Progressive Final Exam Part II Section A 2A Who has the responsibility for dealing with disruptive board members?

The chair of the board is ultimately responsible for dealing with disruptive board members. As we read, the Executive Director/President of a nonprofit reports to the board of directors (Brinckerhoff, 2009); therefore it would be inappropriate for the ED of the organization to be responsible for dealing with disruptive board members. Furthermore, given that the chairperson of the board is the highest governing figure of that particular sect of the organization, it is logical that managerial duties should be his/her responsibility.
2B Why might it be useful to have a written policy about the roles and responsibilities of

board members, and what might be included? In this particular case, a Code Of Conduct policy would be extremely useful in dealing with Oliver. Specifically, the COC should outline what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior during a board meeting, and what appropriate interactions between board and staff members looks like. If the board chairperson had a COC to refer to, it would help him to more easily explain to Oliver why it is not appropriate to interrupt business discussions with jokes, and also, why it is unsuitable for a board member to send staff members on personal errands, or dictate tasks to them. In addition, within the organization's bylaws, there should be a comprehensible definition of board member responsibilities, and staff responsibilities. This section should clearly outline that the board is responsible for leading the organization, and the staff is responsible for running the organization. Having such a clause organization's bylaws would help to clarify any misnomers that Oliver's has regarding his role within the organization.

2D Should Hanson simply be thrown off the board? What might the consequences be of doing so? What might be done to handle this situation? I do not feel that Oliver should simply be "thrown off the board," for multiple reasons. First, whereas Oliver does not control the allocation of resources, the Hanson Family Foundation is still a major contributor to the Vet Center. By abruptly removing Oliver from the board, the relationship with the Foundation could be damaged. This is not to say that large contributions are an excuse for bad behavior, but there is a special relationship that exists between organizations and their major donors. Despite his actions, this is a situation that still needs to be handled with a certain level of finesse. Second, it is very evident in this case that Oliver is suffering, at best, from anger management issues. More than likely, his service in the first Gulf War has left him with an undiagnosed case of PTSD. Considering the Vet Center's mission is to provide a safe place for veterans from the Iraq and Afghan wars, the organization would be doing itself a great disservice to completely disregard a vet who is clearly in need of help. I would recommend that the chairperson of the board have a direct, yet tactful, conversation with Oliver wherein he/she clearly explains to Oliver that his behavior at board meetings and while visiting the Vet Center is detracting from the organization that he is supposed to be supporting. Oliver obviously has a unique perspective on the mission of the Vet Center, and he would be a large asset, if he could be constructive. However, he has been disruptive in meetings and abusive to staff. The chair should remind him that, while his positive input is greatly valued, if his behavior does not improve, the board will be forced to vote about Oliver's continued membership. After the more corrective part of the conversation, I feel that the chairperson of the board has an ethical obligation to suggest that Oliver talks to someone about his troubles. Again, the

Vet Center has a mission of helping these soldiers once they come home. The chairperson is not obligated to force Oliver to seek help, but they do need to bring it to Oliver's attention that others have not only noticed that he has a problem, but that they care enough about him to say something. 2E How much power do individual board members have when they visit or volunteer for an organization? If a board is helping out at, or visiting the office, he or she should be treated as any other volunteer. As I previously stated, board members lead an organization, staff members run the organization. If a board member is helping with the day-to-day aspects of the organization, in that moment, they are no longer in a position of authority. What needs to be understood, by the board and staff alike, is that while board members are volunteering, or coming in for an office visit, they are in the staff's realm; they should be viewed as organizational support for that time. It is inappropriate for a board member to assign work to staff members, that is the role of the staff member's department head (Brinckerhoff, 2009). So, while in the office, a board member should view themselves as being there to help the staff with the work that needs to be done to complete the mission. By following the lead of the staff members, board members will avoid any gray areas about assigning responsibilities to staff members, and overstepping their place.

