Week 10

The area of grants is one that, somehow, I never really put much thought into even though many class discussions and readings mentioned grants as an important component of nonprofit funding and philanthropy. Thus, it was interesting to learn about grants and funders through the scavenger hunt assignment and the readings. Additionally, after last week’s topic of international nonprofits, it was interesting to see in chapter 10 of Nonprofit Nation that the category of “international affairs, development, and human rights” receives only 3% of total grant dollars (187). It seems that a lot is done within that category despite meager funding. One of the most intriguing aspects of funders is their capability “to affect the development of new programs and sometimes even whole new fields” (191). The power behind their money could be used to do extreme good, but also raises questions about the potential for funders to become a little too powerful in regards to influencing actions of both nonprofits and government. 

In addition to a general overview of funders I appreciated learning about the tax side of the issue, for it is unavoidable and very important. The article regarding Obama’s budget plan was a little hard for me to understand, as taxes and the financial side of things are definitely an area of weakness for me. However, I found an article by David Billet entitled "The War on Philanthropy" that helped more thoroughly explain the situation. Also, the video I included below considers some of the pros and cons of Obama's proposition. One piece of information I found particularly useful was a quote from Billet's article in which Obama states: “if it’s really a charitable contribution, I’m assuming that [the tax exemption] shouldn’t be the determining factor as to whether you’re giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street. And so this provision would affect about 1 percent of the American people. They would still get deductions. It’s just that they wouldn’t be able to write off 39 percent. In that sense, what it would do is it would equalize. When I give $100, I’d get the same amount of deduction as when some, a bus driver who’s making $50,000 a year, or $40,000 a year, gives that same $100. Right now, he gets 28 percent; he gets to write off 28 percent. I get to write off 39 percent. I don’t think that’s fair.”

Obama's statement seems perfectly logical, yet, sadly, I am not convinced that altruism is the motive for many who donate. Rather, it seems to be that economic incentive is: “economic research shows that, on average, each 10 percent reduction in the cost of giving raises the amount that a person gives by about 10 percent” (Billet). Thus, when it is cheaper to give, people give and, conversely, when it is more expensive to give, people are more likely to refrain from doing so. 

As Nonprofit Nation and "Donors and Nonprofits Face a Defining Moment in Responding to a Crisis" imply, perhaps a way that nonprofits can successfully adjust to the "new normal" will be to become a new kind of nonprofit. For example, organizations like the Gates Foundation and "many “new” philanthropists pride themselves on being very hands-on, applying the principles of business to philanthropy, and investing in long-range solutions rather than bandaging immediate issues” (O'Neill 202). 
As Stannard-Stockton suggests, “the nonprofit world must not let itself be a victim of government spending cuts but instead offer solutions that help close the deficit by offering social programs that deliver better results at a lower cost to taxpayers.”

Week 9 International Nonprofits

As an International Studies major, this is a topic that I have a lot of interest in. As Ch. 9 of Nonprofit Nation pointed out, international nonprofits do work in a number of different fields, including “student exchange and aid, relief services, agricultural and economic development, peace and security, human rights, migration and refugee issues” (O’Neill 170-71). Some things I did not know about international nonprofits were that most revenue comes from private contributions and little funding from fees for services since the work they do is free. I had also failed to make the connection between international nonprofits and religious nonprofits, but much work that is done abroad is done by religious organizations such as Witness for Peace (http://www.witnessforpeace.org/). The only problem I see with this is the fact that some nonprofits may go in with an agenda to bring their own religion to the communities they are helping, an often unwanted aspect of aid. Doing so is an example of negated cultural identity and the fact that an area may be perfectly content with their own religion, or lack thereof. As a result, many might be turned off by such religious organizations, for they may feel the organization is imposing its own beliefs instead of listening to what people really want.

Because of the vast area they cover, I see much potential in the role of international nonprofits. They can, for example, “create better relations between the United States and other countries”(173). It is also important to note that many international nonprofits focus on long-term, complex issues within countries. While it may be difficult to measure success because of this, it is much more beneficial and impactful than going in with quick fixes; you can give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, but teach a man to fish and he will eat for life.

I find it inspiring that international nonprofits enable people from affluent countries to help those around the world who may not have the means with which to help themselves. I am not, however, an advocate of going into a country, giving out some food and teddy bears, taking some pictures with orphaned children, and leaving to go back to one’s own, comfortable life with no regard as to the future of those who were only supplied temporary aid. In providing aid to other countries, I think it is essential to have an understanding of their specific culture as well as intentions to provide aid that will have long-term effects, which oftentimes necessitates the inclusion of local people and governments. The “CARE packages” discussed by O’Neill seemed to embody an ideal case of nonprofit aid, for they provided “not only food and clothing but also maternal and child health care, basic education, water sanitation, microenterprise training, and technical assistance in agricultural methods” (173). It seems the need to shift “from direct assistance to capacity building” is increasingly being recognized, which I think is a very good thing (174).

