ADVOCACY, ARTS & CULTURE

The chapter on advocacy was very interesting to me. I think advocacy is such an important thing but the term can also be abused in some ways. When reading that most nonprofits do some type of advocacy work, I was not surprised; most nonprofits are serving a demographic and every demographic has to feel marginalized and forgotten at some point (O'Neill, 138). The societal impact of advocacy organizations brought a somewhat new light to the sector for me. I now that advocacy groups mostly exist to change the practices or policies of a government organization, but unlike other nonprofit organizations, it is sometimes hard to see who they are directly serving. The American Cancer Society approaches advocacy with the idea that politicians and local government agencies need to be aware of the issues cancer patients are facing, you can see their mission statement on advocacy here. But it is interesting that large, international nonprofit organizations like the American Cancer Society have sectors completely devoted to advocacy.

The article from the National Council of Nonprofits was intriguing because they linked, like we've discussed in class and read about before, the need to serve with religious beliefs. The descriptions of some of the most powerful, influential people in America's history started at the nonprofit level and achieved mighty things under that umbrella. The press release from the Nonprofit Association of Oregon was straight to the point, which I prefer. I think it's a great idea to expose those organizations that have been abusing donors' trust and not fulfilling the obligations of their nonprofit status. On the other hand, it makes me wonder what will happen to those non profits that a just starting out and haven't had enough donations to give back 30% because they are still trying to cover their start up costs? The follow-up description of Senate Bill 40 was a little reassuring and made me think that starting this policy now while this is not a "widespread problem" in Oregon might stop a bigger problem before it has a chance to get started.

Chapter 8 on Arts & Culture was information for me because I did not know much about the arts and how they are supported. It is interesting to me that the federal government is such an "important funder of the arts in the U.S." yet the U.S. federal government is on the low end of supporters when compared to other developed countries (O'Neill, 166).  Arnold's article about the arts not being a black hole for donors and supporters but art organizations are businesses was something I had not thought of before. I think that it can go both ways; I think that if planned well, the art industry could be huge, but if not properly funded or supported by government it would all fall apart. However, I do think that the arts are a very important thing for the youth in our country. These passionate young people have to go somewhere to express their experiences and emotions so why not something legal and federally funded?

Week 7 already, wow.

The article Subprime Opportunity was interesting, but also full of sweeping generalizations that I didn't appreciate or agree with. I do agree that for-profit institution have been caught red handed over charging and under educating many Americans and from the statistics of the article, most seem to be minorities. However, I disagree that African-Americans and Hispanics are given a lower level of education in the entire U.S. I was the minority all through my primary education and I was given the same teachers as the black and latino students sitting next to me, and I don't think the teachers cared any less than they did at the all white private across town. I think there are definitely problems with the public school system, but it angered me to read that African-Americans and Hispanic students are being taught less than the "other" students. Though the article had valid information, I didn't find it useful because I started to question the generalizations about the for-profit institutions it was smearing. 

The article about the University of Phoenix was really unfortunate to read. As a college student on scholarship, I understand the looming anxiety associated with taking our private loans to pay for school expenses, but it's ridiculous that even after spending all of that money, there's nothing to show for it. I honestly had no idea that these issues were going on in the for-profit education realm until mentioned in this course. I always saw the commercials and thought, wow what a great way for working adults to earn a higher education without sacrificing their current lifestyle; wow was I wrong. 

Will the For-Profit Education Bubble Burst in 2011 was interesting. As I read this article, I couldn't help but wonder why everyone thinks they need a degree to be successful? Honestly, there are so many avenues that are in constant demand that don't requirement thousands of dollars in loans and years spent behind a desk. I recently read an article about vocational training vs. a traditional higher (college) education which really shed a new light on the thought that college might not be necessary for everyone. It's an older article, but I think it really speaks to the fact that plumbers and electricians are always going to be needed and though it may not be glamorous like working on Wall Street, it still brings in the bacon. http://www.getdegrees.com/edecisions/benefits-of-post-secondary-or-vocational-training/

The last article covered a lot of unanswered questions. It's interesting to learn the difference between for-profit schools and read about some of the positives. 

