O'Neill Ch. 10
3% of nonprofit revenue is grants??? That's it? And we're complaining about undue corporate influence in the non-profit sector? I feel like there might be some hypocrisy somewhere in this scheme...hmmm. Maybe my theme should be "why are we complaining so loudly about non-profits when the private sector is allowed to buy the government out?" Ugh.
O'Neill Ch. 11
I like when everyone wins. :) The fact too is that without these vital organizations, we would have no way to speak for our rights. I know I might come off as radical for it, but I feel like most mutual benefit non-profits are the only true non-profits that SHOULD be outside of the government. I think that the public should have universal access to things like education, family services, and pension so there is a safety net. The safety net should not be dependent on nonprofits in any way that destabilizes or jeopardizes its existence.
Budget Plan Brings changes to tax incentives for donors
My immediate worry was that this would mean less for charities, but I got to thinking about it, and if these people are only bringing in 3% of total non-profit revenues anyway, it's maybe BETTER for us to get their taxes and be able to spend more money supporting people and infrastructure to begin with. Not much else to this except for NO ON BUSH TAX CUT EXTENSIONS!! Are people insane? Can we not all understand how economics does not work? Trickle down is moronic and dangerous, and we know this, we see this, and yet we continue to perpetuate the idea that it has positive economic effect, that SOMEHOW money will get where it should be, etc. No way, not when we don't have money laying around, and not when we're in deficit.
Donors and Nonprofits face a defining moment in responding to a crisis
Fluff piece. Here it is in one line: Things changed after the recession, but weren't as bad as predicted, and now NPs need to step up to change with the economy. Well? That's about what I grabbed out anyway.
Artist-Endowed Foundations
Well, this has been a long time coming, and it's great for the arts. I'm curious to see how the next generation of philanthropists will react to the needs of the community now that people are really targeting "non-essential" charities like the arts. Who is going to head the organizations of the future? Will we see ever-more people who represent the communities they belong to and have benefited from? I think so. At least, I hope so. This is a heartening change.
How to do good and prove it
YES YES YES!! I think that this article has a really important message for ANYONE doing ANYTHING: Make it actually apply in reality. The best ideas in the world only work if they are responsive to what people actually do or need. Performance metrics ARE the way that groups can better keep up with their base and make sure that they are being as effective as possible. It's sometimes a "hard-line" sort of stance to say that an organization shouldn't exist if it doesn't have integrated metrics analysis methods, but this is actually the only way that an organization can keep its focus. How many things have YOU ever succeeded in that had no way to measure success?
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Week 9: International Nonprofits
O'Neill Ch. 9
I know that the book is short, and that the international nonprofit sector is relatively small in the scope of American nonprofits, but this is an area that is really profoundly important in helping us all realize that we now live in a GLOBAL society. From a remote village in India, with internet access I can get the exact news and information that a person in Oregon is getting. This is huge. Communication and coordination are the most important resources that we have as people to live in a unified society, and the internet is the single most powerful tool that people have to leverage themselves out of obscurity. Look at the power that social media has played in helping support revolutionary change, and look at the fear that places like China, Uzbekistan, North Korea have that their people might connect with others and share, god forbid, INFORMATION. So much of how the world will work in the future depends on how well we understand the people that we can now reach in ways that we never have before. A person in Africa can now be the same as a person in Europe an can have the same relevancy if only they have the tools they need to get there; the distance is narrowed. International nonprofits, particularly microlenders, have all the potential to move the 'third world' into the 'first world.'
Mercy Corps:
THIS is what a website looks like. Colorful, well designed, delivers the message. THIS is what every nonprofit needs. A good site is the most important face of an organization. If this would have been some HTML nightmare, I would have not gotten so interested in looking at their work, because honestly it would have shown that they didn't realize what their image needed to be like. And the gifts section is a BRILLIANT way to get donations to over specific small things, meaning that they can use general donations for their operating costs and projects. Even looking at the site I was thinking "Wow, just $65 for a hive of bees?," when normally I have trouble giving such sums to charities. Just great overall.
Why does foreign aid fail?
First of all, I think it's important to point out that we don't actually give a lot of foreign aid as a % of our GDP, and even so, a LOT of this money can't really be tracked or kept from passing into the wrong hands. Our country does not have a magic compass that keeps us from giving to the wrong people to actually help. Furthermore, I don't even know why it would be a question as to why it doesn't work. Who could possibly not see that throwing money at something is less effective than actually targeting work? Say we give $10mil to help feed Kenya. Even if all of it reaches the people, you still only have $10mil in purchased food. But what if we paid an international team of developers to help Kenya identify and solve their food-sourcing issues? This also costs $10mil/year to maintain, but within 10 years Kenya has turned its food economy around, made good sustainable decisions, and become able to self-support. Now the value of this service is much MORE than $10mil/year. The problem has been cured at the root. It is illogical to try to plug a hole when you can just work to make sure that the hole doesn't exist, right?
Aid vs. Trade:
I feel like I'm repeating myself, but there are a lot of themes in this TED talk that are reflected in all of these articles. As far as TED goes, this is not the MOST well organized or clear for me. Infrastructure, YES, jobs for people, YES, empowering women, YES. Are these things any different from the things that we are or should be looking at in our own country though? No. Progress supports more progress, and we have seen this time after time after time. Africa is a continent made up of PEOPLE and just because they are in many ways distant from us, they are our brothers and sisters, and they have the same needs and desires that we do. Progress works over there, and innovation, and change, and so on and so forth. Africa has had a poor hand dealt to it in recent history, they were the scene for disgusting slave trade, the losers in a pangaeac colonialism, and one of the last havens for the sort of despotism and brutal classism that Europeans last faced exiting the middle ages. The situation has always been distance, but now that we can hop planes, use the internet, send packages, use phones, etc, we are right next door. I can buy a ticket and go to Africa on a whim. I can buy a ticket, pack a few things, and be there by Monday. Done. And then I can go to Hong Kong and be home by Friday. And nearly the entire time, I'd still be able to actually speak to my mother. The world is as big as the size of your community, and now it is all one via the advances in communications that have made that possible. Africa is changing faster than any other place could. We're looking at cultural revolutions that take decades, not centuries. Economies that take years, not millennia. This is REALLY HAPPENNING. And though we're miles from the end, we still can use the same strategies there that we do here and do away with the antequated and debunked myth of money solving problems on its own. It just simply needs the hands to guide it.
