Greg E

Week 10 Readings

2011-03-14T17:03:00.000-07:00

Budget Plan Brings Big Changes For Donors

This issue, in a nutshell, pertains to how much we should tax the rich, a long-time controversial topic. I personally agree with the stance of President Obama, that we should limit itemized deductions for the rich. The argument against this, of course, is 1)that it is a form of socialism, and 2) that it will have a negative adverse affect on the amount the rich give to charity. But really whats going on is that the government is confiscating a certain amount that may have otherwise been donated, and putting it a use that they deem necessary. As long as that use is a good one, I think it's a good move, and I'm interested to see what the outcome of this will be if it happens. The comment from Obama, admitting that he sacrificed by accepting a policy he still deems unfair and unaffordable, makes me hate politics.

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

Glad to hear about the "sign" of philanthropy's resilience, and kind of restores my faith in the integrity of Americans. I hope this trend continues through the circumstances the author claims put philanthropy in peril. This article is a good forecast of how philanthropy might change through these changing times, and after thinking about it, I agree that it might become much more important in providing certain types of services and programs as governments at all levels deal with budget cuts. If achieved, that will really be an indication of the ability of the American people. I also enjoyed the comments about non profits playing a part in retraining the work force. I'm always non-sympathetic to people who don't understand that we can't continue a certain type of activity just in the name of saving jobs. We can't keep the logging industry going full boar if theres no market for timber. I guess nonprofits really could assist in getting people to realize this and then helping them cope with the transition.

A New Powerful Grant Making Force

When I was reading about how some of the artist-endowed foundations condemned the Smithsonian for what they did, I couldn't help but think: the whole world is getting better at sticking up for what they want! It seems in the past, these types of foundations were shy in regards to controversial issues, but now they are taking action. I know its a broad, general statement, but I feel like its a worldwide trend (Middle East, Wisconsin.... and now artsy nonprofits!) are putting there foot down. Cool. I'm glad to hear about all the ways these groups are changing and effecting the world. As budget cuts continue, these groups are becoming ever more important in keeping the arts alive.

How To Do Good and Prove It...

"For us to invest in somebody who isn't measuring impact would be like investing in a company that doesn't have an accounting department." Good quote! This issue pertains to the issue of transparency and efficiency we've been looking at all term. I never thought about it from a granter's standpoint, but it makes sense that they want to know whats going on, just like someone who donates to charity out of their pocket. I agree with the "Design for Impact" purpose; its time to get serious and take a hard look at "what have you done for me lately".

Week 9 Readings

2011-03-01T22:00:00.000-08:00

Epilogue: What is Peace?

This article reminded me of a saying: everything is relative. This writer went to Iraq with a theme for his story in mind, one that consisted of peace in a place that hadn't it in quite some time. Yet he found that the place had a different kind of "peace", different from what he had originally anticipated. Herein lies my point that everything is relative. Peace here meant something different, yet it is just as great as "peace" somewhere else, which might mean there isn't as much as a fist fight that goes on. So we should keep this in mind when thinking about philanthropy, volunteer-ism, and helping out in places of need. It's all a matter of progress.

I can remember after the Haiti earthquake, someone said to me "why is everyone (US citizens) donating so much money to Haiti when theres plenty of people here who need help?" They weren't necessarily right or wrong. One view is that they have a point. There are lots of people here in need, that don't get all the publicity of disaster victims. People who want to help only when somethings all over the news should maybe look around and see how they can help the people around them and in their own country. One shouldn't feel ashamed to want to help their neighbor instead of a hungry person on another continent, even though that person might be in a more dire situation. Another view is that people's problems here aren't really as bad as elsewhere. A different person told me "America is the only place where poor people are fat." Yeah, there might be people in need here, but theres not a lot of people on the brink of dying from hunger or at risk of being victims of genocide. So maybe we should be helping the people who really need help. Again, personally, I don't think either point is necessarily right or wrong.

I got a little of topic here, but the articles point about relative peace made me think about this. So I'm really curious to know what people's opinion of this is. So PLEASE RESPOND to this in your comments!

Why Does Foreign Aid Fail?

