Class is back in session. Philanthropy is attuned to whether the campus protests that overtook many colleges and universities last academic year would be reignited and how school leadership will respond to antisemitic protests and the treatment of Jewish students on campus. 

Donors and alumni have widely rebuked student involvement in riots and violent protests. University presidents, who could not act with moral clarity to protect Jewish students or who have been selective in the application of free speech and academic freedom, have been forced out by pressure from stakeholders. Using the power of the purse, donors canceled pledged gifts and promised to withhold future funding to send a clear message to university leadership. 

However, higher education donors and grantmakers should also pay attention to the actions of deans, faculty and lecturers. Are these academics upholding the standards and values that motivate alumni and donors to give to institutions, or are they perpetuating toxic learning environments donors want to change? True diversity calls for a diversity of viewpoints, but not for discriminatory behavior or intolerant rhetoric.  

Concerning events may have flown under the national radar but they provide cautionary examples of what is happening on campuses around the country. Recently, several Columbia University deans left the university after a scandal ensued from their antisemitic text exchanges during a panel discussion on Jewish life on campus this spring.  

One wrote, “Amazing what $$$$ can do,” while another dean wrote the panel discussion at the event “comes from such a place of privilege.” A third dean used vomiting emojis to refer to an op-ed by the campus rabbi on antisemitism. The text messages were captured by attendees at the event and released by the U.S. House Committee on Education & the Workforce in a hearing. 

Conversely, a Stanford lecturer was dismissed last October for calling Jewish students in the class “colonizers” and asking Jewish students to physically go to the back of the class to illustrate the point that this is “what Israel does to Palestinians,” according to eyewitnesses. University officials stated clearly that “academic freedom does not permit the identity-based targeting of students.”  

These incidents and likely many others that have gone unreported should make donors cautious to ensure their philanthropic dollars are not supporting faculty who disrupt the learning environment for students of all backgrounds. 

My Roundtable colleague, Joanne Florino’s “Top Ten Tips for Higher Education Funders,” provides some helpful pointers for university donors in this regard. For example, one of Florino’s tips is to form relationships with friendly faculty. They will execute your project and are most likely to serve as guardians of your donor intent because you share the same goals. Faculty with aligned values can also be a trusted source of information for grantmakers on campus happenings or advising on promising philanthropic opportunities there and elsewhere. 

However, be prepared for personnel changes to remove your ally from the equation. Consider funding an academic center that hires professors who share your values and commitment to your mission. And, as always, be careful with unrestricted grantmaking. Grants or gifts with no strings attached can lead to donor intent being undermined and donors supporting people and activities they vehemently disagree with.  

This fall, expect more campus protests, especially as we approach the one-year anniversary of the Israel massacre and hostage crisis on October 7. Colleges and universities must grapple with heated viewpoints on different sides. Faculty should know there is no place for antisemitic or violent rhetoric when it comes to education and academic freedom. Philanthropy can play a role in making sure that message is heard loud and clear. 

Philanthropy Roundtable’s True Diversity initiative is an equality-based, holistic framework for embracing diversity. It values every person as a unique individual and empowers charitable organizations with the freedom and flexibility to advance their missions and help those in need.   

The post Higher Education Funders: Get to Know the Professors appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

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.

Science has lost its way, and it’s been a story decades in the making. The COVID-19 pandemic brought this detour into sharp focus, accelerating the credibility gap and contributing to a rising loss of public trust in science. 

A Pew Research poll from 2023 found trust in scientists declined by 14-percentage points during the pandemic. The political divide has become even more pronounced as well. A 2021 Gallup poll found 86% of Democrats reported having a high trust in science compared to only 37% of Republicans. What’s more, distrust of science is closely correlated to distrust of other institutions.  

Findings from the Survey Center on American Life at the American Enterprise Institute concluded that COVID-19 vaccination status correlates to trust in government, the news media, the academy and religious and scientific organizations. 

The problems at the core of science are complicated and multi-faceted. Experts interviewed by Philanthropy Roundtable identified several top reasons: 

• The pressure to conform to conventional wisdom has never been higher. 

• Career bureaucrats now run the government and outlast presidential administrations. 

• Research funding is closely tied to the National Institute of Health (NIH), leading scientists to choose research topics carefully to avoid conflicting with the NIH. 

• Peer-review journals have become “pay-to-play” publications where unbiased science is crowded out. 

“At the end of the day, science should not have an ebb and flow. We may learn new things, but it should not be ignored just based on politics,” said Jacob Traverse, president and CEO of the Center for Truth in Science. “If that’s the truth of the science, and the evidence supports it, the decisions should reflect that. Often, we see that’s not the case.” 

Dr. Scott Atlas, a former advisor to President Donald Trump and a key contrarian against the prevailing narrative during the COVID-19 pandemic, believes the root of the loss of trust in science is based on the crowding out of dissenting voices. 

“We’ve seen a dangerous increase in the role of the state in economic development, regulatory dominance and a trend to restrict personal freedom under the guise of science,” he said. “There has been a distortion of science becoming advocacy rather than seeking truth, which has led to a dangerous loss of trust in public institutions.” 

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, founder of the organization Do No Harm, which seeks to counter the influence of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) mandates in medical education, adds, “I always used to tell my students: you have a whole lifetime to convince people that you’re someone of merit. It can take one minute to destroy it. And that’s what the government did. You took organizations like the CDC that were wonderful bastions of research and tried to keep the public safe, and they wasted all of their good works and public support by toeing political lines and not knowing when the data changed.” 

