This week’s readings brought up a number of pressing issues and valid arguments regarding the future of the nonprofit sector. In chapter 3 of O’Neill’s Nonprofit Nation, the statistics became a little redundant, but I was impressed by the message the statistics were conveying about the large size and influence of religious nonprofits. The chapter became more interesting when it addressed what we discussed last week in lecture: the separation of church and state. I have a general understanding of the issue and who congregations get their funding from, but I was confused as to how it is possible for church and state to be separated, yet “Churches get…10 to 15 percent of their revenue from other sources, such as government grants and contracts…and net profit from auxiliary services” (59). If the government can give grants to nonprofits with religious affiliations, why do they not have to report to the IRS; why aren’t religious nonprofits subject to the same rules as other nonprofits? Also, what “auxiliary services” to churches provide that allow them to accumulate profit? I do not believe that in requiring churches to report to the IRS (the same as any other nonprofit organization), the government would be guilty of any “excessive entanglement” (70). I have included a video that gives an example of this very issue and mentions a few groups who feel very passionately about the subject. One such group is a nonprofit called Americans United for Separation of Church and State: http://www.au.org/about/ .
“Charitable Deduction Under Scrutiny” by Suzanne Perry discussed the matter of taking away the tax-exempt and tax-deductible status of nonprofits in the name of decreasing the country’s debt. While taking away tax deductions for charitable donations and organizations might lessen the debt (that, arguably, was accumulated by no fault of the general public), it might also lessen the amount of aid, in turn, placing the burden on the government to spend more money on social services, which would be counter productive.
The shortest article, “Estate Tax and Charitable Giving” from Philantopic, presented some very important questions, showing that, although the nonprofit sector is thought of as an entity separated from business and government, it is impacted by what is going on in those arenas. This interdependence is further demonstrated in Harford’s article, “Even in a recession, charitable giving can go up as well as down,” that focused on the how the economic recession may effect the future of the nonprofit sector. Harford didn't seem convinced that the future of donations looked bright. What caught my attention was that one of Harford’s sources was Paul Slovic, a psychology professor at the UO. Fall term Slovic gave a lecture in my INTL 199 course about what motivates people to feel, care, and/or be proactive in regards to human suffering. The work he does and the conclusions he has reached are extremely interesting. For example, his theories and experiments on “warm glow” and the ineffectiveness of statistics to evoke emotion have huge implications for the nonprofit sector regarding how organizations can get people to care.
Lastly, creating a system through which the effectiveness of nonprofits could be measured and somehow rated was addressed by Dan Pallotta’s blog: “Our Ineffectiveness at Measuring Effectiveness”. Pallotta brought up the potential of quantifying the effectiveness of nonprofits to be a bad thing because, “everything will be reduced to numbers…instead of dynamic story-telling content”. This point relates to Paul Slovic's studies, which prove that the personalization (such as individual story telling) of events make people much more likely to care about, and donate to, a cause. Also, it seems very difficult, if not impossible, to universally measure effectiveness of nonprofits. If there was a rating system, high rated nonprofits could receive more attention, causing people to potentially neglect other nonprofits who maybe tackle issues that are harder to measure or are seen as less important to the majority of people. Pallotta expresses this same concern when he states: “we’ll create a market around the problems that are easiest to solve…[it is] much easier to serve soup and measure your effectiveness than to try and end homelessness and measure that”. In Perry’s article there was an important quote from Tim Delaney which stresses that within such discussions regarding the future of the nonprofit, it is imperative not to lose sight of what is really important: "We shouldn't be asking whether nonprofits will be hurt by some of these proposals," he says, "but whether the people we as nonprofits serve would benefit or suffer."
I find the concept of defining where the line can be drawn between church and state to be incredibly confusing. It is not fit for the government to have ultimate control over our nation’s faith bases (we are accustomed to the fear of this outcome based in the abuse of such power in previous governmental structures over time; the beginning of Communist China, etc) but must also not allow the power of persuasion swing in the opposite direction, with no governmental regulation allowing unchecked power and actions. Religious groups have an unparalleled place in society as a means of public movement, and this power needs to be monitored for corruption just as closely as the many ways we regulate the corruption of its counterpart, the State.
ReplyDeleteMonica, I really enjoyed the video you posted, it really brings to perspective how the IRS is regulating religious organizations for political speech. In class, Bob mentioned that if a church were to advocate directly for a specific candidate, then someone could challenge it. It makes me wonder what kind of penalty these churches will face regarding their tax exempt status.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument regarding the blog "charitable deductions under scrutiny" that taking away certain tax exemptions from nonprofits could actually increase the national debt. In so many ways non-profits and the government serve a duel purpose.
The quote from the Delany article makes a great argument about the effectiveness of an organization, rather than asking whether non-profits would be hurt by certain measures, he looks at whether it will benefit the people it is meant to serve. Expanding off information from the lecture, I thought it was interesting noting that an average of 60% of the money trickled down to the actual cause, but after understanding the complexity of how non-profits are organized it makes more sense.
Lastly, I thought it was interesting how advocacy groups existed on both sides regarding the non-profit status for religious organizations. I wonder which side receives the most money? I would think the religious organization side as they have the most at stake. I wonder to what extent religious organizations are involved in using campaign donations to further their interests.
I thought Pallotta's argument for a system to measure the effectiveness of nonprofits was also far-fetched and would most likely be problematic from the start. That is cool that you took a class from Paul Slovic! I would like to hear him speak on some other issues as well because I too believe that statistics (while essential to interpret quantiative and some qualitative data) are ineffective in trying to evoke emotion. After reading more of our group's blogs, I am still moderate on whether religious nonprofits should provide more financial information to the government. While it is imperative that we, whether as individuals or groups comprised of individuals, uphold personal freedoms granted in the Constitution (like the First Amendment), some limitations like endorsing a candidate can cause implications (especially since some tax dollars are distributed to such organizations via grants, loans, etc.). In reality, I think we have learned once again that Church and State are still not completely separate (nor may they ever be).
ReplyDeleteMonica, in regards to your question of how church and state may be seperate I think that in order for that to happen it would have to require a shift in America's cultural paradigm that despite it's appearance is certainly attainable. If one looks at the growing secularism in northern Europe there are certainly post-christian or post-religious countries, which in respect to America all signs are pointing towards secularism. Despite the fact that America is one of the religious developing countries and there are many obstacles in its way it seems as though it can be at some point post-religious, now whether this will happen soon is another question.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that churches should be required to report to the IRS particularly as the seperation of church and state become less relevant.
Very interesting video. I think preachers should stick to religious services and not be involved in politics. Those preachers in the video cross the line and are abusing their powers. I am not against the churches but I do think politics and religion should be separate. I wouldn't like someone at my church giving me political advice and they are there to teach about the Bible, not preach about politics. It was great that you got to heard from Paul Slovic and I do see how his "warm glow" theory works in the way people give through emotions.
ReplyDelete