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?
Rebecca,
ReplyDeleteI found your post very interesting. I think that in several ways, you are right. The point you made about the factors that influence students’ education is a good one. I agree with you that there are many factors influencing students’ education that are completely out of teachers’ control.
After thinking some more about the authors’ statement that the non-profits discussed in the book “don’t want simply to apply social Band-Aids, but rather to attack and eliminate the root causes of social ills” (p. 24), I’m wondering how possible it is to determine the “root causes” of a social problem. Take poverty, for example. There are many factors that cause a cycle of poverty, but is there one in particular that causes it to continue more than others?
That being said, I think that perhaps nonprofits will never be able to fully put an end to some social problems, due to their complexity and all of the factors at play. However, I don’t think that should prevent nonprofits from working to chip away at the factors that cause problems such as poverty to some degree. Along the same lines, I think that more teacher training and funding for underperforming schools should occur, even if they can’t solve the inequities in the educational experiences of high and low income youth in this country. They are part of the solution, but not all of it.
Kate
For me, advocacy is about changing the culture or knowledge about a particular issue for the better. Clearly, a nonprofit has limited resources, and thus has to choose how their resources should be utilized in the most beneficial way. From what I gathered in this chapter, these "forces for good" organizations spent a great deal of their finite resources toward changing the system that perpetuates such inequities or social ills, rather than a totally 'micro' approach of directly providing aid through programs (which is important if you are advocating for change).
ReplyDeleteLast semester we read an article about Harlem Children Zone(HCZ), and how they were forced choose between a myriad of ways to pursue their mission. They had numerous programs and were not sure which to keep,and, ultimately, ended up decreasing the number of programs they offered to improve the ones they thought were most beneficial.
Obviously an organization should pursue the best or most effective way toward achieving their mission (use of evaluative tools, accountability), but when it comes to social issues, there is normally not a "black and white" or best solution. Thus, an organization might have to rely on a strategy that is both effective and fulfills their mission.