Employee Empowerment: The Key to Foundation Staff Satisfaction

Although few in numbers, foundation staff are responsible for managing hundreds of billions of dollars in charitable assets. These staff make crucial decisions about how best to allocate those resources to address some of our most pressing domestic and global challenges -- from child welfare to climate change. Given the important goals that foundation staff members are working to achieve, their performance should be a concern not just to those who supervise them, but to all of us. If we accept the argument that staff experiences are connected to performance, then foundation staff perceptions matter greatly. To better understand the experience of foundation staff, the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) surveyed 1,168 staff members at 31 foundations. The surveys were conducted from 2007 to 2011 as part of CEP's Staff Perception Report (SPR) process. Through these surveys, we collect quantitative and qualitative data from respondents. Though our dataset is limited to the 31 foundations that chose to commission an SPR from CEP, it is the largest dataset that exists about foundation staff members' job satisfaction. We have sought, therefore, to analyze it to understand the answers to some basic questions: How satisfied are foundation staff in their jobs? What contributes to their satisfaction? What the data strongly indicate is that leaders set the tone. Their choices -- about a wide range of issues, including communication, delegation of authority, role definition, availability of resources, provision of feedback, recognition of contributions, and opportunities for learning and growth -- shape staff experiences. These dimensions matter far more than the issues that often are the focus of conversations about staff retention and satisfaction, such as pay levels or workload.Also included in this report are case studies of two foundations whose SPR results were particularly strong: The Commonwealth Fund and The Skillman Foundation. These two foundations' staff members rated highly on satisfaction and a host of other dimensions

How Far Have We Come? Foundation CEOs on Progress and Impact

The performance of major U.S. foundations is much discussed and debated. It is also very difficult to gauge. The past decade or so has seen increased interest and effort related to the question of how foundations are doing, and how they might do better. These questions are not new. The earliest major American philanthropists were interested in answering them. But recent years have seen an uptick in at least the discussion of these issues.Indeed, our organization, the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) has focused much energy on this issue, and we have noted how uniquely challenging assessing foundation performance can be. Among the challenges are the difficulty of drawing a causal link between what a foundation funds and change on the ground, the extended time horizons associated with making progress on the difficult issues foundations often address, and the fact that information from different program areas cannot be easily aggregated using some common measure. There is no universal measure -- no easy analog to return on investment -- for foundations.So what conclusion do foundation leaders draw about their success? Brest and others suggest that, "philanthropy remains an underperformer in achieving social outcomes."6 Do foundation CEOs agree? How much progress do they believe foundations have made?In January 2013, we sent surveys to 472 full-time CEOs leading U.S.-based foundations that give at least $5 million annually in grants; 211 CEOs completed the survey for a 45 percent response rate. The survey was designed to collect data on CEOs' understanding of progress and their attitudes and practices in relation to foundation impact. This research was not meant to serve as an objective evaluation of how much progress foundations have made through their work

Hearing from Those We Seek to Help: Nonprofit Practices and Perspectives in Beneficiary Feedback

For nonprofit organizations, hearing from the beneficiaries they seek to serve is an important practice for planning, implementing, and evaluating their programs and services. But does this feedback and an understanding of intended beneficiaries' needs reach foundation funders and influence their funding and strategic decision-making?To answer this question, CEP investigated what nonprofits are doing to hear from those they seek to help and whether their leaders believe their foundation funders are tuned in to the needs of their intended beneficiaries. The data reveals that most nonprofits are collecting and using feedback from their beneficiaries to improve their programs and services, but nonprofit leaders believe most of their foundation funders lack a deep understanding of their intended beneficiaries' needs. The research shows that this matters. Nonprofit leaders believe foundations' lack of understanding of their beneficiaries' needs is reflected in their funding priorities and programmatic strategies, and that nonprofits believe foundations can benefit from deeper engagement with beneficiary feedback

Assessing to Achieve High Performance: What Nonprofits are Doing and How Foundations Can Help

