The Moral Case for Increasing Funding for National Service Programs

“But if they injure you and could have helped it?” said Gwendolen. 

Deronda wondered at her choice of subjects.  A painful impression arrested his answer a moment, but at last he said, with a graver, deeper intonation, ‘Why then, after all, I prefer my place to theirs.’”

            -George Eliot’s Daniel Deronda

            A few days ago I had a conversation concerning the question: Is it better to be Barry Bonds and make it as a baseball player or be someone who does not take steroids but never makes it out of the minor leagues?

            My fellow conversationalists pointed out that Bonds may be shamed, but he still has a lot of money that he does not have to give back.  The thousands of would-be major league ballplayers do not have that luxury—many of them are without other skill-sets since they have focused exclusively on baseball.  As a result, while Bonds may be shamed in certain communities, he can still live a certain life whereas the other ballplayers that never made it have to constantly struggle just to make their daily ration.

            With this information in mind, the question becomes: On what grounds is it better to be Barry Bonds or to be an honest minor-league player?

            The cop-out answer is that steroids pose health risks and therefore that is reason enough not to do it.  This reasoning fails to address the fundamental moral question that arises.  Namely, is it ever OK to gain an unfair advantage over one’s competitors?

            To me the answer is simple: No.  It is rotten to gain an unfair advantage.  As the conversation wore on, however, I noticed that I was unique in this view.  For the others in the discussion, health and wealth were their main arguments. 

            This led me to wonder why this might be.  I immediately realized that they did not grow up with an honor code at their middle and high school.  To be sure not everyone who grows up with an honor code abides by it, and not everyone who lacks one growing up does not abide by something similar—but in general, the teaching of these values leads to their being acted upon.

            In a similar vein, community engagement, active citizenship, and social responsibility must be learned if we wish to promote these values in our community.  It is morally right for the private sector, public sector and government to increase funding for national service programs.  I have made previous blog posts arguments about whether increasing funding for national service is economically feasible (which it is), but now I am not sure how persuasive the economics argument really is.  Put simply, by investing in our greatest asset—human capital—we will reap larger benefits than we can even imagine. 

            Of course, the moral argument for increasing funding for national service programs becomes problematic when faced with the fact that moral arguments can be made for every cause that needs government funding.  And undoubtedly there are many causes more worthy of our sympathy than the promotion of national service.  The reason the moral argument for increasing national service programs outweighs many other causes, however, is that civic engagement, loyalty, and social responsibility are virtues upon which everything else depends.  Without the trust of the community and the belief in American ideals—life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all—how can our Great Experiment continue?

2009 Closes with Great Victories

I just sent an email to ServeNext members and wanted to post it here as well.  I highlighted the GREAT victories of 2009 and the work ahead in 2010 and beyond as we continue to build the voice for service/social innovation policy and ensure it remains a political priority.  If you don’t already get our updates, sign-up here.

- Show quoted text -

Hello Zach, Great news!!! Since President Obama signed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act into law earlier this year, the question has been: will Congress fully fund it at the President’s request for the Fiscal 2010 budget? As we learned earlier this week, the answer is YES! And this means a record level of funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, Learn & Serve America, and other programs. The budget for 2010 will be $1.149 billion – a $260 million increase from 2009! Thank you for the work you did to push our Members of Congress! Other great progress this week includes the passage of the Jobs for Main Street Act of 2010 in the House of Representatives. This legislation includes $200 million to support up to 25,000 additional AmeriCorps members. The Senate is expected to consider this bill in January. These victories mean two important things: First, that our elected leaders realize the importance of service to our communities as a strategy to tackle needs and employ people during these especially tough economic times. For example, service members and volunteers are helping the unemployed, assisting in food banks, adding capacity to local nonprofits, working to keep students in school, and so much more. This combination of creating service jobs and increasing services delivered is so critical right now. Second, these victories show the power of great service programs combined with effective advocacy and political leadership. It is important to remember this as we approach other legislative campaigns in the future (congressional funding is an annual process, for example). There is much work ahead to continue growing and strengthening the service movement and to ensure it remains a political priority. Thanks for everything you’ve done throughout 2009! Your efforts have helped make it an historic year for the role of service in America and in our political system. Have a great holiday season and talk to you in 2010! With Gratitude, Zach and the ServeNext.org Team

ServeNext.org P.O. Box 51065 Washington, DC 20091 phone: 202-580-8639 fax: 202-729-8100

How Should Organizations Change Their Members’ E-mails?

