Week 10

Budget Plan Brings Big Changes to Tax Incentives for Donors –

            While this article was a little dry, it was informative. I don’t think that decreasing the amount that those in the top tax bracket can write off from charitable donations will have an enormous affect on charitable giving from that population of society. I agree with the article when it says that there are just too many loopholes in the tax system and it’s about time to cut back on the itemized deductions of the richest percent of our population. One part of the article I am still a little confused on is the estate tax. I don’t think that people should be able to pass on their estate without paying taxes on it, but what I am not clear on is how much it would be taxed, at what percentage, and if all estates will be taxed, even if they are only worth 50,000 dollars. Obama wants to get taxes back to what they were a few years ago, and since charitable donations haven’t seen a sharp decline since 2009 when the tax percent was higher and estates were taxed after a certain amount, I don’t think that we should worry about this decreasing donations from the richest population.

Donors and Nonprofits Face a Defining Moment in Responding to Crisis –

            One quote that really stood out to me in this article was that “even a rapid increase in charitable giving could not possibly make up for the cuts in government spending that will probably be made over the next decade”. As the government goes more and more into debt, the first things they tend to cut are safety net programs. This often leaves non-profits to pick up the slack, but I like that the article points out that with such high deficits, non-profits are really struggling picking up ALL the slack. I think that the U.K. has an incredible idea of issuing “social impact bonds”. In hard financial times, non-profits can’t rely just on the giving of donors and the funds from grants, and since the government can’t give as much assistance, looking to make non-profits “profitable” for investors may be the best option. I also liked that the author pointed out that while the financial crisis is ending, donors and non-profits should not stop searching for financial options, but should work to create something that will be viable for years to come. I really enjoyed this article.

A Newly Powerful Grant-Making Force: Artist-Endowed Foundations –

            I think that artist-endowed foundations are great and I am happy that the number of them out there is increasing. While philanthropists give to make organizations, for many different reasons, no one understands the struggles and hurdles of the art world better then an artist him/herself. These foundations also seem to have a great amount of control over the art that they own, which seems to make their assets more fluid and available to the public. The fact that these foundation hold art close to their hearts, and have close ties to the artist themselves, makes them a great asset to the charity world, especially in a time when art programs are taking large financial hits.

How to do Good and Prove It: Integrate Social Impact in Your Nonprofit’s DNA –

            I found that this article made a great deal of sense. Why would you want to give to a non-profit that was not sure if what they were doing was making an impact? I do think that the author might have been too harsh when he wrote that the inputs and activities that the organization had or were doing didn’t matter. I think that while the final impact is extremely important, if a non-profit has an extended plan, then there is no way to measure the final impact for sure, but it is possible to guess a measurement by what the inputs are and what is happening currently. I do like his idea of the short and sweet mission statement. You see so many mission statements now days that are increasingly vague and make you feel more confused about what the organization does, so to have a mission statement that says right there EXACTLY what they are there for would be nice for sure. I think that the author has a lot of great ideas about running non-profits. It reminds me of the “keep it simple stupid” saying, if you can’t measure what you are doing and if someone can’t figure out what you are there for, what’s the point in even running?

Week 9 (yay!)

Millennium Development Goals –

 While I think that the goals discussed in this article were good goals, I think that not until last year did anyone think about how each country might have a different cultural backdrop or different funding to achieve the goals, and so a standard set of goals might not be the best approach. I also think that some of the goals would seem a lot less important than others, depending on which country you were from. Take environmental sustainability for example, while this is extremely important, and achieving this goal would fix a lot of issues, in say Africa, I think that the government there would rather pour their money into the medical goals, like AIDS/HIV, which they have such a large issue with. But this said, I do think that the creation of the acceleration framework will allow for each government to specify more and allow the goals to be of more use. One more thing that bothered me a little was that the article didn’t mention aide that was to go to the countries to help achieve these goals, whether it be medical supplies, teaching materials, or anything else, I know that the third world countries would have a better chance of meeting the goals if they were able to get the funds.

