Issuu on Google+

 

February 2013  


2  

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      

 


3  

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.  


4  

  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.        

 


5  

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.      


6  

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.    

 


7  

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.            

     


8  

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.  

     

 

9  


10  

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.      

 


11  

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.        


12  

Program  Findings    

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.  

   


13  

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    

 


14  

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.    

 

 


15  

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).  

 


16  

  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    

 

 


17  

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.    

 


18  

Conclusion  

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          

 


19  

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    

20  


21  

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      

 

22  


23  

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    

Films:    

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                                                                

 


24  

Info  

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.    

Contact    

Article  3  Advisors   P.O.  Box  475547   San  Francisco,  CA  94129  

   

Design    

415-­‐885-­‐2750  Office   415-­‐346-­‐4874  Fax   www.article3advisors.com  

Amanda  Padilla  

                                                                                                                                       

 


Human Rights Immersion Journey Summary Report, Article 3