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.