Section B 2. Research, and then compare and contrast the policy positions of the two major Presidential candidates with respect to policies that will affect the nonprofit sector, including tax policy, policies that will directly affect the workload of charities that serve the needy, and regulatory/enforcement policies. President Barack Obama and Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney are in the throes of several political debates during this year's election season. Two topics that are continuously coming up are that these two men disagree on social security, and federal funding for student loans. Romney, who in the past held a different position on many of these issues than he does now, solidified his campaign stance on these topics when he selected Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate on August 11th, 2012. Supplemental Security Income (SSI, or social security) is a vital program for the senior citizens in our country. Prior to the ratification of the Social Security Act in 1935, the poverty rate of senior citizens was exceeding 50%. By having this benefit system in place, that is funded through payroll SSI taxes, our country's workforce is providing a social safety net for our senior citizens in their golden years. President Obama is a strong proponent of social security. According to Vice President Joe Biden, Obama has vowed to make no changes to our country's social security system, while he is in office (Borosage, 2012). The Romney campaign is taking a very different stance on this issue. According to Mitt Romney's campaign website, if elected, Romney would increase the eligible retirement age associated with SSI benefits. He would also allow benefits to continue to grow, but this growth would happen at a lower rate for wealthier Americans. The primary problem with Romney's plan is his running mate, Paul Ryan. Despite the fact that Congressman

Ryan collected SSI benefits as a teenager after his father passed away, he is in support of privatizing the system, and in 2011 he stated that he views social security as a Ponzi scheme (Howard, 2011). If the Romney camp were to win this debate, and social security was to become privatized, our country would be facing the same situation the we were in the early 20th century, where more than half of our senior citizens were living in poverty. Not only would this be a tragedy, but it would put increased strain on nonprofits that help to serve the needy in our community. With a large amount of working-age American's unemployed or underemployed, local food banks, utility assistance organizations, and groups like the Salvation Army are already experiencing a strain on their resources. If our senior citizens were to lose their safety net as well, we might see many of them falling through the cracks and become amongst the poorest members of our community. On the opposite side of spectrum are America's youth. Young men and women looking to go to college so that they may secure a good job with benefits, and a chance at the American Dream. On more than one occasion, Mitt Romney has professed that he is in support of young people getting an education. In late June, he was quoted as saying he feels people should be able to get as much education as they can afford (Luzer, 2012). According to Romney's campaign website, while he was the governor of Massachusetts, the state's fourth and eighth grade students ranked first in the nation in both reading and math. Whereas this a wonderful achievement that should not be undervalued, the Romney/Paul track record for higher education has left quite a bit to be desired. In May of this year, Mitt came out in support of some federal financial aid reform and changing the eligibility rules for Pell Grants, so that more people may have access (Nelson, 2012). In contrast, Congressmen Ryan has stated on his congressional website that part of his

plan to balance the budget is to cut federal Pell Grants, and increase federal student loan interest rates. In addition to cutting money going toward the Pell Grant program, Ryan has voted repeatedly to limit eligibility requirements for the grants. The federal student loan and granting system is essential to America's higher education system. If we are going to make sure college remains affordable for America's middle class, it is crucial that these systems remain in place. If federal Pell Grants were reduced, and access to them was restricted, there would be two primary outcomes: American universities would be asked to provide more scholarships to students on a limited budget, and the quality of the institutions might suffer. In addition, college would become unaffordable to many kids from working-class and middle-class families. Having benefited from America's student loan and granting system himself, President Obama is a strong advocate of not only of making college more affordable, but also of a student loan reform where people with existing loans would be given more options in repayment and possible loan forgiveness. While speaking at the University of North Carolina in April 2012, President Obama made the comment that, even though he is the President of the United States, he and the first lady only finished paying off their student loans about eight years ago (Feller, 2012). It is because of this experience that he has continued to advocate a reform that would lower the interest rate of students loans, and enable student loan forgiveness. One area that the two candidates share a lot of similarity is in their view of net neutrality. Whereas Mitt Romney was against SOPA because it was too expensive (Romm & Raug, 2012), and Obama had campaigned in support of net neutrality in 2008, both candidates are at the least soft on the issue. Net neutrality, in addition to be a the largest First Amendment issue of the

