No result found
Funders for LGBTQ Issues;
We are pleased to present The 2017–2018 Global Resources Report: Government and Philanthropic Support for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Communities, a comprehensive report on the state of foundation and government funding for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) issues. This report documents data on 19,764 grants awarded by 800 foundations, intermediary NGOs, and corporations and by 15 donor government and multilateral agencies over the two-year period of 2017–2018. The report provides detailed data on the distribution of LGBTI funding by geography, issue, strategy, and population focus, offering a tool for identifying trends, gaps, and opportunities in the rapidly changing landscape of LGBTI funding.
The 2017–2018 Global Resources Report builds on two previous editions, which focused on grantmaking in the calendar years 2013–2014 and 2015–16. With this third edition, we have now documented comprehensive data through six calendar years of grantmaking, allowing us to conduct a deeper analysis of LGBTI funding trend lines over time. In many sections of this report, we offer a comparison with the previous report documenting 2015–16, and in some key places we share analysis across the full six-year period.
This third report represents a continuing and evolving collaboration between two philanthropic networks, Global Philanthropy Project and Funders for LGBTQ Issues. The trust developed between these networks has enabled us to adjust the report development process over time as we identify opportunities to activate the unique competencies and assets of both networks. In this iteration of the process, Global Philanthropy Project coordinated development and analysis of the data from foundations and corporations based outside of the United States (U.S.) and from all government and multilateral institutions. Funders for LGBTQ Issues coordinated development and analysis of the data from foundations and corporations based in the U.S., and provided generous overall guidance based on more than a decade of experience producing the comprehensive annual U.S. domestic tracking report on LGBTQI funding.
Dangerous Speech Project;
In its early life the internet inspired optimism that it would improve the world and its people, but that has been supplanted by alarm about harmful, often viral words and images. Though the vast majority of online content is still innocuous or beneficial, the internet is also polluted by hatred: some individuals and groups suffer harassment or attacks, while others are exposed to content that inspires them to hate or fear other people, or even to commit mass murder.
Hateful and harmful messages are so widespread online that the problem is not specific to any culture or country, nor can such content be easily classified under terms like "hate speech" or "extremism": it is too varied. Even the people who produce harmful content, and their motivations for doing so, are diverse. Online service providers (OSPs) have built systems to diminish harmful content, but those are inadequate for the complex task at hand and have fundamental flaws that cannot be solved by tweaking the rules, as the companies have been doing so far. The stakeholders who have the least say in how speech is regulated are precisely those who are subject to that regulation: internet users. "I've come to believe that we shouldn't make so many important decisions about speech on our own," Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO and a founder of Facebook, wrote last year. He is correct.
Daunting though the problem is, there are many opportunities for improvement, but they have been largely overlooked. The widespread distress about it is itself an opportunity, since that means millions of people are paying attention, and it will take broad participation to build online norms against harmful content. Such mass participation is neither far-fetched nor unfamiliar: many beneficial campaigns and social movements have been born and developed thanks to mass participation online.
This paper offers a set of specific proposals for better describing harmful content online and for reducing the damage it causes, while protecting freedom of expression. The ideas are mainly meant for OSPs since they regulate the vast majority of online content; taken together they operate the largest system of censorship the world has ever known, controlling more human communication than any government. Governments, for their part, have tried to berate or force the companies into changing their policies, with limited and often repressive results. For these reasons, this paper focuses on what OSPs should do to diminish harmful content online.
The proposals focus on the rules that form the basis of each regulation system, as well as on other crucial steps in the regulatory process, such as communicating rules to platform users, giving multiple stakeholders a role in regulation, and enforcement of the rules.
Open Science Journal;
This paper highlights potential health and safety issues which may emerge in workplaces engaging migrant workers, particularly as effected by social distancing during training prior to employment, such as experienced by international students. There are a number of factors that can contribute to the ways in which a migrant worker applies health and safety in their workplaces, including language and culture, that are commonly addressed through training, socialisation and workplace engagement. With these opportunities limited due to social distancing, migrant workers have less opportunity to contribute to and embrace organisations' safety culture. This onus then falls onto employers to ensure that safe practices are learned, imbued and correctly and consistently applied with an objective of fostering a strong safety culture where employees go above and beyond what is expected in terms of safety performance that is mutually understood and shared.
