Drum role please

Throughout this term, I have had mixed reactions to the course and its content. Overall, it has provided me a good, general overview to the nonprofit sector which, I have cleverly gathered from the title of the course, is the whole point. Sometimes I felt the way we explored topics took too limited of a scope. I tend to be skeptical of capitalism in general, and, of course, this look at the nonprofit sector is geared toward understanding how it operates in American capitalist society. That is all well and good, but sometimes I wonder what we could have examined nonprofit management, operations, and funding through the lens of new possibilities and reforms.

One way I believe we could have done this is by examining the drawbacks of nonprofits, and what we can do to fix those issues (a lens I think we didn’t go into enough).
For example, I am writing my final paper on how religious nonprofit institutions are not required to disclose their finances. To me, this seems like a clear issue we could have explored, which would have increased our critical engagement in nonprofit funding. Also, how O’Neill presented Arts and Culture nonprofits as commodities and as societal and inter/intra nonprofit series of power relations, and not as an essential services uniquely provided to society. These sorts of drawbacks to the nonprofit world were addressed in wonderful detail when we were assigned supplemental readings (e.g. environmental nonprofits), but when we just relied on the O’Neill book I couldn’t help but feeling we were seeing a very limited perspective on any one particular sector of the nonprofit world.

We delved into a little bit of an alternative view of nonprofit issues in the last lecture when we discussed venture philanthropy, which had an exciting ring to it. I liked the idea of not just funding a one-time occurrence, but rather nurturing a budding idea/organization to help it succeed. Being the caviler that I am, however, my next thought was “isn’t there a point where Bill Gates is slowly taking over the world and no one is doing anything about it?” Even though this was not specified in the slides, I am sure that Bill Gates has a hand in this new phenomenon. The term venture capitalism has Bill Gates written all over it. Putting this qualm aside, however, the exploration of venture capitalism as a new trend in philanthropy seems like an important and necessary component of this intro class, and I liked the clear overview.

Now I will delve into the positives. Ultimately, an intro class is what it is and there is a reason I am happy this is my last one. As an intro class, I think I was given a clear understanding of the nonprofit world and I am a better person for it. I liked how everything was framed in how it is a necessary component of society, and a very unique aspect of American life. The whole philosophy and spirit behind the nonprofit world is one I see in a very real sense at the UO, where it seems like every student is either volunteering or extremely underpaid and working tirelessly to fight for a cause, an issue, the betterment of humanity, and on and on and on, and I respect that to the tips of my pinkies. Without the influence of nonprofits in framing how we do business in the United States, altruism would not be rewarded the same way and that would be a detriment to our society. So, I say, good job everyone. This look at nonprofits has granted me a framework to understand our society, and how we market human relationships in a positive way.

International Nonprofits, a skeptical approach

I am a fairly critical person all the way around, and reading O’Neill is no exception. I picked out some valuable assertions that he made that I agreed with, but I am also a little leery of American’s international influence and control, because of its reminiscence of colonialism. O’Neill says so himself, however, that “the world influence of America’s third sector is far less than that of U.S. business or government” (179). In terms of modern day colonialism (read: globalization), nonprofits probably have the least to be afraid of. In the day and age in which we exist, where there are extremely rich countries and extremely poor countries, it seems that international aid should mostly be conceived of as a good thing. I am all about redistribution of wealth.

I become concerned, however, when thinking about where the funding for nonprofits comes from. According to O’Neill, the majority of it comes from government and foundation support. As such, it would make sense that the U.S. government and the rich, powerful, probably internationally business invested foundations and donors are selecting which international nonprofits to give money to and for what reasons. Of course there is a vested interest in promoting capitalism, so that as capitalism evolves in developing countries their economies will be compatible with the U.S. economy, and I don’t know if capitalism is necessarily a good thing for many countries (indeed, I don’t think it’s a good thing for the United States either). I am particularly concerned with how U.S. business interests exploit developing countries for resources, severely underpaid labor, and a place to house the pollution generated by American citizens. American business interests, powerful political lobbyists at a national level, have a clear vested interest in keeping developing countries in a less-than-healthy and non-self-sufficient place because of the reliance of the American economy on international labor and resources. If it sounds like I am suggesting that something insidious is at work here, it is because I am.

I don’t want to get too far off topic, however, and delegitimize the work that many nonprofits are doing. There are obviously some vitally important and valuable services that international relief organizations are providing for impoverished people and nations around the world. But the issue of funding is something I’ve been concerned with throughout this whole class—if a significant portion of nonprofit funding is always coming from the government, then there is a reflection of governmental priorities in the work that these nonprofits are doing. This issue, when looked at on a global scale, is of particular interest and importance.

