Source: AP News, Thalia Beaty
Photo: Billionaire philanthropist MacKenzie Scott arrives at the Vanity Fair Oscar Party, March 4, 2018, in Beverly Hills, Calif. (Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP, File)

The billionaire and author MacKenzie Scott revealed $7.1 billion in donations to nonprofits Tuesday, bringing her overall giving since 2019 to $26.3 billion.

Scott first pledged to give away the majority of her wealth in 2019 after her divorce from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. Since, she’s distributed large, unrestricted gifts to nonprofits without asking for applications or progress reports. Largely, her giving has focused in the U.S., though not exclusively.

Scott doesn’t have a public foundation and so it’s not easy to independently track her giving. But she’s revealed her gifts in occasional blog posts and essays posted to her website, Yield Giving, which also now includes a database of her grants.

The amount of her annual giving has fluctuated, ranging from a reported $2.1 billion in 2023 to $7.1 billion in 2025. This year, Scott’s gifts show a focus on supporting higher education and climate.

A new emphasis on climate organizations

When the list of 2025 recipients was published Tuesday, it included a number of significant gifts to climate groups, with the largest — $90 million — going to the collaborative Forests, People, Climate, which focuses on stopping tropical deforestation.

The nonprofit Panorama Global has analyzed Scott’s giving over the years and found that historically, giving to the environment has represented a small part of her overall donations. In 2024, only 9.4% of Scott’s gifts went to environmental groups, though on average the amount of those gifts was larger than to other areas, according to their research.

“What we’re now seeing is different years have different focus areas,” said Gabrielle Fitzgerald, founder and CEO of The Panorama Group. “So last year, there was a really big economic security focus. This year, I really see education and climate.”

The Global Methane Hub, which grants out about $100 million a year to projects that seek to reduce methane emissions, received its second gift from Scott, this time for $60 million. CEO Marcelo Mena called the flexible and generous funding “magical” and said it comes at a crucial time as the Trump administration has undermined collective government action on climate change.

“This is when the philanthropic funding is actually absolutely key,” said Mena. “Because it’s the bridge that we need because we can’t discontinue this fight to reduce emissions and keep the climate safe for everyone.”

Scott’s assets have grown even as she’s given away a fortune

When Scott started detailing her giving in 2020, her fortune was valued around $36 billion, according to Forbes. It’s fluctuated over the years, but today, Forbes estimates her net worth to be $33 billion, even as she’s given away more than $26 billion.

Initially, Scott told grantees not to expect or plan for a second gift, but over time, she has given additional gifts to some of the same organizations, often larger than her original grant.

“She clearly is getting comfortable with reinvesting in partners that she thinks are doing good work,” said Fitzgerald.

At least one organization, CAMFED, which supports girl’s education in African countries, has now received four gifts from Scott, including the largest so far, $60 million, in 2025, according to Scott’s website.

Many generous gifts to minority colleges and universities

In addition to at least $783 million Scott gave to historically Black colleges and universities in 2025, her website details many gifts to tribal colleges, community colleges and scholarship funds.

While Scott has given to higher education since 2020, those gifts have historically been a smaller portion of her education funding. In a 2024 analysis, Panorama Global found nearly 30% of Scott’s education grantees were focused on youth development.

Marybeth Gasman, a professor at Rutgers University and expert on HBCUs, said she noticed that what sets many of the HBCUs who receive Scott’s funding apart from others is steady, consistent leadership and Gasman said, “She’s very interested in institutions that are rooted in community.”

The value of unrestricted grants

Scott does not put any conditions on her donations, allowing recipients to decide how and when to spend the funds. Unrestricted funding is rare from major donors and foundations, with many choosing to support very specific projects over specific timeframes.

However, research from the Center for Effective Philanthropy in 2023 found that concerns about nonprofits misusing Scott’s funds or growing unsustainably have largely not been born out. In part, that may be because Scott’s team researches and vets groups extensively before making donations.

Unrestricted gifts can help nonprofits weather disruptions, test new approaches or technologies or invest in the systems and infrastructure that underpin their work. For example, after the Trump administration cut funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, the nonprofit Village Enterprise, which runs antipoverty programs, used a grant it received from Scott in 2023 to keep essential programs running.

Additionally, Scott allows groups the flexibility to decide whether to publicly share how much they’ve received, with more than a third of recipients in 2025 not disclosing the grant amounts in Scott’s grant database. Fitzgerald said altogether, she thinks Scott tries to not make her giving about herself.

“In her essays, she’s always talking about other stakeholders and other people’s contributions,” Fitzgerald said. “So it’s very different than many other philanthropists who are often the center of the story of their gift.”

Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and non-profits receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP’s philanthropy coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/philanthropy.

https://apnews.com/article/mackenzie-scott-2025-giving

Source: Los Angeles Times, Elaine Woo
Photo: Joel Saget/AFP via Getty Images

Jane Goodall, the trailblazing naturalist whose intimate observations of chimpanzees in the African wild produced powerful insights that transformed basic conceptions of humankind, has died. She was 91.

A tireless advocate of preserving chimpanzees’ natural habitat, Goodall died on Wednesday morning in California of natural causes, the Jane Goodall Institute announced on its Instagram page.

“Dr. Goodall’s discoveries as an ethologist revolutionized science,” the Jane Goodall Institute said in a statement.

A protege of anthropologist Louis S.B. Leakey, Goodall made history in 1960 when she discovered that chimpanzees, humankind’s closest living ancestors, made and used tools, characteristics that scientists had long thought were exclusive to humans.

She also found that chimps hunted prey, ate meat, and were capable of a range of emotions and behaviors similar to those of humans, including filial love, grief and violence bordering on warfare.

In the course of establishing one of the world’s longest-running studies of wild animal behavior at what is now Tanzania’s Gombe Stream National Park, she gave her chimp subjects names instead of numbers, a practice that raised eyebrows in the male-dominated field of primate studies in the 1960s. But within a decade, the trim British scientist with the tidy ponytail was a National Geographic heroine, whose books and films educated a worldwide audience with stories of the apes she called David Graybeard, Mr. McGregor, Gilka and Flo.

“When we read about a woman who gives funny names to chimpanzees and then follows them into the bush, meticulously recording their every grunt and groom, we are reluctant to admit such activity into the big leagues,” the late biologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote of the scientific world’s initial reaction to Goodall.

But Goodall overcame her critics and produced work that Gould later characterized as “one of the Western world’s great scientific achievements.”

Tenacious and keenly observant, Goodall paved the way for other women in primatology, including the late gorilla researcher Dian Fossey and orangutan expert Birutė Galdikas. She was honored in 1995 with the National Geographic Society’s Hubbard Medal, which then had been bestowed only 31 times in the previous 90 years to such eminent figures as North Pole explorer Robert E. Peary and aviator Charles Lindbergh.

In her 80s she continued to travel 300 days a year to speak to schoolchildren and others about the need to fight deforestation, preserve chimpanzees’ natural habitat and promote sustainable development in Africa. She was in California as part of her speaking tour in the U.S. at the time of her death.

Goodall was born April 3, 1934, in London and grew up in the English coastal town of Bournemouth. The daughter of a businessman and a writer who separated when she was a child and later divorced, she was raised in a matriarchal household that included her maternal grandmother, her mother, Vanne, some aunts and her sister, Judy.

She demonstrated an affinity for nature from a young age, filling her bedroom with worms and sea snails that she rushed back to their natural homes after her mother told her they would otherwise die.

When she was about 5, she disappeared for hours to a dark henhouse to see how chickens laid eggs, so absorbed that she was oblivious to her family’s frantic search for her. She did not abandon her study until she observed the wondrous event.

“Suddenly with a plop, the egg landed on the straw. With clucks of pleasure the hen shook her feathers, nudged the egg with her beak, and left,” Goodall wrote almost 60 years later. “It is quite extraordinary how clearly I remember that whole sequence of events.”

When finally she ran out of the henhouse with the exciting news, her mother did not scold her but patiently listened to her daughter’s account of her first scientific observation.

Later, she gave Goodall books about animals and adventure — especially the Doctor Dolittle tales and Tarzan. Her daughter became so enchanted with Tarzan’s world that she insisted on doing her homework in a tree.

