Clear all

35 results found

reorder grid_view

Legal and Policy Barriers to Self-Managed Abortion

September 13, 2022

We envision a world where individuals seeking abortion care can exercise full reproductive autonomy without any impediments or gatekeepers. This includes the ability of individuals to have self-managed abortions, which are those performed through self-care interventions or without clinical supervision, particularly early in pregnancy through medication abortion. Self-managed abortion is grounded in an array of human rights, including the rights to health, equality and non-discrimination, information, privacy, and to benefit from scientific progress.This mapping aims to better understand the global legal landscape on self-managed abortion, with a focus on medication abortion1 as the safest form of self-managed abortion. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that individuals have the option to self-manage abortion using medication abortion at least during their first 12 weeks of pregnancy. The WHO recognizes that individuals can safely and effectively self-assess their eligibility for abortion and self-administer abortion medication, demonstrating that self-managed abortion is a critical tool for enabling individuals to safely exercise reproductive freedom.Yet, as this mapping shows, even in countries with liberal abortion laws, guaranteeing access to medication abortion and enabling individuals to self-manage abortion care requires a reconceptualization of legal and policy frameworks on abortion.

Britons and Refugees: The last six months

July 1, 2022

Our research shows that when it comes to immigration simply proposing ever more punitive measures won't hold the Tory coalition together. While the Rwanda plan might resonate with some parts of the Tory base it is toxic to others. Instead, a policy that could reach across both blue and red walls needs to balance tough action against people smugglers and detering small boats with compassion and humane treatment for those fleeing persecution.

Building a Youth-Led Fund: Learning and insights frpm the Challenge and Change Fund

May 24, 2022

History illuminates the capacity and courage of young people to drive positive change in the world, but for far too long their ideas have been restricted or constrained within the structures of the broader social sector. Power is often held by adult-led social purpose organisations - be they funders, charities, enterprises, or public bodies - that end up speaking on behalf of young people and controlling or containing their ideas about what change is needed and how to make it.Challenge and Change set out to address this by moving decision-making power and resources to young people. It was intended as a youth-led fund dedicated to supporting the limitless energy of young campaigners who are affected by injustices and working tirelessly across England to create positive change. The fund's charitable purpose is 'advancement of citizenship' .Since the launch of Challenge and Change in 2020, many funders and social sector leads have reached out to Blagrave keen to understand the journey of the fund in its pilot year. This report has been produced by Blagrave and CfKE to share our learning with those working on, or interested in, supporting the development of youth-led funds.This report seeks to capture both the deeper reflections that this fund has generated as well as some of the finer details of design, launch, implementation, and review. This includes honesty about what went well, what didn't, and where there are further questions to reflect on.

Ending Street Homelessness in Vanguard Cities Across the Globe: An International Comparative Study

April 5, 2022

Street homelessness is one of the most extreme, and visible, manifestations of profound injustice on the planet, but often struggles to achieve priority attention at international level. The Institute of Global Homelessness (IGH's) A Place to Call Home initiative, launched in 2017, represented a concerted effort to support cities across the globe to eradicate street homelessness. A first cohort of 13 'Vanguard Cities' committed to a specific target on ending or reducing street homelessness by December 2020. Our independent evaluation of this initiative found that:Two Vanguard Cities – Glasgow and Sydney – fully met their self-defined target reductions for end 2020. In addition, Greater Manchester, while it did not meet its exceptionally ambitious goal of 'ending all rough sleeping', recorded an impressive 52% reduction against baseline.Overall, there was evidence of reductions in targeted aspects of street homelessness in over half of the Vanguard Cities. In most of the remaining cities data limitations, sometimes as a result of COVID, meant that it was not possible to determine trends. In only one Vanguard City – Edmonton – was there an evidenced increase in street homelessness over baseline levels.Key enablers of progress in reducing street homelessness included the presence of a lead coordinating agency, and coordinated entry to homelessness services, alongside investment in specialized and evidence-based interventions, such as assertive street outreach services, individual case management and Housing First.Key barriers to progress included heavy reliance on undignified and sometimes unsafe communal shelters, a preoccupation with meeting immediate physiological needs, and sometimes perceived spiritual needs, rather than structural and system change, and a lack of emphasis on prevention. Aggressive enforcement interventions by police and city authorities, and documentary and identification barriers, were also counter-productive to attempts to reduce street homelessness.A key contextual variable between the Vanguard Cities was political will, with success in driving down street homelessness associated with high-level political commitments. An absolute lack of funds was a major challenge in all of the Global South cities, but also in resource-poor settings in the Global North. Almost all Vanguard Cities cited pressures on the affordable housing stock as a key barrier to progress, but local lettings and other policies could make a real difference.The impact of the COVID-19 crisis differed markedly across the Vanguard Cities, with people at risk of street homelessness most effectively protected in the UK and Australian cities. Responses were less inclusive and ambitious in the North American and Global South cities, with more continued use of 'shared air' shelters, albeit that in some of these contexts the pandemic prompted better coordination of local efforts to address street homelessness.IGH involvement was viewed as instrumental in enhancing the local profile, momentum and level of ambition attached to reducing street homelessness in the Vanguard Cities. IGH's added value to future cohorts of cities could be maximised via a focus on more tailored forms of support specific to the needs of each city, and also to different types of stakeholders, particularly frontline workers.

