No result found
I want to invite you on a journey. What you're about to read is not your ordinary impact report with numbers, charts, and graphs. That's because Memphis is not an ordinary city, entrepreneurs aren't ordinary people, and this is not an ordinary story. No, it's much more than that, in fact it's extraordinary by every measure.The sections of this site reflect this reality. They are the big, eye-opening truths we've uncovered throughout our journey so far. They are the ideals that got us to where we are, and they will lead us as we continue on. We not only believe them wholeheartedly, we keep them in mind every day with every decision and interaction.So, regardless of your role, your location, or your experience, I hope these ideas can inform, broaden, or reaffirm your own entrepreneurial journey.
Memphis Music Initiative;
In Toward the Future of Arts Philanthropy, you'll find:- A review of the historic landscape and lack of equity in arts funding;- An overview of MMI's disruptive philanthropic approach rooted in equity; and- A discussion of opportunities and challenges in implementing a disruptive philanthropic approach.
National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy;
In light of the national uprising sparked by the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor (and building on other recent tragic movement moments going back to the 2014 murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri), NCRP is analyzing grantmaking by community foundations across the country to find out exactly how much they are – or are not – investing in Black communities.We started by looking at the latest available grantmaking data (2016-2018) of 25 community foundations (CFs) – from Los Angeles to New Orleans to New York City to St. Paul. These foundations represent a cross section of some of the country's largest community foundations as well as foundations in communities where NCRP has Black-led nonprofit allies.
Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED);
The Assets & Opportunity Scorecard is a comprehensive look at Americans' financial security today and their opportunities to create a more prosperous future. It assesses the 50 states and the District of Columbia on 130 outcome and policy measures, which describe how well residents are faring and what states are doing to help them build and protect assets. The Scorecard enables states to benchmark their outcomes and policies against other states in five issue areas: Financial Assets & Income, Businesses & Jobs, Housing & Homeownership, Health Care, and Education.
The Intensive Partnerships for Effective Teaching initiative, designed and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, was a multiyear effort to dramatically improve student outcomes by increasing students' access to effective teaching. Participating sites adopted measures of teaching effectiveness (TE) that included both a teacher's contribution to growth in student achievement and his or her teaching practices assessed with a structured observation rubric. The TE measures were to be used to improve staffing actions, identify teaching weaknesses and overcome them through effectiveness-linked professional development (PD), and employ compensation and career ladders (CLs) as incentives to retain the most-effective teachers and have them support the growth of other teachers. The developers believed that these mechanisms would lead to more-effective teaching, greater access to effective teaching for low-income minority (LIM) students, and greatly improved academic outcomes.Beginning in 2009–2010, three school districts -- Hillsborough County Public Schools (HCPS) in Florida; Memphis City Schools (MCS) in Tennessee (which merged with Shelby County Schools, or SCS, during the initiative); and Pittsburgh Public Schools (PPS) in Pennsylvania -- and four charter management organizations (CMOs) -- Alliance College-Ready Public Schools, Aspire Public Schools, Green Dot Public Schools, and Partnerships to Uplift Communities (PUC) Schools -- participated in the Intensive Partnerships initiative. RAND and the American Institutes for Research conducted a six-year evaluation of the initiative, documenting the policies and practices each site enacted and their effects on student outcomes. This is the final evaluation report.
On November 2 the Tennessee legislature will convene a special session to debate reform of the state tax system. The center of the controversy is whether Tennessee should adopt a personal income tax, as proposed by Gov. Don Sundquist, to close an estimated $400 million budget shortfall. This study finds that a personal income tax in Tennessee would likely have two negative economic effects. First, an income tax would almost certainly reduce economic growth and job creation in the state. The absence of an income tax in Tennessee gives Tennessee a large competitive advantage over other states with which it competes for jobs and businesses. We find, for example, that Kentucky, a state very similar to Tennessee except that it has an income tax, has had considerably weaker economic performance since 1980. Between 1980 and 1998 the per capita economic growth rate of Tennessee was 47 percent compared to 36 percent in Kentucky. The second negative effect of a state income tax would be to trigger much faster growth in state expenditures. That has been the almost universal pattern in other states after they enacted a state income tax. Yet the premise of pro-income tax forces in Tennessee that the state's revenues have been growing too slowly is contradicted by the evidence. In the 1990s, even without an income tax, Tennessee's per capita tax receipts have grown 12th fastest among the 50 states. Tennessee's tax revenues have climbed at twice the rate of inflation plus population growth. The legislature should be cutting taxes, not introducing new ones.