Regardless of the fact that William Easterly strangely held the same facial expression during the entire video, I liked what he had to say about how “the poor get foreign aid forced on them by these ill-informed experts”. However, it was also a little disheartening because Easterly described himself as an idealist who wanted to save the world, and I think as a college student it is hard to hear that, although he went to work for the most powerful force in regards to foreign aid, he did not witness any change. Rather, he witnessed “ineffective bureaucracies,” a common obstacle to change that we run into quite frequently in this class. It seems that Easterly is annoyed with the fact that movements to produce things like the Millennium Development Goals produce little to no substantial change. While the Millennium Development Goals are great in theory, in practice they are not even a binding agreement and the United States, for example, has not even signed on.

An organization that I have always thought was pretty admirable and innovative is the Bangladesh Grameen Bank. As the video describes, the bank and its founder, Muhammad Yunus, won the Nobel Prize in 2006 for their work in community development, especially with women. While I think the Grameen Bank has a good thing going, it has recently been a subject of much controversy, as is described by this New York Times article. However, I am not too convinced that the Bank and Yunus were actually in the wrong. 

Week 8 Advocacy and Arts and Culture

Advocacy organizations have been instrumental in fighting for the rights of the underrepresented, both calling attention to the struggles they face and pressuring the government to do something about it. Withe the Civil Rights Movement and women's suffrage as examples, it seems inarguable that nonprofit advocacy has “had a major impact on society in spite of severe limitations in financial resources” (O’Neill 135). Not only do nonprofit advocacy organizations have an effect on the people they serve, but they also have powerful influence over policies and practices, mainly of government and businesses. As “The Power of Nonprofits” points out, the role that nonprofits play in America has “been the sanctuary where citizens have gathered to save and serve lives…to influence public policy”. I believe that it is extremely important for advocacy organizations to empower citizens, allowing them to articulate their beliefs. 
There are many approaches taken to advocacy, but one method that seems effective is the utilization of art to get a message across. In this relationship between arts and advocacy, I see the bridge between this week's topics. One example of advocacy art that comes to mind is the Obama Obey Giant which was created by the famous street artist Shepard Fairey. The image has been used both to promote and to demean Obama and his policies. The manipulation of Obama's Obey image is demonstrated by the image to the right. The article I got this image from is the same place I got the video from. The article, video, and image are perfect examples of the conservative “NEA bashing” that Nonprofit Nation speaks of (O’Neill 166). 





Although there is much evidence that nonprofits dealing with the arts and the National Endowment for the Arts have positive social and economic impacts, there are many people who, for a multitude of reasons, are not in favor of the government supporting such organizations. In the case of the video, critics of Obama and the NEA claim that using art as propaganda crosses the line. Others are skeptical of government funding of the arts because they do not see any economic benefits. For example, Edward Pauly, a director of research at the Wallace Foundation, was quoted in “The Power of Nonprofits” stating that "It's clear people connect very strongly with significant arts experiences…It's not as clear that the economic benefits of the arts will always be greater than putting the same money and priorities into other investments, such as sports stadiums or malls or job development.'' The fact that investing in arts education may not reap the best “economic benefits” is not troubling to me. What is troubling is that it seems in the United States the amount of value and/or priority that surrounds something is directly related to its effectiveness as a commodity--is evidence that people connect to arts not significant enough to justify its funding? 
Regardless of differing opinions regarding the arts, advocacy will remain a powerful tool for citizens to utilize. It seems that advocating to keep art in schools is becoming increasingly prevalent, and hopefully it will become as powerful as our nation's most successful advocacy efforts. Organization such as Youth Speaks allow people to find potential in themselves that might not have otherwise been accessible, and if the arts were more prevalent in United States schools as culture, perhaps more people would be able to understand the importance of their presence.

In another article I included, Dana Goia, a former NEA chairman, stated: "I dislike partisan and divisive rhetoric, no matter what side of the political spectrum if comes from...When Richard Nixon became the unlikely supporter of the NEA, one of his beliefs was that the arts should bring people of different opinions together, rather than divide them. I think that was right." I also think that is right. 

