The Importance of Informing the Public

While reading chapter 2 in the Forces for Good text, I continuously thought about how important it is to keep the public informed. It made me think of the social media discussions we had in class. So many people are completely unaware of programs that they may be eligible for that can drastically change their situation. There are numerous opportunities for people to gain access to various services and they are not even aware that they exist.

The majority of the people I work with at the health department work with a grant program for cancer patients. Before I started working there I had no idea that this program existed. They have so much money to offer cancer patients and most people qualify (regardless of their income). The two qualifying factors are age and lack of insurance. Each time a person calls inquiring about this service, the staff asks them how they heard about the program. In order to best serve the community, it is imperative that they know the best way to inform people of the services.

If people see how big of an impact a certain organization makes in the community/society, they are more apt to act and join in a cause. As stated by the authors, "Policy reform sends a signal to the nation that the changes these organizations propose are important enough for society as a whole to adopt." (p. 43) If an organization has a lot of advocates they are much more likely to have an impact on a larger scale.

Are Organizations Providing Solutions to a Problem or Just Fixing it for Now?

In chapter two of Forces for Good, the authors talked lot about the different types of social programs available for people in need. The more I read about what these different organizations were doing to serve different needs, and thought about how much money collectively organizations spend, the more I felt like organizations are missing the bigger picture. The authors stated in chapter one that the organizations identified in their book as high-impact nonprofits "Don't want simply to apply social Band-Aids, but rather to attack and eliminate the root causes of social ills" (p. 24). However, I keep questioning whether or not organizations are providing solutions to a problem or just fixing it for now?

Here is an example: This summer I went to a United Way conference featuring a presentation by a representative from the NYS Board of Education. The representative talked about requiring more teacher training and more funding to underprivileged schools to improve student education. As I listened to this man I thought to myself, why is he so sure that money and teachers are the problem. Even the best teacher, the best textbook, and the best technology will not improve the education of a student who cannot concentrate enough to learn because he or she goes home to an abusive family or comes to school hungry because the parents cannot afford enough food. Is the NYS Board of Education providing a solution or just masking over a problem? I thought about other solutions that help improve education... there are programs that provide counseling to abusive parents and schools provide free meals to students who are less fortunate, but again I question whether these programs are solutions or fixes. Providing free meals will eliminate students' hunger but it will not make it so parents can afford food. So shouldn't the bigger focus be on how can we stop the cycle of abuse, of hunger, of poor?

Here is an example from the book: As discussed in Forces for Good, Self-Help provides loans to low-income families and even was successful at passing legislation to eliminate abusive lending practices, but this doesn't solve the problem that there are families struggling with low-incomes...

I feel discouraged because even if organizations advocate for a cause(and I fully support nonprofit advocacy, because I think nonprofits know best what specific populations need) and are successful at creating a new law in support of customers' needs, it doesn't guarantee a solution. I am usually the first to say that if we make a difference in just one person's life than that is enough, but after reading chapter two and thinking about all of the resources organizations have, I am not so sure if it is enough if we could be doing more.

I think this chapter should have made me hopeful about the things nonprofits could do with the use of advocacy but it had the reverse effect. What does everyone else think? Have nonprofits truly identified the root causes? Can we ever do enough? How?

Fighting Tax Cap with Advocacy?

2% Tax Cap

Above is a link to an article in the Press & Sun Bulletin about Governor Cuomo’s proposed two percent property tax cap. While it may not seem all that relevant to this week’s topic, advocacy, I personally believe it is. In the article, there are discussions of potential service cuts that will be required if the cap is implemented. While the article states that school programs such as modified sports may be cut, it is likely that tutoring and other services may be eliminated as well (reductions in teaching staff are also noted.) Therefore, the burden of offering such services will fall to nonprofit organizations seeking to serve these students. Clearly, with proposed cuts across the board, nonprofits are going to have to advocate frequently and effectively in order to gain the support they require. In building on our earlier discussions of evaluation, these organizations are going to be required to present information explaining their ability to positively impact those they serve, if they hope to gain support as well.

*For those of you who think I’ve lost my mind, I haven’t, the idea of limiting how much property taxes can be increased does sound appealing to me as well (and I don’t even pay them…but my parents would be less grumpy a few day out of the year)*

Tree Hugging

This week's readings prompted me to explore some of the websites for the organizations identified as Forces for Good. In particular, as the book asserts that all are involved in policy advocacy, I was interested in the particular approaches each organization takes. The logic behind why nonprofits should engage in policy work seems to make sense, but the ways in which that works were not really detailed. Again, it seems like a "luck" thing to have an "in" with your representatives and be able to make connections.

