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.
Monday, January 24, 2011
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.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Intro Post
Greetings, readers! My name is Erin Finley, and this is a blog purely about the Nonprofit sector and reactions to readings I have done regarding it. I am a Political Science and PPPM major, and I am hoping to one day work for the government. Nonprofit classes such as this interest me because I don't know much about the third sector, and it is inspiring to be in a class with so many people who want to make a difference in the world. If I had to choose a nonprofit organization to work/volunteer for, I would choose the Humane Society (or an offshoot of it) because I love domestic animals, and there is a lot of work to be done regarding the well-being of domestic animals in the United States. I plan to volunteer for them when I grow up and have a job, but in the meantime my family and I love all of the animals we have rescued from shelters and mills. I just learned a very important lesson: save your post before publishing it, or else it might get lost, and 2 hours of work is officially down the drain...
Chapter 1 is interesting to me because it brings up many things that I had before not known about nonprofit organizations, like what organizations qualify for tax exemption and tax write-offs for donations, and which do not. I believe that tax exemption status for nonprofit organizations is a very beneficial tool for its creators. Without tax exemption status, people with little knowledge of how to run such an organization may never be able to get on their feet and allow the organization to flourish.
While those who argue that organizations such as the NRA and AARP should get tax exemption status, I do not agree, because those organizations are able to politically campaign for certain candidates, and as organizations they only apply to certain percentages of the population.
I also like the fact that people can donate to nonprofit organizations and claim it as a tax write-off, because it enables "average joes" to give alongside people like Bill Gates, and still be able to live within their means. If this were not the case, I feel that fewer people would donate to organizations because they felt that since the government was already taking their money for public use, they did not need to donate any more of it.
Chapter 2 was more interesting to me than Chapter 1 because it observes nonprofit organizations from a political scientist's point of view. It says that nonprofit organizations (according to Tocqueville) are a necessity for a thriving democracy because they experimentation with ideas and values that the government would otherwise toss to the side because of the potential to fail. Nonprofit organizations are also seen as necessary to democracies because they voice the opinions of individuals who might normally be ignored by the majority. I agree with this statement, which I would not have thought of before I had read the chapter.
Finally, and the most interesting to me, is the reading by Andrew Carnegie which says that while there are those individuals who might say that Communism is better than capitalism because the government knows how best to allocate money to those who need it, he says that this just cannot be, and it has been proven through the failure of Communism through recent centuries. This is because people donate more when they know exactly where their money is going (such as donating to Planned Parenthood for the purpose of protecting the right to choose), and less when they know it is just going to be divided up and given to areas they might not support (such as abortion clinics). Capitalism has brought a great thing to the United States: the power to choose a potential outcome out of many visible, such as through starting a nonprofit organization that may or may not fail. I enjoyed this reading the most, because while I might normally view capitalism as a negative aspect with concern for the "little guys," I cannot deny that it does give citizens the right to make their own decisions on where to donate their money.
Chapter 1 is interesting to me because it brings up many things that I had before not known about nonprofit organizations, like what organizations qualify for tax exemption and tax write-offs for donations, and which do not. I believe that tax exemption status for nonprofit organizations is a very beneficial tool for its creators. Without tax exemption status, people with little knowledge of how to run such an organization may never be able to get on their feet and allow the organization to flourish.
While those who argue that organizations such as the NRA and AARP should get tax exemption status, I do not agree, because those organizations are able to politically campaign for certain candidates, and as organizations they only apply to certain percentages of the population.
I also like the fact that people can donate to nonprofit organizations and claim it as a tax write-off, because it enables "average joes" to give alongside people like Bill Gates, and still be able to live within their means. If this were not the case, I feel that fewer people would donate to organizations because they felt that since the government was already taking their money for public use, they did not need to donate any more of it.
Chapter 2 was more interesting to me than Chapter 1 because it observes nonprofit organizations from a political scientist's point of view. It says that nonprofit organizations (according to Tocqueville) are a necessity for a thriving democracy because they experimentation with ideas and values that the government would otherwise toss to the side because of the potential to fail. Nonprofit organizations are also seen as necessary to democracies because they voice the opinions of individuals who might normally be ignored by the majority. I agree with this statement, which I would not have thought of before I had read the chapter.
Finally, and the most interesting to me, is the reading by Andrew Carnegie which says that while there are those individuals who might say that Communism is better than capitalism because the government knows how best to allocate money to those who need it, he says that this just cannot be, and it has been proven through the failure of Communism through recent centuries. This is because people donate more when they know exactly where their money is going (such as donating to Planned Parenthood for the purpose of protecting the right to choose), and less when they know it is just going to be divided up and given to areas they might not support (such as abortion clinics). Capitalism has brought a great thing to the United States: the power to choose a potential outcome out of many visible, such as through starting a nonprofit organization that may or may not fail. I enjoyed this reading the most, because while I might normally view capitalism as a negative aspect with concern for the "little guys," I cannot deny that it does give citizens the right to make their own decisions on where to donate their money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)