Table of Contents
Phase I: The Human Rights Donor Education Initiative Summary Report I. Executive Summary ……………………………………… 3-‐4 II. Market Interest and Need ………………………… 5-‐6 III. The Human Rights Landscape …………………… 7-‐9 IV. Individual Human Rights Philanthropy ……… 10-‐11 V. Program Findings ……………………………………… 12-‐17 VI. Conclusion ……………………………………………….. 18 VII. Appendix ………………………………………………….. 19 VIII. Recommended Sources …………………………….. 20-‐23
Executive Summary Article 3 Advisors, Humanity United and The Philanthropy Workshop West are collaborating on the Human Rights Donor Education Initiative (HRDEI) projected to launch as a pilot program in 2013. The goal of the program is to educate and deepen donor knowledge of complex human rights issues, advance the most effective philanthropic tools and strategies, expand the number of strategic human rights investors and increase donor sophistication. During the first of three phases, Article 3 gathered information from donors and human rights experts to gauge the interest and need for such program. We researched the broader human rights landscape and movement as it relates to donors, gaining insight and valuable impressions of the field and human rights philanthropy. Experts confirmed that sustaining the gains of the modern human rights movement and strengthening implementation and enforcement will ensure the actualization of rights. This phase is necessary to the advancement of the human rights movement and presents potential opportunities for donors. Our efforts resulted in a framework to be refined and developed in Phase II and implemented in Phase III. The framework includes recommendations on program features, structure, content and curriculum. Donors and experts (both veteran and emerging) were carefully selected to be interviewed for information gathering purposes. Specifically, the donor pool consists of key stakeholders, TPWW alum and potential program prospects interested in human rights and social justice issues. Their roles range from founders of human rights related organizations to board members of NGOs to human rights philanthropists. The selected human rights experts are a mix of notable experts, academics and practitioners working in the field. Twenty donors and twenty experts were interviewed over the course of a month each fitting a combination of the following profiles: Expert and Practitioner-‐ An expert has a renowned depth of expertise in human rights and/or philanthropy and is someone the media contacts for commentary. A practitioner is a person with professional experience working in the field that is less well known as an expert, but still has field knowledge. Connector-‐ has name recognition, high visibility and is well known in his/her respective field. They also have the ability to mobilize others and serve as a catalyst for others to Program Prospect-‐ potential donor participant in the HRDEI. Program Structure-‐ they have participated in or created structured programs and can provide logistical insight. They can provide input on potential HRDEI content including topics, resources, speakers, etc.
Marketing Development-‐ they can help drive marketing and engagement efforts by leveraging their influence. They also have the ability to garner interest and appetite for HRDEI by defining the market, the benefits and the opportunities/challenges.
Each interview lasted one hour and included 10-‐14 questions addressing the broad human rights landscape, specific focus areas, teaching human rights, donor relations, interest and need, logistics, outcomes and features. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, compiled and analyzed for key program findings, appetite for interest and need, themes and insights that serve as the foundation for this report and program recommendations. Some noteworthy insights explored further in this report include: v There is overwhelming need for and interest in a program such as the HRDEI. Ninety-‐five percent of the experts believe that the HRDEI is needed and 90% of the donors are interested in such program. v The field is in need of sophisticated donors who are strategic, knowledgeable, effective and confident with their investments. v The human rights landscape is filled with strengths, weaknesses and threats and also opportunities for donors. v The current state of donor behavior includes some shortcomings. Most donors have limited bandwidth (time, capacity, knowledge) and thus suffer from donor fatigue. Donors aren’t always aligned with the needs in the field and they are overwhelmed by the saturation of human rights organizations creating a “signal to noise” effect. v Most donors are interested in global issues affecting women and children and emerging issues related to environmental degradation and its effect on human suffering, yet they are also interested in domestic issues such as prison reform and migrant rights. v Experts advised teaching human rights through impact story telling. These insights to the broader human rights field, donor behavior and the structuring of the HRDEI are meant to inform Phases II and III of the program development process. In doing so, we are confident that the HRDEI will coach donor sophistication. A higher level of donor sophistication will strengthen the alignment among donors and between key players in the field, long-‐term, sustainable investments, donor confidence and collective impact.
Market Interest and Need Through conducting the interviews, Article 3 was able to determine that there is overwhelming need and interest for a human rights donor education program. Specifically, of the 20 donors interviewed 19 of them expressed interest in participating in the HRDEI. Similarly, of the 20 experts/practitioners interviewed, 18 of them expressed need for the existence of such program. Overall, experts and practitioners believe that there is great need for a human rights donor education program to increase donor sophistication and understanding. Similarly, the overall response from donors affirmed a thirst to deepen their knowledge in human rights.
