Week 10

Foundations and Funders

This weeks readings centered around foundations and funders. It was interesting to read about the Oregon Community Foundation, I was really surprised to see how big it was and how much it could accomplish. It was also surprising in doing the scavenger hunt to see just how many grants and money is out there.

I agree entirely with the plan in Obama's budget which we had to read. It seems that today taxation is getting more and more regressive as though that is going to solve any problem. I like the fact that Obama's proposal is fiscally responsible and only effects the top tax bracket. It's refreshing to see that there are some changes in the tax loopholes. I think there's a misconceived understanding that rich people give a higher percentage of their wealth to charity, I'm not so sure that that's true. I feel as though we are really saddled with a deficit and all the tax breaks to the rich are not really helping. In order for fiscal responsibility people need to make sacrifices (as the middle class is making with government benefits) the upper class is going to have to make similar sacrifices.

It seems as though the future of nonprofits is pretty hazy. It was interesting reading the article by Stannard-Stockton about how it must react to the “new normal.” I agree that philanthropists really need to stay on their toes while the crisis unfolds. It seems as though cuts in the nonprofit sector would be the normal reaction to a crisis like this. However, there has been evidence of the contrary.

The article by Goldmark seemed like a shot of reality. It seems as though non-profits have to have a clear mission and goals in order to receive money. It was interesting to see the different measure of non-profit effectiveness. Instead of return on investment or any kind of market efficiency it was impact. I feel as though this is the money appropriate way to measure the success of a nonprofit albeit unclear. Of course, determining all of this is far from simple. It seems as though “impact” is a subjective term and there are certainly steps in determining what impacts one thing more than another.

Additionally it was interesting to read about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  It seems as though the foundation has been a great success and has been particularly good at reducing soil erosion and promoting sustainable agriculture (two topics I'm really interested in).
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/learning/Pages/overview.aspx

 

It was interesting to read about the Lake Winnipeg watershed and the role the Community Foundations of Canada had.    It was interesting to see how this one foundation would try to attract other foundations to help with the effort of improving the water in Canada.  I was surprised to see that many of the foundations came together and mobilized to work together.  I had thought that foundations would be competitive or in conflict.  I was very happy to see that they worked together to improve the watershed.  One part of the solution was educating the community to treat the water better.  It seemed as though once these foundations pooled their resources together they were able to be more effective.  People were able to get together and work on the environment, but it certainly required some context.  The mayor was very progressive and the foundation was proactive in involving the community.

www.cfc-fcc.ca/doc/environment/thinking-like-a-watershed.pdf

 

International Nonprofits

International Non-profits

One of the topics in the reading was about the merits (or demerits) of foreign aid. One side of the issue, presented by William Easterly claims that foreign aid is a failure. Easterly made several good points in the video. One is that foreign aid (in this case the Worldbank) can be a bureaucratic nightmare. Not only does the Worldbank have many administrative shortfalls but so too does the government of the poor countries. Both the poor countries and the Worldbank don't have the capacity or the incentive to track the aid efficiently. Some of the problems that Easterly talked about was lack of feedback between the poor countries and the Worldbank, the lack of accountability, and the lack of transparency. I found Easterly's article to be true in some respects but utterly flawed in others.

Easterly's article frames the Worldbank as the model of all foreign aid, which clearly shouldn't be the case. The Worldbank and the IMF can be failures when requiring economies to restructure and open themselves up to multi-national corporations The problem is not that they give foreign aid it's the loops they require the developing countries to jump through. Therefore, Easterly's primary problem with foreign aid is not systemic but administrative (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/09/imf-and-world-bank-intervention-a-problem-not-a-solution). Should it be administered in the proper way, as it was with Spain, it can be a success. In 1986 Spain received 10 billion dollars in foreign direct investment (FDI) aid in exchange for liberalizing their economy (among other things). Prior to the aid Spain's economy was in shambles – a closed “backwards” economy. The aid allowed Spain to build up its infrastructure and reinvigorated it's domestic industries. There are clear administrative differences between the way the EU gave aid and the way the Worldbank did that need to be understood. The FDI in Spain was well coordinated between the Spanish government and European investors and it's success was a win-win for both parties (http://wehner.tamu.edu/mgmt.www/NAFTA/spring99/Groups99/bunny/final.htm)

