However: Thousands of restaurant workers and chefs were suddenly unemployed. Savvy nonprofits and donors connected the dots. 

World Central Kitchen is a nonprofit that usually provides food to the hungry after natural disasters. It was founded by celebrity chef José Andrés, whose book Philanthropy reviewed here. When the coronavirus arrived, WCK launched a Chefs for America initiative to employ restaurant workers to make meals for the hungry, giving them a source of income and quarantined people a source of food. Since it began this spring, the initiative has served over 10 million meals, and helped over 1,600 restaurants keep their staff busy during the economic shutdown. 

The process works like this: WCK finds restaurants either through its existing network, through an application form on its website, or through community partners. Once a restaurant signals its interest in the program, a WCK team member will talk to the restaurant about maintaining safety protocols. (Aspen Institute, James Beard Foundation, and WCK joined together to create safety guidelines for food prep during the pandemic.) WCK encourages restaurants to make 200 meals per day; for each meal a restaurant prepares using its existing infrastructure—employees, food supply chains—the restaurant receives $10. It’s likely not enough to turn a profit, but it’s just enough to keep them afloat. Later, WCK tracks how many meals have been prepared, and sends restaurants payments for the meals.

Then WCK connects the restaurant with a particular community center, church, or senior center, which will distribute the food. “They understand their community really well, and they have a really good pulse on where food insecurity lies,” VP of Development Erin Gore says. To get those meals to those who need them, some restaurants have grab-and-go pick-up sites, but the majority deliver to an off-site distribution station, such as a community center. When the restaurant already does delivery, it continues to employ delivery drivers to drop off food themselves. When they don’t have a delivery service, WCK uses meal delivery partners like Uber Eats, Grubhub, or Postmates.

Anchor donors allow WCK to expand to new cities. Major donors to the effort have each focused on a particular region: Robert S. Smith in New York, the Rihanna Foundation in New Orleans, and Phil and Monica Rosenthal in Los Angeles. Once WCK is in a city, it’s able to expand partners and raise more philanthropic support—from donations by middle-class citizens to multi-million dollar gifts from individuals and foundations. 

Amid uncertainty about the covid-19 crisis and a slowly re-growing economy, the initiative will keep going until it’s no longer needed. Donors Phil and Monica Rosenthal provided a grant of $1 million to Chefs for America. Since the gift addresses two problems at once—unemployment and food assistance for the needy, Rosenthal says it viewed it as “a win-win situation.”

In Texas, another organization had a similar idea to connect the hungry with the unemployed. This time, however, instead of working at restaurants, laid-off food workers would be paid to staff food banks. In mid-March, Texas businessmen Anurag Jain and Patrick Brandt combined to create Get Shift Done, an initiative to give restaurant workers a chance to earn $10 to $15 per hour while serving needy populations. 

Brandt used his experience as president of Shiftsmart to employ its technology to connect workers with charities like the North Texas Food Bank. The matching platform was a success and soon expanded to Arkansas, Washington, D.C., and other areas. One of the early philanthropic supporters of the effort was the Communities Foundation of Texas. Sejal Desai, business-engagement director at the foundation, says it was the entrepreneurial experience of Jain and Brandt that allowed the initiative to get off the ground so quickly, and then grow to other regions.

Though the U.S. economy is beginning to reopen, the needs for work and for nourishment haven’t gone away. “We started this as a relief program,” Brandt says, but “it’s turning more and more into recovery.” Jain notes that with many restaurants opening up at just 25 percent of capacity, there will be unemployed and underemployed workers in the food-service business for some time.

The post Restaurant Workers Feed the Hungry appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Civil society – including individual citizens, nonprofit organizations, and private philanthropy – has come to the rescue in myriad and organized ways. There are amazing stories of relatives, friends and complete strangers who have come together to get baby formula into the hands of grateful moms and dads. Like many other crises such as natural disasters, the American can-do spirit kicks in to quickly marshal resources and mobilize help for those who need it. America’s formula-fed babies will be the next case study of this generosity. 

A shortage of baby formula to this magnitude in the most prosperous nation is unprecedented, according to experts, and its impact is far-reaching. Currently, 43% of baby formula inventory is out of stock nationally, up from 18% at the start of 2022 and 3% from the same time in 2021. Three out of four babies below the age of 6 months in the U.S. consume baby formula, making this situation dire for many families. While the government has failed to take robust steps to shore up supply until recently, regular Americans were quick to spring into action – finding creative ways to help desperate parents secure sustenance for their babies.  

First, people are engaging in peer-to-peer philanthropy. During this crisis, parents have used  social media to start online groups, where they trade information on where to find different types of formula. Two Houston mothers even created an interactive map to aid the formula hunt. The website drew thousands of views overnight after going live.  

Others are sharing their extra supply in response to TikTok and Facebook posts. Strangers have stepped in as well to become formula “matchmakers.” Those with supplies will post that they have extra cans of formula to give away and mutual friends or family members tag those who might be in need. Sometimes, shipments arrive from other countries and sometimes they are walked over from a nearby neighbor.  

Second, mothers are tapping nonprofit feeding organizations that specifically aid babies’ nutritional needs. If formula is unavailable, parents may consider using other women’s breast milk for their little ones by securing a donation from a local milk bank. Milk banks regularly collect donations from lactating women and distribute them to babies who need it, though priority is given to premature and medically fragile babies. 

The good news is, in response to the formula shortage, moms are flooding milk banks with donations. According to the Human Milk Banking Association of North America, an accrediting organization for milk banks, these sites are experiencing a significant influx in supply. Inquiries from potential donors are up 20% in recent days. At Massachusetts-based Mothers’ Milk Bank Northeast, Executive Director Deborah Youngblood said potential donors are flooding the phone lines. In just one day recently, the organization received the number of calls from willing milk donors that they normally field in one month. “It’s interesting the first sort of response that we got was from potential donors — so, people responding to the formula shortage with sort of an amazing, compassionate response of, ‘How can I be part of the solution?’” 

