To some, the statement may sound radical, but to me, it is simply logical. I support the abolition of human welfare-based non-profits. At this current moment in time, I believe they must exist, as they provide of vital service. But, I think that as a society, it is our responsibility to limit the vitality, and eventually the existence, of these non-profit organizations. Continuing to rely on non-profits is like putting an ice pack on a broken bone; it may help relieve some of the immediate pain, but without further attention and help, it will never truly heal. The system must change. The current institutional system of inequality will never allow this society to progress to its full potential as long as it continually oppresses and restricts a large sector of the population, obstructing their ability to reach greater heights. The government needs to restructure its budget and begin investing in social policies and programs that will remedy these imbalances. It is the most impactful, efficient, and long-lasting way to create justice for all. Without significant changes, these problems and inequalities will continue to persist, regardless of the efforts of non-profits.
It is the job of the government to ensure a human’s right to live, and live with dignity and opportunity. It is within the social contract we all live by. Article 25 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights claims that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.” All people deserve health and the basic needs that support it, and the government and our economic structure must do a better job of guaranteeing it to all citizens.
Philanthropic organizations have helped keep people safe and healthy throughout history. However, this obligation should not be so dependent on private citizens. The government, on all its level, needs to begin making more direct steps in improving the welfare of its people. And while the government contributes to a great deal of human welfare programs, they are not doing it in the most effective or ethical matter. Currently, the government assists human welfare programs by giving grants to non-profit organizations, but I do not believe this is a healthy system. As I talked about in a previous blog comment, these grantships contribute to the non-profit industrial complex (NPIC). The NPIC is the “system [that] forces nonprofits to professionalize, wherein they must focus on maintaining their funding sources rather than fulfilling their mission,” (Samimi, 2013). It creates a situation that forces allocation of resources towards marketing and fundraising, opposed to the cause at hand. This can be detrimental when human life and well-being is the concern. This capitalist-fueled competitive complex inherently forms this idea of winners and losers, and removes the personal from philanthropy. It is a hierarchy that we must rebuke, as all people are equal and deserving of dignity and respect.
I feel a certain uncomfortability with the competitive nature of this class. I worry about the savorism complex it may bring on, as the bearers of money and power. I worry how it may reinstate the notion that we, as the elite college educated, know best about how to help a community, despite most of us not living here for very long. I worry as decision time nears, this will inadvertently become a game of America’s Next Top Charity. But the truth is that all of these organizations are important. All help improve lives. As we get closer to decision time, I hope we do not get distracted from the larger fact that these problems we are fighting are problems that should not exist, or at least not to the extent that they do. While governmental programs and a redistribution of wealth may not be the be-all-end-all answer, it would even the playing field more substantially than non-profits have the ability to. It would help eliminate the NPIC, which pits cause against cause and takes away resources from direct actions. This idea of abolition isn’t a philosophical, far-fetched pipe dream. Contrarily, this is a achievable mission, if we are willing to make significant changes that create the possibility of welfare and dignity for all. Redistribution will create equity, an equity we do not currently have. Today, non-profits are an incredibly important and necessary resource for people. Yet, in some tomorrow, I hope that they are not needed.
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
http://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/2010NPIndudtrialComplex.pdf
It is the job of the government to ensure a human’s right to live, and live with dignity and opportunity. It is within the social contract we all live by. Article 25 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights claims that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.” All people deserve health and the basic needs that support it, and the government and our economic structure must do a better job of guaranteeing it to all citizens.
Philanthropic organizations have helped keep people safe and healthy throughout history. However, this obligation should not be so dependent on private citizens. The government, on all its level, needs to begin making more direct steps in improving the welfare of its people. And while the government contributes to a great deal of human welfare programs, they are not doing it in the most effective or ethical matter. Currently, the government assists human welfare programs by giving grants to non-profit organizations, but I do not believe this is a healthy system. As I talked about in a previous blog comment, these grantships contribute to the non-profit industrial complex (NPIC). The NPIC is the “system [that] forces nonprofits to professionalize, wherein they must focus on maintaining their funding sources rather than fulfilling their mission,” (Samimi, 2013). It creates a situation that forces allocation of resources towards marketing and fundraising, opposed to the cause at hand. This can be detrimental when human life and well-being is the concern. This capitalist-fueled competitive complex inherently forms this idea of winners and losers, and removes the personal from philanthropy. It is a hierarchy that we must rebuke, as all people are equal and deserving of dignity and respect.