technology era, is a regulatory issue that the American Civil Liberties Union says would give government agencies too much access into American's privacy. Despite the fact that there are hundreds of organizations working against internet service providers (ISPs) to protect net neutrality, the ISPs have framed the debate as one of national security (American Civil Liberties Union, 2010), so now both Presidential candidates have been claiming that we must have some regulation of the internet to avoid cyber terrorism, and to protect our defense systems cyber security (Romm & Raug, 2012). This complicated, and technical issue that was virtually unheard of a decade ago is now a major campaign piece for large, national organizations like the ACLU, PBS, NPR, and PEN American Center. Section C 2. In the aforementioned situation of the Harristown Jewish Community Center, what might you do to manage this situation? This case is presenting three major organizational issues: first, funding the building renovations for the Community Center, second, finding ways to increase a declining membership base, and third, building a strong reserve to ensure the future of the organization. The funding needed for building renovations at the Community Center should not come from either the reserve nor membership dues. Membership dues should continue to be used for programming and to increase the reserve, and the reserve should be used only to help the organization grow. The most logical solution for funding the building renovations, at this point. is to organize a capital campaign. This time-oriented fundraising method would be beneficial for the Community Center for multiple reasons, outside of merely getting money for the building. In the case study, the statement is made, "letters were sent out with the annual membership dues invoices," which implies that members are not asked to donate to the

Community Center more than once a year. In addition to raising funds for building renovations, a capital campaign would be a good way of evaluating the existing members' giving capacity. Furthermore, from my experience, when people become more financially invested in an organization, they become more active in it as well. The capital campaign would give the Community Center a new way to get their members involved. Instead of just being there to serve the community, the Center would be asking people to literally help build a community. In addition, by organizing a capital campaign around building renovation, the Community Center may become eligible for grant money for which they previously did not qualify. For example, in 2009 The Bullitt Foundation of Seattle was issuing grants to organizations to retrofit their office building to be more green, sustainable, and energy efficient. Of the 15 grants awarded, eight were given to organizations that had not previously fit the scope of what The Bullitt Foundation supported. Those grants not only helped the organizations reach their campaign goal, but they also helped forge a relationship that could be quite advantageous in the future. When analyzing the issue of a declining membership base, the board of the Community Center would be smart to look at their mission statement first. We read in the case study that over the past several years, the demographics of Harristown have changed; many of the Jewish families that historically had been members of the center have relocated to the suburbs, and many of the regular major donors have passed away. The purpose of any community center is to serve the community it is in. In order for the Harristown Jewish Community Center to remain a viable part of its area, it needs to look at this population change and reevaluate its role in the community and its mission statement (Brinckerhoff, 2009). Once this has been completed, and

the role of the community center is reestablished, then the board can move on to the question of recruiting non-Jewish families to join. It states in the case study that there has been discussion about actively recruiting nonJewish members of the community to join the center. The conflict around that proposition is this: the Community Center is closed on the Sabbath because of religious reasons, but there are concerns this will deter the non-Jewish families in the area from joining. On this particular issue, I would go ahead and run a membership drive that focuses around recruiting non-Jewish members of the community, but still keep the Center closed on Saturdays. The case study states that there are already some non-Jewish families, and they signed on without be actively recruited. This leads me to believe that there would be people in Harristown that would be willing to join, despite the fact the center is closed on Saturdays. With this method, the organization would be able to keep its values while still expanding its membership base. Yes, the Center may lose some potential members because of its closure policy, but it will keep its core membership base happy. Once the membership base begins to increase, it is important that the board turn its sites to growing the reserve funds. In his book, Brinckerhoff (2009) talks about the importance of putting money in a reserve fund, or an endowment, every year. It is the reserve fund that will allow the Community Center to invest in projects and programs that will expand the scope and reach of the organization. The case study states that the organization has been operating at a surplus for the past couple of years, but that the reserve is still small. This can be a problem; when an organization is running a surplus because of productive programming, it does not have to spend every penny it has (Brinckerhoff, 2009). What it should do is invest that surplus into its

reserve fund, to ensure that there are enough resource to keep the organization viable during a financially dry spell.

