Week 10-Foundation and Funders

Finally, the last blog for the class. It been a great class and what better way to end it by focusing on philanthropy. Foundations are the way on how wealthy individuals donor their time and money. I believe most foundations help a good cause through pathbreaking research and new programs, but in the NonProfit Nation book, it also shows the negative side on how it serve the interests of the rich and a tool for marketing.

President Obama' budget plan tries to limit and reduce item deduction to save money. I find it interesting that the tax was originally designed to prevent wealthy Americans from escaping taxation but that is not the case today, where they try to loop hole it. Obama is try to fix this tax system and it would save more money  if there was no tax deduction because more money would go to the government. This plan might affect foundations and the amount of money donors would give but not much since most are very wealthy, thus won't see a big difference. In the article "Donors and Nonprofit", it is interesting that there is mention of charity giving and how they don't make up government cuts. Donations to programs should be consider as a bonus in helping society, not doing the government's job. On the other hand, the UK is trying a new idea to reward private investors to help fund nonprofit programs that can reduce government costs and I find this idea interesting because it blends government, nonprofit, and business world together for a better cause.

In the article about "Artist-Endowed Foundations", I found it very interesting that artists have a lot of control over the organizations they fund, like if museums didn't represent their art in a certain way, they could cut funds and grants. It is interesting because it seem like these artists and famous people control the nonprofit they fund which I do understand since they are providing money but at the same time they should help them achieve the organization's goals, not their own interests. I really like the "Integrate Social Impact" article, where they want to see proven impact behind philanthropic funding. It good to hear on how they are approach this type of work and how they want to follow up and track the results. Examples such as number of schools built, raise awareness, or increase empowerment are not good enough, more must be done and I agree with how the Design for Impact approach works in a much better way.

In our class and saverger hunt, we learn about The Oregon Community Foundation, which is the largest foundation in Oregon. They provide money to many organization and I think their mission statement reflects on how they helping Oregonians.
    Question for discuss: Do you think foundations are doing more of the government's job in providing money to fund programs? Is the UK's approach of combining government and nonprofits going to work in the USA? 


The video below can provide insight on the question. It shows how community foundation work and what their role is. The important thing is that they should focus on their "community", so in a sense it seems like they act like a local government aid.

Week 9-International

This week is about international nonprofits. I am not familiar with international nonprofit, though I am sure that they operate all around the world. I care deeply about international issues and in finding new ways to fix the world. Organizations such as Global Aid Volunteers and Mercy Corps, all provide aid but they don't solve the problems. These groups don't really do anything and is just part of these cycle of money giving. This link below shows the reality of charity aid and how aid breed poverty. I agree with the article because money is wasted when the aid is not properly used. Research on their culture and values, needs to be done first in a order to help a country.

http://www.thecitizen.co.tz/news/3-features/2469-charitable-ignorance-the-reality-of-aid-and-its-effects-on-continent.html

In the video on "Why does foreign aid fail?", I learned things I already know, like how foreign aid does provide help but doesn't really solve the problem. Millions of dollars are spend on helping countries get rid of poverty but the problem keeps coming back. Professor William Easterly tries to fight world poverty through working at the world bank but the bureaucratic structure and how ineffective experts don't know what to do. I agree with him on how there is no accountability on these foreign aid people and how the poor don't get to input on how they are doing. There needs to be communicate between these two groups for foreign aid to be effective and helpful. I see that problem happening today, where rich countries are just giving money but don't really care if actual things get done. Bureaucracy plays an important part on why problems such as poverty, access to clean water, and diseases are not being address in a critical way. Bureaucracy should not be involved since they are not inefficient.

I have worked with some nonprofits and government agencies before and the problem is they tend act according to their interests instead of the local's. The locals of the area should be in charge of projects and ways to improve their own communities instead of a foreigner. So the question I have for you all is  Should foreign aid to giving to local organizations instead of government? 
The idea is that financial aid is give in terms of what they need to get things done and help people.

In the article, about the "Millennium Development Goals", I feel that these goals are approachable but also simple in that everyone wants to achieve these things. These goals such as getting rid of poverty, providing education, equality, and combating HIV/AIDS are very Western ideas, even though they are good ideas, it might not worth in all parts of the world. I like to see these goals be fulfilled and accomplished at a slow and reasonable pace. Often, we try to push these ideas and input what "we" think are best for them, instead of listening what these third world countries needs are. Some of these goals could be culturally appropriate, depending on the country and their society. An example is some societies, the children are to work and support the family since they are poor and going to school would cause a negative impact on the family's financial income. Also educating some rural areas of the world would be hard because some won't like to change their lifestyles or experience new ideas.