I feel a certain uncomfortability with the competitive nature of this class. I worry about the savorism complex it may bring on, as the bearers of money and power. I worry how it may reinstate the notion that we, as the elite college educated, know best about how to help a community, despite most of us not living here for very long. I worry as decision time nears, this will inadvertently become a game of America’s Next Top Charity. But the truth is that all of these organizations are important. All help improve lives. As we get closer to decision time, I hope we do not get distracted from the larger fact that these problems we are fighting are problems that should not exist, or at least not to the extent that they do. While governmental programs and a redistribution of wealth may not be the be-all-end-all answer, it would even the playing field more substantially than non-profits have the ability to. It would help eliminate the NPIC, which pits cause against cause and takes away resources from direct actions. This idea of abolition isn’t a philosophical, far-fetched pipe dream. Contrarily, this is a achievable mission, if we are willing to make significant changes that create the possibility of welfare and dignity for all. Redistribution will create equity, an equity we do not currently have. Today, non-profits are an incredibly important and necessary resource for people. Yet, in some tomorrow, I hope that they are not needed.
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
http://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/2010NPIndudtrialComplex.pdf
Hi Hannah!
ReplyDeleteFirst, your blog post was incredibly enticing! While I might not agree with everything said, I immediately clicked to read it when I saw that it was up on the blog. I appreciate how you acknowledge the shock value of your statement right off the bat, saying how it does sound radical, but how it's not to you.
Next you state, "Without significant changes, these problems and inequalities will continue to persist, regardless of the efforts of non-profits." My question in regards to this statement is: What about the non-profits whose main mission is to end the institutionalized, systematic nature of society. Stating they'll never heal our society,
prevents them from having the ability to do so. If they are cut off from funding, they may never be able to achieve this goal; that is what i feel is at the heart of why people like myself feel that this is a radical statement.
That being said, I hear you in the desire for wanting a more tangible method for the creation of change. But, at least for right now, I feel that the non profit world is the best way to go about this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo add to my previous comment:
ReplyDeleteAt least in its current state, being brutally honest, I do not trust that the government will adequately care for my needs without the pressure from the non-profit world. I guess I could be considered a skeptic, but since it's 2019 and the U.S. still faces major human rights issues, I think we will be needing welfare organizations for a while. That is unless the system is fixed a lot faster than I feel that it is moving right now, at least. Yes it may be the job of the government, but that does not mean that they will follow through with it. (I acknowledge that my view may be seen as very cynical.)
Hannah, I greatly appreciate the candidness of this blog post. You are not afraid to speak your opinion, something I find very honorable. In regards to your blog post, I have always found it concerning that a lot of the welfare programs in the country are non-profits. It is concerning to me because, although there are large non-profit organizations that can help many people, there are also many small organizations that don't necessarily have the funds to help as many people as they would like. I agree that the government should take on some of the responsibility, and your inclusion of Article 25 from the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes this argument even stronger. I do think it will take a very long time for this change to occur because people get to choose if they donate to nonprofits, but if the government were to create nationwide programs, everyone would be paying through their tax dollars. This is obviously a prime example of the inequality present in our country, but it will take a lot of work to convince people to change their way of thinking.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I am choosing to comment on this blog post though is because of the second half of what you wrote. I very much share the fear you have about the way the class is making the decision. I didn't really know what exactly I would be getting into when I signed up for the class, but now as the semester has progressed I almost have a pit in my stomach everytime I think about the final decision. As you mentioned, there are real human lives on the line, and there is no one problem more important than the other. This thought is even further instilled by the needs' assessment, where we saw that Broome County has many areas that are in great need. I have felt slightly uncomfortable at the two site-visits we have had so far because I feel like we are making them audition for us, which follows your idea of America's Next Top Charity. In the car ride home from STAP the other day and in one of my previous blog comments I have said how I wish we could give the money to all 5 of the organizations, because I genuinely think all 5 are equally deserving and there is no "right" decision. And I keep thinking about the people who will be affected if we don't give the money to that organization. Maybe I just have an instrinsic need to help others around me, but I just hope the class remembers that we are dealing with real issues, and to not get too caught up in thinking that we have the "power."
