Rent-a-Corporate Bully

So another asshole corporation rears its ugly head. Rent-A-Center asked one of it's beneficiaries, the Ohio affiliate of America's Second Harvest ,to stop its participation with an anti-payday lending advocacy group, or it will cease payments on its $500,000 pledge.

Now, technically groups that are 501c3 can't participate directly in advocacy measures, so in theory RAC is right in its request.

Not so fast. Just this week, Ohio legislation passed a new law capping payday lending interest rates. Well, lookie here at what we've found: RAC has some pretty exorbitant interest rates that add up to triple digits annually.

Now don't you see why this is an asshole move on RACs part?

The chairwoman for ASC said that her Ohio affiliate should not have participated with the group in the first place because payday lending isn't directly related to their mission of eradicating hunger.

You've got to be kidding me.

If you can see the state of debt these companies put uninformed, desperate consumers in, then you wouldn't be surprised to see that the indebted are filing in line for food donations: they don't have any money to feed themselves! It would be in a hunger group's best interest to fight the root of hunger, which is poverty. And gosh darnit if payday lending doesn't contribute to poverty, I don't know what does.

ASC Ohio shouldn't be bullied by a corporate donor. Fuck RAC - they can keep their dirty (albeit a lot) money.

And I used to want him assassinated until I realized Cheney would be president

The Bush and Cheney clans released records about their charitable giving recently. To my sorta surprise, the Bushes, whose total income is a little of $930K gave away about 18% of their annual income. My girl, Laura, gave away all net from her advance on her janky ass book to Teach for America, too. Niiiice.

Some of the organizations that received gifts include:

• Crawford Volunteer Fire Department
• Malaria No More Fund
• Martha’s Table, a soup kitchen in Washington;
• Susan G. Komen for the Cure (formerly known as the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation)
• St. John’s Church, an Episcopal parish near the White House

The Cheney's on the other hand, made a combined total of $3.05 MILLION dollars and they donated um.....$166,547. And they won't even tell you who they gave it to. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the unlisted organizations is PFLAG.

I almost didn't blog about this..

Because it wasn't that outstanding or shocking of a story: A Washington official has resigned and is being investigated for ethical violations.

In this case, it's the Smithsonian (America's Museum!) and the official is Pilar O'Leary (how is that for a melting pot of names?). Apparently Ms. O'Leary was in charge of the museum's Latino outreach and stuff and junk. She is accused of improper spending with the museum's accounts charging up for all sorts of shit like limos, spas and expensive hotels. She also is accused of trying to get tickets to events, which is against rules for public officials.

So, yeah I'm disappointed a Latina is in such public trouble, but this has to be the best part of her whole fucking defense:

"The report found that prices of the hotel rooms were often steep because they had been made at the last minute. When an investigator asked why this occurred, O'Leary said her corporate contacts "often don't realize that we aren't as flexible in making our travel arrangements as they are." She then cited cultural differences, saying that the center's Latino constituency "doesn't operate in the same time frames everyone else is used to -- in many Latin cultures, arrangements are made at the last minute.""

You may be thinking: "Oh, no, she didn't!" But you're wrong: she did. She went there and used the race card to excuse her improper spending. So if I am to leave reality and follow her logic for a moment, I could argue that Latinos must also be fradulent prima donnas who can't take the charge of being a public official seriously. Thusly, we should all be denied jobs with high prominence and levels of responsibility. And you might as well deport any of us who weren't born on American soil.

I would also add that anyone who sends a professional email like this should be fired:

"An Oct. 31, 2006, e-mail sent by O'Leary indicates she sought tickets to the Latin Grammys from someone who might have business before the institution. "We should definitely find ways to collaborate, we do a lot of evens as I am sure [name blacked out] has told you," O'Leary wrote. "I am desperate for Latin Grammy tix -- I have been invited to a bunch of vents surrounding the actual awards, let me know if you know how I could possibly get 2!""

Dang, chica, you's embarassing to yo peoples.

My bleeding heart is apparently also cheap

This article has me banging my head against the keyboard xsnvhsdfiobno[etwmbnopopertmelpmwbpjlml[p
etmw,lpb;[
er,'
w]kb
[ptrnmlm,;
bnr'[
e,b,,ef,,e[g,er';
f

Apparently, liberals are less charitable than conservatives. In a study conducted by Arthur C. Brooks, author of "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism", he found that liberals are less likely to give blood and donate less money to charities on average.