Foreign aid can work as Ngozi Okonjo's article explains, there just needs to be structural changes in how it is administered. I don't think that anyone would argue that foreign aid is a panacea – pouring money into the problems alone is not the solution. Rather foreign aid can be as Ngozi claims can be a facilitator, a catalyst for growth, as it was in Spain. Ngozi claims that when you give people aid they are going to be productive in the economy, from an economic standpoint if so many African people weren't sick or debilitated they could give back to the economy. Therefore aid is more than just humanitarian, it is economical. The failure of the Worldbank aid as I'm sure Easterly could agree was the lack of coordination between the two parties. Had there been more coordination, and had the aid been administered in more economically catalytic ways – such as infrastructure or empowering women (as Ngozi argues), it could have been more of a success.

The website for the Mercycorps was really interesting. I feel like Mercycorps is a really good organization that has a lot to offer, it's also pretty cool that its headquartered in Portland. One of the goals for Mercycorps is to help with indoor air pollution. Environmental health problems to these third world countries is not CO2 emissions but things as fundamental as indoor air pollution – something that doesn't really effect first world countries. According to the World Health Organization indoor air pollution is responsible for 1.6 million death every year (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/index.html). This is because people have to rely on wood, dung, crop waste or coal for cooking and heating (without chimneys) and the particles from that result in pollution and severe health problems. The “energy crisis” for first world countries is declining oil reserves while for the third world it's finding wood or fuel for survival. Mercycorps helps by providing clean cooking stoves, helping people build mud stoves, and providing more efficient ways of cooking/heating. The result is that there is less pollution in these developing countries while at the same time there is a reduced exposure to smoke which leads to improved health for women and children.

Week 8 Post

Advocacy and Arts

This weeks readings were centered around non-profit advocacy and arts. Advocacy plays an important role in social movements and on progressing political goals. In fact I feel as though advocacy groups can be the most important of all the non-profit organizations. Advocacy groups are an example of a “civil society,” a fundamental check to the power of the public and private spheres. Advocacy groups have spearheaded the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, childwelfare, women's rights movements, etc. They are a completely necessary force without which social progress is difficult. Almost any political/social movement relies on the grassroots mobilization of advocacy campaigns. While 501 (c)(4)/(c)(3)'s can't “campaign” for certain elected officials they can organize through a capacity by lobbying. The success of advocacy groups often relies on their ability to organize behind a specific, precise issue. For instance, the mobilization in Madison or Cairo aim to address a precise issue and are able to mobilize through shared interest. Lobbying is often done for certain causes of specific importance to the lobbyists – certain environmental issues, education bills, etc.

The protests in Madison are down-right frightening but certainly a good example of advocacy mobilization. The dilemma is likely prophetic of future situations in American politics – where deficit minded fiscal responsibility meets slashes in government programs. The public workers unions appear willing to forfeit on many of the issues, just not surrendering their future collective bargaining agreement (CBA) ability, which frankly is more than legitimate. The Wisconsin public union workers do have cushy benefits but slashing the CBA would destroy their last vestige of power. The public union workers are able to mobilize, as most unions do, across multiple disciplines – teachers, public employees, prison guards. While Governor Walker appears not willing to budge, the unicameral state legislature is unable to pass the bill slashing public union CBA because the democratic state senators fled the state. Similarly Indiana State Representatives fled to Illinois to stall a pending anti-union bill (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-0223-indiana-democrats-flee-20110224,1,4494256.story). Governor Walker, while democratically elected, should not be allowed to slash union benefits like this (mainly the CBA), I feel that it is more a crusade against the democratic party than a move in fiscal responsibility. Walker's stubborn refusal to compromise with the unions is analogous to the eminent shutdown the federal government will face in March because of the inability for democrats and republicans to compromise on a federal budget (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/23/tea-party-endgame-no-government).

There is a range of different advocacy groups out there. According to O'Neill 79 percent of them have fewer than ten employees. However, there are also large advocacy groups like the AARP. The AARP has a tremendous political lobby and is one of the largest non-profit organizations in the country. As of 2000 the AARP has 34 million members and a revenue of $580 million. While 501 (c)(4)'s make up most advocacy non-profits, 501 (c)(3)'s make up the vast bulk of advocacy money, comprising more than 90 percent of their assets. Often times private foundations can be major funders of advocacy organization, notably the Ford Foundation.