After looking at a few of the websites, I was most impressed by the Environmental Defense's "What You Can Do" section. Some of the organizations had little to no information on their policy work and others wanted my e-mail address for soliciatations just so I could complete a survey or sign a petition. However, the Environmental Defense page has specific campaigns they are currently working on related to a variety of environmental issues, thus appealing to people with different interests. Additionally, the page is full of information about the issues. Some other organizations had small fact blocks or statistics, but the Envronmental Defense page provides both short facts and longer explanations of what the issues are and what the organization is lobbying for related to those issues. Very in-tune with our discussions in the beginning of the semester, the website has a mirage of social media links - Facebook, Twitter, blogs, online newsletters, e-cards for friends, etc. and even a "social networking toolkit" which enables you to use your account on social media sites to share information about Environmental Defense.

Related to the reading, what I thought was most helpful in exploring the Environmental Defense website was its obvious strategy behind policy work. A lot of times I have only witnessed the "grassroots" policy lobbying where a group of people seem to just wake up and decide to protest for a week until they get the results they are looking for. However, it was encouraging to see the way that Environmental Defense has clearly committed to policy advocacy, created a plan for doing so, and chosen effective ways to use social media to aid in accomplishing its goals.

How to Build Non-profit Education Website in China

One of my sisters wants to further her study in United States next fall semester. Since the end of last years, she got the help from Three Chinese bbs website a lot: Taisha (http://www.taisha.org/bbs/), Jituo (http://bbs.gter.net/bbs/), and Chasedream (http://forum.chasedream.com/). Their target group is those people who have wills to study abroad,especially college students. The first one is built under the biggest international study agency in China. The last two are totally non-profit educational website. They provide all Chinese students a communication platform, sharing examinations and application, and provided free helps from others. I couldn't help wonder, in China, why these three websites succeed and some others failed.

Let's begin with the theories. In the book Forces for Good, authors summarized that great social sector organizations do the following six things: 1. Advocate and serve, 2. Make markets work, 3. Inspire evangelists, 4. Nurture nonprofit networks, 5. Master the art of adaptation, 6. Share leadership. They also say that greatness has more to do with how nonprofits work outside the boundaries of their organizations than how they manage their own internal operations.

The major mission for every non-profit organization and public organization is providing services, from individual to community.

According to the three bbs websites mentioned in the first paragraph, I could say their job can meet those six criteria. More interesting, their operational systems are relative the same. All the pages or topic moderators are volunteers. They manages the on-line discussion and documents sharing. For the information websites provide are practical and the discussions are free, they all increase their reputations in a very short time. They use business operation theory to manage websites. This is another secret for their success.

According their example, let's analyze other relative websites in China. Lacking of actionable mission and effective management strategy is the basic reason for their failure. Some of them only aim to provide help without considering whether the help is needed. Some others emphasize or limited by professional boundaries, but ignore the potential interdisciplinary researches. Non-profit educational website has signification development spaces in China. It provide everyone an equal opportunity to learn and share what they know. Relating to the trend that universities put their famous courses videos on line freely, Chinese educational professionals will notice this field.

Organizational "Success": What would happen if a nonprofit reached its vision?

While reading chapter two of Forces for Good, I was won over by the success stories of the featured organizations. It seems that an organization does have the best chance of creating major, far-reaching change by combining both service and advocacy. As Crutchfield and Grant write, the organizations are "focused on creating solutions rather than on simply drawing attention to problems" (47). Using both advocacy tactics and implementing service programs that seek to solve the issue move toward completing the agencies ultimate vision much more quickly and effectively than using just one tactic could.

This led me to consider organizations such as Meals on Wheels, which I was researching over the weekend. Meals on Wheels has set a distinct goal to be completed in the next ten years; according to their national website, the organization's vision is to "end senior hunger by 2020," and its mission is to "provide national leadership to end senior hunger." (Meals on Wheels Association of America) While this in itself is a lofty goal, the organization's use of both advocacy and service do make ending senior hunger a possible success in the future.

Hypothetically, I wonder what it would mean for an organization to have actually fulfilled its mission and vision? Would an organization such as Meals on Wheels alter its mission to advocate for other senior needs? Or would it continue to provide its current services to seniors who still rely on them, while having less "impact" on policies involving senior hunger? It is interesting to think about.

