After a week of extreme illness, I'm back, and refreshed, and ready to give thought on funding for nonprofit organizations.
Chapter 10 deals specifically with funders. It talks about how private funders have been investigated by Congress four times for conspiracies, by both sides of the political spectrum. I find this surprising because the book also says that funders provide only three percent of the revenue toward nonprofit nations.
I really liked the by Ben Gose about President Obama limiting the amount of tax breaks given to wealthy charity donors. It's kind of a catch-22: on one hand, limiting tax incentives for the wealthy to give to charity may decentivize them from giving in the first place; on the other hand, not giving them tax breaks may help decrease the national deficit and prevent corrupt practices in nonprofit organizations. I just don't know enough to fully explain myself here.
Seanerd-Stockton's article regarding donors and the economic crisis also brings up more interesting thoughts about this issue. He brings up that even though there was a huge economic recession in recent years, this didn't stop Americans from donating money towards nonprofit organizations. He made a very valid point about how increasing the national wealth does not necessarily increase the standards of living for all citizens in the country. Therefore, philanthropies must fill in the gaps that are left behind.
Finally, the article by Alex Goldmark about measuring the impact of a philanthropy was probably my favorite, because it shows that more and more people are caring about the impact of a nonprofit, not the amount of money they can bring in. He states that research shows that offering free screening for HIV testing was not enough of a good thing to make people get tested more. Another organization highlighted was Proximity Designs in Myanmar, which was known for its $25 irrigation pump; the impact was tremendous there, and the organization's slogan was "treat the poor as customers." Goldmark argues quite correctly that by measuring the scale of philanthropies, we can define which ones are successful with the money they have, and if they deserve more. If they don't have a scale, they should be gotten rid of.
This link shows more about Proximity Designs and all of the many things they have been able to accomplish for the developing nation of Myanmar with a small amount of money. We need more organizations like this, that can stretch the already scarce dollar further and make it have more of an impact on society.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Post 7
Greetings! It's week 8, and therefore this blog will soon be coming to a close. But don't fret! I still have a few weeks' worth of posting left, and this week it is regarding one of the most overlooked topics in American society: the Arts!
The chapter on advocacy was weird to me because I thought that putting advocacy organizations into only three categories (one of which was labeled "other") was far too broad. With such a wide latitude given to define organizations, I feel that many organizations may be slipping under the cracks when they would normally be defined as unethical.
I was interested by the first additional reading given to us, because it really rings true to why nonprofit organizations are so attractive: their tradition in serving America makes people want to participate. It's also true that hardly any aspects of American life have not been touched by nonprofit organizations in order to improve their quality.
The second reading regarding the Oregon Attorney General's efforts to publicize questionable charities interested me because I like how there are plans to make tax deductible charities be accountable for their fund raising reports, and that they adhere to the rules. But when I read Senate Bill 40, I did not realize that the majority of these unethical charities are headquartered by people out-of-state.
Moving on to Laurence Arnold's article on how the Arts pumped $166 billion into the US economy in 2005, I think it is very important that the arts are promoted by the American government, as they are as important as sciences, social sciences, and athletics to society. The Arts sector is very important because through paying taxes as organizations, charging patrons for events, and development of artistic abilities in people. It's important that the arts are promoted, because this sector (linked with others) can be directly tied to development of some awesome things- sustainable, attractive architecture, amazing parks that bring a community together, and beautification of once-unappealing structures and locales. There is much to say for the arts and what it can do for the American spirit.
Finally, the article about poetry giving teens a voice struck me as interesting because it seems that poetry is giving these students and outlet to voice their discontent with society (family troubles, school, relationship problems etc.) It makes it more acceptable and understandable for these children of poverty to speak their mind, and teaches them valuable leadership skills.
The chapter on advocacy was weird to me because I thought that putting advocacy organizations into only three categories (one of which was labeled "other") was far too broad. With such a wide latitude given to define organizations, I feel that many organizations may be slipping under the cracks when they would normally be defined as unethical.
I was interested by the first additional reading given to us, because it really rings true to why nonprofit organizations are so attractive: their tradition in serving America makes people want to participate. It's also true that hardly any aspects of American life have not been touched by nonprofit organizations in order to improve their quality.