Millenium Goals:
Step 1: ID the problem
Step 2: Brainstom solutions
Step 3: Set goals
Step 4: Make targeted objectives
Step 5: Carry out tasks aimed at completing objectives
Step 6: Oversight
Step >6: ....
You get the idea here right? I admire the UN for working on ID'ing these good goals and for making it to step 4. But this is where the plan dies. It's not practically possible for these goals to be met unless there is someone to hold accountable. Until that point, it's as good as a wish list. Somewhat like the Oregon Business Plan that I've studied for another class this quarter. Great in theory, but not-gonna-happen in reality unless something drastically changes.
I know that the book is short, and that the international nonprofit sector is relatively small in the scope of American nonprofits, but this is an area that is really profoundly important in helping us all realize that we now live in a GLOBAL society. From a remote village in India, with internet access I can get the exact news and information that a person in Oregon is getting. This is huge. Communication and coordination are the most important resources that we have as people to live in a unified society, and the internet is the single most powerful tool that people have to leverage themselves out of obscurity. Look at the power that social media has played in helping support revolutionary change, and look at the fear that places like China, Uzbekistan, North Korea have that their people might connect with others and share, god forbid, INFORMATION. So much of how the world will work in the future depends on how well we understand the people that we can now reach in ways that we never have before. A person in Africa can now be the same as a person in Europe an can have the same relevancy if only they have the tools they need to get there; the distance is narrowed. International nonprofits, particularly microlenders, have all the potential to move the 'third world' into the 'first world.'
Mercy Corps:
THIS is what a website looks like. Colorful, well designed, delivers the message. THIS is what every nonprofit needs. A good site is the most important face of an organization. If this would have been some HTML nightmare, I would have not gotten so interested in looking at their work, because honestly it would have shown that they didn't realize what their image needed to be like. And the gifts section is a BRILLIANT way to get donations to over specific small things, meaning that they can use general donations for their operating costs and projects. Even looking at the site I was thinking "Wow, just $65 for a hive of bees?," when normally I have trouble giving such sums to charities. Just great overall.
Why does foreign aid fail?
First of all, I think it's important to point out that we don't actually give a lot of foreign aid as a % of our GDP, and even so, a LOT of this money can't really be tracked or kept from passing into the wrong hands. Our country does not have a magic compass that keeps us from giving to the wrong people to actually help. Furthermore, I don't even know why it would be a question as to why it doesn't work. Who could possibly not see that throwing money at something is less effective than actually targeting work? Say we give $10mil to help feed Kenya. Even if all of it reaches the people, you still only have $10mil in purchased food. But what if we paid an international team of developers to help Kenya identify and solve their food-sourcing issues? This also costs $10mil/year to maintain, but within 10 years Kenya has turned its food economy around, made good sustainable decisions, and become able to self-support. Now the value of this service is much MORE than $10mil/year. The problem has been cured at the root. It is illogical to try to plug a hole when you can just work to make sure that the hole doesn't exist, right?
Aid vs. Trade:
I feel like I'm repeating myself, but there are a lot of themes in this TED talk that are reflected in all of these articles. As far as TED goes, this is not the MOST well organized or clear for me. Infrastructure, YES, jobs for people, YES, empowering women, YES. Are these things any different from the things that we are or should be looking at in our own country though? No. Progress supports more progress, and we have seen this time after time after time. Africa is a continent made up of PEOPLE and just because they are in many ways distant from us, they are our brothers and sisters, and they have the same needs and desires that we do. Progress works over there, and innovation, and change, and so on and so forth. Africa has had a poor hand dealt to it in recent history, they were the scene for disgusting slave trade, the losers in a pangaeac colonialism, and one of the last havens for the sort of despotism and brutal classism that Europeans last faced exiting the middle ages. The situation has always been distance, but now that we can hop planes, use the internet, send packages, use phones, etc, we are right next door. I can buy a ticket and go to Africa on a whim. I can buy a ticket, pack a few things, and be there by Monday. Done. And then I can go to Hong Kong and be home by Friday. And nearly the entire time, I'd still be able to actually speak to my mother. The world is as big as the size of your community, and now it is all one via the advances in communications that have made that possible. Africa is changing faster than any other place could. We're looking at cultural revolutions that take decades, not centuries. Economies that take years, not millennia. This is REALLY HAPPENNING. And though we're miles from the end, we still can use the same strategies there that we do here and do away with the antequated and debunked myth of money solving problems on its own. It just simply needs the hands to guide it.
Millenium Goals:
Step 1: ID the problem
Step 2: Brainstom solutions
Step 3: Set goals
Step 4: Make targeted objectives
Step 5: Carry out tasks aimed at completing objectives
Step 6: Oversight
Step >6: ....