Additionally, the idea of nonprofits as reminiscent of colonialism takes on a whole new flavor when discussed in the context of religious nonprofits. Once again, I don’t want to devalue the work that religious nonprofits do in terms of providing food, economic support, and education. I worry, however, about religious messages being tied into the support that is granted to starving people because religion sells a certain message and a certain way of life. In the most basic sense, Christian religion is patriarchical, and in many places in the biblical text there is an emphasis on things like dominion over land and resources. Religion is an important element of many people’s lives and an obvious reflection of society at large, but the Christian religion is a reflection of Western society and could be being imposed on people who already have a religion that is not Christian, monolithic, or male-centric. Forcing religion on people as a component of international aid seems problematic to me.

Ultimately, however, I am sure that nonprofits do more good than harm and I should be directing my critiques towards big business and the American industrial complex. If at the very least international nonprofits promote awareness about global problems (from genocide to food production in Central America) than they are pulling their weight for social justice on a global scale.

Environmental readings post

The issues raised in this week’s readings were not entirely new to me. I have seen the Story of Stuff and I am a committed advocate for limiting consumption (on an individual and national scale), limiting waste, and consuming and eating products grown and produced locally. What particularly intrigued me were some of the facts I learned in the Straughan article; the link between the new food movement, traditional environmental issues, civil rights, and globalization postulated by Gottlieb; and the paradox of booming environmental business and poor environmental results investigated in the Adbusters article by MacDonald.

Firstly, I think it is an important characteristic of environmental organizations that they are grassroots in nature. Straughan discusses this in discussing the degree of connectivity between environmental organizations, many of whom sprung from preexisting organizations to form new nonprofits around similar and different issues. Of course, connectivity and grassroots organization are also elements of other sectors of the nonprofit world, but I think it is particularly relevant for environmental nonprofits because of the nature of what they are fighting for. Fighting against a society that seeks domination over land and peoples who are associated with caring for land must involve a structure that reflects the connectedness of life, harmony, community, collaboration, and solidarity against oppression and destruction. It makes sense to me that environmental and conservation groups earn much less of their total revenue from fees for goods and services. This is presumably a product of both the difficulty of assigning market value on public goods, and also on being wary of the mere premise of exploiting the natural environment for capitalist, market gain.

This idea dovetails nicely into MacDonald’s article which highlights the converse trend—of environmental business growing big and fat off of exploitation. She argues that many involved in big business environmental groups focus on “how environmental groups must become even more like corporations” (MacDonald). This to me seems like an inherent flaw in the structure of many environmental groups. Running like a business is going to innately compromise goals of the environmental advocacy sector—grass roots organizing, local level action, living in accordance with nature, and, of course, not exploiting the environment and its natural resources to begin with. Creating a structure that is structured like a business is going to reflect capitalist goals, like making a profit, resource use, and encouraging consumption for healthy economic growth. Turning the environment into consumerism is something everyone should be wary of; environmentalists should not prioritize buying more green products, they should prioritize buying less to begin with.

Lastly I would like to delve into the connection that Gottlieb highlights that I had never thought of in those terms before. Of course there is a link between the oppression faced by traditionally underrepresented people and societies and the oppression of the natural environment, but I had never thought of it on such a visceral and metaphorical level before. I have long been a proponent of local food, and its vital link to the environmental movement. I had also never really conceived of a time when environmentalists wouldn’t be concerned with food, how it is grown, and where it comes from, because those issues are and have been of such concern in the Eugene area since, at least, 2000. I liked Gottlieb’s discussion of how people mobilized around growing food locally and in urban settings, but I learned more from his arguments concerning the immigration and globalization’s connectedness to food. In particular, it was interesting to read his analysis concerning the “imperial reach” and how globalizations impact on food production (e.g. avocados grown in Guatemala that are sold at the Safeway in Eugene) are inherently exploitative. This is not a new concept to me, but it is one that I feel I have better language to analyze with now that I have read this article.

Ultimately, I am a member of the club “act locally think globally” because, as an environmentalist, it is impossible to ignore how the choices you make affect the world at large. Particularly as a middle class white kid in the United States, it would be irresponsible and immoral of me (and, I hope, someday criminal) to not think about this issues in the context of the choices I make and the things I buy.

Paper abstract

My question is: why is religion such a large and influential part of our nonprofit sector? Is it because of historical legacies? Besides charity, what do religions nonprofits use their funds for? What is the underlying mission of religious institutions, besides spreading religion?

