fueled-by-coffee-and-queso

[fueled-by-coffee-and-queso]

The problem this article is referring to is the lack of money from the those whose annual salary falls below $100,000, and an increase in those whose annual salaries exceed that.

This article states, just as the class reading on Phianthrocapitalism did, “that the income inequality in the United States now stands at the highest levels since the end of the Cold War.” 

Though this can be seen as “great” that the wealthy are giving up to 40% more than they have in the past, as nonprofits are receiving more support on Giving Tuesday, this certainly calls for the need to dissect the larger issue at hand. As Carnegie long ago stated that the accountability of the people should be on the most elite, changing the dynamic of philanthropy is only possible by looking at the capacity that specific philanthropy serves. Yet accountability for this would need to be established. This meaning, the philanthrocapitalists, would be held to a new system of government and philanthropy.

In a world where the elite have great political power, do we really see this as an option? Though it sounds ideal, how do you place this responsibility on the elite, when not all are generous with their wealth as others?

[fueled-by-coffee-and-queso]

Budget cuts for nonprofit organizations’ and their services are no thing of the past. In 2014, Connecticut went into a “permanent state of fiscal crisis” according to the article. This leaves CT nonprofits in a hurt.

So what does this mean for grantmakers and foundations of CT? Much like the example in the reading, The Politics of Doing Good, the need for foundations is growing immensely in a time where government funding is scarce. This creates the idea that foundations should be identified as “established governance structures.” 

So how will foundations play a part in all the financial turmoil? Will they give more grants to those social services in desperate need? The sticky situation is that regardless of what role they play, who can really dictate their funding? In general, public services are generally determined through a political process (Lenkowsky, p. 581), yet nonprofit organizations that help fill these gaps are at the mercy of these foundations, with no regulation outside of the foundations themselves.

So what are nonprofit organizations to do when they are deliver public services, yet are losing funding from the very entity that should be providing such basic needs to the public?

[fueled-by-coffee-and-queso]

A new initiative has been announced to help tackle global health, education and economic opportunity. This collaborative effort founded by many Giving Pledge members is created to help fill these gaps with long-term initiatives that provide change at a “systems level.” 

The grant recipients will be announced in 2018.

My questions are, how many of these organizations will be international, as opposed to US-based, and how will government commitment regulate the way Co-Impact operates?

As Co-Impact attempts to tackle global issues, there is no doubt that governments will be playing a role. As displayed in class readings, there is a great deal of government-nonprofit relationships abroad. These nonprofit organizations are oftentimes even essentially run by government.

One would assume to take on global issues, the need for international ties would be imperative. Creating relationships with other international nonprofits, as well as being grant recipients will no doubt shift many organizations from short-term thinking to long-term. Though I am unsure of what this relationship will bring, my hopes are that Co-Impact can positively shift these organizations as well as policy toward a more unified and successful partnership that really addresses these wicked issues.

[fueled-by-coffee-and-queso]

Yemen is currently in crisis - here are some stats from the article. “So far, the conflict has claimed more than 13,500 lives, with more than 900,000 suffering from cholera. Roughly 20 million Yemenis need humanitarian assistance to meet basic needs — including food and water — out of a prewar population of 28 million.“

As the Ott and Dicke textbook said it best, “...humanitarian action without political action has proved ineffectual at best, disastrous at worst,” what happens when political action goes against humanitarian action? If this fight is not authorized as provided in the article, when does America begin providing aid for this humanitarian crisis that they have played a part in?

Though Congress seems to finally be advocating for this to end, what happens if it does not? Will US nonprofit relief organizations provide aid while the US continues to help destroy? Nonprofits can step in to help place pressure on government to change their motives. Yet I am uncertain of its likelihood. Should the US be held responsible for this disaster?

My list of questions could continue on for paragraphs as my knowledge for this is slim, but if US-based NGOs are in place to “help reduce a country’s vulnerability to disasters,” (Ott & Dicke, p. 401), when will we see their presence not only in the humanitarian assistance, but the political action as well? 

[fueled-by-coffee-and-queso]

When thinking of the charity vs. philanthropy debate, it can look a lot more like time vs. money, or small vs. large.

In an article read in class, “Philanthropy, Charity, & the Society of St. Vincent De Paul,” they identified charity as fighting the short-term issue, and philanthropy as “fixing” the overall, underlying, long-term issue. So where does this new-ish trend seem to fall in?

Celebrity Chip Gaines shaves his head to raise money for St. Jude Hospital, yet the act was contingent upon his fans’ donations. Though one can assume that the couple themselves also gave a large donation to the hospital, it does not explicitly say- just that they asked fans to donate.

