No result found
The Pew Charitable Trusts;
Under the European Union's current Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), 2020 had been targeted as the year toachieve a major change in fisheries management: sustainable exploitation rates in place for all stocks. Despiteprogress, the EU did not meet this goal.The story of the policy's implementation begins in 2013, when, after decades of overfishing and ineffectivefisheries management, the European Parliament and the EU's then-28 member state governments agreed onfar-reaching reforms to the previous CFP.1 These included setting sustainable catch limits with the objective torestore stocks, maintain healthy ecosystems and safeguard stable, profitable fisheries for the EU fleet. In 2014,the reformed CFP entered into force, with a focus on bringing fishing pressure in line with scientific advice. Thepolicy required fisheries ministers to ensure sustainable exploitation rates "by 2015 where possible and on aprogressive, incremental basis at the latest by 2020 for all stocks."Now, after the 2020 deadline has passed, it's clear that the reforms have brought progress. But the data alsoshows that policymakers are still setting too many catch limits above the levels recommended by scientists, withdecision-making suffering from a short-term approach and lower ambition than the policy requires.In 2008, The Pew Charitable Trusts began working with 192 organisations in the OCEAN2012 coalition to ensurethat a reformed CFP set ambitious, science-based and achievable objectives. In the years since the reforms cameinto force, Pew and several other groups have pushed to hold decision-makers accountable in the efforts to endoverfishing in North-Western European waters and allow stocks to recover to healthy, productive levels.This report presents eight key lessons learned from this work to help implement the EU's fisheries policy, eachlesson augmented by a deeper look at a specific issue. The experiences in implementing the EU policy show that:1. Good management works.As the experience of fisheries managers around the world has shown, when steps are taken to safeguardthe sustainability of stocks and fisheries for the long term, the results include environmental, economicand social benefits.2. Decreased ambition since 2013 led to under-implementation.Decision-makers approached implementation of most major pillars of the CFP pragmatically, toooften showing less political will than needed to deliver the reforms as intended. This led to diminishedexpectations from stakeholders and EU institutions on what could be delivered, almost from the beginning.3. Decisions often favoured maintaining the status quo rather than changing behaviour.Despite ambitious CFP goals intended to change outcomes in the water, decision-makers often adjustedmanagement measures to fit existing patterns of fishing – to the detriment of achieving the objectives.4. EU decision-making remains siloed.Fisheries policy processes often follow their own internal logic, so a focus on fisheries yields and economicoutcomes may overlook other priorities, such as the urgent need to deliver on wider EU environmentalrequirements and commitments.5. Short-term thinking persists in EU management.A long-term perspective – one of the key aims of the 2014 CFP – often took a back seat to immediatepolitical expediency. For example, fisheries ministers continued to set excessive catch limits on the basisthat they were a "compromise" between short- and long-term aims or were necessary for unexplainedeconomic reasons. 6. Clarity on progress is too often undermined by unclear and inconsistent reporting.Rather than measuring progress against the aims of the CFP, official reporting often uses irrelevant orchanging benchmarks, such as trend comparisons, which frequently do not correspond to the CFP's legalobjectives. This confuses the public about the policy's progress and leads stakeholders to draw differentconclusions on priorities.7. Opaque decision-making hampers progress.A lack of public communication on the scientific basis for European Commission proposals onmanagement measures such as catch limits, and the rationale for legislators' subsequent decisions, toooften prevented scrutiny of decision-making by stakeholders and EU institutions, and undermined trust inthe process.8. Stocks shared with non-EU countries present challenges in achieving CFP aims.Jointly managed stocks require more complex decision-making than stocks that are managed by oneentity. That increases the need for collaborative improvements, especially in the wake of the UK'sdeparture from the EU.To realise the ambitions set by legislators in 2013, EU policymakers need to take the final steps to implementthe CFP in full. The health of marine ecosystems, European fisheries, and the communities that depend on themrequire the sustainable, ecosystem-based management approaches set out in the policy, without exceptions andloopholes. The findings in this review of progress can help guide decision-makers and stakeholders on the workthat remains to fully implement the CFP, and in shaping future priorities for European fisheries.