In his farewell address in 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower warned, “In holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”  

That warning appears to be playing out, as stories of the impact of a one-way approach to science abound. Atlas, for example, was shunned at Stanford University when he challenged the COVID-19 orthodoxy. The same held true for Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, another Stanford professor who faced severe censorship after publishing research data contrary to the prevailing narrative surrounding COVID-19 death rates.  

Through a series of public records requests, John Sailer of the National Association of Scholars uncovered a pattern in universities receiving a National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant to discriminate on racial and gender lines in hiring practices. 

“The elephant in the room is the enormous power that government funding has in science and the way government directs science at universities and research institutes,” said Richard Tren of the Searle Freedom Trust. 

Why Science Matters More Than Ever 

Science is technical, but it matters because of the human element. Changes in the realm of science are particularly impactful to vulnerable demographics, including low-income and impoverished communities, children and the elderly. We witnessed this in stark contrast during the pandemic.  

For example, there was little scientific proof to support widespread lockdowns, mask mandates and school closures. During recent testimony before the U.S. House Oversight and Accountability Committee, Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted his COVID-19 rules—including six-foot distancing and masking for children—were not based in science. 

Elderly people were forced to die without loved ones close, students experienced massive learning loss and economic shutdowns hit the poorest communities the hardest. The United States is still paying the price for all of this today. The highest-in-a-generation inflation rate between 2022 and 2024 hit the working class and poor the hardest. Unlike wealthier individuals who often have savings and assets to buffer against rising costs, the poor and working class are struggling to make ends meet.  

The pandemic-induced inflation has thus highlighted and worsened pre-existing disparities.  

“The number of lockdown and societal-disruption deaths since 2020 is likely around 400,000, as much as 100 times the number of COVID deaths the lockdowns prevented,” Atlas and Steve H. Hanke wrote in The Wall Street Journal. 

The bottom line is that restoring trust in science matters for the future welfare of our country. And to move forward, the way science communicates will need to change. 

“Restoring [trust] will require careful and perhaps even painful self-scrutiny on the part of [scientific] institutions to learn why they lost the confidence of so many Americans during the past four years,” Tony Mills, AEI’s director of the Center for Technology, Science, and Energy, wrote in The New York Times.  

To Mills, the way forward must include open dialogue, improved transparency and increased accountability in scientific communications and decisions. 

And donors can pave the way forward. 

Investment Opportunities 

Liberty-oriented donors have been tempted to retreat from giving in the areas of medicine and science, but wise philanthropists have a key role to play in bringing truth back to science. A pivotal one is to return grounded reality to the world of science by opposing the DEI agenda. Organizations like Do No Harm aim to counter the influence of DEI mandates in medical education. Efforts are directed toward ensuring merit and scientific rigor remain the guiding principles in medical research and education. 

“There’s been a long-term effort, particularly at the NIH, to encourage minorities to be involved in science. And I think that encouragement is fine,” said Do No Harm’s Goldfarb. “But the way they’ve gone about it has been problematic. It’s based on the idea that we’re going to have a better scientific workforce if it’s more diverse, which on its surface is an absurdity. Scientific research is about individual intellectual capability. It’s about dogged pursuit of goals. It’s about working really hard. It’s not about anything else.” 

Another avenue is to support freedom of speech and inquiry in the science space. Atlas calls the current regime “a cabal of science control,” where a small group of people at the top through the NIH approve grants and are also the journal editors and department heads at universities. 

“You cannot get promoted in a university in an academic medical center without getting an NIH grant specifically. Young people are not going to jeopardize their career by speaking out against the NIH leadership,” Atlas added. 

Tren, of the Searle Freedom Trust, points to examples like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression that are working to expand free speech rights across the board. 

Another big challenge in this arena is the current process of peer-review in the scientific community.  

“The underpinning of the scientific community is iterative, slow, painful peer review,” said Traverse.  

But today, the process is monopolized by journals that profit from free submissions and unpaid reviewers. This system has led to significant issues. Traverse says academic institutions need to change how they hire and retain researchers to address these economic incentives and improve the integrity of scientific research. 

Another avenue for donors to consider is by direct funding of institutions, individual scholars and media sources. For example, Dr. Tyler Cowen, an economics professor at Georgia Mason University and faculty director at the Mercatus Center, has created so-called “fast grants” that allow scientists to quickly apply for and receive funding decisions within 48 hours. The money flows quickly afterward. This was a model from the COVID-19 pandemic of how philanthropists can quickly expedite grants to fill an urgent need.  

Along the same lines, a promising way forward is to support the next generation of young scientists willing to challenge the establishment orthodoxy. Support fellowships to incentivize conservatives to make a career in the sciences and invest in workforce education in the STEM field. A good investment opportunity in this arena is the Global Liberty Institute, founded by Atlas, which aims to promote individual and economic freedom and the free exchange of ideas.  

GLI focuses on creating a coalition of young professionals who value free markets, limited central government and individual freedoms. The group advocates creating clear pathways for rising leaders in the field, dispelling fears associated with cancel culture and ensuring competent individuals ascend to influential positions. GLI has successfully mentored around 150 young people in various fields, aiming to connect them with senior business leaders and policymakers. 

Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco, says one of his most frequent pieces of advice for donors is to resist the temptation to support universities broadly and instead fund individual scientists or labs. 

“A better approach is to donate to researchers who are doing the kind of research you feel is good,” Prasad said. “One of the challenges if you donate to a place like Harvard or Johns Hopkins is you don’t know if the money will be used for something that you disagree with, or that defies common sense, or an agenda you didn’t sign up for.” 

Prasad’s own lab, VK Prasad Laboratory, has explored issues including cancer research and approaches to medical practice. But since 2020, the lab has also focused on the efficacy of the response to the pandemic, including employer-mandated vaccine policies. 

Still another investment opportunity is in bringing a differing perspective through alternative media sources. Look to fund media platforms to inform the public and lawmakers about data or research initiatives mainstream outlets ignore. 

Ultimately, perhaps the biggest way donors can make a difference is by helping return balance to the world of science.  

As Prasad said, “Just because many scientists have been captured and become ideologues cheering one political party doesn’t mean that all of science is broken. The more we can have balance in universities, the more we can have people who have different points of view and who feel empowered to speak up, the more we can have debates, the reality is that the people who are correct will win.” 

The post Politics Has Poisoned Science. Philanthropy Can Help Provide the Cure.   appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

As the fall semester begins at colleges and universities across the country, students, faculty, alumni and donors are watching closely, anticipating that new and returning administrators alike may bring with them new policies on free speech, protests and the role that diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) will play on campus in areas other than admissions.  

An August 30 op-ed in The New York Times tackled that last issue and suggested current DEI programs are not working and are “subverting their schools’ educational missions.” The guest essay was co-authored by Paul Brest, professor emeritus and former dean at Stanford Law School and president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation from 2000-2012, and Emily J. Levine, associate professor of education and history at Stanford. On the day it was published it attracted over 1,000 comments – enough to shut down the comments section.  

The authors say they are not calling for the complete abandonment of diversity programs as “some of these programs most likely serve the important goal of ensuring that all students are valued and engaged participants in their academic communities.” What they find concerning are the programs and DEI trainings which “undermine the very groups they seek to aid by instilling a victim mindset and by pitting students against one another.”  

Recognizing “how exclusionary and counterproductive some of these programs can be,” they call attention to the antisemitism and anti-Israel bias of protests at Stanford University following the Hamas attacks on Israel. That bias, they note, is baked into current DEI ideology as manifested in “a DEI training program at Stanford a few years ago [where] Jewish staff members were assigned to a ‘whiteness accountability’ group, and some later complained that they were shot down when they tried to raise concerns about antisemitism.” 

In place of current DEI models, Brest and Levine call for programs employing a pluralistic approach, recognizing a universal need for belonging and fostering “empathy with others rather than a competition among sufferings.”  Such programs would involve “facilitated conversations among participants with diverse identities, religious beliefs and political ideologies, but without a predetermined list of favored identities or a preconceived framework of power, privilege and oppression.” 

“Success,” they say, “would be an academic community of equally respected learners who possess critical thinking skills and are actively engaged in navigating challenging questions throughout the curriculum — an approach that teaches students how to think rather than what to think.”   

Brest and Levine acknowledge their recommendations will face strong headwinds from those who advocate for the complete abandonment of DEI and those who are adamant it be retained in its current form. Yet they persist in advocating change, concluding, “The current system is not good for Jews at Stanford and other universities. It’s not good for Muslims, either. And it’s certainly not good for society as a whole.”   

The post How DEI is Failing Students: A View from Stanford University  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

During a time of increasing polarization, The Steamboat Institute (SI) has been a leader bringing civilized discourse back to college campuses. By hosting robust debates among the most renowned experts in the country, their successful Campus Liberty Tour puts current topics like fiscal responsibility, national defense, the role of government and individual responsibility directly in front of college students. Their goal is to increase critical thinking and civics knowledge by showing attendees how to think, not what to think. 

To get a better sense of their work, Philanthropy Roundtable recently interviewed Jennifer Schubert-Akin, chairman, CEO and co-founder of The Steamboat Institute to learn more about their impact. 

This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

Q: What is the mission of The Steamboat Institute? 

Schubert-Akin: Since its founding in 2008, The Steamboat Institute has established a proven-successful track record of inspiring Americans to greatness with high-caliber programs, events and substantive, civilized discourse in support of America’s founding principles. We are energized by the opportunities we have to restore critical thinking and civilized discourse on America’s college campuses.  

SI’s programs equip rising young leaders, college students, everyday citizens and talented young journalists to educate and persuade others to defend American values. We inspire active involvement in the defense of liberty by offering programs that promote five core principles: limited taxation and fiscal responsibility, limited government, free market capitalism, individual rights and responsibility and a strong national defense. 

Q: What was the impetus for The Steamboat Institute to create the Campus Liberty Tour and what makes it unique from other college speaker events? 

Schubert-Akin: Steamboat Institute launched the Campus Liberty Tour in 2018 in response to a request from Bruce Benson, then president of the University of Colorado, to bring more diverse perspectives to the University of Colorado (CU)  Boulder campus with compelling debates.   

While many college speaker events feature just one side of an issue, SI’s Campus Liberty Tour debates bring high-profile speakers to engage in robust but civil debate on hot-button topics, reaching students on both the left and the right. We don’t just “preach to the choir” – our debates are specifically designed to attract students on both sides of the aisle. 