That's because conservatives regardless of income give all their money to the goddamn church. Further, liberals work at nonprofits - what is more fucking charitable than making charity your life's work?

The author (who is "independent" - THERE IS NO SUCH THING) argues that liberals replace stone cold cash with support for public giving and government programs. The problem he sees is that if we are so busy advocating for charity from the government, which may or may not work, we are hurting the "needy" (I hate that word much like I hate the phrase "inner city") because we ain't giving out of our own coffers.

Is he calling out liberals? Are we hypocrites? I see the numbers, but they don't reflect the complexity of real life. Liberals may live in richer districts, but as far as I can see the power still rest in the hands of a privilged, male few and those few don't look, think or act like me. If they're so damn charitable, why do we have war, homeless people, people without jobs, shoddy schools and no healthcare for everyone?

Yeah, that's what I thought. I'll keep writing my small checks and keep pushing the equality that everyone so justly deserves.

Really, people? Really?

People from this survey can go fuck themselves. Over 60% of them think that nonprofits spend to much on overhead costs. So I guess nonprofit professionals should operate in shacks with outdated computers and low pay. Oh wait, many of us already do. How the fuck are we supposed to achieve missions when we can't cover our own living expenses, get healthcare, use up to date tools and resources and be overall comfortable and capable to do our jobs?

Really? Really.

Shit I could have told you - Foundation giving edition

While any living, breathing nonprofit employee could have told you this, the NYT has an article about foundations that are starting to return to the days of giving out operating money versus project-based support. Why? Because operating support actually supports an organization's ability to survive.

Ya don't say.

A different sort of philanthropist....

In Chile's equivalent to the Jerry Lewis Telethon, a Chilean prostitute, Mistress Maria Carolina, auctioned off 27 hours of sex to help kids with disabilities. Apparently there is room for argument on whether the charity violates ethics in taking her money. It is noted that prostitution is legal in Chile, so I'm guessing she can write this off on her taxes?

You may be wondering what Ms. Jean thinks of all this, and of course, I say take the damn money. Organizations have taken dirtier money from corporations and governments and we all know that they are whores to the devil.

Reaffirms my belief that humans are total assholes

I don't which is worse: stealing toys being saved to give out to poor children, or stealing $200,000 from a youth runaway shelter. I mean, seriously people. Seriously.

Now, if I were the development officer of either of those organizations, I would be having a field day with appeal letter writing.

The irony in this situation has no bounds

The Naked Truth About Charity Golf Tournament
From wsbtv.com

ATLANTA -- An Atlanta woman’s shelter said it’s both shocked and outraged that a golf outing featuring nude dancers claimed, without permission, that it was a charity event to raise money for the shelter. An undercover investigation by Channel 2 Action News found the tournament, organized by a company that owns a cluster of Atlanta strip clubs, did not get approval to use the charity’s name.

Charity golf outings are popular in the adult entertainment business. Participants pay big bucks to drink and play while surrounded by scantily clad or totally nude dancers. The outing Channel 2 producers investigated last month may have broken several laws according to Fulton County Police. And they have another problem, claiming they were hosting the charity for a shelter that rescues women and children from the streets of Atlanta.

It was a beautiful fall day for golf at the Wolf Creek Golf Club. Sunshine, a gentle breeze and some sights you probably wouldn’t expect -- strip club dancers walking around with less than proper golf attire.

“It’s appalling, I mean, there’s children that ride through here. I’m walking with my baby and I would hate to see that,” said homeowner Dorene Gardner.

Well over a hundred dancers converged out on putting greens and fairways. Many were totally naked.

The signs in more open areas of the golf course told dancers to keep their bikinis on. But from the back decks of some homes, there was a clear view of women who were partially or totally nude.

The scene happened about a hundred yards from a cul-de-sac where children were playing football.

“I am terribly upset about that. I had no idea we would have that kind of activity in the neighborhood,” said resident Shirline Johnson.

The supposed charity golf outing was advertised in Creative Loafing and sponsored by a group of adult nightclubs. The cost was $175 per golfer. Alcohol was flowing and dancers charged $300 to caddy.

Organizers told Channel 2 producers that it was all for a good cause. The money raised would help support the Atlanta Day Shelter for Women and Children. We thought we’d show them some pictures of what happened on the golf course.

