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."
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.
I too wonder why small non profits don't join efforts. If I had money to give, I am more likely to give to a larger organization with a more substantial backbone i.e. staff, marketing, fundraisers, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhat you said about Antonio Pizano actually sent me back to the article to re-read it and I agree with you. When he was asked what the organization does his answer was "we are a deliverer of essential services to the less fortunate and/or underserved community" -- more please? He truly didn't answer any questions with any depth. It is also possible that his interview had more information but the reporter edited it down. (That happens ALL the time with my boss. When I see him quoted in the paper, I know he didn't just give them one sentence of information.) The overall message he gave was that his organization helps underserved populations and that is a good deal, even if the CEO is bad at relaying that message with any depth.
I suspect that non-profits each feel as if the population they are serving is different from any other organization, that what they wish to accomplish is different or that their organization has some deeper insight to the issue. Our society is not one of fantastic sharing skills. I don't think that non profits are an exception. Both people and business like to be seen as unique individuals that cannot ever being exactly replicated. Though I agree with you that it would be in the organizations best financial interest to combine efforts and create a stronger base to work with, Im not sue if this is something that most organizations would jump at.
ReplyDeleteI was a little surprised too at the huge number of small nonprofits in the US. It would be interesting to compare that to the number of for profit businesses that are small. I bet we would find that it's close to the same ratio. I think some of the reason there are so many small nonprofits goes back to sociology. People want to be a part of something they are passionate about. Our government has made it easy to start a nonprofit. People who want to be in charge will more than likely start their own organization vs. just volunteering for a large organization. I also think this is the reason their are so many small little espresso stands all over the place. Why work for the "man" if you think you can do it better on your own?
ReplyDeleteWhat a concept indeed! I think raising minimum wage would definitely improve a lot of people's living standards, though I'm obviously hesitant to pin the solution to some of our society's most pressing issues solely on money. Additionally, I'm even more hesitant to think it will actually ever happen to such a degree that it would make a real difference.
ReplyDeleteThe quote you pulled from page 47 of the textbook about the "pros" of our current system of government-nonprofit partnerships sums up perfectly why I'm such an avid nonprofit supporter, though it is missing the additional fact that nonprofits can essentially depoliticize issues more effectively than the government. I actually would argue that this above all else is why nonprofits are the best system for our society right now.