TopicalBoost WordPress Demo

Topic: Arizona

state of the United States of America

  • What Lawmakers Need to Know About Foreign Donors to Nonprofits and Political Advocacy

    As lawmakers investigate the rare instances of foreign interference in U.S. elections through nonprofits, Philanthropy Roundtable encourages them to protect charitable giving by upholding the constitutional right to donor privacy. 

    On December 13, 2023, the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means held an Oversight Subcommittee hearing on the “Growth of the Tax-Exempt Sector and the Impact on the American Political Landscape.” The subcommittee, led by Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO) and Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ), aimed to explore concerns about donors using tax exempt organizations for political purposes, especially foreign donors, and policy reforms to address these concerns.   

    In response to a call for written comments, Philanthropy Roundtable submitted a Statement for the Record to the Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee hearing. In our written statement, we emphasize that in a nation built on individual liberty and opportunity, the spirit of giving has woven itself into the fabric of our story. Philanthropy, fueled by the generosity of countless Americans, isn’t just about charity. It’s the engine of social progress, a cornerstone of our democracy and a vital counterbalance to an ever-expanding government. 

    Amid concerns about the growing nonprofit sector, it’s crucial to remember its vital role. A strong nonprofit sector isn’t a threat – it’s a testament to the strength of our civil society. These organizations aren’t simply filling in the gaps; they’re on the ground, nimble and deeply informed about the communities they serve. They provide education, health care, housing and food to those in need, strengthening the fabric of American society. 

    From Andrew Carnegie’s libraries to Susan B. Anthony’s fight for women’s suffrage, philanthropy has driven transformative change throughout history. It empowers individuals to take ownership of their communities, bridges societal gaps and fosters innovative solutions to the challenges we face. This dynamic network of nonprofits – from food banks to global humanitarian initiatives – employs millions, reflects the unique needs of diverse communities and often delivers more effective, cost-efficient solutions than traditional government programs.  

    Furthermore, in a time of increasing government size, a vibrant nonprofit sector serves as a crucial check and balance. It fosters civic engagement, empowers citizens to be active participants in shaping their communities and provides a platform for free speech and diverse viewpoints. This vibrant exchange of ideas and actions is the lifeblood of democracy, ensuring it remains responsive to the people it serves. 

    Of course, with any system, concerns about abuse exist. Philanthropy Roundtable recognizes these concerns and advocates for strong enforcement against any wrongdoing. However, it’s essential to remember that instances of abuse, while unfortunate, are statistically rare. Available data shows a vast majority of nonprofits operate with integrity and dedication, delivering on their vital missions. 

    Finally, amid calls for donor disclosure and empowering government agencies, we must ensure donor privacy is protected. Private giving allows individuals to support causes they believe in, free from fear or undue pressure. This freedom fosters diversity of thought, fuels innovation and ensures the wellspring of charitable giving remains unpolluted by external influence.  

    As the Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee considers these comments, we urge them to remember the vital role of nonprofit organizations in upholding American values and strengthening our communities. While concerns about the sector deserve examination, we must approach any reforms with a clear understanding of the potential consequences. Forced donor disclosure or further empowering government agencies can stifle the philanthropic spirit, hindering its ability to drive social progress and protect individual liberty. Let us work together to ensure oversight strengthens, not stifles, the incredible contributions of the nonprofit sector, safeguarding their ability to be a powerful force for good in our nation. 

    Read our full Statement for the Record. 

  • Donor Intent Watch: Controversies Around the Country

    In May, following the passage of the Donor Intent Protection Act in Kansas, Philanthropy Roundtable launched a monthly series on donor intent controversies around the country to better inform those who care about this important topic. This edition of our Donor Intent Watch again focuses on several higher education disputes, this month in Arizona and California.  

    We also have two disappointing updates, one on a Dartmouth College case we featured in May and the other on proposed donor intent legislation in Ohio. We encourage donors to contact us with any questions they have about our featured items and to consult additional resources on donor intent at the Roundtable’s Donor Intent Hub.   


    Discord at Arizona State University 

    Philanthropist Tom Lewis made headlines this month when it was revealed he had withdrawn his funding for the T.W. Lewis Center for Personal Development at Barrett, Arizona State’s Honors College. His decision ended a 20-year relationship between Lewis and his wife, Jan Lewis, and Barrett. Lewis has taken great care with his grants in higher education, and we featured him prominently in our donor intent guidebook, “Protecting Your Legacy.”  

