No result found
Community Partnership for Arts and Culture;
This is the story of how the Cuyahoga County arts and culture sector went from fiscal emergency… to securing one of the highest levels of public funding for arts and culture in the country… to becoming recognized as a national leader in creative placemaking. This playbook examines the role and lessons of CPAC as inspirator, catalyst, advocate, adviser, think tank, policy strategist, data source, convener. As a result of CPAC's work: Tax money has been directed for arts and culture Facilities have been built or renovated Governments have become involvedCreative businesses have merged or collaborated Innovative cross sector partnerships have emergedThrough CPAC's process outlined in the playbook, organizations and communities anywhere can see what worked in Northeast Ohio and what did not. Any one of the strategies in this playbook could be beneficial, depending on a community's vision and current situation. It is our hope that our story can provide other organizations with insight into how they might strengthen their own arts and culture sectors and thus their whole communities.
This case study on the North Collinwood neighborhood of Cleveland, Ohio, illustrates how Creative Placemaking, the deliberate integration of arts and culture into comprehensive community development, can serve as a critical catalyst in forming equitable living and working solutions for all the social, economic, and racial constituencies of a neighborhood. In this post-industrial neighborhood, Creative Placemaking helped reverse local population decline, rebuild a central commercial corridor around arts businesses, and restore a positive identity to the neighborhood.
Profiles thirteen Cleveland schools -- a cross section of traditional public, private, parochial, and charter schools, where the majority of students are economically disadvantaged -- that have demonstrated progress in student achievement gains.
Feeding America (formerly America's Second Harvest);
This report presents information on the clients and agencies served by the ClevelandFoodbank. 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 Cleveland Foodbank provides food for an estimated 159,600 different people annually.31% of the members of households served by the Cleveland Foodbank are childrenunder 18 years old (Table 5.3.2).31% of client households include at least one employed adult (Table 5.7.1).Among client households with children, 70% are food insecure and 12% areexperiencing hunger (Table 6.1.1).38% of clients served by the Cleveland Foodbank report having to choose betweenpaying for food and paying for utilities or heating fuel (Table 6.5.1).31% of clients had to choose between paying for food and paying for medicine or medical care (Table 6.5.1).26% of households served by the Cleveland Foodbank report having at least onehousehold member in poor health (Table 8.1.1)The Cleveland Foodbank included approximately 352 agencies at theadministration of this survey, of which 278 have responded to the agency survey.Of the responding agencies, 198 had at least one food pantry, soup kitchen, orshelter.80% of pantries, 88% of kitchens, and 54% of shelters are run by faith-basedagencies affiliated with churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religiousorganizations (Table 10.6.1).80% of pantries, 67% of kitchens, and 62% of shelters of the Cleveland Foodbankreported that there had been an increase since 2001 in the number of clients whocome 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 83% of the food used by pantries, 68% of kitchens' food, and 44%of shelters' food (Table 13.1.1).For the Cleveland Foodbank, 97% of pantries, 97% of kitchens, and 78% ofshelters use volunteers (Table 13.2.1).
An on-site retention program at long-term nursing care facilities had little effect overall on retention of low-wage employees, aside from a small increase in retention in the short term and among subgroups with particularly high turnover rates.
Feeding America (formerly America's Second Harvest);
This report presents information on the clients and agencies served by The Cleveland Foodbank, Inc. 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.Key Findings: The FA system served by The Cleveland Foodbank, Inc provides emergency food for an estimated 223,700 different people annually.34% of the members of households served by The Cleveland Foodbank, Inc are children under 18 years old (Table 5.3.2).16% of households include at least one employed adult (Table 5.7.1).Among households with children, 79% are food insecure and 19% are food insecure with very low food security (Table 188.8.131.52).39% of clients served by The Cleveland Foodbank, Inc report having to choose between paying for food and paying for utilities or heating fuel (Table 6.5.1).35% had to choose between paying for food and paying for medicine or medical care (Table 6.5.1).27% of households served by The Cleveland Foodbank, Inc report having at least one household member in poor health (Table 8.1.1)The Cleveland Foodbank, Inc included approximately 379 agencies at the administration of this survey, of which 329 have responded to the agency survey. Of the responding agencies, 267 had at least one food pantry, soup kitchen, or shelter.81% of pantries, 87% of kitchens, and 32% 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, 84% of pantries, 75% of kitchens, and 78% of shelters of The Cleveland Foodbank, Inc 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 83% of the food distributed by pantries, 71% of the food distributed by kitchens, and 40% of the food distributed by shelters (Table 13.1.1).As many as 92% of pantries, 95% of kitchens, and 61% of shelters in The Cleveland Foodbank, Inc use volunteers (Table 13.2.1).