I am inspired by this line of inquiry because I am very interested in how religion permeates all of American society, including nonprofits. I am curious what kinds of goals religious nonprofits are striving towards. How do they relate religion to worldly ends (namely, legislation and societal change)? The U.S. is an interesting country as one of the only Western countries that is still largely religious. When reading the religion sector, I was struck by how much money is generated. I am also curious about how religious organizations view civil society, and how they motivate people and inspire social capital because they seem to be doing a very good job.

I had a hard time finding resources, can you help me out? I found some interesting information on non-profits in general, that had a lot of religious undertones:

http://www.nonprofitmaine.org/all_about_nonprofits.asp

I also found an interesting article, titled Religion, the Nonprofit Sector, and U.S. Public Policy here:

http://foxleadership.upenn.edu/content/religion-nonprofit-leadership-and-public-policy

I am planning on accessing Jstor and other academic reading resources at the library soon.

The Importance of Advocacy for Nonprofits and American Society

These two readings demonstrated to me how truly diverse the nonprofit sector is. From advocacy groups to arts and culture, nonprofits seem to integrate themselves into all sectors of society. I found the advocacy section particularly interesting, because I work for an organization I would consider an advocacy organization. O’Neill makes the claim that “it is reasonable to assume that the reality of nonprofit advocacy goes well beyond the statistics on advocacy organizations” (138). He argues this to be true because statistics on advocacy groups do not include small organizations. Advocacy statistics also do not include the advocacy undergone by most nonprofit groups depending on what the primary function of the nonprofit is.

Advocacy, as a concept, permeates all nonprofits in a fundamental way. Nonprofits have to engage in some level of lobbying in order to be able to provide an effective service. For example, isn’t grant writing some form of lobbying? At least to the organization? A convincing argument has to be devised as to why a specific organization needs money for a specific task. If they are lobbying government for money, it seems like this would have to constitute lobbying because a group is asking the government to value one type of service over another type of service in order to figure out who to distribute funds to. This does not include other types of unofficial advocacy that many nonprofits engage in.

Advocacy, however, as a primary function of a nonprofit is another matter entirely, one that I believe is integral to our society. O’Neill briefly discusses how nonprofits centered on advocacy often have representation on both sides of an issue. This, to me, seems like a vitally important characteristic of nonprofit advocacy. Having multiple different groups lobbying on different sides of an issue is going to encourage healthy competition and innovation in both sides. Advocacy, thus, must evolve to reflect current trends and address current needs in a way that is publicly palatable. Advocacy groups must remain technologically and informationally up-to-date in order to be viable competition for other groups. As such, the innovation of social justice will constantly be surpassing itself which is always a good thing.

Then we reach arts and culture as a seperate and distinct type of nonprofit. I had never thought about arts ad culture as a part of the nonprofit sector, though from a business/profit perspective this makes sense, because it doesn’t seem like the art industry can always rely on people to pay high prices to consume art. Thus, being embued in the nonprofit sector will allow the art industry to tap into different streams of revenue, like donations and grants. I never realized what a huge industry arts and culture is, comprising “23,779 nonprofit arts, culture, and humanities organizations circa 1998, with $19.4 billion in revenue, $15.2 billion in expenses, and $46.5 billion in assets” (153). I particularly enjoyed the part where O’Neil stated that on the arts councils and board of directors of arts organizations are often comprised of the rich and powerful. Once again I am struck by the role that advocacy plays in all pieces of nonprofit life. Even sectors like arts and culture have their place in the advocacy realm. Art plays a vital role in the function and definition of society; by which I mean that the plays or ballets or art shows that a particular town chooses to perform or display is an important expression of local culture. A certain type of advocacy and politicking must go into the meetings of the rich and powerful during their art council meetings when making decisions about different pieces of art. Advocacy, it seems, is a vital part of the health of the nonprofit sector and, as De Tocqueville would say, American society as well.

Religion, Education, and Society

The first thing that surprised me was the diagnosis of schools, both public and private and primary and secondary education, as non-profit institutions. Is the UO, then, a nonprofit organization? The UO seems to operate as a for-profit type of institution, yet I know it receives a significant amount of money in grants and donations. Are there aspects of the UO that are nonprofit and aspects that are for-profit? How do most Universities and Colleges register? What are the strategic elements in place behind whether an educational institution registers as for-profit or as non-profit? Those are some of the questions that came up for me, that were not addressed in the reading or in lecture.

With a little research, I found out that the UO is a for-profit institution. Yet the UO Foundation, which feeds money into the University and its assets, is nonprofit. The best of both worlds, I suppose. There are segments of the University that are considered nonprofit for all practical purposes. For example, the ASUO Women’s Center, where I work, when accessing services in the community is offered nonprofit rates. The Women’s Center as an autonomous organization operates the way a nonprofit would, particularly taking into account the loose definition presented by O’Neill in the first chapter.