Week 8 - Advocacy and Arts & Culture

This week contain two topics, advocacy and arts. I find both topics interesting especially advocacy. Advocacy for rights and progress has been an important part of American history. I didn't know that some nonprofits specialize in protect civil rights and individual liberties. It is interesting that some nonprofit wants to achieve political agendas and advocate issues. Arts and culture produce some of the best musicians, artists, and actors in this country. I think the issue today is that the arts are underfunding in schools. Educators thinks schools should focus on core subjects and skills that colleges look for and value such as history, science, math, and english.

The NonProfit Nation shows how powerful movement groups were form from nonprofit advocacy and that really change the way government dealt with public policies. These groups such as League of Women Voters, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and National Rifle Association all advocate their cause to the government. I feel that more and more groups like these influence our government and thus create lobbies.  A question I have for everyone is "Are these groups / movement going to be the voice of the American people?  Because it seems that everyone is joining and forming their own interest group to advocate their agenda in government. So how can the government get anything done when everyone wants best for themselves and that there is no bipartisan.

In the "Power of Nonprofit" article, I find it interesting that the abolition movement, woman suffrage, Social Security, and racial equality came from nonprofit associations that help start these things out. These groups produce environmental protection, pass labor laws, food safety laws, and voting rights. All these progressive reforms came from the power of the community and the people who wanted change. I feel that government won't change unless people act and rally together for a cause that they deeply care about.

The book really truthful explains how the arts are separated into entertainment which is for profit compare to art which is nonprofit. Movies, music, radio are closely connected to the business sector and serious art such as theater and museums are focus on the nonprofit sector.  These two worlds divides what art really is and how we separate art and entertainment. I think art and music is a powerful tool for youth people to express themselves. Music and poetry give teens voices to talk about social issues such poverty and family relationships. I think the arts help people share their own personal experiences that is unique to them and bring positive self-esteem for teens. I find it is common that schools often cut music programs or reduce art classes in favor of math and science. The core classes such as math, english, and science are important for a successful education but so are the arts. Art and music classes gives empowerment to those who want to learn and voice their values. On the other hand, I find that the reason why arts programs are being cut is because of money and jobs. Being a painter, artist, musician, and actor are often hard to find success because not many painters get paid a lot, only once they get famous and recognize due they start making money. The same goes for dancers, actors, and singers, who all have talent but the industry they want to get in are difficult and not many make it big.

Should art programs be cut from schools entirely? It would save money and have more spaces for other important classes. Schools should be focus on educating students to be the best and to achieve the highest test scores so that we can compete against other countries. It all comes down to the schools's first and foremost responsibility to make sure children are graduating with the skills necessary to survive in the workforce and get a job. Without these skills, you can be a Picasso and still not have a job.

Here are some links that related to why art programs are being cut that can help you answer the question.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/arts/10cuts.html?_r=1

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/fine_arts_programs_being_cut_a.html

Week 7-Education

  This week's topic is about education. I feel that education system in America is one of the best in the world even though it is not as effective. We have the best schools, universities, and institutions that provide outstanding education. Schools such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia produce the world's best doctors, teachers, lawyers, engineers, and other specialists. Even though we have such prestigious universities and great schools, not everyone can attend because of financial strains or social problems. The irony behind this is that our education standard is below other countries and how our K-12 schools are failing. I think teenagers and young adults don't understand the value of free education for the public schools in America. Going to schools in other countries are consider privileges where you have to pay to attend and how parents sacrifice so much so that their kids can attend. I think American culture needs to change so that people view education differently. Money should not be a issue if people have the determination to succeed and want to learn. An issue I would like talk about is the price of education. I feel like today's education is over value and that tuition prices are too expensive. If want you're learning is not worth that much and how some classes are not useful for a career, then why learn it?

Should there be laws to regulate college tuition, so that it is not over price? I feel that what you learn in a community college class could be worth the same in a university class?

Also in class, we discuss whether some classes should not be required because it would not be helpful. So is it better to take your own classes versus having a well round education that the university choose for you?

In the book, Nonprofit Nation, it really focuses on the difference between public and private school. Most private schools are religious and the biggest religious affiliated school is Catholics. They stated that private schools tend to be college oriented and most graduate attend college, which shows the success of private schools to public ones. Another important stat, why private schools are more effective is how much money they spent compare to public schools, average private school per student was $4,783 versus public schools of $7,703 (O'Neil). Obviously money is not the issue that effects our education system. I attend a private school for 3 years and it was a huge difference for me in terms of learning. My parents saw how ineffective the public education system was and decided to send me to private school to improve my education. I thought I was smart in my 5^th grade class but I was just average like everyone else, and going to private school gave me a huge lead in my education. When I went to public high school, I was ahead of everyone and saw how it was disappointing that kids were just learning basic algebra during their freshmen year.

