A Final Post

Summer is finally upon us at the University of Oregon! Sadly, this means an end to the nonprofit class I am taking, and to this blog. Ten weeks ago I had almost no knowledge of the nonprofit sector. However I am now confident that I have a solid foundation for participating in the nonprofit sector on a new level. Recognizing the unique structure and challenges of these organizations seems more important than I could have ever imagined in effectively impacting nonprofits. I have found these complexities to maintaining stable organizations within the nonprofit sector one of the most interesting concepts from this term as well as being one of the most applicable to the real world sector. With this newfound knowledge I am feeling more inspired than ever to further my involvement within nonprofit organizations, be it through volunteering or career. Thanks to all of you for a great term, it’s been fun!

Giving Influence

Alright, so this week I wanted to talk a bit about foundations.  Before hearing a speaker from Oregon Community Foundation (OCF) and reading O’Neill’s chapter I really had never put any thought into the complications of foundations, or really about what they do period.  So here is a brief summary of a foundations’ purpose.  Basically, foundations act as a middle-person between those who want to donate to a specific cause/organization and those organizations that carry out the various missions that donors are seeking.  They also have the ability to use donor funds to create grants for organizations.  Though creating an extra transfer of funds, foundations aim to create efficiency by attracting donors who are unsure about organizations to give to and do not have the time to research stable nonprofits.  Foundations are also advantageous to the community and donors in the event that an organization goes out of business after donor donation had already been implemented.  In this case foundations can begin giving the funds to another organization so long as the same mission is being achieved.     

So what could be the problem with foundations?!  They seem great, right?  There has however, been quite a bit of debate surrounding issues with foundation structure.  One question proposed is the efficiency of foundations acting between funders and organizations when funders could just give straight to the nonprofit itself!  However, alluded to above, foundations do have potential to create more giving since they do the work of directing dollars.  A more complex and unique issue in foundations is the control of large foundations.  With nonprofit demand for funding never ceasing, there are always partnerships going on between these groups.  Some nonprofit organizations require these dollars to stay afloat and may be willing bend to the ideas of what the foundation is going to fund in order to get grants and donations.  Large foundations have a lot of money to spend and selecting the organizations they believe in thus has major influence on goings on in society and the types of goals that are accomplished.   

Though it can be a bit scary to think that these foundations have such strong influence on initiatives, the question of whether or not these foundations should be allowed to have such power is a difficult one.  Large foundations are able to distribute huge amounts of money to a lot of really good causes that create a huge impact within society.  Any additional red tape on foundations could limit their ability to help organizations that are doing good work.  So should there be some type of regulation targeting foundation control?  Maybe.  I think the answer to this is far too complex for my current understanding about foundations, as well as for the length of this blog!

However after hearing about these issues in class, and maybe partially because I am still in “research mode” from the final class paper we just completed, I decided to do a little bit of personal investigation into the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.  With an endowment of over 35 billion dollars (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/foundation-fact-sheet.aspx,) this foundation is the perfect example of an enormous foundation that is helping many important causes and has dominating influence within each respective sector.  As an example, one area of focus is on U.S. education.  The foundation has developed their own strategy to fixing problems within education, and is giving to school districts that need money (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/united-states/Pages/united-states-education-strategy.aspx.)  Regardless of whether the strategy is good or bad, this foundation has tremendous influence in schools.  Because of this power, it is important to look at foundations with a critical eye. 

Alright I think I will stop here.  One research paper is quite enough!  :)  Until next time…

TED

This weekend I watched a documentary called The Future We Will Create: Inside the World of TED.  It was actually quite fitting not only of this week’s topic of international nonprofits but of where I am at in my journey into the sector as a whole.  TED is a nonprofit that hosts conferences in a few different locations across the world.  The film takes viewers inside the TED conference which provides those in attendance with several days of luncheons, activities, and speakers presenting on anything from technology to environmentalism, education, religion, and everything in between.  The conference is designed to educate and inspire those who are passionate about creating change, as attendees are some of the world’s leading entrepreneurs.  It facilitates problem solving and learning about research developments and acts as a networking tool to create change and pass on the information presented.  TED is successful in making issues around the world resonate with attendees at the conference, creating a chain reaction of action.  The many different fields of conference goers are essential to attacking problems from many different angles.  As one example, an attendee who was involved in production of Inconvenient Truth said that TED is, “bridging together the world of making movies and world of making a difference” (The Future We Will Create: Inside the World of TED.) The ability to bring together the networks of entrepreneurs makes TED able to facilitate change in numerous areas internationally.   

