New Open Road Philanthropic Project Takes On Nonprofit Project Derailments

Standard

January 13, 2017; New York Times

A new philanthropic project called the Open Road Alliance has been established to help grantees that hit snags in promised projects. It is intended both to help the grantees complete projects and educate funders about the need to be supportive when such snags appear.

The Haitian nonprofit organization SOIL provides toilets to the poor residents of Port-au-Prince. These toilets don’t just offer residents a measure of dignity and safety; they also lead to the production of fertilizer, fueling employment opportunities and environmental restoration. Working since 2006, the organization, with a budget of $1.3 million, has empowered some of the poorest communities in the world to restore their environment by transforming hazardous pollutants into precious resources.

Providing services in Haiti is fraught with challenges and risks. SOIL is increasing the probability of success by employing staff who speak the local language; putting local suppliers, including local residents, to use in decision-making; creating projects with an earned income stream; and valuing diverse educational experiences. Even with all of these measures, the project was on the edge of failure less than two years ago when the private company running the local landfill lost their contract. Afterward, the area became full of smoke as trash was burned to maintain access. Employees were only able to reach the site once every two weeks, and there was no contingency landfill in the area.

SOIL’s predicament is not unusual. According to two separate reports by the Clinton Global Initiative and the Open Road Alliance, about one in five projects face challenges that could “slow or derail” successful outcomes. The large number of projects facing adversity is due in part to the failure of nonprofits to discuss likely risks with donors and donors’ inability to identify potential complications. According to the Open Road Alliance’s report, 76 percent of donors don’t ask potential grantees about the risks they face, and 87 percent of nonprofits leaders state that grant applications do not ask about potential hurdles.

The Open Road Alliance is a funding initiative providing one-time grants and loans covering “contingency funding that nonprofits frequently encounter” across sectors worldwide. Its report is based on its survey of four hundred grantors and grantees. The findings were centered on a random sample of two hundred organizations designed to determine the frequency, donor response, current policies and procedures, and consequences of unfunded requests on the relationship between funder and recipient.

Surprisingly, the report found major differences between grantor and grantee perceptions:

  • Grantees believe that asking for additional funds negatively affects the likelihood of being awarded future grants, while the vast majority of Funders claim such requests have no effect on future decision-making.
  • Funders incorrectly believe that if they deny a request for contingency funds, Grantees will find an alternate source of funds.
  • Grantees report that when requests for contingency funds are denied, projects are much more likely to be delayed and somewhat more likely to be reduced in scope than Funders believe; Grantees report 16 percent of such projects are terminated, while Funders estimate 10 percent.
  • Funders believe that Grantees are more comfortable talking about these issues with them than Grantees report.

Due to these findings, Open Road Alliance teamed up with the Rockefeller Foundation and Arabella Advisors to assemble two dozen organizations, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Goldman Sachs, and the law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, to develop a toolkit to identify and assess project risks. The new resource is available to the community and is constructed to encourage donors to use it in whole or in part to better assess project success.

The kit is part of an increased need to apply business fundamentals to grant making and to encourage grant makers to strategically take on more risky projects. To be more strategic, grantors need more information. The kit includes seven items to help facilitate conversations between donors and potential grantees. Equally important, the developers acknowledge the power differential between grantor and grantee.

“Part of the reason we focused on donors is they have the money,” said Dr. Michaels, a clinical psychologist who is married to David Bonderman, a founder of the private equity firm TPG.

“There’s a power differential,” she added. “It’s hard for a nonprofit to come to a funder and say, ‘How are you going to insure us if something gets screwed up?’”

While funders are fond of touting the need for innovation, taking risks and being open about the inevitable complications that surface is still somewhat foreign to many nonprofit/funder conversations. The answer, according to Open Road Alliance, is less about being a helicopter funder and more about simply being available to face reality with resources. This culture change could not come soon enough for SOIL. As the landfill access challenges continued, the organization went back unsuccessfully to its project donor to ask for additional support. The donor suggested Open Road Alliance, who granted SOIL $100,000 for a new composting site.—Gayle Nelson

Original post: https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/01/25/new-open-road-philanthropic-project-takes-nonprofit-project-derailments/

Home Care Hospitalization: An Experiment with Promise

Standard

November 11, 2016; Forbes

As the cost of healthcare, particularly in hospitals, continues to skyrocket, a few are exploring alternative methods of providing high quality care for lesser costs. One nonprofit in particular is reintroducing a method of care from decades ago: home visits from doctors.

When Dr. William Terry arrived at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital with violent chills and a high fever, emergency room staff determined he needed hospital care. Instead of being admitted, however, Dr. Terry became part of a study where he would receive the same care at home, including at least one home visit from his doctor plus two nurse visits every day.

