conclusion to nonprofit administration

This introduction to nonprofit administration has been eye opening on several different fronts. Firstly, it seems like I have been drawing too strict of a line between the various “sectors.” It is easy to look at these constructs as a way of dividing our society and economy into “good” and “bad” parts, or as Bob mentioned toward the beginning of the class, coming from the “head” versus the “heart”. It seems clear that these divisions are only worthwhile to those who have been in a given area or field of study for a long time. In other words, the moral distinctions that we have made are at the very most sparks with which we get our energy and drive from to pursue a certain nonprofit, which is later cast in watered down but over-valued advice as to why people chose a career of notoriously low paying and challenging jobs. This leads one to believe, including the previously naïve yours truly, that the nonprofit sector is categorically impervious to fraud and dubious ethical practice. After meeting several of our guest speakers, it seems that this is clearly not the case.

Another important lesson that I have taken from this class is how the field is subject to questionable statistics and science, which is in all probability a direct result of the previous realization. Not only are statistics easily manipulated for private interest to the point where they can hardly be given credence (a transgression partaken by everyone from corporate lobbyists to inflammatory journalists), much of the erroneous material is simply not checked because of the perceived honor system that the nonprofit world often relies on. This laziness is arguably done because people believe that as long as they are acting, their actions are just. A similar comparison may be drawn in the “green-washing” phenomenon of our era. People use compostable cups because there are statistics that proves that this action reduces waste, while forgetting the larger problem at hand, which is just as mathematically verifiable; humans have a tendency over-consume and we should make everything “reusable”. Both sets of belief are essentially “correct,” but the former is easier to accept because it takes less direct action and thought. Clearly, however, they are not the same and one has a much worse effect. The compostable cups still end up in landfills, have plastic lids, which are not sustainable, reusable, or biodegradable, and yet we still use them as if we care about the state of our environment (or as if it would be unthinkable to change our actions by carrying around a reusable cup).

The same connection can be drawn to nonprofits; and I offer this advice to all of you thinking about embarking on a nonprofit career: don’t do something solely for the reason that it sits well with your “heart.” Our hearts aren’t static, and in fact are by definition the opposite. If we do become successful in the nonprofit realm and make a positive impact on the world, it is because we were concerned and informed citizens, not hopeless romantics.

international

What struck me most about this weeks reading in the O’Neil book were the statistics detailing the decreasing amount of foreign assistance of nonprofits by the American government over the past decades. This downward trend is shocking in several ways.

First, it seems that as our country becomes more aware of the global context in which it operates, it should have more respect for other people that are stuck in systemically engrained disadvantageous situations. In other words, as we learn more about other places and cultures, we should recognize that not only do we help ourselves by helping these others, but that we also have a responsibility as citizens of a global community to help those that cannot help themselves. Therefore the decreasing support for these nonprofits must stem from an outdated and xenophobic perspective that O’Neil refers to as “the deep historical roots of American isolationism. ” For me, the harmful effects of this cultural phenomenon are not explicitly stated enough in this term. Isolationism goes hand in hand with racism, greed, and the antithesis of the aforementioned community. Even more, it leads to fear, and we all know what they say about fear:

Second, this trend is disturbing in the fact that in practice, we aren’t isolationist: as O’Neil points out, American business, diplomatic, and military effort has been proliferating rapidly during this decline. These three forces have become increasingly privatized and centered on meeting a profit margin. This shows that we aren’t isolationist if there is a dollar to be made, a conclusion that is highly problematic for our presumed respect for and emphasis on human rights and democracy.

Third, if we don’t look to solve long-term problems through these international nonprofits, we will continue to face the same endemic crises that plague us today. For example, climate change, on its current path, will continue to cause increasing amounts waves of poverty, famine, and migration, which take a toll on the overall global economy, as well as threaten to jeopardize the security and ideological certitude of the nation-state. Moreover, it is well known that these effects of climate change compound one another, such as burning coal for fuel for lack of a better alternative.

