Funders, Mutual benefits, and Tax incentives

Budget Plan Brings Big Changes to Tax Incentives for Donors

            The tax plans that Obama aims to implement sound like a good plan to me. The fact that the change effects the top tax bracket population seems to be the main issue from the perspective of the Chronicle of Philanthropy.  However, the increase in taxation seems pretty minor, I realize that these people are savvy with their money and the majority of them would likely complain of such changes, but I believe it is a necessary change.  Whether it will dramatically affect the philanthropy of this group is somewhat debatable though.  At this point of change, I don’t see it doing much in the nonprofit sector.  With more change (in this case tax increase), it is more likely that this group will be less philanthropic.  But, what I am struggling with in this reasoning is the assumption that this group cares less about their charity donations than other costly habits.  It is plausible to me that their philanthropic giving may not change much with increases in taxation.  Maybe I am naïve.  I wonder where we could find some information on this, do you think that there have been studies that correlate the increases in taxation on the top tax bracket with their charitable giving?

Donors and Nonprofits Face a Defining Moment in Responding to a Crisis

            This article discussed the need for nonprofits to engage in activities that promote jobs, including: retraining classes and workshops, hiring those who may have a harder time finding employment in the traditional market, and ultimately preparing these people for the traditional job market. I think Scott Stannard-Stockton makes a good point about the role of nonprofits in stimulating the job market. The private sector really strengthens the basic skill sets that are needed for employment, and provide individuals with second chances. 

A Newly Powerful Grant-Making Force: Artist-Endowed Foundations

            The artist-endowed foundations are not only growing (over the last 15 years), but also taking a public stance on issues they care about.  By taking these public stances foundations, like the Warhol foundation, gain attention and build awareness about these issues, in this example about AIDS.  In the art world, this type of advocacy is an essential part of the messages artist are spreading throughout their respective networks.  Without a strong backing, by foundations with a conscious like the ones described in this article, their messages carry significantly less weight.

Here's an article about the rise of giving from artist-endowed foundations.

How to Do Good and Prove It: Integrate Social Impact in Your Nonprofit's DNA

            I really enjoy reading about the methods of measuring effectiveness and impact of the nonprofits efforts.  This concept is crucial and there are many different angles of approach depending on the nature of the organization, some are going to be easier to analyze than others.  But, I think it is important to do our best to measure it no matter the difficulty of the task, and find ways that will not strain the working conditions anymore than they already are.  In the article, the author describes Kevin Starr’s Impact Approach, which to me looks and sounds like measuring effectiveness, just in different words.  I especially like the idea of scalability. This concept requires that the model of the nonprofit can be massively scaled up.  There is one very obvious caveat to this, which is that one size (or solutions) does not fit all (or heal all).  But, that mainly applies to cases that cannot be clean cut, and the models that work best are still up for debate. So when a model that works—and has been shown to work well—comes up for issues that are relatively clean cut, then scalability is an excellent requirement. 

Chapters 10 & 11: Funders & Mutual Benefit

            The message that I took away from this week’s chapter readings is that the interaction between nonprofits and businesses is just as important (if not more important in some cases) as their interaction with the government.  Funders accumulate their funds from business sector work, and choose carefully how and where to allocate it.  So much of what is provided to nonprofits comes from these funders, it is impossible to ignore the major role of both business and government in fueling nonprofit work.  

International Nonprofits

My favorite assignment for this week (by far) is the TED talk.  The speaker, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, discussed issues of infrastructure and discipline as the main hurdles that Africa as a continent needs to address before aid can really be effective.  This issue of infrastructure seems so obvious that it is like an elephant in the room. How can it be constantly overlooked? What is the US so afraid of? By investing time and money into infrastructure Africa would benefit in so many ways.  Like she mentioned, health care, education and agriculture would be way more effective if there were roads to transport people to and from the necessary locations to better utilize the help they receive.  If only, if only.  How do we facilitate such changes? Who makes the decisions to spend money on building infrastructure?  What is keeping such collaboration from happening? It seems like part of the answer to that question lies in the power that is held by western nations that use resources from Africa. It sucks to think that by keeping them disempowered we have more to gain. I truly believe that the opposite is true. Not only would empowerment achieve more effective aid but as Ngozi said, it would create more knowledge and better citizens of those nations and enrich our global environment.