The Brigham and Mass. General studies are limited to patients living within five miles from the hospital who present with heart failure, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or infections. (Terry’s chest x-ray showed a “suspicious spot.”) The study is focusing on these conditions because patients do not normally require intensive care or major procedures.

The preliminary results of the Brigham study were published in a recent issue of JAMA Internal Medicine. Patients were found to suffer from lower infection and readmission rates. The cost savings was an average of $2,000 per patient as compared to a hospital stay. More importantly, patients receiving care at home reported feeling happier. Perhaps that is not surprising, given hospitals’ reputations for awful food, harsh lighting, loss of privacy, snoring roommates disturbing sleep, and nurses on a schedule that works for the hospital system rather than the patient. The list goes on.

The study is part of a larger movement led by Hospital at Home, a program created by the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Public Health. Their research found the model lowered costs by almost a third and reduced complications of hospital stays. Surprisingly, the first study of these types of programs was conducted in 1997, leaving a supporter to describe the treatment plan as the “most studied innovation in health care.”

Although common in England, France, and Australia, in-home care is not widespread in the U.S., mainly because most insurance companies and Medicare do not cover it. Many of the treatment providers, such as Brigham and Women’s Hospital, are picking up program costs. New York City’s Mount Sinai Hospital is part of a $9.6 million, three-year similar study funded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Overall, due to technology and revolutionary research, plus the emerging population health and wellness reimbursement structure of the Affordable Care Act, medical care is shifting. As research and technology has disrupted once-deadly diseases like HIV-AIDS and we continue to live longer and healthier, some are describing the hospital of the future as a “NASCAR pit-stop.”—Gayle Nelson

Original cite: https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2016/11/16/home-care-hospitalization-experiment-promise/

Outcomes Evidence Proves Case for Youth Employment

Standard

Youth employment is recognized as a solution to decreasing the summer spike in crime, but is it worth the cost, and does it have impact beyond the summer months? A new study of Chicago youth living in thirteen high violent school areas documented a 43 percent drop in violent crime during employment plus the thirteen months afterwards.

The study explored the effect of part-time employment on 1,634 youth from thirteen high-violence areas of Chicago. Students participating in the program were almost entirely minority and more than 90 percent were enrolled in free or reduced lunch during the school year. About one-fifth of the students had been previously arrested and about a fifth had been a victim of a crime.

Students participating in the study (ages 14-21) were randomly separated into three groups. One group was employed for 25 hours a week for eight weeks at minimum wage ($8.25 per hour). A second group was employed for 15 hours a week, along with participating in ten hours of social-emotional learning classes intended to educate participants on understanding and managing aspects of their behavior that might interfere with successful employment. In addition, both groups of students were matched with an adult job mentor to assist them in managing employment barriers. The third control group was not offered employment through the program.

The objective of the study was to answer the question, does summer employment have lasting impact on youth? It was overseen by University of Pennsylvania criminologist Sara Heller. The 2012 study was a collaboration between the Chicago Department of Family and Support Services, the University of Chicago Crime Lab, and One Summer Chicago, a local and county government partnership created in 2011. The program, named One Summer Plus, employed students in diverse positions, including as camp counselors, community garden workers, and assistants in city aldermen’s offices.

The study documented a lasting impact on youth behavior. Administrators worked with the Chicago Police Department to identify results both during employment as well as thirteen months after employment. The study found that students in the first and second groups were arrested for violent crimes 43 percent less than the control group. Students were slightly more likely to be involved in property and drug-related crimes, but the amount was statistically insignificant. The study did not document any differences in behavior between students in the two employed groups.

The 2012 study results were even more significant given the high rate of unemployment among youth. The 2010 employment rate for low-income black teens in Illinois, nine percent, was less than one-fourth that of higher-income white teens, at 39 percent. During that summer, youth employment was at a 60-year low, particularly for low-income minority teens. Additionally, in 2013, One Summer Chicago received 67,000 applications for 20,000 employment opportunities.

Often, leaders measure impact of these types of programs in monetary terms alone, leading to drastic undervaluation. In the 2012 program, each employed student cost $3,000, including $1,400 in wages plus $1,600 in administrative costs. Societal benefits of reduced crime are estimated at $1,700 per student. But youth living in areas of low employment and high criminal activity experience other benefits, including learning the importance of work as well as good habits they can use throughout their lives.

With the recession ending, employment is rising, but youth are often the last to find employment. Currently, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the overall youth unemployment rate is 14 percent, down only two percent from a year before. This means there are an estimated 5.6 million youth between the ages of 16 and 24 that are neither enrolled in school nor employed.

Original Cite: https://nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-context/25348-summer-jobs-for-youth-decrease-crime.html