The LAFF Society

February 25, 2009

News about two former staff members

Filed under: Members' Blog — Treasurer @ 7:53 am

Submitted by Peter Weldon

I realize that not all of you had the pleasure of working with both Brent Ashabrenner and Reuben Frodin as I did.

 I was fortunate today to speak with both Brent and Reuben.  Both were in good spirits, sharp as ever, excited about political developments in the U.S.A. and both are well at age 86 and 97.

 Brent has arthritis and claims no longer to be a threat to David Bell on the tennis court.

 Reuben uses a walker, after his fall three years ago from which he has not fully recovered.

 Their contact details can be found in the LAFF directory and I know they would welcome hearing from you.

 Neither Brent nor Reuben is on email.

February 23, 2009

Science-based Policy Making in Health

Filed under: Members' Blog — Treasurer @ 11:35 am

Richard Mahoney

The 1960s and 1970s saw the introduction and rapid growth in use of several new contraceptives including intrauterine devices and pills.  The Ford Foundation had large programs run out of the regional offices and a headquarters program, the Population office, under the visionary leadership of Bud Harkavy.  The regional offices were leaders in working with developing country governments to design and launch family planning programs that delivered these technologies.  The Foundation’s Population office undertook a wide ranging set of activities including a major program – at one time, the world’s largest – to support research in reproductive biology and contraceptive development.  While this natural science program focused on basic biological research, the office also supported work by the Population Council and others to undertake product development and to work on various social science and policy issues.  This latter work included dealing with anti-family planning advocates and their sometimes inflammatory claims about the safety and efficacy of new, and old, contraceptives.  The issues that were addressed in those days concerning contraceptives are echoed today in the field of vaccines and immunization.  Family planning and immunization are two fields that have attracted zealous opposition and the way in which this opposition has been addressed illustrates the value of science-based policy making.

 Science has come a long way in the last 200 years. Medical investigators have learned to do studies that assess whether vaccines really do what we hope they do. The carefulness with which these studies are carried out is illustrated by the fact that the cost of developing a new vaccine is now roughly $1 billion, of which the cost of conducting clinical trials to demonstrate safety and efficacy is a very large part.  In the last few years, new vaccines have been developed against cervical cancer and against pneumonia and diarrhea in infants.  The global use of these vaccines will save annually the lives of many hundreds of thousands of women and of over 1 million children who might die from pneumonia or diarrhea.

 

 Studies are constantly underway to assess the safety of vaccines. Because vaccines are given to otherwise healthy individuals (as with contraceptive), the safety standards they must meet are naturally higher than for drugs for treating serious illnesses.  Sick individuals are willing to suffer side effects to obtain the benefits of the medicines. But parents do not and should not accept vaccines that do not achieve the highest level of safety possible.  Thus, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars each year supporting studies to evaluate the safety of vaccines. Vaccines are considered by experts in public health to be perhaps the most cost-effective intervention available to combat disease.

 

 There are problems with vaccines but not the problems we might expect.  Ironically, one of the problems for vaccines is that they prevent people from getting sick. Why is this a problem? It is a problem because, if a person doesn’t get sick, you don’t see that the person didn’t get sick - it’s a non-event. This has become a major problem in United States and elsewhere. Many diseases that were very common in human history have virtually disappeared. These include polio, measles, mumps, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), and meningitis. One of the difficulties of modern medicine is that young doctors in training do not see patients who suffer from these diseases, and these young doctors are not able to sufficiently address the needs of such patients in the rare cases they are encountered. Perhaps the greatest public health achievement in history was the eradication of smallpox through vaccination. We don’t see headlines in newspapers hailing the number of children who did not die this year as a result of smallpox. That is simply not news.

 Another reason why the success of vaccines is a problem is that parents get used to the idea that their children do not and probably will not ever get these diseases. They take the absence of these diseases as a fact of life. Headlines in newspapers that report on claims of vaccine adverse events may have greater impact on parents than the fact that their children are not getting sick from the diseases. Such claims with respect to vaccines against pertussis and measles led to a dramatic drop in vaccination against these diseases in Europe some years ago. The claims were eventually not confirmed, but in the meantime many children died or suffered severe avoidable illnesses. The claim that hepatitis B vaccine causes autism in children has also had a substantial negative effect on the uptake of this very important vaccine and numerous studies including one published just in 2008 have failed to confirm any association between hepatitis B vaccine and autism.