            The economic failures talk, was interesting because Easterly addressed similar issues as Ngozi did. However, I wanted him to put forth some ideas about resolving or beginning to resolve the issue.  What problems needed to be fixed most? It got me wondering about effectiveness, something that prior to this course I had never thought about, and now am finding myself more and more interested in. So I looked up an article that you can find here, that discusses some of the conflicting experiences people from Peace Corps walk away with. 

            The Mercy Corps and UNDP sites were interesting in that they both showed differing stances on how to help populations in need. I really like the fact that MC works with people from the international communities that they serve, they are the main leaders in the community rather than white transplants that know relatively little about the cultural practices. This is a really important difference between them and Peace Corps.  I think it is crucial to support those within a community first and foremost.  While the UNDP seems to have really good intentions, I think their priorities list was pretty skewed in order to be a universal one size fit all solution.  These needs will be prioritized differently by each community, and within that community by the groups and individual differently. So how can we impose our own system of priority onto those we wish to help? It just doesn’t sound like help to me.

            Finally, the book chapter had some devastating information to report. I am curious (like everyone else) as to what these stats look like in today’s world. I also thought it was interesting that the author notes how little of the US’s GDP is devoted to foreign assistance, but I wonder what the private donations and service hours look like.

Advocacy, Senate Bill 40 & the Arts

After reading chapter 7 and the article The Power of Nonprofits, I was struck by how much influence nonprofits really have on policy.  Although they cannot lobby for political candidates they can certainly be involved in the issues at hand.  This is kind of a loophole, which allows them to motivate people who really care about these issues (whatever is the most near to a person’s heart) to speak out and stand up for that cause.  They act as a vehicle to keep the community involved in public policy and civil rights.  I think that this is a key point in identifying the strengths of the Nonprofit Sector and developing new ways of involving new generations and keeping them engaged in what is important to each of them.  This element of the sector really highlights the balance that Nonprofits help maintain between government and community.

The articles discussing Senate Bill 40 seemed to be supporting a good decision—to disqualify Nonprofits who use their funding only for more fundraising and who do not put that money earned, back into the organization.  But, I am a little confused, are the people in these organizations benefitting from the dollars they are raising? Is there evidence of this? When I searched for any opposition of the bill, I had difficulty deciphering a clear answer to this inquiry.  I cannot think of anything that fundraisings would go to had they not gone back into the organization and funded programs from it, but I like to know both sides to a story before making a solid decision.  However, it appears that there is little opposition to the bill indicating that there must be something shady going on within the organizations who take advantage of the resources they are provided.

Lastly, in the articles Arts Group Pumped $166.2 Billion into U.S. in 2005 and Poetry Gives Teens a Voice and chapter 8, my view of the importance of art in education was reinforced.  The fact that the poetry program inspired many students to achieve placement in nationwide competitions says so much about the impact of a single opportunity.  These students may not have accomplished that, had they not been given the chance by this nonprofit organization.  I think it is great that there are nonprofits dedicated to poetry, among other things.  I know that in my secondary education there were people who possessed a true talent for poetry and the amount of time devoted to the study of it was fairly minimal. Organizations like these fuel a lot of creativity that cannot always be expressed through regular public schooling (as we have discussed in class this week and last). 

I researched a little bit about what Oregon has to offer in the way of arts in education nonprofits and found a couple interesting sites.  One discusses the need for funding of arts in education, and the other describes the need for assessment of creativity in schools and measures of how creativity improves (or not) the achievement of pupils in schools with arts, etc.  Assessing creativity and its effectiveness in academic performance was a new idea to and a difficult endeavor if you ask me. Take a look:

Oregon Alliance for Art Education

Creativity measure and assessment in MA

Should we allow education to be run by for-profit institutions?

How do we fix public higher education in this country, so that it becomes more affordable for people in our position???

After tonight’s lecture and discussion, and the assigned readings, these are the questions left ringing in my mind.  For those being victimized by the for-profit colleges and universities like University of Phoenix and Kaplan, etc., I really feel it is a lack of knowledge about how degrees from these institutions compare with those from ‘old-fashioned’ state and private universities.  They are fed lines over and over again, being recruited vehemently—which from the sound of this demographic, probably feels pretty good.  The readings (Will the For-Profit Bubble Burst in 2011?, Fed Up with University of Phoenix, and Subprime Opportunity) characterize those attending these colleges as low income and/or serving in the military.  They are the poor who have had little opportunity to improve their economic status, save for these for-profits that camouflage themselves as a beacon of hope.  I do not intend to paint every single for-profit in this light, but it seems from the readings that this is by and large the pattern.   The other two readings attempted to provide a more balanced depiction of the situation.

