Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Nonprofits in a Time of War

By Mark Rosenman, AlterNet. Posted February 5, 2007.


Nonprofits have the responsibility of outrage when government policy creates and exacerbates misery: Charities need to speak up and demand that Congress get Washington's foreign policy and its financial priorities in order.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Mark Rosenman

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Note: An earlier version of this piece appeared in The Chronicle of Philanthropy.

Nonprofit organizations are scrambling for charitable dollars because recent experience has taught them not to depend on government money to solve public problems. It seems the money just isn't there. Or is it?

Government does manage to finance what it wants to do, but sometimes with trade-offs. Regardless of the views nonprofit leaders have had about the war in Iraq and how it has been waged, one thing is clear to people on all sides: The costs of the war have propelled government-spending cuts that affect millions of Americans and the nonprofit organizations that serve them.

Even while handing out more than a trillion dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, the Republican-controlled Congress approved enough extra off--budget spending for the Iraq war to have paid for about 50 years of Head Start for each of the million or so kids enrolled in that program. Those same dollars could have covered about 16 years of medical insurance for every child living in poverty in the United States or paid four-year state tuition for every undergraduate at every college and university in America -- and still have had a bit left over to send some on to graduate school.

In fact, federal spending on the war could have financed enough new public housing to accommodate every homeless American in permanent residences and even provided some with vacation homes. But that's not what President Bush asked for, and not what Congress gave him. The reality is that in education, housing, nutrition, and other areas, federal support for nonprofit groups that provide services was cut -- so organizations had to do more with less in the face of growing need -- while government money went elsewhere.

Instead of doing good, the money was used to finance a war, started with shameful deceit and continued in a fog of failure, denial and lies, that has cost more than 3,000 American lives, wounded more than 22,000 other American men and women, and resulted in the deaths of between 52,000 and 600,000 Iraqis -- the larger estimate is made by Johns Hopkins University scholars after careful study. Congress has already appropriated more than $350--billion for that war beyond regular military budgets, and costs are projected to total more than a trillion dollars when continuing care for the wounded is counted.

This isn't like the first gulf war, where costs were shared by a large number of nations. Americans are footing the bill for this one and will be paying it, quite literally, for generations to come.

Charities have been increasingly reluctant to speak about important public--policy issues and the need for more aid to go to domestic causes instead of the war, and foundations (save for very few) have shied away from such advocacy. But charities should realize that speaking out today does not mean getting involved in partisan politics. The war has little popular support and massive opposition -- and a very broad swath of Americans has been affected by its financial and human costs. Perhaps it would be wise if nonprofit groups that see themselves as leaders in their communities and in society listened to their followers and began to catch up with their views.

Not only has domestic federal funding failed to keep up with growing need, but since the war began in 2003, cuts have been made in more than half of the 72 federal direct-service programs tracked by the Coalition on Human Needs, a Washington group that advocates for federal policies to aid the poor. Most of the cuts went deeper than 10 percent after inflation. Federal programs that help young people, support community services, and provide mental-health services, substance-abuse prevention, child and health care, and food to the elderly are among the hardest hit.

Even more disturbing, in the last session of Congress, House and Senate appropriation committees recommended that 55 to 62 of those programs should be cut further, some by as much as an additional 25 percent in the government's 2007 fiscal year.

Those government programs provide the money that nonprofit groups use to supply services to low- and moderate-income people, the very people who are losing ground in today's economy as the real value of salaries and wages decline.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: activism, non-profits

Mark Rosenman works in Washington as a public-service professor at Union Institute & University, which has its headquarters in Cincinnati.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
About nonprofit
Posted by: Temporary on Feb 5, 2007 12:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When any organisation is "nonprofit" it basicly means, that it self doesent thrive for profit, but reseaves private funding. Where funding comes from...well, thats another story:)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most charities compromised up the wazoo
Posted by: Bobsays on Feb 5, 2007 12:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Notice something? Notice that in the last ten years the number of charities out there has quadrupled and they all have become highly sophisiticated cup shakers. And all now receive large portions of their funding from government. Government has co-opted charities into doing its work and thus most charities keep quiet.

Charities are in fact an outdated 19th century concept. That they have risen again is a sign of our failure to deal with poverty and social ills, not a sign that they are being handled well. Charities should be on the wane, not on the rise. They are patronising, narrow, inefficient and usually the domain of a few egos who are self-serving.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cuts in the safety net date back to Reagan.
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 5, 2007 12:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reagan began the enormous transfer of wealth to the rich of the US. Part of it was cuts in citizen benefit programs, where Reagan used the excuse that charities could provide better than government.

Unless you were politically conscious prior to Reagan, you cannot begin to guess what a drastic change the US has gone through in those 25 years.

We did not having growing child poverty before Reagan. We did not have American students somewhere down near the bottom of the ladder when compared internationally. American urban space was not a conglomeration of snarled traffic, decaying and inadequate housing, gang warfare, police state tactics, and rampant public health problems.

Especially, we did not have politicians telling us that we should shut up and be grateful for their doles. The difference between then and now is leadership. We once had political leadership.

I did not think anyone could ever make Nixon look good. But compared to the Reagan-Bush-Bush people, old tricky Dick looks like a man of vision.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

otto
Posted by: otto on Feb 5, 2007 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I ran into this problem a few years ago while working for a non-profit group that cares for handi-capped people in Ontario, Canada. The Ontario government had cut all kinds of funding for social services; I wanted to take the handicapped out to demonstrations. Others were afraid of bad things (more bad things) happening to the handicapped we were serving. Tough choice! We shouldn't play with their lives (as Bush does with Americans), but we also make decisions that effect them. Basically, we did nothing!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

speak out and lose your non-profit status
Posted by: dancingcloud on Feb 5, 2007 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the main stipulations in maintaining a 501(c)3 is that the organization take NO political stand on anything, even conceptually, i.e. pastors speaking for peace. By speaking out from your non-profit, you stand a very good chance of losing your status or, at the very least, be watched and audited.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Non-profits and lobbying
Posted by: chaoslegs on Feb 5, 2007 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that sometimes a non-profit may have to tip-toe around issues because they are concerned with retribution from a funding source.