So what do we call these campaigns that celebrities are creating? A few examples were also seen in light of the recent natural disasters. Since this money is not (only?) coming from the couple, does it count as individual’s charity? Or does the large sum collectively count as the greater effort of the couple to create what would be more along the lines of philanthropy?

There is a parallel between this and things like PUDM, IUDM, or IUPUI’s own JagThon. Yet, generally participating students do not have the influence that the Gaines have. So, when it comes down to it, is it really just about their status/money and their presumed, large donation?

I am truly curious as to others thoughts on this- feel free to leave a comment with any insight!

[fueled-by-coffee-and-queso]

It is no secret that women have always played an influential role in American policy, even before they gained any rights as their own persons. With the formation of voluntary associations (generally charities) they were able to, make an impact on legislation through “publicity, lobbying, and the collection and filing of petitions” (McCarthy, p. 190). 

Taking a jump now to the most recent elections that just occurred Tuesday, this article talks about the influence women had. The article claims that women’s “big win” came from a call to action over Trump’s elective office. Women representation increased in some areas by up to 50%.

What are the implications of this? The article states, “....substantial gains in women’s representation can happen when just a few dozen more women than usual decide to run for office.” So what else can women do? Will the Trump Administration be enough to change the status quo of male-dominated representation in states that will vote next year? 

My answer is, hopefully!

[fueled-by-coffee-and-queso]

This article, which I assumed would be strikingly similar to Kevin C. Robbin’s article, Traditions of Philanthropy in the West, it was most definitely not. Robbins explains that there is rather a “true charity” to be in pursuit of for Islamic culture, and rather “no true charity” for those of the Christian realm. However, this article seems to synonymously exchange Christian culture for American culture.

This article states that American culture gives out of “self-interest,” rather than altruistic traits. It states that Americans give to gain “self-growth” and is based largely on individualism. It proceeds to say that Islamic giving is out of an obligation as well. Showing that both sides, though extremely different, are giving for other reasons that for the sake of altruism.

Though egocentric and altruistic reasoning are generally both present when giving and volunteering, can you really have both your own interests and someone else’s interest at heart? Is it okay to have mutually beneficial charity? Even if it’s just the warm glow, a natural cause and effect, is that technically selfish?

[fueled-by-coffee-and-queso]

In this article, the term “volunteer” is extremely misleading. The word volunteer could be more defined as a trade off. Farmers are giving up 25% of their water in the drought in return that they do not lose any larger percentage during “growing season.”

So while they are offering up their water as general ag mandates are not created, the reason to do so is clearly motivational. They are motivated to keep their water, and to keep their businesses going. By volunteering to give up their water, they aren’t doing it for the sake of the state of emergency the state is in, or for the greater good of the environment sustainability, rather their own sustainability, and the work that puts food on their table.

I am interested to see if other regions follow suit on this “volunteering” deal. Do you consider this to be volunteering? It is definitely a contingent action. And will decreasing 25% overall help substantially in this desperate situation?

[fueled-by-coffee-and-queso]

In light of the recent natural disasters, this article caught my eye. In a year of crisis (2014), foundations gave 30% more than what they did in year 2015. Though it would be nice to know the difference from 2013 to 2014, there was definitely a shift when there was a need.

These community foundations, in total, gave 67.6 million more for the 2014 year of humanitarian disaster. When need was evident, they stepped up. Being able to reallocate their funds to help the immediate need is an such an incredible aspect of these minority (population-wise) nonprofits. Because they cover a rather broad range of the type of help they give, they are able to (though complexly) move their funding around to help, much like in 2014.

I am interested to see how foundations have switched their giving for year 2017.

[fueled-by-coffee-and-queso]

Volunteer firefighters – what a great example of an altruistic deed. Voluntarily putting your life on the line for those you may not know is not immediately what you think of as an egocentric act, so why do they do it? Is it a hobby? Do they enjoy the companionship of their fellow firefighters?

This article gives light to some of the (small) benefits of New York volunteer firefighters currently receive, including accidental disability and death. New York law states that these volunteer firefights will now be eligible for health care benefits for certain cancers that may be present in the volunteers. The title of the article is extremely misleading however, as the health benefits are minimal and specific- only for certain types of cancers.

And not so fast, these volunteer firefighters must meet eligibility requirements in order to qualify for these health benefits.

Looking at these almost nonexistent benefits, why do firefighters volunteer? Do these new “benefits” entice others to become volunteer firefighters? Could it be possible that these benefits sway some to volunteer? Or are they so minimal that they don’t even matter? I think that though the reasoning could be egoism, I definitely believe volunteer firefighting is a great example of (mostly) pure altruism.

