No result found
Queensland University of Technology;
This report maps the field of ancillary funds in Australia. Public Ancillary Funds (PubAFs) are trusts that must fundraise from the general public, and make grants to approved nonprofit organisations. A majority of the individuals involved in the fund's decision- making must have a degree of responsibility to the Australian community (Ward, 2016). As stated by Ward (2012, p. 4), "the underlying concept of public funds is that the public are able and invited to contribute and the fund is operated in a public manner for public benefit". Although limited details of PubAFs are publicly available, there is no previously published data on this valuable but overlooked segment of Australian philanthropy. This report examines what is known about PubAFs and maps the field, with data from online databases and reports, PubAF websites, and interviews with PubAF managers and trustees providing extensive and useful insights. Seven taxonomic categories of PubAFs are described, and an accountability typology is proposed at a conceptual level to better understand this sector. Perceptions from PubAF managers and trustees detail how visibility and accountability within this charitable sub -sector might be enhanced, and implications for practice are noted. The eight framing questions around accountability revealed complex and inter-related patterns and practices of accountability. Most notable and novel among these findings were when PubAFs are accountable, why PubAFs are accountable, the dominance of peer-benchmarking as the standard by which PubAFs are accountable, and the emergence of organisational qualities as a way in which PubAFs are accountable. Findings also highlight a link between identity and accountability in PubAFs. There is a relationship between who we are, and how we give an account, such that the identity of an actor influences the account given. Notable emergent findings included the importance of geographic boundaries for PubAFs in shaping their giving and reflecting their mission, the varying interpretations of publicness, the importance and prominence of dyadic relationships, and PubAFs' strong future focus around sustainability and growth. For those PubAFs (typically community foundations and wealth management foundations) that have sub-funds or donor-advised funds, particular accountability issues were noted. Co-funding, or a funding arrangement whereby two or more funders combine to support a project or organisation, was common between sub -funds within a PubAF, achieving synergies and supporting and linking both their identity and accountability.
Queensland University of Technology;
PAFs are a type of endowed philanthropic foundation established by trust deed by a small, close group of donors, most often a family. PAFs can not undertake activities beyond funding, hence they exist to support the work of other nonprofit organisations. They provide money, property or benefits to eligible nonprofit entities (broadly, deductible gift recipient organisations). PAFs are a relatively new giving structure in Australia ( introduced in 2001 ), and have experienced strong and sustained growth both in number, and the dollar value of their combined capital and donations . Their addition to the Australian charitable sector is "arguably the single most important boost for Australian philanthropy in many decades" (McLeod, 2013, p. 2). Accountability in nonprofit organisations is broadly held to lead to learning, change and improvement (Carman, 2010). In the absence of accountability, nonprofit organisations including philanthropic foundations "have no way of knowing how well they're doing at fulfilling their mission" (p. 268). Therefore, the aim of this research was to explore the perceived nature and forms of accountability in PAFs, given concerns of limited accountability (Cham, 2014) and the minimal prior research (Coyte, Rooney, & Phua, 2013) on this rapidly growing sector.
The effect of sound on the behaviour of sharks has not been investigated since the 1970s. Sound is, however, an important sensory stimulus underwater, as it can spread in all directions quickly and propagate further than any other sensory cue. We used a baited underwater camera rig to record the behavioural responses of eight species of sharks (seven reef and coastal shark species and the white shark, Carcharodon carcharias) to the playback of two distinct sound stimuli in the wild: an orca call sequence and an artificially generated sound. When sounds were playing, reef and coastal sharks were less numerous in the area, were responsible for fewer interactions with the baited test rigs, and displayed less 'inquisitive' behaviour, compared to during silent control trials. White sharks spent less time around the baited camera rig when the artificial sound was presented, but showed no significant difference in behaviour in response to orca calls. The use of the presented acoustic stimuli alone is not an effective deterrent for C. carcharias. The behavioural response of reef sharks to sound raises concern about the effects of anthropogenic noise on these taxa.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority;
The Great Barrier Reef is a vast and spectacular ecosystem and one of the most complex natural systems onEarth. The Great Barrier Reef Region's natural beauty and natural phenomena endure, but they are showing signsof deterioration in several areas. In 2009, the Reef was considered to be at a crossroads between a positive,well-managed future and a less certain one. In 2014, it was seen as an icon under pressure, with continued effortsneeded to address key threats. Since then, the Region has further deteriorated and, in 2019, Australia is caring fora changed and less resilient Reef. The challenge to restore Reef resilience is big, but not insurmountable. However,it requires mitigation of climate change and effective implementation of the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan(Reef 2050 Plan).