“I was madly in love with the Lord of the Jungle, terribly jealous of his Jane,” Goodall wrote in her 1999 memoir, “Reason for Hope: A Spiritual Journey.” “It was daydreaming about life in the forest with Tarzan that led to my determination to go to Africa, to live with animals and write books about them.”

Her opportunity came after she finished high school. A week before Christmas in 1956 she was invited to visit an old school chum’s family farm in Kenya. Goodall saved her earnings from a waitress job until she had enough for a round-trip ticket.

She arrived in Kenya in 1957, thrilled to be living in the Africa she had “always felt stirring in my blood.” At a dinner party in Nairobi shortly after her arrival, someone told her that if she was interested in animals, she should meet Leakey, already famous for his discoveries in East Africa of man’s fossil ancestors.

She went to see him at what’s now the National Museum of Kenya, where he was curator. He hired her as a secretary and soon had her helping him and his wife, Mary, dig for fossils at Olduvai Gorge, a famous site in the Serengeti Plains in what is now northern Tanzania.

Leakey spoke to her of his desire to learn more about all the great apes. He said he had heard of a community of chimpanzees on the rugged eastern shore of Lake Tanganyika where an intrepid researcher might make valuable discoveries.

When Goodall told him this was exactly the kind of work she dreamed of doing, Leakey agreed to send her there.

It took Leakey two years to find funding, which gave Goodall time to study primate behavior and anatomy in London. She finally landed in Gombe in the summer of 1960.

On a rocky outcropping she called the Peak, Goodall made her first important observation. Scientists had thought chimps were docile vegetarians, but on this day about three months after her arrival, Goodall spied a group of the apes feasting on something pink. It turned out to be a baby bush pig.

Two weeks later, she made an even more exciting discovery — the one that would establish her reputation. She had begun to recognize individual chimps, and on a rainy October day in 1960, she spotted the one with white hair on his chin. He was sitting beside a mound of red earth, carefully pushing a blade of grass into a hole, then withdrawing it and poking it into his mouth.

When he finally ambled off, Goodall hurried over for a closer look. She picked up the abandoned grass stalk, stuck it into the same hole and pulled it out to find it covered with termites. The chimp she later named David Graybeard had been using the stalk to fish for the bugs.

“It was hard for me to believe what I had seen,” Goodall later wrote. “It had long been thought that we were the only creatures on earth that used and made tools. ‘Man the Toolmaker’ is how we were defined …” What Goodall saw challenged man’s uniqueness.

When she sent her report to Leakey, he responded: “We must now redefine man, redefine tool, or accept chimpanzees as human!”

Goodall’s startling finding, published in Nature in 1964, enabled Leakey to line up funding to extend her stay at Gombe. It also eased Goodall’s admission to Cambridge University to study ethology. In 1965, she became the eighth person in Cambridge history to earn a doctorate without first having a bachelor’s degree.

In the meantime, she had met and in 1964 married Hugo Van Lawick, a gifted filmmaker who had traveled to Gombe to make a documentary about her chimp project. They had a child, Hugo Eric Louis — later nicknamed Grub — in 1967.

Goodall later said that raising Grub, who lived at Gombe until he was 9, gave her insights into the behavior of chimp mothers. Conversely, she had “no doubt that my observation of the chimpanzees helped me to be a better mother.”

She and Van Lawick were married for 10 years, divorcing in 1974. The following year she married Derek Bryceson, director of Tanzania National Parks. He died of colon cancer four years later.

Within a year of arriving at Gombe, Goodall had chimps literally eating out of her hands. Toward the end of her second year there, David Graybeard, who had shown the least fear of her, was the first to allow her physical contact. She touched him lightly and he permitted her to groom him for a full minute before gently pushing her hand away. For an adult male chimpanzee who had grown up in the wild to tolerate physical contact with a human was, she wrote in her 1971 book “In the Shadow of Man,” “a Christmas gift to treasure.”

Her studies yielded a trove of other observations on behaviors, including etiquette (such as soliciting a pat on the rump to indicate submission) and the sex lives of chimps. She collected some of the most fascinating information on the latter by watching Flo, an older female with a bulbous nose and an amazing retinue of suitors who was bearing children well into her 40s.

Her reports initially caused much skepticism in the scientific community. “I was not taken very seriously by many of the scientists. I was known as a [National] Geographic cover girl,” she recalled in a CBS interview in 2012.

Her unorthodox personalizing of the chimps was particularly controversial. The editor of one of her first published papers insisted on crossing out all references to the creatures as “he” or “she” in favor of “it.” Goodall eventually prevailed.

Her most disturbing studies came in the mid-1970s, when she and her team of field workers began to record a series of savage attacks.

The incidents grew into what Goodall called the four-year war, a period of brutality carried out by a band of male chimpanzees from a region known as the Kasakela Valley. The marauders beat and slashed to death all the males in a neighboring colony and subjugated the breeding females, essentially annihilating an entire community.

It was the first time a scientist had witnessed organized aggression by one group of non-human primates against another. Goodall said this “nightmare time” forever changed her view of ape nature.

“During the first 10 years of the study I had believed … that the Gombe chimpanzees were, for the most part, rather nicer than human beings,” she wrote in “Reason for Hope: A Spiritual Journey,” a 1999 book co-authored with Phillip Berman. “Then suddenly we found that the chimpanzees could be brutal — that they, like us, had a dark side to their nature.”

Critics tried to dismiss the evidence as merely anecdotal. Others thought she was wrong to publicize the violence, fearing that irresponsible scientists would use the information to “prove” that the tendency to war is innate in humans, a legacy from their ape ancestors. Goodall persisted in talking about the attacks, maintaining that her purpose was not to support or debunk theories about human aggression but to “understand a little better” the nature of chimpanzee aggression.

“My question was: How far along our human path, which has led to hatred and evil and full-scale war, have chimpanzees traveled?”

Her observations of chimp violence marked a turning point for primate researchers, who had considered it taboo to talk about chimpanzee behavior in human terms. But by the 1980s, much chimp behavior was being interpreted in ways that would have been labeled anthropomorphism — ascribing human traits to non-human entities — decades earlier. Goodall, in removing the barriers, raised primatology to new heights, opening the way for research on subjects ranging from political coalitions among baboons to the use of deception by an array of primates.

Her concern about protecting chimpanzees in the wild and in captivity led her in 1977 to found the Jane Goodall Institute to advocate for great apes and support research and public education. She also established Roots and Shoots, a program aimed at youths in 130 countries, and TACARE, which involves African villagers in sustainable development.

She became an international ambassador for chimps and conservation in 1986 when she saw a film about the mistreatment of laboratory chimps. The secretly taped footage “was like looking into the Holocaust,” she told interviewer Cathleen Rountree in 1998. From that moment, she became a globe-trotting crusader for animal rights.

In the 2017 documentary “Jane,” the producer pored through 140 hours of footage of Goodall that had been hidden away in the National Geographic archives. The film won a Los Angeles Film Critics Assn. Award, one of many honors it received.

In a ranging 2009 interview with Times columnist Patt Morrison, Goodall mused on topics from traditional zoos — she said most captive environments should be abolished — to climate change, a battle she feared humankind was quickly losing, if not lost already. She also spoke about the power of what one human can accomplish.

“I always say, ‘If you would spend just a little bit of time learning about the consequences of the choices you make each day’ — what you buy, what you eat, what you wear, how you interact with people and animals — and start consciously making choices, that would be beneficial rather than harmful.”

As the years passed, Goodall continued to track Gombe’s chimps, accumulating enough information to draw the arcs of their lives — from birth through sometimes troubled adolescence, maturity, illness and finally death.

She wrote movingly about how she followed Mr. McGregor, an older, somewhat curmudgeonly chimp, through his agonizing death from polio, and how the orphan Gilka survived to lonely adulthood only to have her babies snatched from her by a pair of cannibalistic female chimps.

Her reaction in 1972 to the death of Flo, a prolific female known as Gombe’s most devoted mother, suggested the depth of feeling that Goodall had for the animals. Knowing that Flo’s faithful son Flint was nearby and grieving, Goodall watched over the body all night to keep marauding bush pigs from violating her remains.

