Carjacking Alert

All,

This is part of an email that was sent to me from my daughter.
Warning..!!!! Warning..!!!! Warning..!!!!

Just last weekend on Friday night we parked in a public

Parking area. As we drove away I noticed a sticker on the

Rear window of the car. When I took it off after I got home,

It was a receipt for gas. Luckily my friend told me not to
Stop as it could be someone waiting for me to get out of the

Car Then we received this email yesterday:

‘WARNING FROM POLICE

THIS APPLIES TO BOTH WOMEN AND MEN

BEWARE OF PAPER ON THE BACK WINDOW OF YOUR VEHICLE–
NEW WAY=2 0TO DO CARJACKINGS (NOT A JOKE)’

Heads up everyone! Please, keep this circulating… You walk

Across the parking lot, unlock your car and get inside. You

Start the engine and shift into Reverse.

When you look into the rearview mirror to back out of your

Parking space, you notice a piece of paper stuck to the middle

Of the rear window. So, you shift into Park, unlock your

Doors, and jump out of your car to remove that paper (or

Whatever it is) that is obstructing your view. When you reach

The back of your car, that is when the car jackers appear out

Of nowhere, jump into your car and take off. They practically

Mow you down as they speed off in your car.

And guess what, ladies? I bet your purse is still in the car.

So now the car jacker has your car, your home address, your

Money, and your keys. Your home and your whole identity are

Now compromised!

BEWARE OF THIS NEW SCHEME THAT IS NOW BEING USED.

If you see a piece of paper stuck to your back window, just

Drive away. Remove the paper later. And be thankful that you

Read this e-mail. I hope you will forward this to friends and

Family, especially to women. A purse contains all kinds of

=0 APersonal information and identification documen ts, and you

Certainly do NOT want this to fall into the wrong hands.

Please keep this going
And tell all your friends

Questions Left Unanswered

I can’t say the class has left me with any unanswered questions about civil society or the nonprofit sector. I feel it accomplished its goal through the readings, lectures, blogsand assignments. There are however, other issues and questions that I feel I need to pursue beyond this class. There has to be a way for this sector to have more influence and clout (power) than the government and the private sector. In fact, I’m inclined to believe they need to have more influence than the other two combined. If civil society, as it has existed and exists now, has mostly been either government or private enterprise that has played the dominant role, than why couldn’t the nonprofit sector have a shot at it? What’s the worst that could happen? Wars might break out, financial institutions and businesses might fail, and the middle class might become just as disenfranchised as the lower class. Oops, that’s what the other two dominant sectors have created. What the nonprofit sector might be able to do is solve the problems created by government and private enterprise. It kind of reminds me of how Amy Hamelin said Mugabe was willing to share power, but kept the most powerful and influential ministries for his own ruling party. Our government and private sector is willing to share the problems they help create with the nonprofit sector, but they are not willing to create policies to prevent and combat them or provide adequate resources to fund the sector. I would like to learn how a better balance can be achieved.

The Most Important Thing I Learned In NCLC 331

Well, I could be a wise guy and say not to believe everything you read. Like the course description for instance. I expected the course to be a how to set up your own nonprofit, if I was so inclined to do so. More importantly, I was hoping it would tie in with my MSOM 304 Entrepreneurship: Starting and and Managing a New Enterprise class. I thought I would learn how to in NCLC and then apply it by writing a business plan for MSOM. Murphy’s law came into play and my plan had to be revised. I’m sure a class like that is available either here at GMU or elsewhere, and if I’m so inclined I could always pursue that. It was interesting learning the different philosophies of what is and isn’t civil society. I also enjoyed reading my fellow students take on the readings and how we differ and relate. If I have to come up with what I think is the most important thing I learned in this class it would have to be what I have learned about myself. I’ve learned that the sector on the whole interests me. I’ve been in the military and could never see myself working in the government in any capacity after that. I’ve worked half my life in the private sector and although I have been able to earn a respectable middle class living, I have not found it all that fulfilling. At this stage of my life I’m looking for something more. The nonprofit sector might just be a way of finding out what that something might be. Since I still have financial responsibilities, it was good to learn I would be able to support myself and my family if I pursued this. Some of the people I interviewed had similar experiences. The nonprofit sector may be the most important of the three in civil society. It helps pick up the pieces and tries to fill in the gaps and resolve the problems the other two cause through abuse, neglect, greed, arrogance and indifference.