Week 7 Education

The reading entitled “Subprime Opportunity: The Unfulfilled Promise of For-Profit Colleges and Education” described the subprime lending situation as a “lack of federal oversight, paired with the skewed, growth-driven priorities of Wall Street, [that] led to an inevitable collapse—one in which bankers got rich and new home- owners were driven deeply into debt, foreclosure, and poverty”(1). This trend of the rich becoming richer at the expense of the poor and/or uninformed being exploited seems all too common in many of our course discussions. Healthcare, the environment, and now education are all being utilized as mediums through which people can make a profit, and it seems that this trend is not being followed without consequences. 

The “Subprime Opportunity” reading was constantly making comparisons between nonprofit and for-profit colleges in regards to expenses, graduation rates, and loans, but I felt that the article ignored the fact that even at nonprofit and public colleges, the cost of attending is still extremely high. The discussion of for-profits being disproportionately expensive is an import one, however, the question of high education costs in general is equally critical. Perhaps the “failure of public and private nonprofit institutions to serve the underdeserved” is directly related to the un-affordability of higher education, even when government grants and student loans are taken into account (1). The mission of nonprofits is generally to serve the “underserved,” so why is education more often than not an exception? The exploitation of prospective students by for-profit universities like the University of Phoenix is unacceptable, but the lack of accessibility to higher education is as well. This problem is even further complicated by student loans. 
Although taking out student loans is often the only way that many can access higher education, this video shows that loans are creating problems that, financially speaking, may outweigh the benefits of obtaining a college education:

The problems that student loans are creating call for the government to, as Stephen Burd points out in his article “Fed Up at the University of Phoenix,” “reconsider whether it's really in the public's best interest to continue to provide huge subsidies, in the form of federal grants and loans, to help low- and moderate-income students go to colleges that are much more interested in rewarding investors on Wall Street than educating students”. Apparently, the US Department of Education is addressing this concern. According to a New York Times article, the Department of Education, in response to the widespread knowledge of problems associated with for-profit colleges, is preparing to release a list of guidelines in relation to providing aid to students attending for-profit schools. One response is to "cut off federal financial aid to programs whose graduates have big student loans, low income and low loan-repayment rates". Additionally, colleges with default rates that exceed 30% for three consecutive years will not be eligible for federal aid. Taking steps to protect students from accumulating un-payable amounts of debt is critical to ending the problems associated with for-profit schools. However, I do not feel that that it solves the larger problem at hand, thus higher education will still remain too expensive for many to afford, even with federal aid and student loans.  

As O'Neill describes it: "tuition for private schools and colleges, even with financial aid, is often prohibitive" (133). I have heard countless stories of students who were accepted to prestigious, nonprofit universities, yet they ended up at their state's public university because they simply could not afford to go anywhere else. I see nothing wrong with attending a public university in one's state of residency, but in a time when people are judged based on GPA and the prestige of the university they attend, affordability creates a problematic divide between the haves and the have-nots. Private nonprofit colleges and universities appear to be an exception to the rule of nonprofits as organizations who help those that are most in need.

I suggest reading the NY Times article that I included-it is very relevant to this week's readings and discussion! Also, as I was on YouTube looking for a video to include in my post, the related videos section had advertisements for both Kaplan and the University of Phoenix and the marketing strategies they use to attract students are pretty interesting to watch: U of Phoenix and Kaplan 

Week 6 Environment

I really enjoyed reading Paul Hawken’s University of Portland commencement speech; it was very inspirational and, I think, a very accurate portrayal of the world that college graduates are entering. In Hawken’s speech he states: “if you meet the people who are working to restore this earth and the lives of the poor, and you aren’t optimistic, you haven’t got a pulse”. Some of those people who are working to restore the earth are taking a very realistic approach to climate change and doing what they can to get small businesses, large corporations, governments, and people on board for change, especially concerning the environment. Thus, I believe it is important to remain optimistic about the opportunities that exist within the relationships that environmental nonprofits and businesses are forming. While there are definitely examples of corrupt or inefficient relationships between the two traditionally opposing sides, those must be looked at as learning opportunities, reminding us that a system of checks and balances must exist to ensure the legitimacy behind businesses “going green”.

As the article by Susan Raymond addressing Al Gore’s choice to donate 100% of his salary to a the Alliance for Climate Protection (a nonprofit environmental organization) points out, alliances between businesses and nonprofits can have huge financial benefits for nonprofits. Raymond’s article also pointed out that the market for things like environmental technology are becoming more common, however, I was surprised when I read that the environment is such a small percentage of the nonprofit sector. Currently, only 2% of all philanthropic giving goes to environmental nonprofits so maybe as the environment becomes a more popular and pressing issue, this percentage will go up. 