The focus of this week’s nonprofit class, however, is nonprofit education, so I will redirect my blog focus to reflect this theme. There were a few issues I want to explore in more depth that came up in the readings and in lecture that stuck with me. Firstly, the role of school vouchers, which seem to me to be a symptom of the downfall of the public education system instead of a smart-minded reform. School vouchers have been implemented by the federal government on a small-scale, experimental basis. O’Neill states that “proponents of vouchers argue that [vouchers] would improve all education, public and private, by introducing healthy competition and consumer choice” (127). This analysis seems wrong to me. Pulling out a certain percentage of students out of a public institution and putting them into a private one would, presumably, cut funding for the public school. The private school would begin to thrive more with the increase in students and their tuition/voucher dollars, and start to choke out public institutions and their validity as educational vehicles in a community.

This would lead to the larger issue of the children who are left within the failing public school. The voucher program would aid a few lucky students, who had the necessary intelligence, support systems, and access to resources to apply for and successfully receive a voucher. This would be a minority of students, and the rest would be left in a public education system that is receiving less and less money and resources from the government. I, thus, agree, with O’Neills second stipulation that “opponents argue that vouchers would destroy public education, sharply increase educational and social segregation, and violate federal and state constitutional prohibitions against aid to religion” (128).

The last part of this quotation from Nonprofit Nation seems to also be of vital concern. O’Neill argues, validly, that education is one of the most influential sectors of society because of its long-standing contact with children and young adults. Putting children at an early age in religious institutions (which comprise 74% of all private schools that vouchers would apply to) is going to influence future religious affiliations. Catholic institutions are 50% of all private institutions, so offering vouchers is, in some sense, giving money directly into the hands of Catholicism (110). This violates many Constitutional and guiding principles of the U.S. that I don’t think we can escape from.

In class it seemed like many of the arguments favoring school vouchers were directed towards what they could do to help one individual. In terms of reforming the entire system, however, school vouchers are not the answer. There will always be children left behind.

There were many issues presented in the readings and lectures that are important for education. I would have liked to have spent more time on the Obama Education plan (I am excited to return to it today!), because I think I have some thoughts I would like to explore further in future blogs. For right now, however, school vouchers seemed like the most interesting issue presented this week. There’s only so much reflection I can do on statistics (the first half of the Education chapter in Nonprofit Nation).

The Unavoidable Impact of Religion on American Society

The impact of religion on the U.S. Nonprofit Sector was something I had never critically examined. I had never thought about why the U.S. has such a thriving nonprofit sector and how that relates to the huge number of religious institutions and affiliations, because there is an apparent and unavoidable connection.

I have always known that the U.S. became an early haven for religious tolerance. Many of the major religions tout helping the needy, so religious organizations forming institutionalized social services make sense and I understand how religious institutions has helped organize a thriving nonprofit sector in America. As much as the U.S. tries to avoid organized religion playing a role in the foundation of our government and society, the connection between the two is unavoidable because of the prevalence of religion to our citizens and the priority of religious tolerance in our society.

The strong third sector in American society, however, is a double edged sword. Many other Western and European nations have seen a significant decline in religious affiliation, so social services (a necessary component to society) were not taken care of by religious institutions. Instead, it becomes the work of government to form a significant welfare state. In the U.S., however, funding for many of our nongovernmental social service organizations comes from the federal government. The quick turnover rate for American politicians with potentially radically different policies on welfare and social service spending is of dire concern for nonprofit groups.

Thus, I have mixed feelings on the structure of our third-party nonprofit sector. If social services were institutionalized in government, services would be more stable and recipients of certain types of welfare would know more of what to expect from their service provider. I understand, however, some of the complications of having social service providers integrated into government. Social services will reflect the priorities of the general populace, this is true, but it will also reflect the priorities of the people/party who are in power. With American politics, I don’t think realistically we could have more welfare provided by the state because of the danger of anti-welfare politicians being elected and dramatically slashing services. If there were an expectation by the American people that such services were an integral part of American society, and must be provided for by government, then perhaps this instance could change.

I worry, however, about how prevalent religion is in providing social services to people. It seems to me that the politicalization of many religious institutions should be of concern in terms of how religiously affiliated groups provide welfare. Where do such groups stand on the role of women in society? Or on LGBTQ equality issues? American society has not become more secular as time wears on, like other Western societies have, so religious ideas still play a dominant role in the function of American society.