For foundation leaders to most effectively support grantees, more needs to be understood about the extent to which nonprofits are assessing performance, how they are approaching this work, and what they are looking for from their funders to support it.To better understand the state of practice of performance assessment at nonprofits, The Center For Effective Philanthropy (CEP) turned to its national panel of nonprofit leaders with questions about their assessment strategies and how they are supported. For nonprofits, measuring and improving performance is a challenging endeavor. Yet, the data from these surveys reveal that nonprofits are assessing performance -- but lack the resources they need to do all they seek to do.The report shows that most nonprofits receiving funding from large foundations collect and use information about their performance, yet many want to gather additional -- or better -- data. The typical nonprofit in the study allocates just two percent or less of its budget to assessing its performance, and few employ staff who are dedicated to this work full time. In approaching this work, only a minority of nonprofits in the study report receiving support from foundations for their performance assessment efforts

Foundation Transparency: What Nonprofits Want

Transparency has become an increasingly debated topic among foundation leaders and foundation-watchers. Some, such as the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, argue that foundations have an ethical obligation to be transparent. Brad Smith, president of the Foundation Center, says that transparency is the best means to protect the freedom foundations enjoy. Lucy Bernholz, visiting scholar at Stanford University's Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, argues that foundations should openly share information and data to more effectively pursue their shared goals. Others, like John Tyler and the Philanthropy Roundtable, maintain that foundations should continue to be as private as they like

Transparency, Performance Assessment, and Awareness of Nonprofits’ Challenges: Are Foundations and Nonprofits Seeing Eye to Eye?

· In order for nonprofits and foundations to work most effectively together, they must understand each other’s perspectives. · This article discusses the alignment between the perspectives of nonprofit and foundation chief executive officers on four aspects of foundation practice: transparency with the nonprofits they fund, support for nonprofit-performance assessment, awareness of nonprofits’ challenges, and the degree to which foundations use their resources to help address nonprofits’ challenges. · Nonprofit and foundation CEOs are aligned when it comes to the degree to which foundations are seen to be aware of nonprofits’ challenges and use their resources to help address them. They are not as well aligned, however, when it comes to the importance of foundations being transparent with the nonprofits they fund and whether or not foundations are supporting those nonprofits in performance assessment efforts

CD4 receptor is a key determinant of divergent HIV-1 sensing by plasmacytoid dendritic cells

Plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDC) are innate immune cells that sense viral nucleic acids through endosomal Toll-like receptor (TLR) 7/9 to produce type I interferon (IFN) and to differentiate into potent antigen presenting cells (APC). Engagement of TLR7/9 in early endosomes appears to trigger the IRF7 pathway for IFN production whereas engagement in lysosomes seems to trigger the NF-κB pathway for maturation into APC. We showed previously that HIV-1 (HIV) localizes predominantly to early endosomes, not lysosomes, and mainly stimulate IRF7 rather than NF-κB signaling pathways in pDC. This divergent signaling may contribute to disease progression through production of pro-apoptotic and pro-inflammatory IFN and inadequate maturation of pDCs. We now demonstrate that HIV virions may be re-directed to lysosomes for NF-κB signaling by either pseudotyping HIV with influenza hemagglutinin envelope or modification of CD4 mediated-intracellular trafficking. These data suggest that HIV envelope-CD4 receptor interactions drive pDC activation toward an immature IFN producing phenotype rather than differentiation into a mature dendritic cell phenotype

A New Approach for Loading Anticancer Drugs Into Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Derived Exosome Mimetics for Cancer Therapy