Aide vs. Trade –

I thought this talk was very interesting. I really liked that she pointed out that Africa has given aide and without their aide, America wouldn’t be what it is today. I also liked that she pointed out that Africans should not refuse aide, or be on the defensive about it. I feel that in a lot of cases of lower income families/individuals in the US, many are ashamed of getting things like food stamps, when there should be no shame. If you need something to better yourself and your family, then take it and don’t look back. I also liked her idea of a partnership of aide, government, private sector, and the African people. I think that it is important to have private development, which will most often create jobs, and I also think it is important for the government to be there to fix things that the private sector may not find profitable, like health aide. But I also like that she points out the importance of the African people to step up and create a conference with those who are giving to their country and say to them this is what we need, don’t spend money on that because it won’t work. An insider knows a lot more about what is working and what is really broken and the tools that can fix it. Below the video were some nasty comments on the African political structure, and how aide should come only after that is fixed, but I think that by building infrastructure like the video suggests, not only can changes happen faster, because if we waited around for the government to change, we might never get social change, but average African people will also have more power, they will become important economic and social agents, and with education and jobs, they will require changes from their government to accommodate them. So I think that in order to really help people in other countries, like Africa, we need to first ask them what they need help with, and then we need to work with their people, and investors, to create/build infrastructure that will create positive change and investments in the future.

How Does Foreign Aide Fail? –

This article tied in nicely with the previous video. Aide is all good and dandy, but spending it well is what is important. I would think that since such large amounts of money are given in aide, those that are giving it would really make sure it’s going to the right places, so that in the future, they don’t have to give as much, if any. Blindly giving aid to countries creates a vicious circle. I also likes that the author pointed out that the “experts” that determine where the aide should go are not at all experts. The Africans people should really be a part of the aide process and because they aren’t, money is being spent inefficiently. I also liked that the article pointed out some of the issues with giving. Those that give to feel good, and have no real connection to the outcome, give just to give and don’t follow up, or investigate, where they are putting their money. If only there was massive world legislation like SB 40! J The author writes that there is no accountability, no efficiency. I think that this should be a little more obvious then we claim it is, I mean if we are giving so much to make the lives of Africans better, then why isn’t it working, why hasn’t the death rates due to disease significantly lowered, why haven’t we seen the changes that these aide dollars are supposedly creating?

Mercy Corps –

“Mercy Corps helps people turn the crises they confront into the opportunities they deserve”. I liked that it said they give people the tools and support to change their communities and better their own lives. It seems to really put the people at the center. I also liked that the people that work for them, have often also received aide from them in the past, and live in the countries that they are to be helping. This provides them with an inside look at what needs to be fixed, and also gives them knowledge of how it can be fixed.  The type of help that Mercy Corps offers is a very long list, which seemed to share a lot of similarities with the MDG’s. They work to create jobs, provide training, education, and a lot of what they do seems to focus on the youth of the countries they are helping. I have always found this to be important. All too often people forget that the youth will become the adults, and without proper education and training, the circle will never change. I think that the goals are to help people help themselves, to get those in need involved with fixing their own issues, while giving them the tools to fix things in the future without assistance. I found Mercy Corps to be very interesting, and having never heard of them before, I am glad that I had the chance to learn about them.   

Week 8

The Power of Nonprofits was a really good article. It was inspiring for me, as someone that wished to work in a non profit in the future, and I found that I was learning a lot that maybe before I thought I knew, but I never linked certain events with non profits. The American Suffrage Association is something that has come up in a few of my classes, but the focus has always been on how they worked towards getting the vote, never who the group was, and I never made the link that they were a non profit. Just like in the first few weeks of class, this article really opened my eyes to the important things non profits did in the past, and have the capacity to continue doing in the future.

            The release by The Nonprofit Association of Oregon on Senate Bill 40 was good to hear. While 16,000 nonprofits possibly being unethical seems to be a big number to me, its nice to hear that the issue isn’t very popular in Oregon. I think that the legislation is a little confusing, but anything that helps donors trust that what they give will be used for the purpose they are giving, sounds good to me. After a few other class readings I have wondered about the viability of some of the non profits I have encountered, and so to have legislatures looking after the public is a relief. Not to be a negative Nancy, but I do wonder who will be regulating the non profits, or better yet how big that organization will be given the large sum of non profits in Oregon, and how the timelines work for the non profits in question to disclose financial data. I hope the bill gets used right and that it really does work out to protect the public, because like the article says, I wouldn’t want one bad apple to ruin donating or for the public to question all non profits.

