interested in your work? 

DeVries: One major initiative we are working on is better tracking (of) our outcomes and impact across the country. To do this, we have entered a new relationship with MissionTracker, which offers a customer relationship management system to members, enabling us to create a national dashboard that reflects our collective impact, enhancing our ability to measure impact and showcase the significant work our members are doing.   

This will ultimately improve scalability and strengthen our collective voice, offering a comprehensive view of emergency service beds, addiction recovery programs, meals served and key demographics. Although launching this system is a significant and costly endeavor, it will offer invaluable insights into the role of Christians and faith-based ministries in addressing homelessness across the U.S. and Canada. 

Another initiative is our new leadership development track focused on learning communities and coaching. Through connection and content, the program will provide learning, support and accountability for leaders to grow and develop to ultimately see increased missional impact. 

Finally, we have a strategic partnership with Adult & Teen Challenge, The Salvation Army and Duke University, where we are actively working to measure the impact of faith on recovery. This collaboration is crucial to our mission, especially in light of the HUD survey revealing that one in five individuals experiencing homelessness struggle with substance abuse, with Citygate Network members and other studies estimating this figure to be significantly higher.  

With the economic impact of substance abuse in the U.S. estimated at $740 billion annually, our partnership aims to provide valuable insights into how faith-based support influences recovery outcomes. By studying these effects, we hope to enhance treatment and support strategies for those affected by addiction, with the goal of life transformation impacting communities for generations to come. 

If you are interested in learning more about how Philanthropy Roundtable supports donors committed to addressing our nation’s homeless communities, please contact Esther Larson, senior director of Programs at Philanthropy Roundtable here.  

The post “Enter here. Start anew.”: A Conversation with Citygate Network appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

In an op-ed published in USA Today, “I lived in a homeless encampment for a week. I saw how Housing First doesn’t work.” Mayor Mike Coffman of Aurora, Colorado, explains how the community is combating homelessness.  

Coffman describes how nonprofit models can work to help improve communities and alleviate homelessness.  

Below are excerpts from the op-ed. The full article can be found here at USA Today. 

“After spending time in encampments, it became clear that solving homelessness won’t have a one-size-fits-all solution. Many individuals were battling addiction and had little chance of holding down a job. Others dealt with mental health challenges.  

That’s why a broader approach is necessary. Federal and state governments should expand support for other programs that respect individual responsibility and focus on moving people forward ‒ especially addiction recovery, mental health and job training ‒ rather than leaving them to repeat destructive cycles that hold them back.” 

… 

“As a Coloradan, I don’t have to look very far to find successful models with tangible results. 

Step Denver provides free housing, addiction recovery programs and peer recovery support for hundreds of men each year. The program includes career counseling, 12-step meetings and life skills classes. After leaving, 84% find a full-time job and 80% report sustained sobriety. 

Likewise, Ready to Work, a program run by Boulder-based nonprofit Bridge House, takes a “three-legged stool” approach by providing employment, housing and additional support like career mentoring and medical care to homeless individuals in Boulder and Aurora. Nearly three-quarters of Ready to Work’s trainees successfully move on to permanent housing after about a year in the program.”   

… 

“Aurora is taking action to invest in people and establish the infrastructure needed to have a lasting impact. I hope it can serve as a model for cities nationwide.” 

The post USA Today Op-Ed Highlights Philanthropic Efforts to Combat Homelessness    appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

On a pleasant October evening, the Santa Barbara fine art gallery Sullivan Goss buzzed with something wonderful. The exhibition “Space” graced the gallery, studying how outer space, inner space, time and any other interpretation of the concept inspired the featured artists. Santa Barbara’s most prominent cultural trustees milled about with a glass of wine in hand. Composer and pianist Bobby Woods was at the piano, engaging with the exhibit’s theme from his perspective – space in music.  

As Woods and his jazz band explored connections to space through sound, echo, reverb, silence and the space between the notes in the scale, he paused amid the set to address the audience. Woods had discovered something in the music he wanted to share with the guests – something fascinating and marvelous. Unlike a traditional concert, this entire event was designed to facilitate this moment, the breakdown between artist and observer. This is the audience access Tertulia Americana, a nonprofit that programs cultural events, exists to create. 

Tertulia Americana was inspired by the salon model popularized in Europe during the Enlightenment of the 17th century, which eventually made its way to South America, where it remains popular. Often held in private homes, clubs or cafes, tertulias are known as gatherings centered around literary, artistic and intellectual endeavors. Traditionally varied in complexity from a simple offering of maca tea to elaborate meals, tertulias foster the exhibition of creators from many disciplines.  

Bringing the tertulia experience to Santa Barbara was the brainchild of Bobby Woods. Growing up in South America, Woods enjoyed attending tertulias as a child and found them to be a central part of the culture he experienced of goodwill and a joy-filled life. Now living in the United States, Woods saw localized and intimate gatherings missing from the framework of Southern California culture.  

With the breakdown of connectedness in society, he saw an opportunity to foster a meaningful experience among a thoughtful group of curated guests where he could orchestrate an experience that engaged the minds and hearts of thoughtful attendees. Teaming with philanthropist Mary Myers Kauppila and Jeremy Tessmer, gallery director at Sullivan Goss, the trio set out to produce events that would strengthen the cultural fabric of Santa Barbara. 

Before starting this project, Woods felt frustrated with his career. Despite being a leader of a successful jazz band, he questioned whether the audience appreciated the beauty of his music amid the noise and chatter at performance venues. However, when Woods began interacting with the audience in this new performance style, he found a renewed sense of purpose as a musician.  

“When I started focusing on that aspect of performing, it felt much more fulfilling. It felt like there was a purpose to impact my immediate community and maybe change it. One venue at a time, one concert at a time, one audience member at a time. Doing these tertulias highlighted how thirsty people are to connect,” said Woods, “To feel like they are walking out of the event with a new mentality, approach and a sense of motivation to create something bigger than yourself.”  

Kauppila was not always a connoisseur of jazz. It wasn’t until she got to know Woods that she discovered the joy of this art form. They would sit at the piano together, and Woods would play, pausing to discuss what Kauppila had heard. As she gained a deeper understanding of the music, her appreciation grew. She soon wanted to bring this experience to her community. Creating events to eliminate the barrier between artist and audience became an important focus of her philanthropic work.  

The audience is responding to this model as well. After a recent Tertulia Americana event, one guest told Woods that although he had a great time, he was most impacted by a desire to return home to create something beautiful. 

Woods and Kauppila hope to see Tertulia Americana pop up in cities around the United States. They want to bring people together, give them a shared experience of rich cultural enjoyment and send them back into the world with enriched hearts and minds. Tertulia Americana is blazing a trail for creating market demand for artists in our post-COVID world, where people have shifted how we interact with one another, which in some instances means a routine devoid of the institutions we used to rely upon for cultural inspiration.  

“We have this opportunity to be good citizens in our community,” Kauppila said, “to promote goodwill and a process of gathering that we hope is inspiring. It is a dream to bring tertulias to schools and other venues for children and young audiences.” 

To learn more about Tertulia Americana, please contact our Programs and Services Team. 

The post Tertulia Americana: Cultivating Goodwill through Artful Gatherings   appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Philanthropy Roundtable recently sat down with “UNDIVIDE US” filmmaker and director Kristina Kendall and one of the film’s producers, Senior Vice President at State Policy Network Carrie Conko, to discuss the project. In our current, troubled political and cultural environment, the film is built around creating a dialogue and trust among Americans, especially those who disagree on today’s most pressing issues. Below, Kendall and Conko share how “UNDIVIDE US” came about, the key role philanthropy played in its creation and how the film can foster respectful civil discourse. 