    His philanthropy at ASU began with small grants to Barrett, expanded to significant scholarship offerings and culminated with the founding of the Center for Personal Development, which offered Barrett students innovative courses, workshops and a speaker series. At no time did he fall into the endowment trap, but instead structured larger awards as grants made in increments over a limited term, with continued donations dependent on satisfactory progress reports. “Start small and start short,” he advised other donors. 

    Lewis’s style of grantmaking made it possible for him to pull his support in the wake of campus protests and the alleged termination of the Center’s executive director, following a February 2023 presentation at the Lewis Center on “Health, Wealth and Happiness.” Lewis expressed disbelief at the “outrage” sparked by the event’s mostly conservative speakers, saying: 

    We expected some opposition, but I was shocked and disappointed by the alarming and outright hostility demonstrated by the Barrett faculty and administration. … After seeing this level of left-wing hostility and activism, I no longer had any confidence in Barrett to adhere to the terms of our gift, and made the decision to terminate our agreement, effective June 30, 2023. I regret that this decision was necessary, and hope that Barrett and ASU will take strong action to ensure that free speech will always be protected and that all voices can be heard.  

    While this is an unfortunate conclusion to what had been a productive relationship, Lewis has the satisfaction of knowing he did not leave funds behind in a perpetual endowment that would no longer align with his values.    

    Read more here and here.  


    Hastings College of the Law Changes Its Name to UC College of the Law, San Francisco 

    On September 30, 2022, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill to change the name of University of California Hastings College of the Law to University of California College of the Law, San Francisco. Within a week, the Hastings College Conservation Committee, which includes alumni and six descendants of the law school’s founder, Serranus Clinton Hastings, filed a lawsuit against state and school officials.  

    The plaintiffs say the removal of Hastings’s name violates a contractual agreement made between Hastings and the state in 1878 when he made a gift of $100,000 in gold to establish the institution. Among other stipulations in that agreement, the lawsuit argues, was one which ensured that the school would forever be called the “Hastings College of the Law,” and which promised Hastings’s heirs the return of his gift —with interest —should the school ever “cease to exist.” That amount is currently some $1.7 billion. 

    The dispute erupted in 2017 when the San Francisco Chronicle published an op-ed calling for renaming the law school because its founder had encouraged and financially supported lethal violence against Native Americans in the 1850s. In response, a Hastings Legacy Review Committee was formed and commissioned a three-year study on the matter. The current lawsuit contends the study raised doubts about any direct involvement of Serranus Hastings in the deaths of members of the Yuki tribe.  

    The plaintiffs also note that, in September 2020, Hastings’s dean, David Faigman, recommended against any name change, but suggested instead that the school engage in “developing a true partnership between the descendants of those [S.C.] Hastings wronged and the school that bears his name, [which] will create substantive opportunities to transcend that history and live and work for common goals.”  

    When another article accusing Hastings of masterminding a massacre of Native Americans appeared in The New York Times in late October, 2021, however, the response abruptly changed. Within days of the article’s publication, the law school’s board resolved that Dean Faigman should collaborate with California’s state government to remove the Hastings name from the institution. A bill authorizing the change, AB 1936, was introduced in the California Assembly on February 10, 2022. It passed both Assembly and Senate without a negative vote in August of that year, was signed by the governor in September and took effect on January 1, 2023. 

    This will be a particularly interesting dispute to follow because of the use of legislation by California to invalidate the 1878 agreement. The lawsuit argues this is not only “an unconstitutional impairment of the state’s contractual obligations to S.C. Hastings and his descendants,” but it also “violate[s] constitutional prohibitions against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, as well as the California Constitution’s requirement that the College remain in its existing ‘form and character,’ free from sectarian or political influence.” 

    Read more here. 


