Criminal justice reform is one area of philanthropy that’s been rapidly gaining steam. A number of top foundations want to see what can be done to bring down incarceration rates, and are putting up capital in a variety of ways to work on the problem.The Fall issue of Responsive Philanthropy, recently published by NCRP, takes a deep dive into the new funding for criminal justice reform, which—as Aaron Dorfman writes—cuts across a breadth of work now under way to change “policing, prosecution policies, reentry opportunities and more.”
A new precedent was set recently when Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy announced a plan to establish 20 as the age of jurisdiction for the state’s juvenile justice system. This would make Connecticut the first state to presumptively include anyone over 18 in the juvenile justice system.Not surprisingly, the announcement was met with widespread praise from social justice and child welfare advocates. The Southern Poverty Law Center, the Vera Institute and the Connecticut Democratic Party all shared the news on social media feeds, many trumpeting it as a monumental breakthrough in the fight against over-incarceration.
Scholars like Benjamin Friedman have demonstrated that economic growth helps drive any number of positive trends: improved human rights, better health, women’s empowerment, higher education attainment, and on and on.
Historically, though, explicit efforts to foster growth haven’t been all that high on the agenda of a philanthropic world that cares about all the things I just mentioned. In particular, funders haven’t tended to do a lot in the way of supporting entrepreneurs, whose new businesses create many of the new jobs that propel growth. Meanwhile, small business has been on the decline in the U.S. for the last decade, a trend that was greatly accelerated by the Great Recession, with new business creation plunging by 30 percent in the wake of the economic crash.
This week, Housing Secretary Julian Castro announced new rules designed to fight residential segregation. Amid heightened pressure from the NAACP’s Legal Defense and Education Fund and other top civil rights organizations, the Obama administration unveiled requirements that cities and towns analyze their housing patterns for racial bias and publicly report this information. In addition, communities will now need to set goals to further reduce segregation, and these goals will be tracked over time.
Where did all this momentum for change on housing come from? And how can funders capitalize on it?
With all the hype in the media about the Clinton Foundation, we wonder how many Americans actually know what the foundation does—or how many members of the media, for that matter.
Listening to news reports, you’d think the sole purpose of this outfit is to help the Clintons get rich and do favors for their shady friends. And while, to be sure, some of the reports about specific donors have been troubling—and suggest questionable judgment by the Clintons—what’s missing is a broader, more balanced look at how the foundation mobilizes money for good causes and who, in reality, puts up most of that money. (Hint: It’s not dictators looking for favors from the State Department.) While people shouldn’t stop asking hard questions about the foundation, they should pay more attention to its approach and programs.
Well, here we are again. Another child sexual abuse scandal rocks the nation. Josh Duggar, star of 19 and Counting, sexually abused multiple girls as a teenager. His behavior was reported to the police (his police records are now conveniently destroyed) and the whole thing was kept under wraps in the proud state of Arkansas as the family went on to film a “reality show” touting their ultra-squeaky-clean Christian living.
Key takeaway for youth funders: Invest more in sexual abuse prevention here, there, and everywhere. There are still way too many people involved in ignoring, minimizing, and/or covering up these crimes.
Before Josh Duggar, another recent case prompted national discussion and awareness about child sexual abuse—the trial and conviction of Jerry Sandusky. And that one seems to have spurred an increase in funding that is worth looking at.
From the Whitehouse press office:
Washington, DC – Early this morning, the U.S. Senate voted to approve the Republican budget resolution by a vote of 52-46. U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of the Budget Committee, released the statement below regarding the vote:
“I voted against the Republican budget proposal because it calls for severe cuts that would dramatically harm Rhode Islanders while protecting every single tax loophole for the rich and powerful. It would slash Medicaid and food stamps, undermine the promise of Pell Grants for students, and repeal provisions of the Affordable Care Act that have helped over 16 million Americans get affordable health care coverage. And yet it would preserve hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate tax giveaways, like incentives for shipping American jobs overseas and reincorporating in a foreign country, and special breaks for coal, oil, and gas companies. That’s why it has to rely on accounting gimmicks to achieve balance within ten years. It’s simply an unfair and unreal document.”