Q: Why did you create this film? What prompted the idea? 

Kendall: Just like most of us, I think, I looked at the current state of public discourse and thought: What kind of world are we leaving for our kids? A world where we can’t disagree with one another and where we are losing faith in our fellow citizens. I wasn’t satisfied with this and as I started doing research on this topic, I came across a book by Tony Woodlief called “I, Citizen.”  

In his book Tony makes the important point that the vast majority of Americans can engage with people with whom they disagree without conflict, and are even eager to do that, but because the extremism dominates the public discourse it makes them reluctant to enter into conversations. The 80% of us who want to converse, we get worried we’re going to get jumped on and screamed at. Nobody wants that. 
 
Conko: State Policy Network supported production and marketing of this film because we value the key themes—the importance of pluralism and civil discourse and the role they play in self-governance and federalism. We’re being told by Washington that our problems are too big and we’re too divided as a nation to solve them. Time and again we see one size fits all solutions come from Washington generating divisiveness in our communities.  

Solutions can’t even be generated at the local level because the national narrative crowds them out. In the film we show that we don’t have to make a federal case out of every issue. We highlight the fact that the American people really are able to engage in civil discourse around the toughest issues and have conversations around solutions that are common sense. 

Q: This film is a great example of human connection and the value of local community. Why is 2024 the right time for this content? What do you hope to accomplish with the film? 

Conko: Election years are always polarizing events for the country. With this in mind, we had an ambitious production schedule for the film. We began in January 2023 and held our first test screening in August. In 2024, we want to inject that sense of respect, of conversation, of seeking understanding, all at a time when we’re not going to hear that from the media, politicians or on social media. We want to remind people that these differences that we have in our communities and our cities, our towns or states, are a feature of the system and not a bug. 

Kendall: Nobody is saying our disagreements aren’t real. They are. But treating your fellow citizens with respect and listening to the people sitting across the table, rather than just dismissing them as stupid idiots—that’s the goal. Seeing the way that naturally happens in this film is exciting to me. 

Q: Why does it even matter that we get Americans to talk again? What’s at stake? 

Conko: Americans have a long history of coming together in times of challenge and accomplishing big things. When we can’t see and value each other as fellow citizens, our humanity and civil society are at stake. When politics gets into everything—everything from our dinner table conversations to which doctor we choose—we start to choose sides and we start to label and villainize the other side. We want to encourage understanding, respect and curiosity.  

Q: What are your biggest takeaways from the film, and what surprised you the most? 

Kendall: I was a little surprised that nobody in the film changed their mind about the issues; people tended to leave where they started. But something did change. They changed how they felt about the people on the other side—they approached the issue with more humanity and were able to bring more civility to the conversation. That was amazing. And the participants loved it. The people involved in the conversations wanted to stay and kept talking with each other. They wouldn’t leave! That taught me that people are hungry for these conversations. They’re hungry for the ability to engage with their fellow citizens with respect and dignity.  

Q: What has the reception to the film been like? 

Kendall: People are excited after each screening, and generally each screening spurs a few more because people want to share it with the people they care about or take it back to their local community. We’re looking into getting the film on broadcast television, in addition to the 15 film festivals we’ve been in at this point. We’ve won a couple of them in terms of their best documentary category. 

Conko: We’ve also been thrilled to see community groups, churches, colleges hosting screenings. Eighty percent of people who watch the film and fill out our survey report back that they are more likely to engage with people from their community who share different viewpoints. Time and time again at the screenings, I’ve had people walk up to me and say they want to show the film to a family member who they’ve lost a relationship with. Or they want to take it into their classroom, workplace or community groups. So that’s been a wonderful piece of this—the potential to go viral and encourage civil discourse. 

Q: Speaking of community groups, the loss of community in this country is a big factor here. How can those walls be brought down? 

Kendall: Community is core to the success of our country. A lot of people talk about the decline of religion and the rise of loneliness leading to all kind of health and social problems. I think the best answer is to look at your own life and figure out how you can get involved—go to a sewing club, a church, a running meet-up, a bowling or book club.  The more we engage with one another and look to our neighbors rather than Washington D.C. for the answers, the better off we’ll be.   

Q: Did charitable giving play a role in bringing this project to life? What are some key ways funders can support future projects like this? 

Conko: This project was completely funded by philanthropy. So, we see a couple ways for the donor community to get involved. One is to spread the message. We’ve worked with donors who not only funded the production and impact campaign, but they’ve taken the film into their businesses or some of the organizations they’ve funded and have sponsored screenings. The second way is through direct support, particularly for funding screenings. Our goal is to hit 300 screenings and to be in 100 universities by the end of the year.  

Q: How can readers watch and share this movie? How would one host a screening? 

Kendall: You can watch the trailer and find a screening at our website. To schedule a screening, you can contact us at: screenings@undivideusmovie.com. 
 
To support this project, contact Christina Pajak at pajak@spn.org. 

The post Q&A: ‘UNDIVIDE US’ Film is Breaking Down Barriers for Civil Conversation  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

A recent Wall Street Journal piece, “The Mental-Health Benefits Linked to Going to Church” highlights the significant role houses of worship play in providing a greater sense of community and belonging for individuals. The unique role spiritual leaders have in the lives of so many Americans highlights the opportunity these faith leaders and communities have to improve the overall well-being of Americans struggling to find their sense of purpose, identity and calling. 

To foster greater attention on approaching mental health-related issues within houses of worship, a collaboration among Sanctuary Mental Health Services, The Porter’s Gate Worship Project and Duke Divinity School recently partnered to launch a curriculum called “Sanctuary Course,” and “Sanctuary Songs.” The Sanctuary Course equips the church as they learn to support those with mental health challenges while the Sanctuary Songs is a complementing worship album that focuses on themes related to mental health and faith.  

There are currently around 2,000 churches throughout the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom benefiting from this resource and around 300,000 individuals completing the course in small groups of Sunday school class formats. 

Esther Larson, senior director of programs at Philanthropy Roundtable, recently spoke with Isaac Wardell, the director of The Porter’s Gate, and Daniel Whitehead, CEO of Sanctuary Mental Health Services, to learn more about the collaboration and how philanthropy can help further fuel their impact.  

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

 Q: Tell us about your collaborative project “Sanctuary Course” and “Sanctuary Songs.” 

Wardell: One of the places where the most regular and consistent spiritual formation takes place for Christians is in their experience of weekly worship. It’s in worship that we get the language and the tools for talking about the struggles we face – through preaching, through corporate prayer and also through singing together.  

Many of us have even had the experience of calling to mind the lyrics to a song or a hymn that has really spoken to our hearts during a difficult season. It strikes me that many churches don’t feel like they have the language or the tools for how to talk about mental health in worship. The hope of the Sanctuary Course and this new suite of worship resources called Sanctuary Songs is that we can provide churches with the language for how to talk about mental health journeys in a way that’s biblical faithful and also emotionally powerful. 

Whitehead: For us at Sanctuary, we see the power of music and art in helping people make connections in the mental health conversation. Sometimes when we can’t find words to explain how we’re feeling or what we’re going through or what we’re experiencing, it is art and music that help us.  

It’s also a goal of Sanctuary to change the culture of the church to be more hospitable to people amid crisis, and music is one of the most powerful discipleship tools that the church has. For us, to help create music that better reflects all of human experience by re-establishing a more biblical vision for worship through lament and honestly bringing our troubles to God in the community, strikes us as a vital task, especially in this historic moment when so many people are looking for hope. 