Besides bringing such influential people together, one way that TED achieves change on an international level is through the conference awards.  Three awards are given out at each TED conference based on work people have done over the previous year.  When each person receives their award they get a chance to speak and request one wish.  It was amazing to see just how folks responded to past wishes and all that was accomplished at the simple request of past award winners.  One interviewee and award winner for her work in film summed up the idea of the TED network when she spoke on choosing a wish saying, “This is so much bigger [than pitching a film.]  You needed to think of something global.”  Another award winner talked about how he expanded his wish, making it bigger after he heard about the work that was accomplished on the previous year’s wish (The Future We Will Create: Inside the World of TED.)  The idea of creating a huge network of people results in better chances at successfully tackling huge issues that would be hard for just one nonprofit to solve.  It allows an issue to be presented to people around the world and put it in their hands to use their area of expertise to make something happen. 

I find it interesting that I happen to stumble upon this movie at this point in the term.  Though TED really is about an international network of help there is definitely a presence of the other areas of the nonprofit sector integrated into the conference.  The movie about TED is very representative of how the different areas of the nonprofit sector work together, something which I have started thinking more about as the end of the term approaches.

Ok, well until next week…

Oh and here is a link to the website-check it out!  http://www.ted.com/

Revised Paper Proposal

Alright, so after getting a better sense of how to make my paper topic work and realizing that we are not simply posting our research question, I decided to just redo the post all together. 

My paper will explore the transformation of nonprofit organizations in the gay rights movement since the stonewall riots.  Specifically it will take a look into three goals within the movement:  fighting the stigma of AIDS as a gay man’s syndrome, the response to hate crimes, and marriage rights.  In each of these cases I plan to analyze the role of specific nonprofit organizations and the ways in which they went about seeking change.  I am interested in looking at not only how nonprofits have helped shape the movement but also how organizations have changed through time. 

Sources:

Stone Butch Blues by Leslie Feinberg

www.thetaskforce.org

www.matthewshepard.org

www.hrc.org

Women and Environmentalism

Several weeks back our class discussed the topic of efficiency in nonprofits in relation to the size and structure of the organization.  The pros and cons of having several large organizations per sector versus many small organizations were debated.  Ultimately I concluded that it is most beneficial to have a balance of both large and small groups to create the most progress within the sector.  This allows for large-scale programs that can reach many and easily communicate to duplicate successful programs, as well as creating more personalized efforts to meet individual community needs by tailoring specific programs.  

So you may be wondering what the heck this idea has to do with environmental nonprofits and the ladies.  This week one of our class readings was Robert Gottlieb’s Forcing the Spring.   Gottlieb talks quite a bit about the ecofeminism movement which joined the ideas of feminism, environmentalism, and the antinuclear movement into one fight (Gottlieb 300-306.)  Though the ecofeminism movement in particular did not have lasting effect in the form of an organization, I think its main idea of unifying causes is really important in taking a nonprofits’ progress to a new level. If there were more actively supportive organizations collaborating with the ecofeminist movement maybe it would have lasted longer.  However, the idea does present some challenges, making me wonder about what ultimately created a short-lived ecofeminist movement.  One idea is that negative stereotypes often associated with feminism turned some away from the goals the movement was trying to achieve.  It also seems quite possible that the group had trouble attracting a following due to a well defined niche or by trying to accomplish multiple large tasks at once.   

It may seem as though I am close to walking over a very thin line here.  However I am not intending to imply that organizations of underrepresented groups shouldn’t provide support for one another.  Instead I wish to point out that advocacy requires a lot of time and effort.  If all organizations were to diversify their support rather than centralize it, they would run the risk of only covering both causes minimally.  In addition, although this intersection can unify causes, it can also lose following due to ones disagreement with the other issue.  I think that acting in solidarity is extremely valuable for nonprofit organizations.  Still though, parallel to the organization size in relation to efficiency debate, I think balance within the sector is very important in order to achieve the most progress. 

Alright.  Finally, since we are no strangers to plugs here, and we are discussing environmental nonprofits this week I thought it fitting to share a sweet blog with you all!  My friend is organizing a summer bike tour from Portland to Massachusetts raising funds to help farmers practice sustainable agriculture in Bolivia, and giving talks about food sovereignty along the way.  Check out his blog!  http://bikeacrossamerica.wordpress.com/the-fundraising-project/

Paper Idea

Alright here is a rough look at where I want to take my paper:

What was the role of nonprofits in the gay rights movement following the Stonewall riots?