“That’s a naked lady…oh my gosh she is naked,” said shelter director Shirley Baker. “I can’t even believe they would do this. We are a Christian-based ministry and there is no way…oh wow.”

The shelter operations manager told Channel 2 they were never informed that a nude golf charity event was being staged using their name. They said they would never accept money raised in that fashion.

“To attach our name to something like this, that’s deplorable,” Baker said.

So what did the strip clubs have to say about falsely using the name of a shelter for battered women for their nude golf charity event? And where did all that money go?

The event organizer, Dan White, didn't have much to say. He slipped back into the Gold Rush Show Bar before Channel 2 could ask a single question. He sent a blunt message through his security guard. “No comment. That’s what I was told to say,” the security guard said.

Channel 2’s Tom Regan also did not get much help form the manager of the golf shop. He said he didn’t know anything about the fundraiser. “Where are the nude women? You got nude women here? If we had that going on do you think my parking lot would be as empty as it is,” asked golf shop manager Andre Jones.

The company that owns the adult clubs, Garaldi South, faxed Channel 2 a copy of a $750 cashiers check which their lawyer said was dropped off at the front desk of the shelter last month. The shelter’s director and financial administrator said they never received a check nor is Jack Garaldi in any of their records.

“That’s trash. To attach our name to something like that is totally wrong,” said Baker.
Garaldi’s lawyer said after expenses the event lost money.

The event did not have the appropriate legal permit to pour liquor and according to state officials, was violating the law. Fulton County police also said the women dancers likely violated laws prohibiting public nudity.

My Dream Job with Only ONE Problem

Got this posting emailed to me from several cool people I know. They know me pretty well because this is my dream job. The mission rocks. I can't get bored. Love, love, love it. However...the pay is a joke.

What they are calling a Development Associate is really a Development Director and in some orgs, an Associate Director. And they still need you to answer the phones and do "light bookkeeping"????

I see several positions in this posting:
- foundation relations manager
- special events manager
- major gifts coordinator
- volunteer manager
- annual campaign coordinator
- public relations and marketing manager

At least.

I know they probably can't pay more than that, but it then speaks to the fact that many nonprofits have their hands tied because they have so much to do and no one to do it. People who care about social justice sometimes can't afford to make it their career. That sucks. it's cyclical: you need money to hire people. You need people to raise money. People deserve to be paid what they're worth and get paid enough to have a sustainable lifestyle that doesn't involve living check-to-check.

Second dream job I have seen where compensation has been the buzzkill.

Responsibilities
The Development Associate will have job responsibilities in two major areas: fund development and volunteer management. Specific responsibilities include:

· Create fundraising materials such as direct mail appeals, funding proposals, donor acknowledgement letters, and other informational materials that support the development program.
· Maintain records and conduct research on major donors and prospects. Assist Executive Director in setting and preparing for major donor visits and conduct donor cultivation.
· Work with volunteer committee to plan and coordinate special events, including developing corporate sponsorships.
· Collaborate with other staff to write grant proposals. Research new grant opportunities, manage grant reporting requirements.
· Meet member organization requirements for Community Shares. Serve on committee, manage workplace giving campaigns and submit required paperwork.
· Manage volunteer and paid telemarketing to prospects and members.
· Assist with the publication of annual report and organizational newsletter.
· Manage volunteer activities and assist Executive Director with managing interns.
· Represent organization at public events.
· Administrative tasks including management of the donor database, light bookkeeping and answering the phones.
· Special tasks and projects as assigned.

Qualifications
The qualified candidate must have a college degree and specific work experience in development and marketing. Superb communication skills, exemplary writing skills, ability to work with a team, sense of humor and enthusiasm for reproductive rights are essential. Proficiency in Microsoft Word and Excel required. Knowledge of DonorPerfect software a plus.

Hours and Compensation
Annual Full Time Salary Range: $25,000 - $30,000. Competitive benefits package. Some evenings and weekends required.

Is Harvard a charity?

Most donations go to institutions that serve the rich; they shouldn't be fully tax-deductible.
By Robert B. Reich
October 1, 2007
LA Times

This year's charitable donations are expected to total more than $200 billion, a record. But a big portion of this impressive sum -- especially from the wealthy, who have the most to donate -- is going to culture palaces: to the operas, art museums, symphonies and theaters where the wealthy spend much of their leisure time. It's also being donated to the universities they attended and expect their children to attend, perhaps with the added inducement of knowing that these schools often practice a kind of affirmative action for "legacies."