Q: How do you see the intersection of faith engagement and mental health?  

Wardell: There are so many stories of individuals approaching a pastor or youth pastor with a mental health challenge as their first point of entry for talking about this issue. In that crucial moment, there are really different outcomes that can take place. In the worst-case scenario, a pastor might be in error or ill-informed and cause a person to feel like their mental health challenge is a sign of spiritual deficiency or even personal sin. In other cases, a pastor might just not know how to talk about it, which might make the parishioner feel isolated and unknown. 

But, I’ve also heard really beautiful stories of how talking to a pastor has been the first step in a journey of healing when the pastor has helped destigmatize mental illness and been able to point the person in the right direction. We want to equip more pastors and church leaders to help reach these kinds of outcomes. 

Whitehead: Sanctuary Mental Health Ministries began 13 years ago because of research that shows that at a point of mental health crisis, people are more likely to turn to the church than they are to a doctor. The challenge is that very often the kind of support people get in the church is at best non-existent, and at worst unhelpful, or damaging. Faith and mental health belong together because at the heart of our faith is a belief we can bring all things before God and God has a redemptive plan for all human experiences, including difficult ones. 

Q: You successfully launched the first iteration of this project and it was well received by faith communities. Describe what the initial project for “Sanctuary Course” and “Sanctuary Songs” entailed and what impact it has had. 

Wardell: We’ve already seen these songs and prayers used in at least 2,000 churches over the past two years. We’ve been receiving emails and notes every week from individuals and from church leaders expressing gratitude for these worship resources. 

Whitehead: In our recent annual review, we detail some of the feedback we’ve received from people who have listened to Sanctuary Songs. We could also report on a great number of churches across a large geographical space that have incorporated the songs into their song worship. 

It is through this project that I believe there is so much more to be leveraged in the Christian music space, I believe it’s possible Sanctuary Songs will be looked back upon as a seminal moment that helped to move forward a re-emergence of lament and brutal honesty in sung worship. This will be a good thing for so many people in our congregations who often have to suffer in silence because of stigma, to hear their experiences sung about in community as the Jewish people did when hearing the Psalms of Lament sung in community. 

Q: What does success look like for this project working with youth around mental health? How does the collaborative think about success metrics and impact? 

Wardell: One of the goals of this project is to see more churches around the country take on conversations about mental health in small groups, in worship and through counseling ministries. We’ve seen so many individual churches start this journey, but we’re also focusing more in the coming year on conversations with whole denominations and larger groups of churches to help whole organizations of churches feel well-resourced. With our partnership with Duke Divinity professors Warren Kayhorn and John Swinton, we are hosting a gathering this coming fall with scholars, mental health professionals and musicians as we continue to increase awareness about this project together. 

Whitehead: An exciting part of the upcoming youth series that we are launching is that for the first time ever we will be doing an in-depth pre- and post-study to track and report on changes in attitudes and practices in response to the Sanctuary Youth Series. This will be a conclusive and publishable study working with a third-party research institution. At the base level, success will look like young people, and the people who serve those young people, gaining a shared framework and language to understand faith and mental health, so young people can bring their whole authentic selves to the church, and take their faith authentically into their mental health journeys. We are also excited about the prospect of cross-generational conversations happening around faith and mental health because we will have collaborative resources for young people and their parents. 

 Q: How has this work been funded? Any specific funding needs to make this project a reality?  

Wardell: Funding so far has come in the form of individual gifts as well as several grants. Many of the individual donors and family foundations that have become passionate about this work have been families touched in a personal way by mental health challenges. I think the more families come to recognize the great need in this area that they become more interested in working toward solutions that address mental health, especially in a way that’s consistent with their Christian faith and biblical values. 

Whitehead: All of Sanctuary’s work relies on the generosity of donors and foundations. We are close to achieving our fundraising goal for the youth series, but we are always looking for support to help us create new resources and raise awareness of existing resources to communities of faith across all denominations, cultural settings and geographic locations. 

 Q: Anything else you’d like to share with donors about why they should consider funding mental health as part of their portfolio of giving? 

Whitehead: When I look back at history and see the role the church has played in meeting very real needs in society, I am left wondering what history will say of this moment, and the church’s response to this overwhelming challenge in our society. I for one believe the church should be at the forefront of mental health conversations, helping the world to see a different way to hold this subject, in a way that is informed by psychology, by faith and always elevating the value and voice of those who are suffering.  

The church has all it needs to hold this space in society. But sadly the church is often too afraid, or lacking the right framework and terminology to lead the way in rehumanizing people amid crises, and reassuring people that God is still near to those who are struggling in their mental health. I can foresee a day when the church is famous for its deeply compassionate love and care of those in the midst of mental health crises. But we have a long way to go to make that a reality, so we need all the help we can get. 

If you are interested in learning more about how Philanthropy Roundtable supports donors committed to addressing our nation’s mental health crisis, please contact Esther Larson, senior director of programs at Philanthropy Roundtable here. 

The post How Houses of Worship Could Play a Greater Role Improving America’s Mental Health Epidemic  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Volunteerism and philanthropy are tightly interconnected – and increasingly so.  According to a recent Fidelity Charitable report “The Role of Volunteering in Philanthropy”, 61% of charitable donors are also recent volunteers and 39% of volunteers support a nonprofit by volunteering with the organization before they make a financial donation. 

Noting generational shifts, 33% of millennials say they give more to the nonprofit they volunteer with than they would if they didn’t volunteer – compared to only 21% of Gen X and 12% of baby boomers. These trends reflect the importance of volunteerism to philanthropy – and highlight the significance of the nonprofit sector’s capacity to effectively engage volunteers in their important work.

In honor of National Volunteer Month, Philanthropy Roundtable’s Senior Director of Programs Esther Larson recently sat down with Matthew Goldstein, founder & CEO of Besa, who has a vision to “make giving back easy – and transformative”.  Goldstein leads the Columbus-based nonprofit, which is dedicated to powering a wave of civic engagement that lifts us all and fulfills critical needs by connecting people to community service.

Initially starting in corporate America, Goldstein’s path led him to engage more deeply in his community – and provide pathways for others to do the same. With increasing loneliness, isolation and polarization in our country, a renewed commitment to volunteerism is playing a vital role in bringing diverse people together toward a bigger purpose.

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: Tell us about yourself – how has volunteerism and giving back to the community become such an important part of your life?

Goldstein: I was working in corporate America for one of the world’s largest retail companies, and it was challenging and wonderful in many ways. But I was finding my truest fulfillment on Saturday mornings in this cramped office where I volunteered for Suicide Prevention Services. It was in that space I learned about the nonprofit sector and built relationships around volunteerism that changed the trajectory of my career. Those early mornings on the hotline made me want to do more, to give more. Even now, that feeling never gets old. Watching people come together to uplift others, and being part of that, just lights me up.

Q: How did the idea for Besa come about? What was your inspiration behind starting the organization?

Goldstein: I started talking about my Suicide Prevention Services work with friends and colleagues who were mostly young professionals at that time. Many of them had talents and time to give, but it was hard finding ways to volunteer. People were unsure where to start. So on one side, all of this need existed in the community, and on the other side, people had a genuine desire to help. I wanted to build that bridge and be the connection between the need and the support. My then-boss, Suzanne Coates Brown, was totally behind the idea. I resigned from my corporate job and we started spending nights after work at her dining room table, developing the business plan. And that’s where Besa was born.

Q: What is the overall goal and strategy of Besa? What impact have you seen through Besa’s work?

