International nonprofit work is something that I find really interesting. As far as I’m concerned, there should be a great deal more government funding to this, and a lot less to the military. It seems to me that civilian assistance is effective more often than imposed military force. I found this week’s readings on international nonprofit organizations to be really interesting. I thought O’neill made some really interesting points about it, although the statistics to support his claims are very outdated. The main point to be gleaned from this chapter of the book, I think, was that our nonprofit sector improves the international image of America. I imagine that other countries are somewhat comforted by the voluntary aid provided by the citizens of America.
What interested me most about Roger Burk’s blog was that it seemed that once he had left America, he realized that none of the countries surrounding Iraq had the means, or stability to provide the aid that Iraq required. America is fortunate to not be one of these countries; not to say our country is perfect, but our domestic issues are nothing as to those in many other countries. Furthermore, I think that if our government feels entitled to regulate other nations of the world, they should provide labor and resources necessary to enact the changes they mandate.
William Easterly makes an interesting point about how organizations neglect to ask for feedback from the individuals who are being aided. I always sort of just figured that there was someone at the top –or else a bunch of people in the middle– who made profit from donations to causes in third-world countries, but Easterly’s interview taught me different. Why not ask the people who require aid what they need? This would enable us to provide sustainable solutions to their issues. And by sustainable, in this case I mean solutions that those who are faced with these problems are able to create for themselves, granted the proper education and resources.
It seems to me that we limit the amount of aid we can provide to the world by providing a large amount of somewhat ineffective aid. I’d be really happy to see impoverished countries starting to devise methods of sanitizing water and producing adequate quantities of food. This is a pretty murky area for me to speak too much about though, because I’m not very well educated on what kind of resources would be necessary to create this type of technology. My immediate inclination is to believe that America is probably consuming these resources to an extent where they may be unavailable to these people, but once again I don’t really feel like I know enough about what exactly these cultures need specify exactly what is needed here.
I looked for a link that had more up to date figures for the stats on tables 9.1 and 9.2 in the text, but couldn’t find any. If any of you guys did, I’d love to see those numbers.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Week 7 Post- Education
“…the question for consumers to ponder is whether a degree or certificate from a for-profit school will carry the same weight as a similar degree from a community college or public four-year university.” – Will the For-Profit Education Bubble Burst in 2011.
This question, posed by writer James R. Hood, from the class reading, Will the For-Profit Education Bubble Burst in 2011? was one that carried a lot of weight in my own life as a senior in high school as I decided where to apply to college. In the end it transpired that a private university was not a viable financial option. I still wonder, however, whether attendance of a public university, in comparison to peers of mine who attend private ones that have similar GPA’s to mine, will help or hinder me as I apply to grad school? Similarly, once I am in pursuit of employment, will potential employers be more attracted to a degree from a public school or a private one? A vast portion of work that has been assigned to me at the University of Oregon has been entirely, or involved, internet work; what makes an online degree from University of Phoenix– or any of the other online universities cited in this weeks readings– so much less legitimate? I’d be really interested to see how much of the assigned work for classes at Ivy League schools is based around the Internet. For the record these are just questions I have, and I don’t believe that a computer can ever outdo a classroom.
The article, Subprime Opportunity, by Mamie Lynch, raised another point that I found interesting. Since educators must be paid, what is the most legitimate means to accrue funding to cover their salaries. Is it more morally correct to charge individuals for an opportunity at obtaining a good job, or for the public to be taxed so that education can be provided at a low rate? It’s a catch 22 because people need degrees to get good jobs, but society needs people who are well educated in order to function at a high level. There are plenty of arguments for both sides, but it kind of seems excessively complicated to attempt to maintain both non-profit and for-profit school systems. It seems like this is just asking for unequal opportunities. I should clarify that I think quality of education and adequacy of teacher compensation are equally important issues.