I'm all in favor of supporting the arts and our universities, but let's face it: These aren't really charitable contributions. They're often investments in the lifestyles the wealthy already enjoy and want their children to have too. They're also investments in prestige -- especially if they result in the family name being engraved on the new wing of an art museum or symphony hall.

It's their business how they donate their money, of course. But not entirely. Charitable donations to just about any not-for-profit are deductible from income taxes. This year, for instance, the U.S. Treasury will be receiving about $40 billion less than it would if the tax code didn't allow for charitable deductions. (That's about the same amount the government now spends on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which is what remains of welfare.) Like all tax deductions, this gap has to be filled by other tax revenues or by spending cuts, or else it just adds to the deficit.

I see why a contribution to, say, the Salvation Army should be eligible for a charitable deduction. It helps the poor. But why, exactly, should a contribution to the already extraordinarily wealthy Guggenheim Museum or to Harvard University (which already has an endowment of more than $30 billion)?Awhile ago, New York's Lincoln Center had a gala supported by the charitable contributions of hedge-fund industry leaders, some of whom take home $1 billion a year. I may be missing something, but this doesn't strike me as charity. Poor New Yorkers rarely attend concerts at Lincoln Center.

It turns out that only an estimated 10% of all charitable deductions are directed at the poor. So here's a modest proposal. At a time when the number of needy continues to rise, when government doesn't have the money to do what's necessary for them and when America's very rich are richer than ever, we should revise the tax code: Focus the charitable deduction on real charities.

If the donation goes to an institution or agency set up to help the poor, the donor gets a full deduction. If the donation goes somewhere else -- to an art palace, a university, a symphony or any other nonprofit -- the donor gets to deduct only half of the contribution.

Robert B. Reich, author of "Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life," was secretary of Labor under President Clinton.

An exception to the rule

This guy rocks.

Rip off of the day (and why weddings and medical expenses drive people into financial trouble)

Here's a story about a woman who works for a nonprofit and has cancer. Howver, this isn't about her triumph over tragedy. This is about how she stole over $1 million dollars from her employer. What does one spend that sort of money on? $200,000 on medical expenses. The rest on family cruises and her daughter's dream wedding. She is being sued. She still has cancer.

The End.

Diversity, Inclusiveness, and Empowerment: Three Critical Tools for Philanthropy

by R. Andrew Swinney, President, Philadelphia Foundation

There's a stereotype in the world of nonprofit organizations: White people have the money, and many of them donate or volunteer to help the poor who are, more often than not, minorities.

The reality, of course, is much more complex. In today's increasingly multicultural environment, nonprofit leaders frequently find that their supporters, staff, vendors, and clientele come from all racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, gender, and age groupings. African American, Latino, Asian, and gay and lesbian communities are raising significant amounts of charitable dollars to support their own. Minority constituents are serving on boards and volunteering their time to nonprofits that serve the entire community. In some communities, whites are — or will soon become — the new minority.

As America becomes more of a melting pot, the nonprofit sector will be deeply enmeshed in the ongoing evolution and empowerment of minority communities. Thus, the question must be asked: Is the nonprofit sector leading this evolution, or merely reacting to it?

By their very nature, foundations and charities are expected to be transformational. Each organization has its particular vision as to what will create a better world. Yet, while focusing on our strategic programmatic goals and directions, how many of us celebrate diversity as a core organizational value? How many of us recognize that to serve our communities and our causes most effectively, we must be committed to accepting and reflecting that diversity, respecting differences, and ensuring that all voices are heard and all are served regardless of race, gender, age, religion, creed, disability or sexual orientation? The most effective nonprofits recognize and utilize the full richness of all segments of society.

However, diversity alone is insufficient: To be highly effective, nonprofits must also link diversity to inclusiveness and empowerment.

Inclusiveness is a commitment to policies and procedures designed to change the dynamics of bias and ignorance that have often excluded individuals and groups from their rightful place in the community. An effective nonprofit should aspire to treat everyone equally, serve as a role model, and change others through its actions.

Empowerment represents the ability of individuals to be the best they can be and to participate fully — with the freedom to do so. Nonprofits should be taking the lead to ensure that barriers, where found, are broken down and that all of an organization's actions are aimed at empowering individuals to achieve their full potential and control their own destinies.