Goldstein: Besa is a nonprofit dedicated to uplifting communities by making volunteerism easy and impactful for individuals and businesses. In 11 years, we’ve forged partnerships with some of the most notable companies in the Midwest, including Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Bath & Body Works, Jeni’s Splendid Ice Creams and more. We’ve rallied over 81,000 volunteers to give 210,000 hours completing 13,600 service projects, and we’ve helped make $97 million in community impact. The best part is, there is so much immeasurable impact beyond those numbers.

For example, social isolation has never been higher, to the point the Surgeon General issued a Public Health Advisory drawing attention to the national epidemic of loneliness and isolation. The advisory underlines the transformative potential of fostering social connectedness. When people connect with their community, other volunteers, the people they’re helping and the problems they’re solving, they become part of something bigger than themselves. It’s hard to measure the meaning of that, but speaking solely for myself, it is life-giving. Life-changing.

Q: Can you share a story that shows the impact of volunteering and how it can impact an individual, family or a community?

Goldstein: We have so many great stories. One is Vinay. When Vinay arrived in Columbus in 2019, he spoke limited English and didn’t know many people outside of work. He worked at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, one of our organizational partners, and they introduced Vinay to Besa. Through our volunteer experiences, he deepened relationships with his colleagues and met new friends. And he did it while contributing to the city in impactful ways. In 2023 alone, Vinay gave 150 hours of service through Besa, sometimes at multiple opportunities in one day. Today, 29 nonprofits and hundreds of people are benefiting from this one volunteer. How incredible is that?

Another impactful story is about a father and daughter who devastatingly lost their spouse/mother. The daughter had a lot of social anxiety after her mother’s death. But they eventually started volunteering through Besa, and it really brought her out of her shell. I get emotional just thinking about these stories. And there are thousands of them. I’m so proud of what our team does every day, and I’m so grateful that people keep showing up.

Q: The nonprofit and philanthropic sectors in Columbus seem highly collaborative – not just among themselves but also with the corporate and government sectors. How have you seen this propel Besa’s work and any best practices for other cities looking to foster greater cross-sector collaboration?

Goldstein: We call this The Columbus Way. It’s all about collaboration and the idea that a rising tide lifts all ships. When I started Besa, The Columbus Foundation sat down with me and opened doors for me. Business leaders like Brett Kaufman—one of our most respected developers—invested in the idea in really big ways, providing not just financial support but media introductions. Government leaders opened their doors and arms and these connections have propelled everything we do.

I think what Columbus does really well is not to see things from the viewpoint of scarcity but of abundance. There’s an abundance of people who want to support good—foundations, businesses, government, individuals. Nobody has to worry about keeping donors or businesses or volunteers to themselves. A great example is our partnership with United Way of Central Ohio in curating volunteer experiences for their corporate partners. In other places, with different leaders and different mindsets, we could be seen as competitors. Not here. Collaboration is where the magic happens.

Q: How has philanthropy been instrumental to Besa’s work? What makes Besa a unique value proposition for a donor?

Goldstein: Philanthropy has allowed us to expand. We started slowly and I think within the first year were doing 10 volunteer experiences a month. Now we’re up to 100 a month. All of this is driven by philanthropy. With every additional volunteer experience we can curate, more people become engaged in the community. And then they bring their family, friends and colleagues with them. Our unique value proposition is that when you invest in us, you’re not just solving one problem. You’re exciting people about addressing social good and investing in the social welfare of a community. Diving in and making a difference.

Q: Any recommendations to philanthropists considering funding volunteer efforts? Where are their opportunities for philanthropy to propel the work of volunteer engagement? Where are the biggest needs?

Goldstein: Volunteer programs were decimated during the pandemic, and nonprofit volunteer managers were some of the first roles to be eliminated. Many of those organizations in Columbus and across the country are still working to rebuild their volunteer programs. At the same time, volunteer rates are at historic lows. That’s for a variety of reasons, but we like to see this as anopportunity. We’ve got to create compelling programming and experiences. If you do, people will show up. And then they’ll stay engaged. Most people want their dollars to go directly to a cause like animal welfare or basic needs. But volunteerism is essential to keep nonprofits running, to keep people engaged in problem-solving. Volunteers are the heartbeat of a community.

Q: Anything else you’d like to share with our donor network?

Goldstein: I’m just full of hope! There are a lot of challenges our communities face, but there’s also an opportunity for people to come together and solve those challenges. During the pandemic, nearly everywhere I volunteered, this mom and her two kids volunteered. And over the holidays, we were decorating a local shelter called Van Buren for a holiday party. The mom was there without her kids. I said, “Oh, are you here to volunteer today?” And she said, “No, this is where I stay.” She had left another city to escape a domestic violence situation.

Regardless, she was making a point to give back with her children. Her specific circumstance of living in a shelter didn’t stop her from what was important to her. Her light shone bright with her kids, with me and everywhere she showed up that year. It’s something that will be with me for the rest of my life. Does it get any more beautiful than that?

If you are interested in learning more about how Philanthropy Roundtable supports donors committed to addressing our nation’s volunteer engagement and community building, please contact Esther Larson, senior director of programs at Philanthropy Roundtable here.

The post Uniting Through Volunteerism: National Volunteer Month Q&A with Besa appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

With books such as “Bad Therapy: Why the Kids Aren’t Growing Up” by Abigail Shrier and “The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness” by Jonathan Haidt, there is much discussion about how philanthropy and direct service providers can effectively increase the overall well-being of our youth. Others such as Lenore Skenazy and Camilo Ortiz are gaining traction with research backing up the need for greater independence and freedom for kids to prove their resilience and prevent mental health related challenges.

Philanthropic efforts in the area of youth mental health take varied paths and a foundation that has successfully funded youth mental health efforts for over 25 years is the Sidney A. Swensrud Foundation. Esther Larson, senior director of programs at Philanthropy Roundtable, recently discussed the foundation’s funding strategy behind their youth mental health focus with Trustee Nancy Anthony, who is also a board member for several other organizations, and Bob Anthony, executive director of Adolescent Wellness, Inc., who also chairs the Mental Health Initiatives Rotary Action Group.

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: How did the foundation decide to invest in youth mental health?

Nancy and Bob: Over the years our extended family and friends’ families experienced challenges related to mental health at all ages, for which we were unprepared. The resources we found were unsatisfactory. It was obvious that access to help and affordability did not exist, much less early treatment and prevention.

Q: What are your funding priorities in mental health – and why?

Nancy and Bob: Our priority is affordability and access to early mental health treatment and prevention for youth. But we now know that the path to achieving that includes parent education and community support.

Over the past 25 years, we’ve funded resources and curricula to provide specific support for parents, families and providers as well as workshops for parents, clergy, teachers and school staff and nurses. The wide selection of curricula we funded include a starter kit for schools focusing on adolescent mental health and wellness, depression prevention, peer mentoring and more.

Most recently, the Building Bridges of Understanding program, which bundles both patient and parent education with continuing medical education for pediatricians, has proven to provide affordable access to early treatment and preventive behavioral health care.

Q:  How did you come to know about the Building Bridges of Understanding program, and what makes the project so compelling for you?

Nancy and Bob: We participated in the concept discussions for the Building Bridges of Understanding program and facilitated its pilot in Naples, Florida. The previous pilot sites of Boston Children’s Hospital, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and Connecticut Children’s Hospital were documented in peer reviewed articles so we knew it worked well in urban areas and could be replicated. We wanted to see it proven in a more rural setting. Here in Naples, the family doctors joke that unicorns are more common than child psychiatrists. The nearest pediatric psychiatric inpatient facility is across the state in Miami or four hours north in Tampa.