These small acts of kindness illustrate how Americans organically find solutions to address immediate problems, working at this stage to complement the government’s response to the formula crisis. After all, civil society is nimble and effective, focused on outcomes above rigid processes. It is not bound by red tape and bureaucracy like the public sector. Individuals and organizations are near problems on the ground. For these reasons and others, Americans harbor a deep trust of the charitable sector, preferring philanthropic aid to solve social problems in America over government aid, according to polling in recent years.  

“Amazing” and “compassionate” often describe how people respond in times of crisis. As this situation illustrates, American generosity is not limited to money or volunteering time. These mutual aid efforts are tools we employ in society to make the lives of others better and our communities stronger. 

This is a critical moment for many families who don’t know where they will find nourishment to feed their babies. However, there’s hope that until the formula crisis ends, individual acts of kindness and compassion will help meet the needs of society’s littlest and most vulnerable.  

The post Baby Formula Crisis: Civil Society to the Rescue appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

1. anonymous grants comprise a tiny proportion of all DAF grants, and 
2. most anonymous grants support noncontroversial causes–causes that truly support Americans in need. 

The effect of legislation that chills anonymous giving through DAFs would be to stem the flow of resources to organizations that help the poor, the vulnerable and the marginalized in our society.

Howard Husock, American Enterprise Institute senior fellow in domestic studies, recently released a report entitled, Anonymous Giving Through Donor-Advised Funds, in which he analyzed the popular, tax-advantaged, individual charitable giving accounts to determine just how often donors are using them to make anonymous grants. Husock examined data from the five largest DAF sponsors which together hold $75 billion under their management (53% of the total assets by all DAFs): Fidelity Charitable, National Philanthropic Trust, Schwab Charitable, Silicon Valley Community Foundation, and Vanguard Charitable. His findings are interesting.

First, these DAFs made 2.3 million grants in 2020, up 32% from the year prior. Of these, about 98,000 were made anonymously–a 69% increase from 2019–but still only 4.3% of all grants made in 2020. 

Second, the lion’s share of anonymous grants (88%) was directed to organizations outside of public policy. The sector receiving the largest proportion of all anonymous gifts (about a third) was human services–organizations such as food banks, homeless shelters and substance abuse centers. Human services actually received a higher proportion of total anonymous grants (32%) than it did among total grants (25%). 

The top five grant-receiving organizations of anonymous gifts were Doctors Without Borders, Salvation Army, Feeding America, American Red Cross and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. Most Americans would hardly find any of these groups–which feed the poor, provide emergency help following natural disasters and heal the sick both here and abroad–particularly partisan or extreme. 

Religion was the second largest category of recipients for anonymous grants. These grants trailed those to human services by half (15%). Among overall DAF grants, the top two rankings are reversed; religion comprised 25% of all grants and human services comprised 23%.

The category of grant recipients that most concern critics of DAFs are “public and society benefit.” These organizations advocate for public policy changes, such as think tanks and advocacy groups, and they may be more ideological, though not political. (DAFs are only permitted to direct grants to organizations with a 501(c)3 status.) Public-benefit organizations received 12% of all anonymous grants, and only 9% of total grants made by DAFs. But, as Husock points out “The absolute number of such gifts is dwarfed when compared to the more than 2.2 million overall grants, both anonymous and non-anonymous.”

Ironically, those who claim DAFs are used anonymously to bankroll conservative policy goals would be surprised to learn that three left-leaning groups actually round out the top 10 grant recipients compared to just one right-leaning organization: American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Planned Parenthood, and Southern Poverty Law Center versus Samaritan’s Purse.

This research is timely. Senators Angus King (I-ME) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) argue that S. 1981 will increase resources for charities by speeding up donation timelines. The bill also proposes disclosure changes that could chill charitable gifts such as requiring that private foundations giving to DAFs report annually the amount contributed to a DAF, the DAF sponsor and the “donation advice.” 

Releasing donor names and motivations could open the door to humiliation, retaliation and even safety concerns. In such an environment, donors would stop giving to and through DAFs. This would grind the growth of this fast-growing giving vehicle to a halt and leave the human-service organizations, which overwhelmingly benefit from those gifts, behind.

The post Anonymous DAF Giving is Hardly Controversial appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

In an article published in the Daily Caller before Thanksgiving last week, Philanthropy Roundtable Adjunct Senior Fellow Patrice Onwuka wrote about the rising demands on the charitable giving sector amid inflation this holiday season. She also urged policymakers not to engage in needless spending as out-of-control prices leave families with fewer resources to enjoy this year.

Below are excerpts from the article entitled “Unthankful for Inflation, Thankful for American Charity”:

“Food pantries across the country don’t need pollsters to confirm that inflation is straining households across tax brackets. The cars pulling up for donations tell the tale of rising demand. Nearly two out of three (60%) food banks reported an increase in demand for emergency food assistance in August compared to the previous month, according to a Feeding America food bank pulse survey. An Idaho food bank calculates that because of inflation, they save families an average of $500 to $600 a month up from $300. Concerningly, families that stopped coming to the food bank for help in the past are back again.

Demand for help is up, but aid organizations face the same crushing inflation making it hard to keep up the supply, especially as donations have fallen. Food banks contend with the same rising food and gasoline prices households do, which drives up the costs to deliver food, goods, and services to the needy. Washington’s solution to rising food prices has been to increase federal spending on feeding programs. More cash is a temporary solution to inflation which is proving to be a long-term problem. Furthermore, excessive stimulus largely from the $2 trillion American Rescue Plan triggered the inflation we are battling today.