    Update on Dartmouth College Lawsuit 

    In the May 2023 Donor Intent Watch, we discussed a case at Dartmouth College concerning a 2002 restricted gift made in the will of the late Robert T. Keeler for the “sole purpose” of maintaining the school’s golf course. A second restriction advised the college that any funds not used for that purpose were to be returned to Keeler’s charitable foundation. In 2020 Dartmouth closed the course, but the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Charitable Trusts Unit determined that because financial reasons spurred the closure, Dartmouth would be allowed to keep the funds and use them for “golf-related” purposes, including financial support of the men’s and women’s varsity golf teams. The estate of Robert T. Keeler filed a lawsuit rejected by a circuit court on the grounds that the estate of Robert T. Keeler did not have standing to bring such a suit. In response to an appeal filed by the estate to the Vermont Supreme Court, the decision of the circuit court has been affirmed by a unanimous vote.   

    Legal standing is all too frequently a stumbling block in efforts to protect donor intent, and in this case, the use of a will to convey the donor’s restrictions was insufficient to establish such standing. Dartmouth was ultimately successful in maintaining control of the funds because “the statement of understanding between the Keeler estate and Dartmouth that formalized the gift made no provision for the estate or the foundation to recover the money if the golf course was closed.” Donors should certainly consider bringing in legal representation to help craft a carefully worded gift agreement with the recipient institution – possibly one which names a contingent beneficiary with legal standing to sue.   

    Read more here. 


    Update on Ohio Donor Intent Legislation 

    Thank you to Jeff Moritz, son of Michael Moritz, for whom the Ohio State University College of Law is named, for alerting us to the outcome of proposed donor intent legislation in Ohio. Senate Bill 83 had passed the state Senate along party lines, with Republicans voting in its favor. That bill contained controversial higher education provisions, but included a donor intent protection amendment for endowment agreements between donors and state higher education institutions.  

    The bill was added to the Senate version of the Ohio biennial budget in mid-June, but to gain the support of the Ohio State Bar Association, the bill’s proponents had agreed to a reduced statute of repose and the inclusion of only those endowments in place prior to the date of enactment. In the end, because of widely acknowledged disagreement between the Senate and House over the bill’s higher education content, SB 83 was removed from the budget in its entirety. We will stay in touch with our friends in Ohio as Moritz notes they “will be regrouping and determining our next steps over the next few months.” 

    Mentioned on this page
    Native Americans in the United StatesUniversity of California College of the Law, San Francisco

  • How Charitable Giving Can Help Those Who Served: Q&A with Army and Navy Veterans

    In honor of Armed Forces Day and Memorial Day, Philanthropy Roundtable sat down with Kara Hirschfeld, U.S. Army Reserves veteran and digital marketing manager at Philanthropy Roundtable, and Rich Rodriguez, U.S. Navy Reserves service member and director of IT at Philanthropy Roundtable, to talk about their military service and the vital role philanthropy plays in supporting the military and veteran communities. 

    Kara Hirschfeld deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom under the 82nd Airborne Division from 2009-2010. She served in RC East, Parwan Province and Bamyan with the New Zealand Kiwis. Her specialization was Military Intelligence, HUMINT. 

    Rich Rodriguez deployed to Central America to support counter illicit drug operations [in 2014] and the Middle East in support of Operation Enduring Freedom from 2016-2017, supporting multiple commands in the Southwest Asia area of operations. He currently serves as a Master-at-Arms with a specialty in ground combat. 

    The following interview has been edited for clarity and length. 

    Q: Could you share the reasons why you joined the military and your thoughts on overall differences regarding the sentiment of those who joined with you compared to the sentiment toward the military now? 

    Hirschfeld: Unlike many on the West Coast on September 11, 2001, I was up very early and watched the second plane hit the World Trade Center tower. I remember going to school that day and my math teacher told us her brother was going to deploy. At that point, I knew I wanted to serve our country. 

    A couple of years later, I started my first year at the University of Arizona and ran into a military recruiter on campus. The recruiter discussed the sense of patriotism he carried daily, what it meant to serve, how the military could prepare me for the real world and the benefits of helping with college. I was sold on everything. I raised my right hand for the oath of enlistment in a time of war, and little did I know at that time, it would forever change my life for the better.  

