The Obama Administration and the Press: Leak Investigations and Surveillance in Post-9/11 America

U.S. President Barack Obama came into office pledging open government, but he has fallen short of his promise. Journalists and transparency advocates say the White House curbs routine disclosure of information and deploys its own media to evade scrutiny by the press. Aggressive prosecution of leakers of classified information and broad electronic surveillance programs deter government sources from speaking to journalists

Denver-Boulder Jewish Teen Initiative Evaluation, Year 1 Report

The Initiative leaders invested in evaluation from the start of the work together in order to learn along the way about what works and what needs adjustment, and to document the impact of the Initiative overall. Informing Change was invited to evaluate the first three years of the Initiative, beginning with facilitating the development of the Initiative's Theory of Change. We then designed a mixed-methods evaluation that includes surveys of teens and parents involved with Initiative programs; interviews with Jewish youth professionals; interviews with grantees, funders and other community stakeholders; and a review of grantee reports and other materials.During the Initiative's first year, teen participants from the three grantee programs that were operational—JSC, Moving Traditions and BJTI—were invited to participate in a survey about their experiences in these programs and their involvement in Jewish life in their communities more broadly. JSC used a survey that it administers to all teens in its groups nationally. Informing Change designed surveys for Moving Traditions and BJTI with items from the Cross-Community Evaluation as well as those specifically for Denver-Boulder and their unique programs. These surveys were launched very close to the end of the school year, and later than originally intended, largely due to the coordination with the Cross-Community Evaluation. Due to low survey response rates, the data collected from each program is limited. Only 2 teens from BJTI, 16 teens from Moving Traditions and 44 teens from JSC programs completed surveys. Note that these counts only include respondents who completed a survey and indicated that either they are Jewish or someone in their family is Jewish.Similarly, our parent surveys included items from the Cross-Community Evaluation and customized items for Denver-Bounder and also had low rates of completion. This is an important limitation to consider when interpreting the parent data in this report. Also, it only includes parents of teens in Moving Traditions and BJTI; 21 parents representing 22 teens from Moving Traditions and 5 parents representing 6 teens from BJTI completed surveys.The survey data provides insight into the teens' experiences from two self-reported perspectives: teens and parents. However, due to the low response rates, these baseline survey data should be viewed as illustrative rather than as representative in nature.Informing Change also conducted 34 interviews with a range of informants who were both directly and indirectly involved with Initiative programs. These interviews typically lasted about 45 minutes and were conducted by telephone or in person. They included 2 interviews with local and national funders of the Initiative, 7 interviews with staff of Initiative grantees' staff, 4 interviews with national staff of local grantees, 21 interviews with youth professionals in jHub, 4 interviews with local program advisors or volunteers, and 2 interviews with local stakeholders not directly involved with the Initiative. Please note that there was some overlap among these categories (i.e., grantee staff who were also jHub participants), which is why the total appears greater than the number of interviews conducted.Informing Change also reviewed mid-term and end-of-year grant reports from each of the five Initiative grantees. Mid-year grant reports were submitted and reviewed in February 2015, and final Year 1 grant reports were submitted and reviewed in August 2015. These reports provided information on grantee progress that was outside the scope of the evaluation's interviews and helped provide a complete picture of grantees' Year 1 accomplishments and challenges

Evaluation of the Jim Joseph Foundation Education Initiative Year 3 Report

Launched in 2010, the Jim Joseph Foundation Education Initiative supports programs at three flagship Jewish institutions of higher education: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion (HUC-JIR), Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS), and Yeshiva University (YU). As part of this initiative, HUC-JIR, JTS, and YU designed and piloted new programs, enhanced existing programs, and provided financial assistance to additional programs.American Institutes for Research (AIR) is conducting an independent evaluation of the Jim Joseph Foundation Education Initiative. This report is the third in a series of five annual reports that describe progress toward accomplishing the goals of the Education Initiative

Moving the Needle: How Transparency Could Lower Costs and Improve Quality in United States Hospitals