Our very first debate in April 2018 on nationalism vs. globalism was held on the CU Boulder campus and featured the architect of the successful Brexit movement, Nigel Farage, and the former President of Mexico Vicente Fox. We had nearly 1,000 people attending in person, even though it was the same night as the NCAA Men’s Basketball National Championship! 

An undergrad student at University of Texas at Austin who attended SI’s socialism vs. capitalism debate, featuring Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute and Bhaskar Sunkara, author of “The Socialist Manifesto,” said, “I came because I wanted to hear a new perspective, because I’ve always thought one way. … I loved hearing their back-and-forth commentary, because it taught me a lot about both sides. I definitely became more moderate from this debate.” 

Another unique aspect of the Campus Liberty Tour debates is the pre- and post-debate audience polling, conducted via QR code, to measure how audience opinions have shifted. Audience members scan the QR codes with their phones, where they are taken to a poll that asks if they agree, disagree or are undecided on the debate resolution.  

The nature of the polling ensures honest responses, free from peer pressure. The poll results are displayed on a large video screen and provide real-time feedback on how opinions have shifted, demonstrating the immediate impact of the debate. Typically, an average of 30% of attendees change their minds in favor of liberty-oriented positions after watching a CLT debate. 

Q: How do you come up with the issues to discuss and select which campuses to host? 

Schubert-Akin: Steamboat Institute has hosted debates on campuses across America, from Pepperdine on the West Coast to Cornell in the Northeast. The selection of campuses is based on demand from the universities, and that demand is growing!  

To host a Campus Liberty Tour debate, the host university must meet certain criteria, including providing use of an appropriate venue seating at least 200 people, promoting the event to the campus community and hosting a “meet and greet” following the debate to allow students to meet and mingle with the speakers. The most important criteria, however, is having a strong partner on campus – such as a free market center, student group and/or professor – who is an effective advocate for bringing the debate to campus and ensuring a successful program. 

Q: What speakers have you hosted and have any schools refused to host one of your events because of topic and/or speaker involved? 

Schubert-Akin:  Steamboat Institute has hosted dozens of debates over the past six years including: 

• University of Maryland’s debate on whether the U.S. must rapidly eliminate greenhouse gas emissions with the undersecretary for Energy in President Obama’s Energy Department, Steven Koonin, Ph.D. and director of Harvard’s Center for the Environment, Daniel Schrag, Ph.D. 

• CU Boulder’s debate on social justice and identity politics with Jason Riley of The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board and Democratic strategist and former head of the Democratic National Committee, Donna Brazile. 

• University of Texas at Austin’s debate on free enterprise vs. government safety net programs with the host of “Making Money” on Fox Business Network Charles Payne and CNN political strategist, Bakari Sellers. 

• Old Parkland Debate Chamber in Dallas debate on whether the risks of academic engagement with China outweigh the benefits to American universities with director of the China Center at the Hudson Institute and professor at the U.S. Naval Academy, Miles Yu, Ph.D. and professor of global economics at MIT, Yasheng Huang, Ph.D. 

Our fall 2024 debate schedule will feature seven debates including new additions Harvard, Brown, New College of Florida and Virginia Military Institute (VMI). The VMI debate on October 3 will feature a debate between former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy on America’s role in the world and the extent to which the U.S. should be involved in global conflicts. This debate will be livestreamed on SI’s YouTube channel. 

Because of the civilized nature of SI’s debates and the high caliber of experts we invite to participate, we are proud that we’ve never had a debate shouted down or canceled. SI prioritizes the building of strong relationships on each campus – with university leadership, free market centers, student groups and professors.  

With these relationships, combined with our reputation for hosting quality programs, we have the support we need to withstand the demands of those who would rather not see any debate happen on campus. The Steamboat Institute is proud that we have been invited back to every campus where we have hosted a CLT debate! 

Q: What is the greatest challenge or need the Campus Liberty Tour has right now? 

Schubert-Akin: With a four-year grant from the Adolph Coors Foundation awarded in 2023, The Steamboat Institute has expanded the Campus Liberty Tour debate series from three to four debates per year to 12 debates in 2024. The challenge from the Coors Foundation to Steamboat Institute is to continue to develop new funding sources to maintain an annual program of 12-14 debates per year after their four-year grant is fulfilled, as well as to continue to develop creative media strategies to grow the online audiences for these quality programs. 

SI is also seeking funding to assist our host universities with adopting a new for-credit course program called “Challenge Your Thinking – Challenge the Conversation.” This program is underway in the Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland because of successful collaboration between SI and the Ed Snider Center for Enterprise and Markets. This three-credit course provides students with the opportunity to thoroughly research topics, speak persuasively and critically engage with different viewpoints through debate.  

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

Schubert-Akin: This fall The Steamboat Institute will welcome Hadley Heath Manning as executive vice president. This is an important step in SI’s forward-thinking succession planning. Hadley was previously senior vice president with Independent Women’s Forum and was the 2016 recipient of SI’s Tony Blankley Fellowship.  

For questions about the Roundtable’s work related to civics education or to learn more about The Steamboat Institute, please contact Philanthropy Roundtable Portfolio Director Clarice Smith. 

The post Steamboat Institute’s Campus Liberty Tour: “Inspiring Americans to Greatness”  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

In 2023, following the passage of the Donor Intent Protection Act in Kansas, Philanthropy Roundtable launched a monthly series on donor intent developments and controversies nationwide to better inform those who care about this important topic. The Donor Intent Protection Act has now passed in Kentucky and Georgia as well, and efforts on behalf of this legislation continue in additional states.  