You get the idea here right? I admire the UN for working on ID'ing these good goals and for making it to step 4. But this is where the plan dies. It's not practically possible for these goals to be met unless there is someone to hold accountable. Until that point, it's as good as a wish list. Somewhat like the Oregon Business Plan that I've studied for another class this quarter. Great in theory, but not-gonna-happen in reality unless something drastically changes.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Week 8: Advocacy and the Arts
O'Neill Ch. 7 &8 Art and Advocacy:
Advocacy is the way that nonprofits can give a voice to the people the represent or the causes they support, and it is perhaps one of the most important aspects of the non-profit process. It matters not at all whether a non-profit has a good program if nobody knows about it and if the popuation served is not represented. After all, at the heart of every non-profit, there is a need that's being underserved or a resource underutilized. Adding all these voices to the conversation of how we should move forward as a society creates a "normal" set of boundaries for a society. Take the example of the recent Planned Parenthood struggle. The role that they have is not only service provision, but advocacy for better reproductive health practices and essentially giving voice to all of the men and women who face reproductive choices but cannot afford to make the right ones. The existance of the organization as a part of our society speaks to our collective views toward reprodctive health, that everyone should have the resources to make their own choices. Taking out such an organization means removing this voice from the conversation, devaluing it, making it "abnormal." And alienating all of the lower-income men and women who are served by them.
Art. What can a thoroughly intelectualized linguistics major say about art? Well, I spent a good deal of my undergrad the first time around in studios and the bookstore basement. Art isn't the antithesis to intellect, it is the breeding ground for it. Because of my extensive art training, I have this great ability to think abstractly and manifest those ideas into the concrete world, and this is a skill set that can't be taught, but that is rather soaked in by facing absolutely creative challenges. It is possible to go through life without being creative. There is a fix for everything that can be bought, but true innovation is creativity concentrated. If you're looking at the world in a frame, things that could be better served by creative solutions are pushed to the side, business as usual. I hope this is all making sense, bear with me: creative thinking, which is best taught through the purely abstract medium of art, is central to innovation in all sectors. Once you teach someone not just how to use a product, but how it's made, why the colors are so, etc, they can have a much deeper understanding of not only what it is, but what it could be.
The Power of Non-profits
Oh how America loves to lobby! I think one of our great strengths as a nation is our interest in doing work ourselves as community members. I think it is a tremendous testament to our community ethos that we have taken matters into our own hands, even back to the birth of the nation and Tocqueville's time. For better or worse, I really enjoy this about the US, and I liked that this article was a little more history. It's nice to get a grounding for the topics we've been visiting.
Poetry gives Teens a Voice
Yes it does. Along the same lines as my above art discussion, it also gives them creative skills. I'm not going to get into this one too much, but I will say that as a former teen poetry slam attendee, it's hard to involve an outside audience because a lot of teen poetry is poorly developed and hard to listen to. A good way to work with arts programs would be to individually develop skills and help teens find mentors to help them realize their artistic and creative talents.
Non-Profit Association of Oregon/Senate Bill 40
Yes! Right on! Consumer confidence is a HUGE factor in where people put their money, and people will be more happy to donate if they can feel confident that the non-profit the support actually performs the task they claim. Not much more than that, but I DO support a new look at the groups who would swindle others using a good name.
Advocacy is the way that nonprofits can give a voice to the people the represent or the causes they support, and it is perhaps one of the most important aspects of the non-profit process. It matters not at all whether a non-profit has a good program if nobody knows about it and if the popuation served is not represented. After all, at the heart of every non-profit, there is a need that's being underserved or a resource underutilized. Adding all these voices to the conversation of how we should move forward as a society creates a "normal" set of boundaries for a society. Take the example of the recent Planned Parenthood struggle. The role that they have is not only service provision, but advocacy for better reproductive health practices and essentially giving voice to all of the men and women who face reproductive choices but cannot afford to make the right ones. The existance of the organization as a part of our society speaks to our collective views toward reprodctive health, that everyone should have the resources to make their own choices. Taking out such an organization means removing this voice from the conversation, devaluing it, making it "abnormal." And alienating all of the lower-income men and women who are served by them.
Art. What can a thoroughly intelectualized linguistics major say about art? Well, I spent a good deal of my undergrad the first time around in studios and the bookstore basement. Art isn't the antithesis to intellect, it is the breeding ground for it. Because of my extensive art training, I have this great ability to think abstractly and manifest those ideas into the concrete world, and this is a skill set that can't be taught, but that is rather soaked in by facing absolutely creative challenges. It is possible to go through life without being creative. There is a fix for everything that can be bought, but true innovation is creativity concentrated. If you're looking at the world in a frame, things that could be better served by creative solutions are pushed to the side, business as usual. I hope this is all making sense, bear with me: creative thinking, which is best taught through the purely abstract medium of art, is central to innovation in all sectors. Once you teach someone not just how to use a product, but how it's made, why the colors are so, etc, they can have a much deeper understanding of not only what it is, but what it could be.
The Power of Non-profits
Oh how America loves to lobby! I think one of our great strengths as a nation is our interest in doing work ourselves as community members. I think it is a tremendous testament to our community ethos that we have taken matters into our own hands, even back to the birth of the nation and Tocqueville's time. For better or worse, I really enjoy this about the US, and I liked that this article was a little more history. It's nice to get a grounding for the topics we've been visiting.
Poetry gives Teens a Voice
Yes it does. Along the same lines as my above art discussion, it also gives them creative skills. I'm not going to get into this one too much, but I will say that as a former teen poetry slam attendee, it's hard to involve an outside audience because a lot of teen poetry is poorly developed and hard to listen to. A good way to work with arts programs would be to individually develop skills and help teens find mentors to help them realize their artistic and creative talents.
Non-Profit Association of Oregon/Senate Bill 40
Yes! Right on! Consumer confidence is a HUGE factor in where people put their money, and people will be more happy to donate if they can feel confident that the non-profit the support actually performs the task they claim. Not much more than that, but I DO support a new look at the groups who would swindle others using a good name.