95% of donors expressed interest 90% of experts expressed need Experts acknowledged that the need for this program is partly due to the changing human rights funding landscape and also because there are too few funders in this space. Foundations that traditionally funded human rights issues are either spending down, experiencing funding reductions or shifting their focus. Thus, individual donors are becoming an increasingly valuable resource as traditional sources change. In their report, “Human Rights and International Justice: Challenges and Opportunities at an Inflection Point,” Fanton and Katznelson discuss the changing landscape and conclude, “individual donors represent a critical growth area for the field.” Some of the experts interviewed verified that the role of individuals is becoming increasingly more important in human rights philanthropy. Thus, HRDEI has the added potential not only to promote growth vis a vis individual donors as Fanton and Katznelson highlight but also to increase the level of sophistication among donors.
Building upon TPWW’s tested donor education model, a sophisticated donor formulates strategic plans for achieving philanthropic goals; seeks out the most effective investment tools; conducts due diligence prior to an investment in order to assess the capacity of a group and deliver results; knows that change does not come over night and thus invests with long-‐ term sustainability in mind; has built a network of peers and experts to help problem solve, course-‐correct and co-‐invest; has thought through and assessed the potential unintended consequences of the efforts; is knowledgeable of the human rights field and knows the distinction between the key players; is confident with the investments and the goals and strategies are aligned with available resources. The commitment to due diligence, long-‐term investments and understanding of the human rights field are traits of a sophisticated human rights donor.
In a nebulous field such as human rights, depth of knowledge and understanding of human rights fundamentals is a critical component of donor sophistication. However, most of the interviewed donors stated that their human rights knowledge is below average. Becoming more knowledgeable in human rights is one of the biggest reasons donors are interested in the HRDEI. On a scale of 1-‐5 with 1 being the least knowledgeable and 5 being the most, the donors averaged a 2.07 when ranking their understanding of human rights. They described their lack of knowledge as “broad but not deep,” “lacking historic context,” “knows a little
about a lot,” “extremely inexperienced,” “lacking foundation,” “hungry for more,” and “just scratching the surface.” From the interviews, we found that donors are not confident in their level of expertise and are thirsty for a higher level of human rights understanding. The experts believe that a donor who better understands the field will be more impactful with their giving, narrowing the gap between expert assessment and donor behavior. Lastly, a program that focuses on human rights donor education does not yet exist in the United States. This places the HRDEI in a uniquely advantageous position to become the first-‐of-‐its-‐kind in the field.
The Human Rights Landscape
A number of broad, overarching themes surfaced from the experts during the interview process. These themes provide valuable insight into the field’s strengths, weaknesses, threats and perhaps most importantly, opportunities. It is important to understand the broader themes before honing in on individual human rights philanthropy. The themes are detailed below and the opportunities for donors are outlined in Figure 1. 1. The reigning achievement of the human rights movement is that a universal recognition of human rights exists and that there is a robust global civil society sector. v 2. Sustaining the global gains achieved in the human rights field over the last several decades is one of the greatest challenges facing the movement. v 3. The linkage between environmental degradation and human rights is a significant and growing concern on the minds of most experts as well as donors. Experts believe environmental and human rights issues are intertwined and goals to alleviate human suffering are complimentary. Thus, there is need for more cross-‐sector collaboration and research. v 4. Poverty and inequality are two issues found at the core of many human rights problems. They are often contributing systemic factors when addressing a variety of issues such as conflict, incarceration or slavery. v 5. Moving beyond frameworks and aspirations to implementation and enforcement for people to claim their rights is the next needed frontier. Experts say there needs to be solid human rights structures and mechanisms in place for people to actualize their rights.
