Futures Without Violence

Futures Without Violence
Name	Futures Without Violence
Formation	1980
Headquarters	San Francisco, California
Founders	Ellen Bass; Rosalynn Carter (supporter)
Type	Nonprofit organization
Purpose	Violence prevention, public health, human rights
Region served	International
Leader title	President & CEO
Leader name	Janet L. Rishwain

Futures Without Violence is a nonprofit organization focused on the prevention of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, child abuse, and related public health harms. The organization has engaged in advocacy, program development, professional training, and policy influence across the United States and internationally, partnering with a variety of public figures, institutions, and multilateral agencies. Its work intersects with health systems, legal reform, education sectors, and global diplomacy.

History

The organization traces roots to grassroots advocacy movements of the late 20th century, connecting to networks formed during the era of Second-wave feminism, Women's Liberation Movement, and survivors' activism that followed events like the expansion of shelters after the 1970s United States women's movement. Early collaborators and advisors included advocates linked to the National Organization for Women, leaders involved with the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, and influencers connected to initiatives led by Rosalynn Carter and policy staff from the Carter administration. During the 1980s and 1990s, the group engaged with landmark developments such as the passage of the Violence Against Women Act and collaborated with professionals from institutions including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and academic centers like Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Expansion into international work linked the group with actors from the United Nations, including staff from UN Women and the World Health Organization, as well as non-governmental partners like ICRW and Amnesty International.

Mission and Programs

The stated mission centers on prevention of interpersonal violence and promotion of healing through training, advocacy, technology, and policy change. Programmatically, the organization has developed curricula for clinicians, law enforcement, and educators, drawing on models used at institutions such as Mayo Clinic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Boston Medical Center, and pediatric departments at Children's Hospital Boston. Initiatives include clinical screening protocols influenced by research from Elizabeth J. Kelly-style authors and collaborations with practitioners from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the National Association of Social Workers. Training programs have been delivered in partnership with legal entities like the American Bar Association and justice-focused groups such as Vera Institute of Justice. Technology and media initiatives referenced best practices from projects seen at TED Conferences and philanthropic partnerships with foundations modeled after the Ford Foundation and MacArthur Foundation.

Global Initiatives and Partnerships

Internationally, the organization has worked with multilateral and bilateral partners including the United Nations Development Programme, UNICEF, the World Bank, and the Department of State. Regional collaborations have involved ministries and NGOs across continents, including partners associated with the European Commission, the African Union, and national ministries like Ministry of Health (India) counterparts and agencies in countries such as South Africa, Brazil, Nepal, and Philippines. Academic and policy alliances included exchanges with scholars affiliated with London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, University of Cape Town, and Peking University Health Science Center. Campaigns and advocacy efforts intersected with global initiatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

Impact and Evaluation

Impact assessments have drawn on evaluation frameworks from organizations like RAND Corporation, Mathematica Policy Research, and measurement guidance from the World Health Organization. Program evaluations have examined outcomes in healthcare settings similar to studies published through The Lancet, JAMA, and American Journal of Public Health. Reports cite reductions in recurrence of violence, improved screening uptake among clinicians, and policy adoption in municipalities analogous to reforms seen in jurisdictions influenced by the Violence Against Women Act and court rulings tied to agencies such as the U.S. Supreme Court on related procedural questions. Academic partners for randomized trials and implementation science included researchers from Columbia University, University of California, San Francisco, and Yale School of Medicine.

Funding and Governance

Funding streams have combined philanthropic grants, government contracts, and foundation support modeled on major donors such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and corporate philanthropy patterns exemplified by entities like Google.org. Government partnerships have involved U.S. federal agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and international funders such as bilateral aid agencies akin to USAID. Governance structures resemble nonprofit boards with trustees drawn from leaders associated with institutions like Harvard University, Stanford University, and healthcare systems including Kaiser Permanente. Auditing and compliance practices follow standards cited by professional bodies like Grantmakers for Effective Organizations.

Criticism and Controversies

Critiques have arisen regarding priorities, measurement, and policy influence, similar to debates faced by NGOs such as Planned Parenthood and Human Rights Watch over advocacy tactics and funding transparency. Some commentators have questioned intervention efficacy and cultural transferability in contexts contrasted with debates around the Global Gag Rule and contentious international policy shifts involving the United States Agency for International Development. Internal governance scrutiny and donor dependence concerns mirror controversies seen at nonprofits tied to high-profile foundations like the Ford Foundation and media organizations scrutinized during investigations involving outlets like The New York Times and watchdog reports from ProPublica.

Category:Non-profit organizations based in the United States