 

 Another claim about vaccines is that a mercury-containing preservative – thimerosal - used in multi-dose vials might adversely affect the health of children. No scientific evidence has been reported demonstrating an association between vaccinations and illness caused by mercury. However, when anti-vaccination advocates raised concerns, the companies concluded that the cost of protecting themselves from potential liability suits was greater than the cost they would incur by removing mercury from vaccines. Also, public health officials at CDC were exposed to intense pressure that led to decision making that was probably not wise.  One step for the manufacturers was very simple.  They stopped putting vaccines in multi-dose vials. A preservative had to be put in multi-dose vials because health personnel would often vaccinate a number of individuals using the vaccine from a single vial over several days, thus the need for a preservative.  However, there is a high cost now being borne by the American public for this removal of mercury from vaccines based on unsubstantiated claims. Vaccines in single dose vials are much more expensive than vaccines in multi-dose vials.  Fortunately, the World Health Organization and governments of developing countries have largely continued to use multi-dose vials with thimerosal. 

 Other anti-vaccine proponents point out that vaccines are not 100% effective or 100% safe and thus try to discourage their use.  No medicine or vaccine is 100% effective or 100% safe. To advise individuals not to be vaccinated because a vaccine is not perfectly effective or safe is to assume to one’s self a power that boggles the mind – the power of life and death.  Getting the flu, especially if you are over 60, can be a very serious, life threatening event. 

 Skepticism about science and medicine is healthy.  There should not be an unquestioning acceptance of recommendations to use vaccines and other drugs. However, there is an obligation upon anti-vaccine and family planning groups to understand the harm they may do, as well as the good they think they may achieve.  Opposition to contraception, sometimes put forward with unsubstantiated claims of adverse effects, did much to impede women’s access to methods that could give them greater control of their fertility.   In recent years, opposition to the use of condoms in HIV prevention programs has done much harm. It is well documented that restrictions on access to contraceptives are effective in increasing the incidence of abortion.  Impediments to vaccine access leads directly to otherwise avoidable mortality and morbidity.  Policy making based on the best available science is the best policy making. The Foundation deserves great credit for the work it did in family planning to ensure a sound scientific basis for policy making. 

 

Rich Mahoney has had a long career in international public health and vaccines.  He served in the Foundation’s Population office from 1970 through 1979 under Bud Harkavy.  He left the Foundation to help found, with Gordon Perkin and with Foundation seed support, the organization PIACT (Program for the Introduction and Adaptation of Contraceptive Technology) which eventually became PATH, (which may show that he and Gordon got a little better at coining names).  PATH is currently the world’s largest non-governmental organization undertaking research in health technology.  Mahoney was also a founding member of the International Task Force on Hepatitis B Immunization, which played a major role in the global introduction of hepatitis B vaccines. He is now with the Pediatric Dengue Vaccine Initiative at the International Vaccine Institute in Seoul, Korea, an international organization established by treaty with more than 40 countries as signatories. He also served as Senior Advisor in Health to The Rockefeller Foundation from 2001 - 2006.  Rich has a home in Sedona, AZ.

February 19, 2009

Obituary - Edna Schwartz

Filed under: Members' Blog — Treasurer @ 12:21 pm
On February 8, 2009, Edna Schwartz, 88, passed away.  She was survived by two daughters, one son, six grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.  Donations can be sent to Winchester Garden Holiday Fund, c/o Winchester Gardens, 333 Elmwood Ave., Maplewood, NJ 07040.
Edna came to the Foundation in March 1979 as an Administrative Assistant to Mr. Milfred Fierce on the South Africa Project of the Foreign Policy Study Foundation, which was housed here.  She joined our staff in March 1983 as a part-time Secretary in the Office of the President, assigned to the Executive Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel, Buzz Tenny.  In November 1983, Edna  joined our full-time staff as Secretary to the late Thomas Bayard, Program Officer, International Affairs Program in the US & International Affairs Programs (USIAP).  She was promoted to Supervising Secretary, Latin America and Caribbean Program, USIAP (headed by Thomas Trebat) in October 1989 until her retirement in May 1993.  Edna worked for a short time after her retirement as part-time temporary Secretary in the Office of Human Resources from July to September 1993.

February 12, 2009

Fred Davie on President Obama’s Policy Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnersips

Filed under: Members' Blog — Treasurer @ 11:17 am

Fred Davie, a former program officer at the Ford Foundation, will serve on President Barack Obama’s Policy Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. 

Fred has a Masters Degree in Divinity from Yale.  He is currently president of Public/Private Ventures, a national leader in creating and strengthening programs that improve lives in low-income communities.  