Additionally, Susan Raymond’s discussion of SO2 emissions reminded me of the system of cap and trade, which the video I included gives a biased but good explanation of. The narrator addresses that is a good thing for companies and governments to come together in the name of curbing emissions but goes on to show the unfortunate situation that has come out of cap and trade. One such danger she refers to as “cap and give away” which, in Europe, actually caused carbon emissions to go up. In spite of the rise in emissions, the companies who were polluting made huge profits. This serves as just one example of how, when left to the market, good intentions can lead to scams and other types of corruption. Successfully moving the global economy away from fossil fuel dependency and other sources of environmental degradation depends heavily on the involvement of corporations and markets, but the “distractions” that the narrator of the cap and trade video points out are creating huge obstacles. 

In theory, bridging the gap between environment and business is positive, but it is not always good in practice. I do not intend to be pessimistic but I do think it is important to be critical. The new opportunities emerging in sustainable business are very exciting, but if we fail to addresses the important questions there will be more quick fixes than actual solutions to the world’s environmental problems. 
The McKenzie Watershed Council is a good example of how making relationships can produce good results. As stated in the MWC’s 2008 report, “The Council is comprised of partners representing a broad array of interests: government entities, utilities, commercial and recreational interests, conservation organizations, schools and residents”. Having so many different organizations as part of the board and making meetings open to the public is a great model to follow, for it allows the MWC to make sure that everyone who is dependent on or affected by the McKenzie river basin gets a say in how it is maintained. The MWC also supports the local economy: "Of the total FY 2008 expenditures, over 85% was spent within Lane County through the use of local contractors and ground crews and the purchasing of restoration materials and other program supplies from local suppliers". They extend their positive community impact by holding educational programs to obtain their goal of promoting community understanding and stewardship. By allowing so many diverse agendas and opinions to be a part of decision-making processes, the MWC can ensure that all the important questions can be asked and truly beneficial decisions can be made. 

Week 5 Health Care

This week’s readings brought up a lot of popularly debated aspects of health care. Many people (including myself) do not know much about how the health care system works. From social security to Medicare and Medicaid, there is a lot to keep up with and a lot to disagree over. I discovered from “The Value of Nonprofit Health Care” that “About 20 percent of Americans aren’t even familiar with the terms nonprofit and for-profit health care, and another 13 percent have “no clue” as to the difference, legally or otherwise”. With so many people voting on health care reform and in effect changing the entire system, that is a troubling statistic. Thus, I am glad we are covering this topic because it is an important one, especially considering the recent buzz surrounding health care reform. I always find that the New York Times is a great source for information and under their “Times Topics” section (a Wikipedia-like breakdown of topics) there is an overview of health care reform that was especially helpful to me: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=health%20care&st=cse

A question that the readings brought up was why a hospital would choose to be for-profit. Considering the fact that for-profit hospitals do not share, for example, the tax-exempt status that nonprofit hospitals do, it seems like a risky endeavor to undertake, as hospitals are extremely costly. I did some searching to help answer my questions and found that there is a lot of information regarding nonprofit vs. for profit hospitals. One source I found was the video I included that touches on the legitimacy behind tax exemption for nonprofit hospitals. 

I also found a blog entitled The Health Care Blog by Paul Levy and his post “The Not-For-Profit/For-Profit Divide” related to the assigned article “Mergers of for-profit, non-profit hospitals: Who does it help?” by Jenny Gold. Both sources offered responses as to why a hospital would want to abandon nonprofit status and take the risk associated with for-profit. Levy explains that “in an odd divergence of perspectives, non-profits worry about decreased reimbursement levels resulting from the national health care reform law; they therefore fear that they will lack capital for renewal and replacement of physical facilities and clinical equipment. For-profit investors, in contrast, see the new law as enabling an increased number of insured citizens to show up as patients in their hospitals; they therefore look forward to growing cash flows to reward their risk-taking.” Levy explains that risks must be taken and for-profit hospitals are much more inclined than nonprofits to take on the challenge; big risks have big rewards. Additionally, there is a lot of money to be made in the health care business, especially with the emergence of more insured people seeking medical services. However, it is important to consider that nonprofit hospitals often provide services that for profit hospitals neglect: “For-profit hospitals, she says, are more likely to offer lucrative services, such as cardiac and diagnostic services, while their non-profit counterparts often provide more less-profitable services such as trauma centers, burn centers and alcohol- and drug-treatment programs” (Gold). Although such services are extremely beneficial for patients, they simply are not profitable, and thus are avoided by hospitals concerned with making a profit and pleasing shareholders (“The Value of Nonprofit Health Care”). 

