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.”