There are any number of ways in which nonprofits can implement these tools. It starts with hiring practices, declaring in employee handbooks and employment policies that the organization is an equal opportunity employer committed to providing a work environment free of discrimination and unlawful harassment. Nonprofits should be taking the lead in making employee benefits available to domestic partners and offering reasonable accommodations because of an employee's disability or religion. Organizations should operate with clearly articulated value statements regarding respect for one another and the constituencies served, as well as a commitment to personal and professional development.

The vision should extend to the selection of board members who represent a wide cross-section of the communities that comprise your service region. For example, the Council on Foundations requires that for a local community foundation to comply with its rigorous national standards it must demonstrate an awareness of the community's demographics and how this awareness is integrated in the process of nominating or appointing members of the board.

The vision also extends to policies regarding selecting consultants and vendors who provide services.

A commitment to diversity, inclusiveness, and empowerment is significant not just for moral reasons, but economic ones as well: communities of color have money. Many people equate foundations with the awarding of grants to minority communities, yet community foundations are seeing a tremendous increase in the flow of philanthropic resources from minority communities.

For example, the Philadelphia Foundation, which works to empower people throughout southeastern Pennsylvania, can trace its support of the civil rights movement as far back as 1948. We adopted our first empowerment policy in 1983 and undertook a pioneering strategic initiative in the early 1990s to increase philanthropic resources from minority communities. Today, more than 175 of our 750 charitable endowments have been established by and for the African American, Latino, Asian, and gay/lesbian communities.

The foundation has long embraced diversity, inclusiveness, and empowerment as core values. Our mission statement announces that the foundation "practices and encourages diversity, equity and inclusiveness as fundamental values of community." Where many foundations are perceived as being aloof and apart from their communities, we consider ourselves part of the communities we serve. We are accessible to all, and we value — and embrace — the differences that each person brings to our work. All people are created equal, and as such are regarded as equal when they interact with our organization — internally and externally.

The benevolent tradition of minority communities is rich, diverse, and steeped in history. These constituents may or may not necessarily be wealthy, but they are all people who feel a keen sense of responsibility for giving something back to their community.

In fact, the Chronicle of Philanthropy reported in 2003 that the African American community doesn't just participate in philanthropy — it trumps other major racial and ethnic groups in its generosity. According to the study, African Americans who give to charity donate 25 percent more of their discretionary income than do whites.

Today's philanthropists are as likely to be minorities as whites, whether they are a group of university women, a family who lost a loved one in an accident, someone who wants to find a cure for a disease, or an entrepreneur who wants to endow a scholarship to help others follow in his or her footsteps. And with growing numbers of minorities entering the middle and upper classes, many of today's more affluent minorities represent the first generation of wealth in their families, creating a new dynamic of people who feel a responsibility to give something back.
We cannot just pay lip service to diversity, inclusiveness, and empowerment or add them to a mission statement. We have to live them and breathe them every day, in all of our programs, services, and activities.

The nonprofit sector has a particular responsibility to set the highest standards. By focusing our energy and our resources, we can promote social change. We are a significant societal and economic sector — one that is largely driven by values. To fail to take a leadership position in this critical issue would do each of us individually, and the field collectively, a huge disservice.

— R. Andrew SwinneyPresidentPhiladelphia Foundation
R. Andrew Swinney is president and CEO of the Philadelphia Foundation. Established in 1918, the foundation provides philanthropic services to Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery counties. An active member in the field of community foundations both locally and nationally, Swinney has been involved in the Pennsylvania and Wisconsin community foundation associations, and chaired the Professional and Organizational Development Action Team of the Council on Foundation's Community Foundation Leadership Team.

Inconvenient truths

Sometimes, the truth is hard to accept. Recently, a study was released by famous political scientist, Robert Putnam that revealed that diversity contributes to a decrease in civic engagement.

BBC Science Radio covered a story that sought to explain why women were severely underrepresented in science/math/engineering fields in academia. Ironically, a woman scientist tries to explain that nature is why women are underrepresented in the field.

More difference, less engagement
Putnam's research has unleashed a flurry of discussion within various circles. Liberals are afraid that the study hurts years of diversity advocacy. Conservatives are using the study for evil saying this is why segregation works and why illegal aliens are threatening our country.

Putnam has been criticized because he is one of few researchers that wants to address social issues instead of just studying them. Even he is bothered by his work.