The Philanthropic Enterprise

I surfed a few philanthropy and nonprofit blog sites, but most were .coms. Then I came across The Philanthropic Enterprise. It was a .org so I checked it out. I’m glad I did. I hope everyone in class will give some time looking at this site if you haven’t found it already in your search. It appears to be a fledgling organization trying to figure out how we can become a truly free society with minimal, if any, government involvement. I like the idea of creating value within NGO’s in order to finance and sustain not only the organization itself, but the interconnected society as a whole. Just imagine, if you will, all our tax dollars went to philanthropic causes instead of the government. The government would be unable to wage war if it was unable to fund it. Hundreds of millions of Americans put their trust and trillions of dollars in the hands of a few hundred rich representatives and then are disappointed with the results. I keep hearing it is a time for a change. I have been hearing it for quite some time. It is not a new concept. It may be a mistake to continually hope that the change will come from our elected politicians. The Philanthropic Enterprise at least is willing to explore alternatives and offers choices.

http://www.thephilanthropicenterprise.org/blog/main/index.php

“We’re principally about understanding the phenomenon of human action known as “enterprise,” both in its commercial and especially in its non-commercial (hence philanthropic) forms.  Enterprise–to under take something, to risk, to engage in a bit of arbitrage where we spot opportunity for value to be created–cannot be confined to the realm of purely private taking but should also be our first mode of action when we are also aiming to create value that accrues to the greater benefit of our communities, large and small.”

“Are we a “philanthropy blog?”  To the extent that we may from time to time critique the current practices of the field,perhaps so.  To the extent that we hope to reassess the conceptual foundations that shape today’s philanthropy, perhaps so.  To the extent that we hope to begin to imagine and describe and defend new ways of thinking about and practicing the arts of giving and community enterprise and voluntary association with an eye to modes of thought and action compatible with the essentials of a free society, maybe.  But for now, go ahead and call us a philanthropy blog if needed–but don’t spread the word too far.  It might simply convince someone interested in some of the ideas we might explore here turn instead to Marginal Revolution, and they’ve already got lots of traffic!”

“The Philanthropic Enterprise is the web home of The Project for New Philanthropy Studies at Donors Trust. By sponsoring research and conversations about the role of philanthropy in a free society we are working to define a “new” understanding of philanthropy appropriate to the radically altered circumstances of the present cybernetic age. We are not seeking to build a consensus, but to elaborate an alternative approach to the philanthropic enterprise, describe the opportunities open to it, and suggest what tools social investors will need as they make responsible choices and assess the result of their philanthropic gifts.”

“The Philanthropic Enterprise is the public face of The Project for New Philanthropy Studies at Donors Trust, a 501(c)3 public charity whose mission is to help alleviate, through education, research, and private initiative, society’s most pervasive and radical needs and to encourage philanthropy and individual giving and responsibility, as opposed to governmental involvement, as an answer to society’s needs.”

“The Philanthropic Enterprise seeks to improve philanthropy in America, by examining more closely the complex ecosystem of voluntary associations, charities, and gift-making organizations and better understanding their appropriate relations to both commercial and governmental institutions. To this end, we engage scholars and practitioners working to better understand the role of voluntary action and philanthropy in enhancing the production of human excellence, prosperity, and social cooperation.”

“We believe that philanthropy and volunteerism—voluntary gift-making and social action not tied to any commercial interest, nor advancing any political agenda—are natural and essential forms of human interaction.”

“The Philanthropic Enterprise is committed to promoting an appropriate climate for philanthropy, one which strikes a balance between funders’ perceived purposes and the necessity of fostering creative, individualized, and independent responses to specific ends and circumstances.”