Washington should stand down on any more reckless spending. It’s time for American generosity to stand up this holiday season to meet the rising needs.”

Please continue reading “Unthankful for Inflation, Thankful for American Charity” at the Daily Caller.

The post Patrice Onwuka in Daily Caller: Thankful for American Charity Amid Inflation appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Hurricane Ian came ashore Florida’s Gulf Coast on Wednesday, Sept. 28 as a monstrous Category 4 hurricane, one of the strongest storms ever to hit the United States. It flooded homes on both the state’s coasts, cut off the only road access to a barrier island, destroyed a historic waterfront pier and knocked out electricity to 2.6 million Florida homes and businesses — nearly a quarter of utility customers. In the wake of a staggering amount of damage and reports of loss of life, many of us are eager to help with response and recovery efforts.

At Philanthropy Roundtable, we promote charitable giving to organizations that respond to disasters in a timely and targeted manner and in a way that reflects our shared values about individuals, families and communities. If you are looking for ways to give, please consider the following organizations:

Better Together
Better Together is leveraging the strength of its team and volunteers to work with churches in the region and across the country to bring in supplies to help families impacted by the hurricane from Sarasota to Collier County, Florida. They are helping churches coordinate relief efforts and serving families to make certain that children are in a safe environment. Their volunteers are hosting children of those who need a safe place for the kids, while providing childcare for families of first responders and essential workers.

Center for Disaster Philanthropy
CDP, which focuses on “all aspects of recovery to strengthen disaster-affected communities,” has a standing Hurricane Relief Fund that focuses on rebuilding homes and livelihoods, offering mental health services and addressing other challenges identified by communities that arise as recovery efforts progress.

Convoy of Hope
Convoy of Hope, a “faith-based organization with a driving passion to feed the world through children’s feeding initiatives, community outreach and disaster response,” has amassed a caravan of response vehicles in Florida and is working with local officials to set up points of distribution, where it will begin assisting storm survivors. Convoy will “work with local church, civic and nonprofit groups to distribute as much relief as possible.”

Heart of Florida United Way
In response to the devastation caused by Hurricane Ian, United Way is accepting donations to its Hurricane Recovery Fund, where every dollar received will help residents in Orange, Seminole and Osceola counties who need assistance recovering from the storm. The priority of this recovery fund is to support Central Floridians and ensure that they have access to food and essential supplies.

Matthew 25 Ministries
Matthew 25: Ministries, which “helps the poorest of the poor and disaster victims throughout the United States,” has partnered with Procter & Gamble to deploy disaster response fleets to affected regions “including customized panel trucks loaded with P&G Personal Care Product Kits, household cleaning supplies, baby items, bottled water and additional items including first aid and safety supplies provided by Cintas and tarps provided by Lamar.”

Operation Blessing International
Operation Blessing has four program pillars: disaster relief, hunger relief, medical care and clean water. Their team, which is dedicated to “demonstrating God’s love by alleviating human need and suffering in the United States and around the world,” not only focuses on immediate assistance, but they also work to promote long-term stability in the areas they serve. According to the organization’s website, “We remain on standby with large quantities of disaster relief supplies and equipment in Ocala, Florida, outside the hardest hit areas. Right now we’re assessing the damage and reaching out to local partners. We will move into the harder hit areas with disaster aid just as soon as travel is possible.”

Samaritan’s Purse
Samaritan’s Purse is a “nondenominational evangelical Christian organization providing spiritual and physical aid to hurting people around the world.” It has a long history of helping those affected by war, poverty, natural disasters, disease and famine. As part of its Hurricane Ian response, the organization is operating two Disaster Relief Units, tractor trailers stocked with equipment and supplies. They will also coordinate volunteer teams to “muck out flooded homes, cut downed trees and tarp roofs.”

The Miami Foundation
The Miami Foundation “is focused on building a stronger Miami” and has established a Florida Grassroots Hurricane Community Recovery Fund to support local disaster relief efforts. They will focus their efforts on supporting low-income neighborhoods and families.

We will continue to add to this list as we learn more in the coming days and weeks.

If you are interested in supporting these relief efforts or would like to recommend an organization doing great work, please contact programs@philanthropyroundtable.org.

The post How to Give to Hurricane Ian Relief Efforts appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

“Most of our funds and most of our attention go to people sort of in the middle of that spectrum, and we need to make sure our focus includes the entire spectrum, but certainly it needs to include people who have the most severe and the most acute illnesses,” she continues. “If we’re able to do that, we’re also going to have a system that serves everyone else.”

Based out of Arlington, Virginia, Treatment Advocacy Center does this on both the state and federal level, examining laws on civil commitment, emergency treatment and evaluation and police response. It also advocates for more funding and research that adequately includes those with severe mental illness to ensure that policies don’t ignore their needs.

The Head and the Heart

Another organization that focuses on patients with serious needs is the Shepherd Center in Atlanta, a nonprofit hospital that focuses on those who’ve suffered traumatic brain injuries or other neuromuscular conditions.

Michelle Jackson, a clinical neuropsychologist at the Shepherd Center, says the center takes a “holistic” approach to mental health care. It offers a multitude of psychological resources — such as providing access to neuropsychological assessments, individual and group counseling and family support. It also offers other services supporting mental health that may not be traditionally associated with it, such as access to chaplains, recreational therapy, adaptive sports, fitness training and wellness programs

When people think of mental health care, they often picture therapy, counseling and medication. But that’s not the whole picture.

“Here at Shepherd Center we definitely intertwine mental health into our day-to-day activities,” Jackson says.

One recent patient at the Shepherd Center had suffered a stroke. This young patient had lived an independent, physically active life but suddenly couldn’t move one side of their body. The patient struggled with anxiety, both mental and physical. Shepherd Center psychologists worked with the patient on deep breathing and mindfulness to focus on the physical level of anxiety, but they didn’t stop there. They also helped the patient identify core values, exploring what the patient loved about their physically active life and how to achieve those values in a new way.