The pilot implementation in Naples delivered:

• Continuing medical education to manage all mild and moderate cases of anxiety, ADHD, depression or disruptive behavior disorders
• Patient and parent education in the form of Guided Self-Management Toolkit for Families that allow treatment with minimal time demands on the doctor

The project is compelling because it effectively ends the waitlist for care before starting treatment. Before this project, the average delay between first symptom and first treatment was 10 years. No staff additions to the existing pediatric primary care providers were needed but youth in Collier County can now start treatment the same day they screen positive for behavioral health challenges. This three-minute video summarizes one family’s experience with the program.

Q: How do you consider impact and success metrics in your mental health-related funding strategy?

Nancy and Bob: The various program resources we fund tend to be pilot programs with great promise for effective results. They have projected outcomes, and several have met or surpassed the projected success metrics. For example, one school-based mental health pilot reduced emergency pediatric psychiatric evaluations by more than half.

The related depression awareness curriculum routinely improved – for all students in a grade – knowledge of depression, confidence in seeking help and reduced negative attitudes. However, the impact was limited because it was not widely adopted. Most school programs designed to scale simply require too much staff time to be realistic.

Building Bridges of Understanding was different. It was not a pilot but an improvement in implementation. Training primary care doctors with the basic skills of psychiatry has been available for a decade but that alone did not end the wait list to begin treatment. Doctors still made referrals out of their schedule onto a third-party waitlist because they did not have adequate time to provide the elements of ‘talk therapy’ for mild mental health cases. This program translated evidence-based treatments into convenient training not only for the doctor but also for the patient and, importantly, for the parent.

Education for the parents allows them to partner in treatment, reducing the time burden for the doctor. This allows for implementation to now be practical without adding staff. Roughly 1,500 primary care providers have implemented the program to date, which has improved care for 1.5 million youth. Peer-reviewed articles document the metrics through the pilot phases, and the program is now released nationally.

Collier is the first county in Florida where the majority of primary care providers have completed the training. The percentage of primary care providers feeling competent and confident in treating all mild and moderate mental health cases increased from 49% to 99%. They routinely prescribe the indicated ‘Guided Self-Management Toolkits for Families’and the relative volume of medications they prescribe has shifted lower for ADHD and higher for both anxiety and depression. With this success about 10,000 youth in the county will be receiving behavioral health care by the end of the year.

Q: Are there any foundations or donors who have been instrumental in impacting your approach and thinking in mental health giving?

Nancy and Bob: Over the course of our 25-year journey of funding in the mental health-related space, we often feel frustrated to find few foundations effectively supporting affordability and access to mental health-related care and find even fewer foundations that are targeting early treatment and prevention. With increased mental health awareness and discussion, we believe there is a lot of opportunity for philanthropy to provide leadership and support to the growing conversation around mental health.

Q: What lessons have you learned in your journey of giving in the mental health area and what recommendations would you give to other funders considering donating in this area?

Nancy and Bob: We find that without intentionality, hospitals and other organizations tend to reinvent the wheel if you let them. Factors ranging from the pride of ownership to basic budget protection can spark more competition than collaboration among nonprofits. Therefore, it is up to the funder to identify which effective solutions already exist and to determine whether they can be scaled, replicated or localized to their specific context.

Based on our 25 years of funding in this area, we recommend focusing on accelerating implementation. We have found that medical innovations languish for 15 years before they are widely adopted. Over the past two decades, many evidence-based interventions have been created for early intervention and treatment, yet few are widely adopted. We also recommend that funders specifically identify and outline what they want to accomplish, define very clear deliverables for those goals and delineate a timeline and a fixed communication schedule with the provider.

Q: Anything else you’d like to share with the Roundtable community?

Nancy and Bob: If your funding strategy involves youth, we highly recommend that mental health-related programs prioritize parent or caretaker involvement. These individuals are so vital to the mental health equation that to ignore them is detrimental to the overall care and well-being of the youth involved. If any donor is interested in connecting with us to share notes or best practices in the area of mental health, we welcome the opportunity to learn from and share our experiences.

If you are interested in learning more about how Philanthropy Roundtable supports donors committed to addressing our nation’s mental health crisis, please contact Esther Larson, senior director of programs at Philanthropy Roundtable here.

The post A Funding Strategy for Youth Mental Health: An Interview with The Sidney A. Swensrud Foundation appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Philanthropy Roundtable recently sat down with Seth Kaplan, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and senior advisor to the Institute for Integrated Transitions, about his new book “Fragile Neighborhoods.” In his book, Kaplan proposes a bold new vision for addressing social decline in America starting with our own neighborhoods. Through inspiring stories of people who are making a tangible impact strengthening their communities, and practical lessons for readers and philanthropists to apply, Kaplan gives a blueprint for how we can revitalize local institutions one ZIP code at a time. 

The interview below has been edited for length and clarity. 

Q: You have spent decades studying fragile states and societies, working in over 30 different countries across Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and Asia. Given your international career, what prompted you to write a book about American society? 

Kaplan: In my travels and studies, the most important lesson I’ve learned is how much relationships and the social institutions that support them matter to the health of any society. They matter more than people realize. While every place is different, I have consistently seen how such dynamics influence a society’s trajectory. The stronger the ties and institutions bonding people with one another, the greater the capacity to solve problems peaceably, promote wealth creation and address deep-seated challenges. 

My work with the World Bank, State Department and the United States Agency for International Development gave me a reputation as a fragile states expert. Starting in 2015-2016, more and more people started asking me whether America is also a fragile state. They were shaken by what they were seeing during the presidential elections, and they wondered what was wrong with the country.  

Of course, given that I was regularly traveling to places in political turmoil such as Nigeria, Sri Lanka and Colombia, I did not think we were a fragile state. America has a stable government, reasonably well functioning institutions, a dynamic business sector, advanced technology and receives more immigrants than any other country. But as I dug deeper, I uncovered that what we have is a fragile society—and that its effects are starting to show up downstream in our politics.  

My research eventually led me to believe the heart of our social decay is not something national but something local. The less we are connected to one another—embedded in institutions that support us and those around us in our daily lives—the more destructive our social problems are likely to be. 

Q: In your new book, “Fragile Neighborhoods,” you describe how many charitable organizations do good work when it comes to promoting individual success and individual goals but many fail to strengthen local social institutions like marriage, family and volunteer associations.  What should philanthropy’s role be improving social institutions in America and creating support systems to help communities thrive?  

Kaplan: The primary frame for my book is how physical places matter. I refer to them as “social habitats.” Neighborhoods sit upstream from many of America’s social ills, such as steadily rising inequality, children raised in unstable households, loneliness and deaths of despair. Indicators show that everything from life expectancy to crime rates to student test scores to social mobility are not only correlated with each other but also with a physical location.  

I argue that neighborhood institutions, including norms around marriage, inter-household cooperation and cross-class friendship, play a large role in this dynamic. As a result, many social problems are magnified when their concentration in specific locales creates a multiplier effect. This concentration has lifelong effects on children and youth living there, with implications that can last across generations.  

We can observe differences in the quality of social habitats by measuring remarkable disparities in outcomes. For example, two American neighborhoods can differ in life expectancy by 41.2 years—a staggering range. As a result, sociologist Patrick Sharkey, in an essay coauthored with professor George Galster, wrote “the fault lines for spatial inequality may be gradually shifting in the United States,” with place-based disadvantage becoming a greater problem than race-based disadvantage in explaining why some people thrive and some do not.  

There are relatively few elements that matter most to the success of any neighborhood, including family structure, social capital, access to opportunity, quality of schools, racial and income diversity, the vitality of the local economy, public safety and the built landscape. Each of these has been found by researchers and practitioners to have an outsized impact, and each is rooted squarely in physical place. 