The article about adult ADD highlights another potential danger associated with profit-motivated healthcare with the prescription drug industry as an example. The article argues that not only is prescription writing incentivized, but companies also spend huge sums of money to advertise conditions such as ADD and even new drugs to solve “medical” conditions like insufficient eyelashes and balding. These advertisements cause (and even urge) people to self-diagnose and make recommendations to their doctors instead of the other way around. Regardless of whether or not someone actually has ADD and that the eyelash enhancer can cause blindness, the company who produces the product will do its best to get their product to as many people as possible. Ironically, even in the business of health, when profit is the bottom line, people become secondary.

In sum, being well should not be a luxury reserved for those who can afford the most lucrative treatments and the latest prescription drugs. Health care should be regarded as a basic human right, regardless of whether or not an individual or their condition is profitable. 

A link to Paul Levy's blog: http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2010/07/the-not-forprofit-forprofit-divide.html 

Week 4 Post

This week’s readings all corresponded to the social services area of the nonprofit sector. The main topic of conversation was housing, or lack thereof. The articles pointed out that many families are in danger of losing their homes or living in extremely uncomfortable conditions if they do not receive some kind of assistance like that provided by programs such as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, MAAC (Maximizing Access to Advance our Communities), and affordable housing in the Langley Park area. While these programs have supplied considerable aid, there are some programs for families and people in need that are simply not as effective. For instance, the failure of Fort Greene homeless shelter in New York City to provide inhabitants with heated and sanitary living conditions is a sad realization of the fact that not all social work is created equal.

As stated in Nonprofit Nation, many who receive the services provided by the government or by nonprofits are, “stigmatized by society and have problems other Americans would rather not know about” (81). I think this is the reason why issues like those that exist in the Fort Greene homeless shelter are repeatedly ignored. Many think of people who receive welfare, are homeless, or are unemployed as too lazy to do what they need to change their situation. However, the issue is much more complicated than that. How can one prosper if they were never given the opportunities or the tools to do so? Yes, there are many people who are in bad situations because they have made bad choices, but that is not a sufficient enough reason to place every person in the US who lives in poverty under this same umbrella of laziness and poor choices. It is important to remember that the impoverished are people with the same human needs and desires as the rest of us, thus we must remain critical of social services so that institutions like Fort Greene homeless shelter cannot slip below the radar and get away with providing sub-par care to people who are desperately in need of food, shelter, and warmth. When Lyndon B. Johnson launched his War on Poverty, I do not think that these half-hearted solutions are what he had in mind for a great American society. Providing food and shelter are important aspects of aid, however, programs that integrate job training and related services can be much more beneficial in the long term. Doing so will undoubtedly cost money, but for every person who obtains the means to support themselves, there is one less person dependant on government or nonprofit assistance. 

            Although the article about “Redeeming Value” by Diane Dietz does not deal specifically with the issue of housing, I wanted to bring it into my discussion because I found the article to be especially interesting. I think it is very cool that Terry McDonald does nonprofit differently, and with much more entrepreneurial skill: “All this makes St. Vinnie’s unlike most social service agencies that operate strictly on donations. Half of St. Vinnie’s income is business revenues — and it strives to go further down the road to profitability for the benefit of its stockholders, who are: “The poor, the low income people of this community”’. I think that McDonalds’s approach to business and “turning trash into treasure” is admirably innovative because it has big implications for a sustainable business future. He has some very progressive ideas, especially regarding the reuse and repurposing of old, thrown out materials. McDonald's success shows that not all successful business relies on the exploitation of both people and the environment. He serves as an example for those who want to work in the nonprofit sector, but are worried about having to live paycheck to paycheck; its possible to run both an environmentally and socially responsible business, while also managing to make a comfortable living, it just takes some serious drive and innovation. 


The nonprofit I am doing for my scavenger hunt assignment has a similar approach to nonprofit that St.Vincent DePaul's does. The organization is Ecotrust and is based in Portland. As stated on their website, through what they call "reliable prosperity," they address "the fundamental needs of people -- and the ecosystems that sustain them-- is the starting point for a different kind of economic prosperity that can endure generation after generation".Their website is very informational, giving a both background on the organization and its members, as well as descriptions of their different initiatives. I suggest checking it out! http://www.ecotrust.org/

The video I included is one I found that shows several clips of LBJ carrying out his goal to make it impossible to continue to ignore the American paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty. It also demonstrates the power of prominent figures in society to educate and empower people.