Elton John AIDS Foundations Joins Forces With US Presidents Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief

The Elton John AIDS Foundation (EJAF) and the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) are today launching a $10 million partnership that will provide grants to organisations working to meet the HIV-related needs of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) people, with an initial focus on sub-Saharan Africa.

The new partnership, which will see EJAF and PEPFAR each invest $5 million to improve access to HIV services for LGBT people and help to create non-stigmatizing environments by working with community leaders, civil society, and service providers. By providing funding to grassroots organisations and targeting projects that support LGBT people within countries with a high HIV burden, the move marks an important step toward ending the AIDS epidemic by 2030.

The Elton John AIDS Foundation’s founder, Sir Elton John, said “Our goal is to build a quick, nimble and easily accessible fund which can get funds to the most effective public health organisations doing some of the most important work among the most at risk groups. Today’s announcement marks the culmination of tireless work from both sides to best support those helping the communities around the world which are often the hardest to support through societal stigma and discrimination.”

“We will only achieve an AIDS-free generation and ensure that no one is left behind if all people have non-discriminatory access to HIV/AIDS services,” added U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, Ambassador Deborah L. Birx. “We are proud to partner with Sir Elton John and the Elton John AIDS Foundation. Together, we are putting words into action and calling on other partners to join us in meeting the urgent HIV-related needs of LGBT people and stopping stigma in its tracks.”

The announcement was delivered at a celebration at the London residence of Matthew Barzun, the United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Ambassador Barzun said: “Step by step, day by day, people are doing the hard work on the ground to pave the way for an AIDS-free generation, and we’re proud to stand with them. We need the passion of people and the power of government to come together to finally eradicate HIV.”

Saudi Prince Says He Will Donate $32 Billion To Charity

Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, an investor and business magnate who is also a member of the Saudi royal family, announced Wednesday that he will donate all of his $32 billion fortune to charity in the coming years.

“It is a commitment without boundaries. A commitment to all humankind,” Alwaleed, 60, said in a press release announcing his intentions.

Alwaleed, who holds degrees from Menlo College and Syracuse University, is CEO of the Saudi investment conglomerate Kingdom Holding Company and has large stakes in Citigroup, Apple, Twitter, General Motors, 21st Century Fox, Euro Disney and other companies. He also heads Alwaleed Philanthropies, which has already donated $3.5 billion to charity.

The $32 billion commitment will reportedly be funneled to Alwaleed Philanthropies to be used for a wide variety of causes, including intercultural understanding, disease and poverty eradication, rural electrification, empowering women and disaster relief. The prince and his team will develop a “well-devised plan” to allocate the gift, Alwaleed said.

“It will be based on a strategy that is supervised and managed by a board of trustees headed by me to ensure that it will be used after my death for humanitarian projects and initiatives,” he said. He said philanthropy is an intrinsic part of his Islamic faith.

Gender, race or religious affiliation will not factor into which humanitarian issues are addressed, the announcement stated.

Alwaleed is part of the Saudi royal family, but he does not hold an official position in the government. He gives frank interviews on political matters and employs many women in his organization, according to The New York Times, contributing to his image as an outsider.

He settled a libel lawsuit against Forbes magazine group last month after claiming that the magazine’s $20 billion estimate of his net worth was undervalued. Forbes now lists Alwaleed’s net worth as $28.1 billion, several billion shy of his $32 billion pledge, and ranks him as the 34th richest person in the world.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Alwaleed offered $10 million to a charity for families of uniformed workers killed in the terrorist attacks. But then-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani rejected the money because of a press release accompanying the gift that explicitly criticized Israel and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. “At times like this one, we must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack,” the statement, attributed to the prince, read. “Our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek.”

After Guiliani rejected the funds, the prince told a Saudi newspaper, “The whole issue is that I spoke about their position [on the Middle East conflict] and they didn’t like it because there are Jewish pressures and they were afraid of them.”

Arnall Family Foundation Awards $4.8 Million to Youth Villages

Youth Villages has announced a $4.8 million commitment from the Arnall Family Foundation in support of its programs in Oklahoma, including a public-private partnership with the Oklahoma Department of Human Services to provide youth aging out of foster care with a comprehensive set of services.

The gift from the foundation of Sue Ann Arnall includes $2.8 million to launch Youth Villages’ YVLifeSet program, which will connect teens in foster care with specialists who work one-on-one with them as they age out of state custody to develop the skills they need to be independent adults and access programs and services. In Oklahoma, about three hundred teens age out of the foster care system every year without being reunited with their families or being adopted. The first coordinated, statewide approach to helping youth aging out of foster care in Oklahoma, the program is expected to cost $12.7 million over the next five years, of which private funders will contribute 36 percent and DHS, using targeted federal funds, will provide the remainder.

“This is an opportunity to help the most vulnerable people in our society, youth without a family support system,” said Arnall, who joined the Giving Pledge in 2011 with her then-husband, billionaire oilman Harold Hamm, and re-joined on her own earlier this year. “By supporting programs such as YVLifeSet that have demonstrated positive results, I know that these young people will receive the mentoring and support that they were denied through circumstances beyond their control. It is very exciting to see the many ways the YVLifeSet program helps kids who age out of foster care and are suddenly on their own as they try to navigate life as adults.”

Walton Foundation’s new education investment strategy: Scary or what?

The Walton Foundation is one of the biggest players in the education philanthropy world, having poured some $1.3 billion in K-12 education over the last two decades largely to support charter schools and fuel the “school choice” movement. But foundation honchos aren’t exactly satisfied with the results of their work and now they are using a new investment strategy to make a broader impact. For people who like the foundation’s philosophy, that’s good news. For those who think the foundation works against public education, it’s scary.