3. What are the pros and cons of having a diverse staff within a large nonprofit organization? What are the pros and cons of having a diverse board? In this particular case, one of the largest benefits to having a diverse staff at the Community Center is having people of various faith backgrounds working. The objection to keeping the Community Center open on a Saturday is because that day is the Sabbath, and people of the faith are not supposed to work that day. An easy solution to this concern would be to allow the Jewish employees to have Saturday off, and to only have the non-Jewish employees work that day. With this method, people could still observe their religious traditions, and the Community Center could remain open for its non-Jewish members. In addition, a large staff with a diverse background will provide unique perspectives on problem-solving, a myriad of different skills and talents will be brought to the table, and they will be able to relate to a more diverse clientele, enriching the experience of all members. The drawbacks to having a diverse staff are the challenges in management, and potential personality/cultural differences amongst staff members. When working with people who come from varied backgrounds it is easy to come across situations where one person's social norm is another person's social faux pas. In my experience, it does not take much for a cultural clash to turn into a very uncomfortable, and possibly legally risky, work environment. For management in this situation, it can be difficult to find a mutually agreeable solution.

On a board, diversity comes not only with the benefit of various skills, talents, and abilities, but also with different social circles. The more populations that a board represents, the larger the voice it can have in the community on an issue. Additionally, having a diverse board can help bring new issues to the table for an organization, since not all groups of people encounter the same problems. For example, when I was a member of The Evergreen State College's Coalition Against Sexual Violence (CASV) advisory board at my alma matter, a few other women and I raised the issue of poor lighting at night on the heavily forested campus. To us, it seemed common knowledge that poorly-lit walking paths represented a potential danger zone for women, but a large percentage of the men on the board, both students and faculty alike, looked at us with expressions of confusion as to why we would equate a dark path with a danger zone. As wonderful as a diverse board can be, at times it can definitely seem more like a curse. Diversity also comes with varying levels of commitment to the organization. If you seek out board members that are well-connected, you might also find people who can only give a minor time commitment. Alternatively, you might have a student who is passionate about the issue, but does not have many financial resources to support the organization. As we read in the Grobman case study, Approving a Partnership Agreement, board diversity can also lead to challenges in group decision-making. In that case study, the board was having a problem reaching a consensus on a merger. The issues that came up not only came from individual board member's pet issues, but also a lack of enthusiasm from the merger, because many of the board members did not see the full impact of the technological advances. 4a. Frame a reply to this person that describes why you believe that lobbying is part of your job and how you carry out this function without jeopardizing your nonprofit status.

Sir, I understand your confusion about a tax-deductable organization lobbying. The regulations that the IRS places on 501(c)(3) organizations, like Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest (PPGNW), are indeed strict when it comes to lobbying (Grobman, 2011). In fact, per the IRS, we are only able to spend 20% of our resources towards lobbying. I can assure you as the largest provider of reproductive health care in the Puget Sound region, our legislative and grassroots lobbying efforts are nowhere near that 20% threshold. In 2011, we spent only 4% of our annual budget on government relations and advocacy (Charbonneau, 2011). In contrast, we spent 73% on patient services, and 13% on public and professional education. We do make sure to spend the vast majority of our budget on programming, but to support our organization's mission, we have no choice but to step up and become the voice of reproductive freedom when it is needed. The mission of PPGNW is to support the lifelong sexual health of women and men, and to foster a community where every child is a wanted child. In order for us to do this, we must be having the conversation about teens and reproductive health. In 2010, there were 12,810 teenage pregnancies in Washington state alone, with over 4,000 of those pregnancies being girls under the age of 16 (Kost & Henshaw, 2012). Some people look at that as progress, because it is down fairly drastically from previous years (Ostrom, 2010), but we see this statistic as 12,810 girls that we were not able to reach. These girls should be given the opportunity to start a family when and how they want. They should not be forced into starting a family because they were not provided the opportunity of comprehensive sex education, and access to birth control and a good OB/GYN. If we simply stayed in our clinics, and provided high schools with leaflets about the services available to these young girls, we still would not be reaching every child that we could,