Fund for Global Human Rights;
For nearly twenty years, the Fund for Global Human Rights has been a vocal champion of participatory philanthropy. We provide flexible general support that allows local groups to define and lead their own agendas. Fund grantees identify their priorities and approach and collaborate with program staff on defining measures of progress toward their intended outcomes.To us, participatory grant-making—which empowers affected communities to decide what and who to fund—is a further step in shifting power to grantees and movements.In 2019, the Fund partnered with Purposeful, a feminist movement-building hub for adolescent girls, to pilot a participatory grant-making initiative in Sierra Leone aimed at promoting youth leadership and amplifying the voices of young people.As our first foray into realizing the potential of participatory grant-making, this experience taught us many valuable lessons about how to foster genuine participation of children and young people.A targeted and intentional approach to reach a diverse group of children and youth is essential. This helps prevent a participatory process that only benefits young people in urban areas and those from higher socio-economic backgrounds.We also learned that true participation requires letting go of power while ensuring that young people have what they need to make meaningful and informed decisions. Support to child and youth-led groups should go beyond grant money to include a comprehensive package of grantee-led learning and accompaniment.The biggest lesson is about the need to be open and flexible throughout the process. Being willing to adapt as we went along allowed us to respond and make changes (almost) in real time. It also allowed us to learn from the young people about what it means to use your voice and make yourself heard in ways far beyond what we could have anticipated.
This report is the product of a newly launched, multiyear Pay‑What-It-Takes (PWIT) India Initiative committed to building stronger, more financially resilient NGOs. The initiative is led by The Bridgespan Group and the five anchor partners: A.T.E. Chandra Foundation (ATECF), Children's Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), EdelGive Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Omidyar Network India. Each partner believes strongly in the importance of better understanding true costs and approached the initiative from a different perspective.
Center for Nonprofit Excellence;
Presentation from a webinar sharing data from a survey conducted by the Center for Nonprofit Excellence. Data were collected from March 19, 2020 to May 12, 2020 from 102 respondents.
AARP Public Policy Institute;
Medicaid is the primary funder of long-term services and supports (LTSS) in the United States. It provides those services and supports either through institutional care (i.e., nursing home care) or home- and community-based services (HCBS). This report explains that one cost-effective HCBS option with multiple advantages is to pay family members to provide care for older people and adults with physical disabilities.Pandemic Phenomenon: Long-Term Care Concerns MagnifiedThe COVID-19 outbreak has intensified longstanding problems in long-term care. Nursing homes were among the first COVID-19 "hotspots" in the United States, with their residents' death rates far exceeding the general population. Meanwhile, the pandemic has only exacerbated nursing homes' challenges related to social isolation, and the physical and mental harms from isolation are well documented. The COVID-19 pandemic has also exacerbated the ongoing nationwide shortage of direct care workers and high turnover within the industry.What Gets in the Way of Enabling a Promising ResourceIn spite of the advantages of providing pay for family caregivers, the concept has met certain barriers. One of the most common restrictions states impose is that a person may not hire his or her spouse as a paid caregiver, with the rationale that caring for one another is a responsibility inherent in the spousal relationship. In a pandemic environment, of course, this restriction can force spousal caregivers to work outside the house and bring in an outside caregiver, both of which raise the risk of infection. Concerns about family members committing fraud by billing for hours not worked has also motivated restrictions even as fraud is, in fact, extremely rare.Paying Family Caregivers Benefits Families and TaxpayersFamily caregiving already serves a critical role in mitigating the growing strain on the LTSS system, in part by expanding the caregiver pool. As Americans continue to live longer, family members are providing ever more complex care at home, often for longer periods of time. A family caregiver's responsibility to provide that high level of care can make it difficult or even impossible for them to maintain another job. Therefore, paid family caregiving answers multiple needs:The person who needs care can age at home, which is the preference for the vast majority of people who need LTSS.The family caregiver earns modest income, mitigating the impact of lost job hours.It is a lifeline to families who cannot otherwise afford to care for their family member.Costs are kept lower. One analysis found the average monthly cost for self-directed care was $1,774 in 2019, compared to $6,175 for a semi-private nursing home room.Costly institutionalization is delayed or avoided entirely.ConclusionWhen COVID-19 cases began mounting during the spring of 2020, state Medicaid agencies lifted some restrictions and allowed more family members to be hired and paid as caregivers. States should now consider implementing permanent policies that encourage and facilitate paid family caregiving, and invest in support services for caregivers. Current Medicaid reimbursement rates are not sufficient to attract enough direct care workers into the professional home care workforce, and COVID-19-related budget shortfalls and balanced budget requirements mean reimbursement rates will not be raised any time soon.Click "Download" to access this resource.