It was interesting reading the Oregon Attorney General article. It seems that the crackdown on fundraising and abuses through Senate Bill 40 is a good effort to expose questionable charities, at least in theory.  I feel like a lot of time there needs to be accountability for what the non-profits do with what money.  Also if the non-profits are unethical it seems like they need to be accountable.

Non-profit arts is something that I know very little about. Before hand, I figured that arts were not very economical, however the article by Laurence Arnold presented a good counterargument. According to Arnold, “in 2000 nonprofit arts groups generated $134 billion in economic activity and 4.9 million jobs.” This economic activity then grew 11 percent from 2000 to 2005. The arts are likely the smallest portion of the nonprofit sector. The United States government does not support arts nearly as much as European countries. According to O'Neill, the US federal, state, and local government spending on the arts and museums was $6, as compared to $46 in Canada, $57 in France, and $85 in Germany. It is really difficult to tell whether the government should give more money to the arts because it is something I don't really know much about.

Tuition hikes was the theme our class focused on today. In the UK a string of recent protests was triggered by similar tuition hikes (albeit extreme ones). The protestors however, were unable to get the government officials to compromise on a reasonable tuition rate. The UK offers cheaper tuition in many schools and despite the massive increase in tuition there rates are still noticeably lower than most college tuitions in the United States. It will be interesting if tuition rates increase similarly in the United States if there would be protests.
As good as we have public education in America, there are certainly signs that we are in need of reform. According to the Associated Press the United States ranks 14th among 34 developed countries in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math ^{(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40544897/ns/us_news-life/).} Compared to other developed countries the United States is average at best. This is something that quite frankly doesn’t bug me too much. The problem I have with public education in America is what Robert Balfanz, a John Hopkins University researcher termed "dropout factories" (
Dropout factories are high schools where no more than 60 percent of the students who start as freshmen make it to their senior year. They are neglected schools in neighborhoods where graduation is not the norm. Most dropout factories are in large cities in the urban core. According to Balfanz’s research at John Hopkins about 1 and 10 high schools in America are dropout factories and this is a trend that is continuing to rise. These schools are often a real task for the teachers and can be beyond their capacity to deal with, particularly because many of these students have received poor education before high school. 

In line with the drop out factories it was sad to read the Subprime Opportunities article.  I found the analogy between for-profit predatory education systems and subprime mortgage lending very compelling.  It is sad that these predatory education systems reach out to those in low socio-economic status yet give back little in return.  It is also disturbing to see the tremendous growth in these predatory institutions.  I almost the federal government shouldn't be giving out these grants to people who clearly cannot afford high costs and low returns of for-profit education.  It is a clear analogy to the federal government and the HUD extending housing loans to people who clearly cannot afford them.
There is one other problem with public education that particularly bothers me. I feel as though teachers are not given adequate evaluations in terms of their performance in the classroom. While the vast majority of teachers give so much to their students, there are still many poor performing teachers. Often times the turnover rate for public teachers is much lower than for other professions, as they are protected by pensions. While a doctor or lawyer can be fired for mal-practice this generally doesn’t apply to public teachers. It generally takes a sexual harassment allegation, not poor teacher performance, to get a public teacher fired. Teachers should be more adequately evaluated on the basis of how effectively they teach their class. The problem, however, is that there is often not an adequate pool of teachers to replace a bad teacher. Who is to say that if one fires a poor performing teacher that the replacement will be of better quality?  Teaching is not as glorified a career choice as it should be. A far more daunting problem is the teacher unions and the tenure program. The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers are the most well organized and powerful voices in education politics. It is often very difficult for reform particularly with such a powerful teachers lobby, which funds the Democratic Party. Often times when officials push for reform, to purge teachers that are inadequate they end up losing their job. The text book example of this is Michelle Rhee, the former chancellor of the Washington D.C. public school district. Rhee would lay off teachers and principals, whom she viewed as giving poor performances, the obstacle was the often easily attainment of tenure, which would give many teachers seniority in the system (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21531704/ns/us_news-education/).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Rhee). I feel as though Rhee really had good ideas and that had the teachers unions agreed to her proposal they would have received much higher pay in exchange for weakening the seniority protections. Really it’s a good tradeoff because it allows for adequate evaluations while increasing teacher’s pay at the same time. Rhee however, ultimately lost her job in 2010 because of incoming mayor Vincent Gray (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/District_Dossier/2010/10/michelle_rhee_resigns_as_dc_sc.html).