    I went in when America still rallied around President George W. Bush, picking up a bullhorn and standing on Ground Zero yelling, “I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you.” Military service members were dying in battle. War footage was on the news daily, and the hunt for Osama bin Laden was at its peak. Today, the honor of serving is not as clear. I hear from veterans and current military members serving today, “People don’t care about us.” Unfortunately, “serving our country” with patriotic pride seems to be a thing of the past. It almost seems as if “it’s not cool” to serve, and that’s evident in current recruitment numbers. I hope this can be turned around because it’s an honor to serve this country. The fulfillment, experiences and the lessons learned can never be taught in a classroom. 

    Rodriguez: My father, his father, his family, have all served this country in peacetime and in its conflicts since WWII. After 9-11, my father deployed to the Middle East in support of our country, its values and dedication to service. I had similar aspirations to serve and ended up enlisting in the United States Navy. I look back on the first time I wore my uniform, graduated boot camp, first deployment, as some of the proudest moments in my life.  

    It feels like the tides have shifted, and serving for duty and selflessness are no longer reasons for joining the service, but rather, benefits and financial reasons. We are now facing recruitment issues, and in some of our most critical communities, which in my opinion is due to the fact that we have service members at home that are not doing well physically or emotionally, or worse, tragically ending their own lives. I think the sentiment is if we can’t take care of our service members, why would I want to be a part of that? It’s unfortunate, as military service is a beautiful thing. But the lack of support and resources for our brave service members and their families is slowly peeling away at the new generations’ desire to serve. 

    Q: Since your military separation, how have you stayed connected to the military community and other veterans?  

    Hirschfeld: Within the first month of my deployment in Afghanistan, my friend was killed by an improvised explosive device. His sister created a nonprofit called Catch A Lift Fund, which serves post 9-11 veterans all over our country through fitness and mentorship. I volunteer for this organization and have helped them with development and media appearances to get the word out about their mission. 

    Rodriguez: My second deployment was in the Middle East for Operation Enduring Freedom, which is ironic as my father deployed in support of the same operation 15 years earlier [in 2001]. After getting back from that deployment, our unit had someone take their own life, which was incredibly tough for all of us. One of the things that my father and I got really involved in when we both respectively returned home was our local American Legion, Post 139.  

    In thinking about local community support for veterans, I had seen programs on the government side to help veterans’ post-deployment not be super effective. Our local Legions have recently partnered with George Mason University to give free family and legal services to service members and veterans, something that can be difficult to properly receive on the military side of things.  

    Q: May is National Military Appreciation Month, where we also honor service members on Armed Forces Day and Memorial Day. This month can be a hard time for service members, veterans and their families. What are some ways people can recognize those who are serving or have served? What are some ways people can offer support?  

    Hirschfeld: The best way that people can support our service members is to have honest conversations about the military and current events affecting them. Making a social media post once a year on Veterans Day to check the box is not enough. Nor is saying Happy Memorial Day when there is nothing happy about it.  

    The most alarming news I’ve seen recently is the record number of “cries for help” on the Veterans Crisis Line in March. It was the highest volume ever, even more than during COVID or after the Afghanistan withdrawal. Many say, “The war is over,” but there are decades of veterans that are suffering from multiple deployments, PTSD and other trauma stemming from service. We need to have a conversation on how to address their ongoing needs. 

    Rodriguez: It’s all about having hard conversations with service members, and volunteerism in your own local community. People might not actually realize service members need support, whether that’s a person to talk to or mental or physical health support. We live in 2023 where everyone has some kind of social media presence, which presents a great opportunity for organizations that can tap into their communities and can make veterans aware of events or opportunities that are going on.  

    I think a lot of people don’t realize the day-to-day sacrifices that military members and their families have made to keep our status as the best and most prosperous country in the world. Volunteering, or even saying thank you for your service, whether it’s on a social media post or if you see someone walking in uniform, really does go a long way. 

    Q: As veterans, in your experience, what are some of the most common needs of those returning to civilian life after serving? 

    Hirschfeld: Outside organizations are crucial to bridging the gap between active duty and civilian life. Programs that assist with fitness and mentorship, resume-building workshops and apprenticeships can tremendously help. So many skills learned in the military are equivalent to civilian jobs, sometimes our veterans just need assistance making those connections. 