Philanthropists should be concerned about their return on investment and discerning about which organizations they fund and why. They should focus more on strengthening the social institutions and habitats that matter so much to individual and family flourishing. This requires a new way of thinking and new ways to measure success than are currently used. It might mean, for example, using neighborhood scorecards and indicators of relational health instead of looking for answers at the individual level. 

Q: In your book you say some of the richest neighborhoods in America are just blocks away from the poorest but also that some of the poorest neighborhoods are the most socially strong. You also say drug and alcohol abuse, suicide and mental health struggles are all too common in middle- and upper-class neighborhoods. Can you elaborate on the link between mental health and the strength of our social support systems?   

Kaplan: Distinguishing between the material and social is essential to understanding how well any individual, family, neighborhood or society is doing. While we often track success through the size of our income or assets, there are plenty of studies concluding that relationships are essential to our health and well-being. When our social habitat doesn’t provide support structures, it takes a toll on our emotional, psychological and physical health because our most basic needs aren’t satisfied. And we see that when social ties are weak, material wealth alone is not enough to protect a neighborhood from the risks of social poverty.  

So well-off neighborhoods can be socially impoverished and poor neighborhoods can be socially rich. For example, the Amish, Hasidic Jews and enclaves of Somalis, Jamaicans, Vietnamese and other immigrant groups usually have little material wealth but enjoy strong cultural and familial bonds. These strong social ties help them find jobs, get advice on navigating school or applying for college and get to know neighbors. People help each other out, come together to manage difficulties and support each other’s efforts to move upward in society.  

Of course, some of our country’s economically poorest neighborhoods are also held back by their social poverty, which makes their challenges especially difficult to address. A strategy that focuses only on the material and the individual is unlikely to succeed.  

Q: Many philanthropists within the Roundtable donor community fund initiatives in their local communities as well as national organizations that may have local programs. In your book, you suggest philanthropists focus more on how local initiatives work if they want to see lasting change. What should they be looking for? 

Kaplan: My hope for “Fragile Neighborhoods” is that all Americans, regardless of wealth, would consider giving time and funding to local communities first. My recommendation is to donate to organizations that strengthen place-based social institutions—marriage, family, faith, interfamily, educational and communal—that are essential to human flourishing. Be strategic in which neighborhoods you select and in how you promote change in order to maximize the return on investment of giving.  

Some places will be much easier to enhance than others. Some initiatives will be much more likely to have a cascading effect on local dynamics than others. Understanding local contexts, how specific places relate to other places, and what elements of the social system are likely to have the biggest impact is essential.  

A concentrated focus on specific places, institutions and people is much more likely to yield results than any effort focused on a larger area or a wider set of problems. Tom Cousins, one of the philanthropists I profile in my book, discovered that his family foundation could achieve much more by working in one neighborhood than it could by funding many programs run by a wide range of organizations. Tom’s experience in real estate gave him a unique appreciation for the importance of place—and how a neighborhood could be transformed to offer its residents more opportunity with the right partnerships and investments. This led him to make a radical break with business as usual. 

Q: In “Fragile Neighborhoods,” you provide some operational lessons for practitioners, philanthropists and neighbors to reverse social decay in America. Can you share some of the ways readers can make a difference in their neighborhoods? 

Kaplan: I examine five leading-edge social entrepreneurs working to revitalize the relationships and social habitats across neighborhoods located everywhere from rural Kentucky to inner-city Detroit. These organizations don’t simply breeze into town, apply Band-Aid solutions and move on. Rather, they work hand in hand with local leaders and residents to strengthen the social institutions that have the most impact on people’s daily lives, like marriage, family structure, community and schools, and they work to develop and implement models that can be sustained and scaled up locally over time. In many cases, they focus on establishing social ties across groups that previously did not exist and redefining the social norms across locales that have divided society by race and social class. 

While every neighborhood is different, we can draw key lessons, including: 

• Focus on kids—especially boys—because of the high return on investment compared to other initiatives. 
• Strategically channel resources where they can have the broadest impact. 
• Simultaneously target as many drivers of neighborhood health as you can. 
• Establish early-warning systems that enable the prevention of problems before they grow. 
• Make ample use of the right kind of data, focusing on the nature of relationships neighborhood by neighborhood and social group by social group. 
• Look for ways to scale successful local efforts sideways to create neighborhood-based translocal national organizations. 
• Look for ways to creatively engage religious organizations and values. 
• Invest in economic revitalization, from the bottom up. 

As for individuals thinking about their own lives, let’s consider prioritizing family, children, community, neighborhood and local institutions more than we do currently. Let’s join the organizations that make up our social habitats: community-based associations, clubs, congregations, etc. rather than just joining national organizations or “connecting” with as many people as possible over social media. We can each do something local, something that contributes in a tangible—even if tiny—way to a real place and to real people.  

How can philanthropists be better stewards of our social investments? Place plus time. We need initiatives that slowly build up family, interfamily and neighborhood institutions as well as local leadership, capacity and wealth. Leaders and sponsors of these initiatives need an acute understanding of the local context, a long-term commitment and the flexibility to adjust to changing circumstances. This means thinking beyond silos and commonly used metrics. By going upstream to bolster relationships, we can build a prevention society—a strong society that helps every person and family thrive.  

If you are interested in learning more about building strong communities, please contact Philanthropy Roundtable Program Director Esther Larson.   

The post “Fragile Neighborhoods”: A Q&A with Author Seth Kaplan appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Rosado had left home at age 17. Since then, he’d dealt with tragedy from the death of his mother to “three violent experiences” after which he suffered depression and was diagnosed with PTSD.  

At 50 years old, Rosado was ready to turn his life around — and reconnect with his 15-year-old daughter, who he hadn’t seen for a year. But he needed the hard skills to help him compete in the workforce. Then he heard about The Doe Fund’s Ready Willing and Able program, which takes participants through a year-long program that offers job training, education and sobriety support.  

“It was unique,” Rosado says. “Other shelter systems did not have that.” 

Rosado, who is currently a member of the program, has since been through Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and welding training, and he and his daughter have reunited.  

“That’s been my thing,” he says, speaking of the motivation to see her again. “It’s helped me out mentally to get back into a relationship with my daughter.” 

Rosado’s experience with Ready Willing and Able has been life changing. But unfortunately, it’s also unique for someone who has experienced homelessness. The Doe Fund boasts that 78% of participants retain their job after six months and there’s a 62% reduction in recidivism three years after graduating from the program.  

Compare that to programs with the popular “housing first” model, which became the United States’ default solution to homelessness in the early 2000s.  

“There was a lot of rhetoric 10-15 years ago that we would solve homelessness with the housing first model in 10 years or so,” says Judge Glock, director of research at the Manhattan Institute.  

When the federal government adopted “housing first” as its policy in 2013, former President Barack Obama promised the federal government would end homelessness by 2023. Gavin Newsom, then mayor of San Francisco, pledged to end homelessness in his city within 10 years.  

“You had a lot of people very excited about this housing first model who made a lot of pretty expansive claims about what it would do to reduce the homelessness problem,” Glock says. “That bill has come due, and by most measures, the problem has gotten much worse.” 

Today, cities that were meant to be the poster children for the promise of “housing first” have become cautionary tales. San Francisco has the ninth highest homelessness population in the country, with 9.5 unhoused people per 1,000.  

“We’ve built over 200,000 new [permanent supportive housing] units for the homeless, as they’re known, and, since 2013, the federal government has mandated the Housing First strategy nationwide,” Glock writes for the Cicero Institute. “Yet since that nationwide mandate has gone into effect, we’ve seen street homelessness increase by almost a fourth.” 

