American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009: Whether and Where States Are Accepting & Distributing Federal Stimulus Funds

Nonprofits should be watching what your state governments are doing in terms of who receives and will be responsible for the stimulus funds flowing to your state from the federal government. In most states, the funds will flow to the Governor, but important differences exist in each state. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, PL 111-5 ("Act" or "ARRA") directs that Federal funds to states and local entities will flow into each state through the Governor, who must certify that: "(1) the State will request and use funds provided by this Act; and (2) the funds will be used to create jobs and promote economic growth." Act, p. 189 If the Governor refuses to accept the money, then the state legislature can accept the funds. Act, p. 190. News reports indicate that states are responding in different ways, meaning that nonprofits interested in applying for new grants and contracts need to know what is happening in their states, especially given the extremely tight time application deadlines. To help nonprofits, the National Council of Nonprofits prepared this evolving chart that may serve as a common frame of reference

American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009: Sources of Information About Federal Stimulus Funds

Nonprofits interested in applying for grants for federal funds -- whether directly to federal agencies or to state and local governments that received federal funds -- must remain vigilant in these fast-paced times to remain informed. This Special Report identifies key resources for the latest information at the state and federal levels

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Grant Application Information, Tips, and Thoughts

This Special Report identifies some of the key elements for grants under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ("Act"), offers general tips that likely will be of interest to nonprofits applying for stimulus-fund grants, and highlights some key thoughts to consider

Information about the Proposed Changes in Charitable Deductions - Updated 3.17.09

Nonprofit leaders need to understand the distinctions between the three different federal budget bills   that have filled news headlines the last month. While the federal stimulus package and the 2009   federal budget have been enacted, the third item (the President's proposed budget for 2010) likely will   not be voted on for months. This last one has generated lots of concern and confusion among   nonprofits and some donors because it proposes to reduce the amount that high?income individuals   can deduct from their taxes (including for charitable contributions) in order to help pay the largest   part of health care reform. To help nonprofit leaders answer questions and lead informed discussions   about the last item, this Special Report supplies some basic information about the three budget   matters, explains aspects of the proposed change to tax deductions as it relates to charitable   contributions, and offers three simple action steps.  The Three Different Federal Budget MattersOne?time extra funding:   On February 17 President Obama signed into law the emergency $787 billion economic stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment of 2009, PL 111?5, to spend extra money and provide extra tax cuts beyond the normal budget.Current operating year budget:   In February Congress resumed action on the current year (2009) budget that actually began last October 1st.  In 2008, Congress and the Bush Administration could not agree on various aspects, so only parts of the budget officially got passed last year; other parts of the federal government were operating through "Continuing Resolutions" that allow government operations to continue at the same basic level as the previous year's budget. The House and the Senate recently finished their work on the rest of the 2009 federal budget, which the President signed last week.Proposed budget for future years:   On February 26 President Obama released his PROPOSED budget for 2010, which – if passed – would go into effect from October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010.  His proposed budget included two interrelated proposals of interest to many nonprofits. The first is the President's proposal to create a$634 billion reserve fund to underwrite the initial major step towards reforming our nation's health care system, an issue that many people perceive as the greatest threat to our country's fiscal sustainability. The second item is the proposed mechanism for paying for the bulk of that reform ($318 billion worth): the President's PROPOSAL to change the amount that "high income" people (the 1.2$250,000 a year) can deduct from their taxes (including for charitable donations), reducing the deduction from 33% or 35% (depending on the person's tax bracket) to the 28% rate that other itemizers can claim. Importantly, even if Congress agreed with the reduction, it would not apply to anyone until – at the earliest – January 2011

Advocacy by Charitable Nonprofits: Flipping The Accountability Lens To Focus On Government Actions

This paper is admittedly different for a “Charities Regulation Policy Conference.” Instead of focusing narrowly on the actions of nonprofits and foundations, this paper flips the accountability lens to look back more broadly at government actions. It invites conference attendees to take a giant step back to assess how government policymakers (specifically excluding regulators) are handling their responsibilities with respect to community assets known as charitable nonprofits. The traditional one-way lens misses the bigger picture: the public depends on the charitable sector to be healthy enough to provide a reliable social safety net and deliver a wide range of other services. Yet since the Great Recession began governments have been rapidly shifting massive amounts of their financial burdens onto charitable nonprofits, thereby straining and stretching that safety net to the point of imperiling the health of nonprofits and hurting the public. This purposefully provocative paper documents five hidden-in-plain-sight trends to highlight how individuals and local communities are endangered by an increasing number of governments: 1. Abusing nonprofits in the contracting context, hurting program recipients and taxpayers in the process; 2. Directly taking money away from nonprofit mission; 3. Indirectly taking nonprofit resources by invading nonprofit boardrooms; 4. Abandoning commitments to the public as they eliminate programs and slash funds, expecting charitable nonprofits and foundations to fill the voids governments create; and 5. Draining the philanthropic pool of dollars. Charity regulators have not caused the five dangerous trends, but they can be an instrumental source of solutions. From front-line staff to front-office AGs (standing for “Accomplished Galvanizers” and “Always Glamorous,” as explained below), charity regulators can do their duties of protecting the public in a more holistic way that protects and advances the public interest. This paper concludes with a section identifying how this can be done