“We’re social beings,” Jackson says. “As humans, we seek productivity, we seek to make connections, to have enjoyment and independence.”

Finding ways to achieve each of those goals, perhaps in a new or untraditional way, is important. “We’re trying to empower our patients and their family members to re-engage with their community.”

Helping Veterans Help Each Other

The Shepherd Center is able to do the work it does for its patients thanks in part to The Marcus Foundation. Among the Shepherd Center’s offerings is the SHARE Military Initiative, a program started in 2007 with a $2 million grant from the foundation.

“We’ve sent hundreds of veterans through there since they opened their doors,” says Marcus Ruzek, senior program director at The Marcus Foundation. “Really what we found was that this was a big problem that was impacting a massive amount of the population.”

The Marcus Foundation got involved in the mental health space because of its focus on veterans and the tragic epidemic of veteran suicide, which takes the lives of over 20 veterans every day, according to Ruzek. On top of that, nearly 30% of veterans who served in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom will experience PTSD at some point in their lives. 

Through the Avalon Action Alliance, The Marcus Foundation supports not just the Shepherd Center’s work with veterans but also seven traumatic brain injury clinics around the country — and counting. The alliance is an initiative to bring traumatic brain injury programs to rehab hospitals or academic medical centers around the country. In Milwaukee, Avalon just opened its seventh location, and it’s looking to potentially expand to Houston, a move for which The Marcus Foundation has sought the Texas-based Hackett Family Foundation’s expertise.

There are tens of thousands of veterans’ charities in the U.S. So how does The Marcus Foundation decide who’s really moving the needle for veterans? In a word: results.

One organization the foundation supports is Boulder Crest, a Virginia-based group that trains combat veterans in the science of “post-traumatic growth” through a peer-based training program, Warrior PATHH. Boulder Crest also provides other programs, such as stays for veterans and their families in the Blue Ridge Mountains.

In 2016, The Marcus Foundation funded an evaluation to follow veterans over a period of 18 months and measure traditional mental health metrics as well as “post-traumatic growth inventory,” a quality-of-life scale. Veterans went through a seven-day, peer-to-peer training program including 20 different wellness practices, from meditation to gratitude to physical fitness.

“What we learned is, by the end of that 18 months, we had an average of 50-60% decreases in post-traumatic stress scores, depression, anxiety, stress, insomnia,” Ruzek says. “All just drastic improvements that are three to four times better than what traditional mental health can offer.”

Now, The Marcus Foundation has replicated that program across the country, with 12 initiatives and counting. “We’re interested in continuing to grow this around the country and find how it can be effective for everybody, not just veterans and first responders,” Ruzek says.

A Perfect Fit

“Be creative,” Ruzek says when asked to give advice to donors interested in addressing the mental health crisis. “Really understand the population you’re gonna serve. Veterans are unique in many ways, and in the same breath, they’re America.”

Lynn Gibson, senior program officer at The Rees-Jones Foundation, says an important part of the foundation’s goal is to focus on the Dallas-Fort Worth community. “We are DFW-area funders as opposed to national funders,” Gibson says.

When making funding decisions, the foundation also looks for quality of leadership and staff, evidence-based practices, measurement-based care, trauma-informed care, and ease of access for clients (both in-person and telehealth services).

In 2019, The Rees-Jones Foundation commissioned Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute to study the assets and gaps in mental health services for young people in Dallas county.

The foundation then used this to guide their grantmaking, particularly in a recent $5 million donation to Parkland Health, a public hospital serving a primarily low-income population in its community.

Gibson emphasizes the importance of listening to the needs of grantees and trusted partners in the mental health space to know what to focus on next. The foundation has been involved with MMHPI since its inception in 2014. Since then, leaders at the institute have become “thought partners” in the mental health space, says Gibson.

“We’re lucky to have Meadows Mental Health in our backyard,” she says. “We don’t know what we don’t know.”

The foundation has also partnered with MMHPI in a “learning collaborative” in which Meadows, with help from Rees-Jones, picked six agencies to share best practices, “magnify” the work of the mental health community and more.

The Shepherd Center’s Jackson stresses that mental health initiatives should tackle the issue from a variety of angles, whether that be direct service, advocacy or research.

“Donors can be creative in what a mental health initiative is,” Jackson says.

Many successful organizations in the mental health space, from those that focus on traumatic brain injuries or veterans to those that serve people in their backyard, know exactly what they’re good at — and don’t try to do too much.

“We are very small, but we accomplish a lot for our size,” says Treatment Advocacy Center’s Lisa Dailey. “We are very narrow in our focus. We don’t have any intention of broadening our focus. Our focus is always going to be that population [with serious mental illness] because that need is always going to be there.”

Maureen Hackett’s daughter and vice president at the Hackett Family Foundation, Kelly Hackett, brings up a piece of advice from her grandfather: “My mom’s dad used to say all the time, ‘Don’t feed all of the squirrels. Because doing that will just create more squirrels.’ You have to feed the right squirrels if you’re going to move the needle.”

Whether donors and nonprofits localize their efforts geographically or topically, it is possible to move the needle on mental health.

“When you talk about wanting to focus on mental health, it can seem like a really big issue, like throwing a raindrop into the ocean,” says Dailey. “But there’s a lot of really practical and concrete work that is being done that is radically improving people’s lives. There’s the ability to see major change for individuals who are struggling and who are doing about as poorly as a person can be doing. You can turn things around for that individual, and it is really through the generosity of donors that that’s possible.”