The second reading regarding the Oregon Attorney General's efforts to publicize questionable charities interested me because I like how there are plans to make tax deductible charities be accountable for their fund raising reports, and that they adhere to the rules. But when I read Senate Bill 40, I did not realize that the majority of these unethical charities are headquartered by people out-of-state.
Moving on to Laurence Arnold's article on how the Arts pumped $166 billion into the US economy in 2005, I think it is very important that the arts are promoted by the American government, as they are as important as sciences, social sciences, and athletics to society. The Arts sector is very important because through paying taxes as organizations, charging patrons for events, and development of artistic abilities in people. It's important that the arts are promoted, because this sector (linked with others) can be directly tied to development of some awesome things- sustainable, attractive architecture, amazing parks that bring a community together, and beautification of once-unappealing structures and locales. There is much to say for the arts and what it can do for the American spirit.
Finally, the article about poetry giving teens a voice struck me as interesting because it seems that poetry is giving these students and outlet to voice their discontent with society (family troubles, school, relationship problems etc.) It makes it more acceptable and understandable for these children of poverty to speak their mind, and teaches them valuable leadership skills.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Post 6, yo
So, education. It is obviously very important to me.
Students from for-profit educational institutions are way more likely to default on loans, as shown here.
I was greatly interested in the first online reading because I believe that for-profit colleges such as University of Phoenix and Devry University are quackeries in the fact that many colleges are no longer accepting their credits for transfer from those schools. After checking the University of Phoenix's Wikipedia page, I found out that the school was fined $6 million in 2000 for not including study group meetings as part of their curriculum. And later, in 2010, the Phoenix and Philadelphia branches were found to be engaging in deceptive enrollment practices and fraudulent solicitation of FAFSA funds.
It hurts to see that people of lower socioeconomic statuses are being hooked into these forms of education, because we can see through the reading "Education Trust Subprime Report" that fewer than 75% of for-profit universities' students graduate within four years. If that were a statistic displayed by a non-profit or public educational institution, no one would bother to attend.
Finally, seeing all of the student debt amassed by students after having attended a for-profit institution of higher education makes me think that these places are black holes swallowing money that will never be seen or circulated again
Moving on to "For Profit Education Bubble Burst," I will admit I was unaware that the military education benefit was going towards for-profit schools. The reading explains that only 25% or so alumni from for-profit universities were paying off their student loans, versus 45% of students from non-profit universities.
It appears to me over the long run that for-profit schools have a very conservative, neo-liberal attitude about them: run a school like a business, let each do its own thing, and the students will flourish. The only problem with this that when run as businesses, many people will try harder to gain profits than educate the people enrolled in the schools.
Students from for-profit educational institutions are way more likely to default on loans, as shown here.
I was greatly interested in the first online reading because I believe that for-profit colleges such as University of Phoenix and Devry University are quackeries in the fact that many colleges are no longer accepting their credits for transfer from those schools. After checking the University of Phoenix's Wikipedia page, I found out that the school was fined $6 million in 2000 for not including study group meetings as part of their curriculum. And later, in 2010, the Phoenix and Philadelphia branches were found to be engaging in deceptive enrollment practices and fraudulent solicitation of FAFSA funds.
It hurts to see that people of lower socioeconomic statuses are being hooked into these forms of education, because we can see through the reading "Education Trust Subprime Report" that fewer than 75% of for-profit universities' students graduate within four years. If that were a statistic displayed by a non-profit or public educational institution, no one would bother to attend.
Finally, seeing all of the student debt amassed by students after having attended a for-profit institution of higher education makes me think that these places are black holes swallowing money that will never be seen or circulated again
Moving on to "For Profit Education Bubble Burst," I will admit I was unaware that the military education benefit was going towards for-profit schools. The reading explains that only 25% or so alumni from for-profit universities were paying off their student loans, versus 45% of students from non-profit universities.