Prior to coming to the Foundation, Fred was a special assistant to the president of the New York Board of Education; later chief of staff to the deputy mayor for community and public affairs; and then the deputy borough president of Manhattan.  

February 10, 2009

Too Many Nonprofits — or Not Enough?

Filed under: Members' Blog — Treasurer @ 11:15 am

PhilanTopic

January 26, 2009

(Bradford Smith is president of the Foundation Center. This is his first post for PhilanTopic.)

In my travels around the country as the new president of theFoundation Center, I’ve heard a number of pundits and philanthropic leaders suggest that there are too many nonprofits in America. Some argue that 1.3 million nonprofits is simply too many for funders and the public sector to support; others point to examples of multiple organizations working on the same issue in the same neighborhood, or lament what they see as the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of many nonprofits.

In my view, some of that frustration is driven by the very real pressures funders feel at a time when their assets have been ravaged by turmoil in the markets and many nonprofits are looking to them for a lifeline. But it’s also a reflection of the growing influence of market-based thinking within the nonprofit sector. In its ideal form, a nonprofit marketplace assumes a mechanism by which foundation and individual donations are allocated to the highest-performing nonprofits as measured by a set of reliable, generally accepted metrics. Many good minds, a great deal of innovation, and growing resources have been applied to the creation of such a marketplace; that it will become a reality, either by design or through a more fluid, open-source process, is a given.

There are limitations, however, to the market framework, the most important of which is the fact that the nonprofit sector exists precisely to deal with challenges that are the result of what economists would call market failure. If markets never failed and always allocated resources efficiently, we would live in a society where everyone had access to quality health care, adequate housing, and a decent income; felt safe in their homes and communities; and took clean air and pure water for granted. It is precisely because markets do fail and aren’t perfect that we have as many nonprofits as we do.

According to supporters of the nonprofit marketplace concept, the goal of such a market is to create maximum social value from every philanthropic dollar so as to ensure continued progress in solving a range of social issues. As the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeterfamously observed, however, markets reward winners — sometimes extravagantly so –and punish losers (sometimes harshly) through what he labeled a process of “creative destruction.” In theory, a well-functioning nonprofit marketplace would efficiently allocate philanthropic resources to fewer nonprofits working at near-maximum efficiency to make the world a better place.

Unfortunately, reality has a tendency to trip up theory. Today, for example, we find ourselves mired in a deepening economic crisis that, among other things, has caused the collapse of many of yesterday’s most spectacularly successful firms. Unemployment is rising and predicted by many to reach 10 percent or more. People in growing numbers are in need of jobs and the services nonprofits provide. Indeed, a recent article in the Wall Street Journal suggested that financial sector professionals who had been laid off should consider taking a course at the Foundation Center!

No one would argue that nonprofits shouldn’t strive to be more effective and efficient. But in my view, the most constructive time to have that conversation is when resources, opportunities, and employment in other sectors are abundant — not in the midst of a worsening recession. Right now, instead, we need to be doing everything in our power to support and strengthen this country’s nonprofit sector. A nonprofit job is a job, plain and simple. Even if it’s a job at an underperforming nonprofit, that job is giving someone an opportunity to learn skills of trust and cooperation, foster social solidarity, and contribute to the public good — precisely those civic values that serve to underpin a robust democracy.

I asked a friend the other night if he thought America had too many nonprofits. Without hesitating, he shot back, “Are you kidding, we don’t have enough.”

– Bradford Smith

Too (blank) to Fail?

Filed under: Members' Blog — Treasurer @ 11:11 am

PhilanTopic

February 09, 2009

(Bradford Smith is president of the Foundation Center. In his last post, he asked whether there are too many nonprofits — or not enough.)

2008 was the year of the bailout, in which the giants of finance and industry were lent a generous helping hand by their friends in the U.S. government, generally because they were considered “too big to fail.” Leaving the irony aside that, in many cases, the result was to create bigger institutions whose future failure could pose even greater risk to the world financial system, it got me thinking about the nonprofit equivalent of “too big to fail.”

The following would be my candidates for nonprofit organizations that are too big, too important, or too (blank) to fail. For the sake of clarity, there is no indication whatsoever that any of these organizations is headed off the edge of a cliff like Lehman Brothers or AIG; if anything it may be time for the private sector to learn a thing or two from these nonprofits about how to create mission critical organizations with long-term staying power. It’s just that, if things got much, much worse, these would be my candidates for a bailout — the world would be a much poorer place without them.