In chapter 6 and For Profit Schools (at education.com) there was a sense of equivalent performance and quality of education provided by both public and private, state, nonprofit and for profit institutions.  The chapter reading described the pros and cons of public versus private education well, I thought.  However, I did come away from that portion in favor of private schools.  It is unclear whether this is my own skewed impression or whether the author may have a slight bias. Either way, I believe that public schools need desperately to shift in their operation, ideally to resemble some of the positive things that private schools model.  For instance class size is a strong arguing point, as it seems to directly correlate with quality of learning, so why can’t we just make more public schools and spread them out so that there aren’t as many people attending the same one?  I can see this trying to happen a little bit in the charter school movement, which appears to be a good thing.  Though it is a bit confusing; can they be for-profit, do they charge tuition?  I was curious about this, so I have a few links that describe more about charter schools in general.

Charter Schools Org.

Wikipedia: Charter Schools

In the article from education.com, I found a balance in the presentation of data.  The author gave for-profit educational systems a real benefit of the doubt, relatively speaking, after the readings that were not so generous.  Although it aimed to present a balanced viewpoint I still felt shaky about the points made in the cons, they seemed to be intense and yet given little sense of the extremity of impact they could have.  Three out of the four were huge flaws that, in the case of them coming into fruition, would make me flee the country. That being said, the system we have is no piece of perfection, but it certainly seems to be doing a helluva lot better than these for-profit ones.  Here’s another RSA, the 1^st one I saw and the one that turned me onto them. It gives a brief history of our education system, and describes some changes that could improve it greatly. It also touches on the ADHD 'epidemic'.

Changing Education Paradigms!!!

Environmental movement--for-profit or nonprofit?

Obviously, I had a hard time formulating a response to this past week’s readings.   I find it difficult to understand the perspective of those against environmental protection and/or conservation.  Usually I try to get a feel for what an opposing view is, and understand the logic behind it.  In this case, it seems to me sheer ignorance and D E N I A L. Honestly, there are people in my extended family who deny climate change entirely, claiming it is a government funded conspiracy to get everyone freaked out, etc. This is a grown man we are talking about, and there are way too many people out there like-minded to him—at least in my opinion.  Alright, there’s my rant, now you all know how I feel.  Let’s get to the readings.

            I first read the McKenzie Watershed Council’s 2007-2008 Annual Report.  I was truly impressed by the amount of work they do and the number of supporters they have backing them up.  With five projects currently working to maintain and enhance our water flow areas, and seventeen different groups of members it appears to be a really successful operation.  Being and Oregonian, I wonder how other states’ watershed systems work, and what do they take away from ours as a model?

           

            Next I read the article about saving the environment for a profit.  I firmly believe that preserving the environment and our resources should be carried out regardless of a profit.  Whether it is through nonprofit means, or for profit ones, I see it all being fairly win-win; especially in the case of Costa Rica mentioned in the article.  This was a great example of profit motivating people to engage in behaviors that they should already be doing. But when there is a buck to be made for cutting down those trees, etc. then they are going to be far more inclined to do what is needed to feed their families. 


I found an article that reflects similar actions being taken in Ecuador:
$3.6 million for NOT drilling

Here is a little something on motivation and behavior change theories in psychology:

motivation and behavioral changes

Lastly, are the Guide to Environmental Non-Profits and the speech given by Paul Hawkin.  I found the guide to be helpful in that it clarified a lot of confusion about organizations I knew very little about.  It was quite informative and I will be much more likely to do some research on these when it comes to supporting them through my spending. 

I loved the speech! It was so uplifting after so much confusion on the topic; I was relieved that it was the final reading of the sequence. It just happened to fall in that order for me.  I thought he made some excellent points, one of my favorites was: “We have an economy that tells us that it is cheaper to destroy earth in real time than to renew restore and sustain it. You can print money to bail out a bank but you can’t print life to bail out a planet” (3). His statement shows how obvious this issue is and yet how so many can be avoiding it simultaneously. This entire speech was both touching and inspiring.  


One last thing, if you have 30 minutes to watch a show:
Vanguard: A World Without Water

This is a documentary that looks at three places that are drying out, and what they can tell us about our future if we do not make some changes.