This month’s Donor Intent Watch includes reporting on a controversial “denaming” decision at Harvard University, an ongoing dispute at the College of the Holy Cross and important tips on avoiding unrestricted and endowment gifts.  

We encourage donors to contact us with any questions about our featured items and consult additional resources on donor intent at the Roundtable’s Donor Intent Hub. We also welcome any news about donor intent we may have missed.  

Harvard University Retains Arthur M. Sackler’s Name Despite Student Campaign   

The Harvard Crimson has reported that following a multi-year “denaming” campaign by student activists, the university has decided to retain Arthur M. Sackler’s name on two campus buildings. This decision makes Harvard one of a handful of outliers in the nonprofit world to distinguish between Arthur Sackler and the members of the Sackler family responsible for Purdue Pharma’s 1996 release of OxyContin, blamed for the first wave of the opioid epidemic. Arthur Sackler died nearly a decade before in 1987.  

The denaming proposal was submitted in October 2022. The committee which reviewed it included some of Harvard’s top administrators, including then-provost and now-president Alan M. Garber. In rejecting its demands, committee members refused to consider its “guilt by association” charges or its speculation that Arthur Sackler would have deployed the aggressive marketing techniques he had developed to promote OxyContin.  

Instead, their report noted, “The denaming decision should be based only on the actions, inactions or words of Arthur Sackler. Respect for one’s individual identity is a fundamental tenet and part of the ethos of our society.” 

Although Sackler’s 1982 donation included a written gift agreement, the committee chose to make its decision regardless of any restrictions on renaming or denaming in place, opting instead to consider community interest and the severity of the opioid crisis. The committee report also affirmed the decision to retain Sackler’s name did not indicate an endorsement of his actions. Additionally, they recommended Harvard describe his life and legacy to visitors of the two buildings that bear his name so they might form their own opinions about the man and the naming. 

Read more here. 

Holy Cross in Legal Dispute with Alumnus and Former Trustee  

At the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, Cornelius B. Prior Jr. is suing his alma mater to recover $21 million donated over a 10-year period beginning in 2012. In that year, Prior began payments on a $25 million pledge to support construction of a new performing arts center on campus. The college opened the Prior Performing Arts Center at a total cost of $110 million in 2022. By that time, however, Prior and Holy Cross were already disputing the terms of the gift and Prior was refusing to pay the full amount pledged.  

As reported by Boston.com, Prior’s lawsuit claims Holy Cross “has refused repeated requests by Mr. Prior to provide a full and detailed accounting for its investment and use of his funds.” He alleges his gifts began in 2012 with the understanding the college would give the development of the performing arts center top priority. Instead, he says, the construction was delayed, and he was pressured to donate $3 million to a new athletics center in which he had no interest.  

The $21 million Prior is seeking includes that gift plus the $18 million he has already given to the performing arts center. He says he is holding back the final $7 million pledged to the center until Holy Cross provides more information about how his donations have been spent. Prior adds he also delayed “due to a legally binding hold on transactions in the stock that he would need to transfer in order to make a further gift of that size.” 

Holy Cross said its 2014 written agreement with Prior – a college trustee at the time who served through June 2021 – stipulated he make the final payment on his pledge once the college received a certificate of occupancy for the arts center, adding he has refused to honor that arrangement. That agreement, the college notes, also “requires mediation and arbitration in the event of a dispute.”  

On August 2, Judge David H. Hennessy agreed to consider the college’s request to compel mediation and arbitration. In the meantime, he has ordered Holy Cross to give Prior more financial information and ordered both parties to communicate directly with each other. The case goes back to court on August 30. 

Read more here and here.  

Avoid the Traps of Unrestricted and Endowment Grantmaking  

In December 2023 Philanthropy Roundtable published Top Ten Tips for Higher Education Funders. What follows is an excerpt from that publication focused on the potential danger of unrestricted and endowment gifts.  

While unrestricted gifts could make sense in other philanthropic realms—particularly for recipients with whom you have a close working relationship—they are fraught with peril in higher education, where philanthropic dollars are easily shifted around. Giving officers often steer donors toward unrestricted gifts precisely because they offer maximum flexibility to the recipient institution. Unless you are very specific with your desires, and put them in writing, your gifts could be used for something you find abhorrent.  

Endowment gifts are equally problematic for donor intent. Endowments that support professorships or scholarships in a specific field of study ignore the chance that field may become far less popular or relevant over time or that a beneficiary of your generosity may have an agenda quite different from what you intended. And once a donor is out of the picture—through either death or disinterest— funds may be mismanaged or deliberately diverted to purposes other than those originally specified.  

It may seem cynical to assume institutions pay more attention to living donors, but it is true that mischief in higher education philanthropy often occurs after a donor’s death.  

College faculty and administrators are more likely to discover new “pressing” needs that outweigh the instructions of the original benefactor once that person is no longer in the picture.  

The solution is simple. Do your giving while you’re alive and reevaluate decisions as needed. Giving while living also provides the unique chance to have an outsized influence through larger gift amounts, and it brings more joy to see the impact of your philanthropy. 

