Week Four:

Chronic Problems Plague Auburn Family Residence:

First of all, this story is a sad one. I’m going to avoid focusing on any potential reason that the residents of this facility are homeless. I choose to stick to the story and facts at hand.

I wonder where the bias is in this article. All stories are biased, no matter if they claim to be or not. I’m undecided on that point… but back to the ‘meat’ of the story. It seems that there are seriously lacking provisions for the people at the shelter. This story focuses almost entirely on the negative/problem areas. I wonder… what does the shelter provide that the story neglects to mention?

We learn that the budget in that area for homeless services had been drastically cut – leading to loss of security and a rise in criminal activity. I wonder what could be done to help remedy this. I wonder… what other types of revenue could be funneled to this agency?

It appears that the homeless population is growing exponentially while the available funding and budgets are decreasing drastically. There has to be a middle ground… doesn’t there?

Also, please check out this link. I found it while reading the Auburn article for the first time. I was looking for a national source of research results based on homelessness and shelters. I appreciate the factual nature of it. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/home-m19.shtml

Louisiana will get an extra $10.5 million to help low-income residents pay their power bills:

I had no idea that the need for financial assistance to subsidize heating/cooling was so widespread! I find it upsetting that despite the efforts of many – there will only be funding for this temporarily. What about this summer? What about next winter?

Our country is in a real quandary here – these programs are in place from days gone by when money was more prevalent. We are faced with some tough decisions… do we continue funding these types of programs, or do we look at restructuring the entities that provide the utilities in the first place and work on subsidizing at that level – thus lowering cost for the end-user?

I don’t have the perfect answer for this. All I can really say is that the way our economy is headed, we won’t stay afloat without drastic change – and I hope we take this opportunity to take care of the things that really matter.

Q&A with CEO of MAAC Project:

I’m really not impressed with this interview. For one thing, the interviewer did a very poor job of pinning down Mr. Pizano about anything at all, really. He was given the opportunity to give a political ‘schmooze’ speech and he did so.

For example, when asked very specifically what the MAAC project does in the community, his response was the following:

            “We are in the business of “Maximizing Access to Advance our Communities.” That is the most recent tagline adopted by the board of directors. We are a deliverer of essential services to the less fortunate and/or underserved community throughout San Diego County. MAAC holds the title, and responsibility, of serving over 1 million people since its inception back in 1965. MAAC is indeed seen as “The Beacon of Hope” by those in need and is one of the most reputable and respected organizations in San Diego. Ask anyone.”

Now did that quote really make any sense? It looks like a politically charged statement to me. What is an ‘essential service’? What exactly is being done to serve over a million people since 1965, and what makes that such a large responsibility?

How much of this statement is to appease funding sources?

Understanding the tools in the affordable housing toolkit:

In the interest of avoiding a million page rambling blog post – I will simply respond to this article in the form of a single question.

What can we do as a society to prevent long-term use of funds and facilities that were originally intended for short-term use?

Finally, I'll make a quick comment about the reading for this week; Chapter Four in Non Profit Nation. In the second paragraph, there is a statement that stopped me in my tracks. Please see sentence number four. It reads: "For this reason, social service may be the most widely accepted and admired part of the nonprofit sector." This is after stating that nonprofits serve to do what all religions have commanded (feed the hungry, take care of the sick, etc). WHOA, wait a minute. This is a very odd reference to me.

Is the writer here saying that social service nonprofits are admired by the general public, or by other nonprofits? I'm mentioning this because I can list off by name probably dozens of people I have been in contact with who believe otherwise and chastise or look down upon those who work in this sector.

Please don;t take me wrong here - I'm not attempting to play the martyr. What I'm saying is that this viewpoint appears to be highly biased.

Another thought about that...

I just wanted to throw one more thing out there - I don't necessarily oppose the idea of people out there on the street seeking to raise funds in a face-to-face way. What I do find fault in is people doing so in such a way as to impose on others. It is a good thing to get out there and educate others - but what about those who won't take no for an answer?

We've all experienced that person knocking on the door with a bible (or a magazine sales catalog, or a whatever...) in hand, right?  I can't begin to describe how many times I've encountered this - in fact I have tried all types of imaginative ways to prevent their return - to no avail, of course.

Anyone else think that these types of tactics help to reinforce the public's idea of what non-profits are? Inevitably these folks play the 'but we give XX cents from every dollar directly to the butterflies!' card. Has this face-to-face interaction helped to drive the notion that non-profits' success is based on the level of the workers sacrifice?

Just an idea.

Week Three...

Wow - so I don't know about anyone else but I'm really concerned about the potential outcome of reducing the tax write-off from donations to 501(3)c organizations. In one of the readings from this week (Tim Harford's blog) I was particularly struck by the comment, "What I'm foreseeing is a lot of people volunteering to serve at the soup kitchen, but less food." - the comment was in reference to people having 'spare time' in a recession due to unemployment and such.

This kind of thing scares me! I mean, it's pretty logical to see the obvious meaning of that quote - but what about a deeper issue? What about the idea (idealistic?) that non-profits fill a niche and exist to serve a population that is not currently getting what they need? Shouldn't we continue to focus on the purpose before predicting the outcome?  What I mean is this: what is the ultimate purpose of taking one of non-profits' biggest  revenue streams and shooting it in the foot? To save the Government? To save lost tax dollar revenue? Sure, I get it.