Environment and Nonprofit

Blog Post # 5: Environment

                One of the topics we spoke about in class today was the cooperation of environmental non-profits and corporations. These two groups seem like an odd couple because they generally have conflicting agendas.   One of the readings about the McKenzie Watershed featured one of these odd couples.  In the McKenzie Watershed fast facts it mentioned that “There are six dams providing hydroelectric power, flood control and/or recreation, but which also have undesirable impacts on fish.”  It was interesting to note that EWEB (Eugene Water and Electric Board) and the Springfield Utility Board make up about 47% of the McKenzie Watershed Council’s revenue in the 2008 fiscal year.  The Leaburg Waterville and the Carmen-Smith Hydroelectric Project are located on the McKenzie and serve as a source for some 11,600 customers (www.eweb.org/public/documents/energy/EAP_Brochure_2008.pdf) or about 15% of EWEB’s energy income (http://www.eweb.org/sustainability/report/energy).   Not to mention the fact that all of EWEB’s water comes from the McKenzie river.  Despite the fact that the hydro-electric dams damage the ecosystem it seems befitting that the relationship is symbiotic.  Both parties really benefit from the cooperation of the other.  The MWC, which regularly holds meetings at the EWEB, benefits by the funding EWEB sends, to improve the fish habitat restoration.   EWEB, a contributor to undesirable impacts on fish, can mitigate its environmental impact by allowing MWC to perform water quality evaluations and habitat restoration projects.  
The article Why Mr. Gore Chose Venture Capital and Not the Nonprofit World: The Environmental Social Commons Transition to the Marketplace was particularly compelling for me. I feel that in a capitalistic society it is very important for environmental action to actually have a market based value. That is why I'm a huge fan of the cap and trade policy. Cap and trade policies make companies have mandatory caps on emissions. The cap is then sold to firms in the form of emission permits or credits. Firms that emit below the cap may trade their permits to firms that over-emit. Thus firms have a market based incentive not to pollute. While I certainly feel that non-profits should have a role in the environment, particularly in bringing issues on the policy agenda, I think market driven solutions are more probable for catching on. One solution that Obama mentioned in the State of the Union address was the high-speed rail system. In the SOU address Obama said he wanted to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/08/us-high-speed-rail-plan_n_820234.html?ir=Green. Spatially America is an infrastructure nightmare, particularly in terms of public transportation. Our public transportation ranks near the bottom of the developed world. In order to get off the reliance of fossil fuels I think that there must be a shift in how American's look at driving cars and using public transportation. Low and behold Obama unveiled a $53 billion dollar spending plan for planning for high-speed rail for the next 6 fiscal years http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/08/us-high-speed-rail-plan_n_820234.html?ir=Green. Should congress approve the plan it could make for trains that could travel as fas as 250 mph. This plan could give American's a market-based reason to not rely on cars and thus reduce carbon emissions.

I feel as though non-profit play an important role in the environment, particularly because for-profits have a generally external agenda for the environment. However, that being said, should businesses be forced to internalize some of their externalities they could provide for the environment while continuing their market based operations.  It is important that non-profits play a role in introducing analysis that can be digested by for-profits, rather than butting heads where nothing generally gets down it is important to find a common ground.  Often times it can be in the business's best interest to go green and non-profits can be an important outlet for providing this, as the McKenzie Watershed example shows.  Non-profit NGOs play an important role in getting environmental legislation on the table but that is only the first part of the equation.  Following up with proper business responses to the environment is necessary

Blog # 4 Health Care

As the video above shows, health care reform doesn’t come easy.  The Clinton Administration was enduring many of the same obstacles that the Obama Administration is now going through.  The trajectory of reform is often painfully gradual and fraught with trial and error.

                This week’s literature focuses on health-care and non-profits.  Chapter 5 of Nonprofit Nation dives into the topic of health care.  According to Nonprofit Nation: “health care accounts for one-seventh of the nation’s economy (O’Neill page 92).”  Like it or not, the health care services in America plays a tremendous role.  The general makeup of health agencies comes from for-profit, nonprofit, and governmental sources.  Nonprofit Nation brings to the table some debates about healthcare that I had not considered.  One is whether these organizations are moving in the direction from nonprofit to for profit.  Another is the efficiency and societal good of nonprofit health care services and how that compares to for-profit health care. 