“No philanthropist operates in a vacuum. Donors and foundation managers must rely on the information tools available to them as they make decisions affecting hundreds, sometimes thousands, of lives. To decide whether philanthropy or capital markets offer the most appropriate opportunity for resource allocation, donors and foundation managers need not only raw information, but also clear rationales for action and accurate mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of those actions. Providing a coherent infrastructure for philanthropy is, we believe, the best means of fostering and extending social cooperation and the attainment of the broadest variety of human ends.”

“The Philanthropic Enterprise is dedicated to offering the best thinking about philanthropy to anyone accessing our website.”

Country Comparisons

I found it striking that in countries that had an authoritarian rule the role of nonprofits was what I would consider ddysfunctional. The country my group read about was Serbia. Although they declared their independence in 2006 they appear to be struggling maintaining a functioning nonprofit sector. Large nonprofit groups may have helped to facilitate the fall of the dictator Milosevic, similar to what Amy’s group tried to accomplish in Zimbabwe. Large international nonprofit organizations came into the country to assist in setting up Serbian nonprofits. The large urban groups have had some success, but rural nonprofits, where the need is greater, are not able to sustain themselves.

The articles we read puts the cause of this on the fact that the people, after generations of the government taking care of their “needs”, are not accustomed to doing things for themselves. The nonprofits do not have enough experience to be able to function without the backing of larger international groups. This problem is compounded by the stubbornness to operate according to “western ways”, although they have a long successful history of organizing and running nonprofits.

Njeri mentioned in Kenya, the British colonialists selected one tribe and portrayed it as superior to the others. This created a class system and distrust among the natives and redirected the opposition to British rule. A similar tactic was used in Rwanda, where the German colonialists created a superior class, the Tutsi, based on their longer European-like nose, over the flatter nosed Hutu. This class difference created such hatred between what are the in reality the same people that the Tutsi massacred the Hutu in one of the worst genocides in history.

The point is most of the countries reported on Brazil, China, Egypt, Kenya, and Serbia either still have an authoritarian rule or at some point in their history were under an authoritarian rule. The evolution to a free democratic state appears to be the best incubator of nonprofit organizations.

EL Comment #3: Girl Scouts

I was reading Mkalaly’s EL post on the Girl Scouts http://www.girlscouts.org/ and thought I would use my last required comment on her topic. I have four children. I was not only my son’s Tiger Cub, Cub Scout and Boy Scout leader, but I was my daughter’s Daisy Leader her first year because no one else would volunteer. There were a few jokes made at my expense, but all in good taste. It was an experience that I would not have ever pictured myself in, but one I would not have passed up. It allowed my daughter and I the opportunity to create another bond outside of the family, school and sports that we both cherish to this day. I was a little disappointed that they did not camp as much as the boys, but the girls enjoyed the social activities that were more community focused. I recommend both youth groups to any future parents and your children.

EL #2: Combined Federal Campaign

I think I come into contact with more nonprofit related occurrences at work than anywhere else. Blood drives, cookie sales for Girl Scouts, candy sales for Little League, and during the month of November my organizations supports the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) http://www.opm.gov/CFC/. You can safely chose from an approved list of eligible charitable organizations. The mission of the CFC is “to promote and support philanthropy through a program that is employee focused, cost-efficient, and effective in providing all federal employees the opportunity to improve the quality of life for all.” It was established by Executive Order of President John F. Kennedy in 1961. It claims to be the largest and most successful fund raising organization in the world. “Charities included in the CFC are organizations with status as tax-exempt charities as determined by the Internal Revenue Service under Section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code that provide health and human services, and that are determined to be eligible for participation in the CFC. Organizations may apply and be listed in the CFC brochure as either a local, national, or an international unaffiliated organization, or as a member of a local, national, or international federation. Charities that apply to receive funds through the CFC are required to submit to extensive review of their financial and governance practices prior to acceptance. This eligibility review has helped set standards for participation in giving initiatives that transcend the community.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Federal_Campaign).

The charity I chose is St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f2bfab46cb118010VgnVCM1000000e2015acRCRD. I find it amazing that this organization was founded by one man. Danny Thomas, a television actor, made it possible for this hospital to be built through his vision, hard work, and dedication. It is inspiring that the power of one man could accomplish so much.