Arts Groups Pumped $166.2 Billion into US in 2005, Study Says
The Business of Art is a fantastic album by Tegan and Sara, a sister duo from Canada that sings about love, etc. But the idea of art as a business is something that needs to be expanded upon. There is so little creedence given to the fact that artists CAN make a living doing art as a business. I myself work at a nonprofit on campus that employs artists to teach classes and to run the Craft Center for the UO community to have access to often expensive equipment and instruction. Museums make money. Artists sell work. Performers make money. And often, these are some of the happiest professionals because they are engaged in something they love and support. The idea that we are doing no good in funding the arts is misguided, and I'd love to see more articles like this pointing that out.
Art. Advocacy. THESE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT. It's frustrating to see these areas marginalized, often getting the most support by people "following their heart" to deliver services. It is not smart or acceptable to only invest in quantitative services when the quality of life plays such a part in people's experience and in ultimately how they interact with and perform in the "real world."
The Business of Art is a fantastic album by Tegan and Sara, a sister duo from Canada that sings about love, etc. But the idea of art as a business is something that needs to be expanded upon. There is so little creedence given to the fact that artists CAN make a living doing art as a business. I myself work at a nonprofit on campus that employs artists to teach classes and to run the Craft Center for the UO community to have access to often expensive equipment and instruction. Museums make money. Artists sell work. Performers make money. And often, these are some of the happiest professionals because they are engaged in something they love and support. The idea that we are doing no good in funding the arts is misguided, and I'd love to see more articles like this pointing that out.
Art. Advocacy. THESE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT. It's frustrating to see these areas marginalized, often getting the most support by people "following their heart" to deliver services. It is not smart or acceptable to only invest in quantitative services when the quality of life plays such a part in people's experience and in ultimately how they interact with and perform in the "real world."
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Week 7: Education
Firstly, I wanted to share one of my favorite videos on education of all time, it's a TED talk by Ken Robinson, and it is VERY worthwhile. It discusses the paradigms of education and how new research shows that not every student fits the current model of education (!). It's a really eye-opening little piece that helped me get the issue in perspective (plus great video design).
O'Neill Ch. 6
I personally believe that education, like healthcare, needs its full support guaranteed by the government so we can all enjoy the benefit of stable education. A good education cannot be measured, as can good heath not be, and it is important for our nation's future and security that we don't continue to throw away the human capital we have by making the education system so confusing and unstable. Let's fund our schools by how many students there are and ensure that fringe groups aren't essentially setting the curriculum standard. Don't worry America, we can do this and still have freedom, but we need to use COMMON SENSE and THOUGHTFUL DELIBERATION when dealing with education.
Education Trust Subprime Report
It's disgusting what people in this country are allowed to do to prey on the poor, the confused, and the uneducated. This is another horrifying report where we see that yet again the unfettered capitalism that is so preached destroys lives, and the only thing the govt. wants to do is take away the funding for many students. I think it could be a good idea in this case even, but the best idea is to shut these scams down and make sure no other vulnerable people get caught up in this. It's despicable.
Fed Up at the University of Phoenix
The example of the University of Phoenix is another in the long list of examples of reasons why we cannot put certain schema in a for-profit context. It simply doesn't work to have an industry with an intangible product (education, health, etc) run in a for-profit system. The parameters of a for-profit system are incompatible with these sorts of qualitative services. Expansion, financial growth, and linear profit are not products of more health or of better education. The University of Phoenix has a marketing department designed to grab up students who don't realize that they are getting into a scam, and that's the biggest shame.
For Profit Education Quality
I for one am pleased at the idea that the US Govt. is looking into the repayment rates and really questioning these schools, but is it really a good idea to cut off funding for any school rather than to cut off the school itself? When I was graduating from the UO the FIRST time, I was arguing that I only had put 36 credits into my major, surely I wasn't ready to graduate! But no, in order to "preserve UO academic integrity" my case was reviewed, and I was shuffled out because the Fed. Govt. had put a cap on financial aid at the point that you reach the technical minimum amount of credits to graduate. Sure I want the US to step in, and I want education quality to get better, but we CANNOT afford to keep putting a bandaid on every problem by swooping in at the end in token gesture. If you want students to go to schools, make sure that bad schools can't call themselves schools. If you want students to not st
ay in college forever, make sure that they get individual council about their college plan, and don't oust students who demonstrate dedication and academic aptitude. It's insane to me that this country continues to try and fix problems at the end, rather than the source. BOOOOOOO, HISSSSS!
For Profit Schools
When we get right down to it, the assumptions that are made in exploring the benefits of for-profit schools are simply fallacious and utopian in their scope. You're trying to tell me that "For-profit schools have incentives to be efficient and to eliminate unnecessary expenses." Really? I can't see how that works. Increasing profits, such as ALUMNI DONATIONS often hinges on things like the Jacqua Borg Cube (Borg cube pictured) and the SWEET new stadium that could have paid the wages of every professor for years. How about the idea that "for-profit schools are encouraged to offer quality educational programs and produce successful results," does that hold up? Perhaps some, of course, but many others would look at classes as a secondary function and just grab as much cash as possible (AHEM UofP) because "results" aren't profitable. You can't make money out of "results" as much as you can out of "swindling." In the same category is the idea that for-profits will "experiment." No. They. Won't. There isn't any money to be made in failure, and the large majority wouldn't be able to do this. The few that do, so be it, but most will not make the risk. Again, this isn't where money is pouring in from. And SURE they'll be more responsive to clientele. Yeah, get back to me on how responsive HUGE COMPANIES have to be to their clientele. The answer is "minimally." What the customer is going to want, especially in education, is "more and better." This is not profitable, so the for-profits are going to roll out their "less and deal with it" plan, and since you're halfway into a degree before you realize it, it's hard to have a say.
