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.
Erin,
ReplyDeleteI also really agreed with with Goldmark's argument about foundations that don't have measuring scales. I know that part of successfully applying to a grant involves explaining in detail how your project's success will be evaluated. I honestly don't know how a foundation without any measuring tools would be able to survive for long, even if they were helping their target population.
Au revoir Erin! Hopefully I'll see you around next term!
Erin,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post. As with you, I also found the article on "impact" to be very interesting. It is nice to see givers really care about how their money is being used. They want to see results and how the financial support is making a difference. This seems obvious to me but I guess its not. The article really got me thinking about the workings of the giver-receiver relationship.
I had a great time in group with you, Thanks.
Erin,
ReplyDeleteI also really liked the Goldmark article. I find it interesting that non-profits have gone so long without a reliable way to determine whether or not they are doing what they have set out to do. I guess it's because there are so many non-profits out there that evaluating them all would be next to impossible. I'm sure that there are also non-profits that just want the money to roll in and not really want to do anything else. It's good to see that some of the non-profits are taking the initiative to evaluate themselves for their funders.
It was great being in class and group with you, Erin! See you around.