LA Philanthropy Watch

On November 20, the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles announced the launch of the Fed Up With Hunger campaign and issued a Blueprint to End Hunger in Los Angeles (pdf).

From the first page of the executive summary: “The number of people receiving foods stamps is at an all-time high of 795,000 and yet, in Los Angeles County, this federally funded program is severely underutilized, leading to unnecessary hunger, but also a loss of nearly $1 billion in federally allocated funds.  Most startling, if not surprising, children and seniors are at greatest risk for suffering from hunger: 25% of children in Los Angeles County are food insecure and about 50% of independent elderly do not have enough money to buy adequate food.”

To reinforce this startling conclusion is an article from Saturday’s New York Times, “The Safety Net – Food Stamp Use Soars, and Stigma Fades,” by Jason DeParle and Robert Gebeloff.  The story reports that California has the lowest percentage of eligible individuals actually enrolled in the food stamp program among all 50 states.  “Nationwide, food stamps reach about two-thirds of those eligible, with rates ranging from an estimated 50 percent in California to 98 percent in Missouri.”

An interactive map of Food Stamp recipients by county also advises, “California enrolls just half of those eligible for aid, a proportion lower than any other state,” and adds, “Los Angeles County contains nearly twice as many poor people as Chicago’s Cook County, but Cook has more people on food stamps.”

(See the Fed Up With Hunger video I posted on November 24.)

A Congressional Budget Office report, requested by Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, concludes that out of pocket health care costs would decline for most (57%) Americans under the legislation the U.S. Senate begins debating this week.  (Via Talking Points Memo.)

The full report is available as a pdf.

(CBO logo from its website.)

Update: Kevin Drum, at Mother Jones, links to an analysis of the CBO report and features his Chart of the Day illustrating premiums for a family of four.

This morning’s Los Angeles Times featured a story, “Soldiers Project helps vets cope with war’s mental scars,” by Nicole Santa Cruz on the LA-based nonprofit, Soldiers Project.  The Soldiers Project offers psychological counseling, free of charge, for service members and veterans of the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts and the families of these service members.  Founded in Southern California, by psychiatrist Judith Broder, the Soldiers Project now offers services in Sacramento, Seattle, Chicago, New York and Boston.

Dr. Broder received a Purpose Prize, as reported last month in LA Philanthropy Watch, which honors “social innovators over 60.”

(Photograph of USMC training via Wikimedia Commons.)

The headline in Molly Hennessy-Fiske’s report – “Success of new Martin Luther King Jr. hospital could hinge on board’s makeup” – in Monday’s Los Angeles Times illustrates the premise of the article.  Nonprofit governing boards have critical oversight responsibility.  All eyes will be on the yet-to-be-appointed board as the new MLK Hospital is launched.

The UCLA-Los Angeles County partnership to resurrect Martin Luther King Jr. Hospital (featured last week in LA Philanthropy Watch) creates a new nonprofit organization to be headed by a 7-member board of directors.  Why the attention on this board?  Because (although this is only implicit in the article) the failure of the former MLK Hospital is widely regarded as a failure the old regime – when responsibility for oversight rested in the hands of the Board of Supervisors.

“I just hope the authorities can step back and do what’s right for the hospital and not the various constituencies,” the Times quotes Jim Lott, an executive with the Hospital Association of Southern California.  The implication is that in the bad old days the Supervisors were too responsive to “various constituencies.”

J. Eugene Grigsby, who heads the National Health Foundation (an LA-based nonprofit), warned, “The biggest potential pitfall will be political interference from the Board of Supervisors.”  He suggested that undue influence by the Supervisors would threaten the prospects for success of this new venture.

The partnership agreement includes this provision: “The nonprofit corporation will have an appointed governing board of seven members — two each appointed by Los Angeles County and the UC president and three jointly appointed by Los Angeles County and the UC president. Board members cannot be current officers or employees of the county or UC and must have at least 10 years of experience in health care or a related field.”

This formula restricts the influence of the Supervisors over the hospital by granting governing authority to a new board, restricting the number of board members that the Supervisors can name outright to 2, positioning UC as a counterweight to the County, and spelling out the “10 years of experience” qualification.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky (pictured at the recent HomeWalk 2009) suggested, “There’s no reason MLK Hospital can’t provide the same quality of care the best hospitals in town provide, and it starts with the management.”

I agree.  And that success will begin with selection of the board.

A spoof preview of the traditional White House pardoning of a Thanksgiving turkey.