To conclude? What are we doing?!!?? How can we be allowing our future generations to be so poorly planned for and respected. If every person got the training they need to be the best they could be, we could be on top of the world as far as human capital goes. We have all the resources, all the best options, tons of money, and instead we're dickering about teacher's rights in Wisconsin and Ohio, etc. It's madness like this that DRIVES SENSIBLE PEOPLE AWAY FROM TEACHING. The era of "Those who can't do, teach," and the "evolution's ONLY a THEORY" folks need to end. We have a bad outlook for our future, and I hate to think that this is all we have to offer our children.
O'Neill Ch. 6
I personally believe that education, like healthcare, needs its full support guaranteed by the government so we can all enjoy the benefit of stable education. A good education cannot be measured, as can good heath not be, and it is important for our nation's future and security that we don't continue to throw away the human capital we have by making the education system so confusing and unstable. Let's fund our schools by how many students there are and ensure that fringe groups aren't essentially setting the curriculum standard. Don't worry America, we can do this and still have freedom, but we need to use COMMON SENSE and THOUGHTFUL DELIBERATION when dealing with education.
Education Trust Subprime Report
It's disgusting what people in this country are allowed to do to prey on the poor, the confused, and the uneducated. This is another horrifying report where we see that yet again the unfettered capitalism that is so preached destroys lives, and the only thing the govt. wants to do is take away the funding for many students. I think it could be a good idea in this case even, but the best idea is to shut these scams down and make sure no other vulnerable people get caught up in this. It's despicable.
Fed Up at the University of Phoenix
The example of the University of Phoenix is another in the long list of examples of reasons why we cannot put certain schema in a for-profit context. It simply doesn't work to have an industry with an intangible product (education, health, etc) run in a for-profit system. The parameters of a for-profit system are incompatible with these sorts of qualitative services. Expansion, financial growth, and linear profit are not products of more health or of better education. The University of Phoenix has a marketing department designed to grab up students who don't realize that they are getting into a scam, and that's the biggest shame.
For Profit Education Quality
I for one am pleased at the idea that the US Govt. is looking into the repayment rates and really questioning these schools, but is it really a good idea to cut off funding for any school rather than to cut off the school itself? When I was graduating from the UO the FIRST time, I was arguing that I only had put 36 credits into my major, surely I wasn't ready to graduate! But no, in order to "preserve UO academic integrity" my case was reviewed, and I was shuffled out because the Fed. Govt. had put a cap on financial aid at the point that you reach the technical minimum amount of credits to graduate. Sure I want the US to step in, and I want education quality to get better, but we CANNOT afford to keep putting a bandaid on every problem by swooping in at the end in token gesture. If you want students to go to schools, make sure that bad schools can't call themselves schools. If you want students to not st
ay in college forever, make sure that they get individual council about their college plan, and don't oust students who demonstrate dedication and academic aptitude. It's insane to me that this country continues to try and fix problems at the end, rather than the source. BOOOOOOO, HISSSSS!For Profit Schools
When we get right down to it, the assumptions that are made in exploring the benefits of for-profit schools are simply fallacious and utopian in their scope. You're trying to tell me that "For-profit schools have incentives to be efficient and to eliminate unnecessary expenses." Really? I can't see how that works. Increasing profits, such as ALUMNI DONATIONS often hinges on things like the Jacqua Borg Cube (Borg cube pictured) and the SWEET new stadium that could have paid the wages of every professor for years. How about the idea that "for-profit schools are encouraged to offer quality educational programs and produce successful results," does that hold up? Perhaps some, of course, but many others would look at classes as a secondary function and just grab as much cash as possible (AHEM UofP) because "results" aren't profitable. You can't make money out of "results" as much as you can out of "swindling." In the same category is the idea that for-profits will "experiment." No. They. Won't. There isn't any money to be made in failure, and the large majority wouldn't be able to do this. The few that do, so be it, but most will not make the risk. Again, this isn't where money is pouring in from. And SURE they'll be more responsive to clientele. Yeah, get back to me on how responsive HUGE COMPANIES have to be to their clientele. The answer is "minimally." What the customer is going to want, especially in education, is "more and better." This is not profitable, so the for-profits are going to roll out their "less and deal with it" plan, and since you're halfway into a degree before you realize it, it's hard to have a say.
To conclude? What are we doing?!!?? How can we be allowing our future generations to be so poorly planned for and respected. If every person got the training they need to be the best they could be, we could be on top of the world as far as human capital goes. We have all the resources, all the best options, tons of money, and instead we're dickering about teacher's rights in Wisconsin and Ohio, etc. It's madness like this that DRIVES SENSIBLE PEOPLE AWAY FROM TEACHING. The era of "Those who can't do, teach," and the "evolution's ONLY a THEORY" folks need to end. We have a bad outlook for our future, and I hate to think that this is all we have to offer our children.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Week 6 Readings: Environmental Non-profits
I feel like environmental nonprofits generally suffer from the public's perception that they're only obstructive, job-hating hippies, and I really hate that this is the case. In some part, the activists are to blame for not doing a better job of portraying themselves as rational. A LOT of environmentalists can get preachy, like in any other field, but there's nothing people get so touchy about as cutting jobs for the environment, especially in Oregon where this is a huge issue. With only 2-3% of Oregon's land being developed land, it is hard for people to see that this is a benefit, not a curse.