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 Can Support Solutions to America’s Complex Mental Health Crisis appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

“The Food Bank of the Southern Tier is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1982 that distributes food and other grocery items to people in need through a network of about 165 community-based organizations in the Southern Tier region of New York State. We serve six counties in the Southern Tier, or about 4,000 square miles of territory comprised of mostly rural communities.”

“We are part of the Feeding America network of food banks, affiliated with Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Rochester and one of 10 Feeding America food banks here in New York State. Around 85% of the organizations we work with are faith-based – your typical food pantry in a church basement and run by volunteers.”

“We also partner with 41 school districts across the region to provide kids with food through our BackPack program. That has been a tremendous partnership for us, especially during the pandemic, as schools have really stepped up to serve families in need.”

“The first two weeks in March, after the first stay-at-home orders hit, we saw a 300% increase in demand compared to the same time last year. Our food pantries and meal programs were being inundated with requests as people were furloughed or laid off from their jobs. They were turning to us for help, especially until they could receive crucial unemployment benefits.”

“We have had to completely change the way we operate. We established food hubs in five of the six counties we serve and had to shift to smaller groups of volunteers, packing emergency food boxes. Throughout March and April, we were distributing nearly 100,000 pounds of food each day.”

“One of the main challenges we face is that serving a more rural region can be difficult, especially when responding to disasters like the pandemic. We’ve had to rethink the way we distributed food to people because our traditional disaster response methods just weren’t a possibility this time because of social distancing requirements.”

“Going into 2020, our initial fundraising goal was $3 million. That would be the most we’d ever raised. Halfway through March, all those plans were tossed out the window. Our monthly disaster relief expenses shot up to triple what they typically were.”

“Luckily, we had several foundations reach out to us almost immediately. They wanted to support our work and put money where it was needed most. We were very fortunate in terms of generosity from the community. Individual donors, many of them new, also made significant contributions.”

“The quick response from donor-advised funds allowed us to be very nimble in our relief efforts. We received 39 donor-advised fund gifts through a single community foundation last year, during the pandemic. At one point, we were receiving two or three notifications every week of donor-advised fund gifts.”

“It was incredible to witness such generosity and we were able to put those gifts to use right away. That immediate response really demonstrated to us that donors understood what we were doing and recognized that food was a critical need.”

“This region has a growing senior population. And, of course, that was the demographic with the highest risk from contracting COVID-19. Many were told to not leave the house, so a mobile food pantry or a regular pantry was often off the table for them. Transportation was already a problem in the region, but COVID-19 really magnified that.”
“We had to partner with multiple organizations in each community that could deliver food to people who could not leave their homes. We provided the food boxes and our partners delivered the food to those in need. That was a critical innovation in how we addressed the need in our communities.”

“Many communities in our region are classified as food deserts. The traditional definition of a food desert in a rural community is any place that people have to travel more than 10 miles to get to a grocery store.”

“We also have many communities where the only place that people can get food is something like a gas station convenience store, so the food tends to be more expensive and you can’t really get fresh produce. Reaching those communities during COVID-19 has been a real challenge that we’ve had to address.”

“About 50% of school-aged children – that’s about 41,000 kids across the region – are eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals in school. So, if they’re relying on free or reduced-price meals at school for breakfast and/or lunch, now that they’re home, there’s a question of how are they are going to have access to those meals? For a lot of families who are living right on the edge, providing those extra meals can put a huge dent in their financial situation.”

“The schools here really went above and beyond to figure out how to get meals to kids. Many of them were loading meals into school buses and delivering food out. On our end, we partnered with many school districts to provide them with emergency food boxes to help address the critical need.”

“We love it when we have the support and confidence of our donors. That allows us to just focus and do the work. We will continue to do everything we can to reach the most vulnerable communities and best serve families, especially those with young children, while learning from the successes of the past year.”

– Natasha Thompson, president & CEO, Food Bank of the Southern Tier, Elmira, NY

Click here to find more stories like this.

The post Meet Natasha Thompson of Food Bank of the Southern Tier appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

As a donor concerned about his own privacy and freedom of speech allowed by private giving, it is consistent that he cares about free speech in other arenas. By purchasing the social media giant, which boasts 229 million active daily users, his goal is both to improve the platform and set it free from the bonds of partisan censorship. Anyone who appreciates that free speech underpins our free society should welcome the prospect that the platform could host the free exchange of ideas. Instead, many people, particularly on the left, have had a meltdown. 

Musk predicts that once the changes he proposes are completed, those on both ends of the ideological spectrum will not be happy, but the majority of users will find Twitter to be a town hall or public square where they can participate more fully than they currently do. This prospect frightens the anti-free- speech crowd.

After securing his Twitter deal, Musk released a statement expressing the reasoning behind his move: “Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated.” He plans to make Twitter “better than ever” by introducing new features such as authenticating all humans, making the algorithms open-source, and defeating spambots. 

This announcement unleashed a torrent of outcry (emphasis on the crying) largely from pundits, journalists and activists. They painted Musk’s move in the starkest of terms. One user tweeted: “Today on Twitter feels like the last evening in a Berlin nightclub at the twilight of Weimar Germany.” Journalist David Leavitt proclaimed: “[This] could result in World War 3 and the destruction of our planet.” 

Vox laid out arguments for why Twitter should not truly be a platform for free speech. In the view of many verified users or “blue checks” – ironically, a status bequeathed a select few that grants them influence and reach – one powerful person creating a space for all voices somehow hurts democracy and marginalizes the marginalized. David Kaye, a University of California, Irvine, law professor, summed up the argument in the article: “[Twitter] is a global platform. So for somebody with a lot of money to just come in and say, ‘Look, I’m going to buy a part of this company, and therefore my voice as to how your rules are adopted and enforced is going to have more power than anybody else’s’ — I think that’s regressive after years of [Twitter] trying to make sensible rules.” 

