No result found
Examines the roles immigrant-serving nonprofits play in facilitating integration. Surveys programs and services, geographic and ethnic distribution, composition of personnel, sources of funding and support, impact of policy environments, and challenges.
American University School of Communications;
Compares broadband service performance and pricing in terms of connection speed and cost of one megabit per second in the Washington, D.C. area by provider and geographical area. Lists speeds recommended in the FCC's National Broadband Plan.
In 2008, Lumina asked SPEC Associates (SPEC) to evaluate the foundation's grant making aimed at improving the productivity of higher education through statewide policy and program change. The initiative was initially known as Making Opportunity Affordable and later became known more broadly as Lumina's higher education productivity initiative. Eleven states received planning grants in 2008 and a year later seven of these states received multi-year grants to implement their productivity plans. In 2009, Lumina published Four Steps to Finishing First in Higher Education to frame the content of its productivity work. In 2010, the foundation, working with HCM Strategists, launched the Strategy Labs Network to deliver just-in-time technical assistance, engagement, informationsharing and convenings to states. Lumina engaged SPEC to evaluate these productivity investments in the seven states through exploring this over-arching question: What public will building, advocacy, public policy changes, and system or statewide practices are likely to impact higher education productivity for whom and in what circumstances, and which of these are likely to be sustainable, transferable, and/or scalable?
Feeding America (formerly America's Second Harvest);
This report presents information on the clients and agencies served by the Maryland Food
Bank. The information is drawn from a national study, Hunger in America 2006, conducted for
America's Second Harvest (A2H), the nation's largest organization of emergency food
providers. The national study is based on completed in-person interviews with more than 52,000 clients served by the A2H food bank network, as well as on completed questionnaires from more than 30,000 A2H agencies. The study summarized below focuses mainly on emergency food providers and their clients who are supplied with food by food banks in the A2H network.
Key Findings: The A2H system served by the Maryland Food Bank provides emergency food for
an estimated 235,100 different people annually.25% of the members of households served by the Maryland Food Bank are
children under 18 years old (Table 5.3.2).39% of client households include at least one employed adult (Table 5.7.1).Among client households with children, 80% are food insecure and 35% are
experiencing hunger (Table 6.1.1).51% of clients served by the Maryland Food Bank report having to choose
between paying for food and paying for utilities or heating fuel (Table 6.5.1).48% had to choose between paying for food and paying for medicine or medical
care (Table 6.5.1).31% of households served by the Maryland Food Bank report having at least one
household member in poor health (Table 8.1.1)The Maryland Food Bank included approximately 994 agencies at the
administration of this survey, of which 606 have responded to the agency survey.
Of the responding agencies, 416 had at least one food pantry, soup kitchen, or
shelter.79% of pantries, 74% of kitchens, and 43% of shelters are run by faith-based
agencies affiliated with churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious
organizations (Table 10.6.1).65% of pantries, 64% of kitchens, and 65% of shelters of the Maryland Food Bank
reported that there had been an increase since 2001 in the number of clients who
come to their emergency food program sites (Table 10.8.1).Food banks are by far the single most important source of food for the agencies,
accounting for 71% of the food used by pantries, 46% of kitchens' food, and 34%
of shelters' food (Table 13.1.1).For the Maryland Food Bank, 90% of pantries, 83% of kitchens, and 76% of
shelters use volunteers (Table 13.2.1).
Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice;
Lee's review of this report finds it relies on misleading data and unreliable methodology. Lee indicates that, "the report's methods are so simplistic, arbitrary and poorly fitting to the report's own assumptions that it is more harmful to sound policymaking than helpful."
Feeding America (formerly America's Second Harvest);
This report presents information on the clients and agencies served by The Maryland Food Bank. The information is drawn from a national study, Hunger in America 2010, conducted in 2009 for Feeding America (FA) (formerly America's Second Harvest), the nation's largest organization of emergency food providers. The national study is based on completed inperson interviews with more than 62,000 clients served by the FA national network, as well as on completed questionnaires from more than 37,000 FA agencies. The study summarized below focuses on emergency food providers and their clients who are supplied with food by food banks in the FA network.
The FA system served by The Maryland Food Bank provides emergency food for an estimated 261,000 different people annually.27% of the members of households served by The Maryland Food Bank are children under 18 years old (Table 5.3.2).36% of households include at least one employed adult (Table 5.7.1).Among households with children, 60% are food insecure and 20% are food insecure with very low food security (Table 220.127.116.11).32% of clients served by The Maryland Food Bank report having to choose between paying for food and paying for utilities or heating fuel (Table 6.5.1).24% had to choose between paying for food and paying for medicine or medical care (Table 6.5.1).27% of households served by The Maryland Food Bank report having at least one household member in poor health (Table 8.1.1)The Maryland Food Bank included approximately 691 agencies at the administration of this survey, of which 407 have responded to the agency survey. Of the responding agencies, 347 had at least one food pantry, soup kitchen, or shelter.85% of pantries, 85% of kitchens, and 37% of shelters are run by faith-based agencies affiliated with churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations (Table 10.6.1).Among programs that existed in 2006, 81% of pantries, 73% of kitchens, and 67% of shelters of The Maryland Food Bank reported that there had been an increase since 2006 in the number of clients who come to their emergency food program sites (Table 10.8.1).Food banks are by far the single most important source of food for agencies with emergency food providers, accounting for 72% of the food distributed by pantries, 45% of the food distributed by kitchens, and 37% of the food distributed by shelters (Table 13.1.1).As many as 93% of pantries, 92% of kitchens, and 73% of shelters in The Maryland Food Bank use volunteers (Table 13.2.1).