When I was younger, I remember my parents received paper newsletters by different organizations, in the mail, delivered into the mailbox. I remember pages full of information about an upcoming event, a previous event, pictures, articles and so on.

However, today we (including myself) receive newsletters as e-mails, for the most part. But with so many e-mails and the short attention span I have, it’s hard for me to go through all the information in that one e-mail. Especially if that e-mail has a lot of information. Those e-mails eventually go unopened and unread while contributing to the decline in opened e-mails.

That’s what George Weiner’s article, “R.I.P. E-mail Newsletters:7 Ways to Pump Adrenaline Into Your List” talks about as he addresses ways organizations can help their e-mail newsletters avoid being unopened e-mails.

Weiner’s first suggestion, personalize those e-mails. Collect information about each of your subscribers. I know I am more apt to read Dear Heather, then have there be nothing. Idealist.org does this and I read those.

He also suggests orgs spend more time on the subject line. Use a statistic or even the person’s name. Also, add some personality to the “from” address. Scope out Web sites, especially magazine sites.

While I’m talking about subject lines, he suggests creating two different subject lines and testing them on a small percentage of your org’s list. The subject line that receives the highest open rate, you guessed it, wins. Then, use it.

Another suggestion from Weiner is something I personally would like to see more of, personalized content in e-mails. A long-time member doesn’t need information directed towards new members.

Collect as much data as you can about those members, as well. Weiner advices orgs to have sign up sheets at events and send e-mails the next day with information about the event from the day before.

The sixth suggestion, allow the people that manage small member groups to message them directly, says Weiner. Don’t make them seek out approval before hand, it wastes time and resources. Mostly likely, your org has smart people capable of doing this with no problems.

Lastly,timing. Send newsletters on a regular basis. He thinks mornings are better because the member gets it right when he/she is at work. Which makes sense because most people I know check their e-mails in the morning, including myself.

This a great example of a really simple, readable, personalized e-mail from Share Our Strength.

See, it can be done and still get the message across.

What other things should or shouldn’t organizations do to their e-mail newsletters?

Two Great Jobs at LIFT

LIFT (formerly National Student Partnerships) is hiring in NY and DC (plus internships).  This a great organization helping disadvantaged individuals and families out of poverty and into opportunity.  It was just mentioned this week in a Huffington Post article as an example of an organization that should be expanded immediately.

Both jobs plus internship postings are here: http://www.nspnet.org/join/

The direct link for Program Manager (New York) job is here: http://www.cgcareers.org/findajob/jobdetail/1466/, and the one for Regional Executive Director (DC) job is here: http://www.cgcareers.org/findajob/jobdetail/1467/.

Text Me Your Feedback

I text everyday. I text my family in Michigan and I even text my friends in South Korea. It’s quite a universal way to send short amounts of information that doesn’t really require a phone call. However, The Pennsylvania Ballet will take texting to another level and I think it’s something that can transfer into service and volunteerism.

The Pennsylvania Ballet will allow its audience members to participate in a live poll via text message (intermission and after the show) for “The Nutcracker.” Audience members can vote for their favorite character and after the show, their favorite scene. The goal is to create a discussion and conversation that may contribute to the audiences enthusiasm while creating buzz about the show. It’s all part of the Turn Your Cell Phone On! campaign, run by the Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance.

Now, how can this transfer over into services and volunteerism?

Well, I know when I go to different events or an informational session, I am given a piece of paper. That paper usually has a survey and may want me to offer some feedback.

However, if organizations implement texting at their events or projects, they would receive instant feedback. They could even display that feedback at the event as The Pennsylvania Ballet will do on monitors.

For example, if you have a group of volunteers helping on-site, the organization running the event can have those volunteers text some feedback during the event. The instant feedback from volunteers could allow the organization to tackle issues on-site, as opposed to the next time around. The feedback is instant, not delayed like a paper survey is.

The organization can also display the feedback onto their Website, Twitter or some other social media outlet. This not only grabs the attention of others, but will allow others to see instant results as well. This will create buzz for the organization as well as the event.

Even the people benefiting from the services could give their feedback as well.

Do you know any organizations using technology for instant feedback about a project?