Health Care: NonProfit vs. For-Profit

It was fascinating to find out which areas of health care nonprofits dominate and which areas for-profit do, in this week’s chapter reading.  In the breakdown between ambulatory or outpatient care versus nursing/residential care it was kind of surprising that the nonprofit sector dominates ambulatory, but nor residential care (94).  It came as a surprise because I had held the bias in the opposite direction prior to this reading.  I am not entirely sure where this thought originated, perhaps I thought that the work of residential care requires more compassion, time and effort, thus would make more sense to be predominantly nonprofit oriented. Biases aside, I think that nonprofits motivate people to do good work, and that no matter what the care is geared toward (inpatient or outpatient), they probably do a better job for reasons discussed in class and among our various blogs (i.e. more compassionate workers, serve the public, not aimed at making a buck, etc). Altogether I came away from the chapter with all other assumptions intact.

            After reading the article about mergers (Mergers of For-profit, Nonprofit Hospitals: Who Does it Help?) of for-profit and nonprofit hospitals, I am left with the debate on my mind, would the benefits of a merger outweigh the costs? For the most part the answer appears to be yes.  As long as these hospitals do not change the way they serve patients, then it seems like a win-win situation. The hospitals will receive renovations, the customers that have moved to peripheral locations because they desired different types of services can go back to the most convenient location, and most importantly people continue to receive care.  My opinion was influenced once more when I finished the next two readings on 1) the Green Bay Packers, and 2) the dangers of mergers of for-profits and nonprofits (The Value of Nonprofit Healthcare). 

            This article’s outline of facts regarding the variety of care and the quality of that work, which often overshadows the performance of the for-profit sector, leaves the reader with an uplifting sense of the achievement for nonprofit healthcare.  So, this is where I struggle a bit.  Are these articles totally biased toward their respective stances on the topic (I can only assume they are), and what is the real truth here? How can they be both, lacking serious resources but putting out so much good work at the same time?  Certainly, there are good examples and bad examples of both for-profit and nonprofit health institutions, so, what would be the overall gain of remaining separated?  After reading these materials, I feel the overarching reason is service to the lower class, the fact that nonprofits do NOT turn anyone away is huge, not to mention the kinds of services they provide that, as mentioned in the Mergers article, were not offered from the for-profit hospitals.  I kind of feel like I am jumping on a band wagon of painting the for-profit institutions as bad guys trying to buy up all our sweet hard working nonprofits, but I find it deeply sickening that in the name of profit, these places have implemented policies of turning away patients who have lost the ability to pay the exorbitant prices for health or recovery. 

Some mixed media here for you, related to this weeks readings:

1) A short article about a nonprofit hospital in CO that is doing really well, both fiscally and with respect to quality care provided.

Mental-health care group focuses on access | VailDaily.com

2) A video from ted.com (one of my favorites for videos) discussing some notes that nonprofits can be taking from for-profit corporations to boost support for and use of nonprofits.

Melinda French Gates: What nonprofits can learn from Coca-Cola | Video on TED.com

            Lastly, the ADD article assigned was nice because it sums up a lot of thoughts I hold toward the subject.  Mostly, I think that this is something that is being over diagnosed and that it may actually be a variety of sources that are eliciting the same behavior in people who are diagnosed.  Our culture is one that seeks out a “cure” for any stray from “normality”. We (as well as other cultures) have a long history of epidemics in the health world, especially within mental health.  I think this is just another one.  This is not to say that people suffering from symptoms/behaviors that are making daily life difficult on them do not deserve treatment, but to say that one treatment does not suit all. 

Social Services, Funding, Tools and EDs/CEOs

            The chapter on social services surprised me with statistics and information surrounding the sources of funding for nonprofits all over the country.  The first shocker was the fact that there are so many organizations that are small in the employee numbers as well as their revenue.  O’Neill writes that, “only 19 percent had revenue of $1 million or more. Thirty nine percent of the firms had fewer than 5 employees, ” when I read this kind of material, it inspires a lot of questions (75).  Primarily, how do the people within these organizations survive? Are they all underpaid? Do they work mainly from volunteers? And, why don’t more of these small organizations, who are working toward the same purpose, band together to become more effective?  It is hard to believe that each individual organization is better off being separate, when there are many that work toward the same goal and struggle equally in different areas or share the same struggles. 