Here is a video about education reform and how Obama wants to raise the standard of education.

In the article, “Fed Up at the University of Phoenix” that I read, it clearly shows that for-profit schools such as the University of Phoenix takes advantage of student's money and provide a poor quality education. I have seen many of their ads online and I can tell this school is a joke/scam because it seems more like a business, then a learning institution. It's true that by running colleges like business, it could promote growth, which would benefit students through better resources but the idea concern is not for students but for the college's profit. These online colleges need to be regulation since they are run like a business and Wall Street needs to get out of this industry. Education shouldn't be profit off.

An question I like to bring up is should online and for-profit colleges be monitor by the Department of Education? They would be regulating that students are given a fair education and the tuition money be properly used.

Week 6-Environment

 
 This week's focus is about the environment within the nonprofit sector. I think the whole environmental movement is relatively new, to me as least, and there are many nonprofit that specializes in protecting Earth and its natural resources. Organizations such as Greenpeace, Wildlife Conservation International, and World Wide Fun for Nature (WWF) are all environmental groups who help conserve the planet in someways and protect endanger wildlife. These groups form to address issues of pollution, wildlife endangerment, and the losing of natural resources. In the 21st Century, we have seen much more activism than the past decades, mostly due to our population increasing at a big rate and the consumption of resources, that we must address if we are to be sustainable.
    In the "Saving the Environment" reading, it addresses the idea of profiting off environment policies. I think the whole green technology industry is expanding and it would be wise for businesses to invest in these. Even though business would need to spent much more money right now to acquire these technologies, it would save money in the long run. I think a important concept for nonprofit in  is to preserve wildlife and watershed in their local communities. Like how social services, nonprofit serve people and improve their lives, environmental groups should focus on the same.
   In our nonprofit class, we talk about whether environment groups should accept money from business, something along those lines. I think if they both gain something positive then they should form a partnership. An example is business taking measures to be green friendly by installing solar panels on their buildings and how the environmental groups would support them in return. Business need to be more eco-friendly and conserve resources in the future. I took a international politics about world economics and we mention environment concerns. The concern for business is lost of profits due to regulations and higher costs. An example is the United States have lots of regulations for business such as clean air laws versus business in China with not much environmental law. Businesses in China have a higher advantage where business can pollute as much they can and gain higher profits then those in America. There is no international law to regulate environmental policies such as pollution, clean water, or waste because in reality there is no one to enforce these. The Kyoto Protocol is a example that countries will try to lower their CO2 emission but they are not obligated to and the funny thing is the United States is the only country that has not ratify, meaning they are not agreeing to anything. I think this shows how business in America would be effected and the disadvantages it would have for them, having to follow these new policies and regulations. The link showing this is below.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Kyoto_Protocol_and_the_United_States

The question I would like to discuss is "Should business be obligated to follow these environment laws or should they do whatever they want to gain profit?"

Obviously a business' goal is to gain profit and get ahead of the competition but if government around the world are making these new eco policies then how will they compete?

Week 5-Healthcare

   This week's topic is about healthcare. Healthcare is the largest part of the nonprofit sector and this is reflected in the millions of healthcare cost each year in our society. Americans spent so much money in healthcare, from buying prescription drugs to paying for medical bills, that it seems
I think our healthcare system isn't as great as it should be and we are behind compare to European countries especially Sweden. There are ups and downs to the healthcare system in America but I think certain improvements can be made. I found it interesting that for profit hospitals spend most of their money on doctors and medical labs, where as nonprofit spend it on patient care. I feel that regardless of for profit or nonprofit, a patient's health should come first.
    Something I found interesting from reading in NonProfit Nation, was that hospitals account for a third of the health economy and how much revenue they receive is incredible. Nonprofit hospitals are often seen as for profit because of the way they operate and I always though of hospitals as for profits because of the medicine fees. I think having nonprofit and for profit hospitals can be complicate for health insurance simply because the cost of coverage would be funded differently. I think nonprofit hospitals would be strain by the financial burdens compare to for profits. A solution to this is a national government hospital statewide. I feel a national hospital run by the government would be effective implying a healthcare plan that would cover anyone and would compete with private hospital. This national hospital would provide basic services for the poor people and middle class, such as check ups, flu shots, teeth examination, and treatment for infection. The private hospital would be more upper class and have more expensive services such as  heart surgery, bone marrow transplant, or cancer treatment.

Question: Do you think there should be a national government hospital? Would it work or will it be a burden the government to start one?