I think the readings from this week provided me with more questions than answers… The discrepancy between online courses and lectures, and the contrast between public and private universities seems slightly unfair to me from the standpoint of equal opportunity. However, despite the apparent unfairness of the situation, employers do need some basis on which to compare potential employees.
http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4922551_employers-rate-online-degrees.html
This eHow article is really short and simply written but it provided me with some insight into employer preferences. According to the source, 96 percent of employers prefer traditional degrees to online ones. The source also states that 55 percent of managers prefer employees with traditional degrees.
This question, posed by writer James R. Hood, from the class reading, Will the For-Profit Education Bubble Burst in 2011? was one that carried a lot of weight in my own life as a senior in high school as I decided where to apply to college. In the end it transpired that a private university was not a viable financial option. I still wonder, however, whether attendance of a public university, in comparison to peers of mine who attend private ones that have similar GPA’s to mine, will help or hinder me as I apply to grad school? Similarly, once I am in pursuit of employment, will potential employers be more attracted to a degree from a public school or a private one? A vast portion of work that has been assigned to me at the University of Oregon has been entirely, or involved, internet work; what makes an online degree from University of Phoenix– or any of the other online universities cited in this weeks readings– so much less legitimate? I’d be really interested to see how much of the assigned work for classes at Ivy League schools is based around the Internet. For the record these are just questions I have, and I don’t believe that a computer can ever outdo a classroom.
The article, Subprime Opportunity, by Mamie Lynch, raised another point that I found interesting. Since educators must be paid, what is the most legitimate means to accrue funding to cover their salaries. Is it more morally correct to charge individuals for an opportunity at obtaining a good job, or for the public to be taxed so that education can be provided at a low rate? It’s a catch 22 because people need degrees to get good jobs, but society needs people who are well educated in order to function at a high level. There are plenty of arguments for both sides, but it kind of seems excessively complicated to attempt to maintain both non-profit and for-profit school systems. It seems like this is just asking for unequal opportunities. I should clarify that I think quality of education and adequacy of teacher compensation are equally important issues.
I think the readings from this week provided me with more questions than answers… The discrepancy between online courses and lectures, and the contrast between public and private universities seems slightly unfair to me from the standpoint of equal opportunity. However, despite the apparent unfairness of the situation, employers do need some basis on which to compare potential employees.
http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4922551_employers-rate-online-degrees.html
This eHow article is really short and simply written but it provided me with some insight into employer preferences. According to the source, 96 percent of employers prefer traditional degrees to online ones. The source also states that 55 percent of managers prefer employees with traditional degrees.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Post 5
The reading for this week that interested me most was the “Guide to Environmental Nonprofits.” I really enjoyed the succinctness of the descriptions of the organizations, but also was astounded by the wide array of nonprofit organizations that are dedicated to environmental restoration and preservation.
The Earth Policy Institute particularly interested me. I really appreciate that there are organizations such as this that are attempting to place the environment ahead of the economy. Although I am very appreciative of the sentiment behind the Earth Policy Institute, it seems to me that an environmental sustainable economy is the responsibility of the government. Which is to say, why are these duties bestowed upon nonprofit organizations? And furthermore, what are the things that the government has profiled as higher priorities than environmental sustainability? To me, it seems like there are very few (if any) more important things.
The list of “Anti-Environmental Groups With Deceptive Names/Mission Statements,” I found to be incredibly interesting and infuriating. It is odd to me that there are nonprofit organizations, such as the “International Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources,” actually advocate corporate economics. It seems to me that if there are advocates of corporate funding in the nonprofit community, then the third sector could really use to build some corporate alliances. I can’t decide if the “U.S. House Committee on Resources,” is more enraging or embarrassing… It is despicable that there are people who would blatantly and deliberately lie about the detrimental environmental effects of drilling and such, purely for profit.
The document, “Saving the Environment for Profit,” was also very interesting to me. The stat that Al Gore had once donated one-hundred percent of his salary to the “Alliance for Climate Protection” in 2007. I am in full concurrence with Gore’s assertion that there is more that can be done for the environment than the nonprofit sector has to offer. Nothing against the nonprofit sector whatsoever, but there is much more money within the government and corporations and what can possibly be more worth the money than the sustenance of Earth.