International nonprofits are a curious part of the third sector in the way that they reflect our global perspectives and prejudices, as well as serving as macro reflections of the organizations we have covered until this week. It is one thing to say that we need to provide organizations for our local communities to address some perceived injustice that is not being solved by the private or governmental sectors, but it is wholly different to say that we need to do this for the global community. On one hand, it may be argued that we definitely have less of a responsibility to the rest of the world, but on the other, it is clear that we are inextricably linked to this world far more than we often perceive.

Environmental Movements and the 3rd Sector

Environmental issues are one of the most sensationalist and at the same time forgettable problems of our era. We, especially in the Northwest, love to wallow in doomsday scenarios of total collapse and extinction, but ironically, can gloss over real dilemmas with startling indifference. The former is illustrated by the success of the commercial of the 80s depicting a crying native american being pelted by garbage, and the latter, our continued assault on the environment with almost 30 billion bottles of water in the US alone being purchased each year (how many end up in landfills seems irrelevant considering the mass amount of energy and gradual fragmentation, but not elimination, of plastic particulate matter) (earth911.com).

I am not the first to recognize this unsettling dichotomy; in fact, it seems to be the central tenet of most environmental classes and studies of our day. Terminology related to this, such as “deep” versus “shallow” environmentalism, is frustratingly impractical at solving the initial inquiry. It is interesting that many environmental studies majors, and college students in general, are exposed to these elitist (I use this word with gritted teeth) concepts, which, instead of promoting a more comprehensive and communicative approach, seem to disenfranchise them further from the sections of the public that could most improve their environmental impact. Part of this, I believe, results from our society’s collective forgetfulness (arguably a deliberate move by several key corpor.. [cough cough] persons) , and part of it is from a disconnect between different understandings of what we call science.

I experience this situation, as I am sure many of you do, on a daily basis. The most recent example that comes to mind is an article I read about the Gulf Coast Spill. It was comparing the effects of this spill to those of the Exon-Valdez, making the claim that this one can’t nearly be as bad as its predecessor (as long as it is stopped in the next 4 weeks), because it is improbable that it will cause the death of 250,000 animals. First of all, we have no way of qualifying what an “animal” is. Does this include the trillions of plankton and other vital microscopic life that may not elicit the direct emotive response of seeing as, for example, a choking-oil-soaked-rare-species-of bird-in-its-death-throes does? Secondly, couldn’t we reject this claim simply on the fact that there are different areas and ecosystems that have a greater cohesive effect than others? Wouldn’t the statistical difference of a few thousands of “animals” be completely negligible or nearly impossible to determine if this was the case? A multitude of other logical fallacies can be drawn, but it remains clear that this pseudoscience that regularly permeates throughout our culture, or at least the differing levels and types of science in the media is a serious problem exacerbated by the continued radicalization of news sources.

Finally, I would like to suggest the movie Yes Men, which exhibits one way in which the aforementioned dichotomy can be breached, i.e. through comedy. It also details the long term effects and difficulties we have as humans to understanding our role on a broader scale. More importantly, it is funny.

The “animal” article: http://cbs5.com/national/gulf.oil.spill.2.1674709.html

Research Paper

Popular sports organizations in the modern era command tremendous influence economically and socially. I would like to explore ways in which some of these organizations utilize this power in the nonprofit sector, especially focusing on Football Club Barcelona, the Spanish powerhouse that has become not only tremendously popular for its stellar play on the field, but also off the field, in it’s self-proclaimed role as a “staunch defender of democratic rights and freedom” (FCBarcelona.cat). FC Barcelona’s contributions to the general welfare of humankind have exhibited how nonprofit work can be not only glamorous, but highly profitable, efficient, and capable of creating positive feedback loops of kindness and generosity. Additionally, I will look at other ways the non-profit sector has been adopted into the often-private sphere of sports business.

My interest in this topic has been spurred by FC Barcelona’s sponsorship deal with UNICEF, one wherein the team pays the sponsor, unlike the more common agreement where a corporation or company invests in the team. I would like to delve into the practical effect this strategy has had for UNICEF, as well as for the football club itself. While Barcelona’s commitment to universal rights may be assertively stated on their jerseys, it is clear that there are, as always in such business, underlying hypocrisies and questionable alliances. More prominent is FCB’s contract with Nike, a notoriously aggressive and ethically dubious corporation, known for a laundry list of human rights violations and substandard working conditions for its nearly entirely outsourced labor force. One can only assume the ignorance of such a self-righteous club for so long, before the factual and moral omissions of judgment become all-too readily apparent.