Nonprofit Nation also discusses the recent decrease in religious involvement and private donations to religious institutions starting in the 60s. I am curious as to how this translates into a rise in secular nonprofit institutions. Were religious institutions, in some sense and for some people, merely the best way to form community and critically engage around service to society? Is this why religious involvement has declined slightly while other nonprofit organizations arose? Was civil service going in a new direction and evolving into a new set of trends?

What do these implications mean for the future of nonprofit organization? I think that it is important for many nonprofits to organize around a political issue, so they can successfully engage people around an idea and lobby government for positive change. This politicalization of many secular and religious nonprofits, however, should not translate into exclusion of services for some people based on bias or prejudices. My hope is that social service organizations that lie outside of religious institutions can wean off of government funding, in some ways, so that in the case of a political party slashing spending, they are able to continue to sustain and provide critical services. This means for many nonprofits that they are going to have to innovate in how they fundraise and, perhaps, even try to emulate the ways in which religious institutions encourage people to donate. Innovative fundraising, of course, goes far beyond private donations and O’Neill comments on the current modernization of many nonprofit funding structures. As long as nonprofits continue to successfully understand society and can anticipate future trends, then hopefully they will continue to be a thriving industry in the U.S.

The Great Big World of Nonprofits

This blog will explore my expanding skills and knowledge as they relate to nonprofit management. This is an academic endeavor, yet it will try to connect any practical experience I may have with the study of nonprofit management. I have been involved with several nonprofits. Most notably and recently, I work at the ASUO Women’s Center at the University of Oregon. I didn’t realize until recently that this organization is in fact a nonprofit. I had never entertained the thought that various campus student organizations, that provide services for students, are actually nonprofits. With the loose definition of nonprofit organizations presented in our readings, however, I am realizing that any number of organizations, however official, that I have been involved with could be considered nonprofits.

That is one of the most interesting things that I was struck by during the readings, is what a large and diverse sector is included in the nonprofit sector. All groups from community or service organization, to large advocacy organizations such as national environmental policy making groups, are included in the nonprofit sector. At some points during the reading, it seemed too large of a spectrum of what could be a nonprofit. For example, at one point O’Neill stated that day-to-day interactions by citizens (e.g. where one neighbor helps another) is, in some unofficial context, part of the nonprofit sector. Why should that kind of interaction be considered in the “nonprofit” category? Of course these interactions are non-profit, it’s the way that citizens choose to engage with each other and their communities. These types of relationships are vital to healthy societies, and I didn’t like that these things needed to be grouped into something as official sounding as “nonprofit”.

The other concept that I found interesting were the variety of viewpoints the book explored about why nonprofits came into existence. Nonprofits have a long and distinguished history, and seemed to start at the outset of organized society. The only conclusion the book seemed to come to about why nonprofits exist was that humans needed to form some sort of support system. The reasons for the recently burgeoning civil society had a variety of theories attached to it: civil rights movement, government/market failure, to represent diversity, to organize communities, or to organize people around common interests.

It doesn’t seem to me that any one viewpoint about why nonprofits are an important sector in our society needs to be decided on. It seems to me that humans have too much of a need to label and classify things, as a way to rationalize and understand things. To my mind, the more important question is what do nonprofits do for our society and how can they be diversified and improved—instead of trying to figure out why nonprofits came into existence in the first place. It is, most probably, a combination of all of the factors listed above. In some sense, it seems that it comes down to forming a support system for different types of people who care about different types of things. There is another aspect to life that is separate (though may be related to) from family, friends, and work, that is readily apparent within our society, which somehow manifests into the nonprofit sector.

My work in nonprofits (for example, the Women’s Center) has never been profitable. I have volunteered for many organizations, and the Women’s Center specifically pays me very little to do the job that I do. There must be, then, a different reason why I choose to engage in a nonprofit organization. For the Women’s Center specifically, it began with an issue that I felt very passionately about and felt the need to organize around. The WC became a much more fundamental part of my life in the way that it provides community and support for me and its other members.

Throughout the term I will blog about a variety of issues, including the readings and information presented in the class. I will try to connect those topics with my current and past work for nonprofits, as well as any future plans I have to work with nonprofits on a local, regional, and global level. This term I hope to learn more about how to network and collaborate between nonprofits—how do organizations accomplish goals collaboratively? How do groups overcome regional and other differences?

Throughout the term I also want to learn about how I can be an effective member of nonprofit organizations. How can I use my skills to their utmost ability to benefit the organization I am working for? How can I form professional relationships with members of other nonprofits as well as with other people within my organization? How do I help build social capital? Those are some of the issues I am hoping to explore throughout the course of this class.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!