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.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)