Stanford Social Innovation Review

Hear ye! Hear ye! Nonprofits have developed a ‘don’t bite the hand that feeds you’ stance which has been cemented by all the government clamor and restrictions on nonprofit advocacy.

Thank you for putting the money question in perspective in relation to where spending is going. Your summons to outrage is timely - when there’s hardly any such emotion manifested against the spending you detail, we all have to wonder if those values you attribute to our sector are truly grounding us.

I think the scrambling to alms-giving is a text book example of blaming the victim. There’s not much outrage available when you’re comfy as a mendicant. All we’ve seen these recent years is the slide on the slippery slope of incrementalism in government funding while offering our citizenry pay as you go.

»» Posted by: Merlyn on January 8, 2007 11:08 AM

If one is to view the funding arrangements and limitation of federal policy spending, another arena of spending appears, that of political fundraising for wouldbe candidates.  In a time of financial constraints the question of hundreds of millions of dollars expended to attain a position paying $400,000 per year for four years requires an explanation; particularly when tax exempt dollars are funding the political wannabes enterprise, tax exempt dollars that possibly could fund survival arrangements for growing numbers of Americans.

It is time to look at the amount of exempt dollar totals expended with every election cycle and to track accountability, transparency, and outcomes of the expenditures state by state to answer the question of can America continue to afford this segment of governance.

»» Posted by: Barbara Jordano on January 12, 2007 11:10 AM

Highly reasonable what the professor says, but the people who need help are by and large not reasonable. For example, take the homeless person. The professor says why not give him a home, for we have to wherewithal to do this, and thereby solve our homeless problem. Unfortunately it’s not enough to give someone a home, a house, just as it’s not enough to send someone to school for 12 years. One has to know how to care for the house, maintain it, keep it up, most of all want to take care of it, for nothing falls apart faster than a home without constant care. And similarly one has to be interested and motivated to profit from the 12 years of free schooling. It’s not enough to sit in the classroom.
In general public monies are not forthcoming for our social problems, such as illiteracy, homelessness, joblessness, etc. because the authorities have learned through long experience that money alone will not solve the problem. In regard to private monies, foundation grants, these are generally more successful because the grant program officers will tyr to be sure that the new homes that are provided will go to those who are ready and able to care for the homes, and that the scholarship monies will go to children who want to learn. The professor writes as though it were simply a questionof redirecting the money that is there, say from Iraq to HeadStart. It’s not that simple.

»» Posted by: Philip Waring on January 12, 2007 11:41 AM

I would submit that a considerable amount of funding dedicated to non-profits has been diverted to ‘Faith based Initiatives’ under the current Federal administration.
My wife was watching her favorite Pastor in a mega church on TV here in MN one Sunday morning. I was aghast when I heard him urging the congregation to vote for the Republican candidate for Congress in the district! He even brought her on ‘stage’ to testify how long they’ve prayed to get her in office, and suggested that if they did not voter for her ‘we’ would lost the war on terror.
This is a clear violation of the non-profit campaign laws, but don’t expect any sanctions...they’re on the ‘right’ side.

»» Posted by: Bob Johnson on January 12, 2007 01:44 PM

A few quick responses to these comments: 

Merlyn:  I agree that we need more nonprofit advocacy, although I think that nonprofits’ disinclination to protest is more complex than groups wanting to avoid giving offense to government funders.  My sense is that they’ve been scrambling after new ventures and other funding streams, rather than maintaining a focus on government responsibility for attending to public problems—as I think Perla Ni has blogged about here previously. 

Barbara Jordano:  While I admit I’ve sometimes wondered who would pursue public office under current campaign finance demands, I’m glad there are still some good folks who want to serve in public leadership roles.  While some tax-exempt advocacy expenditure may seem political, these dollars don’t go into individual campaigns – that would be illegal (see below).  It seems to me that public finance, expenditure limits and clean elections are essential to democracy.

Philip Waring:  The point of my piece isn’t to throw money at domestic problems or the people who are affected by them.  It is, however, to make social investments instead of engaging in international misadventures.  The programs of nonprofit organizations do indeed address the complex issues of people experiencing problems (who are not unreasonable, as Mr. Waring suggests), and while it is not a question of simply redirecting funds from the war to domestic issues, that is certainly an essential part of what need to be done.

Bob Johnson:  The incident of partisan electioneering from a church pulpit is a violation of IRS regulations regarding tax-exempt organizations and should be reported.  If a videotape of the broadcast exists, perhaps the press might like to see it.

»» Posted by: Mark Rosenman on January 16, 2007 02:03 PM

It’s a chicken-and-egg problem, isn’t it?  Once nonprofits see that government is open to being lobbied to fund good causes (instead of bad ones), they will do more advocacy work.  Once we are doing more advocacy work, it will make it politically smarter for elected officials to fund good causes.  The question is where to intervene in this cycle.

»» Posted by: Dennis Fischman on January 19, 2007 08:52 AM