What’s Next? - Beyond Social Media and Watson

We have learned that social media is a big deal, gaining massive international presence rapidly. And we’ve seen the dominance of an artificial intelligence system, defeating America’s finest Jeopardy! contestants. So what is next? Do we expect the nonprofit sector (and society) to remain much the same? Will Facebook remain relevant for decades, or will it be replaced by something more profound?

To get a glimpse of current technological developments, and to explain my demonstrated interest in technology, I suggest watching a few PBS programs. PBS, a nonprofit organization, has some excellent edutainment. In particular, Nova has provided wonderful programming for quite some time. No, I am not asking you to donate to public broadcasting, though future government funding is questionable. I recommend watching these recent Nova episodes:

‘NOVA – Making Things’ with New York Times columnist David Pogue, is a four-part series which focuses on the science of materials. I suggest watching the episode ‘Making Things: Smaller’ first. http://video.pbs.org/program/979359664/

The fifth season of ‘NOVA – Science Now’ with astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, is a six-part series in which each episode focuses on answering a question (a “big” question). http://video.pbs.org/program/979359667/

The full episodes are about 53 minutes each (click the ‘more full videos’ tab if you cannot find all of the referenced episodes). Quite long for some of us, but worth the time. Consider watching at least ‘Making Things: Smaller.’ I am sharing this post (like my others) as it includes relevant substance I wish to share. PBS agrees and “viewers like you” directly (and the rest of us indirectly through the government) fund the organization. Go ahead and observe the fruits of your contributions. As stakeholders, it is in our interest in more than one way.

It Is Always Difficult to Start

In this week’s reading, the second chapter of “forces for good”, it talks about how to make maximum social impact: through combining service and advocacy. In the chapter, it introduces us three ways to bridge the divide. One is starting from direct service to advocacy; another is from advocacy to direct service; the other is from combining both from the beginning. In this chapter, it also tells us that it is only through advocacy can a nonprofit make large-scale social change.
When we talk about a nonprofit in class, our first concern is often about the social impact it has made or can make. When we define a successful social entrepreneur, the first thing we mention is always the impact that the person has made on the society.
Therefore, I couldn’t help wonder, if almost every nonprofit’s goal is to make social impact, why some would start from direct service? Why not start with advocacy? We have many successful examples of nonprofits that start with advocacy. So why not use their stories of success as a reference when starting a nonprofit? Or is there some kind of reality concern that make some nonprofits choose the other way around or starting from combining service and advocacy? What is the standard to help a nonprofit choose its path? How can a potential social entrepreneur know in what way to start a nonprofit? Even when they are doing well in the first stage, when can they know it’s time for bridging the divide?
I would love to hear from you guys.

Is the Book Title Fitting? Possible Sensationalism?

In this week’s readings, the authors endorse political activity as an advocacy strategy. Though I appreciate the perceived connection between political sponsorship and enhanced program capacity, we must ask ourselves if it is in our collective interest to encourage more participation in our traditional political process. The authors cite the need to compromise and concede a bit, though not to go so far as to “sell oneself.” However, is there a clear boundary between integrity and political toxicity? Is more political activity just what we need, as the remedy to our concerns, or rather does it exacerbate problems? Perhaps participation in our current political forum deters change, where concessions are necessary to gain some semblance of success amongst the adversarial muck, thus perpetuating the failing system of “selling out” for quarreling (capital) interests.

With the urgency of now, we really need advancement. Otherwise, the Middle-East uprisings will not appear so foreign. Does Gov. Walker’s recent prank telephone conversation not help our confidence in the political system? It is yet another example to add to the mounting heap of ugliness.

I, too, would like to revisit The Heritage Foundation this week. Building on Kate’s prior post, through deliberately advocating for outdated and prejudiced values, the time and attention heeded to such arguments depletes our joint opportunity to focus on more pressing issues. This stunts and complicates progress, as it will become that much more difficult and socially deleterious to maintain antiquated positions in our rapidly evolving world. Though I do not advocate quelling certain speech, I am nonetheless under the impression that the purpose of public service is to advance the collective interest. Obstinately advocating habitual and discriminatory positions, amid growing support in their opposition, is irresponsible given that we would otherwise apply our resources to more urgent foreign and domestic issues. A case embodying such change is the federal government’s recent policy change regarding the institution of marriage:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110223/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage

Simply stated, debating some issues is wasteful and a hindrance to advancement. I would not define such activity as emanating from a “force for good.” Also in the second chapter, Crutchfield and McLeod Grant stress the importance of appealing to the political center, rather than advancing polarizing positions. I perceive the book’s dissonance. I suppose the authors cover themselves by stating that high-impact nonprofits are messy at times. So what do we derive from the book? That we can be messy, highly controversial, political animals and still gain praise? That we may make integrity a lower priority?

