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.