The Work of Philanthropy in Responding to COVID-19 and Addressing Inequality

Walker, Darren

doi:10.1001/jama.2020.12904

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our study found that the COVID-19 prevalence was higher not only in the most disadvantaged but also the least disadvantaged counties. While the higher COVID-19 prevalence among the poorest regions is not new [ 33 – 35 ], we did not expect the COVID-19 prevalence would be also higher among the richest counties; such results are consistent even when stratified by population density level (results not shown). The higher prevalence of COVID-19 among the least disadvantaged counties can be the result of the more COVID-19 testing available to them at the early stage of the pandemic; the more the testing, the more the cases identified.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 48%

Differential impact of mitigation policies and socioeconomic status on COVID-19 prevalence and social distancing in the United States

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The spread of COVID-19 has highlighted the long-standing health inequalities across the U.S. as neighborhoods with fewer resources were associated with higher rates of COVID-19 transmission. Although the stay-at-home order was one of the most effective methods to contain its spread, residents in lower-income neighborhoods faced barriers to practicing social distancing. We aimed to quantify the differential impact of stay-at-home policy on COVID-19 transmission and residents’ mobility across neighborhoods of different levels of socioeconomic disadvantage. Methods This was a comparative interrupted time-series analysis at the county level. We included 2087 counties from 38 states which both implemented and lifted the state-wide stay-at-home order. Every county was assigned to one of four equally-sized groups based on its levels of disadvantage, represented by the Area Deprivation Index. Prevalence of COVID-19 was calculated by dividing the daily number of cumulative confirmed COVID-19 cases by the number of residents from the 2010 Census. We used the Social Distancing Index (SDI), derived from the COVID-19 Impact Analysis Platform, to measure the mobility. For the evaluation of implementation, the observation started from Mar 1st 2020 to 1 day before lifting; and, for lifting, it ranged from 1 day after implementation to Jul 5th 2020. We calculated a comparative change of daily trends in COVID-19 prevalence and Social Distancing Index between counties with three highest disadvantage levels and those with the least level before and after the implementation and lifting of the stay-at-home order, separately. Results On both stay-at-home implementation and lifting dates, COVID-19 prevalence was much higher among counties with the highest or lowest disadvantage level, while mobility decreased as the disadvantage level increased. Mobility of the most disadvantaged counties was least impacted by stay-at-home implementation and relaxation compared to counties with the most resources; however, disadvantaged counties experienced the largest relative increase in COVID-19 infection after both stay-at-home implementation and relaxation. Conclusions Neighborhoods with varying levels of socioeconomic disadvantage reacted differently to the implementation and relaxation of COVID-19 mitigation policies. Policymakers should consider investing more resources in disadvantaged counties as the pandemic may not stop until most neighborhoods have it under control.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 48%

Differential impact of mitigation policies and socioeconomic status on COVID-19 prevalence and social distancing in the United States

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Arts nonprofits often face additional pressure during economic downturns, given that they must compete for donations with human service organizations, whose needs are often perceived as more urgent (Kim, 2017). Furthermore, human service nonprofits tend to experience increased demand for their services during recessions (Hasenfeld, 2010) and may benefit from emergency foundation support and donations, at least in the short term, as funders seek to fill immediate community needs (Walker, 2020). Arts and culture organizations, however, depend largely on consumer spending and leisure activities (e.g., ticket sales, admission fees, and sponsorship for events), making them vulnerable to shocks (Grodach & Seman, 2013).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are You Ready: Financial Management, Operating Reserves, and the Immediate Impact of COVID-19 on Nonprofits

Kim

Mason

2020

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars and practitioners have argued that effective financial management, particularly the development of operating reserves, can help nonprofits survive economic shocks. The COVID-19 pandemic, which has had a significant impact on the nonprofit sector, provides an opportunity to test whether nonprofits have followed that recommendation, and if so, whether nonprofits with operating reserves were better prepared for the pandemic. Using data from an original survey of more than 600 nonprofit human service and arts organizations, administered when most states had stay-at-home restrictions, we show that most nonprofits experienced an immediate impact on their programs and financing. Yet, those nonprofits with more reserves were less likely to reduce operating hours, lose staff, or experience difficulty acquiring supplies or vendor services. Our study provides rare empirical data on the benefits of operating reserves for nonprofits. Our results also confirm that arts and culture nonprofits were more severely affected than human service nonprofits.

show abstract

Heterogeneity in financing for development strategies as a hindering factor to achieve a global agreement on the 2030 Agenda

Sianes,

Fernández-Portillo,

Toscano-Valle

et al. 2023

Humanit Soc Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The adoption of the 2030 Agenda has favoured a profound shift in the development aid system with the consolidation of new actors, goals and instruments. While the Sustainable Development Goals are a sound proposal to address the development problems in this new scenario, there is no agreement on many other topics, such as the most accurate instruments to finance the Agenda. Despite consensus on concerns about the effectiveness of official development assistance (ODA), no alternative proposals have yet been consolidated, and debate persists on how to finance the Agenda. However, the literature does not sufficiently address the fact that countries are pursuing divergent financing strategies that complicate the necessary consensus, especially after the negative impact of COVID-19 on international co-operation. To contribute to filling this gap in the literature, we focus on donor countries, scrutinising the variety of financing for development (FfD) strategies they support through their public policies, either promoting ODA flows, remittances, philanthropic donations or a policy coherence for development approach. Although there is still no international agreement on the role that these four instruments should play in financing the 2030 Agenda, data evidence shows how donor countries rely more on one or another of such instruments. Our hypotheses are that it is possible to find similar strategic patterns throughout different groups of countries and that there are significant differences in the FfD strategy implemented by each group. To test them, we propose a hierarchical cluster analysis to classify main donor countries according to the different FfD strategies they are actually carrying out. The analysis confirms our hypotheses, identifying four groups of countries according to their FfD strategy. Countries in each group share similar strategic approaches to financing the fight against poverty, while groups deeply diverge from one another. These results could explain the delay in addressing the unavoidable FfD debate in the 2030 Agenda, and they even question whether a common and shared FfD approach would be feasible if not appropriately addressed.

show abstract

The Work of Philanthropy in Responding to COVID-19 and Addressing Inequality

Cited by 3 publications

References 4 publications

Differential impact of mitigation policies and socioeconomic status on COVID-19 prevalence and social distancing in the United States

Differential impact of mitigation policies and socioeconomic status on COVID-19 prevalence and social distancing in the United States

Are You Ready: Financial Management, Operating Reserves, and the Immediate Impact of COVID-19 on Nonprofits

Heterogeneity in financing for development strategies as a hindering factor to achieve a global agreement on the 2030 Agenda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About