Free-speech critics have welcomed (and perhaps pushed) the adoption of censorship measures. They view greater free speech on the platform as somehow dangerous. We’re not talking about illegal content such as threats of violence or child pornography. They want limits on political debates and alternative viewpoints on social, cultural, economic and even scientific issues. Washington Post columnist Max Boot, who tweeted that he was “frightened by the impact on society and politics” by Musk’s Twitter acquisition, pegged the survival of democracy to “more content moderation, not less.” 

This view is patently elitist. It rests on the premise that all people are not equal, nor should their voices hold equal power. They ignore how they can wield their influence in partisan ways and for destructive ends. 

Social-media mobs patrol Twitter feeds looking to enact their own form of street justice. They gang up to cancel individuals for past comments, unpopular views, support of undesirable candidates, or failure to support favored causes. This leads to job losses, resignations and other penalties. They use Twitter’s algorithms to amplify their messages and pretend they speak for millions of people. In turn, the media has viewed Twitter as representative of America – even though it isn’t according to Pew demographic data – and relied on the echo chambers there to make judgments about where the electorate is on a given issue. These blue checks are worried about losing their ability to serve as cultural firing squads. 

Disturbingly, they are using fearmongering about how marginalized people could be treated as a cover for the loss of their own influence. Ellen Pao, former CEO of Reddit, worried that a Musk-run Twitter would “disproportionately” harm women and minorities while “unrestricted amplification” benefits “the same people who have benefited from that privilege for centuries.” Mean tweets are not a valid reason to limit speech. Threatening language can and should be banned, but let’s stop equating dissenting views as somehow violent.

Twitter is not government owned, but like other social media platforms, the company claims to be a public square. Holding the company to that standard, let’s imagine what Twitter could become under Musk: Each user – newly verified – would be able to express his or her opinion even if he or she was the only person to hold that view. Dialogues and debates would ensue. 

As of now, the Twitter public square is surrounded by gatekeepers who bully people into conformity and silence and push the company to erect content-moderation restrictions that serve their advantage. If Musk can tear down the barriers and move aside the gatekeepers, perhaps the platform would attract more users and they would find neutral ground. How powerful would it be if other social media companies followed? 

This is far from the only effort to expand free speech. As we’ve written about previously, philanthropists are founding or supporting organizations that promote civil debate and bridge the partisan divides. Private enterprise, philanthropy and civil society can be powerful forces against the tidal wave of censorship in spheres such as media and social media. 

“For Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral,” Musk said. Let’s hope this free speech absolutist is successful in his campaign.

The post Freeing Twitter from Partisan Censorship appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

“There’s just so much that has to happen before you get the photograph. Someone has to catch your eye. You have to talk to this person. You have to establish some sort of trust. You have to explain to them what you do, read body language. You hear all of the noise, the kids playing at the park, the police sirens, the cars. There’s just so much happening at that moment that all contributes to taking the photograph.”

Now that the coronavirus has forced Wallace indoors, she misses this complicated process. More urgently, her source of income has dried up. So when she read about the Artist Relief fund online, she was quick to apply. The application was simple, she says, “which I really appreciated because at this time a lot of people are feeling exhausted.”

Formed by small- to mid-sized art grantmakers, Artist Relief has since mid-March been sending flat $5,000 grants to a fresh set of 100 artists each week. Thanks to $5 million of seed funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, another $5 million quickly materialized from other foundations. 

“While there are lots of groups looking for ways to fight the pandemic at large,” says Deana Haggag, president of United States Artists, one of the grantmakers behind Artist Relief, “in the interim there are real, living human beings who cannot afford to feed their children, buy their medication, pay for their housing.” Once today’s crisis passes, she says, most of the funders will “return to helping artists get their work done. But right now we are really just focused on helping people survive this.”

The fund imitates the Pollock-Krasner Foundation in that its money goes not to art objects but to support working artists. Founded in 1985 by Jackson Pollock’s wife, Lee Krasner, that foundation focuses on providing financial assistance to artists, according to The Almanac of American Philanthropy. Pollock-Krasner has made almost 5,000 grants, totaling nearly $79 million. But while the application process for a Pollock-Krasner grant can take nine months or more, Artist Relief can respond immediately. 

So far, Artist Relief has received tens of thousands of applications, with the demand far outstripping the supply. On its current funds, the initiative can continue to support 100 artists per week until September. Haggag says the coalition is prioritizing, and seeking individuals in financial crisis, not just those who would like to keep working. Potential recipients must meet criteria for need, and also have their work vetted within each discipline (painting, drama, poetry, etc.) by nonprofit partners of the funders. Those who make the cut are then picked by lottery for grants.

(SHAN Wallace by Kirby Griffin; above photo by SHAN Wallace)

Artist Relief has already boosted hundreds of artists. Knowing “that people see and support you” is deeply reassuring, reports Wallace. Before the pandemic, her work was lined up to show at the Baltimore Museum of Art, but that exhibit had to close along with the museum, just days after its debut. 

She remains hopeful, however. “In art you have community. You know that you’re not alone.” On that matter, “art can provide a blueprint for how we move forward.” 

The post Artist Relief appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

However, according to comments made by Justice Breyer during a May 28, 2021, National Constitution Center webinar*, these former clerks are making a political calculation at odds with their former boss’ jurisprudential philosophy. Namely, there is no room for “real politics” at the Supreme Court.

The webinar, hosted by the NCC’s President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen, touched upon a wide variety of topics stretching from Justice Breyer’s San Francisco upbringing, through his college years and his time on the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s staff, right up through the court’s current business and personal struggles hosting his high energy young grandchildren at his Cambridge, Mass., home during COVID.

But perhaps Justice Breyer’s most interesting and revealing comments came in response to a question referencing a speech he recently gave at Harvard University, where he cautioned attendees not to view the court as a political body, saying, “Justices are not junior level politicians.