[Why are out-of-state billionaires putting big money into Louisiana’s board of education elections?]

A paper recently released (see below) titled “Investing in Change: The Walton Family Foundation Charts a New Course” looks at what the foundation has — and hasn’t — accomplished in its effort to fulfill what foundation K-12 Program Director Marc Sternberg calls its “moral obligation” to provide families with high-quality school choices. It quotes Walton Family Foundation Executive Director Buddy Philpot, who wrote in the foundation’s 2014 annual report released this year:

We know that empowering parents and students with options works, but now we want to do more. We have learned that while choice is vital, it is not enough.

Choice isn’t enough? So what is? Apparently dismantling traditional public school systems and creating collections of charter schools across cities.  The report, written by Michelle Wisdom and published by Grantmakers for Education (a national network of hundreds of education philanthropies) says:

There are a lot of similarities between the Walton Family Foundation’s approach and what has come to be called a “Portfolio Strategy”— a concept researched and supported by the Center for Reinventing Public Education (CRPE). Portfolio Strategy identifies the entire city as the unit of change with respect to school reform, and tasks education and civic leaders with developing a citywide system of high-quality, diverse, autonomous public schools. These systems prioritize school autonomy, parental empowerment, and system leader oversight and responsibility for accountability.

Wisdom’s report points to Walton’s involvement in cities with big charter presences, including New Orleans, where nearly all of the schools are charters, and D.C., where nearly half of students attend charters. These are hailed as successes in school reform. In the section about D.C., the report goes so far as to credit charter schools with contributing to  “dramatic improvements” in the traditional public school system, a statement that doesn’t take into consideration how demographic changes have improved D.C. school results. D.C. schools Chancellor Kaya Henderson contests the notion too.

There’s another part of the report that begs parsing. The report notes that the foundation realizes that it has not engaged communities as it has pushed school choice on them. It says:

One area where the foundation has received criticism is in the area of community engagement. It has been accused of  having a top-down approach that does not adequately address the needs and desires of parents, local advocacy groups and community groups. This is an issue the foundation is grappling with. “The provision of choice, and the publication of data on school performance, has sometimes had little impact, especially in districts where reform lacks adequate local ownership, community and wider civic involvement, and parent engagement,” Bruno Manno notes. He identifies two levers in engaging local partners and communities more thoroughly: 1) building an active coalition of supporters, and 2) cultivating local advocacy partners. “We need a local and civic base of support for the work that’s going on. The work we support requires a stable constituency to be advocates for schools over time. There is a political dimension as well, the community and families need to understand what options are available.”

Let’s review: After 20 years, the foundation realizes that its top-down approach doesn’t adequately address the needs and desires of parents, local advocacy groups and community groups. Now it wants to engage local partners and communities — not, apparently to ask what they actually want in their communities but to build “a local and civic base of support for the work that’s going on.”

Another surprising finding in the report is that the foundation actually considers itself to be a  neutral party in the school reform battles. It says:

The Walton Family Foundation theory of change has led it to support innovative and autonomous traditional public schools, new and existing individual charter schools and charter management organizations, private schools, locally-based education nonprofits and national advocacy and school reform groups across the United States.

The foundation sees its strategy as agnostic with regard to sector (public charter schools, traditional public schools, private schools). “The foundation’s investment strategy is clear: Schools thrive when they have autonomy, are chosen by parents, and are embedded in systems of good governance and accountability,” says Senior Program Officer Fawzia Ahmed. “When we invest in citywide systems, we invest regardless of sector.”

The foundation’s funding history includes a significant amount of support for charter schools, however. In fact, roughly two-thirds of the Education Program’s investments support the growth of a high-quality charter sector in some way. This seeming preference for charter schools is in line with the foundation’s theory of change that requires change agents, like new, high-quality charter schools, to increase competition in citywide school systems and to raise community expectations of what is possible in high-need areas and with students who face significant challenges.

Bill Gates and the 3-Story-High Philanthropic “Selfie”

Linsey McGoey wonders aloud in the Guardian whether philanthropy is better off once the major donor has died—or, as she puts it, “Is the most effective philanthropist a dead one?”

McGoey seems to believe that the celebrity status of some billionaire donors gets in the way of necessary critiques of their financially backed influence. She uses as an example of that blinding celebrity halo a bizarre scene that played out when Bill Gates turned 60.

To mark the occasion, more than 1,000 schoolchildren in Chennai, India, were photographed in the courtyard of their school holding life-sized cutouts of Gates’s face, raised above their heads in military salute. A three-story-high image of Gates beams from the rear of the configuration, featuring an upbeat slogan: “Grow rich. Help others.”

She contrasts this to the understated approach of the Wellcome Foundation which “creates about the same ‘good,’ measured in financial contributions, many members of the public haven’t even heard of it—let alone praise the charity in the same way that the Gates Foundation is lauded.”

“Most organizations on a par with the Gates Foundation are fair game for academic and journalistic investigation,” she writes:

When a health catastrophe strikes, many governments and UN organizations such as the World Health Organization are subjected to sustained internal and external review. The Gates Foundation, while as powerful, rarely faces the same scrutiny.

We need to challenge this silence. We need loudly to ask an uncomfortable question: do foundations narrow wealth inequalities or simply preserve them? Are foundations at their most radical when they exist to serve a benefactor’s hopes and whims—or when they’re emancipated from such an obligation?

McGooey generally believes that it is hard to be clearheaded about social inequities when that is the way that you, personally, have made your money. She posits that the “big three” U.S. foundations—Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie—only began to sympathize with labor and civil rights movements after their founders were dead, and that Ford’s grandson Henry actually resigned from the foundation in in 1977, writing that “a system that makes the foundation possible very probably is worth preserving.”—Ruth McCambridge