However, the poster that said non-profits can't speak out had it wrong. They can't engage in political activity, but they can lobby legislations or positions. 501 (c)(3) statuts does regulate the amount of lobbying they can do. You can read more here, here, or here.

Yet too many people mistakenly assume that it is illegal for non-profits to lobby. To the contrary, federal laws actually exist to encourage charities to lobby within certain specified limits.

Another thing a specific administration can do is put a strange twist on the grants it is giving. For example my work submitted a proposal for post adoption support work a few years back. There was a requirement for marriage promotion in the proposal. Now we acknowledge the stresses of raising a child with special needs has increased chance of causing divorce, so it isn't as unreasonable an addition as you might think. However, we also know that about 33% of the children adopted from foster care are adopted by single parents (about 16,000 in 2005). So unless we do a matching game, which would favor the men who are 2-3% of that 33%, marriage promotion is not very helpful to these families.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No bodies home!
Posted by: Krain61 on Feb 5, 2007 5:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Catch up with the news? I'm sure there not talking about the TV sets!
We {our government} just will keep building prisons to house the poor
because they had to steal to eat! And our leaders and I say that loosely
keep getting raises...lol
And the states keep taxing us on our smokes and beverages..Who votes this shit in?
They figure{the government} that will give to the poor and the charities if they don't
since we as Americas have always done in the past..See they know we have empathy
and compassion and they know they don't!
And if all who had the money shared with the poor there would be enough to help the
poor and homeless.. But they are either the Government our the engine behind the
Government who find away to screwwwww us..
What I want to know is who of you said they want bush to protect them from the
terrorists? You gave up your FREEDOMS for what Security! You deserve neither!!
The author talks about Charities! We the people who donate are the charities and
so we are complaining but nobody is at home..Maybe ET would be the better one to call!
Because our leaders{into hell} are not listening to us

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gary J Minter
Posted by: garyjminter on Feb 5, 2007 5:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, NGOs should oppose evil actions.

Ralph Nader has been treated poorly and unjustly by many Democrats and especially by the establishment news media, who lack the courage to offend their corporate advertisers...or to give fair coverage to a man like Nader who opposed the US-British invasion of a sovereign nation which never attacked the USA or killed a single US citizen (until, of course, US troops invaded their country, killed many human beings, and captured their President, who was tried and hanged in a shabby, disrespectful manner....)

Although Saddam Hussein was a murdering tyrant, a brutal killer who gassed the Kurds and killed his political rivals, he was America's good buddy during the 1980's, when he was dong all these things with total support from Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and many others in the U.S. government.

How would we like it if foreign troops bombed Washington, D.C., captured George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld, put them on trial for war crimes, and hanged them in a tiny, dirty jail cell?

If the good Democrats like Hilary Clinton, Al Gore, John Edwards, John Kerry, and most others in Congress had listeed to Ralph Nader, we wouldn't be in this mess in Iraq now. Nader was right, they were dead wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves for supporting a lie, an unjust and illegal invasion of another country.

The major US news media should also be ashamed of themselves for failing to allow Ralph Nader, and other responsible third party candidates, to participate in at least one of the Presidential TV debates, so the American public could hear their views, instead of only the pro-neocon propaganda on FOX and the extremely pro-Israel, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim views of the New York Times and other news sources.

Although I used to be President of the Young Democrats in Roanoke, Virginia many years ago, and supported Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and most other Democratic candidates, I felt that the Democratic Party, like the Republican Party, has become dominated by corporate money, and its leaders had forgotten about the regular folks here in the good Ol' USA, and about our tradition of Liberty, and government "of, by, and for the people..."

So I became a Libertarian! I even ran for Congress as a Libertarian in 2002 on an anti-war platform, firmly opposing George W. Bush and friends' planned invasion of Iraq.

But too many of my good Libertarian friends forgot their principles, too, and too many of them supported Bush's invasion of a sovereign nation, Iraq....so I voted absentee from Beijing, where I work now as a teacher, for Ralph Nader, about the only candidate who has shown any true character, honesty, or courage in recent years....and I'll vote for Ralph again, if he runs again!

Sometimes it's better to stand up for your principles and for the truth, than to win an election....

Gary J. Minter
http://aidsvillagechina.blog.sohu.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Heartbreaking
Posted by: petusthefetus on Feb 5, 2007 9:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The statistics offered here outline a beautiful alternative to tearing apart a nation and destroying lives. Imagine, an America (better yet, a World) with universal primary and secondary eductation, permanent housing, and quality healthcare for everyone- now imagine record profits for Exxon Mobil. These two worlds are incompatible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nonprofits
Posted by: marklp on Feb 19, 2007 2:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nonprofits are part of the system though they often try to ameliorate it. That's why they are afraid to speak out on these issues. Not only do they fear retribution from the IRS re: prohibited lobbying activities but they fear retribution from wealthy donors and foundations. We all know that the equivalent of a decade's worth of homeless funds in the form of $12 billion in shrink wrapped bills went missing in Iraq but what good to point it out if it endangers fundraising?

Whatever Roseman thinks about social entrepreneurship it will only be when nonprofits change into more entrepreneurial organizations less dependent on relatively few charitable funders, less bureaucratic, and less afraid will they speak out more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]