   A interesting issue I want to bring up is about pharmaceutical companies and the medicine drugs prescribe by doctors. I feel that most drugs companies run a monopoly type of empire and there are lots of controversy stuff that I see revolved around them. First off, they promote so many TV ads about new drugs that can cure this or prevent that while listing so many side effects. I think some of our healthcare problems comes from this. New health problems are created because of new drugs created and I see the elderly needing more and more drugs. An article I read this week, was about ADD and how it effects adults. I feel this issue is somewhat over exaggerated and when there is a new disease or disorder, it seems people will want to get a examination right away to determine if they are fine. I think new founding like this adult ADD is just a hype and gets people worried so that they will visit a doctor.

 A problem I find about doctors and medical care is how doctors try to give you preventive treatment or medicine to prevent problems. I believe in the saying, “If it ain't broken, don't fix it”. This apply to healthcare because I experience times, where doctors tells me to take this or do that even though its not necessary. I find Western medicine sometime causes more problems than cure them. The Eastern/Oriental approach is diet, exercise, and acupuncture but rarely medicine or drugs. Obviously this is very similar to Western thought but the difference is traditional technique versus advance scientific medicine. An example is how my grandpa has good health and hasn't seen a doctor in a long time. I believe good health comes from health lifestyle and stress free life.  

Week 4-Social Services

    This week's topic is social services. There are so many social services in our community, such as Red Cross, Goodwill Industries, and Salvation Army. We see all these social services bringing positive change in society. Social services is one of my most passionate field to work in because it outreaches to the elderly, poor, children, and the disabled. The nonprofit sector provide most of the social services in this country and I feel it makes the most difference in helping people. I find that the impact of social services are huge. They provide emergency relief, food and clothing during winter, housing units for homeless people, and rehab services. All these are good services and aid. The problem is with the social service sector is the idea of government paying and social services providing (O'Neill). The whole idea of welfare and social safety net is not working today. People are too depend on welfare to provide for them, where it should be instead providing "what is necessary" to society, not just getting money and providing. I agree that there are lots of people in need and should be help. The problem comes, where it become a band wagon and everyone thinks they need help even if its a small thing such as food stamp. I heard a story where people use food stamp to buy lobster (luxury food) instead of basic necessary food. This could be a extreme example but the idea is there is no check and balance for the welfare system.
    A topic I would like to talk about within the social services is elderly care and the issue of putting grandparents in retirement homes. I come from a Chinese culture where it is the duty of children when they grow up to take care of their parents and we often live with our grandparents. In the Chinese Marriage Law Article 20 it states "...children shall have the duty to support and assist their parents...If children fail to perform their duty, parents who are unable to work or have difficulties in providing for themselves shall have the right to demand support payments from their children." The Chinese children have a cycle of responsibility and honor, where when they are young the parents take care of them and they take care of their parents when they are old. American don't see this as their responsibility and they live their own lives once they mature into adults. I often hear from Americans that they move out when they start their careers or when they are starting their own families. I am not saying Chinese people don't move out but that their parents often follow it them to where they go. The family structure is always there and we don't live separate lives. The issue is where Americans don't take care of their parents when they get old and sometimes send them off to retirements homes. The government  and nonprofit sector provide so many elderly services, 6,740 firms (O'Neill), that could be cut back through the structure I talked about above. Grandparents should be living with their family instead of themselves and we wouldn't need so many retirement homes or elderly care. I do believe if the elderly are sick, can't take care of them, or has mental problem then they should be at a elderly facility. I know this is kind of controversy with what I am suggesting but its just a idea that could be use to save medical and welfare costs. Here is the pros and cons of grandparents living with your family:

Pros: Save money for the family but not going to retirement homes, someone to maintain the house, family unity and being close together, less sprawl (kids don't have to move out to buy new houses).
Cons: Often nobody is home to look after the grandparents, they could get hurt, loneliness.

So the question is whether this kind of responsibility is good for the American culture? I am not saying this should be a law by any circumstance but rather a new way of looking at family structural system and how we can help ourselves instead of government provide everything.

Here is the link for about the Chinese social system and the family structure. This will give you more background information and hopefully help you form your own opinions.
http://www.booksandideas.net/China-s-Social-Protection-System.html


Another issue that is related to the grandparents topic is child day-care services. Again the idea is to cut cost for families and provide for yourself. Me and my brother was raised by my grandma while both of my parents worked. I know that some families have stay home moms to raise children but those that don't could use this alternative. Since your grandparents live with you, they could take care of the children while you're at work. Obviously there are positive and negative aspect to this too.

What do you think? Does this idea work or can it work in some families? What are the social consequences of this?