Identity and community through sport boosterism

American society of the 1990\u27s is characterized by a high degree of fragmentation, geographic mobility and general feelings of a dramatically changing social world. For various reasons, every year many people move from their birth homes, leaving behind established affiliations and networks. Consequently, they may find it difficult to develop a sense of identity of community. Today, sports, via fan association or booster clubs, may serve as the vehicle for identity maintenance and transition into a new community. The effects of joining a sports booster group is examined by using questionnaire data from a survey conducted on members of the Southern California Browns Backers Association (SCBBA). The analysis seeks to determine how individuals establish a sense of community centered around leisure. The results of the study revealed that, for most respondents, the SCBBA provided hometown ties and thus a sense of roots, provided valuable bonding opportunities, allowed for expressions of loyalty and commitment, and helped to maintain positive feelings of identification and self-esteem

Advocacy by Charitable Nonprofits: Flipping The Accountability Lens To Focus On Government Actions

This paper is admittedly different for a “Charities Regulation Policy Conference.” Instead of focusing narrowly on the actions of nonprofits and foundations, this paper flips the accountability lens to look back more broadly at government actions. It invites conference attendees to take a giant step back to assess how government policymakers (specifically excluding regulators) are handling their responsibilities with respect to community assets known as charitable nonprofits. The traditional one-way lens misses the bigger picture: the public depends on the charitable sector to be healthy enough to provide a reliable social safety net and deliver a wide range of other services. Yet since the Great Recession began governments have been rapidly shifting massive amounts of their financial burdens onto charitable nonprofits, thereby straining and stretching that safety net to the point of imperiling the health of nonprofits and hurting the public. This purposefully provocative paper documents five hidden-in-plain-sight trends to highlight how individuals and local communities are endangered by an increasing number of governments: 1. Abusing nonprofits in the contracting context, hurting program recipients and taxpayers in the process; 2. Directly taking money away from nonprofit mission; 3. Indirectly taking nonprofit resources by invading nonprofit boardrooms; 4. Abandoning commitments to the public as they eliminate programs and slash funds, expecting charitable nonprofits and foundations to fill the voids governments create; and 5. Draining the philanthropic pool of dollars. Charity regulators have not caused the five dangerous trends, but they can be an instrumental source of solutions. From front-line staff to front-office AGs (standing for “Accomplished Galvanizers” and “Always Glamorous,” as explained below), charity regulators can do their duties of protecting the public in a more holistic way that protects and advances the public interest. This paper concludes with a section identifying how this can be done

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Nonprofit Grant Opportunities

To promote better understanding about the intersection between the nonprofit sector and our nation's economic recovery, including the recently-enacted American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ("Act"), the National Council of Nonprofits is preparing a series of Special Reports. This first Special Report presents the following materials:--Provisions of Potential Interest to Nonprofits (pages 2-7)This section provides detail on specific grants in program areas in the Act that potentially could be of interest to a wide range of nonprofits. Each summary describes the nature of the program and shows the amount appropriated.--Appendix (pages 8-11) For those interested in knowing the broader scope of this historic legislation (and perhaps seeing if your nonprofit might have other unique grant opportunities), the Appendix summarizes the major appropriations and tax cuts in the 407-page Act

New cod war of words:'Cod is God' versus 'sod the cod'—Two opposed discourses on the North Sea Cod Recovery Programme

New insights into the North Sea Cod Recovery Programme (CRP), initiated in 2003 by the European Commission to reverse the long-term decline in cod stocks, are presented using discourse analysis. The main conservation measures taken under the CRP have been to reduce catch limits drastically and to increase control over vessels' fishing activities. There has been considerable controversy over the programme from its inception, with protagonists broadly divided into two discourses: (1) 'cod is God'-in which cod has assumed the status of the defining test of the European Union's (EU) resolve to manage fish stocks sustainably in EU waters; (2) 'sod the cod'-in which cod is regarded as one of a number of target commercial fish species, with no special status. Drawing on Frank Fischer's distinction between hegemonic and challenging discourses, we analyse the conflict between them at three levels: empirical; conceptual; and political. We consider moves to reconcile the two discourses in a policy consensus on a revised CRP, which suggest that the challenging discourse (sod-the-cod) has had some success in modifying the impact of the hegemonic discourse (cod-is-God

Serum after Autologous Transplantation Stimulates Proliferation and Expansion of Human Hematopoietic Progenitor Cells

Regeneration after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) depends on enormous activation of the stem cell pool. So far, it is hardly understood how these cells are recruited into proliferation and self-renewal. In this study, we have addressed the question if systemically released factors are involved in activation of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HPC) after autologous HSCT. Serum was taken from patients before chemotherapy, during neutropenia and after hematopoietic recovery. Subsequently, it was used as supplement for in vitro culture of CD34+ cord blood HPC. Serum taken under hematopoietic stress (4 to 11 days after HSCT) significantly enhanced proliferation, maintained primitive immunophenotype (CD34+, CD133+, CD45−) for more cell divisions and increased colony forming units (CFU) as well as the number of cobblestone area-forming cells (CAFC). The stimulatory effect decays to normal levels after hematopoietic recovery (more than 2 weeks after HSCT). Chemokine profiling revealed a decline of several growth-factors during neutropenia, including platelet-derived growth factors PDGF-AA, PDGF-AB and PDGF-BB, whereas expression of monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1) increased. These results demonstrate that systemically released factors play an important role for stimulation of hematopoietic regeneration after autologous HSCT. This feedback mechanism opens new perspectives for in vivo stimulation of the stem cell pool