Search results

Several risk factors have been identified in ongoing efforts by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to mitigate high rates of homelessness among veterans. To date, no studies have examined the relationship of rurality and distance to nearest VA facility to risk of homelessness. Due to challenges in accessing available services, the hypothesis was that rural-residing veterans are at greater risk for homelessness. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The cohort consisted of veterans who had separated from the military between 2001 and 2011. The authors used a forwarding address provided by the service member at the time of separation from the military to determine rurality of residence and distance to care. The authors examined differences in the rate of homelessness within a year of a veteran’s first encounter with the VA following last military separation based on rurality and distance to the nearest VA facility using multivariable log-binomial regressions.

In the cohort of 708,318 veterans, 84.3 percent were determined to have a forwarding address in urban areas, 60.4 and 88.7 percent lived within 40 miles of the nearest VA medical center (VAMC), respectively. Veterans living in a rural area (RR=0.763; 95 percent CI=0.718-0.810) and those living between 20 and 40 miles (RR=0.893; 95 percent CI=0.846-0.943) and 40+ miles away from the nearest VAMC (RR=0.928; 95 percent CI=0.879-0.979) were at a lower risk for homelessness.

The unique data set allowed the authors to explore the relationship between geography and homelessness. These results are important to VA and national policy makers in understanding the risk factors for homelessness among veterans and planning interventions.

Lewis Byrd, a partner in the private equity firm Opportunity Capital Partners, is managing a number of interconnected issues. First, in his role as investment professional responsible for the firm's investment in a doghouse manufacturing company called Dogloo, he has to manage a relationship with an entrepreneur who has behaved in a way that has made coinvestors nervous about his skills as a CEO. The CEO, Aurelio Barretto, is a Cuban immigrant who has established a close confiding relationship with Byrd, who is an African American. Barretto has increasingly relied on Byrd to run interference for him with investors, while also providing the strategic advice that typically supports an investor-entrepreneur relationship. Another issue is that there is a potentially costly lawsuit looming involving copyright infringement by a larger, well-funded competitor in the pet products market. Byrd has to manage potentially volatile relationships while determining what's best for his firm from an investment standpoint and how best to advise Barretto to proceed. The case provides insights into the challenges in private equity investing that occur after the striking of the financial deal. The case also provides information for students about the technical and legal structure of private equity financing.

Improvement in the evaluation methodologies used in the public policy and development fields has increased the amount of evidence-based information available to decision makers. This helps firms evaluate the impacts of their social investments. However, it is not clear whether the business sector is interested in using these methods. This paper aims to describe the level of interest in, knowledge of and preferences relating to the impact evaluation of corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs by managers in Latin American companies and foundations.

A survey of 115 companies and foundations in 15 countries in Latin America was conducted in 2019.

The results indicated that most respondents believed that quantitative impact evaluation could address concerns about CSR program outcomes. However, monitoring and evaluation were primarily seen to be for tracking program objectives rather than for making strategic decisions about innovations to enhance the achievement of outcomes. Decision-making tended to respond to community demands. The main challenges to increasing the use of impact evaluation were the lack of skills and knowledge of management staff and the methodological complexity of evaluation designs. We conclude that there needs to be increased awareness about: the appropriate understanding of social outcomes; the benefits of evaluation; when impact evaluation is useful; how to prepare an evaluation budget; and the effective use of rigorous evidence to inform program design.

Acceptance by the business sector of quantitative measurement of the social impact of CSR programs will lead to improved outcomes from social investment programs.