“People say to me, thank you for giving them characters and personalities,” Goodall once told CBS’s “60 Minutes.” “I said I didn’t give them anything. I merely translated them for people.”

Woo is a former Times staff writer.

https://www.latimes.com/obituaries/story/2025-10-01/jane-goodall-chimpanzees-dead

Source: ModernRetail, Anna Hensel
Photo: Courtesy of Babylist

After devastating wildfires ripped through the Los Angeles area, brands and retailers have been scrambling over the past week to find ways to help residents impacted by the destruction.

Altogether, more than 40,000 acres have burned, with fires in the Palisades and Eaton neighborhoods causing some of the worst damage. Roughly 88,000 people were still under evacuation orders on Wednesday, and thousands of commercial and residential structures have been destroyed in the fire. The people who lost their homes now face the daunting task of figuring out how to replace everything, from clothes to personal care products to electronics.

That’s where brands are stepping in to help. Julia Beilman, vice president at investment firm TCG, has spearheaded a spreadsheet of brands that are providing free items, product replacement and other support to families impacted by the wildfires. The spreadsheet now includes more than 230 brands, ranging from Alo Yoga to Our Place to Figs.

Now, the focus has shifted to how brands can work together and share resources. Brands are working with various community organizations to figure out what items first responders or families who lost their homes are most in need of.

Lauren Kleinman, founder and CEO of performance PR agency Dreamday, who has worked with Beilman to update and circulate the spreadsheet of brands providing products, said in an email that “we’ve learned that some affected families, having lost everything and temporarily relocated, need time before they can accept these products. That’s why we’ve designed this as an enduring resource they can access when ready.” Kleinman added that she and Beilman were updating the spreadsheet hourly with new brands.

Others have turned their stores or headquarters into ongoing hubs for donations. Kidswear brand Même is accepting donations through the mail or in person at its Los Angeles headquarters through Friday, January 17. On its Instagram, Même outlined which products it needs, ranging from P100 and KN95 masks to diapers and baby wipes to new children’s blankets.

Babylist, which creates registries for new parents, is welcoming families impacted by the wildfires to its Beverly Hills showroom on January 21 and 28 to receive donations. Babylist organized the donation drive in partnership with Meena Harris and accessories brand Stoney Clover Lane. The company is asking people to RSVP ahead of time so it can better gauge the number of families who want to attend. Brands can fill out a form if they are interested in donating products.

Molly Goodson, vice president of brand and media at Babylist, said many brands have donated personal care and beauty products. Right now, Babylist is still looking for more donations of gear like bassinets and strollers.

What’s top of mind for Goodson and other brand executives she’s spoken with is figuring out how to show up in a way that’s most helpful to customers of a particular brand. For example, in partnership with formula brand Bobbie, Babylist hustled to make free cans of Bobbie available at the Babylist showroom starting on January 13 because “waiting ten days to be able to grab that formula is not feasible.”

“We are stronger together when we figure these things out together,” Goodson said. “Every brand that I talk to wants to do something, wants to show up…it’s unlike anything I’ve ever seen.”

Bobbie has participated in donation drives hosted by Même and Babylist and has its own scholarship program, Give a Can, where people can gift a can to parents in need.

Michele Lampach, the lead of Bobbie’s social impact policy arm, Bobbie for Change, said in an email that 1,600 cans were gifted in the first five hours after Bobbie posted about its relief efforts on Instagram. For any parents who have been impacted or lost their homes in the fires, Bobbie is also offering to cover the rest of their feeding journey up until their baby turns one.

Goodson said that Babylist has also been sending emails to its Los Angeles customer base, asking them what would be most helpful right now. She said the feedback she’s gotten from people is that “social media is really loud right now, and for families going through this, it can feel extremely overwhelming.”

Goodson added that Babylist is “focused on the long game” — and is working with local organizations to ensure that products are distributed equitably.

Ghia founder and CEO Mélanie Masarin, who circulated a list of ways that people can help on the brand’s Instagram account, said in an email that “we’re still working to channel specific items like lip balms, energy drinks, hand creams, and sunscreen to first responders and donation centers.” Requests for men’s clothing, shoes, socks and underwear are also high.

She said that she’s “truly overwhelmed by how brands and their executives have mobilized to help LA businesses and wildfire victims.” She added that what she’d like to see in the weeks to come is “brands and individuals outside of California continuing to support LA and not canceling their events here.”

“It’s crucial to keep bringing jobs to the city, especially as many people who paused their lives to help their communities are now deeply concerned about what the next few months will hold,” Masarin wrote.

https://www.modernretail.co/operations/brands-like-babylist-and-bobbie-are-sharing-resources-to-help-victims-of-the-la-wildfires

Source: The Guardian, Jean-Martin Bauer
Photo: Marcelo Hernandez/Getty Images

Working in food aid delivery, I have seen the benefits of embracing new technologies. But some problems need to be solved between humans

The Pouncer was designed to be the world’s first edible drone. The drone would fly one-way into dangerous, conflict-affected communities, where starving civilians would take it apart, and then cook and eat its components. The snub-nosed, delta-shaped aircraft with a wingspan of nine feet was designed to deliver a payload of 50kg of food – enough to feed 100 people for a day. Each one would cost $300.

Designed in 2014, the Pouncer was the brainchild of Nigel Gifford, a British entrepreneur and adventurer who resolved to use drones to fly aid to dangerous places. In a 2017 interview with the Financial Times, Gifford explained that he was considering using honeycomb, a structurally robust material, to build the Pouncer. He mused that the landing gear could be made of salami, which has excellent tensile strength (but might not be part of the diets of some of those the drone was meant to feed). The Pouncer’s plywood frame could be used for kindling. “Our food technologist guys [are] thinking of wrapping the electronics in bouillon cubes,” he added.

I first heard about the Pouncer at a gathering of humanitarian innovation experts in Italy. A drone expert told us the Pouncer could be the solution to the challenge posed by the need for food deliveries to war-torn northern Syria. Immediately, hands shot up. We knew the area was bristling with air defences that had already made airdrops of food all but impossible, and that would be sure to fire at the drones. How would flight authorisations be obtained? How would civilians tell the difference between a military drone that could kill, of which there were many in the skies of Syria, and its edible humanitarian counterpart? There were no obvious answers to these important questions, and the Pouncer left us all decidedly sceptical.

As of 2023, the Pouncer hadn’t taken off. It seems destined for the graveyard of well-intentioned but unrealised humanitarian innovation projects. Gifford’s invention was, to say the least, controversial. In fact, many in the broader community were openly hostile to the Pouncer. Kevin Watkins, then chief executive officer for Save the Children UK, said in an interview: “This is someone who’s come up with a crackpot idea based on the assumption that technology can solve all problems.” Drones are “good at killing people and blowing things up. They are absolutely irrelevant for resolving acute hunger.”

While the potential of new technology in humanitarian settings is undeniable, its role in highly complex and fragile situations is never simple and is always fraught – not so much for the promoters of tech taking on financial risk, but for the people on the receiving end of the innovation, whose very lives may be put at risk.

Humanitarians work with some of the world’s most vulnerable populations. As technological innovation changes the lives of people around the world, those of us working with these communities need to ask ourselves how we can make use of new tech while upholding our foundational principle to “do no harm”. How are we to separate the wheat, the innovations that actually help, from the chaff? And how can we design technology with the communities we aim to serve rather than pushing ready-made Silicon Valley tech that’s wildly out of touch?

Technology is changing how the world is fed, and how the fight against global hunger is being waged. In 2016, the German economist Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, wrote of a “fourth Industrial Revolution” that was set to transform society. (The previous three involved steam power, electricity and computing.) According to Schwab, the fourth Industrial Revolution will involve advances in biology and computer hardware and software and combine them with connectivity to the internet. There will be breakthroughs in robotics (including drones), artificial intelligence, nanotechnology and many other fields. The fourth Industrial Revolution, which is transforming the manufacturing and service economies, is already changing the way food is produced, processed and sold, and the way humanitarian aid is provided.