            The next release, also by The Nonprofit Association of Oregon, mentioned a lot of the same material that the first did. I liked thought that they mentioned some concerns that may arise, like the blanket thresholds and how that will affect say smaller non profits vs. larger non profits, but the release did mention that appropriate exemptions would be made. It does again though make me wonder who is looking into these non profits and upholding the regulations, and then who gets to decide on exemptions. Maybe as you can tell I have waivering faith in the government, I mean there are only a handful of employees at some docks ensuring that Americans are safe from ALL imported products coming in through those docks… Makes one question regulations a little, but then the fact that this is a state regulation rather than a federal one does make me feel a little better.

            The next article is titled Arts Groups Pumped $166.2 Billion into US in 2005. While I find the arts important, I haven’t ever had a profound interest in arts as a non profit, so this article was very informative. The author wrote that “the economic impact of these nonprofits grew by 24 percent, or 11 percent adjusted for inflation, between 2000 and 2005”, which I found significant. I have to work on getting my mind away from my stereotypical thought of non profits and realize that the arts contribute quite a bit to society, government and culture. I found it weird that the Wallace Foundation, a foundation that the article says aims to expand the demand and appreciation for the arts, really questioned the economic importance of the arts, that is if I am reading this right. While I don’t know enough about the situation to make a very informed observation, I think that the arts are a very important aspect of our culture and are a significant piece of society, and if they are lacking the funding that they need, I would hope that the government would ensure that they aren’t left out of budgeting. I also found it crazy that the guy from the Wallace Foundation compared the economic benefits of the arts to sports stadiums and mall development… Maybe though I am focusing too much on the social benefit and not quite understanding the controversy over the economic benefits.

                 The last article, Poetry gives teens a voice, gave me a nice real world example of a non profit involved with the arts. I think that the program seems cool, and it also seems to be doing a lot of good for those involved. I think this program is a great example of the good that the arts are not only doing for cultural reasons, but also for society. Without this program the outcome of those involved could have been drastically different and it’s nice to see that the performers are able to speak their mind and release some of the stress, anger, happiness, or whatever other emotions they are feeling. I think that programs like this channel teens voices into something creative and they get heard without a large amount of prejudice.  

Week 7

            As education becomes more and more valuable in our society, and enrollment skyrockets for many colleges, it only seems appropriate that for profit colleges are pushing themselves on the market. As society becomes more educated, I would hope that they take their college choices, and the choices of their children, extremely serious and look into the studies that are popping up all over the place. Being a first generation 4-year college attendee, I took the choice very seriously, and so I was happy when the topic of education came up in class.

            The first reading I read was Fed Up at the University of Phoenix. I have always wondered about this school, with their ever popular commercials bragging about their teaching staff and accelerated degrees. The main idea I pulled from the article was the thought that enrollment leads to higher stock prices, which makes those stockholders happy, but the education the students are paying for is not making the students happy. The article talks about unethical, or maybe what the University of Phoenix would call unconventional, recruitment processes. When I think of education I don’t tend to think of lies or anything bad, so it was a little strange to read that they do unethical things to inflate admission numbers. This is the type of thing one would see in corporations, but I never thought of seeing it in education so it was a shocker. I instantly felt bad for those people that enroll in schools like this, and wondered about possible regulations..

            The next reading, Subprime Opportunity, sang something similar to the first. The connection between the housing crisis and the education sector was interesting. One comment that stuck out to me was “just as everyday Americans suffered the effects of misplaced priorities and weak regulations of subprime lenders, so too are the most vulnerable in society being harmed by underregulated for-profit colleges that value double-digit stock growth and shareholder returns over student success”. In a sector that so many people count on to further their potential, it seems crazy to me that the regulations seem so flexible. Extremely flexible considering that the students that are going to these for profit colleges are paying with federal and state dollars. The article says that the for profit schools received 66% of its revenues from federal student aid. So the government is paying the colleges for a crappy education is what seems to be happening.