However, I will repeat myself: shouldn't we continue to focus on the purpose rather than predicting outcome? What about the people? Wouldn't it benefit American society as a whole to allow non-profits to preserve their organizations and allow more folks to 'live the American dream' and do things like learn a new job skill, become employed, rely less on the welfare system, pay taxes, become more educated, and generally contribute more to society?

On a somewhat unrelated note, I had an interesting experience this week on campus. I was walking to class and was approached by a young woman asking if I had a minute to spare... I told her yes and she proceeded to do her best to 'guilt' me into donating to her organization (Greenpeace) by showing me pictures of dead birds and turtles who had been suffocated by plastic objects (such as bags and bottles) in the ocean.  She challenged me - asking if I cared enough to stop the plastic waste in the ocean.

My response: "Sure, I do - but what about that plastic water bottle you're drinking from right now? Where is that going to end up?"

She didn't have much to say about that - and proceeded to try to convince me to sign up for an 'easy, small, automatic monthly donation.' I told her that I would be happy to consider it - and could I please have some more information before making a commitment - she refused, saying signing up now is the only way to, 'ensure than the most possible money goes to saving the turtles.'

Guess what she did next...  yep, you got it, pulled out a pie chart and began to explain that if I would give today that 86% of every dollar would go directly to saving that turtle. I asked her what would happen if I signed up online or waited until tomorrow - would that percentage decrease? Again she was unable to respond.

Here's where the story relates back to PPPM 280:  This experience speaks directly to the first sentence in Dan Pallotta's Blog:

"Anyone who's thought about it for more than 15 seconds has realized that the administration-to-program ratio ("What percentage of my donation goes to the cause versus to overhead?") is a useless measure for making good donation decisions."

Just because a non-profit exists doesn't mean it's a good one, or has particularly effective fund raising practices. I'm not using this blog to bash Greenpeace - only to paint a picture of what happened to when I interacted with one of the organization's fund raising people. Despite the really obnoxious experience I had this last week, that organization is doing what it can to lobby for it's cause.

That is what I want to do, too.

But I'm not going to show pictures of dead things to get where I want to go.

OK so here's the post for week one/two...

First of all, in reading the first few pages of chapter 1 in our book, Nonprofit Nation, I was surprised to learn that nearly 10 percent of our nation's economy is made up by the non-profit sector. All of my personal experience with non-profits have been with small agencies employing 5 or less with very small budgets ($200,000/fiscal year or less). I am encouraged by this new information as I find one of the federal requirements for a non-profit being to provide a service to the public. This relates directly to my educational and career aspirations. I hope to learn more as this classes progresses about how non-profit organizations can benefit from their status in the form of potential income from government funds as well as from private 'giving' from philanthropists and other philanthropic organizations.

I am also deeply interested in the reason(s) that non-profits tend to be of service to those in our society that are unable to be served through conventional means. Take, for instance, a man who has been convicted of a crime and has served his sentence in prison. That man, upon being released from the institution, typically has little to no resources available to him financially, emotionally, or otherwise. This person inevitably winds up working with local organizations who can help him with food, shelter, job searching/training and perhaps even to further his education. The question I ask is this: why is it that non-profits typically do this kind of work? Is it because non-profits are seen as less 'money driven' and more 'helping driven'? Do people gravitate to non-profits because of ethical reasons? Why is it that people who are employed by said non-profit agencies are sometimes not compensated for their expertise in the same way other occupations might be?

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not using this as a venue for complaints! I merely seek to raise the questions. I am thoroughly and fully committed to working and existing in the non-profit sector. I have a deep desire and drive that's fueled by personal experiences that push me to help others. I fully intend to do that. I hope that some of the myths and stereotypes (mine?) of non-profit work will be cleared up for me as this term progresses.

Wow, I sound a little bit like a fanatic here. I guess I'm not, really, but just passionate about diversity and equality. I suppose it's unrealistic to think that a Government as huge as ours could even come close to meeting the needs of all of us - religiously, morally, culturally... giving us the opportunity to create organizations to meet these individual needs in our communities is a wonderful blessing that many countries to not have the opportunity to experience.

I guess to sum it up: I'm a person who has gained great respect for non-profits and their ethical ideals. I have benefited personally from my experiences with several non-profit agencies and have seen first hand the impact on individuals. I would not be where I am today without some of the amazing people out there who seem to care more about the well-being of human kind than the upward movement of our Gross National Product.

Introduction Blog Post

Hi folks. Nick here. This is my first blog so bear with me. I'm a new student at the U of O (Watching the BCS Championship game as I post this!) and am taking PPPM 280 not only as an elective/general ed credit but to further my knowledge in the area of non-profits. My wife spent nearly 10 years working for two different non-profit agencies and I have seen and heard a lot about them through her experience.

I have been working for the last several years as a Chemical Dependency Counselor outside of the local area and am very interested in human/social services. I hope to further my education and am seeking a degree in Sociology.

My intention is to complete my degree and continue working in social services; particularly in the field of addictions and criminal rehabilitation. I would love to be an on-site case manager for a transitional housing facility for ex-offenders re-entering society.

I will most likely be using this blog for this class only but more will be revealed. It's very possible that I may include a link from time to time relating to my career choice.

To be continued as soon as I can read the first two chapters!