Again, I think you for this blog post because I think it might open many people's eyes.
Jillian Vargas
Hi Hannah,
ReplyDeleteAs others have stated, I appreciate your openness and honesty from the beginning of this post. However, it is the last paragraph of your post that I would like to respond to. When I think about our class making our final decision, I keep thinking back to the phrase "nothing about us without us." Although I first learned about this concept while studying the rights of people with disabilities, I think that it can and should be applied to our class as well. If you truly aim to help an individual or a specific population, it is important to consult with them on what they need, rather than merely provide what you assume they need. As you mentioned, the majority of us are quite new to Broome County. It would be incredibly arrogant to think that we, with the limited information we have, know what's best for the residents of the area. Consulting the needs assessment was certainly a good place to start, but in my opinion it isn't enough. I think that it is important that we find a way to get input from community members who are not affiliated with these five organizations. If we fail to do so, we further endorse the saviorism complex you mentioned.
These organizations are all great organizations that seem to be doing the most good possible with the funds that they have. I don't think that any of them would be a bad choice and I know that they would all be able to better serve the community with more funding. But I am graduating and I will not be residing in Broome County come May. Although my opinion on which organization we choose may have value in the terms of our class, I will most likely not have any interaction with these organizations when my time at Binghamton is over. We should consult with people who will be living in this area for years to come and will be able to benefit from the services our finalist organizations provide. Although some students in our class are from the area, the majority of Binghamton students only sees bits and pieces of what residing in this county may be like. I am urging our class to look outside of ourselves and our preferences and consult with those who can help us to make the most informed beneficial decision possible.
Mary Kate Keane
Hannah,
ReplyDeleteI agree that there are many problems with our system, but I find it hard to see a future where non-profits are obsolete. I think it would be extremely difficult and very controversial for the government to take direct control of the duties of non-profits. And even if that were to happen, there will always be issues and causes that are unfunded or underfunded by the government which will need to be taken care by private non-profits (for example, religious organizations). The system isn't perfect and there are plenty of problems, but I don't believe abolishing non-profits would cause change for the better. I would even argue that while non-profits have to spend resources on securing donations, the struggle for funding leads to innovation and forces the organizations to continue to improve.
You also say that you are uncomfortable with the competitive nature of the class, but I don't really see any other way the class could be run. Our goal is to invest the money given to us in the most effective way possible, and I believe that our careful consideration of every aspect of Binghamton's local non-profits is a great way to do just that. I agree that every organization is important and helps improve lives, but I see that as a positive. While I might prefer one organization over another, our donation will positively contribute to Broome County no matter who we end up choosing.
-Adiel Felsen
Hi Hannah,
ReplyDeleteAs soon as I saw the title of your post, I could tell that this would be a raw and provocative article. Upon reading it, I think you bring up a few good points. I agree that in many aspects the government fails to provide for the welfare of people, and that charities should not be so heavily relied on to solve global crises. However, my opinion deviates from yours on many of your statements as well.
First, although I agree that individual charities cannot solve a massive welfare problem such as poverty, unemployment or healthcare, I believe that if enough charities have the same aim, they can make a significant difference. Not every issue can be solved by government funding, as there are just too many issues that it would be impossible. The government is already about 22.2 trillion dollars in debt and without the help of charities to fill in the gaps the government would collapse.
As for the NPIC complex, I believe that this is inevitable with or without government grants. A fundamental part of being a charity is fundraising. Even if the government were to multiply the amount of grants it gives to non-profits, it would never be enough to cover every single issue, therefore charities will still be campaigning for funding and the NPIC complex can never be resolved. Although every person does indeed deserve dignity and respect, I don’t think trying to change the entire economic system will fix this; it is in theory a brilliant idea, but it is just too unrealistic.
Finally, I would have to disagree about the elitism you mentioned of our class’ goal. I think that we deserve to have a say in where the Learning by Giving foundation’s money goes, as we take into consideration many different issues facing Broome county. I think our class’ nature is not so much competitive as a debate. As class of diverse opinions, we all value different things and all try to make a case for it. Though we have not lived here for long, we are all doing our best to understand what we can do to make the biggest impact to help this community that we care about.
Overall, I think this post is a starting point for a good discussion as I’m sure many people have polarizing opinions about government funding and how much it should play a role in solving America’s issues. I would love to hear more about what other people think about this topic, and possibly cover it more in class.