I especially wonder why the environment became a "hippy thing" in the first place. What happened to responsible stewardship and the days of the environmental protections being seen for what they are--an asset to ALL OF US, man? (pic from smilingmom.com, I have no idea why)
A Guide to Environmental Nonprofits
The use of "good" names to dupe people is WIDELY used in the non-profit sector by unscrupulous folks, and it's no shock that anti-protection agencies have the same schtick. If The Heritage Foundation were called "The rascist shortsighted old assholes foundation," they wouldnt enjoy such popular support. A good resource, and I saved it to my desktop for later.
McKenzie River Watershed Council Home
Okay, this it the 21st century. NO EXCUSES FOR A POORLY DESIGNED SITE. If your sole purpose is to promote something, sell an idea, or garner support, YOU HAVE TO HIRE A GOOD WEB DESIGNER. No excuses. If the US government, notorious for clunky HTML is doing better, you're not doing well enough.
MWC Annual Report
Like we talked about in class, the MWC is one of the organizations doing REALLY critical work, and it's good to see how they diversify. The thing that I felt was the best about this is that they are sourcing help by working with Thurston to have high school students work on monitoring projects. This is a HUGE deal: 1) kids get excited about conservation and carry that excitement into their adult lives, 2) kids get REAL skills and training, something that is lacking severely in today's world, 3) MWC gets free laborers, and 4) data that is valuable can be collected and used in classrooms and reports. One of the cornerstones of any successful effort should be the community. Getting support for X means that there are ripple effect benefits Y and Z for the community and the non-profit, and it connects people to projects. It means that when the projects come up to get cut, there is a substantial community effect and support that can stop it, and important work can still be done.
Paul Hawken's Commencement Speech
This speech was really BEAUTIFUL. It makes me really happy ever time I get some message that makes me realize I am not the only one htat feels the way I do. One of the most beautiful things I see in the world is that everything is terrible, and out of that horrible loss, destruction, etc etc ALWAYS comes support, togetherness, aid, regeneration, progress, change, renewal, and learning. There is, in my mind, no problem that can't be solved, no situation that leads to nothing, not a single action that has a negative net benefit. Even out of the greatest tragedies and challenges we face, there is always a great awakening of spirit and a depth of knowledge we gain about ourselves and our world. That knowledge and growth and deep pain is amazing, because even at the lowest, we still can get back up. Even death and endings are not the end. A great talk. Also saved to my files. If you all haven't, and I know many have, so bear with me, watch Randy Pausch's Last Lecture. It's one of those things that really changes your life to see, maybe not about THE environment, but about YOUR environment and about not setting yourself up to fail. A great talk.
Why Mr. Gore Chose Venture Capital
Back to one of my overarching points this article points out the tremendous significance of for-profit endeavors in the environment, and it sort of hints at the monetary incentives that could be introduced in the industry. While philanthropy IS important, money just simply makes the world go round. Financial and economic incentive has a role in everything that we do, and by taking the issue of conservation and stewardship out of this hippies-and-granola space and launch it into a space of smart business. Tom McCall saw the benefit of environmental protections, Nixon knew and it's important that going forward we understand more thoroughly how the worldwe live in SHOULD shape the decisions we make. The last decade of "green-washing" is sort of like a Michael Moore documentary--even though we hate the delivery, an important message is being conveyed. Al Gore is choosing the way he can have the most REAL impact. As much as we like our non-profits, it's not the Sierra Club writing the rules of the industry, it's the industry itself. Right or wrong, that's how it really works.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Week 5 Readings: Healthcare
I have to preface this entry with the fact that I feel like the entire discussion of whether or not healthcare currently is fair or unfair, good or bad, positive or negative, is ultimately another back-stabbing American game of "I got mine, go get your own." Let's stop pretending that healthcare in the US is not a catastrophe, that it actually extends quality care to all people, that it is better to make a non-choice for-profit, etc. That's where I stand, and that's where anyone with half a mind to LOOK AT THE DATA should be standing. We cannot afford to have a for-profit/non-profit debate any longer. It's not the right direction, for the nation, and on an individual level. We have to throw out the idea that NOT nationalizing care is even an option and we need to start (have started) figuring out HOW we're going to nationalize, and do it fast enough to not bankrupt the country. Healthcare is a CRISIS, a TRAVESTY, and it is shameful and a poor mark on our nation's level of discourse that we aren't able to see the forest for the trees and get work done towards a healthy solution.
Hospital Mergers: Who Does it Help?
Well, who are we supposed to think it helps? I guess it's probably benefiting those poor communities that ONLY had non-profit care providers. Oh, wait, it's going to reduce competition?! And possibly cost communities MORE?!! Bummer. Who could have seen this coming?
Hate-ridden sarcasm aside, it seems clear that the acquisition of hospitals is part of a business transaction, one of the many for-profit companies and corporations make all the time. It's telling that non-profits are more likely to take on the relatively low-profit sectors of healthcare: rehab, burn care, trauma, etc, etc, and that for profits are less likely. This is jus good business sense--reduce your risk of losing profit and invest in high end things that generate huge returns. Rake it in. Buy the best locations to get the most money. The interests of business cannot serve the interests of the people in healthcare because business and profit-making is all about MONEY. Healthcare is about NEED, meaning that there just isn't any way ofttimes for the most needy people to get services because they don't have the finances to do so.
"The Value of Non-profits" and O'Neill's CH.5 Both really lay out the compelling arguements FOR a not-for-profit system, that on an individual level, care is better, and that admin costs could be lower if we just reduced the amount of bureaucratic nonsense that goes on in healthcare. Who can disagree based on anything but some force-fed notion of what a half-witted group of greedy shortsighted profiteers? I'm not sure. But the problem is institutionalized.
Speaking of institutionalized, in the reading about the GB Packers, isn't it odd that they alone CAN be nonprofit? "No, this won't work for anyone but THOSE guys, and they have to keep mum about it.