    Rodriguez: I think there’s a specific point where you separate from active duty to civilian life that’s incredibly important that our current reintegration system is lacking. When you leave active duty, you take part in multiple reintegration efforts that are available and required through the military for its departing service members. I’ve gone through these programs and found them incredibly unhelpful. I think it’s a very, very critical, maybe three-month period that we’re just missing the mark on entirely, especially when it comes to job stability, family support and mental health when leaving the military.  

    I do think this creates a fantastic opportunity to have local organizations assist with some of these transition items—to really have that dialogue and have someone on the civilian side in local communities help service members through that transition.  

    Q: How important are veteran-centered charities, and how do they make up for when the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) or military falls short in addressing these needs? 

    Hirschfeld: There are some tremendous veteran-centered charities that address mental health, which is one of the top issues veterans are facing. I lived in Arizona during the VA waitlist scandal, where veterans died waiting for care. It became ground zero for Veterans Affairs health care reform. Reform has been made over the years, but we can still do much more for our veterans in the system and through outside charities. 

    Rodriguez: I hate to keep harping on health but it’s just such a big deal to me. When I was deployed, I had a shipmate who fractured his lower back. He went to the doctor that was on our Forward Operating Base (FOB) who essentially told him to “suck it up” and gave him some Tylenol. He still has back problems, but the VA claims it wasn’t service connected so he cannot be compensated for it. It’s a part of a larger problem, which leads me to believe I think there’s a big need for VA reform to get our veterans the care they actually need. There’s a lot of organizations that are trying to spread awareness and bridge this gap. Concerned Veterans for America (CVA) is trying to tackle some of these issues head-on from a policy perspective. 

    As a country, one of our biggest priorities should be making sure our service members are cared for mentally and physically. I think organizations that can supplement the care that the VA would provide are incredibly helpful and have been proven more effective than government solutions. At the bases I have been stationed at, they sometimes wouldn’t let us see people externally until we got a referral, which can take months and sometimes gets denied. Giving people the opportunity to seek out that care in the way that they think is best for them I think will go a long way. 

    Q: Are there any opportunities that you see where philanthropy and nonprofits can step up to help tackle some of the challenges and needs we’ve discussed? Is there a service or support that we are failing to provide that might be an opportunity for civil society to innovate and better provide than the government?  

    Hirschfeld: We need philanthropy and nonprofits to fill that gap where the federal government fails to help veterans. Too many veterans slip through the cracks and need help. The transition to the civilian world can be challenging for most. Creating that sense of community and camaraderie experienced in active duty, but in post-active duty, can save veteran lives. This can be through mentorship, fitness, therapy, sports teams, etc. Community is everything.   

    Rodriguez: It’s specifically around that three- to six-month window of your transition from military service. You can bring local community ambassadors into the picture to help with that transition, rather than have this process be driven by government programs that ultimately end up doing nothing. Nonprofits, local businesses and foundations have the agility to assist in having checkpoints with service members that are leaving the military on issues like physical or mental health care, supplementing costs of health care that the VA won’t cover or something as simple as a small grant for a work certification.  

    Q: What do you think is most important for donors to consider when evaluating and giving to veteran-centered charities? 

    Hirschfeld: Donors should look at two data points with the first being how many veterans are being served, and the second is the total administration costs vs. the funds actually helping veterans. Unfortunately, over the years, there have been too many fraudulent veteran charity schemes aimed at helping disabled and wounded veterans. It’s imperative to do your homework and ensure the organization is legitimate and the money is directly helping veterans. 

    Rodriguez: I would look at their financial disclosures to find out where the money is actually going, and what the split is for operational costs versus their programmatic work. Due diligence around organizations is incredibly important in making sure that the funds are going toward the cause you want to support. 

  • Mental Health Awareness Month: How Nonprofits Are Helping Individuals in Need

    In honor of Mental Health Awareness Month, Philanthropy Roundtable is highlighting the innovative work of civil society in approaching one of the biggest challenges our country faces: mental illness. With one in five Americans experiencing mental illness each year, there is a significant opportunity for philanthropic leadership in helping to address the needs of these vulnerable individuals and provide support for their families.