                Are healthcare services moving towards for-profits?  The answer is not entirely clear.  According to Nonprofit Nation: “The authors conclude that there has been little change over the past 15 years in the overall share of hospitals held by nonprofit, for-profit and government owners” (O’Neill page 103).  Jenny Gold’s article Mergers of for-profit, nonprofit hospitals: Who does it help, makes a contrarian argument.  Jenny’s claim is that as of recently there has been an unprecedented movement towards for-profit hospitals.  Apparently, in bad economic times, like now, non-profit hospitals are often times not financially stable.  Therefore, large mega-corporations can buy out the non-profit hospitals, like in the DMC/Vanguard Health Systems of Nashville situation.  Nonprofit Nation also claims that there have been some shifts in ownership away from nonprofits.  Policies like “deinstitutionalization,” privatization of HMOs, IRS rules that require evidence of community benefits, and the shift in home health care towards for profit, have all been shifts away from nonprofits (O’Neill page 103). 

The question, then becomes are for-profit hospitals worse, or less efficient than non-profit hospitals?  According to Gold’s article, the results are inconclusive.  A separate article by Health Affairs lays out some of the differences.  The article proposes that for-profit hospitals are more likely to offer services based on service profitability, and are therefore more economically efficient.  They are able to do so by locating in areas with relatively well-insured patients.  Conversely non-profits are more open to un-insured patients, and are therefore more equitable.  I generally regard non-profit hospitals as more preferable, although the literature is widely debated and overall incomplete.  Non-profit hospitals seem preferable by providing equitable treatment and community benefits.  The tradeoff, however, is that they can go bankrupt in bad economic times like how Gold’s article details.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/24/3/790.full

                The policy of deinstitutionalization is one that I do not know much about.  According to Psychiatric Services a psychology journal, deinstitutionalization is the release of mentally ill individuals from hospitals into the community, their diversion from hospital admission, and the development of alternative community services.  Evidently there have been problems in deinstitutionalization – the greatest problems have been in creating adequate and accessible community resources.  There is also a new generation of uninstitutionalized persons who have severe mental illnesses, many of which become homeless or imprisoned.  According to the journal the lesson that must be learned is that successful deinstitutionalization “involves more than simply changing the locus of care” there must also be community services specifically tailored to the needs of each individual.  I feel like the deinstitutionalization policy was not carried out as delicately as it should have been.  The lack of proper community facilities has resulted in a growing number of homelessness that is not properly understood by today’s society.

http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/52/8/1039

                The debate over healthcare is rigorous and ongoing.  Politicians on either side of the aisle are adamant about reform (or status quo).  I have noticed the debate can result in screaming matches where neither side really knows what they are talking about.  It seems from the article The Value of Nonprofit Health Care that while both sides have pronounced opinions most are not properly educated.  “Past public opinion polling indicates that 80 to 90 percent of Americans appear to think that ownership in health care does matter.  Unfortunately, almost two-thirds of those polled don’t know if the health care providers or insures they rely upon in their own communities are nonprofit or for-profit.”  One policy tool one can use is simply education.  The reason why I feel that non-profit hospitals are more adequate is the incentives they have.  For example, a girl in class made a claim that often for-profit doctors would act on the incentive cycling through patients faster than necessary.  In her example, the doctors were paid on the number of patients served, and would therefore cycle through them faster than necessary.  Non-profit doctors would seemingly not have the same incentive.  For-profit hospitals it seems are focused on profits and efficiency; non-profits seem to have a larger scope in providing what is essentially a social good.  I feel as though education of these incentives can be essential towards producing adequate and equitable health-care reform.