Technology is reconfiguring food supply chains across the world. In the past two decades, mobile phone towers have popped up all over the world, connecting billions of people. When mobile phone towers were built in Niger, the market for millet was transformed – wholesalers had often played on information asymmetries to sell millet for a high price. With mobile phones, anyone could call a friend or relative and learn what millet prices were in the next town rather than taking a wholesaler’s word for it.

Voice and text were just the beginning. Now that internet access is widespread, e-commerce platforms are allowing family farmers and food processors everywhere to sell their produce directly to consumers, bypassing layers of middlemen. This is the case with a host of new online services that allow people to order food from farmers to be delivered to their doorstep: these include Farm to Home in Pakistan, Twiga Foods in Kenya and Waruwa in Latin America. Twiga serves 10,000 customers a day. Its Nigerian counterpart, FarmCrowdy, collects food from 25,000 individual farmers to sell in Lagos.

By making digital payments instantaneous, mobile money – a currency that’s managed by mobile phone operators, not traditional banks – has enabled the rise of agricultural e-commerce and access to financial services for billions of people without bank accounts. Mobile money is now in widespread use in east Africa, where opening a mobile money account is as straightforward as buying a sim card, and paying for a cab or a meal is as simple as sending a text message. The mobile industry estimated that in 2023 more than 1.6 billion people worldwide had access to mobile money services. Mobile money is often available where access to traditional financial services is limited, and its use is rising sharply in sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia.

Mobile money is a first step. Many other digitally enabled payment systems are still emerging. Blockchains are open, decentralised digital ledgers that combine the reach of the internet and the power of cryptography. They could – in theory, at least – democratise banking and trade. Blockchain technology promises to bring transparency to opaque food supply chains, whose workings tend to be obscured by backroom deals.

Believe it or not, for a moment at the turn of the millennium, it seemed the world was winning the battle against hunger. Famines had been virtually eliminated. As technology advanced, and as government programmes reached more people than ever, deaths from starvation fell sharply in the second half of the 20th century. Trends were so encouraging that in 2015, the world’s governments publicly committed to eliminating hunger by 2030. But instead of being eradicated, hunger has surged because of escalating global food prices, even as conflict and climate breakdown continue to decimate livelihoods. Experts estimated that in 2023, more than 250 million people would be facing acute hunger – double the number in 2020.

What was long regarded as a problem facing only the poorest nations is now pressing in on the US, where 17 million households – one in every eight – are food insecure. During the early months of the pandemic, even generous government aid was not enough to stop hunger from rising among minority groups in the US – a fact that reminds us that, all over the world, hunger is the outcome of deep-rooted social inequality.

There is plenty of food in the world to feed everyone. And yet even in a country like the US, endowed with abundant food supplies, people don’t have enough food to eat. This paradox can be explained only by US society’s deep structural inequalities and the shortcomings of its systems of production and distribution. In other parts of the world, conflict and corruption are added to the mix. But if, as has been said, hunger is a political condition, then it is, like all political conditions, something we can change.

Political systems can exacerbate or drive hunger by disenfranchising a society’s most vulnerable groups. And when a food crisis strikes, the population at large also suffers. Nobel economist Amartya Sen argued that the most extreme food shortages have almost always been the result of rulers’ neglect and indifference to the plight of their people. “No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy,” he wrote in 1999.

The current crisis should motivate us to reassess our food production and distribution systems, as well as our social safety net. To staunch hunger’s worldwide resurgence, we need to think big, and think differently, about the causes of hunger and famine and how to combat them more effectively. Those of us working in the humanitarian space can improve aid delivery by, for example, embracing emerging technologies – digital payments, robotics, advanced analytics and artificial intelligence – and other developments that promise to produce more food with less waste and enable food deliveries in high-risk settings. Technology, as we know, is a double-edged sword, and our use of these systems will require care, but their potential is undeniable.

As the fourth Industrial Revolution takes root in the world’s most hunger-prone and vulnerable communities, a generation is finding increasing benefits from life online. Many of the refugees or displaced people I have met use Facebook, WhatsApp and other apps to stay in touch with loved ones, make money, find the assistance they need and express their opinions. Savvy social media users, they also value the anonymity the internet offers. A Syrian refugee in Jordan’s sprawling Zaatari camp asked me with a wry smile: “Do you want my Facebook name, or my real name?” Access to wifi is such an essential service that humanitarian agencies now provide connectivity for affected populations. In fact, Syrian refugees arriving in Greece have been known to ask for the wifi hotspot before food or water.

These changes brought on by technology have meant that humanitarian agencies have had to adapt our operating models to keep up with the digital world. In the 2010s, the aid sector was facing what seemed to be insurmountable funding deficits, and donors pushed humanitarian organisations to unleash technology and innovate. Striving for efficiency in an era of tight budgets is common sense. But money alone is an insufficient metric when the goal is to protect and save lives. Before we jump headlong into the dream of a humanitarian techno-utopia, we must remember who it is we’re serving and what is at stake.

For all the enthusiasm of experts like Klaus Schwab, the means of bringing the fourth Industrial Revolution to the humanitarian frontline are anything but obvious. I saw this first-hand when the UN World Food Programme (WFP) tried to set up a digital payment system in central Africa, where refugees rely on humanitarian assistance to survive.

Bétou is a forlorn frontier town deep in the rainforest in the Republic of the Congo’s north, only 30 miles from the border of the troubled Central African Republic. The ramshackle settlement sprang up around an Italian-owned lumber mill on the Ubangi River; timber is sent down the river to Brazzaville by barge. The town’s main drag, a wide, dark, muddy track, leads straight to the mill. The population around Bétou is so sparse that people from all over west Africa come to work at the facility. On the riverfront, a few Mauritanian Arabs sell food out of shabby storefronts. A decrepit Catholic mission, its concrete walls stained dark green by the humidity, stands next to the river.

When I first visited Bétou, a few thousand refugees had been living in a camp that had been around for years. Many of them were Muslims who had fled from violence in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic, in 2013, and had built shacks on an undeveloped patch of land. Since refugees were not allowed to acquire land where they could grow their own crops, the refugees relied on food from WFP. I recall that one in 10 refugee children were acutely malnourished, a rate that never seemed to drop. And it seemed that every time UNHCR, the UN’s refugee agency, planned to help the refugees go back home, another round of fighting would break out in Bangui, postponing yet again their longed-for return.

For more than three years, WFP had been providing the refugee community with food rations, but we had recently started mobile money transfers instead. We moved from providing bags of food to giving “digital food” – in the form of a mobile money transfer people could use to buy food. WFP’s introduction of cash transfers in this remote area was part of a global trend in the humanitarian community to provide more assistance through cash or vouchers. The hope was that people would have more choice in the items they buy with cash, and that local economies would benefit from the cash injection. Humanitarian cash transfers were virtually nonexistent in the early 2000s, but reached $5.6bn in 2019.

Bétou was one of many places going through a transition in assistance, from food to cash. The refugees were given a mobile phone chip. Once a month, they would receive a mobile money payment equivalent to $20 per person, which they could use to buy food at the Mauritanian shops in town. The digital payment system also brought a level of transparency that helped keep our donors on board, because it allowed them to see the money going directly to food purchases.

So what did the refugees think of the new system? One day, four leaders of the community came to the WFP meeting room to talk to my colleagues and me. The men, clean-shaven and in their best clothes, entered rather shyly and sat down. We exchanged prolonged greetings. When it was time to talk about substantive matters, they looked uneasy, shifting in their chairs, their eyes cast down. Abdou, a slim man of perhaps 40 in a threadbare yellow shirt, took the bull by the horns and explained what was on their minds.

“For years, you gave us bags of rice,” he began. “But a few months ago you began giving us mobile money to pay for our food.” There was an awkward pause. Abdou inhaled, and then continued: “Do you think we could go back to the old system, where we used to get the rice?”

This is what a humanitarian never wants to hear – that a new, creative programme isn’t working. I knew there had been issues with the first mobile money distributions, but I wasn’t expecting outright rejection from the people who were receiving them. After all, we had been cautious and had only introduced the technology after months of debate, studies and consultations.