Feeding America (formerly America's Second Harvest);
This report presents information on the clients and agencies in the state of Tennessee. The information is drawn from a national study, Hunger in America 2010, conducted in 2009 for Feeding America (FA) (formerly America's Second Harvest), the nation's largest organization of emergency food providers. The national study is based on completed in-person interviews with more than 62,000 clients served by the FA national network, as well as on completed questionnaires from more than 37,000 FA agencies. The study summarized below focuses on emergency food providers and their clients who are supplied with food by food banks in the FA network. Key Findings:The FA system in Tennessee provides emergency food for an estimated 726,900 different people annually.35% of the members of client households in Tennessee are children under 18 years old (Table 5.3.2).26% of client households include at least one employed adult (Table 5.7.1).Among client households with children, 83% are food insecure and 41% are food insecure with very low food security (Table 126.96.36.199).45% of clients in Tennessee report having to choose between paying for food and paying for utilities or heating fuel (Table 6.5.1).34% had to choose between paying for food and paying for medicine or medical care (Table 6.5.1).37% of households in Tennessee report having at least one household member in poor health (Table 8.1.1)At the administration of this survey, 5 food banks or FROs affiliated with FA operated in Tennessee. Of the agencies that were served by those organizations, 936 agencies that had their operation within the state responded to the agency survey. Of the responding agencies, 584 had at least one food pantry, soup kitchen, or shelter.67% of pantries, 63% of kitchens, and 50% of shelters are run by faith-based agencies affiliated with churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations (Table 10.6.1).Among programs that existed in 2006, 78% of pantries, 76% of kitchens, and 59% of shelters in Tennessee reported that there had been an increase since 2006 in the number of clients who come to their emergency food program sites (Table 10.8.1).Food banks are by far the single most important source of food for agencies with emergency food providers, accounting for 74% of the food distributed by pantries, 48% of the food distributed by kitchens, and 43% of the food distributed by shelters (Table 13.1.1).As many as 92% of pantries, 76% of kitchens, and 76% of shelters in Tennessee use volunteers (Table 13.2.1).
Outlines the strategies and factors behind high patient satisfaction, including a culture of teamwork and care coordination, based on a module that aligns performance standards for administrators, managers, and staff, reinforced with merit increases.
The Youth Villages Transitional Living program is intended to help youth who were formerly in foster care or juvenile justice custody, or who are otherwise unprepared for adult life, to make the transition to independent living. Youth Villages, which serves emotionally and behaviorally troubled young people, operates a number of programs in addition to Transitional Living.All of its programs are based on a set of core principles that emphasize treatment planning, systematic assessment of participating youth, and delivery of only evidence-informed practices within a highly structured supervisory system. Transitional Living clients receive intensive, individualized, and clinically focused and communnity-based case management, support, and counseling from staff who carry caseloads of about eight clients each. Youth eligibility is determined through an extensive recruitment and assessment process. Once youth are enrolled, Transitional Living staff continue to assess them to identify needs and work with them to develop goals, which become the basis of required weekly meetings. Over nine months, on average, program participants get support for education, housing, mental or physical health, employment, and life skills. This support is provided in a variety of forms, including action-oriented activities that involve completing a specific task during a weekly session or through more traditional counseling techniques.The Transitional Living Evaluation is focused exclusively on the program in Tennessee, although Youth Villages also has Transitional Living programs in six other states.
Partners in Public Education (PIPE);
Shortly after NCLB was passed in 2001, Public Education Network (PEN) began an intensive examination of the law to determine the rights and privileges it accords to parents and community members. Approximately 10,000 print copies of the resulting publication, "Using NCLB to Improve Student Achievement: An Action Guide for Community and Parent Leaders", have been requested by organizations throughout the country, with more than 40,000 copies downloaded from the PEN website. In addition, a series of NCLB action briefs, developed by PEN in partnership with the National Coalition for Parent Involvement In Education, have been downloaded more than 25,000 times.With this demand for information on NCLB as background, PEN held a series of state hearings to give the public a structured way to enter the debate on the pros and cons of NCLB and the effects, both positive and negative, the law is having on schools and students. Nine hearings took place in eight states over a five-month period. Each state hearing was conducted in partnership with local organizations and presided over by a panel of state and national hearing officers.PEN hopes these forums broadened the public debate about NCLB and provided policymakers with information on how their work encourages or discourages quality education for children. The findings from PEN's NCLB hearings were transmitted to decision makers at the national, state, and local levels to help them determine which aspects of NCLB the public supports, what are the primary concerns, and what mid-course corrections are needed to achieve the most beneficial results for all students.
Public Education Network (PEN);
The PEN national office launched a 2005 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) online survey to follow up on the 2004 survey. The 2004 survey generated 12,000 responses and greatly influenced the recommendations in the "Open to the Public" report released in March 2005. PEN was particularly interested in reaching grassroots constituencies, but the voices of everyone -- including educators -- were counted.