It appears to me over the long run that for-profit schools have a very conservative, neo-liberal attitude about them: run a school like a business, let each do its own thing, and the students will flourish. The only problem with this that when run as businesses, many people will try harder to gain profits than educate the people enrolled in the schools.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Post 5
I will be the first to admit I know little or nothing about environmental politics, and so this week I am definitely not on the advantageous part of the learning curve. I went to World Wildlife Foundation to see what they do for the environment, and I was surprised at how many partners they had, claiming aid to them and their cause.
My first impression of the McKenzie Watershed Council reading was to laugh. I say this because I have a friend who, one day out of the blue, decided to run for the McKenzie Watershed Council Soil Conservation Manager (not sure which zone). He did this partly for laughs, and partly because he knew he would win the election because no one ever ran for Soil Conservation Manager of that zone. Fortunately for society, he didn't make the ballot because his name didn't get submitted in time.
I love how the organization created a cleanup day with other local environmental nonprofit groups; this shows that they are willing to work with others to achieve a legitimate end, and collecting trash, cleaning culverts of debris, and cleaning camp sites is something organizations can do together.
I really enjoyed the commencement speech given by Paul Hawken to the 2009 class from University of Portland. I liked that he said that the earth couldn't send any limos or recruiters, but instead it sent beautiful jasmine and ripe cherries. Join a multitude of caring people, and your work will be rewarded with future generations being as lucky as you were.
The final article was great because I like how the authors pointed out the anti-environmental organizations operating under different auspices. I appreciate that they took the time to research each one, although some of the organizations are those that, even though legitimate, I would never support because of the pure annoyance they cause to me in everyday life. I think that many of the organizations, such as Greenpeace, could focus less of their time on getting people to pledge and instead focus on helping the earth, and their good deeds would make people want to participate.
My first impression of the McKenzie Watershed Council reading was to laugh. I say this because I have a friend who, one day out of the blue, decided to run for the McKenzie Watershed Council Soil Conservation Manager (not sure which zone). He did this partly for laughs, and partly because he knew he would win the election because no one ever ran for Soil Conservation Manager of that zone. Fortunately for society, he didn't make the ballot because his name didn't get submitted in time.
I love how the organization created a cleanup day with other local environmental nonprofit groups; this shows that they are willing to work with others to achieve a legitimate end, and collecting trash, cleaning culverts of debris, and cleaning camp sites is something organizations can do together.
I really enjoyed the commencement speech given by Paul Hawken to the 2009 class from University of Portland. I liked that he said that the earth couldn't send any limos or recruiters, but instead it sent beautiful jasmine and ripe cherries. Join a multitude of caring people, and your work will be rewarded with future generations being as lucky as you were.
The final article was great because I like how the authors pointed out the anti-environmental organizations operating under different auspices. I appreciate that they took the time to research each one, although some of the organizations are those that, even though legitimate, I would never support because of the pure annoyance they cause to me in everyday life. I think that many of the organizations, such as Greenpeace, could focus less of their time on getting people to pledge and instead focus on helping the earth, and their good deeds would make people want to participate.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Post 4
This week has been very stressful for me, because I have had some lingering health issues, so imagine my surprise when I opened my Nonprofit Nation book and started reading about nonprofit hospitals and health care providers!
I was very unaware of what Health Maintenance Organizations did and I certainly don't agree with them now. I think it is a very unjust thing to do for health care to be so hard to come by, and I like that the IRS has been locking down on nonprofit hospitals who have been stingy with their care provided to people who cannot afford it.
Making a Killing- What HMOs may mean to us
The above link is very important because I have seen things happen where health care has been delayed to the point of deteriorated health as a result. People should not have to fight with HMOs for health care- they were provided in the first place by nonprofits like Kaizer-Permanente.
I hate that it has to even be a debate as to whether we should have universal health care in the US or be able to fund military defense. I could go on for weeks (and my dad and I go at it for hours on this subject) but I'll digress and move to the Packers' article.
I hate the Packers (Niners 4 life!) but I love that their "owners" are their fans. The 49ers are owned by some complete jerks who only want to use the team to make money, not improve the franchise and win more games. I like to see that for this reason, the team has no issue with the collective bargaining agreement, because I'm pretty sick of it dominating Sports Center. The NFL should allow more teams to become nonprofit, mostly because they would make a lot more money and it wouldn't be from unfair ticket sales and taxes from the local economy that leaves the people crippled (Oakland Raiders, anybody)?. If given nonprofit status, the Niners would jettison to the playoffs for the first time in years, because the owners would not be profit-mongering people, but instead dedicated fans who won't be able to control the team 100%.