Why? Because the numbers tell us that the more diverse a community, the less people vote and participate in philanthropic causes. The study says that people are more isolated and care less about the "us" and more about the "we" within their own circles.

In other words, there is no common good. Some experts within related fields are saying that we just need to work to make these results a positive thing. They refuse (as I would, too) to accept that diversity is a bad thing. The answer: amend the conditions of diverse communities and help the process of assimilation so that diverse groups can identify with the "greater good".

The problem I have with that idea is that concepts like "philanthropy", "greater good" and "civic engagement" are all broadly defined and viewed within the lens of the dominant culture. The reality is, communities of color are highly philanthropic and have strong histories of being civically involved. How else would you explain the role of the Black church in the Civil Rights Movement? How do you explain Jewish philanthropy? How do you explain the large amounts of money that flows from here back to Mexico by way of Mexican workers?

These are all ways in which communities of color have defined engagement. To only look at engagement as voting or how much you donate (monetarily speaking), it will look like diverse groups muddle the patterns of a community. Can you explain voting participation by education or income instead of race? The article suggests that there are high levels of distrust for the "other" in these communities. Gee, I wonder why? Could you wonder why people of color vote less when the democratic process is constantly being undermined by this administration?

Could you explain financial giving in terms of income? Another study that was just released showed the giving trends of low-income people and their giving habits aren't too shabby.

Does Putnam's study assume, then, that when communities are homogeneous that people give more because it's "their own"? I don't see anything wrong with that, but it alarms me that people will somehow use his work to argue that diversity is harmful. Even Putnam warns against doing this.

It alarms me how much we examine communities/people of color through a white lens. When we do this, things are suddenly viewed as problematic and the solution ends up being assimilation. How do we define "we"? When we talk about protecting the greater good through increased civic engagement, whose "greater good" are we talking about?

Out of the kitchen and into the laboratory
The BBC article talks about women in academia. It's no secret that women suffer grave discrimination in higher levels of education despite enjoying increased presence overall. In this piece, scientists say that maybe it really is a matter of nature versus nurture when it comes to women and math/science. Maybe people were too harsh on Larry Summers.

I'm not the sort of lady-ist who will not hear people out when they talk about biological differences between men and women. I know that I am one of those people who were not wired for math and science, nor was it nurtured in me by parents or teachers. But I guess I don't care, because I know plenty of women who love and excel at these technical subjects. Just like I know plenty of men who are better wordsmiths than techies.

I guess I am not bothered by science that shows we're different. I guess I am more bothered when people use it to discriminate or discount when there are living exceptions to the research. Remember when white people used "science" to prove that the Negroid race was genetically stupid, thus slavery was completely justifiable?

If a woman is genuinely adept at math and science and has proven her worth in the area, why are we still giving her a hard time? It's pretty difficult, in my opinion, to BS your way through med school. So I would assume that any woman who is a researcher, practitioner, scientist, smarty-pants whatever really knows her shit and worked hard to do so. Maybe she has better/different wiring than me even though we're both XX.

Feminists and liberals and the like shouldn't cringe at the science that says maybe we're different. We should cringe at the people who say that science proves that the differences make women the lesser sex.

Science sometimes presents us with inconvenient truths; things that challenge our way of thinking. However, it's only inconvenient when science is used to hinder the progress of social justice. Diversity is still a good thing and women are still deserving of equal treatment in the workplace no matter what the numbers say.

New study on charitable giving trends

Revealing study recently released about charities and American giving habits based on income. The most striking point for me was the fact that the richest people give the least to charities that combat poverty.

Not only do the rich get richer, they certainly don't give a shit about the poor. In fact, the study revealed that poor people give the most to poverty charities.

To Integrate Society, Re-Engage the Community

by C. Eugene Steuerle, Senior Fellow, Urban Institute

Louisville, Kentucky, is a nice town. I'm biased — I grew up there. It's not South, North, East, or West in makeup, but a bit of all four. It is home to horse racing and bourbon, but also to the world's largest producer of Braille books and the Louisville Slugger baseball bat.

Louisville is back in the news these days because its plan for integrating schools, like Seattle's, was overturned recently by the Supreme Court. However divided is opinion over this decision, it should force us to look more deeply into what a well-integrated society means and requires. Public debate should range far beyond the use of race as a factor in determining which kids can go to which schools. Besides school systems, we should be challenging institutions ranging from universities to charity and corporate boards to governments on ways to diversify that go well beyond simple ratios of blacks to whites or females to males.