6. Understanding the difference between democracy and majoritarianism presents a serious challenge to the human rights community. With the rise of the Arab Spring, many experts are cautious of confusing majoritarianism with a functioning democracy. Experts state that newly formed governments should not mistake an election by a majority as a blanket mandate to restrict the freedoms and rights of citizens. In a democracy, there are rules, duties and limitations. v 7. “Development-‐at-‐any-‐cost” country behavior is a serious concern. Economic development should not trump political freedom, rather both should be prioritized. v 8. The disparity between civil/political rights and social/economic rights should be made whole to fully realize universal rights. The inability to reconcile civil/political rights with social/economic rights is a significant failure, according to experts. v 9. The shift of geopolitical levers and power is both a threat and an opportunity to the field. Western powers are no longer the leading influential actors and new actors are emerging from the Global South (for example, Brazil, India and South Africa). v 10. There are limitations to the “name and shame” method and the creation of innovative social/economic incentives is gaining momentum. While “naming and shaming” is effective in many instances, creating social/economic incentives may prove more effective in a globalized, financially interconnected world. v 11. Though the movement has succeeded in awareness building, finding solutions and creating actual change is still a challenge. With all the complexities and the perpetually changing state of the human rights field, securing solutions that support long-‐term change can be difficult. v 12. The field suffers from Band-‐Aid approaches to address symptoms when systemic change is needed. While the humanitarian approach is critically important it often serves as a short-‐term solution. The human rights approach focuses on systemic change to address the root causes of the issue. Both of these approaches are important to support and bolster.
Figure 1: The Human Rights Landscape in Relation to the Donor
Caption: Article 3 responds to the expert’s assessment of the human rights landscape and movement by suggesting the following opportunities for donors. It is recommended that TPWW focus on these donor opportunities to help advance the movement and strengthen the implementation and enforcement of universal human rights.
Individual Human Rights Philanthropy In the previous section, Article 3 identified themes from the human rights field, broadly speaking. Some of those themes addressed the individualized nature of donor behavior and interests, which significantly influence how nonprofit organizations carry out their missions, impact the field and advance the human rights movement. Using these general themes as a foundation, we have identified specific findings in human rights philanthropy as it relates to the donor. A higher level of donor sophistication can affect these patterns for the betterment of the field. First, donors have limited bandwidth (time, capacity and knowledge) given the complexity of the field and enormity of the issues. This can lead to donor fatigue, “herd mentality” and funding “flavor of the month” issues, even if those issues may not be high priority in the field. Experts stated that “patient capital” or sustainable, long-‐term investments are needed in the field. Donors lacking a sustainable and strategic plan minimize their impact. Second, a disconnect exists between donor behavior and expert opinion about the needs in the field. This disconnect leads to less funding towards operations, increases the amount of restrictive funding and NGOs catering to the funders interests in order to maintain their investment. Once donors have an advanced grasp on the broader human rights field, the role of various institutions and the complexities of particular human rights issues the more NGO needs may align. HRDEI will help narrow the gap between expert assessment of the field and donor behavior by advancing donor sophistication. Third, the market place for human rights organizations is as diverse as the movement in focus, scope and scale resulting in a “signal to noise” effect. Donors are overwhelmed by the amount of human rights organizations and have a difficult time identifying the organizations best aligned with their interests. By virtue of convenience, simplicity and “brand” loyalty funders vacillate between following the majority and supporting isolated initiatives.
Matching donor interest to NGO priorities is a conundrum in the field.
The upside to the aforementioned findings is that donors want to gain a high level of human rights understanding. Specifically, donors are interested in mapping the key players in the human rights space, gaining a better grasp on the overall human rights landscape, learning about both international and domestic issues, becoming more strategic in their philanthropic efforts and having access to a like-‐ minded network of peers. The donors interviewed affirmed their thirst for a structured, disciplined and focused human rights donor education program.
Figure 2: The Human Rights Movement and Donor Sophistication Caption: Throughout the human rights movement, from the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the enforcement stage, donors and civil society have played a key role. Sustaining the gains of the modern human rights movement and strengthening implementation and enforcement to ensure that rights are realized presents potential opportunities for sophisticated donors.
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but bends towards justice.” – Martin Luther King Jr.
Content Through the interview process, a number of specific findings related to the program structure surfaced. These program findings are meant to inform the subsequent design and implementation phases of the HRDEI development process. v There is an interest in both domestic and international issues. v Donors are eager to learn directly from human rights experts; they want to hear from practitioners working on the ground and also from those affected by human rights violations. v Donors prefer a specialized program built upon the core TPWW program. The donors interviewed have completed the core program and look forward to taking a deeper dive into human rights. v There is no interest in a 4-‐week module program; 2-‐3 one-‐week modules are preferred. v There is an appetite to hold sessions in multiple locations (outside SF). TPWW alum wants a program that “shakes things up” in terms of location settings. v Engagement via field trips and site visits is important. Donors indicated a preference on participating in a more active learning environment and reducing the amount of classroom-‐type workshops. Additionally, this group of donors has extensive travel experience and doesn’t feel it necessary to travel abroad for this program. v Donors are interested in piggybacking on well-‐known human rights programs and trips such as the Clinton Global Initiative Conference, The Skoll World Forum and Humanity United trips. v There is a strong preference to focus more on human rights education and less on philanthropic tools. v Potential participants would pay $10-‐15k for a human rights donor education program.