I was a little confused on the article about Detroit's attempted mergers of nonprofit and for-profit hospitals, and I think I lean a little towards the idea that this is no good. It seems to make it so that more and more people are shut out of affordable health care, even though the goals are the exact opposite.
Finally, the article about ADD had me reeling. I think many people are "diagnosed" with ADD because they want help focusing, not because they have an out-of-control disorder that disables them from interacting normally in society. In a place where Ritalin is peddled to college students so they can stay up all night and write papers, I think that more studies and research need to be done before diagnosing more people with the disorder.
I was very unaware of what Health Maintenance Organizations did and I certainly don't agree with them now. I think it is a very unjust thing to do for health care to be so hard to come by, and I like that the IRS has been locking down on nonprofit hospitals who have been stingy with their care provided to people who cannot afford it.
Making a Killing- What HMOs may mean to us
The above link is very important because I have seen things happen where health care has been delayed to the point of deteriorated health as a result. People should not have to fight with HMOs for health care- they were provided in the first place by nonprofits like Kaizer-Permanente.
I hate that it has to even be a debate as to whether we should have universal health care in the US or be able to fund military defense. I could go on for weeks (and my dad and I go at it for hours on this subject) but I'll digress and move to the Packers' article.
I hate the Packers (Niners 4 life!) but I love that their "owners" are their fans. The 49ers are owned by some complete jerks who only want to use the team to make money, not improve the franchise and win more games. I like to see that for this reason, the team has no issue with the collective bargaining agreement, because I'm pretty sick of it dominating Sports Center. The NFL should allow more teams to become nonprofit, mostly because they would make a lot more money and it wouldn't be from unfair ticket sales and taxes from the local economy that leaves the people crippled (Oakland Raiders, anybody)?. If given nonprofit status, the Niners would jettison to the playoffs for the first time in years, because the owners would not be profit-mongering people, but instead dedicated fans who won't be able to control the team 100%.
I was a little confused on the article about Detroit's attempted mergers of nonprofit and for-profit hospitals, and I think I lean a little towards the idea that this is no good. It seems to make it so that more and more people are shut out of affordable health care, even though the goals are the exact opposite.
Finally, the article about ADD had me reeling. I think many people are "diagnosed" with ADD because they want help focusing, not because they have an out-of-control disorder that disables them from interacting normally in society. In a place where Ritalin is peddled to college students so they can stay up all night and write papers, I think that more studies and research need to be done before diagnosing more people with the disorder.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Post 3
Chapter 4 interested me because social service is an area of the nonprofit sector that I could definitely see myself working in. I was very aware that the government provides the majority of social service nonprofit revenue.
Domestic violence awareness/prevention in the social service is a very interesting to me, because it is such a hidden act, often going for years, or even forever, unnoticed, and so there was little if no government and corporate support at first.
I think we can see this in a lot of aspects of social service, such as support for victims of assault because of their sexual orientation. I don't know of any groups that have government or corporate funding for people who have been the subject of homophobia because it is such a controversial subject.
Also, it seems as though a lot of the problems we are facing today regarding problems with social service organizations stems from lack of government support in more recent presidential administrations, which in my opinion is negative. The government has been able in the past to give a lot of money to organizations that are deserving, and this is a tremendous help because the organizations are usually better than the government of making the money work towards the service they are providing to the republic.
I liked the St. Vincent de Paul article (not only because I am a thrift store junky) but because it was pleasing to read about how successful the organization has been in light of the economic recession. Through selling unwanted items, St VdP has been able to provide affordable housing for so many people in Lane County that would otherwise be unable to live in such a nice place.
However, in the Louisiana Power Bill Assistance article, I was not sure if I agreed that paying low income people's power bills was a good idea, because while it may stimulate the economy, we do not know where the money is coming from. However, I don't think I have a full grasp on this issue.
