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.