Exosomes derived from mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have been evaluated for their potential to be used as drug delivery vehicles. Synthetically personalized exosome mimetics (EMs) could be the alternative vesicles for drug delivery. In this study, we aimed to isolate EMs from human MSCs. Cells were mixed with paclitaxel (PTX) and PTX-loaded EMs (PTX-MSC-EMs) were isolated and evaluated for their anticancer effects against breast cancer. EMs were isolated from human bone marrow-derived MSCs. MSCs (4 × 106 cells/mL) were mixed with or without PTX at different concentrations in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and serially extruded through 10-, 5-, and 1-μm polycarbonate membrane filters using a mini-extruder. MSCs were centrifuged to remove debris and the supernatant was filtered through a 0.22-μm filter, followed by ultracentrifugation to isolate EMs and drug-loaded EMs. EMs without encapsulated drug (MSC-EMs) and those with encapsulated PTX (PTX-MSC-EMs) were characterized by western blotting, nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA), and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The anticancer effects of MSC-EMs and PTX-MSC-EMs were assessed with breast cancer (MDA-MB-231) cells both in vitro and in vivo using optical imaging. EMs were isolated by the extrusion method and ultracentrifugation. The isolated vesicles were positive for membrane markers (ALIX and CD63) and negative for golgi (GM130) and endoplasmic (calnexin) marker proteins. NTA revealed the size of MSC-EM to be around 149 nm, while TEM confirmed its morphology. PTX-MSC-EMs significantly (p < 0.05) decreased the viability of MDA-MB-231 cells in vitro at increasing concentrations of EM. The in vivo tumor growth was significantly inhibited by PTX-MSC-EMs as compared to control and/or MSC-EMs. Thus, MSC-EMs were successfully isolated using simple procedures and drug-loaded MSC-EMs were shown to be therapeutically efficient for the treatment of breast cancer both in vitro and in vivo. MSC-EMs may be used as drug delivery vehicles for breast cancers

In vivo Non-invasive Imaging of Radio-Labeled Exosome-Mimetics Derived From Red Blood Cells in Mice

Exosomes are natural nano-sized membrane vesicles that have garnered recent interest owing to their potential as drug delivery vehicles. Though exosomes are effective drug carriers, their production and in vivo biodistribution are still not completely elucidated. We analyzed the production of exosome mimetics (EMs) from red blood cells (RBCs) and the radio-labeling of the RBC-EMs for in vivo imaging. Engineered EMs from RBCs were produced in large-scale by a one-step extrusion method, and further purified by density-gradient centrifugation. RBC-EMs were labeled with technetium-99m (99mTc). For non-invasive imaging, 99mTc (free) or 99mTc-RBC-EMs were injected in mice, and their biodistribution was analyzed by gamma camera imaging. Animals were sacrificed, and organs were collected for further biodistribution analysis. RBC-EMs have similar characteristics as the RBC exosomes but have a 130-fold higher production yield in terms of particle numbers. Radiochemical purity of 99mTc-RBC-EMs was almost 100% till 2 h reduced to 97% at 3 h. Radio-labeling did not affect the size and morphology of RBC-EMs. In contrast to free 99mTc, in vivo imaging of 99mTc-RBC-EMs in mice showed higher uptake in the liver and spleen, and no uptake in the thyroid. Ex vivo imaging confirmed the in vivo findings. Furthermore, fluorescent imaging confirmed the nuclear imaging findings. Immunofluorescent imaging revealed that the hepatic uptake of RBC-EMs was significantly mediated by kupffer cells (resident hepatic macrophages). Our results demonstrate a simple yet large-scale production method for a novel type of RBC-EMs, which can be effectively labeled with 99mTc, and feasibly monitored in vivo by nuclear imaging. The RBC-EMs may be used as in vivo drug delivery vehicles

State of the science and future directions for research on HIV and cancer : Summary of a joint workshop sponsored by IARC and NCI

An estimated 38 million people live with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) worldwide and are at excess risk for multiple cancer types. Elevated cancer risks in people living with HIV (PLWH) are driven primarily by increased exposure to carcinogens, most notably oncogenic viruses acquired through shared transmission routes, plus acceleration of viral carcinogenesis by HIV-related immunosuppression. In the era of widespread antiretroviral therapy (ART), life expectancy of PLWH has increased, with cancer now a leading cause of co-morbidity and death. Furthermore, the types of cancers occurring among PLWH are shifting over time and vary in their relative burden in different parts of the world. In this context, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a meeting in September 2022 of multinational and multidisciplinary experts to focus on cancer in PLWH. This report summarizes the proceedings, including a review of the state of the science of cancer descriptive epidemiology, etiology, molecular tumor characterization, primary and secondary prevention, treatment disparities and survival in PLWH around the world. A consensus of key research priorities and recommendations in these domains is also presented