Sources:

http://community.pflag.org/Page.aspx?pid=194&srcid=-2

http://www.thetaskforce.org/

 Stone Butch Blues by Leslie Feinberg

Role of Government in Advocacy

My mind is kind of running all over this place with this week’s readings about advocacy and the arts nonprofit organizations.   Let me first start out by relaying that O’Neill’s idea of advocacy organizations is that they do not directly affect those which they serve.  “Their purpose is to change the policies and practices of government agencies, corporations, and other large organizations, including some nonprofit institutions.” (O’Neill 140)

Initially I was pretty surprised by O’Neill’s idea of advocacy and before reading the chapter had thought of advocacy as being broader than organizations simply working towards changing legislation.  It was unclear to me whether this definition is O’Neill’s opinion and used to share how he compiled data for the chapter, or whether the government as a whole uses this idea to categorize nonprofit organizations.  To me, it seems that even some groups directly serving a population would be advocacy organizations. 

That being said, O’Neill did raise some points that I had never thought about before with this definition.  Before reading the chapter I tended to think of advocacy groups fighting for a more intangible form of equality, with less focus on the concrete ways (such as legal changes) that advocacy organizations achieve.  I think it was a good reminder to see that these governmental and business changes can lead to equality in a more whole sense, however I do wonder about the lack of emphasis on change through advocacy organizations when laws or regulations do not result in equality other than in a legal sense.  Though O’Neill makes a good point that governmental and business changes can create the most widespread change, (141) I wonder about the role of advocacy organizations regarding discrimination that is not solved by laws, something which was not really discussed in the chapter. 

Another question that the reading sparked for me was regarding the role of government advocacy versus nonprofit advocacy.  O’Neill notes that the revenue breakdown for the advocacy sector is notably different than most other nonprofit segments, with 41% (opposed to 1% in health care) coming from private contributions (139.)  Should the government have more involvement in advocacy?  I pose this question with no real answer, but several thoughts.  Assuming the definition given by O’Neill, it seems that government would be less likely to fund advocacy organizations as that could mean endorsement of a specific side of a political issue.  It also seems that government would give less heavily to organizations in place to change laws instead of putting together some sort of proposal to change the law themselves.  On the other hand, with limited capacity and budget, maybe increasing government funding for advocacy organizations would allocate resources in a more efficient way.  This would seem to make sense especially if the idea of advocacy was expanded beyond O’Neill’s definition.   

This question of whether or not to increase government spending on a particular area of the nonprofit sector seems to get more complicated every week, as we discuss a new topic within the sector.  Each week there is another area that could greatly benefit from increased government spending.  At first it seems easy to say yes, but the government has limited resources and dollars.  Is it possible to fix our problems within schools, provide health care for everyone, and increase spending on advocacy?  Should one area of the sector be focused on more than others and if so, how do we prioritize that? 

Well, that is about where I’m sitting in the class right now.  I suppose I will wrap it up and catch you next week!

What is the Answer?

Education is an interesting part of the U.S. nonprofit sector in that everyone has some form of direct ties to it.  Last week in class the question was posed about whether attempts to better education through implemented programs have been successful in the past few decades.  We discussed it at length however I have a few thoughts to throw out there in response to the question. 

For starters though, a little background information may be necessary to get a better understanding of where I am speaking from.  I grew up in St. Paul, Minnesota and attended elementary as well as junior and senior high in inner city public schools there.  Enrollment was diverse in all forms of the word however there was noticeable separation in terms of demographics depending on individual programs.  The high school I attended as well as another in the district attracted the most students as they offered more accelerated programs.  However there appeared to be a world of difference within those schools, depending on whether the student chose to enroll in regular or accelerated classes.  I also have some insight into Minneapolis public schools as my mom is a teacher in the district.   

So I suppose I should get to a point here.  Though I think that many would agree that our schools have some major issues to work out, it is impossible to state whether or not we have been successful.  The needs of St. Paul public schools are going to be completely different than Portland’s public schools and even further from those in suburbia or small rural towns.  Even public schools in the same district will often have unique places to improve.  Though it complicates finding a solution to academic problems, education cannot be made into a black and white subject. 

Furthermore, there are many intangible factors that completely change the education one receives.  I guess this brings me back to the idea of advocacy discussed in the previous post.  Though our education programs need funding, all students need teachers, program directors, coaches, parents etc. to be their advocates.  Without both ends of this spectrum it is difficult to have an environment which allows all children with academic opportunity.  I think this idea was very visible in my years within the Saint Paul public school system.  There are some amazing teachers there who really hold all students accountable and push them to want more.  The programs that were successful were ones that had teachers who were truly passionate about and believed in the programs and students. 

On the other side, there were many programs put in place to correct issues that didn’t work because everyone was just going through the motions.  These seemed to do nothing but allow a cycle to perpetuate while pretending to do something to change it.  Seeing new programs implemented at my school as well as with my mom’s, I have seen firsthand just how important an advocate is on students’ success.  Regardless of funding if programs trying to solve an existing problem don’t have a teacher/director who is completely on board and passionate about the program, it makes success for all students challenging. 