The details of this Q&A are really sad. On one hand, the modern world makes it much easier to aid places far far away. But with that comes all these problems that are brought up in this article. What's really sad is that when this news reaches people, it may further discourage people from donating or advocating for more governmental foreign aid. I'm not surprised to hear someone describe the "leaking" of foreign aid in this sort of way. Hopefully, a trend we see in the coming years is global transparency. We're in the middle of the information age, and it seems very possible that we can create systems that confront this sort of problem. Being able to track money doesn't seem like too lofty of a goal.

Aid vs. Trade

Ngozi makes good points in her TED presentation (which is an awesome website btw, I've seen lots of good stuff on there). She makes some of the same points that the guy in the last article made about there being lots of misuse in foreign aid. One point that she makes thats a little different though is that the misuse of the aid comes from confusion and miscommunication between the people involved, from the top to the bottom. It seems that there should be more coordination between these people, especially when theres big amounts of money being thrown around. I've heard for a long time that these are the reasons that have stalled Africa's growth and evolution. It's unfortunate, but again, hopefully a transparent future will address these issues.

Millennium Development Goals

I didn't know these existed, but I think they must be helpful in addressing some of the issues Ngozi brought up pertaining to an absence of clear goals and priorities. A few of them seem vague and broad, but I suppose the 60 indicators get more specific. I'm really anxious to see the current status of these relative to the goals that were set 11 years ago. It's interesting that "ensure environmental sustainability" is so far down the list, when it seems to me that environmental issues are the root cause of a lot of Africa's other issues. But I guess its hard to put that ahead of the others, such as hunger and education. All in all, I agree with the list and the order.

Week 8 Readings

2011-02-22T21:07:00.000-08:00

The Power of Non Profits

This article made the point of something that I've been realizing more and more all term. There is a huge tradition of activism and philanthropy in this country, and its a major perceived characteristic of Americans. I wonder why that's not made more clear to us in our childhood education. I guess we do learn a lot about Martin Luther King Jr. and historical abolitionist societies in middle and high school, but it seams like it isn't made completely evident that we have this awesome history of people organizing and gathering to advance our society. I had no idea that the social security act was a product of organization and these "Townsend Clubs". The current debate on budget and union issues in Wisconsin and other places is an interesting aspect of this. The thing we keep hearing is that Republicans are trying to prevent labor unions from collectively bargaining. Aren't Republicans typically the traditionalist American's, yet they are trying to end something that is so important to American society.

2 Pages on Senate Bill 40..

I'm glad to hear that our legislature is doing something to regulate charities, and its also nice to know that this association endorses it. I wonder how often new regulatory legislation happens? In the second piece, it said there were "inherent risks" to doing this. What are they?

Arts Group Pumped....

This was a "feel good" story. The results of this study was not surprising: if you pour money into something, it usually trickle downs into other areas. I suppose the argument against this is that if you use money to build facilities or purchase expensive art, then that's where the money stops. But this article makes the argument that, along with the fact that artists and art institutions spend money in other areas of the economy, that these places can actually be revenue generating. The argument I would make is that economic superiority is not the only thing that makes our country great. Things like the arts and of course education are just as important. Those are what's going to progress our intellectual standing.

Poetry Gives Teens a Voice

This story reinforces my point. These types of programs are really important in advancing our society and giving people opportunities they wouldn't normally have. Is it crating economic growth? No. Does that mean we shouldn't spend money on it? Absolutely not. These types of programs are what make the world great, and really makes us human.

Week 7 Readings

2011-02-15T17:32:00.000-08:00

   The article about for-profit colleges brings to our attention the fact that these colleges, such as the University of Phoenix, are heavily recruiting poor and minority students ("underserved") only to deliver them an inferior education. We come to this conclusion because students at these colleges are graduating at a much lower rate, have more debt, and defaulting on their loans at a higher percentage.
   This really bothers me, especially the bit at the end that told us some of these colleges are now doubling as banks to finance their students, even though they expect more than half to default on their loans. But according to them, they are "serving the underserved". This doesn't seem right, but at the same time, I have to say some of this blame has to be on the students themselves. They should do the research themselves before attending these places to decide whether or not the degree they are receiving is worth the money. And if you don't graduate at all, who's fault is that? Lastly, if you default on your loans because you don't have a job, some of that blame goes on you too. Call me cynical, but I just think people need to start holding themselves accountable. Regardless, these colleges should not be trying to take advantage of all this, which is what this article is about.
   The next article continues this theme, but makes a little more of a point about the pressures on these places to expand and create profit. It makes it a little more clear about why graduation rates at these places are low: because people are realizing they are getting a BS deal and decide to drop out instead of finish up their crummy education. So perhaps this takes a little of the blame off the students, if they are truly being mislead. I think that government should intervene.
   The "Will the for-profit education bubble..." article pretty much makes all the same points, but is asking the question of whether or not people will catch on. It's really a shame that so much lobbying money can be spent and pretty much ensures they win the debate. Someone once told me "those who have the money, have the power. Simple as that." So true. I very last paragraph in that article sort of backs up my point: people should take it into their own hands, and not just rely on what these "recruiters" are saying.
   The last web site was somewhat informational. It's nice to know that for profit colleges still only make up a small percentage of overall educational institutions, and perhaps that is why there still hasn't been much government regulation. I definitely think the "disadvantages" section outweighs the "possible advantages" section.