I found all the readings this week quite interesting, the environmental articles just stuck out to me in particular, and I feel that I gleaned some incredibly valuable information from them, relating to nonprofit organizations and beyond.
The Earth Policy Institute particularly interested me. I really appreciate that there are organizations such as this that are attempting to place the environment ahead of the economy. Although I am very appreciative of the sentiment behind the Earth Policy Institute, it seems to me that an environmental sustainable economy is the responsibility of the government. Which is to say, why are these duties bestowed upon nonprofit organizations? And furthermore, what are the things that the government has profiled as higher priorities than environmental sustainability? To me, it seems like there are very few (if any) more important things.
The list of “Anti-Environmental Groups With Deceptive Names/Mission Statements,” I found to be incredibly interesting and infuriating. It is odd to me that there are nonprofit organizations, such as the “International Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources,” actually advocate corporate economics. It seems to me that if there are advocates of corporate funding in the nonprofit community, then the third sector could really use to build some corporate alliances. I can’t decide if the “U.S. House Committee on Resources,” is more enraging or embarrassing… It is despicable that there are people who would blatantly and deliberately lie about the detrimental environmental effects of drilling and such, purely for profit.
The document, “Saving the Environment for Profit,” was also very interesting to me. The stat that Al Gore had once donated one-hundred percent of his salary to the “Alliance for Climate Protection” in 2007. I am in full concurrence with Gore’s assertion that there is more that can be done for the environment than the nonprofit sector has to offer. Nothing against the nonprofit sector whatsoever, but there is much more money within the government and corporations and what can possibly be more worth the money than the sustenance of Earth.
I found all the readings this week quite interesting, the environmental articles just stuck out to me in particular, and I feel that I gleaned some incredibly valuable information from them, relating to nonprofit organizations and beyond.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Week 5 Blog
What interested me most about the week five reading was, perhaps predictably, the article on the Green Bay Packers. I’ve always been intrigued by the concept of a town owning their professional sports team, mostly because the owners of most teams are exorbitantly wealthy, and often equally selfish. The Packers aren’t quite as noble as many other nonprofits (they don’t exactly donate to cancer research or fill empty bellies) but I think they’re an example of something that brings people together as a community which I think this world, let alone this country is in dire necessity of. I think the Packer’s are an example of yet another thing that nonprofit organizations provide to people that governments do not: unification. I think nonprofits reflect the things that the people believe are important: sustenance, shelter, community and growth. It would seem that a government who wanted to serve its people would align its priorities with those of the people. It seems like what people want is fairly straightforward, and yet the only organizations that appear to consider this are nonprofits, which have comparatively miniscule net revenue in comparison to governments and businesses. Back to the Packers, 60% of revenue from concessions and such go to local charity?! That’s incredible. A commercialized nonprofit that creates revenue to donate to smaller nonprofit organizations, what a concept. This makes me think that if other nonprofits could find larger sponsors, then there could be a significant amount of revenue not only generated in the nonprofit community, but also retained there.
Another piece of the reading that interested me was “The Value of Nonprofit Health Care.” The information within the document was really confusing to me, but I think that the concept of making healthcare a nonprofit entity is not a bad idea at all. I would never pretend to understand all of the intricacies of healthcare at this juncture, but I think that privatized health care and insurance is far too expensive and should either be limited or else eliminated. People need healthcare as much as they need food and shelter, and when they are denied these things then the necessity for medication is even greater still. These problems are all so complex however that I’m sure every solution I could ever devise would overlook a multitude of issues also plaguing society.
Although we view different types of nonprofits in different scopes within this class, there seems to be a recurring theme to me: Nonprofits are trying to provide for people in need with funds that are merely a fraction of the funding that corporations function under.