Return to Louisville. In 2000, it achieved what many major cities around the nation must envy. It integrated into a single jurisdiction the former city of Louisville, with its one-third African-American population, with the surrounding Jefferson County, which has a much larger concentration of whites. That's right. They merged, and the suburbs basically agreed to work with the inner city on issues ranging from school integration to money per pupil to access to government support services. Now this may only be one step, but it could matter more to minorities in Louisville than whatever change in its schooling formula the recent Supreme Court decision might trigger.

Schools can be integrated in many ways besides racially. In Alexandria, Virginia, for instance, the high school integration problem was solved simply by merging all the high schools into one. A 2000 movie named Remember the Titans chronicled that event (at least as well as Hollywood could do it; Alexandria, next to the nation's capital, was described as a small Southern town where football was a way of life).

Many school systems also can use basic statistics better to ensure the well-being of all students. The new court decision doesn't prevent school districts from tying admission or access to alternative schooling to family need or income or homeownership or housing value — replacing racial integration with class integration, but almost certainly promoting racial equality in the process. Even more to the point, districts should be measuring the improvement of every student in every environment, constantly re-jiggering requirements, school structures, quality of teachers, number of teachers' aides, early childhood education, and whatever is under their control to serve all our children.

We'll never integrate society solely by pressuring primary and secondary schools. That's why major universities that claim to have integrated are now coming under greater scrutiny. Harvard or Yale might have little problem taking in the children of doctors and generals and lawyers who also happen to be minorities. But, even with all their intellectual firepower, most elite schools provide little data on their record in serving those from poorer or disadvantaged households. Some recent studies, for instance, point to the low percentage of students at these schools who were admitted with income-related Pell grants.

If we really want an integrated society, we should re-engage the working world, not just schools, to meet that challenge. Consider boards of directors. My colleague, Francie Ostrower, recently chronicled the low participation of minorities on charity boards — even some of those serving minorities. As for corporate boards, the glass ceiling is well noted; but even when it is cracked, boards often tap the same minority person or woman over and over again rather than reach out to more people from largely excluded classes.

Closer to home, residential segregation lives on, thanks to various ordinances, such as minimum size housing or lots. Some rules prevent two families from moving to a single house in a neighborhood where schools are better — even when their combined families might have fewer total members than a single family in a similar home. How about zoning that encourages McMansions to be built in high land-value areas to the exclusion of high-density developments that the middle class could afford?

Moving toward a truly integrated society — like combining Louisville and Jefferson County into a single jurisdiction — requires hard work, creativity, and a reshuffling of resources as opportunities arise. A single statistic or ratio can't be the measure of success. Whatever else the recent Supreme Court sets in motion, let's hope it catalyzes a real public discussion of the many dimensions of an integrated society and how to promote opportunity for all.

— C. Eugene Steuerle
Senior FellowUrban Institute

C. Eugene Steuerle is a senior fellow at the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C. During the Reagan administration, he served as deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis at the Treasury Department. The Urban Institute gathers and analyzes data, conducts policy research, evaluates programs and services, and educates Americans on critical issues and trends.

Teaching a man to fish

Super cool commentary about lending to the poor and tackling root problems versus putting band-aids on them. An excerpt:

"Gifts of charity do provide income to the poor, but they do not necessarily increase their freedom. Only the poor receive gifts of charity, and only the poor truly understand the weight of the debt created by such gifts. All gift-giving creates some form of indebtedness. For the recipients of charity, that debt can never be repaid. As a result, charitable giving can increase the unfreedom of the poor by confirming — to themselves and others — their status as distant, needy, and different from the non-poor. It is perhaps not surprising that while charity may work well to temporarily ameliorate the suffering of the poor, it has been criticized for failing to transform the conditions that create and perpetuate poverty. In fact, charity frequently has been associated with not only not changing the conditions of poverty, but even deepening them.

The lives of the poor are precarious, dangerous, and disadvantaged. However, the poor are not without resources and they are not irretrievably lost. "Microlending" is an approach that begins with assumption that poverty, not the poor themselves, is the problem. Further, it assumes that under the right conditions and with the right methods, the poor can become non-poor."

Funding Serious Change

Since Moxie is in the business of driving missions through fundraising, I found this commentary by a female philanthopist to be well-written and inspirational.