Nonprofit Advocacy: A factor that can determine the fate of a new nonprofit and longevity of an existing one

As noted in chapter 13 of The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management, as a former community-organizer, President Obama once stated that “organizing begins with the premise that (1) the problems facing inner-city communities do not result from a lack of effective solutions, but from a lack of power to implement these solutions(Avner,367)”. Based upon my experience in Buffalo, New York, I find this to be true. I have come across a couple of innovative programs that have produced an impact in the inner-city. However, the programs lack of power has made some short-term. The difference between failed innovative programs and the high-impact nonprofits discussed in Forces for Good is power. If the failed innovative program organized their efforts and attempted to balance both direct service and advocacy, than possibly the program could have expanded to become an actual effective nonprofit.


In order for an innovative nonprofit to exist, advocacy must be implemented. Nonprofit advocacy brings awareness to the general public of an organization’s solution to societal problems. Awareness can generate power by encouraging funders, providers and even beneficiaries to participate in a nonprofit. What good is it of an innovative idea when people are not aware of it? Implementation of innovative public service ideas are often linked to the nation’s capital, Washington D.C. As noted by Crutchfield and Grant in Forces for Good, 11 of the 12 high-impact nonprofits they studied have a strong D.C. presence (50). Based on this fact, a potentially effective innovative nonprofit should engage in advocacy. If a nonprofit is clear about its mission and vision, than there should not be any discrepancies on advocating on the beneficiaries behalf. For instance, National Council of La Raza (NCLR) has existed for several decades. The nonprofit has always been clear to funders particularly corporate partners that they only take positions that make sense for the Latino community. As former senior vice president Emily Gantz McCay stated “we are always clear about being an advocacy group first” (Crutchfield and Grant, 45). Such advocacy efforts have allowed the organization to continue to provide direct service to their beneficiaries. Without such efforts, the organization would have simply been another short-term nonprofit.

An Idea: Only as Strong as Those Who Support It?

For me, this week's readings really struck a chord. First, I was not aware of the extent that nonprofits, specifically 501 (c) (3)'s, could advocate or lobby in seeking to spread their mission or interests. As I commented Xiaofei's blog, I think that a lot of nonprofits are successful in instigating social impact on a local level, but lack the means to bring broaden their mission or ideas (another problem of resources). Indeed, a lot of the 'social entrepreneurs' we read about last semester were not using ground-breaking innovations to achieve broad social change, but rather, were successful in organizing and advocating for their cause on a bigger stage. To me, an idea is only as powerful as the people support it, either through influence or number. An idea can be great and revolutionary, but if it remains in obscurity, it might might not gain the respect and attention it might deserve. Thus, advocacy is a necessary component to disseminate and mobilize support for socially progressive ideas or "blueprints"(Bornstein book) that could achieve broad social impact.

I am interested to hear what you guys think about this. Do you think it is more important for nonprofits to participate in advocacy, especially considering the higher level and amount of lobbying in contemporary society? Should similarly oriented nonprofits band together to advocate for social change, especially considering their substantial financial disadvantage in comparison with the for-profit sector?

Personally, I think advocacy will become more important as we move into the future. This obviously has implications for all of us, who hope to serve the public through nonprofits.

A Trend or A Choice?

I still remember the Stanford Social Innovation Review Podcast that we listened to last semester which talked about cross-section collaboration with business sectors. It seems to be a good choice to involve cross-section collaboration to enhance effectiveness and efficiency. In chapter two of this book, Forces for Good, Crutchfield and Grant suggest nonprofit organizations to combine advocacy and service and provide three ways to bridge the divide. (It seems that people involved nonprofit area need to seek opportunity in all the other areas. I’m actually very curious about whether MBA students learn how to collaborate with nonprofit organizations or government, or they just focus on their own business? It’s off the topic anyway.)