Tiny Beam Fund;
Para discutir el tema de la reducción del consumo de carne, primero debemos revisar la forma en que las personas conciben a los animales. Almirón y Tafalla (2019) afirman que la única manera de contribuir al medio ambiente es a través de la ética y la consideración hacia los demás animales. Lo examiné en mi tesis doctoral y lo actualicé con las situaciones y problemas por los que atraviesa Argentina en la actualidad.
El consumo de carne responde principalmente a las representaciones sociales existentes (y circulantes) de los animales que la gente considera comestibles. ¿Qué son las representaciones sociales (RS)? Las RS son un conocimiento espontáneo e ingenuo, comúnmente llamado sentido común (a diferencia del conocimiento científico). Este conocimiento se forma a partir de nuestras experiencias y de la información que recibimos y transmitimos a través de las tradiciones, la educación y la comunicación social. Se trata, pues, de un conocimiento socialmente elaborado ycompartido (Jodelet, citado por Araya Umaña, 2002). Entendemos las cosas a través del filtro de estas representaciones sociales. Por eso es tan importante entender las representaciones que circulan sobre el consumo de carne y las dietas vegetarianas porque eso nos permitirá saber dónde intervenir para transformar esas representaciones.
Existen cuatro elementos clave en las representaciones sociales del consumo de carne en Argentina.
1. Un sistema de creencias que apoya el consumo de carne.2. Una profunda estigmatización del veganismo.3. Los Macro-relatos sobre la carne y los productos lácteos.4. Las características de una forma particular de pensar y hacer activismo en el colectivo vegano.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute;
The ongoing renaissance of artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping the world. Just like many other developing countries, India and Pakistan—the two nuclear-armed states of South Asia—are exploring the subsequent opportunities for economic and social change. Their political leaders seem to prioritize civilian applications of AI over the military, and public attention reflects the political priorities. National efforts to militarize AI do not receive the same public coverage as civilian AI developments
Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory (RIPA) Board;
California's Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (Board) is pleased to release its Third Annual Report. The Board was created by the Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015 (RIPA) to shepherd data collection and provide public reports with the ultimate objective to eliminate racial and identity profiling and improve and understand diversity in law enforcement through training, education, and outreach. For the first time, the Board's report includes an analysis of the stop data collected under RIPA, which requires nearly all California law enforcement agencies to submit demographic data on all detentions and searches. This report also provides recommendations that law enforcement can incorporate to enhance their policies, procedures, and trainings on topics that intersect with bias and racial and identity profiling. This report provides the Board's recommendations for next steps for all stakeholders – advocacy groups, community members, law enforcement, and policymakers – who can collectively advance the goals of RIPA. In rendering these recommendations, the Board hopes to further carry out its mission to eliminate racial and identity profiling and improve law enforcement and community relations.
Global Fund for Community Foundations (GFCF);
Civil society organisations (CSOs) in Ghana are generally fragile and dependent on donor funding mechanisms for survival. Recent studies show that financial sustainability of CSOs is challenging, which has spurred conversations on new alternative funds mobilisation routes, innovative methods and strategies to ensure its sustainability. This scoping report highlights the opportunities and challenges associated with faith-based giving as a domestic resource mobilisation (DRM) strategy that CSOs could explore in Ghana. Specifically, the report highlights the experiences of funds mobilisation, the strategies, the opportunities and successes and the challenges. It draws on in-depth interviews from 6 faith-based organisations (FBOs), three CSOs that have funds mobilisation connections with FBOs and 2 key informants or experts working within the civil society space in Ghana. The report stresses four key messages.
First, the key sources of domestic faith-based giving for Faith-based organisations are: (i) Special collections and offerings collected by affiliated religious bodies to support the FBOs; (ii) Individual contributions, appeals, pledges and gifts from members of religious affiliations (local and foreign); (iii) Allocations from headquarters or the 'root' organisations from which the faith-based organisations were formed and (iv) Volunteers and in-kind contributions from partners and stakeholders. However, faith-based domestic resource mobilisation has not been systematically integrated into the core strategy of domestic resource mobilisation efforts of some faith-based organisations as they draw their funding mainly from external sources.