Ian Potter Foundation;
This document is intended for future applicants and grantees in the Disability program area. It contains the summarised learnings of all Disability grantees over the past seven years.
The information documented here has been taken from the final reports of Disability grantees, which were submitted to The Ian Potter Foundation following the completion of their projects. As such, the views expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of The Ian Potter Foundation.
Please note that the guidelines for the Disability program area have recently been narrowed, and as such the learnings in this document may be broader than our current objectives. The current Disability objectives are as follows:
Encourage innovative approaches to increasing employment opportunities for individuals with disability.
Ian Potter Foundation;
This document is intended for future applicants and grantees in the Health program area. It contains thesummarised learnings of all Health grantees over the past seven years.
The information documented here has been taken from the final reports of Health grantees, which weresubmitted to The Ian Potter Foundation following the completion of their projects. As such, the viewsexpressed here do not necessarily represent the views of The Ian Potter Foundation.
Please note that the guidelines for the Health program area have recently been narrowed, and as suchthe learnings in this document may be broader than our current objectives. The current Health objectivesare as follows:
* Improve health outcomes for the Australian community through public health initiatives withparticular emphasis on mental health, Indigenous heath and health in rural and remote areas
This is the tenth Grants in Australia research report. This survey-based resource for Australian grantmakers and grantseekers has been produced regularly since 2006, and is the biggest of its type in Australia. An output of Our Community's Innovation Lab, the report is part of an ongoing research project that charts the development of the field of grantmaking from the grantseeking community's perspective. The goal of this report is to create a snapshot of grantmaking in Australia, to examine developing trends in the field, and to inspire and enable more successful grantseeking and better grantmaking.
Open Society european Policy Institute;
As the stalemate continues over a common set of rules on asylum within the European Union, "externalizing," "offshoring," "outsourcing" and, most recently, "regionalizing" asylum and migration management in non–European Union countries remain on the agenda. So does offshoring actually work? This brief takes a comparative look at offshoring asylum and migration management in Australia, Spain, Tunisia, and the United States, and lessons learned for the European Union.
This brief argues that government attempts to curb irregular migration may make it harder and more dangerous for those involved, but ultimately have little impact if the drivers and the demand for irregular migrants (in certain sectors of European countries' economies, for instance) remain unaltered. Offshoring won't be the silver bullet which will solve the European Union's migration conundrum. Instead, the notion of outsourcing asylum and migration to non-European countries, while politically expedient, will only continue to divert resources and time away from a sustainable, workable model of migration management; to undermine efforts to build genuine partnerships with non–European Union states; and to compromise European values in the process.
Infographic of Philanthropy Australia's collective community of funders, grant-makers, social investors and change agents.
Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand;
Survivors of domestic and family violence –the majority of whom are women –experience a range of poor economic outcomes as a consequence of the violence they have survived. Some of these negative outcomes include: reduced access to savings and assets; a reduction in feelings of financial confidence; lower levels of workforce and educational participation; and damage to credit records. This impact is particularly prevalent for women where economic abuse was also part of the pattern of violence. This lack of financial resources makes leaving a violent relationship challenging for survivors. Financial insecurity is also a reason some women return to violent relationships.
While these links are becoming better understood, there is a lack of consistency about what the definition of economic security for survivors of domestic and family violence is. Broad economic analysis demonstrates the costs of domestic and family violence to the economy are great and that survivors bear proportionally more of these costs; however, there is no consistent index with which to measure the economic security for survivors of domestic and family violence. In the absence of this understanding it is more difficult to gauge the extent of the problem. It is also difficult to measure whether service and policy responses are dealing with the issue.
To this end, Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand with the support of the Con Irwin Sub-fund of the Victorian Women's Trust reviewed the literature about economic security and domestic and family violence. The review was conducted in order to develop a definition of economic security that reflected its individual and structural elements. From there, a range of potential indicators with which to measure the economic security for survivors were scoped. A measurement tool was also piloted with the support of the Australia Institute.
It is hoped that through this research, a larger scale, national study could be conducted to measure the full extent of this problem, and that the creation of an 'Economic Security for Survivors Index' could be developed on the basis of the proposed indicators in this report. This index could then be updated regularly to see whether progress has been made in dealing with the issue.
The research makes a series of recommendations for policy and practice to better respond to the economic insecurity of survivors. There are also a series of recommendations for furthering data collection and the creation of the index.
Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development;
In this paper, the author assesses the Indigenous peoples' situations in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States and the mismatch between their demands for self-determination and state programs to address socio-economic disadvantage. The author then presents evidence from the United States that Indigenous self-determination and self-government are essential bases for improving the socio-economic conditions of Indigenous peoples, explores some of the issues raised by this evidence, and concludes with implications for policy-makers.