Week 6

The chapter on Education and Research was very interesting to me. I wasn't surprised that most private schools are affiliated with some religious organization. It makes sense to me that parents or guardians who's  religion is a major priority in life would like to press upon their children the same importance. Also, people might feel more comfortable having their children educated in a more intimate environment where there are fewer students competing for the teacher's attention and more time to focus on their child's individual needs. That being said, I know many people who feel that public schools are just as effective in educating their children as private schools would be. Although public schools are typically larger in population than private schools are, they provide a type of education that private schools are sometimes unable to extend to their students. For instance, many programs are only available through the public school system, for example FFA is a program only available at public schools and therefore if private school students wish to participate, they must gain approval by the school district. This is an interesting article that outlines many differences between private and public education and what to expect for your child in the long run, www.greatschools.org. I was disappointed to find that non traditional post secondary educational schools had to little space in this chapter, when, in my world at least, it's more realistic for someone to attend a technical training school than it is a four year university or college.

The article/speech by Paul Hawken was really interesting to me. I really enjoyed his perspective on the current Environmental Movement. When he described the movement as "the largest movement the world has ever seen," it was really empowering. "Rather than control, it seeks connection. Rather than dominance, it strives to disperse concentrations of power."This quote from Hawken's speech was really moving to me, this is really what our lives are going to be like after we are done with our educations and for some of us, this is what life is already like. 


I'll be honest, the McKenzie Watershed Council Annual Report was a little over my head, but it was interesting to learn about the different restoration projects going on throughout the area. The article about environmental work being for profit, was interesting but very complex. I wasn't aware the corporations were allowed to swap pollutants in order to not exceed limitations set by the government; this seems unlawful. I don't know maybe it's me but if you're polluting a certain amount, that amount shouldn't decrease if you move those pollutants to another corporations site right? Or am I reading this article wrong? Any suggestions?? 

Only under the Non-Profit Umbrella can Football & Healthcare collide!

The article about the Greenbay Packers was totally fascinating to me. As a childhood Packer fan, I knew that the team was "owned by the fans" but I had no idea to what extent this made them such a successful franchise. I agree that I think it would be hard to remove an existing team owner and replace them with a non-profit, owned by the fans system like Greenbay has, but would it be worth a try? I think the idea that the fans own the team and the general manager has the leeway to make decisions of their own would be a great idea for franchises all over the country. This system obviously does not affect the salaries of Greenbay players or employees, so what is there to lose?

It was interesting to read the statistic that 60 percent of community hospitals are non-profit, I had no idea. So it makes since when they talk about polls conducted within a community, that a majority of the population does not know whether or not their community hospital is for-profit or non-profit. Reading the fundamental purposes of both for-profit hospitals and non-profit hospitals, there is a glaring difference. To do good is so very important and the way I read the for-profit purpose, is that the employees, including doctors, are not required to do good, but make a profit for their boss. To not focus on healing the sick and encouraging good health within a community, but to make sure that community pays up when they come in for an x-ray or ultrasound. I too agree that more education needs to be done in the communities and neighborhoods about what exactly non-profit healthcare is and how much it can help an area.

The article about the hospital in Michigan being purchased by a for-profit healthcare system shed a new light on the subject for me. I do understand that this purchasing of non-profit facilities by for-profit organizations will help those facilities modernize their equipment and structures bringing better care to their patients. Another good point made in the article was that this type of purchasing is happening where the uninsured are the minority by a lot. It makes since to expand for-profit hospitals in this sense. I recently read an article about a Vancouver Washington Medical Center integrating (being bought) by a large non-profit organization PeaceHealth based in Bellevue. The CEO was interviewed, and his take on it was very interesting. He explained that because his hospital in Vancouver is doing so well, it only makes sense to continue the success in the future and the possibility of them succeeding over time without becoming a part of the non-profit healthcare system is slim to impossible. Though they will be now affiliated with the Catholic PeaceHealth system, little will change for their staff and patients, they will all still be well taken care of. Here is the link.