The article regarding urban development in Washington, DC was a good read for me because I am very interested in the subject of making areas for those less fortunate to live where they can get everything they need within a few blocks, which can help them elevate their situations.
Domestic violence awareness/prevention in the social service is a very interesting to me, because it is such a hidden act, often going for years, or even forever, unnoticed, and so there was little if no government and corporate support at first.
I think we can see this in a lot of aspects of social service, such as support for victims of assault because of their sexual orientation. I don't know of any groups that have government or corporate funding for people who have been the subject of homophobia because it is such a controversial subject.
Also, it seems as though a lot of the problems we are facing today regarding problems with social service organizations stems from lack of government support in more recent presidential administrations, which in my opinion is negative. The government has been able in the past to give a lot of money to organizations that are deserving, and this is a tremendous help because the organizations are usually better than the government of making the money work towards the service they are providing to the republic.
I liked the St. Vincent de Paul article (not only because I am a thrift store junky) but because it was pleasing to read about how successful the organization has been in light of the economic recession. Through selling unwanted items, St VdP has been able to provide affordable housing for so many people in Lane County that would otherwise be unable to live in such a nice place.
However, in the Louisiana Power Bill Assistance article, I was not sure if I agreed that paying low income people's power bills was a good idea, because while it may stimulate the economy, we do not know where the money is coming from. However, I don't think I have a full grasp on this issue.
The article regarding urban development in Washington, DC was a good read for me because I am very interested in the subject of making areas for those less fortunate to live where they can get everything they need within a few blocks, which can help them elevate their situations.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Post 2
Hello, all, second post, and this time it's about the controversial RELIGION chapter from our book Nonprofit Nation! This always seems to bring a fire to any individual's eyes (as we saw in class), whether for or against the idea that churches and religiously affiliated organizations should be allowed to keep their revenues a secret, and whether or not they should have to answer to the government regarding what they use their revenue for. I felt very passionately about this chapter and the discussion that ensued in class.
After reading Chapter 3 of Nonprofit Nation, I am inclined to agree that churches should be able to withhold their revenue made from donations from patrons and still have tax-exempt, nonprofit status. It has often been said that this is unfair, but I disagree, because churches have the natural governing body of their members. Unlike the US government, which has power over the states, which in turn have power over localities, churches derive their power from the people, and as such, they are under the influence of the people. Most church members, upon finding out that their donations have been used for what they see as illegitimate means, leave the church or take it a step further and take them to court.
As I see it, churches are held accountable for how they use their money by the people, and when a church uses their money for unusual purposes (such as the Westboro Baptist Church does, making signs and flying members to protest events), we can see they they are but a minute piece of the pie of what churches have the power to do as a whole. Because the WBC is so radical, we can see that they have far fewer members than most churches, and I imagine that their borderline insane purposes/funding of those purposes will die out once the leading members have passed on.
If the government were to have the power to regulate churches and religious organizations on their tax-exemption status, this would be thinning the line between the separation of church and state, and it would be breaking the founding fathers' guidelines of a secular government.
After reading Chapter 3 of Nonprofit Nation, I am inclined to agree that churches should be able to withhold their revenue made from donations from patrons and still have tax-exempt, nonprofit status. It has often been said that this is unfair, but I disagree, because churches have the natural governing body of their members. Unlike the US government, which has power over the states, which in turn have power over localities, churches derive their power from the people, and as such, they are under the influence of the people. Most church members, upon finding out that their donations have been used for what they see as illegitimate means, leave the church or take it a step further and take them to court.
As I see it, churches are held accountable for how they use their money by the people, and when a church uses their money for unusual purposes (such as the Westboro Baptist Church does, making signs and flying members to protest events), we can see they they are but a minute piece of the pie of what churches have the power to do as a whole. Because the WBC is so radical, we can see that they have far fewer members than most churches, and I imagine that their borderline insane purposes/funding of those purposes will die out once the leading members have passed on.
If the government were to have the power to regulate churches and religious organizations on their tax-exemption status, this would be thinning the line between the separation of church and state, and it would be breaking the founding fathers' guidelines of a secular government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)