And my final point: a great shame and a great success. ADD is now almost designer. True, the acceptance, readily, unthinkingly, of medicating everyone MAY have had a positive influence on some level to help society come to terms with the reality and normalcy of mental illness, but the horror here is that we are equally willing to medicate people for ANY sort of emotional issues, and it only funnels money into a profit-based industry that is CLEARLY interested in marketing to and expanding their base. What happens as a result of giving a kid 100g. of sugar and sending them to class is not the same as a true medical imbalance and inability to focus, and it is disingenuous to treat it as such. We are not, for reasons of ease and profit, looking at whether or not it is SAFE to market pharmaceuticals.
Health is a different thing than is a purchase. No matter whether you live in a chateau or your car, you WILL need health services. Every day, your body requires certain things and encounters different pressures, and you WILL have some health problem. It isn't entirely a choice, and it's cruel to treat it as such, and to not stop there, but to say that it is a luxury item.
Hospital Mergers: Who Does it Help?
Well, who are we supposed to think it helps? I guess it's probably benefiting those poor communities that ONLY had non-profit care providers. Oh, wait, it's going to reduce competition?! And possibly cost communities MORE?!! Bummer. Who could have seen this coming?
Hate-ridden sarcasm aside, it seems clear that the acquisition of hospitals is part of a business transaction, one of the many for-profit companies and corporations make all the time. It's telling that non-profits are more likely to take on the relatively low-profit sectors of healthcare: rehab, burn care, trauma, etc, etc, and that for profits are less likely. This is jus good business sense--reduce your risk of losing profit and invest in high end things that generate huge returns. Rake it in. Buy the best locations to get the most money. The interests of business cannot serve the interests of the people in healthcare because business and profit-making is all about MONEY. Healthcare is about NEED, meaning that there just isn't any way ofttimes for the most needy people to get services because they don't have the finances to do so.
"The Value of Non-profits" and O'Neill's CH.5 Both really lay out the compelling arguements FOR a not-for-profit system, that on an individual level, care is better, and that admin costs could be lower if we just reduced the amount of bureaucratic nonsense that goes on in healthcare. Who can disagree based on anything but some force-fed notion of what a half-witted group of greedy shortsighted profiteers? I'm not sure. But the problem is institutionalized.
Speaking of institutionalized, in the reading about the GB Packers, isn't it odd that they alone CAN be nonprofit? "No, this won't work for anyone but THOSE guys, and they have to keep mum about it.
And my final point: a great shame and a great success. ADD is now almost designer. True, the acceptance, readily, unthinkingly, of medicating everyone MAY have had a positive influence on some level to help society come to terms with the reality and normalcy of mental illness, but the horror here is that we are equally willing to medicate people for ANY sort of emotional issues, and it only funnels money into a profit-based industry that is CLEARLY interested in marketing to and expanding their base. What happens as a result of giving a kid 100g. of sugar and sending them to class is not the same as a true medical imbalance and inability to focus, and it is disingenuous to treat it as such. We are not, for reasons of ease and profit, looking at whether or not it is SAFE to market pharmaceuticals.
Health is a different thing than is a purchase. No matter whether you live in a chateau or your car, you WILL need health services. Every day, your body requires certain things and encounters different pressures, and you WILL have some health problem. It isn't entirely a choice, and it's cruel to treat it as such, and to not stop there, but to say that it is a luxury item.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
PPPM280: Week Four
O'Neill Chapter 4: Social Services
I always like to read the O'Neill chapters first to give myself a sort of frame for what the week in reading is going to look like. This week in non-profits: Social Services. For me, the biggest thing I took away from this chapter is the general public support for non-profits that provide social services, a sentiment mirrored in the Q&A with MAAC CEO Antonio Pizano. This idea is central to the effectiveness of these organizations, which is why in many ways they are a "third arm" of the US government.
Having spent time living in a welfare state though, I just can't agree that the actual quality of communities is better because the functions of social service non-profits are not overseen by the government, and I think a lot of the readings this week deal with this dissatisfaction. Is it real to expect that local benevolence will match needed skills? Is it reasonable to expect that all of these groups have the resources to GET the money and resources they need from the gov't and other sources? In practice, and even in theory really, NO.
The benefit of having a welfare state is that ALL welfare is considered. In a well-structured welfare state, it is reasonable to expect that the government can serve as an aggregator for leveling the playing field in terms of skill. An already resource-poor community can't be expected to build a successful organization when the level of skill and professionalism needed is at a level beyond what they have. This is not to say that I don't believe that a poor community has their superstars, or that they lack potential, so put away your strawmen for a minute and consider the REALITY that poverty, poor education, and lack of services means that the people MOST affected are least likely to have the tools to help themselves. A reliance on local charities shows that we have not evolved our systems to meet the actuary needs of underserved communities.
What's more is that social service non-profits are aimed at meeting an existing need, but this means that there is already a preceding decay. That decay COULD be measurably allieviated by intervention from agencies with the stability and funding (i.e. THE GOV'T), but it's not. Why? Because it's not popularly understood in the US that investment in people has a huge positive impact on success of individuals. Successful inividuals build successful communities, successful communities build healthy economies, have discourse, and support themselves. It doesn't have to be an issue of morality, as it's treated in the US, it can be an issue of pure economy. I'll save a little ranting for later, but I hope that there's a little food for thought in my $.02.
SVDP Executive Director
I have mixed feelings about this article, but my main takeaway is that regardless of the controversy over the profits of non-profits, McDonald is doing good work in our community towards reusing things that are waste products, and this is what we need to start looking into when we're looking at the issue of sustainability. A goal should be to eliminate "waste" from our vocabulary and start looking at all things produced as raw materials. Just as people make compost from food waste, we can look at ways companies are using by-products as a sort of next-generational approach to resources.