Suggestions on content areas from experts and stated interest areas among donors are plentiful. The content focus areas have been divided into three categories: Primary, Secondary and Geographic. Though there are a multitude of issue areas, the primary focus areas garnered the most interest among donors and also received affirmation from experts. Issues that were less mentioned, but still noteworthy are listed in the secondary category. Lastly, many donors expressed interest in geographic regions (as did the experts) though didn’t specify the issue area within that region. The last category, “Geographic Content Areas” lists the regions of interest, which can be woven into the human rights curriculum.
Primary Content Areas Women and children Criminal justice (including prison reform and immigration) Human trafficking/modern day slavery
Secondary Content Areas Conflict prevention Poverty and inequality International justice Migrant rights Internet freedom and technology Food justice
Geographic Content Areas The Democratic Republic of the Congo/Africa Syria/ The Middle East Haiti Mexico The United States
Teaching Methods: The importance of impact story telling was a point that surfaced among experts and donors alike. Experts believe teaching methods that tap into the donor’s emotions via case studies, impact stories/affected voices, site visits, etc. are most effective in imparting the human rights perspective. Donors echoed that sentiment by stating that they want to hear directly from experts, from people on-‐the-‐ground and from those affected by the human rights issue at hand. Other methods are based in traditional academia. All of these methods could be combined for maximum efficiency. While the specific methods differ, the majority of the interviewees stressed the importance of teaching human rights through a diverse lens. Imparting human rights knowledge through varying contexts and with a diverse instructor pool will build well-‐rounded donor perspectives, present a more multi-‐layered view on the complexities of human rights and donors will better understand their own role in human rights philanthropy. Experts emphasized the importance of clearly illustrating how change actually happens. Impact stories should highlight more than just the plight or problem. They should answer the question “why do human rights matter” and then examine the elements of the survivor’s story including: the historical context, the current state of the issue, the actors on the ground, the role of institutions, the outcome, etc. It is important to show the connection or trajectory from the problem to the solution. Some of the interviewees also suggested showing TED talks due to their informative and professional format and their ability to provide a thorough overview of the issue in a short amount of time. There is strong agreement that readings and academic methods are important in learning the historical context, theoretical framework and the varying types of human rights. One of the professors interviewed suggested building a curriculum based on human rights theory and then presenting case studies that illustrate how the theory was put into practice. Also important in human rights academia is to break down terms to their most basic meaning. A few experts mentioned that the legal jargon of international court systems could detract from the issue. Simplifying the terms (though not the issue) will create a less overwhelming environment for donors that aren’t lawyers or human rights experts. Rather, experts suggested exploring issues where there is public debate as they can be most fascinating due to their traction.
Intersecting Themes In addition to the above focus areas we recommend threading the following broad thematic issues into the curriculum: 1. Poverty and Inequality (social and economic rights juxtaposed with civil and political rights) 2. Conflict and Civilian Protection (prevention, intervention, reconstruction) 3. Justice and Accountability (principles, mechanisms, institutions) 4. Global Natural Resource Rights (equitable distribution to responsible management and extraction) 5. Humanitarian Crises (manmade and natural) through the human rights lens (protection, security, aid access, journalist/investigator access). 6. Gender based sexual violence Examples Below are a few hybrid topics and ideas created by combining specific focus areas with the intersecting themes above; all through the lens of advancing the human rights movement. 1. Women and children caught in violent conflict (Democratic Republic of the Congo). 2. The pursuit of peace with justice in post-‐war societies (West Africa). 3. The environmental footprint and human rights implications of modern day slavery/human trafficking (Southeast Asia). 4. Disenfranchisement, poverty, and inequality in the U.S. prison system (civil/political and social/economic rights).