Post-COVID, the problem has gotten even worse. “The data so far this year [on homelessness numbers] are up roughly 11% from 2022, a sharp jump that would represent by far the biggest recorded increase since the government started tracking comparable numbers in 2007,” The Wall Street Journal warned in a recent report.  

Why “Housing First” Has Failed 

Many researchers, nonprofit leaders and donors agree the “housing first” experiment has failed. It is not without good intentions, but suffers from some fundamental flaws.  

The first problem is that of perverse incentives.  

According to Glock, most of the country allocates scarce housing resources according to a point system. The idea is the neediest get the housing first, but in practice, it means there is incentive to abuse drugs, commit acts of violence and more just to reach a higher rung on the ladder.  

The Obama-era Department of Housing and Urban Development directed local groups to use this metric for providing housing, though states have some leeway on how far they go with it. In Massachusetts, for example, you get four points for being an active drug user, but only one point for being a recovering addict. But should you overdose, you can get two more points.  

Even critics of the policy agree that housing options are essential for people experiencing homelessness and some may even benefit from a simple gift of permanent housing. But for most, that can’t be the only solution.  

“The problem is that people become homeless for a variety of reasons, and putting them into an apartment just moves their homelessness inside,” says Mary Theroux, CEO of the Independent Institute. “They’re still culturally homeless, they still have the same issues they had when they were living on the street, except now they’re isolated inside, and they die at higher rates, actually, once they’re housed.”  

What people struggling with homelessness really need, she argues, is a holistic approach that combines housing with social support. Sometimes, people need a push in the right direction.  

Stephen Eide, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, says “housing first” relied on “false advertising” that presented it as an almost scientific solution.  

But it fails in theory — advocates hold up a “harm reduction” philosophy that says you cannot impose on people by directing them toward another lifestyle, you can only make resources available to them — and in practice. Not only are there perverse incentives, but “housing first” often ends up just looking like “housing only.” 

Yet homelessness is a problem of so much more than housing.  

“When we’re talking about that problem, we’re often actually talking about other problems — crime, untreated serious mental illness — and when we fail in those other areas, we do make our homelessness crisis worse,” Eide says.  

Multi-Pronged Approach Tackles Issue from All Fronts 

If housing first has failed, what should take its place? 

Isabel McDevitt, co-founder of Work Works America, is working to be part of the solution. The Doe Fund’s Work Works model, which inspired the Ready Willing and Able program that helped Rosado, helps people find housing, work and mental and emotional support through an employment-based holistic model to fight addiction, exit homelessness or just get back on their feet.  

Because McDevitt supports various interventions with the Work Works’ multi-pronged approach to homelessness, she finds it surprising so few organizations and government entities seem interested in expanding solutions to face this issue from all fronts.  

“What a lot of people don’t necessarily understand is the complexity of how people end up experiencing homelessness,” she says. “What I would hope is that we can have more of an open conversation about new, custom approaches to match the diversity of people in need. We haven’t yet solved homelessness, so let’s get creative. Policymakers should be looking at creative approaches that integrate people back into the community rather than keeping them separate in ‘homeless housing’ or doubling down on one-size-fits-all approaches.” 

While permanent, no-strings-attached housing has become the default solution to solving homelessness, Glock says more states should focus on recovery housing, such as the Oxford House model (temporary homes for those fighting addiction), and transitional housing. In Texas, the Health and Human Services Commission contracts with organizations providing recovery housing, with many positive results.  

Theroux has traveled the country looking for alternative programs. One such initiative is Haven for Hope in San Antonio, Texas, which says an astounding 91% of clients “are still in permanent housing after one year.” The organization describes its approach as “person-centered, trauma-informed and recovery-oriented.” 

Carrie Tynan of the Adolph Coors Foundation supported McDevitt in bringing the Work Works model to Boulder and Aurora, Colorado. McDevitt wanted to expand the model of the day shelter she was running to something with more long-term impact.  

This turned into the Ready to Work program at Bridge House, a “combination of employment, housing and support that breaks the expensive cycles of homelessness, incarceration and chronic unemployment,” per its website.  

Participants in the program are required to find work shortly after joining, and the program claims a success rate of 74%.  

“We believe in the value of work,” Tynan says. “We know that it can help people move out of a dependency mindset.” 

Tynan says she met one participant who said he liked his alone time and had a clean driving record. “So I decided I’m going to be a truck driver,” he concluded.  

How Philanthropists Can Make Lasting Changes 

For donors who want to get involved in solving the homeless crisis, supporting efforts that help people in a lasting way, what can they do?  

The fact that government programs seem generally disinterested in taking a holistic approach presents an opportunity for philanthropists to focus on mental health, foster care, substance abuse, public policy, direct service, preventive measures or all of the above. And they don’t have to do it alone.  

According to entrepreneur and philanthropist Joe Lonsdale, the key is to ask yourself, “Do you want to be subsidizing a broken system or do you want to be part of a solution?” Too many philanthropists dump their money on mediocre organizations with misaligned incentives and lack of accountability, he says. By pouring money into efforts that aren’t actually solving homelessness, he says, “You’re probably making the problem worse.” 

Tynan says policy change will do little if it doesn’t go hand-in-hand with the work of direct service nonprofits. For donors looking to scale a model, she suggests providing “multi-year gifts with benchmarks that need to be met in order to track the organization’s progress.” 

Theroux proposes a “Tocquevillian solution,” a “community-wide approach in which all sectors come together to advance solutions.” She applauds Haven, for example, for coordinating every other nonprofit in San Antonio working on homelessness, about 140 of them, to tackle the problem together. More than a decade later, “they’re all working in concert” rather than duplicating each other’s work, she says. “That’s where a funder can really help exert influence.” 

“The clearest lesson” from Haven for Hope, she says, “is that its success is a result of its being a product of the entire community’s coming together. It started with the partnership of an oil tycoon [Bill Greehey] and the Democratic mayor whose election he had opposed [Phil Hardberger], but then engaged and involved every sector: police, fire, EMS, hospitals, every nonprofit, the business community, philanthropic community, homeless advocates, the homeless themselves … And over the 12 years it has operated as an independent 501(c)(3), it has learned and adjusted its model based on learned information.” 

Theroux and her colleagues at the Independent Institute regularly partner to share ideas with peers at other organizations such as the Manhattan Institute, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Discovery Institute and Cicero Institute.  

Theroux and other leaders focused on addiction recovery and homelessness alleviation joined together earlier this year, organized by Michael Shellenberger and We Heart Seattle. They created North America Recovers, a network of organizations that share insights with each other and push for policy change together.  

“We share studies, interviews, information, Twitter posts and more, at a rate of probably 20-plus messages each day,” Theroux says. “Members meet with one another and visit policymakers and others to advance recovery. We meet monthly by Zoom to collaborate on ideas for messaging, outreach to policymakers and the public, and are currently organizing several events to be held next year.” 

One issue that faces even successful programs that fall outside the norm is funding. McDevitt says many nonprofits that don’t fit the government’s narrow mold for homelessness policy need alternative funding, adding philanthropists should look for local organizations that are trying new things.  

“Don’t assume your city has it figured out or that it’s just a resource issue,” she says. “Try to understand and support what’s happening and having an impact on the ground but also push for innovation.” 

Ultimately, while government homelessness policy remains stuck in the past, donors have a unique opportunity to support nonprofits that are shaping the future.  

“Philanthropists need to step up and be the civic leaders they have traditionally been in the U.S.,” Theroux says, “coming together in community and working on our problems together.” 

