I don’t work in the nonprofit world because I am nice. And I don’t work in nonprofits for the sole reason that I believe in helping the poor, downtrodden and underserved. I work at Child and Family Opportunities Inc. because I think it is my responsibility to contribute to making our communities a better place for all people, regardless of income, education, abilities or sexual orientation — any of the factors that make us socially unique.
I work in an agency that provides a federally funded program called Head Start. It has continually been improving since 1964, and multiple studies have shown that the effect to our communities is lasting and measurable.
Both the funds used to run our organization and my time as an individual are worth the investment. I work here because our vision is that all children and families deserve to thrive.
When a child receives services like those provided at our centers, research shows the following positive results for our communities:
• Students graduate from high school at higher rates;
• Families rely less on welfare or other income assistance programs;
• Participants are less likely to be violent later in life;
• They are more likely to earn higher wages later in life;
• And the measurable benefit averages between $7 and $13 for every $1 invested.
I have a friend who I like very much and with whom I disagree. She jokes that every time I open my mouth I am costing her money as a taxpayer. I do believe we should see a return on our taxes. I do believe that we should invest smartly, in the right places and that by doing so we will save money in other ways.
Let me ask one important question: Have we given individuals and families alternatives to the paths they are on in life?
Generally, individuals with low incomes as adults are born into families with low incomes and have markedly less access to quality education and resources — such as health and mental health services, financial literacy and access to enough healthy food.
An individual born into a situation where they have less access to these vital supports must struggle to escape what becomes generational poverty, and they face challenges that people with more resources do not understand, and most likely would not be able to navigate either, if they were in the same situation.
What level of economic and education security we have when we are born is not a choice. It is a circumstance. And the cost of one mistake, or error in judgment, is markedly higher when an individual has no resources to recover.
Gov. Paul LePage has signed a bill that will reduce Head Start funding, among other vital services to our families. His supporters say the cuts will have little effect on our communities. It will have an effect, and it will not help parents take the steps to gain financial security and independence.
I didn’t choose a profession where I have no 401K or a salary less than the state or national average because I am a nice person. Truly, I’m not that nice. I didn’t choose this profession because I think it’s OK that my educator colleagues receive significantly smaller salaries than their peers simply because they teach children that are smaller.
I chose this profession because I recognize that I have so much, and others have so much less. I work at a nonprofit because I believe it is my responsibility as a citizen to make the good qualities of our country, its wonderful wealth and resources, more accessible to everyone. I don’t believe every family in financial crisis, even generational financial crisis, is scamming the system.
I work for a nonprofit agency that provides alternatives. This is about access to quality education for everyone.
Rachel L. Nobel is administrative support and development manager at Child and Family Opportunities Inc. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the nonprofit.



Nonprofit? Came on there is no such thing. Sure they do not show profit but the fact is they spend more on staff then on the actual issue they claim to be helping. If it is a true non profit then it is staffed by VOLUNTEERS and 99+ percent of the money goes towards those who the nonprofit is “supporting”…
People should not have to take a vow of poverty to help their fellow man. They still have hungry mouths to feed at home and they need to put a roof over their heads. I know this is far too much to ask for a college educated person working 40 hours a week to help the less fortunate around us in your mind, but unfortunately there is a need for these services and people must be compensated at least nominally if they are expected to provide them on a full time basis. Instead of attacking those who do, why not roll up your sleeves and volunteer 40 hours a week at a non-profit so you can save them a salary.
Well you said it so I will tell you. I do volunteer and sometime it comes out to more then 80 hours a week depending on who needs help at any hour of any day. I am and have been a hospice volunteer for close to 15 years. Maybe you should know who your talking about before you cast stones.
Great is that meeting all of your communities needs or are there still others? If so you better get recruiting because I am sure there are a lot of unmet needs in your area and not enough volunteers to go around. You better start volunteering 400 hours a week and get about 3 dozen of your friends to do the same. Then maybe we won’t have to have non-profits and government social programs.
That’s kind of a dumb point though. It’d be like saying you can’t be a Christian if you own anything or you can’t really care about the hungry if you eat 3 meals a day. You’re just holding up this standard that isn’t even relevant. The point is they’re doing good work. You don’t need to knock them down for that.
It is more like saying hey this is a nonprofit BUT the majority of every dollar goes to staff and not the actual thing we say we are here to help.
You have no basis for that claim or any facts to back you up. What you’re saying is basically, I’m ignorant and I have uninformed opinions, but I don’t care.
• And the measurable benefit averages between $7 and $13 for every $1 invested.
If I had a measurable dollar for every taxpayer funded agency that claimed they saved the taxpayer money I’d be a rich person.
Think a sec.. Why is the cost of government exploding at the same time these agencies are supposed to be saving us money?
They did not say that it saved the government money. What they are referring to is what is called the “Money Multiplier Effect.” It is really one of the foundational concepts in economics. By sending money into the community you are creating additional opportunities for others around us. This in turn causes more money to be generated in the communities.