Week 6 Readings

2011-02-08T23:45:00.000-08:00

Because I'm an environmental studies major, I've actually had a few different experiences with the McKenzie River Watershed Council. Over the summer, I was in a class that went to the Cedar Creek site and did some water quality monitoring with one of the MWC employees. It was a good experience and the MWC is an awesome organization that serves a good purpose. It's interesting to think about what would happen if this entity wasn't in place. I've also applied for an internship through the McKenzie River Trust, a sister organization of the MWC. They purchase land and restore it to a natural state along the McKenzie River.

The commencement speech by Mr. Hawken at the University of Portland was intended to be inspirational and motivational, a "calling of action". It was those things, but it was also quite the enviro-rant. I feel like this is the stereotypical stuff you hear in speeches of this nature. However, it doesn't make it any less valid. The things he said are true and accurate in my opinion. It's really up to our creativity and innovation to fix contemporary problems.

The idea that the business sector could play an increasingly important role in environmental services seems totally true. A professor I had one term (Michael Hibbard) lectured about the "restoration economy". There seems to be significant room for growth potential for businesses that do environmental services, such as restoring ecosystems or habitats for specific species. Also, maintenance and monitoring are becoming more important. People get paid to do all of these things, and as the environmental movement continues to evolve, there will be more money allocated to do them. It doesn't just have to be a non-profit mission.

The list of environmental non-profits put together by Mother Jones was fun to look through. They make a good point: it's difficult to figure out what's what among the broad range of non-profits out there. When I was an intern with Cascadia Wildlands, I was surprised by the number of connections they had to other groups similar to them. On some lawsuits they were a part of, there were as many 20-25 groups involved, or filed jointly. I wonder, as environmental awareness spreads, if it would take complete ecological failure before people payed money other then taxes to restore it.

Week 5 Readings

2011-02-01T16:52:00.000-08:00

Yet another surprise this week! I’ve been a long time football fan, and even a pretty strong Green Bay Packer fan, yet I had no clue that they are a non-profit, publicly owned entity. Apparently, that type of model would be ideal, yet it is not realistic. The fact that the Green Bay Packers have a deeply involved, engaged, and committed fan base makes that model work, by my perception. Otherwise, the cost of running a team would be far too high. It seems to me that if professional teams took this approach that it might encourage the type of fan base that Green Bay has. It would also inspire a better sense of community and instill pride. Sports aren’t just games; we can’t ignore the impact it has on our communities, both economically and civically. In our own community, we can see how much the football team has brought the people of Eugene together. If more professional teams took the Green Bay approach, it could take this aspect a step further in cities across the country.

“The Value of Non-Profit Health Care” article was basically an argument in favor of non-profit hospitals and health care services. Their points were completely valid, and some of the facts were new to me. Yet my critique of the article is the absence of acknowledging the counter argument. Why is there “growing scrutiny” of non-profit health care?

My personal feelings are simple: non-profit health care wins. It takes me about two seconds to come to this conclusion when considering the agenda of the two sides. I realize that the topic is not that simple, yet the underlying concept, the foundation, is what’s most important to me. Non-profit = betterment of the community. For profit = money for shareholders. Easy decision for me, regardless of the benefits of for-profit health care. All other aspects are secondary in this debate. The fundamentals are what are important. There are problems, but policy will always have the ability to address these problems.