            Will the For Profit Bubble Burst in 2011? was also an insightful article. I think its good that the for profit colleges are under investigation and that the government is ready to set regulations on funding to certain programs that show a low return rate on investment, which is now how I see the money that the federal government puts into these programs. With something like the GI Bill, veterans who have served their country are supposed to be given the opportunity to do something outside of what they were taught to do in the military. For these veterans to go to college and become contributing members of society is very important to our societies well being, but if the colleges they are going to aren’t preparing them for a future outside of the armed forces, the federal bill is wasted. This article and the article I mentioned previously both mention tax payers investments to these for profit colleges that are being squandered and so I think its only fair that the government restrict funding and impose necessary regulations to keep the for profit colleges on the right track. I think its difficult to juggle something like educating society to make the world better, while keeping in mind profits, stakeholders interests, and the bottom line.

            The brief on for profit schools was a good breakdown to a lot of the bad the articles before mentioned, but also a refresher with the good that it mentioned. I never would have thought about advertising and marketing draining budgets for teachers, nor did I think much about for profit schools creating competition. I think that the article brings up a really good point in that for-profit schools are newer, and proper management has yet to be achieved, so it’s a little fuzzy as to the benefit for profit schools could have on society. While this fuzz is obviously caused by profit searching, if the for profit school bubble doesn’t burst it would be interesting to see if the schools can get it together, maybe with the help of regulations, to really create a better education sector.

            The chapter in Non Profit Nation was a little confusing to me. I found it interesting that most private schools have a high number of minority students. I also found it interesting that teachers in religious schools aren’t subject to the same regulations as those that work at public schools, but the students at private schools do better. I think overall the idea of non profit and public education is a lot safer. It is nice to know that someone will be there to regulate how the school is run and look out for your interests rather than the interests of stakeholders.

Week Six

The guide to Environmental Nonprofits was a good article. I am not the biggest environmentalist and in the past when I have looked into environmental nonprofits I have gotten lost so I felt as though this article read my mind. I liked that it was straight and to the point with it descriptions but kept everything interesting. A few groups I found interesting were the Ocean Futures Society and the Global Coral Reef Alliance… Never would I have thought there was a group that looked out for coral reef!

            The Saving the Environment for a Profit article was a little confusing, but one part that I totally understood (at least I think) was when the author mentions the policy makers developing a market approach for trading pollution rights. In another class I am taking we have discussed tradable permits for pollution abatement. The trade of pollution permits allows economists to look at the actual COST of pollution, which I am sure helps those for profit groups to determine whether they would like to enter the environmental world or not. I still don’t understand how people can make money off pollution, like the selling of trees in the Amazon so you can use more carbon? Things like that are still a little confusing, but if environmental protection becomes an issue for not only non profits but also for profits, I don’t think I see a problem with that… maybe. J

            Paul Hawken’s address was cool. I like that he was straight forward, but hilarious at the same time, and really put the pressure on our generation to do something about the issues our world and environment face. Like I mentioned above, I am not really an environmentalist, not because I don’t find the environment important or anything, it just doesn’t interest me as a career path, but after this article I think I have found some new found respect for those that are trying to save the world for the benefit of all, talk about selflessness.

            Coming from the Eugene area, I have always been taught the importance of the rivers that run through the Willamette Valley. I am happy to see that there is an organization like the McKenzie Watershed Council that has a voice out for the natural resource that many would love to overuse and ruin. The MWC looks to be doing great things, like the fish habitat enhancement program and the river monitoring. Fun fact, when I was younger I was actually involved with the MWC, I worked with them to plant vegetation in an open field, which was responsible for large amounts of debri and sediments running off straight into the river and I also worked on stamping of street drains! In reading this annual report, I got interested in the annual river cleanup, and I hope that I remember to look for it later this year so I can get involved..