Urban Institute Justice Policy Center;
Presents findings from a longitudinal study of prisoner reentry, documenting the lives of nearly three hundred former prisoners and their ability to find stable housing, reunite with family, secure employment, and avoid substance use and recidivism.
George Gund Foundation;
This 2012 Interactive Annual Report includes a Letter from the President, Letter from the Executive Director, and details The George Gund Foundation's philanthropic activities in the areas of: Arts, Economic Development and Community Revitalization, Education, Environment, Human Services, and Special Commitments.
Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy;
A case study describing the Cleveland Foundation's dynamic, high-quality internship program for local college students, designed to combat "brain drain" and attract new talent to Cleveland's nonprofit sector.
In a first-of-its-kind in-depth look at millennials in Northeast Ohio, a Cleveland Foundation-commissioned study by The Center for Population Dynamics at Cleveland State University reveals Cleveland is eighth in the nation in the growth rate of college-educated millennial residents aged 25 to 34. And Cleveland's millennial residents -- those born between 1982 and 2000 -- are leading a rapid 'fifth migration,' the term for the re-urbanization of metro areas nationally, here in Cleveland.The study, reveals that while Cleveland has experienced a millennial migration since 2008, it was during the growth experienced from 2011 to 2013 for which Cleveland tied for eighth in the nation (along with Miami and Seattle) in the percent increase of college-educated millennials. The study also shows Cleveland ranked eighth nationally in the concentration of highly-educated millennials in the workforce (those with a graduate degree).Beyond this so-called 'brain gain,' the statistics show a higher concentration of millennial residents overall, regardless of education. In 2013, 24 percent of Greater Cleveland's population was comprised of millennials (ages 18-34), up from 20 percent in 2006.The study also showcases the dramatic gain of millennials in Downtown Cleveland -- a 76 percent increase in 25- to 34-year-old residents from 2000 to 2012. As of 2012, 63 percent of Downtown Cleveland residents were millennials -- compared to 20 percent in the Greater Cleveland metro area and 23 percent of the overall U.S. population. Additionally, the study illustrates the density of millennials in the inner-ring suburb of Lakewood, whose millennial population makes up 31 percent of the city's population, compared to 23 percent nationally.
The local food revolution has come to Cleveland—big time. The city now has so many community gardens, farmers markets, community-supported agriculture (CSA) subscriptions, urban farms, celebrity chefs, and local-food procurement programs that the environmental web site, SustainLane, recently ranked Cleveland as the second best local-food city in the United States. But the region has only just begun to tap the myriad benefits of local food.The following study analyzes the impact of the 16-county Northeast Ohio (NEO) region moving a quarter of the way toward fully meeting local demand for food with local production. It suggests that this 25% shift could create 27,664 new jobs, providing work for about one in eight unemployed residents. It could increase annual regional output by $4.2 billion and expand state and local tax collections by $126 million. It could increase the food security of hundreds of thousands of people and reduce near-epidemic levels of obesity and Type-II diabetes. And it could significantly improve air and water quality, lower the region's carbon footprint, attract tourists, boost local entrepreneurship, and enhance civic pride.Standing in the way of the 25% shift are formidable obstacles. New workforce training and entrepreneurship initiatives are imperative for the managers and staff of these new or expanded local food enterprises. Land must be secured for new urban and rural farms. Nearly a billion dollars of new capital are needed. And consumers in the region must be further educated about the benefits of local food and the opportunities for buying it.To overcome these obstacles, we offer more than 50 recommendations for programs, investment priorities, and policies. In a period of fiscal austerity, we argue, the prioritymust be to create "meta-businesses" that can support the local food movement on a cash-positive basis.