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