Abdou explained that for his community, mobile money payments had been a headache. The chips we had provided were too easily blocked; after three failed attempts to enter a pin, the chip needed to be reset, leaving its owner unable to buy food. Sometimes chips were lost, or there were errors in the amount of credit transferred. When these inevitable problems arose, they took too long to resolve with the mobile phone company. To make matters worse, there had recently been a prolonged network outage, rendering all mobile money transactions temporarily impossible. “Could we not go back to the old way of doing things?” he repeated.

Abdou and the others had a point. But the old way of bringing food aid to their isolated community also had problems, and could be extraordinarily slow. First, food grown in the US midwest was barged down the Mississippi to a port on the Gulf. From there, a vessel loaded it up to cross the Atlantic, delivering the containers to Pointe Noire, Congo’s deepwater port. After clearing customs, the food was hoisted on to trucks for a 300-mile road journey to Brazzaville. At Brazzaville, the containers were lifted on to river barges, which a diesel-powered pusher boat slowly nudged up the Congo and Ubangi Rivers until they reached the camp in Bétou a week or two later. All going well, the entire process took at least five months. If we missed the high-water season on the Ubangi, we’d have to wait until the river rose again.

Of course, the food was a lifeline for the refugees, but the process was complex and time-consuming. And it wasn’t just in Congo: all over the world, food aid programmes have traditionally relied on transcontinental shipments of bulk commodities. This is because purchasing food in a donor country is good politics: it helps support farmers, a powerful voting bloc.

With mobile money, we could load cash on to the refugees’ phones within days of it arriving in our own account. We could instruct the mobile money operator to “push” credit to their numbers; as soon as the credit hit their phones, refugees could pick out and buy the foods they needed from local retailers. But something had gone wrong, and now we risked losing the trust of the community.

The person managing the mobile money transfers for WFP was a man named Nasser, an aid worker from Niger in west Africa. In Congo, people like Nasser were a group set apart because of their Muslim religion and their willingness to work as traders and farmers – occupations that the local elite considered low status. This prejudice didn’t rattle Nasser, who’d seen it all before. He had studied in Tunisia, where some local Arabs treated Black African students like him as curiosities. He had spent years working with Oxfam and Catholic Relief Services in Africa’s toughest humanitarian crises, including Mali, Niger and Central African Republic. He joined WFP soon after my discussion with the leaders of the Central African community in Bétou about the mobile money project. He was the person who could get the project back on track.

Fuelled by gallons of lukewarm drip coffee, Nasser spent many days and sleepless nights at work, figuring out how the tech could work better for the refugees. He’d be on the phone for hours with our partners to check that every detail was in order before the mobile money was credited to accounts. He routinely called me on weekends or late at night to ask me to approve payments, so that people would not wait a minute more than necessary for their food. Nasser was known to write furious emails upbraiding his colleagues for not working fast enough and holding up the distributions: you’re sitting in the comfort of your air-conditioned office while the beneficiaries are waiting in the sun. Nasser could be pushy, but always for the right reasons.

We made important modifications to our system: if people had technical issues with sim cards, they could call a hotline. WFP required the mobile company to deploy a team to Bétou so the host of problems that occurred on distribution days could be resolved on the spot. And the refugees themselves became more familiar with the technology. Though it took more time and effort than we had anticipated, the mobile money transfers began to work, and the refugees from the CAR in Bétou changed their minds about the programme. We’d fallen prey to the comforting illusion that shiny new technology would solve everything. But technology does not work on its own; it needs attendants, people like Abdou, Nasser and all those who worked to get things right for the refugees in Bétou.

Mobile money transfers proved to be an effective solution to a humanitarian supply-chain issue. Still, there was a larger problem left unsolved: the community was still unable to feed itself without aid. Working with UNHCR, WFP advocated with authorities to allow the Central Africans to obtain the land they needed to farm. The Congolese had given the refugees protected status, but they still refused to let them acquire farmland.

Ultimately, an agreement was reached that allowed refugees to lease farmland from locals for three to five years – enough time to give them some security, and to plant food crops for themselves and sell the surplus. Soon enough, the Central Africans began growing cabbage and tomatoes, which they sold at Bétou’s riverside market. Technology had streamlined one aspect of food delivery, but the larger issue of access to land, and a sustainable future for the refugees, could only be resolved through negotiations between human beings.

This is an edited extract from The New Breadline: Hunger and Hope in the 21st Century, published by Profile Books on 1 August and available at guardianbookshop.com.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/article/2024/jul/18/food-water-wifi-is-this-the-future-of-humanitarian-aid

Source: Curiosity, Leon Zucchini
Photo: Courtesy of Benevity

Do you want to change the world but don’t know how? Are you a business leader who’s heard of corporate social responsibility (CSR) but are unsure where to start? Look no further.

Enter social impact platforms. They help companies and employees collaborate to support charity and CSR initiatives. Their main focus is on giving companies a way to organize and support social engagement among their employees.

Social impact platforms

In a recent study, OKTA put together a list of ten amazing social impact platforms, ranked by users. That’s a lot of options for you to get started. In addition, these platforms grew an incredible rate of 29% last year, so it’s clearly an area to watch.

For those who haven’t heard of them (I hadn’t), in this post we’ll introduce each one briefly. Let’s jump right in!

1. Benevity

Benevity is a platform for managing charitable donations and grants. It was ranked top by users in the 2022 OKTA report and was also a finalist in the 2020’s Fast Company’s World’s Changing Ideas Awards.

Benevity helps companies organise corporate giving, volunteering, and grants. It also offers quick ways of providing disaster-relief during crises. It includes multiple payment options, and donations show up in real-time.

Part of Benevity’s mission is to improve the way global charities access corporate giving programs. It aims to reduce administration costs by aggregating donations, payments process, and donor acknowledgments across individuals, causes, and companies.

2. YourCause

Next on the list is YourCause. Founded in 2008 by Matt Combs, YourCause has become a leader in the corporate social responsibility (CRS) space.

YourCause provides CRSconnect, an online platform for organizations to manage one or more philanthropic programs including volunteering grants and matching gift programs.

Companies use YourCause to:

Set up and manage corporate and employee giving
Establish matching gift guidelines
Process payments to non-profits
Process donations from employees
Verify that non-profits are eligible for corporate giving programs
Major socially-responsible companies have partnered with YourCause to manage their volunteering, corporate giving, and grant programs.

3. Bright Funds

Bright Funds is another trusted leader in the CSR space and ranks third by users in the OKTA report.

Bright Funds provides a platform that lets companies of all sizes support their employees in giving and volunteering.

Headquartered in California, Bright Funds has partnered with world-leading companies to bring impact-focused employee and corporate giving globally.

The company boasts a 74% increase in user base this year compared to 2020, so their approach is evidently resonating.

4. Good2Give

Next on the list is Good2Give, a community investment and CSR platform that grew 129% YOY.

Good2Give provides giving-solutions that make it easy for corporations, charities, and donors to connect. Their mission is to inspire companies and their employees to support the communities they care about.

In 2018, for instance, Good2Give distributed $14 million to more than 1,600 charities through grant programs and workplace giving. This Australian NGO has facilitated more than $275 million of giving to more than 8,000 recipients.

As a not-for-profit organization, Good2Give focuses on strengthening the charitable sector with low-cost funding models supported by technology.

Intermission: Curiosity

If you’re interested in new technology, you might want to check out Curiosity.

Curiosity is a productivity app that gives you one place to search all your files and apps. That lets you save time and get more done.

Curiosity connects with the tools you already use, including your local folders and cloud apps like Google Drive or Slack. You can use the shortcut-powered command bar to access things quickly and the file browser for deeper searches with advanced filters.

Unlike other search apps, Curiosity keeps your data safe on your computer and never sends it to the cloud.

Curiosity is available for free on Windows and Mac. You can also get a free two-week trial of Curiosity Pro (unlimited sources / search file contents).

Give your productivity a boost by downloading Curiosity at https://curiosity.ai/download

5. Catalyser

Catalyser is another CSR and philanthropic platform that helps employees make a positive impact. Its vision is to see every employee empowered by technology to impact the world positively from their workplace.