Despite my staunch position, determined by underlying principles, there really is no clear answer to the debate. The previous article hinted at it, but the article on hospital mergers and buyouts make it clear: for-profit hospitals simply have more resources, and therefore more potential to do well. This means facilities, technology, etc. This concept is evident everywhere in life: those who have the money, have the power. Sad but true. I think most would agree that non-profit hospitals are desirable, based on their intentions. Yet some might change that opinion when they see how inefficient a non-profit hospital can be in comparison with a for-profit one that has a lot of money.

In keeping with the order of the readings, the ADD article highlights this problem with for-profit health care. The drug companies saw an opportunity for revenue and aggressively pursued it, taking what might be a problem and brainwashing society, convincing them it’s an “epidemic”. I have ADD, no doubt (yes, I know everyone says it, but seriously), so I’ve spent a lot of time considering this issue. My conclusion is that it’s a societal problem, something that our lifestyles has led us to. I have also concluded that it can be overcome through practice and creating good habits. Pills are not the answer! Damn you money hungry drug companies, you can’t fool me! My favorite line of the article: “There’s also speculation that some great figures in history had ADD and led tortured but productive lives -- Leonardo Da Vinci, Pablo Picasso, Winston Churchill.” Hope I’m one of them.

Week 4 Readings

2011-01-25T16:29:00.000-08:00

First of all, I have to say that I was COMPLETELY unaware of all this stuff St. Vincent De Paul (hereby referred to as SVDP) does. Reading this was truly inspiring to me. McDonald is a true thinker whose a business genius, but with a philanthropic heart (so it seems). To build a business empire in a relatively short period of time, provide cheap stuff for people out of society’s unwanted material, then injects the profits back into the community is really awesome. Just the fact that SVDP recycles thrown out materials and makes them into useful, valuable products is impressive in itself, for social and environmental reasons. I wonder how many non-profits out there function similarly to SVDP, with a comparable business model.

While reading the article about energy assistance in Louisiana, I found myself thinking about energy conservation. First of all, how cold does it really get in Louisiana? I don’t know the answer, but I was under the impression that the south wasn’t all that cold even in the winter. I’m guessing that low income residents don’t have all that much knowledge and/or education on energy conservation practices. So even though this money is meant to help poor people who are struggling to pay their bills, maybe the money would be better spent on educating the residents on how to cut costs themselves. Just last term, I wrote a recommendation to the city of Salem for energy conservation on a low income housing site that they are building soon (part of the Sustainable Cities Initiative). When researching, I found that some people are really unaware of simple techniques to save on their power bill. So all of this was on my mind when I was reading, and it all comes back to efficiency, similar to what we discussed last week.

The article about the history of housing assistance in Washington DC was pretty confusing to me, even after I went through it a couple times. There seems to be lots of different possible strategies used to create affordable housing. Is there not one that is clearly more effective than the others? Or does it truly depend on the specific location and situation? Furthermore, I don’t understand how inclusionary zoning really works. I understand that there is a requirement for low income housing in a given area, but does that increase the quality of life for those people in any way? Are the developers given incentives to create these places?

(From the Q&A article)

Q: Any regrets?

A: When you dedicate your life for the betterment of your community, the only regret is not being done!

I just found that funny, I hate generic answers.

Week 3 Readings

2011-01-16T22:22:00.000-08:00

The readings this week tossed around a few different issues and considerations: revising (or removing) charitable deductions, changes in the estate tax, ideas on how we can effectively evaluate the efficiency of charities, and how charitable donations are effected by a recession.

So after reading about this stuff, and sort of lumping it together, here's a plan: why don't we remove charitable deductions and use the surplus tax dollars (after it supposedly helps us get out of debt) to create a government funded and ran system of evaluation for charities. Removing the charitable deductions wouldn't be as damaging to donations as it sounds: the Tim Harford article implies the altruistic and "warm glow" donors would still donate, just as they would in a recession. In a way, this would kind of purify the world of donors , weeding out some of the ones who do it because of social pressure. Perhaps the excess tax money would exceed the loss of these donations. Not to mention that many of the "social pressure" donors may not even cease donations because of the eradication of charitable deductions. The tax dollars could then be used to create an evaluation system along the likes of the one proposed by Dan Pallotta. I think there are some existing government programs that function similarly. Why not one for this purpose? And it is unlikely that such a department would require ALL of the excess tax dollars. The rest could be injected back into the non profit sector, thus further confronting the donation deficit created by the donors who don't donate anymore because of the removal of charitable deductions.