Louisiana Housing Assistance
Here is an article that touches on my point about the O'Neill readings, being that when we invest appropriately, there is a net benefit to society. $10.5mil is a paltry sum when one considers the positive outcomes for the whole community. However, the question is raised of who should bear the brunt of the community burden: the energy users or the US taxpayer. Personally, this is just one more way in which I feel that equity is spreading the burden for things that help everyone. It's not the community's fault that X number of people can't pay their bill, and they shouldn't pay the penalty for it. If we externalize the burden and distribute it, the community has more net dollars to invest in things that directly benefit their local area. What exact burdens ought to be externalized is debatable, but in poor areas especially, every dollar matters more.
Affordable Housing Toolkit
The idea that affordable housing is a way to help people is proven--people given the tools to succeed and have a stable life historically are more likely to exit poverty. Not much to say about this article but that zoning for middle income housing shows a step towards consideration of the problem, but looks again at end-stage problems rather than treating the cause. Gentrification will always happen whether or not there is mandatory lower-cost housing.
Auburn Residence Problems
A "Rev. Trueword" alias appeared in the comments on this piece and made callous remarks about how poor people are "lazy leaches(sp)" and that they should not get any help. RT presents an opinion that is fairly common, albeit grossly underinformed, and identifies himself as one of the people who cannot see or comprehend the societal benefits of aid.
The artice itself hghlighted the negative side of social services--that there is often not much help, even when it is there, or that the quality of assistance is often poor.
MAAC Project CEO Q&A
Antonio Pizano gives a look at the sunny side of non-profit social services, and lets us know that everything IS all sunny and great when you get to help people lead better lives. Very expansively written about the positive aspects of NP management.
I always like to read the O'Neill chapters first to give myself a sort of frame for what the week in reading is going to look like. This week in non-profits: Social Services. For me, the biggest thing I took away from this chapter is the general public support for non-profits that provide social services, a sentiment mirrored in the Q&A with MAAC CEO Antonio Pizano. This idea is central to the effectiveness of these organizations, which is why in many ways they are a "third arm" of the US government.
Having spent time living in a welfare state though, I just can't agree that the actual quality of communities is better because the functions of social service non-profits are not overseen by the government, and I think a lot of the readings this week deal with this dissatisfaction. Is it real to expect that local benevolence will match needed skills? Is it reasonable to expect that all of these groups have the resources to GET the money and resources they need from the gov't and other sources? In practice, and even in theory really, NO.
The benefit of having a welfare state is that ALL welfare is considered. In a well-structured welfare state, it is reasonable to expect that the government can serve as an aggregator for leveling the playing field in terms of skill. An already resource-poor community can't be expected to build a successful organization when the level of skill and professionalism needed is at a level beyond what they have. This is not to say that I don't believe that a poor community has their superstars, or that they lack potential, so put away your strawmen for a minute and consider the REALITY that poverty, poor education, and lack of services means that the people MOST affected are least likely to have the tools to help themselves. A reliance on local charities shows that we have not evolved our systems to meet the actuary needs of underserved communities.
What's more is that social service non-profits are aimed at meeting an existing need, but this means that there is already a preceding decay. That decay COULD be measurably allieviated by intervention from agencies with the stability and funding (i.e. THE GOV'T), but it's not. Why? Because it's not popularly understood in the US that investment in people has a huge positive impact on success of individuals. Successful inividuals build successful communities, successful communities build healthy economies, have discourse, and support themselves. It doesn't have to be an issue of morality, as it's treated in the US, it can be an issue of pure economy. I'll save a little ranting for later, but I hope that there's a little food for thought in my $.02.
SVDP Executive Director
I have mixed feelings about this article, but my main takeaway is that regardless of the controversy over the profits of non-profits, McDonald is doing good work in our community towards reusing things that are waste products, and this is what we need to start looking into when we're looking at the issue of sustainability. A goal should be to eliminate "waste" from our vocabulary and start looking at all things produced as raw materials. Just as people make compost from food waste, we can look at ways companies are using by-products as a sort of next-generational approach to resources.
Louisiana Housing Assistance
Here is an article that touches on my point about the O'Neill readings, being that when we invest appropriately, there is a net benefit to society. $10.5mil is a paltry sum when one considers the positive outcomes for the whole community. However, the question is raised of who should bear the brunt of the community burden: the energy users or the US taxpayer. Personally, this is just one more way in which I feel that equity is spreading the burden for things that help everyone. It's not the community's fault that X number of people can't pay their bill, and they shouldn't pay the penalty for it. If we externalize the burden and distribute it, the community has more net dollars to invest in things that directly benefit their local area. What exact burdens ought to be externalized is debatable, but in poor areas especially, every dollar matters more.
Affordable Housing Toolkit
The idea that affordable housing is a way to help people is proven--people given the tools to succeed and have a stable life historically are more likely to exit poverty. Not much to say about this article but that zoning for middle income housing shows a step towards consideration of the problem, but looks again at end-stage problems rather than treating the cause. Gentrification will always happen whether or not there is mandatory lower-cost housing.
Auburn Residence Problems
A "Rev. Trueword" alias appeared in the comments on this piece and made callous remarks about how poor people are "lazy leaches(sp)" and that they should not get any help. RT presents an opinion that is fairly common, albeit grossly underinformed, and identifies himself as one of the people who cannot see or comprehend the societal benefits of aid.
The artice itself hghlighted the negative side of social services--that there is often not much help, even when it is there, or that the quality of assistance is often poor.
MAAC Project CEO Q&A
Antonio Pizano gives a look at the sunny side of non-profit social services, and lets us know that everything IS all sunny and great when you get to help people lead better lives. Very expansively written about the positive aspects of NP management.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
