Validation of a radiographic method to establish new fetal growth standards: radio-anatomical correlation

In forensic medicine, specialists might face difficulties when estimating age at death from fetal remains. Depending on the state of preservation, this age assessment is essentially based on the diaphyseal size of long bones. In a previous work, for the measurement of fetal femoral ossified shafts, we already established a simple and reliable method using a radiographic protocol. Since we previously stated that radiographic measurement values were closer to real anatomical size than ultrasonographic ones, in the present study we decided to check the importance of the difference between radiographic and anatomical measurements. Therefore, we dissected 30 pairs of fetal femurs and compared the difference between the two kinds of measurements (in percentages). This difference seemed to be slight (4.027%), but it was large enough to entail significant differences (p < 0.001). In order to provide a correction factor for radiographic measurements, we established a linear regression formula, which was tested on another sample of 30 pairs of dissected femurs. As a consequence of the good results, we improved the linear regression using a powerful statistical tool: the bootstrap. Finally, we obtained a simple equation that allowed us to figure out the real anatomical size with an R2 of 99% and a mean relative difference of 0.153% (with a standard error of 0.252 mm, and therefore a 95% confidence interval with limits of -0.35 and 0.657 mm). This difference did not entail any significant differences (p = 0.498), and therefore, we concluded that with the proposed correction, radiographic measurements can easily be used by forensic specialists in their daily tasks or to establish new growth standards in order to best fit their population of interest.     

Biased Altruism: Islamophobia and Donor Support for Global Humanitarian Organizations

Providing humanitarian assistance to displaced individuals is a critical policy challenge. Many refugee camps are run by charities supported by Western donors. If refugees are predominantly Muslim, might Islamophobia suppress donations to these charities? Using a survey experiment conducted in the United States, the authors examine whether donors' willingness to support a charity is influenced by the dominant religion of the refugees, the regions in which refugee camps are located, and/or the religious affiliation of the charity. The authors find modest support for Islamophobia: while willingness to donate is not affected by the location of camps or the predominance of Muslim refugees, it declines significantly for Islamic charities. Respondents overall tend to be especially willing to donate to a charity that serves Christian refugees in the Middle East. Among self‐identifying Christians, respondents are more willing to donate to a charity serving Christian refugees than one serving Muslim refugees.     

Delivering public services to the underserved: Nonprofits and the Latino threat narrative

Some politicians employ harsh rhetoric demanding that government deny public services such as food, housing, and medical care to immigrants. While nonprofits assist immigrants in this regard, their work is sustainable only if private donors support them. Using a survey experiment, this article examines whether donors' willingness to support a charity depends on the legal status of its beneficiaries, and the region from which they have come. We find that, in relation to a charity that serves low-income families (control group), donors are less willing to support a charity serving immigrants, but the region from which beneficiaries emigrated is irrelevant. Donor willingness diminishes substantially when beneficiaries are undocumented or face deportation. While shared ethnicity between donors and beneficiaries does not increase charitable support, bilingualism does. In addition, support for the charity rises substantially among Latinx donors who were born outside the US and do not speak English at home.     

Regulation by Reputation: Monitoring and Sanctioning in Nonprofit Accountability Clubs

Nonprofits seek to enhance their reputation for responsible management by joining voluntary regulation mechanisms such as accountability clubs. Because external stakeholders cannot fully observe nonprofits’ compliance with club obligations, clubs incorporate mechanisms to monitor compliance and impose sanctions. Yet including monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms increases the cost of club membership for nonprofits. What factors account for the variation in the strength of monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms in voluntary accountability clubs? An analysis of 224 clubs suggests that stringent monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms are more likely in fund‐raising‐focused clubs, clubs that offer certification (as opposed to only outlining a code of conduct), and clubs with greater longevity. The macro context in which clubs function also shapes their institutional design: clubs in OECD countries and clubs with global membership are less likely to incorporate monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms than clubs in non‐OECD countries and single‐country clubs, respectively.