This thesis shows the limitations of price and quality information for improving the value of healthcare delivery in the United States. First, in four survey experiments to determine the impact of information on decision-making, consumers were more likely to choose the lower cost or higher quality option when relevant information was presented in straightforward ways with a minimized risk of information overload (n = 224, t = -3.7065, p = 0.0002). Second, hospitals on the U.S. News Best Hospital list between 2008 and 2011 were shown to be significantly more likely to be found in wealthy, highly populated areas, while unranked hospitals were more likely to be the sole community provider. Third, perceived quality (U.S. News-ranked hospitals) was shown to be out of alignment with actual quality (hospitals performing above the national average for readmission and mortality according to Medicare Hospital Compare): 36 hospitals performed well on both lists, constituting only 0.77% of total hospitals in the U.S. in 2011. Current efforts have not gone far enough toward complete transparency to lead to negative effects such as collusion, nor to positive effects such as better value. Fears held by economists and private sector participants will likely not be realized in the near future—but neither will the hopes of policymakers for demand-driven change in the healthcare system

Net Gains: A Handbook for Network Builders Seeking Social Change

This handbook provides the growing number of people who are developing networks for social change with practical advice based on the experiences of network builders, case studies of networks small and large, local and international, and emerging scientific knowledge about "connectivity." It is intended to join, complement, and spur other efforts to capture and make widely available what is being learned in the business, government, and civil sectors about why and how to use networks, rather than solitary organizations, to generate large-scale impact

The Latino Age Wave: What Changing Ethnic Demographics Mean for the Future of Aging in the U.S.

Highlights data on aging Latinos/Hispanics, trends in the assets and needs of community-based organizations serving or that could serve older Latinos, and strategies for addressing gaps in supportive policies. Outlines best practices and recommendations

Evaluating Program Impact: Our Approach to Performance Assessment

Discerning and communicating the impact of grantmaking and other programmatic contributions are essential to fulfilling the Rockefeller Brothers Fund's (RBF) mission as well as our commitment to stewardship, transparency, and accountability. The Fund's board and staff have found that engaging policymakers on the results and insights gained from our grantmaking, informing the public about our grantees' work, and attracting additional donors to promising institutions and approaches are key activities that help build a more just, sustainable, and peaceful world.In order to bring additional rigor to the Fund's approach to program impact assessment, a committee of RBF trustees and staff was established in March 2012. Based on our experience, the state of evaluation in philanthropy, and a review of literature and activity in the field, the Impact Assessment Committee developed a set of principles to guide our impact assessment approach, defined terms for the purposes of RBF discussions, established several points for evaluation activities in the life cycle of a grantmaking program, and identified opportunities to embed impact assessment in the Fund's regular institutional processes. The Fund establishes its programs in fields and places that reflect its mission and the evolution of its longstanding interests, along with an analysis of the changing global context. The key elements of the RBF's approach to assessing program impact are as follows:* The board approves program guidelines that lay the foundation for the Fund's grantmaking within a program. Guidelines include a preamble that presents the vision and rationale for each program, ambitious long-term goals, and strategies that articulate specific actions the Fund will support to achieve progress toward these goals. They provide guidance to staff and grantseekers about what the RBF is prepared to fund.* A program framework summary, derived from the guidelines, is developed for internal use and includes indicators of progress. These indicators identify anticipated changes in understanding, behavior, capacity, public engagement, or public policy that would demonstrate that program strategies are contributing to realizing program goals.* Within each program, evaluation activities occur on an ongoing basis. Monitoring of the field and of individual grants draws on regular staff engagement and grantee reporting; program reviews, conducted every three to five years by program staff, provide an opportunity to engage the board in a strategic review of progress—often resulting in updated program strategies; impact assessments are conducted by external consultants after five or more years as strategies mature.* The annual institutional calendar provides a variety of opportunities for the board and staff to discuss and review programmatic impact at different points each year and across several years.This approach to impact assessment reflects emerging practices in the field and is consistent with the Fund's values and grantmaking approaches. The committee believes that the approach effectively supports program learning, guides program development, and enhances the impact of the Fund's grantmaking

Independent Evaluation of the Jim Joseph Foundation's Education Initiative Year 4 Report