 

Blog # 3

This week’s reading reviewed the social service aspect of nonprofit organizations.  Social service in nonprofits is arguably the most broadly appealing and therein most sponsored facet of nonprofit organization.  I feel that social service non-profits are the conventional image most people think of when envisioning non-profits --before taking this class I thought it represented the vast majority of non-profits.  Our class this week was spent in the library where we learned about the resources that we could use to look up statistics on non-profits.  It was interesting to see all of the tools at our disposal.  Guidestar and Foundation Center in particular were helpful for me.
On Tuesday much of the class was spent debating health care. At one point the professor mentioned the cost of extending medicare to those on the verge of death.  I find this debate very interesting yet, of course, highly contentious.  As the video above explains "last year medicare paid 55 billion dollars just for doctor and hospital bills for the last 2 months of patients lives. That's more than the budget of Homeland Security or the Department of Education."  I found this statistic, quite frankly alarming, particularly because much of these charges are unnecessary for the most part.  By law medicare cannot reject any treatment based upon cost.  Therefore, many expensive unnecessary procedures are given to patients that may or may not extend their lives.  The debate is obviously touchy but I felt it was interesting and relevant to our class.  I couldn't upload the full video but it is available here: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6xPBmkrn0g).

Chapter 4 of Nonprofit Nation goes into the relationship government has with social service non-profits that I had never considered.  According to the book, the United States government accounts for “three-fifths of nonprofit social service revenue” (p. 89).  Conversely, the government does not provide significant aid to other non-profit services.  In my opinion social service non-profits can often be much more efficient than government social services, and therefore permit government assistance.  Non-profits are not entangled by constant bureaucratic red-tape and hoops and hurdles that the government must go through.  Moreover, the government is generally reluctant to try new ideas; often government agencies are conservative in that respect.  Non-profit agencies on the other hand have the ability to act as laboratories for new creative ways of social service.  However, the government-non-profit relationship can often be dicey.  For instance, in the Supreme Court case Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZO.html) the Boy Scouts of America were affirmed the right to discriminate scout masters on the basis of sexual orientation, atheism, and agnosticism as protected by the First Amendment.  The 5-4 decision was interesting because there is federal money channeled through the Boy Scouts, therefore, one would expect that the First Amendment would not necessarily be extended.

I usually think of non-profits as unable to compete economically with for-profit organizations.  Non-profits do not have a profit maximizing mechanism that for-profits have because non-profits internalize so many of their externalities.  However, the article titled Redeeming value: St. Vincent’s builds a business empire on what’s thrown away changed my perspective (http://registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/business/25677985-41/mcdonald-agency-business-vincent-paul.csp).  The St. Vincent de Paul “increased its revenues and grew its work force each year by more than 10 percent.”  The St Vincent’s was economically competitive because of its outstanding financial manager Terry McDonald and because it relies on some of its returns instead of purely on donations.  I think Terry McDonald’s socially minded entrepreneurism in an effective model for other non-profits.  His operation provides for a creative and business minded frame of organization businesses have but also the altruistic function of non-profits.  I feel that it will be important for like-minded people like Terry McDonald to represent non-profit organizations.  Should non-profits have more business savvy approaches (in a limited sense) they would probably have larger successes.  

The article Understanding the tools in the affordable housing toolkit by Malcolm Kenton (http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/8786/understanding-the-tools-in-the-affordable-housing-toolkit/) gives some insight into providing affordable housing.  One policy tool the article highlighted that I am particularly a fan of is inclusionary zoning.  Many people think that zoning practices generally prohibit low and moderate income housing by making unnecessary zoning requirements which increase property value.  Practices like these are exclusionary zoning and have been a barrier to affordable housing and social integration.  Inclusionary zoning conversely requires developers to reserve a certain amount of new residential development as affordable, low-income households.  Inclusionary zoning prompts a market driven solution to affordable housing problems by actually requiring developers to bear the burden through zoning requirements.  Jonathan Levine's book Zoned Out: Regulation, Markets, and Choices in Transportation and Metropolitan Land-use is a really interesting book about the power inclusionary zoning can have on affordable housing.
  (http://books.google.com/books?id=zURqiV_lGqkC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116& dq=zoned+out:+regulation,+markets+inclusionary&source=bl&ots=iWOPcZ6wyD&sig=OgkQSOLyDks1NIvqrmlsXVAVwqI&hl=en&ei=m18_Tai3Moa2sAPw77nTBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false). 

Social service non-profits can be an effective alternative to cradle-to-the-grave government sponsored welfare programs.  However, there certainly needs to be some middle ground.  The government obviously must have some form of oversight for the money it is funding, yet, it cannot do so to the point where it impedes the non-profit’s independence.