That’s not what they said at all, but if it were then according to their numbers … The “multiplier effect” of the 800 billion dollar Obama stimulus would be $5.6 to $10.4 trillion dollars, which of course it wasn’t.
What they did say was the benefits of lower crime better education because of Headstart have that sort of return. I don’t buy it for my previously posted reasons. We should be awash in cash if that were true.
“Long Overdue Head Start Evaluation Shows No Lasting Benefit for Children
After some prodding, yesterday the Obama administration released the long-overdue first grade evaluation of the federal Head Start program. As expected, the results show that the $7 billion per year program provides little benefit to children – and great expense to taxpayers…”
…the Department of Health and Human Services found ‘few sustained benefits.”
Of interest is the manipulation of statistical methods employed by HHS for the evaluation, applying a less rigorous one in this case.
Had they used the standard of statistical significance which is the norm for most social scientists, their report would have shown no impact on the language and literacy outcomes for the four-year-old cohort. And their own report, even after changing the standard, was forced to conclude that the “benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole.”
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/14/long-overdue-head-start-evaluation-shows-no-lasting-benefit-for-children/
Well if a blog from the Heritage foundation says that a government program doesn’t work, it must be true.
Actually, it was a report from the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services that said so.
It took a little longer than normal for the expected knee-jerk Heritage Foundation bashing. I was beginning to get worried.
If you would read the entire report you would see that the heritage foundation has over simplified the study and the results. Of course, they would have to make it simple, otherwise they would never understand it. One of the longest lasting benefits of head start is it’s impact on drop out rates. The impacts that vanish according to the heritage foundation are social and emotional, however the impacts on vocabulary and literacy are lasting.
“The impacts that vanish according to the heritage foundation are social and emotional, however the impacts on vocabulary and literacy are lasting.”
You have it exactly backward.
“In essence, had HHS not used a less-rigorous method of evaluating Head Start, the report would have shown no impact on the language and literacy outcomes for the four-year-old cohort.”
Hey, wouldn’t this be the perfect time to accuse the Heritage Foundation of being stupid, again? Look – over there – a bright shiny object!! Everybody laugh!
If you will notice, heritage does not use any facts to back up their assumption. They also conveniently leave out the information on three year olds.
It was the Obamessiah’s report that said that.
The fact that Nobel thinks that it’s her “responsibility to contribute to making our communities a better place for all people regardless of income, education, abilities or sexual orientation” is laudable.
The fact that she feels compelled to make the rest of us aware of it speaks volumes.
It does speak volumes about those who question the need for government and non-profit work.
Questioning those who question the need for government and non-profit work speaks volumes.
The author refers to choosing her “profession,” but a Linked In search reveals that she has a BA and Masters in English. Wouldn’t a degree in Early Child Development or some related field be required to claim professional status?
Heck, even this job for assistant babysitter listed at jobsinme by her agency indicates a preference for the applicant to possess a degree in Early Childhood Education or a related field.
The ad also boasts of this job offering competitive pay plus a generous benefit package.
I imagine that administrative support and development manager, being higher up in the food chain, would be compensated at a pretty good level.
http://www.jobsinme.com/seek/resultdetail.aspx?jobnum=739661
Is it not possible to help your fellow man by making profit and being charitable?
Just a quick note from me. The non-profit I work for employs the very people it is in existence for. The special needs people and people with disabilities who qualify for SSI would otherwise be sitting at home not feeling like they can accomplish life on their own. At our work place they can earn a living and feel like they are productive members of society capable of taking care of themselves. A benefit to you who will someday need your SS to make it through each month. A better thing for you to do is become involved in some sort of non-profit that does help people who are needy become stronger members of our society. Or to even employ people with disabilities so they can earn a normal income and get off of SSI. Maybe volunteer to read to children at your local library. Do something other than complain about how everyone wants your money. It’s usually the ones who complain the most who do the very least.
Head start is a great program. These children who come from low income homes have a wonderful opportunity to not only begin learning the fundamentals but also gain from the social interaction and can then begin primary on a great footing. Surely you people would not begrudge a child that? Think of what that will mean down the road. A child with better education stands a greater chance of making a success of their lives. Less chance of them becoming a drug addict who lives on SSI and goes to the local Methadone clinics. Isn’t that what we Mainers want? Young adults feeling strong and capable of facing life being well equipped to work hard as we have without drug or alcohol dependency?
It is commendable to do something that one
considers helpful and meaningful. Would that same
person contribute as much if they weren’t getting paid
by federal money of which we the taxpayers are the ones
doing the paying? I applaud those who help out in the
community…those that do if for no salary. When you are being
paid and a non-profit is being subsidized it is no different than
a business.
Well I recommend that you get a group of volunteers together that can wipe out all of these services that ensure they are unnecessary in the future. Until you do, there will continue to be a need that must be filled.