EL #2: INOVA Blood Donor Services

I received an announcement in the mail today from The INOVA Blood Services http://www.inova.org/blood_donor/index.jsp notifying me of upcoming blood drives in the area. I signed up at work and I guess I am now on their mailing list. I also receive automated phone messages from time to time. The announcement had drives at three different locations the day before and the day after Thanksgiving. They offer a $10 gas card to everyone who completes the donor screening process. The other side of the announcement had the photo of four turkeys standing out in the open with a wooded area in the distance. I’m assuming it’s related to their blood drive being around Thanksgiving, but they might want to rethink that one!

Anyway, it got me to thinking if they were in direct competition with the American Red Cross Blood Services http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_320_,00.html. Or, are they simply cutting out the middleman? I understand they’re serving a noble cause, but it has to be a lucrative arrangement. The blood is donated for free. I’m sure there is a cost involved to process the blood. What is the profit margin I wonder. I would guess when a patient who has received a blood transfusion gets his hospital bill the cost is significantly higher than what it cost to process. This would not keep me from donating blood, I’m just curious.

The American Red Cross site says someone in America needs blood every two seconds. That’s 43,200 people a day, 302,400 a week, 1,296,000 a month, and 15,768,000 a year. That’s a lot of blood if you multiply it by the number of pints used. I’m sure you have seen their vehicles on campus and hopefully you have signed up. The INOVA site has numbers that are not as large, 200 people a day served, but equally as significant. They use a bit of a guilt trip though when they state “An estimated 38 percent of the population is eligible to donate but less than five percent actually does. More donors are urgently needed every day, seven days a week, to save lives of the patients in our community.” It may be they are not seeing the numbers that the American Red Cross sees because they have not been at it as long and most people may already donate regularly to them.

Rough Draft Boys Town

Brian K. Murphy

BOYS TOWN

History

     Boys Town was founded in 1917 by Father Edward J. Flanagan1, a Roman Catholic priest. Father Flanagan was born in Ireland on July 13, 1886 and came to America in 1904. He was ordained in 1912 and served in parishes in and around Omaha, Nebraska. Initially, he set up boarding houses for homeless men until they could find work. He became impatient with the program, as the men drank, and were unable or unwilling to find work. He wanted to catch these young men before they were corrupted by society.

     Father Flanagan borrowed $90 to rent a run down Victorian mansion in Omaha and opened Boy’s Home. He acquired a loan to buy Overlook Farm in 1921, and this was named by the children, Boys Town. Father Flanagan became an acknowledged expert in the field of childcare and toured the United States discussing his views on juvenile delinquency. He was asked by President Truman to travel to Europe after World War II to attend meetings to help solve the problem of the children left orphaned and displaced by the war. During a visit to Berlin, Germany, Father Flanagan died of a heart attack. He is buried in Boys Town. He is quoted as saying “…The work will continue, you see, whether I am there or not, because it is God’s work, not mine.”2       

     Today, Boys Town has grown to become a nationwide organization. The non-sectarian organization is run by a Board of Trustees that has different religious backgrounds. Although the President and Executive Director (just the 5^th in its history), Father Steven E Boes, is a Roman Catholic priest, Boys Town receives no funds from the Catholic Church. The other fourteen members of the board are either volunteers or receive salaries, but are not affiliated with the Catholic Church. The other members title’s consist of Vice President, Corporate Governance USA; Vice President and Director for Health Care; Vice President and Director for Youth Care; Vice President for Investments; Corporate Secretary, Vice President; General Counsel, Vice President; Vice President, Human Physical Resources; Treasurer Vice President, Finance; and Executive Vice President, Investments.