[fueled-by-coffee-and-queso]

This is an awesome article targeting the different components of civic engagement in NPOs. There is no doubt that community engagement is an important aspect of NPOs, but how does that translate when it comes to policy?

Though this article discusses many issues, it’s main point is that civic participation is the “key to success” in terms of advocacy.

As NPOs advocate, they should outreach and/or gain a community behind them that is affected by these issues. These NPOs need community beyond numbers for their influence. They need community/civic engagement. Just as the article states, “There’s little awareness of the value added by the nonprofit sector: its ability to encourage and enhance democracy and civic participation.” However, the article states that sometimes this portion is lacking.

In a study done by Moulton and Eckerd, they found that citizen engagement role is significantly correlated with the social capital role and direct political policy. This further iterates how intertwined these roles are, and the importance of them to be in collaboration.

As NPOs are working for policy change for their constituents, they should be broadening their constituents very involvement and helping them become a direct impact and influence. Because after all, what would advocacy be without the role of civic engagement and democratization?

[fueled-by-coffee-and-queso]

As an extremely important issue for NPOs, a study done by a coalition of nonprofit human service organizations (NPHSO) and IU’s LIly School of Philanthropy (Woohoo go IU!) unveils that this new projected reform would cut charitable giving by 13.1 billion (annually). However, there is said to be a solution for this.

Consistent with Almog-Bar and SchmidIt’s research that advocacy in NPHSOs is becoming more common, it is no secret that lobbying and advocating on important social issues that pertain to a one’s mission, service delivery, and/or served population is critical and necessary. The coalition and IU have done a great deal of research to help prove their point and push an extremely important agenda on their organizations’ behalf. 

The solution to this problem is an interesting one, and I am curious to see how the proposal may (or may not) pan out. It is said to increase charitable giving by 4.8 billion annually.

Why is this so important? As stated in the article, “our nation simply cannot risk a steep decline in charitable giving at a time when government budget cuts are requiring non-governmental organizations to deliver more social services and meet more critical community needs.“

#charitablegiving #taxreform #makeadifference #nonprofitinfluence

[fueled-by-coffee-and-queso]

An interesting article on “refreshing” the entire board and CEO of Tenet Health. The article states that they are trying to advance their mission and the board and CEO are confident and supportive of this decision.

“’This process is intended to ensure that the Board has the best mix of skills and experience to maximize the future value of the Company,’ the release notes.”

The company has recognized that the board and CEO are no longer the best suited for supporting the mission of the company. My curiosity is, how will this board/CEO change reflect the representation of the community in which it serves. My hope is that the board gives proper representation to it’s clientele and advance their mission through deeper community trust and impact.

[fueled-by-coffee-and-queso]

Mayor of a Wisconsin city wants to reallocate budget at nonprofits’ expense. Community activists and nonprofits are banding together to get mayor out of office. I believe this coalition speaks volumes of the community’s overall satisfaction with the positive impact these NPOs bring. As stated by Ott and DIcke, NPOs are manifestations of the community, and this definitely rings true in this Wisconsin city.

As mediating institutions, the community is certainly proving they are rallying to solve their own problems. Though slightly unconventional (in my opinion) these community activists believe these NPOs are solving their community problems well enough to overthrow the mayor.

[fueled-by-coffee-and-queso]

In terms of “pure public goods” no matter your preference on the matter, whichever way you vote, you still receive the good. How will this pan out for Puerto Rico who is without voting rights? ‘Still American” as stated in the article, but will they be cheated of their rightful portion of aid after natural disaster?

Government is required to provide “some” service, but will it be enough? It has yet to be, and I would like to hear a definitive answer as to what will be provided to Puerto Rico. Sounds like a great time for the government to collaborate with NPOS to help bridge a very necessary gap.

[fueled-by-coffee-and-queso]

If this bill is meant to help the public good, and yet only 24% approve, who is this bill for? According to the article, 54% of Americans support Obamacare. Although about half, its definitely better than a fourth.

The majority of public, with this change, will not be satisfied, and it appears that this bill will not uphold the needs of civil society. I believe this bill will drop the percent of covered Americans and will cause a strain on NPOs and other orgs in the healthcare field.  

[fueled-by-coffee-and-queso]

What exactly is the organizational structure here, and why is there a disconnect? As stated in the article, not a good look in terms of credibility, and, “If the country’s top diplomat isn’t informed on the president’s stances on the issue, then what does that say about other lower-ranking officials who are involved in countless bilateral and multilateral meetings at the UN General Assembly?“