Another piece of the reading that interested me was “The Value of Nonprofit Health Care.” The information within the document was really confusing to me, but I think that the concept of making healthcare a nonprofit entity is not a bad idea at all. I would never pretend to understand all of the intricacies of healthcare at this juncture, but I think that privatized health care and insurance is far too expensive and should either be limited or else eliminated. People need healthcare as much as they need food and shelter, and when they are denied these things then the necessity for medication is even greater still. These problems are all so complex however that I’m sure every solution I could ever devise would overlook a multitude of issues also plaguing society.
Although we view different types of nonprofits in different scopes within this class, there seems to be a recurring theme to me: Nonprofits are trying to provide for people in need with funds that are merely a fraction of the funding that corporations function under.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Blog Post 2: Social Services
I was really interested by this week’s readings and the introduction of the role of urban planners. In Malcolm Kenton’s article, Understanding the tools in an affordable housing toolkit, urban planners are portrayed as the ones responsible for creating communities that are sustainable, but also provide adequately for each member of the population. This is an incredibly interesting job from my perspective, and I can think of a number of instances in my home community where a panel of urban planners could have helped to solve a number of problems, particularly in providing housing and meals for those in need.
Kenton’s article prompted me to believe that perhaps not enough emphasis has been placed on the extreme vitality of urban planners in maintaining society today. Urban planning is just one way that people can contribute to society, and it inspired me to consider that there may be a vast array of opportunities for people to help their communities; perhaps even new and more effective positions that can make an extreme difference in society.
Something that really confused me was the concept of a section 8 voucher. I really had a difficult time grasping what exactly the purpose of these “vouchers” might be. I also am interested in learning more about the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977
I was also very intrigued by the question and answer article with Antonio Pizano. I find his work inspiring, and his occupation to be quite a noble one. I think that it would be conducive to society if businesses were designed like Pizano’s agency, making contribution to society a greater priority than personal profit.
This week’s readings instigated my sincere interest in occupations people assume when trying to aide their communities. I am very curious to learn what I can about the social services branch of the third sector, and I find myself wondering what new types of positions will be created in the future as the needs of society continue to transform.
Kenton’s article prompted me to believe that perhaps not enough emphasis has been placed on the extreme vitality of urban planners in maintaining society today. Urban planning is just one way that people can contribute to society, and it inspired me to consider that there may be a vast array of opportunities for people to help their communities; perhaps even new and more effective positions that can make an extreme difference in society.
Something that really confused me was the concept of a section 8 voucher. I really had a difficult time grasping what exactly the purpose of these “vouchers” might be. I also am interested in learning more about the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977
I was also very intrigued by the question and answer article with Antonio Pizano. I find his work inspiring, and his occupation to be quite a noble one. I think that it would be conducive to society if businesses were designed like Pizano’s agency, making contribution to society a greater priority than personal profit.
This week’s readings instigated my sincere interest in occupations people assume when trying to aide their communities. I am very curious to learn what I can about the social services branch of the third sector, and I find myself wondering what new types of positions will be created in the future as the needs of society continue to transform.
Blog Post 2: Social Services
I was really interested by this week’s readings and the introduction of the role of urban planners. In Malcolm Kenton’s article, Understanding the tools in an affordable housing toolkit, urban planners are portrayed as the ones responsible for creating communities that are sustainable, but also provide adequately for each member of the population. This is an incredibly interesting job from my perspective, and I can think of a number of instances in my home community where a panel of urban planners could have helped to solve a number of problems, particularly in providing housing and meals for those in need.
Kenton’s article prompted me to believe that perhaps not enough emphasis has been placed on the extreme vitality of urban planners in maintaining society today. Urban planning is just one way that people can contribute to society, and it inspired me to consider that there may be a vast array of opportunities for people to help their communities; perhaps even new and more effective positions that can make an extreme difference in society.
Something that really confused me was the concept of a section 8 voucher. I really had a difficult time grasping what exactly the purpose of these “vouchers” might be. I also am interested in learning more about the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977
I was also very intrigued by the question and answer article with Antonio Pizano. I find his work inspiring, and his occupation to be quite a noble one. I think that it would be conducive to society if businesses were designed like Pizano’s agency, making contribution to society a greater priority than personal profit.