“If I am writing an opinion and I think that ideology is coming into it, I think twice or three times. That is not the job,” said Breyer. “Anyone who thinks it’s pure politics is absolutely wrong.”

He compared the considerations he took into account as a staffer for the man known as the “liberal lion of the Senate,” Sen. Kennedy, to his current position as an associate justice of the nation’s highest court.

“Are you a Republican or a Democrat? What will the majority be at the Executive Session? Can we get people there? Is this popular? Is it not? I don’t see that at the court. … I haven’t seen it. That’s what I call real politics.”

Justice Breyer did concede the discussion around politics and the Supreme Court can become “complicated” when trying to make the distinction between a justice’s political and philosophical worldview.

“Suppose you think, deeply, free enterprise is the secret of success in this country. Or suppose you deeply think that at least some moves toward socialism are justified and will help. Is that a political view? Or is that a philosophical view? Is that political philosophy?…Well, I think those things are often hard to separate out. And I can’t say things like that never influence a decision.”

After 25 years on the court, Justice Breyer’s jurisprudential philosophy is clear. He is widely regarded as the court’s most “pragmatic” associate justice, a term he embraced but was also careful to define.

“Pragmatism is not sitting there doing whatever you think is good,” he explained. “When you have a statute and the statute has some words in it. And these words can be interpreted in two or three different ways … the issue is how to interpret them. What do they mean?

“Of course, you read the words. If the word is ‘vegetable,’ that isn’t a fish. You’re not going to go outside the words … but it often doesn’t give you the answer. And you look at the history. And you look at the purposes. And you look at the consequences, too. And you try to evaluate them from the point of view of what a reasonable legislator writing this statute would have thought these words were there to achieve.”

Justice Breyer differentiated this approach from the approach taken by “textualists” – justices who abide strictly by the letter of the law and the Constitution – noting he prefers “a purposed based approach toward statutory interpretation rather than a textual version.”

“Because I think they make serious philosophical mistakes, the textualists,” he said. He also noted, despite the high percentage of unanimous decisions by the court each term, which he placed at “almost half,” that disagreements often occur.

But do these disagreements get heated? Do they generate the personal animosity so often on display on cable news programs and in social media feeds? According to Justice Breyer, not even close.

“I’ve never heard a voice raised in anger. Never. I have never heard people say mean things about each other. It’s professional. You have friendship and respect, always,” he said.

A remarkable statement given the number of highly controversial cases that have reached the high court, and the diverse background and judicial views of the nine justices on the court, who were appointed by five different presidents from both political parties. However, completely consistent with remarks recently made by Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch.

“You have a different view? So what? What kind of character does the person have? That’s the basis of friendship,” Breyer said, referencing his long-time, perhaps unlikely, friendship with his philosophical counterpart on the court, Justice Clarence Thomas. “He’s a very, very decent person,” Breyer said.

While the Supreme Court might not experience bitter partisanship, Justice Breyer did express “worry” about the polarization of political groups around the country, especially those who involve themselves in the sideshow that has become our Supreme Court nomination process.

“When a judicial nomination comes up, they will try to get X or Y appointed or X or Y not appointed. That isn’t because X or Y is going to act politically,” Breyer explained. “It’s because they think X or Y will have jurisprudential views … that will correspond with what they think is politically good. … What I see is that judges are acting the way they think is the proper way to act, as judges.”

Throughout the webinar, which lasted about an hour, Justice Breyer came across as a man who is keenly aware he has many more years behind him on the court than in front of him, and very thoughtful about his history with the court and his legacy. Is he ready to retire? He says he hasn’t made a decision. But when that day comes, according to Justice Breyer, it won’t be because he heeds the call of five former clerks asking him to play “real politics” to benefit a political party.

A few other tidbits from the interview:

• Justice Breyer believes his most impactful opinions involved the death penalty and affirmative action.
• The central question in one of Justice Breyer’s favorite cases was whether it is permissible to copyright a design for a cheerleader’s uniform.
• Justice Breyer is currently reading a book about the history of the Hundred Years’ War.
• Justice Breyer is currently watching “M*A*S*H” re-runs.
• Justice Breyer suggests reading “The Education of Henry Adams.”

*Note: The National Constitution Center and its President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen hosted this discussion. The National Constitution Center serves as America’s leading platform for constitutional education and debate, fulfilling its congressional charter “to disseminate information about the U.S. Constitution on a nonpartisan basis in order to increase awareness and understanding of the Constitution among the American people.” The National Constitution Center will present during the Roundtable’s 2021 National Forum on K-12 Philanthropy held from September 12-14, 2021, in San Antonio, Texas. Register today!

Additional Resources:

What if?…A Progress, Libertarian, and a Conservative Takes on the U.S. Constitution, a webinar co-hosted by the Philanthropy Roundtable and the National Constitution Center featuring Jeffrey Rosen

Votes for Women: Why the 100^th Anniversary of the 19^th Amendment Matters, a webinar hosted by the Philanthropy Roundtable featuring Jeffrey Rosen

The post Justice Breyer: No Room For Real Politics on the Supreme Court appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

PART ONE: Philanthropic Freedom Fuels American Giving and Volunteering 

My name is Elise Westhoff, and I’m the president and CEO of Philanthropy Roundtable, a community of principled, compassionate and courageous donors who are committed to advancing the values of liberty, opportunity and personal responsibility through effective charitable giving. For more than 30 years, the Roundtable has been dedicated to its mission of fostering excellence in philanthropy, protecting philanthropic freedom and helping our donor community advance our shared values. Through this work, our goal is to build and sustain a vibrant American philanthropic movement that strengthens our free society.