Spending in retirement is an increasingly important area of focus of the retirement industry, plan sponsors, and policymakers as more individuals enter retirement. Indeed, in the third quarter of 2020, about 28.6 million Baby Boomers - those born between 1946 and 1964 - reported that they were out of the labor force due to retirement. Yet not enough is understood about how retirees spend their money and, just as importantly, why they spend the way they do.In its Issue Brief, "Why Do People Spend the Way They Do in Retirement? Findings From EBRI's Spending in Retirement Survey," the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) reported the spending habits and situation of 2,000 individuals ages 62 to 75 at and during retirement. Three types of retirees in particular stood out: (1) highly indebted retirees who described their debt as unmanageable or even crushing; (2) long-term secure retirees, or those retirees who reported they had long-term care insurance; and (3) full-nester retirees, or those reporting that they had at least one child at home with them. These three groups are highly distinct from one another and paint a portrait of starkly different retirement lifestyles depending on these circumstances.EBRI was able to fund development of this research thanks to a generous grant from RRF Foundation for Aging.Click "Download" to read the summary of EBRI's research.
It has been a year since the global outbreak of COVID-19, and the world is still recovering and operating in what we have come to accept as the "new normal." In 2020, we saw funders react swiftly, not only directing emergency funds to organizations on the ground but also committing to changes in their grantmaking practices and priorities to better help nonprofits face the myriad challenges brought on by the pandemic. In this report, Candid and the Center for Disaster Philanthropy look at the global philanthropic response to COVID-19 in 2020.
United Philanthropy Forum;
This report represents the latest in an effort by Philanthropy-Serving Organizations (PSOs) to advance philanthropic practice and impact by centering racial equity. Written by some members of United Philanthropy Forum's Racial Equity Committee together with Community Centered Evaluation & Research, the report is based on findings of the Forum's inaugural Racial Equity Capacity Assessment for PSOs. Nearly three-quarters of Forum members completed the assessment, which provides a baseline to examine PSOs' internal efforts and external programming in advancing racial equity. The Forum also completed the assessment, and is using the results to inform the Forum's internal racial equity work.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation;
A year into the pandemic, we are no longer just worrying about progress on women's equality coming to a standstill. We're now seeing the possibility of such progress being reversed. The devastating impact that COVID-19 has had on women's livelihoods cannot be overstated. Globally, women tend to work in low-paying jobs and in the informal sector—precarious employment that has been upended by lockdowns and COVID-19 restrictions. Adding another layer to this burden, women's unpaid care work is soaring.The childcare crisis is at a tipping point. Childcare must be addressed within our COVID-19 recovery plans both to advance gender equality and because it makes fiscal sense. In addition to reducing the undue burden of care, affordable and quality childcare frees mothers up to participate in the labour force and creates decent jobs for women in the childcare sector. Fiscal space is shrinking due to COVID-19 but limiting spending on care work would be shortsighted. When more women work, economies grow. Currently, gender gaps in labour force participation in OECD countries cost the economy about 15 percent of GDP.
Asian American/Pacific Islanders in Philanthropy (AAPIP);
This report, Seeking to Soar: Foundation Funding for Asian American & Pacific Islander Communities, probes the question of foundation investments in AAPI communities. In these pages, AAPIP provides a brief overview of philanthropic support for AAPI communities over the past 35 years, 10 years, and an even closer look at the last five years of currently available data. The major findings are a shocking disappointment — the percentage of foundation dollars designated for AAPI communities has not moved over the past three decades.This report is being released amidst an ongoing pandemic that unleashed anti-Asian hate and violence readily simmering just below the surface; a long overdue reckoning with systemic racism; a global economic crisis; and a tumultuous period of partisanship that is testing the strength of this country's multiracial democracy.
Council of Michigan Foundations;
The Council of Michigan Foundations (CMF) commissioned four prior studies between 2000 and 2016 to evaluate the required private foundation payout rate as well as hypothetical model portfolios and actual investment returns.In 2020, the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy (Johnson Center), in collaboration with Plante Moran Financial Advisors (PMFA), updated and expanded this research by using a comprehensive database of IRS Form 990-PF (private foundation) returns, adding international investments to the model portfolios, presenting actual payout rates of all private foundations in the data set, and showing projections of how changes to the payout rate may affect future foundation assets.
Global Network on Extremism and Technology (GNET);
The use of social media platforms and chat applications in Asia has grown exponentially in recent years. Throughout the 2010s, violent extremists (VEs) in different parts of the continent exploited this growing access to audiences, disseminating their divisive messages broadly, while targeting individuals in fringe online groups. Technology companies and governments eventually imposed relatively effective measures to moderate overtly terrorist content, remove accounts and limit reach. However, the dynamics of broader communication on platforms that reward contentious engagement is continuing to inflame domestic political polarisation and societal division.Indonesia, the Philippines, Myanmar, and India are four Asian nations with unique but comparable experiences regarding the impact of online communications on social fault lines, extremism and violence. This report outlines and analyses these respective contexts.