Madeline Fry Schultz is the contributors editor at the Washington Examiner. She previously worked at Philanthropy Roundtable and as the culture commentary writer at the Washington Examiner.  

The post How Philanthropy is Tackling Homelessness Through Holistic Solutions appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

As a religious historian, his research interests broadly include exploring the practices of 20th and 21st century American and global faith communities as well as more specifically investigating how the religious identity of faith-based nonprofits shapes their motivations, rhetoric and practice.  

Given King’s unique expertise on faith and philanthropy, our interview largely focuses on the religious giving data in the Giving USA report. As the nation’s longest running, most comprehensive report on philanthropy, it provides in-depth examination of themes, trends and findings on total charitable giving, giving by sources and giving to major recipient categories – including religion, which comprises the largest percentage of giving in each report that has been released. 

The below interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

Q: The most recent Giving USA report shows giving declined by 3.4% in 2022, with total giving at an estimated $499.33 billion. When adjusted for inflation, giving declined by 10.5%. What do these findings mean for the overall state of philanthropic giving in America? 

King: With rising inflation, drops in the stock market and shrinking disposable income, Americans faced significant headwinds to their charitable giving in 2022. While the decline affected the majority of sources of giving as well as the sectors receiving funding, perhaps most significant has been a continued decline in giving by individuals. As fewer individuals are giving overall, mega-gifts by some of the wealthiest Americans make up higher percentages of overall giving. While I believe Americans’ high levels of giving and volunteering are vital and distinctive aspects of our civil society, we are seeing some significant shifts in the landscape of giving to nonprofit institutions.  

It does appear that individuals are giving less or at least perhaps in different ways than we have traditionally tracked, yet I’m still quite positive that Americans are a generous people. It has always been the case that charitable giving has bounded back from each previous decline, and there is also growing attention to the ways that we are generous that have often not been tracked previously.  

Q: While overall giving declined, giving in some major categories grew, including giving to religion, which was up 5.2%, though down 2.6% when adjusted for inflation. In all, religious giving represents 27% of total contributions received by charities. Can you highlight the nuance with this number and what we should consider as we think through its implications? 

King: While giving to religion decreased slightly after adjusting for inflation, it has remained the largest subsector throughout the history of tracking charitable giving. Keep in mind that giving to religion includes giving to congregations, religious media and missions, but it does not include a number of other religiously motivated or inspired organizations. Even through this narrow definition, it’s clear that giving to religion, particularly congregations, remains foundational to the giving landscape. Even though it is the case that religious affiliation, attendance and membership is shrinking, giving to religion remains strong.   

Q: With religion being the largest giving subsector in the report, religious giving is a vital data point for us to track, measure and understand. Why is religious giving so consistently strong in America? 

King: Even as religious giving has shrunk as an overall percentage of charitable giving over the last few decades, it remains by far the largest in total donations. We also know that people of faith give more to both religious and secular causes and give more often. For many religious Americans, the traditions and practices passed on through their families and faith communities instill in them habits of giving. While giving is always a free choice, for many religious givers, it also carries deep aspects of a regular faith practice where giving has often first gone to one’s religious community. That may be changing a bit, but it still resonates strongly for many. High religious giving also demonstrates the vital role that congregations and other religious nonprofits play in our local communities and larger civil society.  

Q: Though religion remains the strongest category of giving in the report, many philanthropists are interested in innovative ways to further spur religious giving and overall religious engagement in America. Any thoughts on specific funding areas which you see as key levers to sustain generosity in the religion sector? 

King: In our work with congregations specifically, we see a lot of interest in reimagining their revenue models. While overwhelmingly reliant on individual contributions, some congregations are rethinking how to sell, rent or use their property in innovative ways. Others are spinning off 501(c)(3)s, social enterprises or even for-profit entities to sustain their work as well. As we are seeing seismic shifts in religious affiliation and practice in America, many religious leaders have realized they too must be open to change. In traditional mission agencies, many are turning to marketplace models or are looking to self-sustaining enterprises that are not reliant solely on annual fundraising. These models also align with a focus on empowering local voices as well as the expertise of the laity and not just religious leaders.   

Q: In 2020, 15% of donor-advised fund grant dollars were directed to religion. Do you see DAF related giving impacting religious giving? If so, how? 

King: While it is still difficult to track DAF distributions, there is a lot of current and ongoing research that will continue to help us know more. I imagine that a minority of DAF dollars will continue to be directed to religion, but it is an underdeveloped area. Many religious givers utilizing DAFs are savvy donors, and religious leaders need to be aware of how they can make giving through these vehicles an easy option. For those DAF holders who are less savvy, philanthropic advisors, financial planners or community foundations often do not have the knowledge or relationships with religious organizations to suggest them as viable and vital options for a donor’s gifts. Greater knowledge, exposure and relationship building between donors, the advising community and religious leaders would help further unlock the power of DAF giving to religious organizations.  

Q: Anything else from the report that you’d like to specifically address?  

King: It’s worth noting again that while giving to religion remains the largest subsector of charitable giving (27%), that does not represent the full picture of giving to religious organizations. There are so many education, social services and international affairs nonprofits that count their religious identity and/or activity as essential to their mission. Even while, by some measures, individuals’ religious affiliation, attendance and charitable activity may be shrinking or changing, this is only one thread in a large tapestry. Paying attention to this important area is vital to our overall giving landscape.    

If you are interested in learning more about funding faith and community related initiatives, please contact Esther Larson, Program Director at Philanthropy Roundtable.    

The post Giving USA 2023: A Conversation About Faith and Giving appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Below are excerpts from the article: 

“Fortunately, Americans have a secret weapon in fighting this battle — private philanthropy. Philanthropy has historically played a life-saving role in the medical field from helping us to eradicate polio to the more recent development of the COVID-19 vaccine. And, today, philanthropy is supporting numerous nonprofits that serve those living with mental illness, advance vital research and train mental health practitioners who can provide quality care. 

One organization making great strides in early intervention and leading the nation in grief and trauma counseling for children and teens is the Hackett Center for Mental Health. Based in Houston, the Hackett Center’s inaugural effort was launched to help heal communities traumatized by Hurricane Harvey. The center has since advanced a range of regional mental health initiatives that focus primarily on children, youth and families — such as helping children cope with the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Another vulnerable population that consistently struggles with mental health issues is our nation’s veterans. According to the Wounded Warrior Project, “1 in 3 veterans live with post-traumatic stress disorder” and “1 in 3 veterans also feel they don’t get the mental health services they need.” 

After learning about problems with the care some veterans were receiving from the Veterans Health Administration, Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus decided he needed to get involved. Today, the Marcus Foundation helps care for as many as 20,000 veterans diagnosed with conditions like traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress annually by partnering with local hospitals to create a network of mental health support. Its innovative Atlanta-based SHARE Military Initiative rehabilitation program, for instance, has gained national renown for the education, care and support it provides to veterans and service members — at no cost to them. 

… 

The lack of access to quality mental health care is indeed a crisis in this country, but solutions are out there. Public education, reducing stigma, supporting mental health research and engaging families and faith communities in solutions are all ways that we can contribute to addressing this crisis — and private philanthropy is leading the way in supporting them.” 

To read the complete article, please visit The Dallas Morning News.  

Editor’s Note: The original piece misstated the location of The Hackett Center, which is an affiliate of the Dallas-based Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute. The Hackett Center is physically located in Houston, Texas.  

The post Herrera in The Dallas Morning News: America Faces a Mental Health Crisis. Philanthropy Can Help Solve It.  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.