Philanthropic foundations, as institutions, are attractive options for donors seeking to perform their philanthropy while living and to extend their individual or family legacy posthumously. Policymakers also see the attractiveness of these institutions by creating policies to shift private resources to public purposes. These policies have spurred the development of foundations in several parts of the world (Toepler, 2018). As a result, foundations have become the “fastest-growing nonprofit form” in the past decade (Jung and Harrow, 2016:162). However, despite the attractiveness and growth of these institutions, what is known about them remains incomplete, inconsistent, and often anecdotal.
SIPS Postgraduate Research Poster Showcase celebrates its 5th Year!
Since its inception in 2016, SIPS has sponsored a postgraduate researcher poster showcase. After transitioning the 2020 event to a virtual environment, further scope was available to make use of this setting for the 2021 event. Posters were displayed on the SIPS website for two weeks prior, allowing advanced voting for the Delegates Choice prize.
The Community Trigger case review: does it help victims of anti-social behaviour?
This blog is based on an article published in People, Place and Policy entitled: Anti-Social behaviour victims’ experiences of activating the ‘Community Trigger’ case review
The Community Trigger case review is supposed to act as a safety-net. Victims of anti-social behaviour (ASB) can activate the Community Trigger if they have not received a satisfactory response to their complaints, if the number of complaints meet a locally-defined threshold within a specified period of time. If the case meets these requirements, a formal multi-agency case review meeting is held with key stakeholders such as the police and local authority, with the purpose of creating an action plan to address the ASB in question. However, new research has shown that some victims experiences of utilising the Community Trigger have been far from satisfactory and embarking on the policy process resulted in additional suffering.