I guess I do not really have an answer to address any existing problems within our public schools or to answer whether or not our system has been successful.  There are many who have been positively affected by our education system, but there is also a huge need for improvement.  The issue of education has so many layers, but it is really important to look at the unique needs of schools as well as the intangible factors that affect education.  Even if there is a huge lack of funding for public schools, something can be done about creating environments where students are pushed and held accountable by administration and staff. 

Alright, I suppose that about wraps it up.  Catch you next week!

Advocacy and Social Service

A few weekends ago I attended a conference with other students from around the Pacific Northwest.  Over the course of the weekend we attended several different workshops covering a variety of topics.  One in particular stands out, as it had to do with volunteering, activism, and how to put ideas into action.

 The seminar described activism as a spectrum.  On one end of the spectrum was charity, a short term commitment leading to immediate relief that does not offer a long term solution to whatever the cause may be.  This could be something such as donating to a food bank.  On the other end is an advocate.  According to the folks who ran the seminar being an advocate requires a longer commitment and attempts to solve an underlying problem over the long term.  For example someone who mentors or tutors a child would be an advocate. 

Thinking about this workshop definitely changed my perspective while reading about social services (and to a certain extent religion) from this week’s textbook readings.  At first I was pretty surprised at just how large the religious area of the nonprofit sector.  Prior to these readings and attending the first few weeks of class, I would have definitely thought the social services area comprised most of the sector.  Social service seems to be the most prevalent in the community, or at least the most easily recognizable as nonprofit organizations due to their charitable work. 

 However I think that O’Neill brought up an important point when he discusses the difference between influences on the sector from a monetary standpoint versus impacting a community in a more intangible way.  He writes,

“…The collective impact of nonprofit social service programs on society is not as visible as, for instance, the impact of Harvard, Stanford, MIT, and other leading nonprofit research universities.  But the cumulative, quiet effect of these nonprofit social service agencies on millions of individuals, families, neighborhoods, and communities is profound.” (O’Neill 81) 

 This idea of the intangible and overall impact being valued relates very much to the idea of the activism spectrum.  Just as all places along this spectrum are necessary for change, all of these small organizations are important to social service.  Of course there is a need for large organizations such as research universities but it is easy to lose perspective on the change created by these smaller groups, especially when looking at data.  Again paralleling the two examples, though the charity end of the seminar’s spectrum does not create solutions, it is no less important or necessary than the advocate end of the spectrum.  Similarly despite the seemingly small size of the social service section, the power of its effects should not be overlooked. 

 Though many parts of the reading for this week were interesting and thought provoking, by far what stood out most was the idea that the impact on the sector/economy is not necessarily comparable to an organization’s effect on the world.  So with that, I will wrap up this post and say farewell until next week!

Questions…

The first week of class has mainly been delving into how nonprofits started and their general legal classifications.  I was completely shocked at the amount of classifications and just how many breakdowns of the nonprofit sector there are!  For one, I guess I had just never thought about the nonprofit sector from a legal perspective.  I also had not realized just how detailed regulations are in terms of nonprofit status.  However, looking at taxation and how the government must carefully track money and regulate business, it does make sense that this would be so. 

Another point of interest was a subsection of the reading that really kept me thinking.  I was surprised at what was being considered a nonprofit group in a section of O’Neill’s book describing smaller unofficial nonprofit groups.  I had never thought of a book club or volunteer orchestra to be a nonprofit organization, registered or not.  This makes sense to me in that, yes the average book club is not finding some source of revenue to distribute to members and may provide positive externalities in the form of education and community to society.   However, I can’t help but think this seems to be taking the idea a bit far.  As though everything that is not a business is a nonprofit organization.  Of course that is not to discount everything that these groups bring to a community, only to pose the question of what really is a nonprofit organization from a non legal sense? 

I also found the relationship between nonprofit organizations in the United States and U.S. history to be especially interesting.  I didn’t realize how far back the nonprofit sector went and had never really thought about the necessity for philanthropy in order for colonist survival.  Considering how U.S. history has resulted in nonprofit organizations having pretty substantial impact on our present day economy, the role nonprofits play in other countries is very intriguing.  Does a country’s nonprofit sector start out of need and survival or to gain better quality of life in a country already achieving a high gross domestic product?  Similarly, have more developed countries expanded their nonprofit sector as they have grown or been able to grow because of nonprofits?  After spending some time looking for data to help answer these questions I realized there may just not be documentation easily available.  This seems to make sense even when looking back to my previous question of what a nonprofit really is.  With the many different cultures and societies in the world, I wonder if what may be a nonprofit organization to one country could just be a way of life or community to another.   

Well I suppose I will leave it at that and think on these questions for a while.  Catch you all next week!