Recommendations: Program Features Article 3 recommends incorporating a unique travel learning experience that builds upon TPWW’s core trips and network offerings. Specifically, site and field visits that demonstrate the process in which rights become rights, the inner-‐workings of accountability mechanisms, the actualization of individual rights, impact in action and the positive, tangible milestones. We recommend trips with an intense immersion into human rights institutions focused on policy, law and litigation. Examples include: v The Hague v United Nations System v Visits with officials who work to realize rights Additionally, it is recommended that the HRDEI participants experience on-‐the-‐ground human rights realities of security and protection with an integrated approach to civil and political rights and social and economic rights. Examples include: v In-‐country visits with survivors and/or affected communities v War torn or post-‐autocratic rule environments v Exposure to academia to highlight the important role of research v Site visits to U.S. prisons or migrant detention centers
Recommendations: Participant Recruitment and Expert Engagement Eight to ten high priority prospects have been identified and have expressed strong interest in participating in the HRDEI. It is recommended that a recruitment follow-‐up strategy be developed in Phase II. (To maintain confidentiality, the potential prospects are not named in this report). There was similar interest in engagement among experts. Most experts expressed willingness and enthusiasm to play an advisory role in some capacity. Article 3 recommends forming an advisory committee comprised of a select list of experts, academics and practitioners identified during Phase I. The purpose and objectives of the committee should be defined during Phase II and the committee established by Phase III.
Recommendations: Marketing We recommend a public announcement (press release) about the launch of HRDEI to aid recruitment efforts and prospect pipeline.
Due to the stated need and interest in the creation of a human rights donor education program Article 3 believes this program should continue on its development trajectory. The opportunities for donors are evident and a program such as the HRDEI can help guide donors down a more sophisticated, informed path of funding in a complex field, increasing donor confidence and quieting the “signal to noise” effect. The broader human rights field will ultimately benefit from longer, sustainable investments, greater alignment of field needs with donors interests and knowing that donors are realistic with their expectations and understand the field in which they fund. During the second phase of this process, TPWW, building upon its core program and with support from A3A, will further develop the opportunities for philanthropic entry points combined with the most effective philanthropic strategies and tools. This approach will provide opportunities for significant donor impact in support of the human rights movement. The following areas will be addressed through this strategic philanthropic lens: v The best ways to sustain the gains and prevent Article 3 believes this pilot backsliding. program should continue on its development trajectory. v New frontiers for rights enforcement and implementation. v Strengthening of the new levers of influence in the Global South. v Effective approaches to reconcile and prioritize equally civil and political rights and social and economic rights. v Mapping human rights actors (NGOs, academics, veteran and emerging activists) and their roles operating in the space: who does what and how? v The cutting-‐edge issues and approaches to environmental degradation and human rights. v The best methods of teaching impactful giving in a complex field
Appendix Appendix A: Interview List Experts/ Practitioners Participant Title and Organization Anthony Romero Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union Aryeh Neier President Emeritus, Open Society Foundations Ben Skinner Journalist and Author, “A Crime so Monstrous” Bryan Stevenson Founder and Executive Director, Equal Justice Initiative Catherine Chen Director, Investments, Humanity United Eric Stover Faculty Director, Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley Helen Stacy Senior Fellow, Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law; Faculty, Stanford University Jean Oelwang CEO, Virgin Unite Jonathan Fanton Franklin D. Roosevelt Visiting Fellow, Hunter College; former President, MacArthur Foundation Jo Andrews Director, Ariadne Ken Roth Executive Director, Human Rights Watch Kevin Bales Co-‐Founder and former President, Free the Slaves Louise Arbour President and CEO, International Crisis Group; former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mark Hanis Founding President, United to End Genocide Mary Robinson Former President of Ireland; former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; member of The Elders Paul Van Zyl CEO, PeaceVentures and Maiyet; Co-‐Founder, International Center for Transitional Justice Richard Dicker Director, International Justice Program, Human Rights Watch Sally Osberg President and CEO, Skoll Foundation Sarah Holewinski Executive Director, Center for Civilians in Conflict Randy Newcomb President and CEO, Humanity United
