I thought that this week’s group of readings was a good illustration of what can happen to nonprofit groups at different ends of the spectrum with the amount of funds they are receiving, and how some are able to adapt to different circumstances and presidential policies. As the O’Neil book was describing, I thought it was interesting just how much spending for welfare services rose and fell since the 1960s. It makes sense however that the amount of funding would increase after World War II and then with the beliefs held by the Reagan administration that it would again drop. I thought it interesting however with the example of the issues that the Auburn Family Residence were facing because of the drop of funding. Our government of course cannot do everything for us, especially when many people do not want a large government. Instead that is where social services are supposed to step in and get to problems faster and without quite as many regulations as the federal government. Yet if the funds are not adequate as they aren’t in the Auburn family, then you have many families living out the winter in extremely cold weather in places barely sheltering them from the elements and more of a health risk than outside. I thought it was also interesting that opposite of this, there are groups that have adapted to the lack of funding and have taken an entrepreneurship approach to the situation and find ways of working for their own funds. The St. Vincent’s reading was extremely interesting that they have been able to bring in revenues like that and are continuing to grow even in the recession and that they are based here in Lane Country. Also I found that it was surprising that it is a nonprofit group that is running out other small business because they have a better advantage than a group from the business sector and are able to get the things they sell at a cheaper rate. I can’t remember ever really hearing about this group, but I think that it’s a great idea to try to refurbish and reuse a lot of the stuff that many people think is just junk and throw away. It was weird hearing about the tables that were being thrown away in England because they couldn’t be resold and how people love them over here and are able to purchase them at a low cost because England just wants to get rid of them and not take them to the junk yard. I feel that more groups and organizations should look to St. Vincent’s as a model, because many people throw things away even if they are still usable and it could have the potential to help furbish shelters and peoples homes but also reduce the amount of waste that is piling up in our dumps.
I agree that it was interesting to read about how political changes effect the existence of social service programs. I thought that the discussion we had in class about health care was really interesting in relation to your comments and the current state of social services. I think the next ten to twenty years of social service and health policy should be very interesting, with an aging population of baby boomers that will be very expensive to care for, the growing social security crisis and the united states massive amounts of debt I wonder what role social services will play in the next ten to twenty years. Our current situation makes me very fearful for the future of social services, which already seem to be very underfunded. I just read an article that said that the BP spill could have totally been prevented had the government program put in place to monitor off shore drilling not been so underfunded. I hope that this is not something that becomes more and more common and I wonder if the roles and responsibilities of nonprofits will need to rapidly grow to compensate for this
ReplyDeleteI met a man from England this summer and he was telling me about how all their old furniture and "antiques" end up here in the United States because people over there do not want them and people here are big fans. And then in England they like all the old America Volkswagen cars and other cars similar to them and you can get a lot more money for them over there then you would in the United States. It is funny to see how people value different things in different places. Just like people put different values on social services. It is crazy that one president can support them and make sure that government is providing them with funds that will help them make a difference and then four years later there is a president who decides to cut the funds. I wish there was a more uniform way to make sure that social services can receive funds but I know that it is just not possible. I know that many might not respond to this question but it makes me ask, if you or any other members of this blog were in charge of government funds how would you allocate the resources to social services? I don't even know where I would begin...
ReplyDeleteI think its a mixed blessing that it is so easy for things to be flipped completely upside down in the coarse of one presidential term. Like you said, Reagan era politics made some interesting changes in the social service industry. Seeing politics play out in real life doesn't always look as good as it does on paper. I say its a mixed blessing because sometimes change is necessary but we need to ease into the change. When you look at the Carter era compared to the Reagan era, their philosophies on social insurance are so different. It would make it hard for one generation to adapt to these.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone was a bit amazed at how industrious the people over at St. Vincent De Paul's. You commented on the point that England wants to get rid of their junk and not send it to land fills. It would be interesting to see what kind of laws they have around that because the article said they had to pay some sort of disposal tax. Looking at other countries approach to this sorts of things are always interesting to compare and contrast. One of the students in class commented on how in Norway they have clinics where you can get fresh needles and heroin. He also said that this has greatly reduced the country's heroin use. Thats why I would be interested in seeing England's reasoning on that particular taxation.