I know, it's not that simple, but it seems to me that it could work.

On another note, I found the study on forewarned vs. unforewarned interactions between donor seekers and potential donors interesting. Doesn't surprise me that the altruistic types donated more when warned the seekers would be coming. For the "socially pressured" group, I guess time to plan an excuse prevailed over the pressure being applied over time. For a moment I thought that when these people were warned, they would feel the pressure from that point until the meeting, perhaps intensifying it. Maybe it would make them even more embarrassed if the donation collectors knew they were hiding on purpose. Apparently not. The article doesn't say anything about the "warm glow" people. I wonder what the study said unveiled about them.

Week 1 & 2 Readings

2011-01-14T22:27:00.000-08:00

So.... there are these things called non-profits and the "non-profit sector", which is sort of a big deal. Much bigger then I had previously realized, in fact. I had no idea it was such a large part of the economy, GDP, employed so many people, etc. I have, however, always known the importance of them in our society, and these readings only solidified that feeling. Something I found interesting (from Non-Profit Nation Ch.1): the sector accounts for 5-10% of the nations economy. At the same time, only 1.8% of US personal income was contributed. These aren't completely related statistics, but something worthy of consideration. In a place where non-profit, philanthropic operations account for that much of our nations revenue, we are only contributing a very small portion of it back. Seems somewhat contradictory.

Another interesting part in all of this is the religious factor (as we know from the annoyingly extended in-class debate). Religious entities make up a large portion of the sector, and have lots and lots of money. Yet they aren't required to report to the IRS because of the separation of church-state aspect (which I feel should be upheld at almost any cost). Then there are all these "counting" problems because firms aren't required to report if their revenue was under $25,000. Then there's the fact that the federal code for non-profits is a big, headache giving mess. So I'm guessing there's lots of smart people (past, present, and future) that are figuring out ways to cheat the system, with many different techniques and for many different reasons. I'm wondering, which I'm sure will be addressed later in the class, how all of this is regulated.

I think Chapter 2, theories on the evolution of the non-profit paradigm, was somewhat interesting. The first theory of this was that people assumed non-profit services and goods were superior because those firms weren't trying to cut costs at every corner. That didn't really make sense to me. Personally, I would expect non-profits to provide a service or do a job in a simplistic fashion, and for profits try to wow me and draw me in with a flashy, high quality, addicting good. So I'm not sure that was entirely accurate, although it was just a theory I suppose. The other theories made more sense to me.

Carnegie was pretty on-point with his analysis, I think. Most of what he said (or wrote) made complete sense to me and was even fairly inspiring. I'm not from a wealthy family or really had any reason to ponder what a filthy rich person should do with their money towards the end of their life. The 3 options put that in perspective for me, and I couldn't agree more with the conclusion that administering it in one's own lifetime was the only worthy action. To "place upon others the burden of the work which it was his own duty to perform, is to do nothing worthy". Great quote, and I think it would make a lot of crusty old rich people out there sweat, because it is my perception that most of them really are addicted to their wealth and are unable to dump huge amounts (proportions, I should say) while they are still alive. I also liked the section about his friend giving a quarter to a beggar. I had never thought of it as "I'll do better things with this money then he will", but that does make sense, although I think that could also possibly be an excuse for being an arrogant, greedy a**hole.

All in all, pretty good stuff.

Intro

2011-01-12T20:35:00.000-08:00

Greetings, my name is Greg and I'm a senior Environmental Studies student. This blog was created for PPPM 280: Intro to Non Profit in order to convey my reaction and thoughts on the class readings/lectures to my discussion group, therefore creating dialogue and debate. I have some, but limited, experience in the non-profit sector. As a sophomore, I was an intern for Cascadia Wildlands Project, a local environmental advocacy group. Just last term, I gave interactive nature walks to children ages 7-13 in Alton Baker Park for a group called Nearby Nature, which focuses on environmental education.

Though my major is Environmental Studies, my interests lie in planning and landscape architecture, which I hope to pursue in post-graduate studies. I decided to take PPPM 280 because I realize the importance of the non-profit sector in our society, and the many opportunities within it. I'm excited to dive deeper into the subject and gain a more complete understanding of it. As a senior about to graduate, I think this class is a good one to take on the way out and will be extremely beneficial to "life in the real world". Looking forward to exchanging ideas with everyone.