Week Eight

Chapters 7 & 8 in our textbook were definitely the most number-heavy readings we had this week, but I enjoyed them. I thought it was interesting that “social advocacy organizations” were defined as “primarily engaged in promoting a particular cause or working for the realization of a specific social or political goal to benefit a broad of specific constituency.” While I can recognize that advocacy nonprofits work solely on creating change on a policy and governmental level, it seems to me that almost all nonprofits do some sort of advocacy work just in their day to day function. Simply by existing and working with a specific demographic or on a certain issue, aren't they making that issue visible and recognizing that it is worthy of change? 

"The Power of Nonprofits" was an interesting, quick little article about how advocacy is really not only in nonprofits’ blood, but our blood too. When something is going on that we don’t like, we tend to get together to do something about it!

“Nonprofit Association of Oregon supports Attorney General’s efforts to publicize questionable charities” was good to read because I was unaware of the issue and of Senate Bill 40 and it presented it in a very compelling fashion. It definitely does not seem right that nonprofits that are using fundraised dollars simply to keep fundraising should qualify for tax-exemptions or should be allowed to receive federal or state funding. I was kind of surprised however that the minimum standard the Bill was proposing was that 30% of annual income be spent on program services. That really doesn’t seem like very much to me. I’ve heard a few different times in my volunteer work and my other PPPM classes that administrative costs for any special event or nonprofit should be around 10%, so I just wonder why it’s ok to let 70% of a nonprofit’s income be spent on things other than program services; arguably the services that the nonprofit’s mission is to supply.


Reading “Senate Bill 40” just moments after reading and writing about the previous article, it was nice to see that this article mentioned “legitimate reasons for underperformance” and creating “appropriate exceptions” for why 30% is a low but fair number for evaluating Oregon nonprofits. Since the 30% rule averages spending on program services over the last three fiscal years, it gives some leeway for worthy nonprofits that may have valid reasons for why their program spending is low for a year or two. The report also notes that Senate Bill 40 doesn’t create any excess paperwork for nonprofits, so it really does seem like a well-thought and balanced approach to weeding out those few nonprofits that aren’t performing up to par as well as highlighting those that are going above and beyond.


“Arts Groups Pumped $166.2 Billion Into US in 2005, Study Says” noted a lot of things I learned in an Arts and Administration class I took last term that I think are valid reasons why arts a commendable and practical aspect of US business. The class was all about the benefits of the arts and discussed not only financial reasons like those discussed in the article, such as creating jobs and business for supplies and space, but that art also has an inherent value to our social senses and is extremely useful in conflict mitigation and brain development for young children.