  • CARE International -– whatever and wherever the danger, when there is a humanitarian crisis, CARE is there, and they do good job reconstruction in the aftermath
  • Save the Children -– idem
  • World Wildlife Fund -– everywhere the panda is synonymous with caring for the environment
  • Greenpeace – the rainbow warriors add grassroots spice to the environmental movement
  • Médecins Sans Frontières -– “providing medical aid wherever needed, regardless of race, religion, politics and sex”
  • Oxfam -– international development as if politics really mattered
  • Action Aid -– walked the walk by moving its global headquarters from the UK to South Africa
  • Human Rights Watch -– now more than ever
  • American Civil Liberties Union -– civil liberties cannot be denied
  • YMCA -– since 1844, giving youth a chance in 121 countries *
  • Grameen Bank-– Grameen is to microfinance as (blank) is to (blank)
  • Self Employed Women’s Association -– showing how it’s done when it comes to women’s economic security and empowerment
  • Shack Dwellers International-– makes slum dwellers a force to be reckoned with, from the streets of Mumbai to the halls of the World Bank
  • Women’s Funds everywhere -– it started with Mama Cash in the Netherlands, spread to San Francisco with the Global Fund for Women, branched out to Mexico with Semillas, and keeps on growing

Fill in the blanks above, and give us your own list of the nonprofits that are too (blank) to fail.

– Bradford Smith

(* full disclosure -– I began my career working for the YMCA.)

February 4, 2009

Obituary - Dr. Michael A. Koenig

Filed under: Members' Blog — Treasurer @ 10:18 am

International expert in partner violence and child abuse in developing countries

By Frederick N. Rasmussen
Baltimore Sun
February 3, 2009

 

Dr. Michael A. Koenig, an international expert in partner violence and child abuse in developing countries, died of cancer Jan. 27 at his Roland Park home. He was 56.

Born and raised in Ishpeming, Mich., he earned a bachelor’s degree from Colgate University in 1974.

In 1976, he earned a master’s degree in sociology from the University of Michigan, and he earned a doctorate in population planning in 1981, also from the University of Michigan School of Graduate Studies.

From 1981 to 1983, he was a postdoctoral fellow in population dynamics at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, where he completed a series of studies on adolescent pregnancy and contraceptive use in the United States.

He later traveled to Bangladesh, where he was a consultant to several child-survival research projects at the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research.

Dr. Koenig was in charge of a staff of 180 people who conducted research on health and population issues, and he worked to make family planning and health services more understandable and acceptable to rural populations.

From 1983 to 1985, he was a principal investigator on a research project on women’s status and reproductive behavior in rural North India, and he was also principal investigator on a research project on socioeconomic and demographic determinants on childhood mortality in rural Bangladesh.

After 6 1/2 years in Bangladesh, Dr. Koenig moved to New Delhi, where he became the program officer with the Ford Foundation and was responsible for developing its reproductive health program in India, Nepal and Sri Lanka.

In addition to formulating policy, Dr. Koenig decided how research and field intervention activities would be funded, including work on HIV/AIDS prevention.

In 1998, he became an associate professor and later was promoted to full professor at theJohns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health in the department of population, family and reproductive health.

Throughout his career, Dr. Koenig’s research interests remained focused on the factors that contributed to high mortality for pregnant women and women during childbirth in Third World countries such as India and Bangladesh, and what could be done to offset them.

He also conducted research into domestic violence in India, Bangladesh and Uganda, and the mental, physical and family planning consequences for women living in those countries.

Dr. Koenig’s collaborative research drawn from South African high schools sought to reduce the HIV risk to teenagers through the use of education and mobile health clinics.

“It was Mike’s work that put gender and sexual violence on the global radar screen. His reputation is huge,” said Dr. Robert William Blum, chairman of the department of population, family and reproductive health, and director of the Johns Hopkins Urban Health Institute.

“Nobody was talking about gender and sexual violence in developing countries such as India, China and Africa in the 1980s. Today, no one would argue that it doesn’t exist,” he said.

Dr. Blum said he has received nearly 200 e-mails from all over the world lamenting Dr. Koenig’s death.

“I think at least two-thirds of them came from Africa,” he said. “These are from people whose lives were touched by his work.”

Dr. Amy O. Tsui, director of the Bill and Melinda Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health at the Hopkins School of Public Health, had been a friend and colleague of Dr. Koenig’s since the early 1990s.

“Mike Koenig was one of those special professors who combined exemplary research with firsthand insights from the field and a passion for encouraging students to discover the same on their own,” Dr. Tsui said.

Dr. Tsui said Dr. Koenig’s work in India and Bangladesh helped nurture “many generations of researchers to pursue rigorous studies in reproductive, maternal and child health and domestic violence issues.”