Donor intent and accountability are best served by grants made in increments over a limited term, with continued donations dependent on scheduled progress reports. You may, for example, structure a $10 million grant to start a new program over a 10-year period to provide $3 million up front to enable the university to hire personnel and create the necessary infrastructure.  

You can then schedule the remaining $7 million in regular payments, periodically reviewing to ensure the school is on track. If your grantee fails to make adequate progress toward stated goals, or is no longer aligned with your stated values, you will have the right to terminate the grant agreement and halt all further payments. 

The post Donor Intent Watch: Harvard Decides on Sackler Name and Donor Dispute at College of the Holy Cross   appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

Philanthropy Roundtable recently met with John Sailer, senior fellow and director of university policy at the National Association of Scholars, to discuss his groundbreaking investigative research and reporting on the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) agenda in higher education. 

This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

Q: Your research started when you looked into mandated diversity statements used in faculty hiring at major public universities. Tell us about your research and its impact. 

Sailer: My job is pretty simple. It’s to show what higher education activists, scholars and administrators are up to in their world, and a primary tool has been public records requests. It’s fun, it’s an art and it requires creative problem solving plus lots of research, along with a deep understanding of universities and how they operate. My approach has yielded really interesting, and in some ways troubling, stories about what universities are doing.  

Texas Tech University is a great example. Around 2020, their Department of Biology passed a DEI resolution requiring faculty job applicants to submit a diversity statement to demonstrate how they will contribute to inclusion and equity. The university also required the department to create a separate presentation on the diversity contributions of each candidate under consideration for a job. This meant documentation existed. I made a public records request for those presentations, and what I found I eventually published in The Wall Street Journal. 

One scientist got a low score for not understanding “the difference between equity and equality, even on re-direct,” which was said to represent “a rather superficial understanding of DEI more generally.” One was given a “red flag” for ostensibly committing micro aggressions, while another was dinged for repeatedly using the pronoun “he” when referring to professors.  

On the other hand, one was rewarded for giving a “land acknowledgment” at the beginning of their job talk, acknowledging that the United States exists on stolen land. This was the first time the public had ever really seen actual evaluations of diversity statements. The result was very swift and a true game changer. 

Q: What was the immediate impact and outcome of your investigative research? 

Sailer: The day the article was published, the university announced that it would no longer allow diversity statements. Shortly thereafter, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott sent a letter to the public universities in his state saying that hiring on the basis of anything other than merit was unlawful. Within a month, multiple university systems in Texas ended the practice of diversity statements. By June of 2023, the state legislature took action and banned the practice statewide. So, it was a pretty massive change. 

Q: What other stories have you uncovered? 

Sailer: Around the time that I published the Texas Tech story, I got a tip from a professor at Ohio State University. He said that every department and every search committee in the College of Arts and Sciences was required to submit an in-depth diversity recruitment report. Approval of these reports was required in order to proceed with finalist job interviews. I made a request for the records and what I got was actually more remarkable than even the Texas Tech documents. 

One job candidate was praised for their contribution to diversity in part, according to the report, because they were married to an immigrant in Texas in the age of Trump. Another person’s diversity contributions were praised for being “a first-generation fat, queer scholar of color.” The DEI statements were given a weight of about one-third of the overall points in evaluating the candidates, right alongside their research and teaching ability. 

Q: You’ve traced some of the stories to the federal government as well, through the National Institutes of Health. Can you explain that? 

Sailer: There’s a quarter billion-dollar NIH grant program called Faculty Institutional Recruitment for Sustainable Transformation. The program gave $10 million to $20 million grants to universities for faculty hiring that’s focused on DEI. The key requirements are that the universities who received the grant require and heavily weigh diversity statements when they select the funded faculty.  

So, I ended up going to a lot of universities and requesting the rubric that they use to evaluate diversity. Some of them didn’t give me the rubric or said they didn’t have one. But there were two that did: The University of South Carolina and the University of New Mexico. Both rubrics were the same and they give low scores to anyone who says in their diversity statement that they prefer to treat everyone the same. It also gives a low score for things like expressing skepticism about racially segregated affinity groups and focusing exclusively on diversity of thought. 

In later reporting, I found evidence that this program had been a cover for overt racial preferences that would almost certainly be unlawful. When the NIH FIRST program was created, the director of the program essentially said this is not a racial preferences program—that it would be unlawful. Using diversity statements was essentially a way around that. But what’s interesting is that the documents that I uncovered, starting about a year ago, showed that as faculty at these institutions discussed candidates, they very clearly eliminated certain people from contention on the basis of skin color.  

One hiring document from the University of New Mexico said that “candidate No. 42” was eliminated from consideration because they did not fit with the mission of the NIH. I thought that was funny. I requested all emails in reference to the candidate, and what did I find? This candidate was a South Asian man. One director of this program asked whether this person counts as an underrepresented minority. They were told no. The other two candidates on the list of finalists were both women. And so they took him off the list, noting that the math department where they were hiring was “really low on women.” It’s a clear-cut case of both racial and gender discrimination. 

Q: What are some of the biggest takeaways from your investigative research? 

Sailer: I’ve gleaned two broad lessons from my time reporting on higher education. One is that legitimate scoops move the needle more than anything else. If you cut through the noise and actually show people what’s happened with hard-fought research, it changes the conversation and gives you a seat at the table to talk about what reforms are needed. The other is that universities are such closed systems that many of their policies are simply indefensible. When I show what’s going on, when I show how these policies play out in practice, it is very difficult for scholars and administrators to actually defend them, or at least to defend them in a way that appears to be in good faith. 