On Saturday the Senate voted 60-39 to begin debate on the health care bill that represents the centerpiece of President Obama’s domestic agenda.  Yes, you read that right: sixty votes (in a chamber with 100 members) were required to begin debate under the Senate’s cloture rule.  And, immediately, several Democratic Senators and one Independent, issued threats to vote against cloture when the time comes to end debate (so the bill can be voted up or down) – unless the bill is substantially amended in the next month or two (during what is aptly referred to in the Senate as “extended debate”).

For advocates of health care reform, the ins and outs of arcane Senate rules – and the compromises that have kept the bill moving forward – are not a pretty sight.  Jonathon Cohn, who has been following the health care saga for The New Republic, notes, “For progressives, victories are more likely to come in the form of ground not conceded than ground gained. Every day that legislation doesn’t get worse is a day to cherish.”

Why do ‘centrist’ opponents of health care reform seem to have more leverage than progressive advocates?  Because, when push comes to shove, they aren’t trying to get to ‘Yes.’  So, as Ezra Klein, who has followed the health care debate at the Washington Post puts it, “If this is comparable to any form of negotiation, it’s a hostage negotiation. The hostage-takers might not prefer to kill the kid, but there’s definitely some upside to killing the kid, as it strengthens them in future negotiations.”

For perspective, Cohn points out that political opponents on “the right, and many of its kindred special interests, are going absolutely crazy” at the prospect of health care reform passing.  While imperfect, the legislation represents a huge step in providing better health care to more Americans.

Ronald Brownstein offers a positive assessment of the bill’s impact on another goal of health care reform: restraining health care costs – to “bend the curve” – in a wonkish piece that Rahm Emanuel made required reading for senior White House staff.

(Image of US Senate 1831 Seal from Wikimedia Commons.)

For more information about Fed Up With Hunger in Los Angeles click here.

On page three of this morning’s Los Angeles Times, Bob Pool (who authored the two other Times stories referenced below), has a feature highlighting a benefit for Integrated Recovery Network – this Tuesday night at  two Laugh Factory venues: Hollywood (pictured) and Long Beach.  The Hollywood benefit will include Kevin Nealon (mentioned below) and other comedians; it will be hosted by Mark and Brian (who are featured on a billboard visible in the photo).

Some background: A Column One story in the October 16 Los Angeles Times, “Woman, 97, has a front seat to homelessness,” reported on a woman living with her two adult sons in a Chevrolet Suburban on the streets of Venice.  That story recounted that the family “encountered actor-comedian Kevin Nealon at a gas station. He bought gas for them and introduced them to Laugh Factory owner Jamie Masada, who gave them pizza for dinner and said he may attempt to organize a fundraising show for them.”

A follow up story on October 20, “Nonprofit group comes to homeless family’s aid,” reported that a new nonprofit, Integrated Recovery Network, had assisted the family by finding them a place to stay.  (LA Philanthropy Watch featured this story in a previous post.)

I had an opportunity recently to speak with the executive director of Integrated Recovery Network, Marsha Temple, whose vision led to the founding of the nonprofit about a year ago.  I learned that Integrated Recovery Network starts with the ‘Housing First’ imperative of a number of agencies: to end homelessness, first find a permanent place (and some stability, not just a shelter) for folks who have been living on the street – and provide whatever support services they need.  The Integrated Recovery Network model identifies assisted living facilities as the stable destination.  There is much more information about Integrated Recovery Network at its website.

Click on the LA Times link of today’s story for details about this benefit.

Erica Liepmann at Causecast passes along a vegetarian suggestion.

A recent article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy (subscription required), “Are Charities Ready for Tough Times Ahead?” prompts San Francisco nonprofit attorney Gene Takagi to change the question slightly on his blog, “From a governance perspective, the question may be slightly altered to ask ‘Are Charity Boards Ready for Tough Times Ahead?’”

While the focus of Mr. Takagi’s post is not on fund raising, I was struck by the juxtaposition of his question and the answer given (to a related question about fund raising in tough times) on another blog:

A survey by The Agitator asked fundraisers to identify the “single biggest challenge your fundraising program faces in 2010,” which produced this result:  “Way ahead as the #1 challenge — expressed in a variety of ways — was getting Board  and senior executive buy-in, including direct participation, for more aggressive fundraising efforts.”

2010 is likely to be another challenging year for raising money.  To meet those challenges, fund raisers must form strong partnerships with their chief executives and the leadership of their boards of directors.  Everyone needs to be on the same page, embracing the same agenda.  Or, to change metaphors, everyone must be pulling in the same direction.

(Photo of Taylor Woodrow’s Teamwork Sculpture from Wikimedia Commons.)