Second, religious organisations affiliated to Faith-based organisations use multiple strategies to encourage and mobilise funds and resources from givers. Four commonest approaches identified are: i) using education, doctrines and psychological preparation towards giving; b) instituting 'special days' for collection from givers; iii) being accountable and effectively communicating results and iv) effectively communicating mission to givers.
Third, opportunities for mobilising funds and resources from faith-based sources exist because (i) large religious base of the country who are motivated by faith to give; (ii) indigenous systems and culture of giving in Ghana and (iii) growing technologies and digital infrastructure that provide convenience for givers. Strong connections to a 'base'/constituents is important for generation of funds.
However, there are some challenges that constrain the prospect of domestic mobilisation of faith-based funds to boost financial sustainability of CSOs while also promoting socio-economic development in Ghana. Six key challenges have been articulated below: (i) general perceptions of CSOs and development actors ; (ii) culture of giving is skewed towards ad-hoc social welfare causes than long-term development actions that address systemic changes ; (iii) The difficulty of working with rising middle class and high-net worth personalities and (iv) weak transparent and accountable systems of CSOs. Some non-faith-based organisations also find it difficult mobilising domestic faith-based resources because of: (i) unfavourable perception and risk of associating with faith-based organisations and ii) clash of religious doctrines and some principles and values held by organisations.
Campaign Zero evaluated the policing practices of San Diego Police Department (SDPD) and San Diego Sheriff's Department (SDSD).
Our results show both departments to be engaged in a pattern of discriminatory policing. Both departments stopped black people at a rate more than 2x higher than white people and were more likely to search, arrest, and use force against black people during a stop. Both departments not only use force more often but also use more severe forms of force against black people than other groups, even after controlling for arrest rates and alleged level of resistance.
We also found evidence of anti-Latinx bias, anti-LGBT bias and bias against people with disabilities in both departments' search practices.
New York Community Trust;
For 95 years, The New York Community Trust has served as New York's community foundation— managing charitable funds on behalf of donors and granting more than $4.6 billion to support nonprofits.
But where, exactly, does that money go? Which causes do philanthropically minded New Yorkers care most about? And how has their giving changed over the years?
To answer these questions, we mined The Trust's data and interviewed and surveyed scores of living donors to create this 2019 Philanthropic Trends Report, a first ever portrait of giving in America's largest city, including its Long Island and Westchester suburbs.
European Network Against Racism;
Law enforcement agencies present technology as 'race' neutral, independent of bias, and objective in their endeavour to prevent crime and offending behaviour. Such claims overlook the overwhelming evidence of discriminatory policing against racialised minority and migrant communities across Europe. For people of African, Arab, Asian and Roma descent, alongside religious minority communities, encounters with law enforcement agencies of many European countries are higher than for majority white populations. Whether in interactions with the police or numbers in prisons, European criminal justice systems are policing minority groups according to myths and stereotypes about the level of 'risk' they pose, rather than their behaviour. This report explains the potential effects of the increased use of data-driven technologies for minority groups and communities. It combines our collective understanding of criminological processes of criminalisation with information about the incursion of new technologies into contemporary policing. There is an urgency to consider the potential (mis)uses of data-driven police technologies for racialised minority groups. At present, we face (public and private) organisational silences that conceal technology from public scrutiny and accountability. This is further complicated through ongoing debates concerning the reliability, validity and/or ethics of data use upon which much of these new tools are based.
Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Boston;
Few organizations in Jewish life can match the scale and scope of CJP's search for a new CEO—or the pedigree of its search committee. But in assembling a team of all-stars—and then executing a search with precision and professionalism—CJP's board provides a model to which all organizations can aspire.
As the long-tenured executive vice president at Bend the Arc, Stosh Cotler was told by the board that it wished to consider her for the role of CEO, a position that had recently opened up. The only problem was that Cotler didn't see herself as CEO material.