The Philosophy of the Economics of Public Policy

The WSJ had a recent piece on the funding of non-profits and foundations, see here for another brief review.  The article is thought-provoking and as I will show, can help one more clearly define where they stand on political issues.  Pablo Eisenberg, the author of the Journal op-ed, argued that “Much of current philanthropic giving, by foundations and individuals neither meets the needs of our charitable organizations nor addresses some of our most urgent needs.”  Eisenberg then offers nine changes that would better enable foundations and others to make a difference for the nonprofits and the people they are designed to help.

First, increase the distribution percentage that foundations must give to charities.  Second, increase general operating support, which means spending more money on day-to-day operations and normal activities of the organization while cutting down on spending for special-project funding which, according to the author “gives foundations more control over the agendas of their grantees, responsibilities that should be vested in the boards and staff of nonprofits.”  Third, increase multiyear funding– which means increase grants that give grantees long-term support.  Fourth, adopt rolling grant making.  Fifth, allocate more funds to the truly needy.  Sixth, reach out to local groups and undeserved regions.  Seventh, simplify application and reporting procedures.  Eight, improve public accountability.  Nine, fund the watchdogs.   

This piece will not comment on many of Eisenberg’s suggestions since I’m not an expert on the economics of public policy, and I also do not think that I have much original to add.   The essential problem he grapples with: How can foundations meet the needs of charitable organizations and best help the worst off?– has been extensively debated.

What I can add, however, is to try to point out how one’s position on these issues defines their views on politics.  The philosopher John Rawls is famous for proposing the ‘veil of ignorance’ whereby you imagine that societal roles were completely re-fashioned and redistributed, and that from behind your veil of ignorance you do not know what role you will be reassigned.  For example, in the imaginary society, you might or might not be intelligent, rich, or born into a preferred class. Since you may occupy any position in the society once the veil is lifted, this theory encourages thinking about society from the perspective of those who will be worst off.

This is the guiding moral idea between Eisenberg’s claim that organizations should be required by the government to provide more for the poor, minorities, and gays/lesbians. 

Another major strand of thought is the libertarian view, famously championed by Milton Friedman.  Friedman argues that the economy works by the “invisible hand” of the market-place (first employed by Adam Smith) and that when individuals pursue their own self-interest, everyone will be better off. 

Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor–two early proponents of communitarian philosophy– offer another perspective.  They argue that we should use morality (and religion) to form our political beliefs.  In the case, the idea is that we should not approach the decision to increase funding for a charity from behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ or under the belief that there is an “invisible hand” which will make everything alright.  Rather, Sandel and Taylor might suggest that we should have a strong identity and through the morals that encompass this identity try to make the best decision.  Thus, if our identity tells us to act like Jesus in our dealings with others– this is how we should make our decision.

Whichever arguments you accept (Rawls, Friedman or Sandel/Taylor) largely determines the method that will form your political decisions.  Once your method is determined, then you are in an easier position to engage in the most fundamental questions of government: How large should our government be?  What, if any, powers should it be allowed to exert?

My personal opinion is that the question of how to best fund charities is a very important one but sometimes philosophical systems can make decision-making too complex.  A far simpler strategy I have found is one based on personal experience and feeling.  Eisenberg’s controversial claim that organizations should be required to pay more to the disadvantaged and minorities reminds me alot about the time I happened by the removal of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court.  It was a fascinating experience– I was part of perhaps the most progressive youth group imaginable and we had just stepped out from a talk at the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama when we saw what seemed like hundreds of video cameras outside the Courthouse.  Curious kids we were and shortly thereafter many of my peers were engaged in screaming matches with people protesting the removal of the Ten Commandments from the Courthouse.

The reasons I brought this example up are two-fold.  First, at one point one of the protestors said that she does not think we should have taxes beyond what we want to give to our local communities since there are many places her money goes that she strongly disagrees with.  Second, is that this actual experience coupled with other experiences from the group (which brought together DC-area residents from all religions, classes, neighborhoods, and backgrounds) taught me that political decisions are best made by taking in a broad perspective. 

Of course my politics should take into account how decisions will affect my family, my friends and me.  But it should also take account of how it will affect those in my community, my region, the nation, and the world.  If you have experiences with many diverse people (re: another reason why national service should be a top national priority) this process is a bit easier as my Courthouse example indicates.  If not, my observation is that reading widely in history and literature can serve as a partial substitute.

Before and Now

The Huffington Post has a great and humorous article by Johann Hari called, ” Has The Internet Brought Us Together—Or Pulled Us Apart?”