     In order to fulfill Boys Town mission “to change the way America cares for her children and families”, they provide a wide spectrum of child and family services. There is the Intensive Residential Treatment Center for youth ages 7-18 with psychiatric conditions. The Specialized Treatment Group Homes for youths 10-18 provide out-patient psychiatric care in a family-oriented environment. There is an Assessment and Short-Term Residential program which acts as an intake facility for abused, neglected and runaway youth 10-18. They also have an Intervention and Assessment Home for short term crisis needs until they can be stabilized and returned home or placed in a Boys Town facility. The Treatment Family Homes for Adolescents is a family–style, community based residential program that consists of 6-8 children aged 12-18 and a married couple oversees them. Similarly, there is the Treatment Family Homes for Young Children for infant children to age 11 who cannot be with their families or are awaiting foster care. These facilities are also overseen by a married couple. The Treatment Foster Care is specifically to serve foster children to meet their treatment needs by temporary foster parents in their homes.

There is also Specialized Treatment Foster Care for a smaller group up to four children aged 10-18 in a home setting, to teach independent living skills. The Traditional/Agency Foster Care offers trained foster parents for children of all ages in need of permanent placement. The Family Preservation Services is a short term intensive in-home program to prevent need for out-of-home placement and the break-up of the family.

Family-Centered Services is a similar in-home program designed to address problems at home or in school. After Care Services provide smooth transitioning from any of the other programs back to residential homes, family homes, or out into the work force. Outpatient Child and Family Services provide therapists and treatment programs for psychological disorders. Community Education Services and Support provide community children with educational and treatment services. Boys Town National Hotline has trained professional counselors available 24/7 and receives over 400,000 a year. Common Sense Parenting teaches parents how to be proactive effective parents to improve family relationships. Boys Town Press publishes books, posters, audio and video products and other materials to improve family functioning. Parent.org is an on-line resource offering similar assistance. The Boys Town National Research Hospital specializes in hearing loss and communication disorders. Boys Town Ear, Nose and Throat Institute, offers the children otolaryngology services. Boys Town Pediatrics provides primary care for children.

     None of these services would be available if our civil society did not have a political system that allowed nonprofit organizations to exist. While no political system is perfect, according to Ferguson3, a society is judged by how it treats it’s less fortunate. The United States has evolved into a world power not only because of its superior military technology, but because it’s civil society has strived to improve the conditions of those less fortunate. What better place to start that process than with the very young who, through no fault of their own, either do not have parents or caretakers to provide the basic human necessities of  food, shelter and clothing.

     Families are the common unit of all societies that satisfy not only basic needs, but also instill the accepted values and morals of the society. When the family is unable to provide for its own children, than society is to blame for not allowing the means for the poor to acquire that which it needs. Society has caused the family bond to be broken. According to Hegel4, poverty is created by society when it fails to provide the poor the education necessary to acquire skills to escape it. The resulting breakup of the family then should become the responsibility of the public authority. However, the state is usually reluctant to spend an amount that could be considered excessive. Nonprofit organizations help fill the void.

     Fortunately, America has a system that allows nonprofits to flourish. De Tocqueville5, argues that our associations are necessary to counter the persecution by those who would perpetuate an underclass in order to insure the power of the ruling class. He further contends our liberties force those who are able to help one another. We usually see this as grass roots efforts at the local community level to try and ward off the break up of families. De Tocqueville6 also believes the rich in a democratic society need the poor and therefore allow associations to form to provide for them so they do not fall so far into poverty so as to create a revolt against the status quo.

     It should come as no surprise that those less fortunate in society are rarely involved in the politics of their dilemma. If you are worried about feeding, housing and clothing your family chances are you may not be politically active. If poverty causes your family to be torn apart, the despair and depression may prove too hard to overcome to reunite them. Almond and Verba7 contend that a true democratic citizen is involved in some form of an organization. That citizen, because of his activity is competent and involved in the political process. What club might broken families cling onto, Democratic Disenfranchised? Usually, they are nonprofit organizations that come to their rescue, assist them through their troubled time, and in the process raise the democratic consciousness of the person.