Some things that were news to me, but not necessarily as surprising, include the history of societal impacts and trends. The fact that nonprofits possess more freedom to experiment (which may result in failure), less constraints from the government, the ability to work with whatever population they see fit, and to shed light on social issues that are often neglected, is what I find compelling about the sector (47).  So, when O’ Neill explains the social impacts that nonprofits can have simply by advocating and working to support issues that are often swept under the rug, like domestic violence, I am moved (81). What isn’t moving is the lack of funding that these organizations suffer from.   One trend that the nation saw when Reagan was in office was the cutting of federal government spending on social services and a shift of responsibility onto state and local governments. This was followed by a movement in the 90s to measure the effectiveness of nonprofits in regard to their overall gains and losses.  The combination of these two changes impacted the sector by assigning blocks of money to states, allowing them to choose which programs to focus on, and lowering the quality of services that they provide (83-87). Although the end of the chapter leaves the reader feeling secure that the government as well as private funding is taking care of the nonprofit sector accordingly, the online readings leave us with a drastically different sense of the situation. 

The articles from Louisiana, New York and the one about the Tools for Affordable housing all seemed very in line with the theme that a majority of nonprofits lack necessary funding to fulfill what they are capable of.  While the LA, and NY articles seemed to present the needs the Tools article offered solutions that are being used in Washington DC right now. I really appreciated this juxtaposition, but still feel overwhelmed by the suffering that people must withstand in order to get the appropriate help they need.  One article mentioned the fact that if minimum wage could be raised, there would be fewer impoverished families who are homeless or need assistance with bills, etc.  What a concept! So obvious and so simple.  I know this is an oversimplification, but seriously, why hasn’t the federal minimum wage increased with inflation.  It is insane that we live in a country where our minimum wage isn’t even enough to pay rent with. 


Here is an article about minimum wage law in Missouri.  (They want it to raise with inflation)


Minimum wage law under debate: "The law regarding minimum wage in Missouri is being debated by lawmakers."

Lastly, the two articles that presented the executive director of St. Vinnie’s and the CEO of MAAC project left me with some conflicting feelings.  I was delighted to read the St. Vinnie’s one because Terry McDonald seems so brilliant and industrious when it comes to his nonprofit.  But, conversely, Antonio Pizano came off as a total politician with all the right answers.  Maybe this reaction is irrational and off point completely, but they just appeared t be totally opposite ends of the spectrum. 

                        

Laws on Nonprofits & Religion

   This week's readings were a little difficult to string together for me, so I will be giving an individual response to each.

Dan Pallotta’s blog post about the effectiveness measurement of nonprofits interested me because I’d never really thought to measure the effectiveness of these organizations.   (I suppose this is because so much of the information we take in is a novelty to me.)  This idea of knowing the effectiveness of organizations in order to make better decisions about which to donate to seemed great to me.  I like Pallotta’s way of measuring the effectiveness, too.  By the end of the article I began to wonder what else the effectiveness rating or score could be used for.  If an organization was rated low enough would they be shut down, or would the low rating in effect cause the organization to fail.  It reminds me of this new trend that is happening in the restaurant business—grades.  Apparently (and I just read this a couple days ago, so forgive me for not citing the source) restaurants all over CA, and along the West coast in general, are starting to be assigned a letter grade just like in school that is then displayed in their window or door.   I think (or assume) it is decided by highly reputable food critics what the grade of the restaurant is, but I have no idea what information comprises the grade.  So, if a charity is given an effectiveness score, then I think we as the public a have right to know what that score is made up of.  Which, if I read it right, is what Pallotta believes too.  Could the effectiveness rating affect whether or not an org. gets grants and publicity, etc? I think so, but how public would it be? Would they be required to make it public information that is easily accessible, like how the restaurants post their grade on the front window or door?  Just some questions I was left with.

The estate tax reading was a bit of a mystery to me.  I understand that the top rung of our socioeconomic hierarchy is probably salivating at the tax decrease of an estate that will most likely be left to a family member, but what does it mean to the nonprofit sector? With a lower amount of that money going to the government, I would hope that these people most affected by the tax cut are more motivated to invest some of that dough into charities, but that’s not what I think really goes down.  Maybe it is? Coming from the opposite end of the spectrum it is hard for me to believe these people are charitable in the least because I am often blinded by what I think they ought to be doing for charities, etc.

Tim Harford’s blog post was awesome! It was relatively old information for me, but nonetheless interesting and thought provoking.  I love this depiction of the person who does not want to donate to a charity but feels pressured by the door-to-door representative so he or she hides behind the couch.  So funny!  I agree that people have varying motivations for their altruism, but I also think that there are more than three categories.  Perhaps it is best to think of these three as the main ones that everything else kind of falls under. His post relates perfectly to the chapter we read from the text about religion.  I think that a lot can be said for social pressures within religious organizations to do prosocial things within our larger communities.  That’s a huge part of why religious groups are have survived so long in our history as a species, these organized groups of people build trust in their common belief systems, and it’s been great for our survival. 