Q: You’ve emphasized a different kind of diversity—viewpoint diversity—among faculty. Why? 

Sailer: Faculty hiring for the last decade, and especially for the last five years, has involved a high degree of ideological discrimination and has encouraged heterodox thinkers, or outsiders, to simply skip out of the job market altogether. This is the key problem in higher education right now. 

The post John Sailer: Unearthing Corruption and Illiberalism in Higher Education  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

With the recent resignation of the third Ivy League president in the 10-month period following October 7, 2023, university trustees are likely to face continued questions about hiring policies and practices.

All three of those presidents had unusually short tenures. Claudine Gay left the president’s office at Harvard after only six months. Minouche Shafik resigned from Columbia after holding the job for 13 months. Liz Magill resigned from the presidency of University of Pennsylvania after less than two years on the job.

All three women faced accusations from parties within and outside their universities that they horribly mishandled the campus protests following the conflict that erupted after the Hamas attacks on Israel. All three also failed to convince members of Congress they had taken adequate measures to protect their Jewish students from antisemitic attacks. And all three faced public criticism from some of their institutions’ largest donors.

Harvard trustees responded to Gay’s resignation by first appointing provost Alan Garber as interim president and then naming him president of the university on August 2. The Harvard Corporation announced he will be in office until mid-2027. At Penn, medical school dean Larry Jameson has been serving as interim president since December 2023 and has agreed to remain in that role through academic year 2025-2026 or until a successor has been identified. Penn has not yet announced that a presidential search process is underway. Columbia has already named as interim president its executive vice president for health and biological sciences, Dr. Karen Armstrong. No mention has been made of her likely tenure in that position.

The action of the trustees at all three universities indicates a wariness about choosing leaders from outside their inner circles at a time when more turbulence is anticipated. The same is true at Cornell, where provost Michael Kotlikoff was named interim president following the retirement of Martha Pollack, who had assumed the presidency 2017.

In announcing his appointment the university reported, “At the request of the board of trustees, Kotlikoff will serve a two-year term as interim president. The board will form a search committee to select Cornell’s 15th president six to nine months before Kotlikoff’s term ends.”

Higher education donors may well consider how college and university trustees will frame the duties and assess the abilities of the next generation of presidential hires. They may also begin to address needed reforms in private and public universities alike. For the immediate future, however, all eyes will be on the return of students to campus and the ongoing tensions around free speech and campus conduct. 

Philanthropy Roundtable’s Programs and Services team provides a one-stop shop that helps donors navigate the complexity of higher-ed giving. Learn more about our higher education donor services. 

The post Higher-Ed Transitions: Will New Leadership Offer Opportunities for Needed Reform? 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.

Philanthropy Roundtable, with support from the Daniels Fund, launched a new Civics Playbook, a digital resource for donors looking to make wise investments in high-impact organizations dedicated to enhancing civics education nationwide. The organizations featured in this resource reflect the Roundtable’s core values of liberty, opportunity and personal responsibility and bring those values to bear in the crucial area of civics education. 

Recent data show a concerning decline in civics knowledge, with only about one-in-six Americans able to name all three branches of government. A recent survey from the Annenberg Center at the University of Pennsylvania found around 5% of American adults can name all five fundamental freedoms in the First Amendment. The 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress report showed only 22% of students scored at or above the level of “proficient” in civics. 

Today, more than ever, a well-informed citizenry is crucial for the maintenance of democracy and the honoring of America’s founding principles. Civics education helps ensure citizens understand their rights and responsibilities, promoting a healthy democratic process. A broad spectrum of Americans — nearly 80% according to a recent poll — support a stronger emphasis on civics education in schools, recognizing its importance regardless of political affiliation. 

The good news is philanthropists are increasingly recognizing and investing in the transformative potential of broad-based civic engagement that emphasizes traditional American values. The new Civics Playbook highlights 12 examples of these donors’ important work and sets the stage for philanthropists to make a transformational difference by investing in similar causes and nonprofits. The playbook focuses on organizations in three key buckets: 

• Curriculum and teaching materials: These organizations are dedicated to providing a solid core of civics education classes. Examples include nonprofits such as the Georgia Center for Civics Education, which provides teacher workshops and curriculum development; the Rendell Center for Civics and Civic Engagement, also offering teacher training and curriculum materials that promote active civic participation and the National Association of Scholars’ Civics Alliance, which focuses on restoring proper civics education to K-12 schools. 

• Investing in Teachers: Well-equipped instructors are the backbone of effective civics education. Nonprofits such as the Jack Miller Center facilitate a nationwide nonpartisan network of academic scholars, both in K-12 and higher education, dedicated to teaching civics in accord with America’s founding principles. Another example is the Bill of Rights Institute, which currently serves a network of more than 76,000 middle school and high school civics and history teachers, representing more than 38% of the market. 

• Experiential learning: Nonprofits such as Founding Forward, the National Constitution Center, the Ashbrook Center and the Museum of the American Revolution give students a hands-on opportunity to experience the importance of civics in the American way of life. Moreover, undertakings such as the Florida Civics and Debate Initiative and the National Civics Bee facilitate opportunities for students to hone their civics knowledge through debate teams and live competitions. Additionally, Junior Achievement of Georgia integrates learning about the free market combined with the importance of civics engagement. 