Catalyser provides a customizable platform that lets companies give their employees a centralized platform for all their fundraising, skilled volunteering, matched payroll giving, employee rewards, and more.

According to the OKTA report, Catalyser registered the strongest growth with a staggering 189% increase in assigned users yearly.

6. Millie

As corporate giving becomes increasingly popular, many organizations are looking for CSR platforms that are easy to use and fun. That’s where Millie comes in: It’s designed to make charitable giving fun, impactful, and easily accessible.

When you launch the app, you see the profiles of three organizations that need funding. Each includes a brief description of how the funds will be used and you can find out more, or swipe to donate. There’s a fresh batch of organizations every week, and the app has a social badge that allows you to see when others are giving in real-time.

Millie also recently launched a gamification tool that allows companies to build their own “giving brackets” where employees play to give.

7. Kindlink

The next one on the list is Kindlink (who knew there were so many!?). Their special twist is their focus on showing donors the impact of their contributions. That lets charities and volunteer groups manage donations better and become more transparent.

As the name implies, Kindlink creates a link between those who want to help and those in need of help in a social media-like environment. The platform aims to build an equal and connected world where people (and companies) can help each other in a friendly and transparent manner.

Kindred is an all-in-one platform. It ensures that employees can participate in fundraising activities while gaining access to volunteering opportunities where they can hone their skills. For donors, the platform ensures they have a central place to access records about donations, volunteers, and beneficiaries.

8. Visit.Org

Visit.org is a CSR with a slightly different forcus. Founded in 2015, it’s a platform that lets employees participate in travel experiences offered by non-profit organizations.

The platform lets travelers add new experiences to their itinerary, and channels all revenue to local communities through the host company. Visit.org lets organizations to build a strong corporate culture with ongoing team-building experiences that also give back… the best of both worlds!

Honorable Mentions

The companies above provide CSR platforms that focus on helping companies provide ways for their employees to give back.

The last two companies in the OKTA report have a different focus, but they’re no less awesome so we’ve included them here as honorable mentions.

VolunteerMatch

Just a few years ago, your best bet for finding volunteer work was to check your church’s newsletter or scan a community center bulletin board.

Not any more. Thanks to VolunteerMatch, finding volunteering work is as simple as browsing your Facebook timeline. The platform is the web’s largest volunteer-engagement network. More than 70,000 non-profits list their projects on this platform, creating endless volunteering opportunities.

Those seeking charity work can search for opportunities by location, keyword, or interest area. Launched in 1998 by four MBA graduates who wanted to create volunteering opportunities for all, the San-Francisco-based platform has created more than 4 million volunteering opportunities in the past ten years.

Big-name non-profits like the American Red Cross, Peace Corps, Girl Scouts of the US, and more list their volunteer opportunities on this platform. The company also helps corporations like Google, Exelon, and Dell match their employees to community projects.

CareerVillage

CareerVillage has a different focus yet again: It’s a US-focused platform that helps high-school students get personalized career advice from real-life professionals.

The company behind CareerVillage works with educators in low-income communities to help students with questions about their future. Typically, students ask career-related questions and educators provide advice and inspiration to help them make better career decisions.

Based out of Boston, Massachusetts, CareerVillage aims to help students achieve professional success by bridging the career information and advice gap. This Q&A platform is focused on scaling to serve millions of children across the US.

I wish they’d been around when I was wondering what to do after school!

Ready to Change the World?

Technology is dramatically changing the way we live and do things… including giving back.

All of the platforms above provide exciting ways for companies and employees to collaborate to make the world a better place. Which one of them is the best fit for your organization depends on what you want to achieve, so do check them out!

https://blog.curiosity.ai/ten-platforms-helping-companies-and-employees-change-the-world

Source: The New York Times, Nicholas Kulish and Maria Cramer
Photo: MacKenzie Scott at the Vanity Fair Oscar party in Beverly Hills, Calif., in 2018. (Getty Images)

The philanthropist announced new donations to Ukraine aid and Planned Parenthood, and said she would soon debut a database of all her giving.

Since first promising in 2019 to give away her entire fortune, the billionaire MacKenzie Scott has handed out over $12 billion to nonprofits, per a tally of her publicly announced gifts since 2020. That enormous sum has vaulted her to the top ranks of philanthropists worldwide.

In her latest essay on the website Medium on Wednesday, Ms. Scott described an additional $3.9 billion in gifts to 465 nonprofits in just the last nine months, including funds dedicated to areas she had given to in the past, such as climate and education, as well as newly pressing needs, like Ukraine relief efforts.

“Our team’s focus over these last nine months has included some new areas, but as always our aim has been to support the needs of underrepresented people from groups of all kinds,” Ms. Scott wrote.

On Wednesday, Habitat for Humanity International announced that Ms. Scott had donated $436 million to the group and 84 affiliates. She also gave $275 million to Planned Parenthood’s national office and 21 affiliates around the country, which the group called the largest gift from a single donor in its history.

“At such a critical time for reproductive health and rights, this investment and expression of confidence in Planned Parenthood will help us to be as strong as we can be to meet the moment,” said Melaney Linton, president of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast and chairwoman of the affiliate council, in a statement on Wednesday.

Daily business updates The latest coverage of business, markets and the economy, sent by email each weekday. Get it sent to your inbox.
All told, 1,257 organizations have received donations from Ms. Scott since 2020. Even the amounts she has given to smaller groups are often large by their standards, in many cases equal to an organization’s entire annual budget.

That was the case when Ms. Scott donated $15 million last week to Madre, an aid and human rights organization in New York that supports women’s groups around the world, according to the organization. “This is the single biggest grant we’ve ever received from a donor by orders of magnitude,” said Yifat Susskind, executive director of Madre.

Ms. Susskind celebrated what the gift can do for the people the organization serves — but also wanted to make sure smaller donors know they are valued, too. “We’re doing what we can to message to folks that it’s everybody’s faith in our work that brought us to the point where we can get on the radar of someone like MacKenzie Scott,” she said.

The announcement on Wednesday was a course reversal for Ms. Scott, who has grappled with the conflicting demands of her desire for privacy and her goal of publicizing the work done by the groups she is helping. Unlike foundations, which must file detailed, publicly available tax returns, Ms. Scott has given through the charitable vehicles known as donor-advised funds, which do not require her to file separate disclosures.

Even after her many gifts, Forbes magazine still estimates Ms. Scott’s net worth at $49.4 billion.

In December she released a giving letter called “No Dollar Signs This Time,” in which she declined to name the organizations she had given to or the total amount of money she had handed out.

Two days later, facing criticism that she had grown less rather than more transparent, she wrote an addendum in which she said she was working on a website that would include a “searchable database of gifts.”

Ms. Scott seemed to pre-empt any potential criticism that the website had not gone up yet, writing that it “will go live only after it reflects the preferences of every one of these nonprofit teams about how details of their gifts are shared.”

While Ms. Scott has written extensively about her goal of promoting equity and in particular her efforts to prioritize groups led by women, people of color and L.G.B.T.Q. people, she hasn’t shied away from more general direct aid in times of need, as when she gave to food banks and Y.M.C.A. and Y.W.C.A. chapters during the first, acute phase of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.

This time around she listed seven groups working directly on Ukraine, after the Russian invasion there, including the Norwegian Refugee Council, HIAS and CARE.

“Helping any of us,” she concluded, “can help us all.”

Nicholas Kulish is an enterprise correspondent for the Times writing about philanthropy, wealth and nonprofits. Before that, he served as the Berlin bureau chief and an East Africa correspondent based in Nairobi. He joined The Times as a member of the Editorial Board in 2005. @nkulish

Maria Cramer is a breaking news reporter on the Express Desk. @NYTimesCramer

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/business/mackenzie-scott-philanthropy

Source: Wired, Carol Milberger
Photo: Elena Lacey

With flashlights, gift bags, and an app, I spent a day learning about our unhoused neighbors and logging what they really need.

BLEARY-EYED DUE TO the 5:30 am check-in, I zigzagged through bulky-jacketed volunteers gathered in the library basement toward my team. We were preparing to interview homeless individuals for the 24-hour Point in Time (PIT) count held across the US in late January.