The three models to bridge the divide of service and advocacy is very interesting to me. It seems like the two models — “Start with service, add advocacy” and “Start with advocacy, add service” — are not supposed to combine service and advocacy consciously. It’s more like a trend or a unpredicted event which lead them to bridge service with advocacy. For America’s Second Harvest, the defining event came when Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) was threatened to be cut completely (p.38). In Environmental Defense’s case, they started to follow the trend after they sued companies and government agencies to end the practice to stop the use of the pesticide DDT. On the other hand, those organization which “combine service and advocacy from the outset” seems to make up their mind to bridge the divide in their strategic plan. The National Council of La Raza, for example, had a vision of both “strengthening communities and advocating for larger policy change” (p.44) from the outset. The cases in this book are all successful organizations. However, they went through quite different experiences to achieve the same goal: bridge the divide of advocacy and service.

It’s still unclear to me that how to bridge the divide since it seems each way of the three can lead to success. If we start from service, when should we add advocacy? Do we just wait till the defining event come which will lead us to the trend (and vise versa)? If we start from combining, how can we be sure that our effort will lead us to a good result? Even though I understand that advocacy would be worth doing after reading this chapter, I would question the topic when put it into implementation.

What We Can Learn From "Texas Beer Freedom"

I should start by saying that I never thought I would write a blog post with the word "beer" in the title; however, when I came across this article in the New York Times about a nonprofit lobbying organization in Texas called "Texas Beer Freedom," I wanted to share it with all of you. I think it is an interesting example of a nonprofit that is using grassroots organizing to advocate for the passage of a bill (House Bill 660) that would allow small beer brewers to "increase production, sell to beer distributors and sell directly to stores and restaurants," which is something that small brewers in Texas are currently prohibited from doing.

The organizations' recognition of the importance of "targeting supporters, recruiting supporters, engaging supporters, [and] mobilizing the base" (Avner, 2010) is evident in its social networking efforts and public rallies. In addition, the organization has made good use of media advocacy. Its good use of media advocacy is illustrated not only in its ability to get its story published in the New York Times, but also in its use of social media to increase support for its cause - (yes, it has a Facebook page. Here's the link to it, if you're interested).

Something that was perhaps even more surprising to me than the fact that a beer-related nonprofit lobbying organization exists was the Texas Beer Freedom website, which is very user-friendly and well-suited to its organizing efforts. A quick scan of the website reveals that there are links that people can use to write to a representative and sign a petition in favor of the passage of the bill. In addition, there is another link that people can click to get ideas for organizing an event to promote the passage of the bill, and a note on the bottom of the page for people interested in organizing an event that states that there will soon be "an event packet available for download that includes a hard copy petition, talking points, and more." And that's not all! The organization even has its Twitter feed directly on its website, as well as front-and-center links to its Facebook and Twitter pages, under a caption that urges people to "Join the cause!"

Although Texas Beer Freedom is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization, as opposed to a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, I think that many charitable organizations could learn from its advocacy efforts. It's impressive that such a relatively small organization can potentially stand up to the mighty beer distribution lobby, all because of its grassroots organizing and media advocacy.

Advocacy as a Networking Tool

In addition to advocacy, which we read about in chapter 2 this week, Crutchfield and Grant state that networking is also an important tool for high-impact organizations. I was really impressed with how advocacy combined with networking for Self-Help. They were able to join forces with NAACP, AARP, and local credit unions and churches. Because they were advocating, they were able to network with powerful national lobby groups and local NPOs; That is a great range of organizations to become associated with.

Can advocacy also be used as a networking tool? Would you try to utilize advocacy as part of a strategy for networking? How would you do it?

For the Tioga County Historical Society (TCHS) I would try to join forces with local schools, Homeschool groups, antique dealers, collectors, and auction houses, Fire and Police departments, cultural associations, local manufacturing and agriculture groups, and libraries to name a few. All of these groups are local and have history to share with others and preserve for the future. The TCHS has a very rich networking pool to join forces with. Currently we do not engage in any advocacy work at all. Hiring policy experience is not currently an expense we can consider, but I will bring up advocacy at the next board meeting.

I also decided to google "Museum Advocacy" to see what others have done and found out that there is a "Museums Advocacy Day" in Washington, DC which actually happens to be three days between February 28-March 1, 2011. If possible, I hope to attend in the near future because it gives the opportunities of meeting with other museum supporters and professionals, a working lunch with your state delegation, and a variety of guest speakers to learn from. The Ameican Association of Museums has a great list of museum issues here.