This topic is also fascinating in the context of modern day philosophical interpretations of the role of sports. Often referred to as at best, anti-intellectual spectacles or diversions, and at worst, outlets for our violent, “innate” tribal passions (a position clearly meant to incite sensationalist visions of amoral bloody gladiatorial battles of ancient Rome), sports have largely been considered negatively by the upper-echelons of academia. FCB and other successful organizations have directly contradicted this thesis, however, and continue to illustrate new ways to incorporate positive social change into their business models.

Ultimately, it seems clear that FCB is on the frontier of the field of philanthropy in the realm of sports business, and that they also have done quite a large amount of good for the world. This research question addresses topics that we have covered in class in the fields of: advocacy arts and culture, social services, international nonprofits, and general meta-theory of the sector.

Links and Sources:

• Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730#
• Territorial identity, ethnic identity, and sport: the case of Catalonia and FC Barcelona by Hunter W. Shobe
• How Soccer Explains the World by Franklin Foer
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/sep/13/barcelona

advocacy groups

Advocacy groups are clearly an important part of the structure of society and the functioning of democracy. While it may be argued that these groups are trivial or unfairly represent a specific interest group or cause, the retrospective benefits from past and continuing projects show that they can provide help in getting people to focus on certain overlooked policies and problems. Important environmental concerns, for example, have been and continue to be elicited in the general public from these advocacy groups, serving to bridge a gap between the results of scientific studies and the everyday person. It may be true that this information would eventually be transferred by governmental standards (often difficult, however, if there is not widespread knowledge and support of changing policies to address certain new-found environmental concerns), journalistic reports, etc., it is clear that our system of capitalism often encourages this gap through ignorance, convenient self-deception, or collective inaction, also to be understood through Orwell’s notion of group-think and that a strongly focused and dedicated advocacy group is the fastest way to remedy it. This type of civic participation, comprised by a group of dedicated and concerned citizens and experts, is a great vehicle to enact change, and counter to Madison’s label of “factions”, can in fact bring people together to address or inspire common concern over a moral issue.

It would be too simplistic, however, to say that all of these advocacy groups are positive, just as it would be to claim that everyone’s moral system is just. For example, some religiously oriented institutions, corporations, and political parties take advantage of, and possibly deliberately manipulate, the advocacy system for personal gain and other ulterior motives. The recent proliferation of tea-party movements is an example of how peoples genuine concern for the principles of justice and morality can be maneuvered to spread disinformation and unrest through sensationalized media. The tea-party movement is predicated off of the notions that taxes are shooting through the roof and that our government is becoming “socialized,” despite the fact that taxes for the majority of Americans are lower than they have been in decades and our government is already to a large extent defined by relative socialism. The corporate interest and personal greed of individuals have permeated this phenomenon to the point where, upon closer examination, it can hardly be taken seriously.

Overall, advocacy groups are an interesting and important part of our society and political efficacy. Their consequences are far-reaching and generally positive, however it seems that, much like other organizations based off of an idealistic notion of the progress of morality, can be manipulated by sources with ulterior motives. Because many organizations, as O’Neil points out, work under with degree of advocacy, we must be wary in the aforementioned information gap. It remains clear however, that advocacy, especially in the nonprofit sector, remains a powerful and generally beneficial aspect of society.

Healthcare

This week’s material is focusing on healthcare. While O’Neil offers a fairly straightforward depiction of what this contentious subject has been comprised of, it does not include the latest overhaul undertaken by the Obama administration. Hence, I would like to open this blog up to discussion over this issue, focusing specifically on the question of how healthcare has historically developed into such a gigantic problem for the United States, and, partially due to my own ignorance, I would like to ask what you think is the most important change in the context of this discussion.