     Civil society requires a government that will allow it to exist without being threatened by its very existence. Within that civil society organizations will flourish, especially nonprofit organizations. However, we have been operating under a democratic system for long enough that the need for orphanages, foster care, and adoption should be decreasing, not increasing. Perhaps Gramsci10 is correct that a State that provides basic education to raise the cultural and moral conscious level of the masses is ethical. However when the motivation is to increase productivity and development to enhance the benefit to and interests of the ruling class, then unethical forces are at play. While America and the rest of the civilized world pats itself on the back for all the benefits that come from allowing them to rule, the people need to challenge their beliefs with the evidence of increased poverty, homelessness, and broken families. The increased need is a symptom of an ailing civil society.

Anything Relevent to the Topic! Orphanages

 

Orphanage! The word itself has stirred controversy and debate since their inception in the eighteenth century. They started as almshouses, housing provided to the elderly poor, usually women, who could not provide for themselves. The residents changed over the years to those too young to care for themselves, orphans. Although the early residents of orphanages may have indeed been parentless, orphanage is a misleading term, since a majority of the children had at least one parent, if not both, still living.  Up till the early 1900’s, orphanages became warehouses for children whose parents could not adequately provide for them. These institutions were run on a scale depicted in Dickens Oliver Twist and the movie Annie. The authorities were strict disciplinarians. The food was meager and not considered nutritious. Most, if not all, of the work to run the building was done by the children. Around the 1920’s, reformers were able to initiate changes in the orphanages that resulted in improved living conditions. Professional staffs were hired, food quality improved, uniforms were eliminated and a less severe form of authority was enacted. From 1960 through the 1980’s child welfare organizations were successful in eliminating the majority of institutionalized orphanages. In their place, grew the foster care and adoption system that is still the leading form of child welfare for those in need. Now, the foster care system and its proponents are under fire from its detractors who are calling for the reinstitution of orphanages.

            In his article, Two Cheers for Orphanages, from the peer reviewed journal, Reviews in American History1, E. Wayne Harp reviews three author’s books that support the call for a return to the use of orphanages in the United States. Harp reviews the books in an ascending order of significance from his point of view which reinforces the claims of the authors. The four page article is well referenced and cited. The main question of why orphanages are needed is answered. What is not addressed is how will these new orphanages be funded and how will they be run differently to avoid the problems in the past. There is also no mention of what exactly is wrong with the foster care system or how it can be improved, other than reinstituting orphanages.

            Madelyn Freundlich, in the peer reviewed journal, Adoption Quarterly, offers an opposing view in her article A Return to Orphanages?2 Freundlich refutes the need for

orphanages and states the reasons in her opening paragraphs. The article is then organized by sections 1) defining orphanages, 2) a history of orphanages in America, 3) definitions of the new proposed orphanages, 4) arguments against the reasons supporting orphanages, and 5) the conclusion that orphanages are not in the best interest of children. The research cited is mostly newspaper and magazine articles. Freundlich mentions the problems in the foster care system as one of the motivating reason for others wanting to bring back the orphanage system, but does not acknowledge that there are problems. Would there be a controversy if there was not at least a perceived problem with the current foster care and adoption system? The question left unanswered is why Freundlich is denouncing the orphanage system so strongly and not offering an alternative or answers to resolve the problems that currently exist.

            The atrocities of the orphanage system of the early nineteenth century are not disputed by either side of the argument. As in any imperfect system where there is no accountability abuses will occur. Other public institutions have suffered abuses. America’s prison system and public school system have had their fair share of abuse.

Instead of closing them, they were reformed and are always in need of improvement. How different are those abuses then the ones we hear on the news or read in the paper involving children in the foster care program. That system has grown too large to be managed or supervised responsibly by an understaffed bureaucracy. What should be pertinent to the two factions is how best to serve the children and the community. And to accomplish that the two factions need to come together to create a dialogue to address the problems that exist and realistic solutions.

            Idealistically, eliminating the need for orphanages, foster care and adoption should be the dream. Realistically, improving and facilitating the care these children depend on should be the goal. Orphanages have served a purpose in the past and offered opportunities to those who otherwise might not have had any. Like foster care, it is an alternative tool to be implemented when necessary. The resurgence of the need for orphanages has rekindled the debate of the pros and cons of those institutions. Now, the opposing factions need to move beyond one issue and focus on creating solutions to the existing problems in order to improve the conditions for those children.