The fundamental belief that binds our donor community is that our values of liberty, opportunity and personal responsibility have a proven track record of improving lives. This is why the Roundtable’s work focuses on promoting America’s founding principles, creating pathways to opportunity for people from all backgrounds and supporting organizations that strengthen our communities. 

The American spirit of generosity—exemplified by our nation’s longstanding tradition of charitable giving and volunteering—has played a critical role in U.S. history and is foundational to American civil society still today. Since America’s founding, voluntary association and activities dedicated to creating a positive social impact for others rather than benefiting oneself or one’s family has been a driver of progress and innovation in our communities. As U.S. philanthropy has grown and developed over the years, it has become a medium through which we express our principles and values as well as part of our society’s fabric that supports and uplifts those in need.  

Nearly 200 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville revered the thriving civil society made up of charities, religious organizations and voluntary associations he observed when he visited America. The generosity of charitable donors and volunteers is a vital lifeline for churches, educational institutions, poverty-relief organizations, health and scientific research organizations, the arts, museums, cultural institutions and so much more. The U.S. charitable sector is notably exceptional in comparison to other nations in terms of its remarkable success and vibrancy. According to one 2016 analysis, Americans donate three to nine times as much to charity (as a share of GDP) as Europeans do.  

The scale of charitable donations and volunteering is equally impressive. In 2021, Americans gave $485 billion to charity, a new record driven primarily by individual donors, according to the Giving USA 2022 Annual Report. In addition to monetary donations, volunteering continues to be an indispensable component of American philanthropy. According to AmeriCorps, more than 60.7 million people formally volunteered with organizations between 2020 and 2021. In total, these volunteers served an estimated 4.1 billion hours with an economic value of $122.9 billion.  

The importance of charitable activity became even more pronounced when the COVID-19 pandemic struck in 2020. A report by the Center for Disaster Philanthropy found that 25,118 gifts and pledges totaling over $15 billion were given during the first year of the pandemic—on top of the usual annual giving trends. The COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator received $198 million from nine gifts, while Feeding America received $126.7 million from 37 gifts. During the pandemic, we also saw a significant increase in the number of GoFundMe campaigns—17 GoFundMe campaigns each raised over $1 million in 2020 alone, for a total of $88 million according to one analysis. America’s Food Fund raised over $44 million through their GoFundMe campaign ensuring that the most vulnerable populations had access to food through the worst of the pandemic.  

Another positive trend in charitable activity is the increasing generosity of younger generations in recent years, particularly charitable giving by the millennial generation. A special report on giving patterns by generation found that millennial households in 2022 gave 40% more on average to charity than they did in 2016. However, the same report found that older generations of Americans are becoming less generous. For example, boomer generation households, with their prime earning years now behind them, gave 12% less over the same period.   

Troubling Trends in Giving Time and Resources 

In fact, since the Great Recession in 2008 we have experienced a downward trend in households’ participation in giving. While roughly half of households make charitable contributions every year, this share has fallen from around two-thirds of American households at the turn of the century. Another worrisome trend in philanthropy is the collapse in middle-class giving. According to the Fundraising Effectiveness Project, there has been a significant decline in the number of one-time donors and donors contributing less than $500, with a 7% decrease in the past year alone. The drop was even more pronounced for donors giving $100 or less, which saw a decline of over 13%. Despite their smaller contributions, these low-dollar donors make up the majority of all charitable donors. 

While high inflation has eaten away at gains in economic growth, it has also somewhat eroded growth in charitable donations. Total charitable contributions were up by 4% in 2021 compared to 2020, yet after adjusting for inflation, total giving remained relatively flat.  

Another worrying trend is observed in volunteering patterns among Americans. Although informal volunteering (assisting others outside of an organizational context, including neighbors helping neighbors) has remained stable in recent years, formal volunteering rates declined from 30% in 2019 to 23% in 2021. Unfortunately, this is part of a longer-term decline in volunteering that goes back roughly two decades. It is important to acknowledge and attempt to tackle the decrease in Americans’ engagement with the charitable community. Volunteers across the nation collaborate with nonprofit organizations to offer essential services to individuals and communities, and this also creates indirect positive outcomes for the volunteers.  

This piece is the second installment in a three-part series based on written testimony prepared for the Generosity Commission. To read part two, click here. To read part three, click here.

The post The Freedom to Give Fuels American Generosity: A Look at the Trends appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Below are excerpts from the article entitled “Inflation is Straining the Charitable Sector”: 

“In America, our civil society springs to action whenever people are in need. As with other crises, shelters, food pantries and feeding programs, soup kitchens and other direct service organizations have stepped up their distribution to meet the burgeoning demand from clients up and down the income ladder. In turn, they depend on gifts from private individuals and foundations to meet those needs. Yet these frontline aid workers are also being squeezed by inflation from different directions.

Sadly, inflation is allowing givers no rest. Rising food and gasoline prices make it costlier to deliver goods and services. For example, in California, the Alameda County Community Food Bank’s expenditures jumped from a pre-pandemic monthly average of $250,000 to as high as $1.5 million. Supply chain disruptions that plagued our economy still persist as well, prompting organizations to find ways around securing food items for distribution or implementing rationing on staples like meat.

Wages are rising, but this benefit – although good for workers – places greater pressure on nonprofit budgets. Organizations must offer their employees more money to stave off staff departures, especially in a jobs market with over 11 million unfilled positions. Every additional dollar allotted for salary is a dollar less for services.

In the meantime, inflation threatens to impact overall giving to charity as well. The generosity of the American people has been a stopgap for surging demand during the pandemic and other crises. While megagifts by wealthy donors attract headlines, they only account for about 5% of individuals giving to our charitable sector.”

Please continue reading “Inflation is Straining the Charitable Sector” at Real Clear Policy.

The post Patrice Onwuka in Real Clear Policy: Inflation is Straining Charitable Organizations appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.