National Council on Crime and Delinquency;
NCCD, one of the nation's oldest and most respected criminal justice research organizations, has reviewed the bed space needs forecast reported in Maryland's Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPS) Project Program for New Youth Detention Center (Revised December, 2007) and found serious methodological fl aws that put into question the accuracy of its projections. A forecast based on a sound method would almost certainly produce substantially different estimates of future bed space needs for youth transferred to the adult system in Baltimore.
DPS projected that a new youth detention center would require at least 180 cells for youth who are awaiting trial in the adult criminal justice system. The new facility design creates a capacity of 230 youth.
After a brief summary of findings, this NCCD report describes shortcomings of the DPS forecast in the light of best practices in the field.
Summary of Findings
The forecast was made in 2007 and therefore does not account for changes in the past three years. The DPS forecast assumes rises in key factors which actually have been dropping in recent years, such as Baltimore's youth population and youth arrests.
Inappropriate aggregate analysis.
The DPS forecast attempts to estimate bed space needs in two facilities -- one for youth, one for women -- using a single forecast. Youth and women differ in many ways relevant to the system and therefore should be analyzed separately.
Incorrect population data.
The DPS projection uses aggregate population data, including youth of all ages and adults. Instead, the forecast should be based only on the segment of the Baltimore population eligible for the proposed youth facility.
Incorrect arrest data.
The DPS forecast uses a single level of analysis based on arrests for all ages, including adults. The forecast should be based on system data only for the types of offenders the facility will serve.
Apparent lack of an independent researcher.
The DPS report does not indicate who conducted the forecast; no outside consultant is mentioned. Research and analysis by independent researchers provides the best assurance possible that no unintentional bias impacts the process.
No consideration of alternatives.
The DPS forecast does not consider changes in policy and practice that would most likely reduce commitments and length of stay such as: risk assessment and standardized decision making in detention decisions; court processing reforms; diversion for substance abusers and mentally ill youth; and increased use of alternatives such as community supervision, house arrest, and electronic/GPS monitoring.
NCCD concludes that the DPS forecast cannot be relied upon to accurately estimate future facility needs in Baltimore. Perhaps the strongest indication that the 2007 DPS forecast is unreliable is that recent population trends in the current facility -- that is, the number of youth being held at the Baltimore City Detention Center -- show a strong decline. While DPS projected a need for 178 beds by 2010, as of May of this year there were just 92 youth held in the current facility, just over 50% of the DPS forecast.1 We strongly recommend that DPS conduct a new forecast using current, youth-specific data, and more reliable methodology.
Migration Policy Institute;
This report examines the ways in which local educational institutions, legal service providers, and immigrant youth advocates have responded to the first phase of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Based on extensive interviews with stakeholders in seven states -- California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Texas -- the report identifies initiatives undertaken by educational institutions and other community stakeholders to support DACA youth's education and training success, and examine the impact of deferred action on grantees' academic and career pursuits. It provides examples of promising practices, additional challenges, and key takeaways at the high school, postsecondary, and adult education levels, as well as an exploration of the nature and scope of DACA legal outreach initiatives.
Washington Area Women's Foundation;
This issue brief explaines how early care and education investments help prepare low-income children ages zero to five for kindergarten, a critical opportunity to increase readiness and close the achievement gap, provide an important work support for low-income working families and support the professional development and advancement of early care and education providers.
This report is part of a series of 21 state and regional studies examining the rollout of the ACA. The national network -- with 36 states and 61 researchers -- is led by the Rockefeller Institute of Government, the public policy research arm of the State University of New York, the Brookings Institution, and the Fels Institute of Government at the University of Pennsylvania.
There is clear alignment among most groups and institutions on the state's adoption and implementation of the ACA. Because of its all-payer rate system, competition between private plans and exchange plans is muted. Some conservative elements in the Democratic-heavy legislature oppose rate-setting and the state's generous Medicaid expansions as well as its affirmation of the ACA. But with strong Democratic majorities in both houses, together with Democrats in the governor's and lieutenant governor's offices and professionals with policy and political expertise, the state's progressive reformers are clear winners. The state's inclusive and generous eligibility decisions will afford coverage to a broad portion of the state's uninsured populations. Advocates for these groups also win. In the case of Maryland, the "stars were aligned" to formulate an aggressive and expansive approach to the law. Minority opposition simply could not mount effective challenges to these forces.
California HealthCare Foundation;
Inaccurate provider directories can lead to consumer frustration and confusion, and result in substantial out-of-pocket costs for consumers who may unintentionally seek and receive out-of-network care. Yet it has proven challenging for organizations -- carriers, state Medicaid agencies, and ACA-created insurance marketplaces -- to maintain accurate and up-to-date provider directories.
This report examines policy, operational, business, and technical obstacles to well-functioning, integrated provider directories and how they have been overcome in four states: Colorado, Maryland, New York, and Washington. It details the perspectives and experiences of consumer advocates, carriers, providers, state-based marketplaces (SBMs), and state Medicaid agencies in those states, with the goal of informing California policymakers and stakeholders as they seek to improve consumer access to accurate provider network information.