Research indicates that well-prepared educators help produce strong learning outcomes for students. For the continued health of Jewish education, higher education institutions should have the capacity to prepare sufficient numbers of highly qualified educators and education leaders for careers in Jewish education. Teachers, division heads, and school heads represent a substantial segment of the educator population in Jewish day schools. More than 5,000 educators enter new positions in Jewish day schools every year and are in need of adequate preparation. The most frequent obstacle to instructional quality in Jewish day schools is the difficulty in recruiting qualified teachers (Ben-Avie & Kress, 2006; Jewish Education Service of North America, 2008; Kidron et al., in press; Krakowski, 2011; Sales, 2007).A similar problem has been observed in supplementary schools in congregational or communal settings. These schools enroll the majority of Jewish children and adolescents receiving a Jewish education in the United States (Wertheimer, 2008). In recent years, congregations have begun to replace traditional educational programs with new approaches that aim to raise the quality of instruction and the level of parent and student satisfaction relative to their programs. These new approaches may include greater integration of experiential Jewish education and community service, family learning, and the integration of all aspects of congregational learning under the leadership of one director (Rechtschaffen, 2011; Sales, Samuel, Koren, & Shain, 2010). High-quality programs that are updated or reconstructed across time to meet the needs of the Jewish community require well-prepared directors and educators. However, many directors and educators in congregational schools have not participated in teacher preparation programs, and the depth of Jewish content knowledge among these teachers is highly variable (Stodolsky, Dorph, & Rosov, 2008)

Catalog of Approaches to Impact Measurement: Assessing Social Impact in Private Ventures

To inform action impact investors could take to measure impact in a coordinated manner, The Rockefeller Foundation commissioned the study of impact assessment approaches presented here.It is natural to hope to find a single, turnkey solution that can address all measurement needs. In this study we conducted a survey of impact investors and complemented it with seven years of experience in the field of impact investing to discover what these investors want from impact measurement, and conducted in-depth interviews with over twenty entities that have developed and implemented approaches to measuring impact. Our survey of existing approaches was thorough but surely is not comprehensive; however the approaches are a good representation of the current state of play. What we found is that there is not one single measurement answer. Instead the answer depends on what solution is most appropriate for a particular investor's "impact profile" defined as the investor's level of risk tolerance and desired financial return, the particular sector in which the investor operates, geography, and credibility level of information about impact that the investor requires

The Impact of Equity Engagement Evaluating the Impact of Shareholder Engagement in Public Equity Investing

Over the last decade, growing numbers of investors have become increasingly concerned with the environmental and social impact of their investments across asset classes. This trend has recently been driven by new waves of "impact investors" proactively seeking measurable social and environmental impact in addition to financial returns, and by "responsible investors" making commitments to engage on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues through initiatives such as the United Nations-backed Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI). At the same time, engaged shareholders have had long-standing experience using "the power of the proxy" and their voices as investors to hold companies accountable for the impacts they have on employees, stakeholders, communities, and ecosystems.While investor interest in shareholder engagement has grown, our understanding of the impacts associated with engagement activities remains largely anecdotal.In 2012, an important study on Total Portfolio Activation provided a new conceptual and analytical framework for investors to pursue environmental and social impact across all asset classes commonly found in a diversified investment portfolio. Building upon the insights of Total Portfolio Activation, the Impact of Equity Engagement (IE2) initiative seeks to deepen our understanding of the nature of impact in one specific asset class—public equities— where investors' engagement activities have generated meaningful social and environmental impacts.Given the large social and environmental footprints of publicly traded corporations and the persistently high allocation to public equities in most investor portfolios, public equity investing presents a major opportunity for impact investing. Yet impact investing, as currently practiced, has concentrated primarily on smallscale direct investments in private equity and debt, where many investors perceive that social and environmental impact can be more readily observed than in publicly traded companies where ownership is intermediated, diluted, and diffused through secondary capital markets.Indeed, the nature of impact within public equity investing remains poorly understood and insufficiently documented. Because of this, many investors may be overlooking readily available opportunities for generating impact within their existing investment portfolios.To address these misperceptions and missed opportunities, the IE2 initiative is developing a more rigorous framework for documenting the impact of engagement within the public equity asset class.