Lastly the charitable deduction article worried me.  If this law were to pass, I believe that nonprofits would be crippled because the larger donations that help to really keep these organizations alive are often incentivized by the deduction the donors receive for giving away such large sums of money.  I did like the idea of the organizations receiving the an additional 15% of the donations though, in effect giving the government a portion and the nonprofit organization of peoples’ choice a portion of the money taxed.

Some additional stuff:

A short (less than a page) article about religion and altruism/cooperation.

Religious people more generous on 2 conditions

Another RSA video if you have the time (~10 min.). This one talks about how the formation of religions and shared belief systems influence our cooperative/altruistic behaviors

My take on the reading

Hello All,

I’ll start off with the “about me” portion of this post. I assume we share the same purpose for this blog, since it was assigned for a course we are all taking.  I will be blogging about my experiences as a psychology major exploring the world of nonprofits, and sharing with you what I learn throughout the term.  The way I see psychology connecting to the nonprofit sector is simple: by social services and public health.  Psychology is part of everyone’s daily life as are nonprofits, so, they pretty much go hand in hand.  In my past I have volunteered at a shelter for women and children (and I remain interested in this population), but I have a fairly broad curiosity for all populations within mental health.  I am taking this course as part of my nonprofit minor and to learn about the ever-growing nonprofit sector.  I hope to learn about existing nonprofits in or related to mental health that may be good fits for me to work within, as well as how nonprofits work within our social system.

           

On to the reading…

I was first shocked by the vastness of the nonprofit sector.  I had no idea how it was defined, or how many different nonprofit organizations exist! I guess I had just never given it much thought before.  The section on volunteering in chapter one was engaging to me because it discusses the differences between formal and informal volunteering, which is primarily deciphered by whether you volunteer with an organization or do—what one of my grade school teachers called—random acts of kindness in your daily life (p. 31).  The study mentioned found that around 75% of respondents informally volunteered for example in their neighborhoods, whereas only 50% actually volunteered with an organized group.  In psychology the study of altruism is a popular topic because there are so many conflicting findings.  One semi-famous experiment was Darley and Batson (1973) study of bystander altruism in which they tested whether people going from one place to another within a given time window would help a stranger in need.  One group was given, I think it was, only 10 minutes to get to where they needed to go, while the other group was given anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour.  They found that people in the least “hurry” were the most likely to help (~60%) and the most hurried were the least likely (~10%).  I always wonder when we are discussing altruism, if people are as accurate at gauging their altruistic behavior as they think.  Surely the people in the group given the least amount of time would have helped someone if they had been given more time, right? So in our hurried and often overbooked lives I wonder if people tend to report their intentions of volunteering informally, or even formally for that matter, just by wishful thinking. 

            Okay, enough with my psychology rant.  The first chapter overall, was a little overwhelming with all the charts and statistical information.  However, this information was mostly new to me.  Especially surprising was the fact that the U.S. nonprofit revenue exceeds the GDP of all but the 6 highest GDP nations in the world (p.33).  Taking into account the lack of clarity in tracking how much money is truly being gifted, or otherwise made, it’s still a shocking figure. Chapter 2 was more enjoyable because the material was less foreign to me.  I found that I agreed a lot with the four reasons put forth by political scientists why nonprofits have become the entity they are today (p. 46 & 47).  These hypotheses seem to be true in my own experience and I think they are solid enough reasons that people can really grasp onto one or two or even all four as reasons they work for (or would like to work for) a nonprofit organization.  Lastly, the section on interdisciplinary theories I thought was the best approach to finding a unified theory because it would feel wrong to leave out the contributions of one of the fields of study and include all the rest (p.50). I thought that each field brought something valid to the table, and that something could be taken away from each to find a combined definition.

Videos that are somewhat relevant:

(I'll post from youtube I think, still figuring this part out, sorry.)

These are both 10-minute videos that I was reminded of while doing the reading. I posted them in case anyone is interested. They are pretty entertaining J

Superfreakonomics, about the economic and psychological mechanisms behind altruism, and how altruistic we really can be!

21^st Century Enlightenment, about what motivates us in the work place and why purpose driven organizations are more fulfilling (and attractive) to us.