The article, as you can tell by its title, discusses the pros and cons of the internet. From the connections we can make with others, such as on social media sites to the hours we lose spending time on it. However, I want to discuss something he doesn’t really mention, how social media affects social good.

As Hari writes and history shows, people had to write everything out, by hand; And for people to even read what others wrote, they had to travel hundreds of thousands of miles sometimes to access it. Then, print came about, revolutionizing the way people could access information, at the time. People discovered things that they may not have known otherwise.

Ogranizations even took to print, creating pamphlets and newsletters, reaching new audiences.

In this day of age, the internet has once again revolutionized how we access information and how we connect with others through social media.

Hari mentions social media as a way to meet a partner, reconnect with people from your past or even how it connects people through a common interest. All true and fascinating. I am still amazed how I can stay connected with my friends all over the world without picking up my phone or sending a letter in the mail.

But social media also creates and assists social goods. Social media has allowed nonprofits and people to reach audiences on a much larger scale than print. Take a look at what happened in Minnesota on their “Give To The Max Day”, $14 million raised all through the use of social media.

Blogs, Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are just among the many social media sites that allow organizations to interact with others. Youtube is filled with videos of people volunteering and videos showing results of their work. Facebook is filled with organizations helping different causes, such as Feeding America. Organizations can now even place a fundraising application on thier Facebook pages called Boundless Fundraising.

There has even been surveys done stating social media is more effective for organizing than traditional media for nonprofits.

Social media, hate it or love it, it proves day after day its impact on the world and the good it can do by helping others.

Does It Help?

The Chronicle of Philanthropy has an article out about how charities are looking at the benefits of social media tools.

It contains some information that I have already blogged about, such as the study by Weber Shandwick. But it’s still a good read about how some nonprofits tackle the new ways to raise funds and some lessons they get out of it.

I agree in the last part of the article, social media is in its infancy. I think social media and tools are beneficial for everyone, even if just used (an online social networking site) to get an organizations name and cause out there. But it’s just how people or organizations use those tools or what works for them. Once again, everyone and everything is different, trial and error is just one way an organization can determine what works for them. Surveys are showing some positive results for some.

National Servce, Jobs, and Bad Economy

Center for American Progress recently released a report entitle, “National Service and Youth Unemployment: Strategies for Job Creation Amid Economicy Recovery.”

“This memo provides a brief snapshot of youth unemployment and its relationship to the Great Recession and federal anti-poverty services. It describes several national service programs— including Youth corps, AmeriCorps, and VISTA—that can be part of a strategy to reverse these trends. We also offer specific policy recommendations to maximize job creation by investing strategically in national service programs.”

Innovate For Good

I was on Twitter today and saw a “tweet” about GlobalGiving teaming up with eBay to launch “Innovate For Good.”

Innovate For Good is a contest where GlobalGiving wants you to develop applications that provide GlobalGiving more visibility through the eBay platform or improve their experience in a meaningful way.

The grand prize is a 7-10 day all expense paid trip to visit one of the several projects in one of the 85 countries working with GlobalGiving.

The second place prize is a $1,000 GlobalGiving gift card and the third place prize is a $500 Apple gift certificate.

According to the Web site, Developers have three options for developing applications:

1. Use any available GlobalGiving API to enhance the GlobalGiving experience or create a branded giving experience of your own. Useful apps might include creative ways of displaying GlobalGiving projects, streamlining the giving process, improving project tracking and communication, social/location based mashups, mobile giving apps, or giving games that drive donations. Learn more about GlobalGiving’s available APIs.

2. Support GlobalGiving through the eBay Giving Works program using eBay’s APIs. Developers can build applications to list items that benefit featured GlobalGiving projects (more info) or enable people to search for and buy items that benefit GlobalGiving (more info).

3. Mash up eBay and GlobalGiving APIs to come up with your own idea to support GlobalGiving projects through the eBay or GlobalGiving platforms—or anywhere on the web.

The contest is now through March 3, 2010. Winners are announced on March 19, 2010.

GlobalGiving is an eBay-like platform for giving to specific, grassroots social and environmental projects located around the world. Some projects on their site include, HeroRATS:Saving African Lives & Curbing TB Spread, Give 3,000 students access to music education and Help Guatemalan Women Achieve Self-Sufficiency.

Projects vary from microfinance to animals. The countries range from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe.

For more information on the contest, click here.

To enter the contest, click here.