This week’s readings instigated my sincere interest in occupations people assume when trying to aide their communities. I am very curious to learn what I can about the social services branch of the third sector, and I find myself wondering what new types of positions will be created in the future as the needs of society continue to transform.
Kenton’s article prompted me to believe that perhaps not enough emphasis has been placed on the extreme vitality of urban planners in maintaining society today. Urban planning is just one way that people can contribute to society, and it inspired me to consider that there may be a vast array of opportunities for people to help their communities; perhaps even new and more effective positions that can make an extreme difference in society.
Something that really confused me was the concept of a section 8 voucher. I really had a difficult time grasping what exactly the purpose of these “vouchers” might be. I also am interested in learning more about the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977
I was also very intrigued by the question and answer article with Antonio Pizano. I find his work inspiring, and his occupation to be quite a noble one. I think that it would be conducive to society if businesses were designed like Pizano’s agency, making contribution to society a greater priority than personal profit.
This week’s readings instigated my sincere interest in occupations people assume when trying to aide their communities. I am very curious to learn what I can about the social services branch of the third sector, and I find myself wondering what new types of positions will be created in the future as the needs of society continue to transform.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Quinn Miller PPPM 280 Post 1
My name is Quinn Miller and for 10 weeks I will be posting reactionary blogs about nonprofit organizations and their impact in America. I am taking this course for a background in the nonprofit sector, because I am interested in entering the field of public relations, particularly for the nonprofit sector. I hope to learn the ways in which the nonprofit sector can affect the unfortunate all over the world. Thus far I have been very interested in the history of philanthropy, and also the tax deductions that donating to a nonprofit organization can provide an individual with.
Chapter one of Nonprofit Nation explained many of the logistics of the Third Sector. What interested me most from chapter one was the concept of tax-deductible donations to nonprofit organizations. I was of the concept, but not the intricacies that it involved. Also, I had never really pondered the repercussions of this option. I think it is great that people have the ability to make donations to organizations dedicated to serving the needy, and deduct that amount from their taxes. I think this provides incentive to donate to some really outstanding causes. I think that tax-deductible donations to nonprofit organizations are a great idea, and should be taken advantage of far more often. I believe that with increased publicity, nonprofit organizations could put an end to many issues affecting the middle and lower classes in America today.
The point of chapter two seemed to me to be to highlight the vast amount of work that nonprofit organizations do under the radar. The role of the Third Sector is essentially to do what the American people believe the government is doing insufficiently. This is a very difficult task to perform adequately, but the third sector keeps the nation afloat by helping those in need. Nonprofit organizations play a vital role in the well-being of many if not most Americans, and chapter two reaffirmed my feelings from chapter one that there should be a severe increase in the publicity of nonprofit organizations, and possibly more rewards should be offered to those who choose to donate to them.
Chapter one of Nonprofit Nation explained many of the logistics of the Third Sector. What interested me most from chapter one was the concept of tax-deductible donations to nonprofit organizations. I was of the concept, but not the intricacies that it involved. Also, I had never really pondered the repercussions of this option. I think it is great that people have the ability to make donations to organizations dedicated to serving the needy, and deduct that amount from their taxes. I think this provides incentive to donate to some really outstanding causes. I think that tax-deductible donations to nonprofit organizations are a great idea, and should be taken advantage of far more often. I believe that with increased publicity, nonprofit organizations could put an end to many issues affecting the middle and lower classes in America today.
The point of chapter two seemed to me to be to highlight the vast amount of work that nonprofit organizations do under the radar. The role of the Third Sector is essentially to do what the American people believe the government is doing insufficiently. This is a very difficult task to perform adequately, but the third sector keeps the nation afloat by helping those in need. Nonprofit organizations play a vital role in the well-being of many if not most Americans, and chapter two reaffirmed my feelings from chapter one that there should be a severe increase in the publicity of nonprofit organizations, and possibly more rewards should be offered to those who choose to donate to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)