She added: “His legacy lies in those scholars now reaching positions where they can in turn use science to better the human condition and train newer ones behind them. It’s the noblest of legacies for a researcher and educator whose contributions have been prematurely shortened.”

A prolific writer, Dr. Koenig had published three books, and written 14 book chapters and more than 56 articles for peer-reviewed journals.

Dr. Koenig was diagnosed with a duodenal tumor in 2006, and a year later, with a brain tumor.

“After this diagnosis, he was determined to live life to the fullest, and he did while continuing to conduct his research,” said his wife of 25 years, Dr. Gillian Foo.

Dr. Koenig enjoyed traveling, deep-sea fishing and “honing his skills as a gourmet cook. He loved Indian food,” his wife said.

He also liked jogging, walking and collecting antique carpets.

“He kept working until 10 days before his death. I’d say that was pretty extraordinary,” Dr. Blum said.

Plans for a memorial service to held at Johns Hopkins were incomplete yesterday.

Also surviving are a son, Matthew R. Koenig of Roland Park; a daughter, Leah Koenig of Roland Park; his parents, Harry and Debbie Koenig of Ishpeming; a brother, Dr. Steven Koenig of Milwaukee; a sister, Karen Zwecker of North Palm Beach, Fla.; and several nieces and nephews.

February 1, 2009

Strategies for Hard Times: How to Downsize a Nonprofit

Filed under: Members' Blog — Treasurer @ 12:12 pm

PhilanTopic (the PND Blog)

http://pndblog.typepad.com/pndblog/

 

Posted: 29 Jan 2009 02:42 PM CST

(Michael Seltzer is a regular contributor to PhilanTopic.)

In recent days, a number of nonprofits have been forced to make painful financial decisions. The trustees of Brandeis University voted to close their art museum. The Bolshoi Theater of Moscow cancelled their upcoming overseas tour to Mexico. AARP has mandated that all their D.C.-based employees take three-week unpaid leaves. United Ways around the country have laid off staff. Pick up your local newspaper and you’re likely to find more bad news from Nonprofit Street. And this is only the start of what is likely to be the most widespread belt-tightening in the history of the sector.

When nonprofits are forced to cut back, the human costs borne by employees, clients, communities, and the organizations themselves are often incalculable. How do you calculate the cost of higher student tuition fees in terms of their impact on families and kids forced to make different choices? Or the cost of cuts at soup kitchens serving homeless men, women, and children? Or of longer waiting lists at domestic violence shelters? How do you calculate the cost of damage to mission, reputation, and morale at a nonprofit forced to cut services even as demand for its services soars?

The short answer: It’s difficult, if not impossible. Which makes it all the more important for nonprofit leaders to employ practices that mitigate, as much as possible, the negative consequences of any downsizing. If you’re a nonprofit leader, I hope you never find yourself in that position. But if you do, here are five things you can do to minimize the cost to others:

1. Set an example
Boards should ask their executive directors to reduce their own salaries before they ask staff to take cuts in pay. Such an action makes a simple but powerful statement: We are all in this together.

2. Provide additional emotional and professional support to employees
As the recession tightens its grip, a growing number of nonprofit employees are facing serious financial choices in their personal lives. A nonprofit forced to downsize can signal its commitment to its employees’ well-being by doing simple things like distributing a confidential survey to gauge what forms of assistance would be most valued and/or bringing in counselors to offer advice to staff.

3. Don’t blindside internal and external stakeholders
Keep your board, staff, and donors in the loop with respect to any variables and uncertainties in your organization’s financial picture, and be sure to communicate any changes in that picture at your earliest convenience. Meet with stakeholders on a regular basis to solicit their advice and counsel, and to generate ideas and strategies for weathering the storm.

4. Focus on your core competencies
Every organization has its tried-and-true programs and initiatives as well as less secure and -established efforts. Now is the time to preserve the former and make hard decisions with respect to the latter.

5. Seize every opportunity to express appreciation to staff
Words can’t be deposited in a bank. But “shout-outs” and acknowledgments of a job well done cost nothing — and count for more – than many of us realize. Don’t be stingy with them.

I could go on, but this crisis isn’t about me; it’s about us. We’re all in this together, and the surest way for us to make it through these tough times and come out stronger, as organizations and as a sector, is to stick together.

If you have an organizational survival story or strategy, we’d love to hear it. Use the comments section below, and let’s get a conversation going.

– Michael Seltzer

Powered by WordPress

The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of LAFF and should not be considered an endorsement.