- Sara Baldwin
Dear Hannah,
ReplyDeleteI agree that our current situation is not ideal. We should not have to rely on nonprofits to keep our society healthy. In addition, I agree that the government should take a more active role in replacing these nonprofits with their own programs. Finally, I agree that the competitive nature of nonprofits can at times be detrimental to society as a whole. I doesn't help that a large majority of donations are controlled by a very wealthy elite. This makes it so these donations may not reflect the needs of society as a whole.
However, I disagree with your assertion that removing all nonprofits is the way to go. The benefits of these nonprofits certainly outweigh the cons, and they are an overall boon on our society. I also disagree with the idea that the government should completely replace these nonprofits with their own programs. I believe that the government would remain just as complacent as they are now, but with no nonprofits to pick up the slack. At the current time, the situation we have created is the best we can think of. While your metaphor of nonprofits being an "ice pack on a broken bone" is accurate, it is the best choice we have.
Though we may disagree on some things, I am still inspired by your idealistic view of a more fair division of resources in our society. I hope we can come closer to this ideal over time.
- Christian Sayage
Hannah,
ReplyDeleteI was intrigued by your argument, and I always appreciate a perspective that tries to holistically examine the situation. With this being said, I do see this argument as a critical challenge to the economic functioning of the U.S. government, and possibly even the entire economic societal structure that exists now. Disparity among race and income level is a major concern that should be addressed on a governmental level, but I think it would receive some other major blowback in a bipartisan federal setting. Adopting changes as extreme as the expansion of social welfare programs to an extent so as to eliminate the need for nonprofits would not likely be accepted by many people in office.
The challenge of "redistribution" that you mentioned will likely not sit with many Americans. Earlier in the semester the class talked about privilege, and it is something that everyone should take a step back from every now and then to think about. Most of us are privileged, and while it is a crucial step to admit this before change can be made, it can't be neglected that there are people who have worked hard for their money and that, as much as we would like it to be, it is of no matter of our control as to where the money goes. I am in favor of redistributing opportunity, but to redistribute wealth on a scale so great in a country that was once known for giving people the "American Dream" not only seems far-fetched but also seems like a retaliation on capitalism, and that is an idea that I can't imagine being well-received by many politicians or Americans.
Almost every part of the world experiences need. The charities of the United States see need, they work to meet this need, and they don't always succeed, but a full-scale intervention by the government to reduce the need will not be met with much support either. I understand the argument that there are institutional issues, so what might be more effective is rallying for equal opportunity legislation and for charities to evaluate not just what might eliminate need, but for them to think in the long term of solutions to the gaps in opportunity that exist. This might be a more practical solution to what I would consider a more radical and unlikely process of government involvement at such an incredible financial magnitude.
Hi Hannah,
ReplyDeleteAs always, this was amazingly eloquent and well-written. I really appreciate your passion, as well as your criticism of the NPIC. I think it's very important that we think critically about the society we exist in, as it is made up of individuals. As idealistic as it may sound, I really believe we can and must reform our social welfare programs. If you believe in this but argue it's unrealistic, then that's just defeatist.
I really appreciate how you said, “It is the job of the government to ensure a human’s right to live, and live with dignity and opportunity”. This is something I argued in my very first paper, about my philanthropic philosophy. To reiterate what I wrote, I believe society is made to help others. Since pre-historic times, humans joined together in communities to protect its vulnerable populations. There is even archaeological evidence that shows early communities supporting a physically disabled member. As these were hunter-gatherer times, you would think that those not able to work would be discarded from society. However, that’s simply not true. I may be an optimist, but I believe that at its core, society is a force for good. Today, society largely takes the form of our government and its policies.
I hope one day it is not a radical statement to say all people deserve a decent life, from housing to healthcare to happiness. I hope one day we can distribute our wealth to give equal opportunities for all. I do believe that non-profits today fill a need, but are not the most effective way to do so. Built into the structure of non-profits is inefficiency. Organizations have to advertise, market, and fall into the trap of “winners” and “losers”. I believe your blog post is immensely important. These ideas need to be spread so when the opportunity presents itself, we can reform the social welfare system. Until then, we need to support our non-profits, but its important that we remain thoughtful, critical, and hopeful.
--
Becca Marcus