O’Neil says the following on the expansion of government spending on healthcare:

• “The American health care economy grew significantly in the latter half of the twentieth century, rising from 5% of GDP in 1960 to 13.2% in 2000” p 100
• “In the post-World War II period, federal government health funding was greatly expanded through the 1946 Hill-Burton Act supporting hospital constuction, large increases in the budget of the National Institutes of Health supporting biomedical research, and especially the creation in 1965 of Medicare and Medicaid, supporting health care for the elderly and indigent.”
• “Many other factors contributed to the rise of health care costs, including general population growth, the aging of the population, expanded health insurance coverage by employers, expensive new equipment and surgical procedures, increased use of prescription and nonprescription drugs, and new medical challenges such as AIDS. Nonprofit health organizations, at the center of America’s health system, grew with these general increases”

Our largest challenges therefore seem to stem from structural changes due to an ageing demographic, as well as the costs incurred from generally preventable disease and chronic diseases that used to cause death but now equal large, extended medical bills. It seems paradoxical that the baby-boomer generation wants to retire with social security, effectively opting out of being productive members of society,

We also seem to have a fixation on paying less-taxes, and expecting greater results. For more on this issue, is Bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/24/bill-maher-to-tea-baggers_n_550430.html

Some say that it will cause massive increases in the deficit (), and others, including President Obama, say that it will reduce the deficit by eliminating waste incurred by the private market (which amounts to no-less than certain blasphemy to those proponents of the former view).

While it may be too early to tell definitively if “Obamacare” will result in a decrease or increase in spending, we may still draw conclusions based upon the possible ideological and social pressures of such legislation. It seems clear to me that the most important factor involved in this issue is the way that people perceive their health, as aspects of themselves that must be protected, rather than something that can be fixed.

Our largest challenges therefore seem to stem from structural changes due to an ageing demographic, as well as the costs incurred from generally preventable disease. It seems paradoxical that the baby-boomer generation wants to retire with social security, effectively opting out of being productive members of society,

We also seem to have a fixation on paying less-taxes, and expecting greater results. For more on this issue, is Bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/24/bill-maher-to-tea-baggers_n_550430.html

Some say that it will cause massive increases in the deficit (), and others, including President Obama, say that it will reduce the deficit by eliminating waste incurred by the private market (which amounts to no-less than certain blasphemy to those proponents of the former view).

While it may be too early to tell definitively if “Obamacare” will result in a decrease or increase in spending, we may still draw conclusions based upon the possible ideological and social pressures of such legislation. It seems clear to me that the most important factor involved in this issue is the way that people perceive their health, as aspects of themselves that must be protected, rather than something that can be fixed.

religion and social service

This week our class is focusing on two specific areas of the nonprofit sector, religion and social service. The most surprising overarching theme of the readings and lectures for me was the enduring, yet often tumultuous histories of these areas, especially in the way that they have shaped our discourse on them today. The mere mentioning of the divide between “church and state” or “social services” (which by many accounts is conspicuously close to the dreaded “socialism”) brings rise to deep-seeded emotions and conflict, certainly due in part to the divides that have occurred in our past over the issues. Additionally, the media plays an integral role in inflaming these passions in such a way that they can draw in more viewers, regardless of the journalistic standards of “fair and balanced.” Often overlooked are statistics that make these debates seem foolish and self-depreciating. This is especially true in the supposed “culture wars” or any other jargon that assumes (and consequently enforces) great divides between one portion of society or government and another. For example, the nonprofit social service sector receives 3/5ths of its revenue from the government (O’ Neill p 89). Fear mongering centered upon “government takeovers” and the “ramming-down-throat” style legislature seems extremely misguided; we already rely on and support crucial “socialist” programs to a huge degree. As O’Neill asserts, “the cumulative, quiet effect of these nonprofit social service agencies on millions of individuals, families, neighborhoods, and communities is profound” (81).

The media takes religion on in a different light, often refusing to acknowledge the conflicting issues between various groups because it is supposed to be in a more “private sphere.” This itself demonstrates the suppression of the separation of church and state dialectic, as well as how history has shaped the way that the government treads a fine line between seeming biased in one direction or another. Ultimately, the government and religious groups are intricately connected, with a myriad of rules and regulations for nonprofit status, as well as what classifies a group as exempt from taxes. The amount of statistics and ability to calculate figures such as net worth also supports this idea of interconnectedness. It is apparent that some pseudo-religious groups take advantage of these special classifications, such as the increasingly ruthless and corporate-esque cult of Scientology.

