So if we buy the argument that it makes more sense to fund our local agencies who are trained and equipped to deal with human services needs rather than farm out the ongoing and recurring costs to our emergency rooms, jails, libraries, streets, police and fire departments, etc., then the next question has to do with the level of need. Do nonprofits need additional funds from the city?
The answer would be yes. A resounding yes.
As food and fuel prices continue their climb to who-knows-where, it is getting harder to provide the most basic needs. For example, a Spokesman-Review article from June 18th (in the NW section) entitled "Costs Squeeze Meals on Wheels," notes that things are pretty bleak for the local Meals on Wheels program, which delivers food to the elderly and the homebound. The program's bill "for liquid nutrition - supplements such as Boost and Ensure that are critical to some clients - went up by 50 percent recently, from $16 a case to $24."As if that weren't bad enough, since the Meals on Wheels program relies on volunteer drivers (and their cars), "58 percent of the nation's Meals on Wheels programs have said they've lost drivers because of gas prices, and some had eliminated meals or customers." Ouch.
Contact the City Council and let them know that getting food to people has to be a priority.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Our agency currently has a food delivery program. We haven't run into the problem yet of cutting people on the routes because of losing drivers, but it may be in the future and it is something that we are concerned about.
Because of the dwindling funds and the changes in the priority, our agency didn't receive any funding at all from the city last year. We are the only non-profit agency in the area that provides the specialized services that we do and it is a shame that the city can't see the need to help fund such a program.
With the economy the way it is right now, donors are giving less money which means that non-profits will need to rely more on the stability of its government grants. The city funding isn't funding that I would recommend any agency relying on in its future budget as it hasn't been consistent over the years.
My husband drives for Meals on Wheels several times each month. He enjoys interacting with the same customers often. As vital a service as this is to those who need the meals, we have had to talk about how much he can continue to volunteer. NPR this morning mentioned that fewer college students are getting involved as drivers for Meals on Wheels because the money for gas is not easy to come by. . . I keep asking myself, how can each of us realistically help our neighbors?
Concerned --
I hear ya. As I work for the Spokane Public Library, I'm pretty keenly aware of the ups and downs of the city budget.
Weaning ourselves (or at least protecting ourselves) from gyrating sales tax revenues would seem to be a good goal. But alas, I'm no policy wonk... do you have any ideas about stabilizing local government support and/or reducing the long-term need?
While I understand their thought of trying to go deeper for a few non-profits instead of wide and funding most of them, it doesn't seem as if it really works. I think that part of the problem lies in that they do not budget enough funds to be able to help all of the non-profits in the area as they should. Maybe they even need to look at 4 or 5 different funding levels, based upon size, need and other funding sources available to the non-profit and then decide which of the funding levels they'll receive. The levels could be as simple as $5K, $10K, $15K, $25K, and $50K.
I really do think though that they might need to start taking a look at what other kinds of funding are out there for some of the non-profits that they are funding. They made one of their priorities housing this last year, but it seems everywhere I turn there is more and more housing money that I see grants for, while my agency struggles to find new grants because not every cause is as popular as the next, yet the fact remains that it still needs to be funded.
Concerned --
The really vexing thing about this -- as you are probably well aware -- is that these issues are so tightly intertwined. It doesn't do much good to have a roof over someone's head if they have no food. But at the same time, food in and of itself doesn't provide shelter from the cold or medical attention when it is needed. And medical care doesn't go very far if... and so it continues.
So I agree; we don't budget enough funds to cover everything that needs to be covered. But one thing we're confident of: funding human services at the level of 1% of the budget would be a step in the right direction.
Post a Comment