    The realities of mental illness in America are staggering:

    • 46% of Americans will meet the criteria for a diagnosable mental health condition sometime in their life, and half of those people will develop conditions by the age of 14.
    • About 3-5% of the U.S. adult population has severe or serious mental illness.
    • 30% of adult Americans with serious mental illness receive no treatment (medication or therapy).
    • 10% of Americans with a mental illness are uninsured, with limited access to treatment.
    • Between 11-20% of veterans who served in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom experience PTSD and/or other mental health conditions.
    • 1 in 5 kids has a diagnosable mental health condition.

    The above realities are even more nuanced when considering that mental health issues contribute to higher rates of homelessness, hunger, substance abuse, domestic violence and other societal issues, including lower education outcomes for the next generation.

    The Roundtable supports philanthropists committed to fostering overall health and well-being, including those working to address the impact mental health issues are having on individuals and communities. We work to connect funders with organizations that provide vulnerable populations access to care and other resources. From foundations such as the Hackett Family Foundation, the Rees-Jones Foundation, the Marcus Foundation and others, philanthropists are approaching mental illness in ways that are having a positive tangible impact on people’s lives.

    While the mental health initiatives philanthropy supports are vast, below is a sampling of the innovative nonprofits and thought leaders who are making a difference in people’s lives all over the country:

    • Headstrong Project: The Headstrong Project is a nonprofit mental health organization providing confidential, barrier-free and stigma-free PTSD treatment to veterans, service members and family connected to their care. Headstrong’s growing clinical network focuses its capabilities across states where unmet mental health needs are highest. On average, Headstrong treats 1,400 clients per month through 275 clinicians in 15 states and Washington, D.C.
    • Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute: The Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute provides independent, nonpartisan, data-driven and trusted policy and program guidance to ensure all Texans can obtain effective, efficient behavioral health care when and where they need it. Their vision is to be the national leader in treating all people with mental health needs.
    • Stop Soldier Suicide: Stop Soldier Suicide’s mission is to reduce service member and veteran suicide using enhanced data insights, focused client acquisition and suicide-specific intervention services. Their vision is a nation where service members and veterans have no greater risk for suicide than any other American. In 2020, they served more than 700 service members and veterans and their work has reduced clients’ suicide risk by an average of 27%.
    • Treatment Advocacy Center: The Treatment Advocacy Center is a nonprofit dedicated to eliminating legal and other barriers to the timely and effective treatment of severe mental illness. The organization promotes laws, policies and practices for the delivery of psychiatric care and supports the development of innovative treatments for and research into the causes of severe and persistent psychiatric illnesses, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. In the past year, the organization was involved in passing 12 priority bills related to mental illness, including a federal bill and bills in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, Virginia and Washington.

    Thought leaders and other resources related to approaches to mental health:

    • Dr. Sally Satel reviews Dr. Thomas Insel’s book “Healing: Out Path From Mental Illness to Mental Health” for The Wall Street Journal, discussing how few patients get the care they need.
    • Naomi Schaefer Riley’s op-ed in New York Post entitled “Too Many Children Are at Risk Because of Their Parents’ Mental Illness” discusses mental trauma passed on through generations.
    • DJ Jaffe’s TED Talk at the National Council for Mental Wellbeing evaluates how society may be responsible for misleading government officials into denying violence, rather than taking steps to reduce it with those who are severely mentally ill.
    • The New York Times highlighted the influence of psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey and his research over the past 40 years into involuntary psychiatric treatment policies for people with schizophrenia and other mental illnesses
    • A report published by Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Stephen Eide and Adjunct Fellow Carolyn D. Gorman articulates a concept to help those with serious mental health issues before, during and after crisis by focusing on a “Continuum of Care.”
    • Philanthropy Roundtable hosted a webinar discussing the effects of COVID-19 on the national economy and its relation to rising rates of diseases and deaths of despair.
    • Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Stephen Eide wrote a New York Post op-ed entitled “NYC can be a pioneer in the treatment of the seriously mentally ill,” which considers New York City Mayor Eric Adam’s plan for the city to be more proactive in dealing with psychotic individuals.
    • A Manhattan Institute report by Isabel McDevitt, co-founder of Work Works America, writes about the homeless in America who are able and willing to work, but policy fails to address the employment-based solutions that could better serve them.

    If you are interested in learning more about how Philanthropy Roundtable supports donors committed to addressing our nation’s mental health crisis, please contact Esther Larson, program director at Philanthropy Roundtable here.