O’Neill also brought to light the issue of the shifting of the emphasis of the social service sector “from providing high-quality service to demonstrating effect” (87). This is a result of the blending of the nonprofit sector with business-like “bottom line” philosophies. This is interesting because it all centers around what “success” is defined by, and in a sector that purportedly acts from the heart, success doesn’t seem like it can be pinned down by statistics and cost-benefit analyses. It is clear that in this way, the debate over “big government” and “general welfare” seems to fall towards the latter side, unless we want to completely rethink the concept of “nonprofit” and the social service sector.

Intro to Nonprofit

Hello,

My name is Keegan, and I am taking an introductory course on the Nonprofit Sector. While this blog serves to complete a required assignment, it also will be useful in documenting my continued exposure to the material in such a way that will (hopefully) be clear and practical for other students in the same field. Planning and public policy management is not my main focus here at the University of Oregon, however it corresponds well with my other two majors and overall lifelong goals, which I will detail at greater length below.

The focus of this blog will be to discuss the meaning and interpretation of the “third sector” in terms of a moral understanding, as well as to determine its necessity in our increasingly privatized and monetarily driven society. It seems that more and more of our decisions and institutions, be they judged on a political, ethical, or personal framework, are shaped by the “bottom line” that is so readily apparent in the business sector, and the cause of the major calamities of our day today (environmental disasters, social injustices, etc.). This blog is not meant to serve merely as a pat-on-the-back for those groups that claim to operate out of the “heart” rather than the “head,” but rather to ascertain a practical understanding of how and why these groups still exist in our society, despite seemingly all-round encroachments by the private and governmental sectors, as well as to research into the future of these organizations.

I am a philosophy and political science student, and while I do not have very much long-term practical experience with any specific nonprofit organization, I feel that it would be a severe understatement to say that I have no experience with the sector at all. I know that I interact with various nonprofits on a daily basis, from the YMCA, to the Salvation Army. I think these informal relationships provide a lot of the support for these organizations, and do not include direct involvement or volunteering. I am taking this course to further this understanding of relationships between the community and nonprofits, as well as to find ways that I personally can positively impact their ability to enact change in the world that we live in, especially without the incentive of monetary gain.

The first issue that I would like to discuss in relation to this weeks reading is the way that the nonprofit sector seems to work for the minority (p 49).  This seems to be very important not only in the context of the way that our government works as a whole (with checks and balances, the power of veto, etc.), but also the emphasis that our society gives towards the idea of individual rights and safeguards against tyranny of the majority. In this sense, nonprofits form a crucial part of a properly functioning democracy, because even if the majority does not advocate for funds for a certain desperate group, they are still able to take advantage of the “subsidies” (the lack of taxation) that the government offers.

Additionally, I found Toqueville’s concern of a “government takeover” of voluntary associations to be highly relevant to our political situation today. He contends, “The morals and intelligence of a democratic people would be in as much danger as its commerce and industry if ever a government wholly usurped the place of private associations” (p 45). Toqueville is therefore fearful of seeing the government as providing a collective identity with which we can build our moral framework on. I disagree with this, especially after witnessing the 2008 election of Obama who advocated general principles of “American-ness” such as hope and progress. The fact of the matter is, our differences have over time been melting away, especially with the prevailing liberal democratic model that is said to respect differences and equality of cultures. In reality, the “respect” that we have for each other is just a watered-down concept of the great “melting pot” that can be looked back on reminiscently, but without any real respect for variation. Our ability to travel, get our media from a few centralized sources, and the increasing privatization of our world (meaning more chain restaurants, Wal-Marts’, etc.) all contribute to a homogeneity that might actually make Toqueville’s fears a possibility. Obama has demonstrated that it is possible to develop a type of moral framework from this identity; and we clearly aren’t going to give up all of our private associations.