Some Nonprofits Are Terrible, But What’s the Solution?

/ The Old Crank

Not sure there is an easy answer is to this, even if part of the problem is that the IRS and state regulators are too understaffed to provide sufficient oversight (the author of the article didn’t pursue this suggestion, although it doesn’t sound implausible).

All nonprofits are businesses. It’s a common misperception that nonprofit organizations aren’t supposed to make a profit, or aren’t allowed to. But that’s not the case. The difference between a nonprofit and a for-profit company is in what they do with those profits. Nonprofits, in return for a tax exemption, are restricted in terms of what they can do with the money they make: they are supposed to reinvest all it back into the organization in order to advance their mission. But that doesn’t mean it can’t pay high salaries or provide perks to employees. There is purposefully broad (though not unlimited) leeway given to organizations to determine what is necessary to spend (or hold) in order to further that mission.

When most people think of nonprofits they think of charities, religious organizations, hospitals and schools, but they also include trade associations, unions, governing bodies, and social welfare groups. I assume that no one quoted in the article would argue for changing the tax code so that these kinds of organizations can no longer operate as nonprofits. And it’s not as if squirreling away profits and paying large salaries is unheard of at charitable or educational institutions: Harvard sits on an endowment of over $25 billion, and prestigious university presidents can make over a million dollars a year.

Small Businesses Worried about Cuts to Education and Job Training

/ The Old Crank

According to this poll, a majority (57%) of small business owners think that spending cuts for education, health care, and infrastructure would hurt the economy more than a tax increase on the wealthiest 2%. In addition, a huge majority (86%) are concerned that part of the solution to the “fiscal cliff” problem might include additional cuts to state grants for career and technical education and job-specific technical training. A solid majority (66%) are specifically concerned that there will be cuts to Workforce Investment Act (WIA) state grants.

It’s also interesting to me that in terms of taxes, a large majority of small business owners said that they are worried about increases to employee payroll taxes, because this could lead to a decrease in disposable income—which could lead, in turn, to a decrease in demand from potential customers.

The poll was conducted by the Small Business Majority.

President Obama Expects Immigration Reform Legislation “Very Soon” After Inauguration

/ The Old Crank

Via The Washington Post‘s transcription, here is the full text of President Obama’s comments on immigration reform during his news conference yesterday. The question was posed by a Telemundo reporter. I’ve bolded the parts I thought were most interesting.

QUESTION: On immigration reform, the criticism in the past has been that you did not put forth legislation with specific ideas and send it up to the Hill. This time around, you have said again that this will be one of the top priorities for a second term. Will you, then, send legislation to the Hill? And exactly what do you envision is broad immigration reform? Does that include a legalization program?

And also, what lessons, if any, did Democrats learn from this last election and the Latino vote?

OBAMA: Well, I think what was incredibly encouraging was to see a significant increase in Latino turnout. This is the fastest-growing group in the country and, you know, historically what you’ve seen is Latino vote — vote at lower rates than the broader population. And that’s beginning to change.

You’re starting to see a sense of empowerment and civic participation that I think is going to be powerful and good for the country. And it is why I’m very confident that we can get immigration reform done. Before the election, I had given a couple of interviews where I predicted that Latino vote was going to be strong and that that would cause some reflection on the part of Republicans about their position on immigration reform. I think we’re starting to see that already.

I think that’s a positive sign. This has not historically been a partisan issue. We’ve had President Bush and John McCain and others who have supported comprehensive immigration reform in the past. So, we need to seize the moment.

And my expectation is that we get a bill introduced and we begin the process in Congress very soon after my inauguration.

OBAMA: And, in fact, some conversations I think are already beginning to take place among senators and congressmen and my staff about what would this look like. And when I say comprehensive immigration reform, it’s very similar to the outlines of previous immigration reform. I think it should include a continuation of the strong border security measures that we’ve taken. Because we have to secure our border. I think it should contain serious penalties for companies that are purposely hiring undocumented workers and — and taking advantage of them.

And I do think that there should be a pathway for legal status for those who are living in this country, are not engaged in criminal activity, are here to — simply to work. I’ve — it’s important for them to pay back taxes. It’s important for them to learn English. It’s important for them to potentially pay a fine, but to give them the avenue whereby they can resolve their legal status here in this country, I think is very important. Obviously making sure that we put into law what — the first step that we’ve taken administratively dealing with the DREAM Act kids is very important as well.

The one thing that I’m — I’m very clear about is that young people who are brought here through no fault of their own, who have gone to school here, pledged allegiance to our flag, want to serve in our military, want to go to school and contribute to our society, that they shouldn’t be under the cloud of deportation. That we should give them every opportunity to earn their citizenship. And so, you know there are other components to it, obviously. The business community continues to be concerned about getting enough high-skilled workers.

And I am a believer that if you’ve got a PhD in physics, or computer science who wants to stay here, and start a business here, we shouldn’t make it harder for them to stay here, we should try to encourage him to contribute to this society. I think that the agricultural sector, obviously has very specific concerns about making sure that they’ve got a workforce that helps deliver food to our table. So there’re gonna be a bunch of components to it, but I think whatever process we have needs to make sure border security’s strong, needs to deal with employers effectively, needs to provide a pathway for the undocumented here, needs to deal with the DREAM Act kids.

And I think that’s something that we can get done.

Parents and Family Literacy

/ The Old Crank

When a state or community literacy initiative promises to “promote literacy at home” or “engage parents.” I always look to see whether there is any discussion of the literacy level of the parents of the children that the initiative is targeting. If not, it’s a pretty safe bet that little-to-no resources are going to be invested in helping any of those parents or caregivers with low literacy skills become better readers themselves.

November is National Family Literacy Month, and I gather, from what I’ve been reading, that the term “family literacy” is sometimes used in this context to embrace a broad range of family based reading activities—most often initiatives that promote reading at home. It’s worth noting, however, that targeted literacy instruction for parents—as well as children—is what has historically distinguished a “true” family literacy program from other literacy initiatives. I know that there are those in the family literacy field who don’t believe that the components of a family literacy program need to be as rigidly defined as the Even Start program, but (I think) everyone does still agree that, at a minimum, a family literacy program should include literacy instruction for adults as well as children.

This isn’t just a semantic issue: funding for true, multi-generational family literacy programs has been dwindling in recent years (the federal investment in Even Start family literacy has been completely eliminated, in fact), and blurring the distinction between true family literacy programs and general literacy promotion could end up masking over the fact that support for family literacy is on the decline.

From a policy perspective, given what we know about the critical role that providing adult literacy education to parents likely plays in improving the academic achievement of children from low-income families, retaining this distinction makes sense. If adult and family literacy advocates don’t make that distinction, there’s no reason to expect that policymakers will. In many communities and in many households, a program that does no more than simply acknowledge a parent’s role in a child’s literacy development is probably not going to be enough.