Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Introduction & Weeks 1 & 2 Readings

This blog will see me through the next term of college and more specifically through my readings and learnings from the PPPM 280 Intro to the Non-Profit Sector course at the University of Oregon. I'll be reacting, questioning and ranting about the assigned readings as well as discussions that occur in class. I hope this blog will serve me as well as others with a more detailed review of the PPPM 280 course and what one may take from their experience in the class. In addition, I hope this blog will help me understand where I can use my prior and future experience in the non-profit sector or other career paths. Though I am young, I have had a solid decade, though the last five years have been most rewarding, of experience in the non-profit sector mainly with the American Cancer Society. I have most of my experience in fundraising and event planning and I hope this course will broaden my horizons and open windows and some doors for me to get involved in other aspects of the sector. I'm hoping that I will learn how to better use my skills and passion for non-profit work to their full potential.

O'Neil's approach to the description of the not for profit sector helps to bring into focus the enormity of the sector in the United States. The growth that the sector has seen in the U.S. of the past two decades or so is extreme. The history of the non-profit sector outlined in chapter two was interesting to me. I had never thought about the cause in society that had brought about non-profit organizations and services. It makes total since that when a community increases in population there becomes a need to help the lower class. O'Neil's explanation from the anthropological perspective that voluntary services were in response to needs that existed outside the family and government structure is intriguing. People need to connect with others outside of their family and they have needs that the government cannot fulfill and therefore they search for help outside those structures.

As a former political science major I found the political science section of chapter two particularly interesting. Though non-profit organizations can and have been very beneficial in the realm of politics, I think it is important that some or most not choose sides nor affiliate themselves with only one political party. My work with the American Cancer Society (ACS) Cancer Action Network (CAN), lobbying for federal funding for cancer research this past September was extremely beneficial as an introduction to the world of politics in the U.S. I was directly involved in asking for my representative's and senator's support in passing a bill that would give cancer researchers $13 billion dollars to use to hopefully find a cure. One of the most interesting things about this process with ACS CAN was that we were not affiliating ourselves with any political party yet we were successful in getting support from almost seventy percent of the representatives and senators on capitol hill that day.

Douglas makes a point by theorizing that one of the main reasons why people form and join non-profit organizations is the "freedom from bureaucratic constraint"; the effectiveness of non-profits in many areas is directly to the lack of government power over them. (O'Neil, 47) I did however find Tocqueville's research and descriptions of the non-profit sector in America very interesting and accurate. Tocqueville described the simple yet effective way in which non-profit organizations are run as the ideal picture of democracy itself. People see a cause that they care about and they take action in any way possible to aid that cause. I also agree with Tocqueville's perspective that these non-profit organizations and associations are the perfect training ground for "effective participation in democracy." (O'Neil, 45)

5 comments:

  1. I also found it interesting that voluntary services are in response to needs that can't be met within a family or government setting. Im a little fuzzy about what this actually means. Supporting a family or working a job seems it might fill the need of devoting time and effort but I guess it's more of a duty rather than a choice. I wonder what the "side effects" are of not fulfilling this need to volunteer. It seems to me it would be the feeling of guilt.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like the political lean in your response. I had thought about that a little but not in depth. Your response really did get me thinking about how empowering it can be to feel passionate about something and find a group that you can work with towards a change. While I'm still unclear about specifically how non profits work with political parties and causes, it's good to know that if I wanted to, I could join a group of like minded people and challenge the government.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It was definitely interesting to read how non-profits evolved in the US. Tocqueville made it plain to see that these small organizations were the breeding grounds for an ideal democracy. It makes sense that a group with limited resources will complete their tasks more efficiently than their bureaucratic counterparts. When people care about a cause, they will do their best to stretch those resources as far as they can.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Glad to hear you'll be including ranting in your blog Mary Beth - I think already after only two weeks of class it is relatively apparent that some of the monetary and political issues we're going to cover can be pretty headed, and I want to hear everyone's honest opinion! As a fellow ACS/ACS CAN supporter, I'm also excited to hear your opinion on some of these issues as they relate to my own. I too believe that nonprofits that take political stances on issues and work in Washington DC should not be loyal to party lines, but instead only to their constituents. Great call on pointing that out!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I completely agree that organizations should not be permitted to side with any party. But instead can take the side on an issue being voted on, regardless of who that issue may be associated with politically. In that right, I feel like they kind of get around the restriction of siding with a candidate because they could be siding with that person on all the same issues without saying directly to vote for him/her. the example talked about in class was kind of ridiculous to me for this reason, if you can push for or against an issue, why do you need the right to tell people who to vote for too?

    ReplyDelete