Everyone on my team was drawn to our town’s first PIT count for different reasons. As a high school principal, John saw families and teens struggle with homelessness. While volunteering at a free health clinic, Monica, a retired nurse, met people fearful of losing their homes. And I knew how quickly life could change after losing our home to an explosion of toxic mold 19 years ago.

John, Monica, and I decided to rotate through the interviewer, notetaker, and lookout roles on the team. We grabbed backpacks of gifts for interviewees, I pulled on a reflective vest that I borrowed from the local utility company, then checked to make sure I had my cell phone, reading glasses, gloves, a tiny flashlight, and the password for Counting Us handy.

Several mobile apps are used to collect PIT count data across the country, but Counting Us is the first and most widely used. The app was developed by Simtech Solutions in 2012. Matt Simmonds, president of Simtech Solutions, says “in order to fix a problem, you have to understand it. That is where we come in. There is a person behind each number.” Built specifically for the US Housing and Uban Development PIT count, Counting Us is a GPS-enabled surveying tool used to gather PIT count data in 50 regions across the US.

Ana Rausch, vice president of program operations with The Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County, says Counting Us helps the organization “do more, cover more people, and provide more accurate numbers in a user-friendly fashion.” She says her team didn’t have time to interview everyone under a paper-based system, so they had to count at night and interview a sample of homeless individuals during the day. Decision tree question sets based on interviewee demographics (youth versus adults, individual versus household) were cumbersome and time-consuming, relying on paper and clipboards. The app saves time, which allows people in cities like Houston to interview each homeless person they count, instead of sampling selected individuals. Similarly, the app instantly uploads clean, useful data, which eliminates weeks spent deciphering interviewer notes and keying in paper responses. The fact that the app is easy to use also attracts more volunteers for the PIT count. Every interview is tied to a specific geographic location, which helps advocacy organizations create action plans or petition for specific resources.

Kyra Henderson, director of systems change for the Texas Homeless Network, says the PIT interview “may be the most positive interaction for the day” for many interviewees. Since “the majority of [people in] the US are one to two paychecks away from being homeless,” she says, PIT interviews are both helpful and important.

Simmonds says Counting Us provides data about common themes of homelessness for youth, veterans, and other groups so appropriate resources can be utilized. Data collected via the app allows communities to “help as many people as possible with the resources available,” he explains. Simmonds says homelessness sends a ripple effect through the community, impacting jails, emergency rooms, tourism, and more, so reducing it also has far-reaching impacts. Henderson agrees and says those interested in reducing homelessness should consider participating in a local PIT count themselves.

Our interviews began within minutes of reaching our assigned territory, a Walmart parking lot. The interviewees we spoke to all patiently waited as we read each question and pecked at the cellphone screen. Only one camper declined the interview and gift bag. Even so, he was counted: We entered his demographics into the app’s Observation section, used for interviewees who are sleeping, unwilling to participate, or unapproachable.

It was nearly daylight when we noticed a rusty Ford van idling at the lot’s edge. John shook hands with Peter, an elderly balding man in a white stained T-shirt sitting in the driver’s seat. Peter wouldn’t turn off his van because he was afraid it might not start again.

After several questions, Monica softly inquired, “So it started when your wife died 10 years ago?”

Peter pulled age-spotted hands over his eyes and silently wept, then exhaled slowly, “Everything fell apart when I lost her.”

Monica continued with the scripted questions after Peter wished aloud for gas money to return to Florida. Our training emphasized that volunteers cannot give, or carry, money, so we couldn’t oblige. At the end of the interview, Peter thanked us for the gift bag.

As I drove home after the interviews, I felt guilty for wanting a hot shower. Sadness overtook me as I pictured Peter’s hands. During our two-year mold ordeal, I had wondered if our living situation would ever improve—then watched it deteriorate despite our best efforts. Like Peter, I used to sit in my car and cry.

I knew there were good reasons PIT volunteers shouldn’t carry or offer money, but I’d signed out at that point. I grabbed some cash and a few snacks and went back out. Peter’s van was still there, still running, when I handed the gifts through the window and said, “We all need hope—and hope comes in many forms.”

Peter’s expression rotated between smiles and tears, sometimes both. I leaned against the van wheel well and cried softly in tandem with him. Then I wished him the best, and he blessed me as I walked away.

A wave of gratitude washed over me when I got home, walked into our hallway, and inhaled clean air. We were ill, frightened, and overwhelmed when forced from our mold-contaminated home 19 years ago. But a librarian’s gift of a dictionary for my son’s homework assignments provided me with hope. Hope that our house would be remediated and we’d move back home. Hope that people cared.

Innovative housing programs are often the outgrowth of community members asking “why doesn’t someone do something?” and then doing it themselves, using HUD grants based on need and PIT count data. HUD allocates money for programs supporting its mission “to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.” HUD grantees include state and local governments, nonprofit and for-profit organizations, public housing authorities, tribal entities, and communities interested in ending homelessness. Grantees must demonstrate the extent of homelessness in their community using data provided by the PIT count.

Matt Simmonds repurposed the Counting Us app in 2017 to help Houston rehouse 2,000 Hurricane Harvey evacuees living in the convention center. After the hurricane, data couldn’t be collected by computer due to widespread power outages, so a mobile app, which could collect data in the field—even offline—was an ideal option. Then a spreadsheet of needs (medication, diapers, clothing, etc.) for all the evacuees was created and populated in two days—much faster than would be possible using a purely paper-based or computer-based tool.

Show the Way, Simtech’s latest app, provides mobile case management for homeless individuals. The app enables outreach workers to locate needed resources, request assistance, and track interactions, which provides assistance (identification, health care, other needs) and builds on prior steps. Show the Way helps transition people out of homeless encampments and is used by first responders in some communities.

HUD canceled the 2021 PIT count due to Covid-19 concerns. Due to surges in cases, some communities requested permission from HUD to postpone their 2022 count to late February, while other communities canceled their counts. Covid-19, cancellations, and late changes make it difficult to attract and train volunteers. Readers interested in learning about volunteer opportunities can search the HUD grantee by name, state, or program type or Google their county and “Continuum of Care (CoC).”

I can’t solve homelessness, but I do know hope is critically important and comes in many forms. A kind smile, a listening ear—even a dictionary—can make a huge difference. Caring enough to show it can change someone’s life.

https://www.wired.com/story/app-fight-homelessness-community-service

Source: Business Insider,
Photo: “Climate action cannot take place without action on food systems,” Sophie Healy-Thow, global youth campaign coordinator for Act4Food Act4Change, said. (Jamie Sue Photography/Shutterstock)

The global food system directly affects the climate, waste, and greenhouse gas emissions.

Act4Food Act4Change’s event at COP26 on November 7 will discuss its impact.

Young people have the power and more at stake and must take action, experts say.

The global food system plays a major role in the ongoing health, climate, biodiversity, and human-rights crises. It contributes to more than a third of greenhouse gas emissions, and about a third of all food produced is wasted while many people worldwide can’t afford healthy, nutritious meals.

“The one thing we all have in common, wherever we live and however rich we are, is food,” Sophie Healy-Thow, global youth campaign coordinator for Act4Food Act4Change, a youth-led initiative striving to positively change the global food system, told Insider. “We all play integral parts in the food system as consumers, and if we want a future where people and the planet are healthy, we need to start caring more about creating more sustainable food systems.”

Youth leaders from around the world will come together to discuss the valuable role they play in transforming global food systems at the UN Climate Change Conference UK 2021 (COP26) in Glasgow on November 7. The event, titled “Act4Food Act4Change: Calling all young people to be agents of change in food systems transformation,” will be hosted by Dara Karakolis, an Act4Food Act4Change youth leader from Canada and global youth lead at The Food Foundation, which is also partnering on the session along with WWF.

“We want to ensure food and nutrition are firmly on the agenda for all future COP and climate events,” Healy-Thow said. “Food systems are a huge contributor to climate change, as well as being central to societal well-being and successful economic development.”