By supporting these high-impact nonprofits, philanthropists have the opportunity to make a profound difference in civics education based on American principles. Together, we can ensure future generations are well-equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to be active, informed and responsible citizens. 

The post Civics Playbook Shows How Donors Can Transform Civics Education Through Strategic Investments  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

WASHINGTON – Philanthropy Roundtable is pleased to announce the selection of business leaders, philanthropists, and brothers Jeff and Pete Coors as the winners of the 2024 Simon-DeVos Prize for Philanthropic Leadership. Each year, the award is presented to a living philanthropist who has shown exemplary leadership through charitable giving. For 48 years, Jeff and Pete Coors have led the Adolph Coors Foundation, which places a high priority on programs that help youth prosper, encourage economic opportunities for adults and advance public policies that reflect our nation’s founding principles.

“Jeff and Pete Coors have a legacy of protecting the values of self-reliance, personal responsibility, and integrity,” said Philanthropy Roundtable President and CEO Christie Herrera. “Their dedication to preserving and executing the donor intent of Bill and Joe Coors while advancing America’s founding principles, serving their home state of Colorado, and honoring their faith through anonymous giving makes them truly worthy recipients of this year’s Simon-DeVos Prize.”

Since 1976, The Adolph Coors Foundation has granted $308 million with a primary focus in funding adult work programs, entrepreneurship, youth development, integrative medicine and public policy. The Foundation seeks out innovative leaders and entrepreneurs within the organizations they fund to further the mission of their founding donors. By celebrating hard work, imagination, and independence, the Foundation works to ensure that all people have the opportunity to realize their dreams and reach their full potential.

Jeff Coors’ extensive career began with a 25-year tenure at the Adolph Coors Company, where he held various management roles, including Board Member and President. In 1992, he became Co-President of ACX Technologies, a public NYSE company spun off from the Adolph Coors Company, later renamed Graphic Packaging Incorporated in 2000. Jeff Coors is actively involved in civic, educational, and business organizations. He serves on the boards of RW Beckett Corporation, Hillsdale College, Independence Institute, Colorado Christian University, Intercessors for America, and the Adolph Coors Foundation.

Pete Coors is a Director of Molson Coors Brewing Company and has previously held various other positions at the company including Chairman and CEO. His numerous civic responsibilities include board member of American Enterprise Institute, Denver Art Museum Foundation and a president and a trustee of the Adolph Coors Foundation. Pete is also member of the Western Stock Show Association Board and Chairman of its Honoring the Legacy Capital Campaign.

As the 2024 Prize recipients, Jeff and Pete Coors will receive a $200,000 award, payable to the charity of their choice, and will be honored during Philanthropy Roundtable’s 2024 Annual Meeting in Amelia Island, Florida in September.   

ABOUT THE PRIZE 

Philanthropy Roundtable is honored to partner with the William E. Simon Foundation and the DeVos Family Foundation to administer the annual Simon-DeVos Prize for Philanthropic Leadership, which seeks to advance the principles of personal responsibility, resourcefulness, volunteerism, scholarship, individual freedom, faith in God, and helping people help themselves. The purpose of the Simon-DeVos Prize is to highlight philanthropy’s powerful and unique role in tackling society’s greatest challenges and inspire others to strive for excellence in their charitable giving. Learn more about the Prize at: SimonDeVosPrize.org. 

### 

For media inquiries, please contact:  media@philanthropyroundtable.org.

The post 2024 Simon-DeVos Prize Winners: Jeff and Pete Coors appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.

In an op-ed shared by the Indiana Philanthropy Alliance, “Cybercrime is a Growing Threat Indiana Communities Need to Address,” Jud Fisher, president and CEO of Ball Brothers Foundation, explains how their foundation is improving the quality of life in Indiana.   

Fisher describes how grantmaking for cybersecurity projects can help safeguard the future of the digital world. 

Below are excerpts from the op-ed. The full piece can be found at Inphilanthropy.org.  

“The threats we face in the digital world are evolving at a frightening pace. From phishing schemes and ransomware attacks to identity theft and deepfake impersonations, the list of cyber threats keeps expanding. As technology advances—and the internet becomes ever more integrated into our daily lives—the security of our information and systems has never been more critical. 

… 

“Recognizing this, in 2020 the foundation began allocating a portion of our grantmaking budget to prepare for a future where cyberattacks and cybercrime are even more prevalent. We launched a grantmaking initiative we call “Project Sybertooth” to make small grants to local organizations working on these issues. We know that the demand for cybersecurity professionals has tripled over the past decade, and the complexity of these roles only continues to grow.  

… 

“In just a few short years, we’ve already seen some notable outcomes. East Central Indiana became home to one of the state’s ten ‘High-Tech Crime Units,’ housed in the Delaware County Prosecutor’s Office. This unit processes digital evidence across an eleven-county area and has already served 22 county, municipal, hospital, and university police departments. Additionally, the Muncie Police Department and the Delaware County Sheriff’s Office have new software and equipment that officers can use to secure and process digital evidence. 

… 

“From Indiana’s smallest townships to its largest cities, we must all do more to prepare our communities for future cybersecurity challenges. We are excited ECI is leading the way in addressing these tough issues that have an impact on us all and about the progress being made.” 

The post Indiana’s Ball Brothers Foundation Leads the Way in Cybersecurity Efforts  appeared first on Philanthropy Roundtable.