An Experiment in Scaling Impact: Assessing the Growth Capital Aggregation Pilot

This report presents an assessment of the Growth Capital Aggregation Pilot. It was commissioned by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, founder and lead investor of the grantmaking initiative.Starting in 2000, The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation (Clark) adopted an investment approach to grantmaking that focused on providing growth capital to youth-serving organizations with demonstrated commitments to evaluation and measurable outcomes. For grantees, the strategy meant larger, longer-term, unrestricted investments, complemented by extensive access to consulting and technical assistance to strengthen their organizations.This approach helped Clark grantees across the portfolio increase the numbers of youth they served (for example, by 18 percent between 2005 and 2006) and achieve annual revenue gains (averaging 19 percent over the four years prior to the founding of GCAP). At the same time, the Foundation concluded that more capital would be required if its grantees and other promising youth-serving organizations were to realize their ultimate scale and sustainability potential

UA94/6/1 Charles Taylor Scrapbook

Scrapbook created by Charles and Barbara Taylor regarding Charles\u27 participation on the WKU football team. Includes clippings, correspondence and football game programs

Heroic Families and Utopian Histories

no abstrac

A mass spectrometer for isotope analysis

Thesis (M.A.)--Boston University, 1949. This item was digitized by the Internet Archive

Close Enough for Government Work: Proving Minimal Nexus in a Federal and Firearms Conviction: United States v. Corey

In United States v. Corey, Alvin Scott Corey was found guilty of possessing a firearm as a felon. Although Corey\u27s possession of a Smith and Wesson shotgun violated Maine law, Corey was prosecuted in the United States District Court under the federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and its penalty statute, § 924(e). On appeal, Corey argued that one of the requirements for his conviction, proof of the statute\u27s jurisdictional element, had not been satisfied because that proof rested on expert testimony based, in part, on hearsay. The First Circuit Court of Appeals, in a split decision, affirmed Corey\u27s conviction, finding ample precedent for allowing expert testimony based in part on hearsay to prove that Corey\u27s Smith and Wesson traveled in interstate commerce, establishing federal jurisdiction over its possession. The dissenting judge strongly objected to the lack of rigor with which that evidence had been admitted by the trial court, and reviewed by the majority on appeal. Noting that Corey\u27s shotgun could have been made at a Smith and Wesson factory in Houlton, Maine and so might never have traveled in interstate commerce, the dissent argued that a higher standard of reliability and review was particularly in order for evidence establishing federal jurisdiction. This Note examines how a remarkably low standard for asserting federal jurisdiction over felon firearm possession evolved in the United States Supreme Court, how that standard has been interpreted in the lower courts and challenged by recent Supreme Court Commerce Clause jurisprudence, and how a fundamental unfairness inherent to that standard played out in Corey