Recommended Sources The following resources are recommended by experts and were collected while conducting the expert interviews. These resources can be referenced as needed during Phase II, the development phase, of HRDEI. Leading People and Affiliation Abdullahi Ahmed An-‐Na'im Emory University Adrien Arena Oak Foundation Anthony Romero American Civil Liberties Union Aryeh Neier Open Society Institute Auret Van Heerdan Fair Labor Association Betty Ann Boeving Bay Area Anti-‐Trafficking Coalition Brigid Inder Women's Initiatives for Gender Justice Dan Bederman Verite David Abramowitz Humanity United Ela Bhatt Self-‐Employed Women's Association of India Eric Stover Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley Gara La Marche Atlantic Philanthropies Gareth Evans Chancellor of the Australian National University; Honorary Professorial Fellow, University of Melbourne Ginny Baumann Free the Slaves Helen Stacy Stanford University Hina Jilani Advocate, Supreme Court of Pakistan Hossam Bhaghat Egyptian Initiative for Human Rights James Kofi Annan Slavery survivor/advocate Janet Love Legal Resources Center, South Africa Jeremy Ben-‐Ami J-‐Street Jim Cavallaro Stanford University Jody Williams Landmines Campaign Juan Mendez American University Washington College of Law Justin Dillon Slavery Footprint Kathryn Sikkink University of Minnesota Ken Roth Human Rights Watch Kevin Bales Free the Slaves Kumi Naidoo Greenpeace Lars Bromley Geographic Information Systems for the United Nations Laurel Fletcher University of California, Berkeley Lloyd Axworthy Former Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ambassador Louis De Baca U.S. State Department Louise Arbour International Crisis Group Lucia Nadar Conectas Direitos Humanos (Brazil) Mabel Van Oranje Former CEO, The Elders Makau Mutua Kenya Journalist, State University of New York Marshall Ganz Harvard Professor Mary Paige MacArthur Foundation
Leading People and Affiliation Cont. Mary Robinson Former President of Ireland; former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; member of The Elders Matt Friedman United Nations Inter-‐Agency Project on Human Trafficking Lisa Taylor United Nations Inter-‐Agency Project on Human Trafficking Maya Harris Ford Foundation Mohammad Yunis Grameen Bank Pam Omydiar Humanity United Peter Gabriel Witness Philip Aston New York University Professor of Law President Carter Carter Center Randy Newcomb Humanity United Rebecca Hamilton Author and Journalist, Reuters Archbishop Desmond Tutu The Elders Richard Goldstone South African Jurist Samantha Power Author; genocide expert Sarah Holewinski Center for Civilians in Conflict Shami Charbabarti Liberty Shannon Sedwick Davis Bridgeway Van Jones Rebuild the Dream Victor Pskin University of Arizona Zainab Selby Rwanda activist Leading Organizations Accountability Council American Civil Liberties Union American Psychological Association Amnesty International Arab Institute for Human Rights, Tunisia Avaaz Bay Area Anti-‐Trafficking Coalition CARE Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking Center for Inter-‐American System of Human Rights Center for Justice and Accountability Center for Legal and Social Studies China Human Rights Defenders Connect US Fund Crises Action Group Death Penalty Abolition 2025 Coalition Doctors Without Borders Egyptian Initiative for Human Rights European Funding Group Free the Slaves
Leading Organizations Cont. Global Social Progress Index Grameen Bank Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley Human Rights First Human Rights Watch International Crisis Group Impesa Independent Diplomat International Rescue Committee Liberty Memorial New Media Advocacy Project Open Society Justice Initiative Open Society Institute Oxfam International Physicians for Human Rights Polaris Project Self Employed Women's Association Slavery Footprint Southern Center for Human Rights Spark The Center for Civilians in Conflict The Institute of Social and Policy Sciences The Sentencing Project United to End Genocide Verite Walk Free Witness Leading Foundations: The Nduna Foundation Danish Post Code Lottery Ford Foundation Google.org Humanity United MacArthur Foundation McCall Bain Foundation NoVo Foundation Oak Foundation Open Society Institute Sigrid Rausing Trust Wellspring Advisors
University Human Rights Programs: University of Minnesota Bard College New York University Colombia University American University Emory University University of Oslo London School of Economics Leiden University, The Netherlands Stanford University Literary Sources: The International Human Rights Movement, Aryeh Neier Financial Times The Justice Cascade, Kathryn Sikkink The Courage of Strangers, Jeri Laber Life and Death in Shanghai, Nien Cheng Ending Slavery and Slave Next Door, Kevin Bales Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982 A Problem from Hell, Samantha Power NY Times Killing Civilians: Methods Madness and Morality in War, Hugo Slim Do They Hear You When You Cry, Fauziya Kassindja Human Rights and International Justice: Challenges and Opportunities at an Inflection Point, Jonathan Fanton and Zachary Katznelson
Kavi The House I live In Taboo, based on Michele Alexander's book Judgement at Nuremberg Dreams Die Hard Silent Revolution Freedom and Beyond Budrus vs State 194 Restrepo The Court of Last Resort
Article 3 Advisors is a consulting practice working at the nexus of human rights and strategic philanthropy. We counsel individual philanthropists, foundations, non-‐governmental organizations and nonprofits using a human rights lens.
Article 3 Advisors P.O. Box 475547 San Francisco, CA 94129
415-‐885-‐2750 Office 415-‐346-‐4874 Fax www.article3advisors.com