Policies for Cooperative Ownership in the Digital Economy

December 6, 2021

The past decade gave rise to the so-called 'gig economy'—a cluster of service sector jobs contingent workers fulfill through digital platforms. Firms like Uber, TaskRabbit, and GrubHub established themselves as two-way intermediaries between workers and customers with the promise of revolutionizing work itself. While the gig economy has provided some convenience and savings to customers and flexibility to workers, the rise of the gig economy has also been disastrous. Using legal loopholes, well-funded lobbying efforts, and publicity campaigns, platform companies have eroded labor protections, worsened environmental conditions, and undermined public services. In contrast to the early, high-minded dreams of a 'sharing economy,' the gig economy is in effect defined by precarity and exploitation.On the one hand, these problems have been exacerbated by the Covid-19 crisis. Gig workers were on the frontline of the emergency, delivering groceries, cleaning supplies, and preparing food. They were, however, also the workers who were most exposed to the economic dislocation of the pandemic.On the other hand, effective government response has caused a tightening labor market that leaves some platforms without a sufficient supply of cheap labor. The promise of tech companies was that they would become hegemonic service providers, and thus their losses would be justified with long-term profits. Many of these already unprofitable firms face a real danger of failure just as their aggressive expansion has weakened public infrastructure, leaving vital gaps in essential services.Our report provides a path forward at this critical juncture: the active promotion of platform cooperatives. Platform cooperatives are democratically-governed organizations owned by workers, customers, and other stakeholders. These entities match workers and customers and return a greater share of income to workers, increase worker protections, and build communities. Though still early in their development, platform cooperatives build on the proven business models of cooperatives to establish alternatives to the gig economy and its supporting digital infrastructure.Platform cooperatives are critical to creating a fairer economy and building back better from the pandemic. However, they require active government intervention to be able to compete with well-funded and established private platforms.This report suggests that governments on every level, from national to municipal, can take measures to empower platform cooperatives.

Understanding vaccine hesitancy through communities of place

November 19, 2021

This UK-US collaborative study examining vaccine engagement highlights the importance of tapping into local knowledge and leadership in efforts to improve Covid-19 vaccine take-up. It explores levels of vaccine engagement in four locations: Oldham and Tower Hamlets in the UK, and the cities of Boston and Hartford in the US.

Mirror, Mirror 2021: Reflecting Poorly - Health Care in the U.S. Compared to Other High-Income Countries

August 4, 2021

Issue: No two countries are alike when it comes to organizing and delivering health care for their people, creating an opportunity to learn about alternative approaches.Goal: To compare the performance of health care systems of 11 high-income countries.Methods: Analysis of 71 performance measures across five domains — access to care, care process, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes — drawn from Commonwealth Fund international surveys conducted in each country and administrative data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Health Organization.Key Findings: The top-performing countries overall are Norway, the Netherlands, and Australia. The United States ranks last overall, despite spending far more of its gross domestic product on health care. The U.S. ranks last on access to care, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes, but second on measures of care process.Conclusion: Four features distinguish top performing countries from the United States: 1) they provide for universal coverage and remove cost barriers; 2) they invest in primary care systems to ensure that high-value services are equitably available in all communities to all people; 3) they reduce administrative burdens that divert time, efforts, and spending from health improvement efforts; and 4) they invest in social services, especially for children and working-age adults.

More than Grants: How Funders Can Support Grantee Effectiveness

December 14, 2017

Trusts and foundations are increasingly looking to become agents of social change themselves as well as funders of it—asking themselves whether providing more than direct services might make more of a difference. Two common ways that funders do this are through providing support to help organisations develop their capacity, and by using a funder's influence to advocate for change. Here we focus on the former, looking at organisational development support provided by funders from around the world—exploring the types of support given, the evidence for whether it works, and how funders can approach impact measurement.

More than Grants: How Funders Can Use Their Influence for Good

December 14, 2017

Trusts and foundations are increasingly looking to become agents of social change themselves as well as funders of it—asking themselves whether providing more than direct services might make more of a difference. Two common ways that funders do this are through providing support to help organisations develop their capacity, and by using a funder's influence to advocate for change. Here we focus on the latter, looking at influencing practices of funders from around the world—exploring the methods that these take, the evidence for whether it works and how funders can approach impact measurement.

Learning From Our Funding : Insight Report 1

May 1, 2017

In 2016 Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, together with the Blagrave Trust, surveyed UK charities on whether funder were fit for the 21st Century. From the (anonymised) responses, it appeared clearly that many charities feel that funders are getting it wrong on learning.They have written this report for the organisations they fund. They have made a lot of changes over the last two years towards a goal of shared learning and they want the people they fund to see what they are learning from what they have been told, and how they are starting to make changes as a result. They hope this report will also be useful to other funders as well.

CAF UK Giving 2017 - An overview of charitable giving in the UK

April 1, 2017

CAF has been producing the UK Giving report since 2004, and has been tracking giving in the UK for several decades. In that time, there have been a number of changes to how the study is conducted in terms of approach and questions asked. As it is mentioned within last year's report, they listened to charities and their thirst for greater knowledge about giving behaviours in the UK and took the decision to move to a monthly tracking study rather than interviewing at four separate points in the year. This report covers the first year in which the research has been conducted monthly through YouGov's online panel.

Suicide Statistics Report 2017

March 29, 2017

Suicide Statistics Report 2017: Including data for 2013-2015