Some of the issues the group hopes to highlight include how the food system is structured so that it often costs more to cook healthy foods than buy unhealthy fast foods and that local, indigenous knowledge creates a more inclusive and sustainable system. Single-use plastics, the advertising of junk foods to children, and how small-scale food producers are affected by local governments, taxes, and climate change are other issues on the agenda.

Healy-Thow encourages everyone to sign the Act4Food pledge to show their commitment to food system transformation. Nearly 105,000 pledges have been made so far. “It’s a pledge to demand urgent large-scale action from ourselves and others, especially from decision-makers in government and business,” she said.

People ages 15 to 24 accounted for 16% of the global population in 2019, according to the UN. With such a large number, Healy-Thow said young people have the power to change the food system — and, they have more at stake as they’ll be around longer than today’s older demographics.

Individuals aged 30 and under are urged to vote for their top Actions4Change, including banning single-use plastic packaging, ensuring everyone can afford healthy and nutritious meals, and protecting food production from political disruption and the impact of climate change. The actions are personal commitments, Healy-Thow said, but also demands for those in power to take action.

Young people can also get involved by signing up to become an Act4Food Act4Change Youth Advocate.

“We’ve seen the power young people are having in the climate-action movement,” she said. “We need to have that same energy for food systems. We need change and we can be the people to create that change before it’s too late. Climate action cannot take place without action on food systems and food systems cannot change without climate action.”

https://www.businessinsider.com/cop26-event-young-fix-global-food-system-climate-change

Source: Business Insider, Kate Duffy, Reuters
Photo: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation said it’s committing $120 million to help roll out a COVID-19 drug in poor nations. (Frederic Stevens/Getty)

The Gates Foundation is putting $120 million towards helping poorer nations get Merck’s COVID-19 pill.

Merck applied for FDA authorization for its COVID-19 antiviral drug but it hasn’t been approved yet.

The money will go towards developing and making generic versions of the pill if it’s approved.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation said on Tuesday that it would commit up to $120 million to help low-income countries get a COVID-19 drug developed by Merck.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hasn’t yet authorized Merck’s COVID-19 pill but an advisory panel are scheduled meet to discuss the request on November 30.

The money from the Gates Foundation will go towards supporting the development and manufacturing of generic versions of the pill if it wins regulatory approval, according to the foundation’s statement.

“Low-income countries have had to wait for everything from personal protective equipment to vaccines. That is unacceptable,” co-chair Melinda French Gates said in the statement.

“Today’s commitment will ensure that more people in more countries get access to the promising drug molnupiravir, but it’s not the end of the story — we need other donors, including foundations and governments, to act,” she said.

The move comes as low- and middle-income countries struggle to secure vaccines and treatments needed to help recover from COVID-19, especially in Africa, where only around 5% of the population is immunized.

Reuters reported on Tuesday that an effort led by the World Health Organization to win fair access for poorer countries aims to get antiviral drugs for as little as $10 per course for people with mild symptoms.

Merck’s COVID-19 pill is likely to be one of them.

Early trial results suggested the pill reduces hospitalization by 50%, the company said. If approved, it will be the first oral antiviral in use for COVID-19.

The Gates Foundation, which launched in 2000, has poured around $1.9 billion into the fight against the pandemic since last year.

More than 241.58 million people have been reported infected with the coronavirus worldwide, and more than 5.1 million have died, a Reuters tally shows.

Read the original article on Reuters. Copyright 2021. Follow Reuters on Twitter.

https://www.businessinsider.com/merck-covid-pull-molnupiravir-gates-foundation-poor-countries

Source: Business Insider, Erica Sweeney
Photo: Dan Noyes (Courtesy of Dan Noyes)

Dan Noyes is co-CEO of Tech Goes Home, a nonprofit that addresses digital inequities in Boston.

He says he has a personal dedication to digital equity from his time working with middle schoolers.

Since 2010, about 40,000 low-income residents have benefitted from TGH’s programs.

This article is part of a series focused on American cities building a better tomorrow called “Advancing Cities.”

Dan Noyes, 45, has been working to close the digital divide in Boston for two decades.

His digital-equity work began when he was the director of technology for a Boston Public Schools high school. In 2006, he joined the Lilla G. Frederick Pilot Middle School in Dorchester to lead their one-on-one laptop initiative, where each student received a computer. But initially, the kids weren’t allowed to take the devices home.

“What that meant was that this idea of trying to create lifelong learning, both in school and at home, was incredibly difficult because you’ve got this great tool in school, and then you go home and you didn’t have anything,” Noyes told Insider. “So we decided we needed to fix that.”

The school invited parents and caregivers in for digital-literacy training on what their kids were learning, then the families received a computer. Noyes said the program then expanded to other schools.

In 2010, Noyes, who now lives just west of the city in Auburn, joined Tech Goes Home (TGH), a nonprofit founded in 2000 that addresses digital inequities across Boston through adult and family education, as co-CEO. He said his dedication to digital equity is personal, stemming from his middle-school students.

“I knew those kids and I knew those families,” he said. “It was just so depressing to think that you had all these amazing students who had such incredible potential but one of the only things holding them back was resources at home. It’s so unfair.”

Surging oil prices and global energy shortages are spotlighting the challenges of switching to greener sources, UBS says. Here are 2 ways to play the trend — and why oil may have 33% more upside after a remarkable rally.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the digital divide, as it forced students to learn from home and adults to work remotely. Noyes appreciates that the problem has received more awareness but said Boston (and the country as a whole) still has a lot of work to do.

Digital-literacy education should be tailored to individual needs

Quantifying the problem of digital inequity in Boston is difficult. According to the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, about 15% of Boston households don’t have internet access — but, the number is most likely much higher, Noyes said, since the data is derived from surveys, which often leave out marginalized communities.

The biggest issue, besides many people not having access to tech or internet, is that many others often lack the skills to use technology.

Tech Goes Home partners with community programs, like libraries, schools, churches, and homeless shelters that serve hard-to-reach communities, and trains their staff to host 15-hour digital-literacy courses.

Each course is tailored to the needs and interests of the attendees. For example, classes for people who are unemployed focus on finding a job, and those for older people focus on health or communication tools. Everyone who takes a class receives a free laptop and a year of free internet service.

The program targets low-income residents. Noyes said about 90% of the people TGH serves are considered “very low income” by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 85% are people of color, 50% are English-language learners, and about 60% are women. Since 2010, about 40,000 people have gone through TGH’s programs.

Taking digital-literacy learning online amid the pandemic

TGH’s programming had always been in person — until the pandemic hit. By summer 2020, Noyes said his team had created a distance-learning program, but setting up an online program for people who lack digital-literacy skills and internet connectivity was a challenge.

Pre-pandemic, attendees received their computers after completing the course. In shifting to online classes, Noyes said they decided to send a laptop and a WiFi hotspot to people’s homes so they could get online. At first, he said they worried people might just take the computer and not complete the course, but that didn’t happen.

“Our graduation rate was 92%, pre-pandemic,” he said. “During the pandemic, our graduation rate was 92%. People stayed involved.”

The courses were held via Zoom, and while many people experienced Zoom fatigue over the past 18 months, Noyes said for the people TGH serves, it was a lifeline. Many had lost their jobs during the pandemic and weren’t going to the places they normally would.

“This was an opportunity for them to see members of their community that they wouldn’t be able to see,” he said, adding that he enjoyed popping into the classes. “People were so happy to see each other. It was something special beyond learning.”

Keeping the momentum up in Boston

This month, Mayor Kim Janey and the city’s Department of Innovation and Technology commissioned a study on the availability, cost, and equity of broadband in Boston to identify service opportunities and disparities by neighborhood.

“We’re showing that everything we do is impacted by digital equity,” Noyes said. “If you go to find a place to live, you go online. To find a job, you go online. You want to get vaccinated, you go online. If you don’t have access to that world, think of how many opportunities you’re denied.”

Internet access for low-income communities is just the first step in closing the digital divide, Noyes said, and he believes the city will eventually be able to offer that. Now more organizations are taking a look at the problem of digital equity. Noyes just hopes the momentum continues.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-boston-nonprofit-helps-low-income-internet-access-digital-divide