and it is not only our role to provide these services, but to advocate for them! We are the primary voice for reproductive healthcare in our region, and right now 16% of all teenagers in Washington State are uninsured or underinsured (Kost & Henshaw, 2012). A girl's access to birth control, and pregnancy counseling, should not be dependent on her families socioeconomic status. If we were not out here tonight, making this request of our council members, we would not be fulfilling our mission, our promise to the community, that we will work and make sure every child is wanted. 4b. Create a plan to use social networking sites to fund-raise and increase advocacy for the organization's position. While I was working as the membership manager for People For Puget Sound, I was responsible for organizing a fundraising campaign, using social media to raise $10,000, to purchase 1,000 plants for our restoration site on Orcas Island. The plan I would organize for this Planned Parenthood campaign would operate around the same principles I used then: when given a tangible result, people will respond, secure a matching grant opportunity to double your impact, and never underestimate the power of a good meme. I whole-heartedly believe that people like to give to causes they believe in. As a fundraiser, I see it as my mission to pair a donor with a program that they care about. While going through that process of matching a donor to a cause, one of the most common questions I get is, "But how much effect will my donation have for this group?" People want to get the most bang for their buck, and in fundraising that means they want their gift to make the largest impact possible. This is why I love the fundraising method of "tangible results" (Lewis, 2012). When you are able to tell a donor how much of an item you can get for a specific dollar amount, on average, they will increase their gift by 18% (Lewis, 2012). One way this could be

used in this campaign is by using tweets or Facebook status updates to the effect of, "It costs Planned Parenthood $45 a month1 to provide free birth control to an uninsured teenage girl. How many months will you pledge to support today?" An additional tweet that could be used is: "Pens: $10, Staples: $5, Internet for one month: $89.95, Office rent: $4,367, Providing a free pregnancy resource center for teens: Priceless. Pledge your support to Planned Parenthood today!" This second model of tangible results is effective because it illustrates to donors the dayto-day costs of running an organization, and exactly what their money is going towards. Matching grants are a great way to increase the resources going to your organization. Traditionally, the matching grant has been used to double monetary funds. This works quite well for social media sites. Since everything is real time, PPGNW could start off the day with a Facebook update of: "Here is your challenge: for every $100 we raise to fund pregnancy resource centers today, The Awesome Foundation will match $75, up to $5,000! Show your support by donating today!" then throughout the day, the status could be updated to let the followers know how close the organization is to reaching its goal. When an organization has a campaign goal focused on advocacy, one have to be creative with the use of a matching grant. PPGNW generates a large amount of online petitions, letters to Congress, and "photopostcards". An innovative way to use a matching grant, and promote advocacy, is to have the match be based on number of signatures gathered or letters generated. In this instance, PPGNW should start an online petition to be sent the Chamber of Commerce, calling for increased funding for birth control and pregnancy counseling centers for teens. With the approval of the funder, PPGNW could market the matching grant by stating, "For every 100 petition signatures

this figure is not based on actually dollar amounts, but instead is just being used as an example

we get this week, The Awesome Foundation will give $100 to PPGNW to fund free birth control and pregnancy resources centers, up to $10,000!" By using a matching grant in this manner, they will be generating revenue for the organization as well as rallying public support for their mission. The best way to ensure that your tangible results and your matching grant opportunity are well circulated amidst your target audiences is to develop a catchy meme. As of 2011, 65% of people between the ages of 18 and 29 said that they prefer to get their news and information on the internet instead of on television (Kohut, 2011). With 57% of the people on Facebook under the age of 35 (Chappell, 2012), this is the age range that a social media campaign will be focusing on. This generation has trained itself to take its news in small, digestible bites, preferably with pictures, known as memes. Much like a new-aged version of a newspaper headline, memes allow us to quickly see the quick points of a story, and decide if we want to invest the time to investigate the matter further. But unlike newspaper headlines, memes give you the ability of automatic action. If you agree with the subject of a meme you can "like" it, and if you are really passionate about the issue, you can repost it to your social media of choice to ensure all your friends can be quickly educated on this matter as well. If an organization is lucky enough to develop a meme that goes viral, not only will the social media system be working to promote the organization's issue, but, if there is a fundraising ask attached, the organization can see a monetary windfall to support their cause. For example, after Susan G. Komen cut funding to Planned Parenthood for cancer screenings, there was a large backlash of memes flurrying around the Internet. After the dust had settled, Komen Racefor the Cure registration, which in years past had served as the organization's largest annual fundraising event, was down 36% in Seattle, WA (Bartley, 2012). This worked out to be a loss of

roughly $500,000. At this same time, PPGNW posted a meme that showed the number of women that would lose access to free cancer screenings in Washington due to the loss of the Komen money. Within a matter of hours the meme had gone viral, and by the end of the week, the messaging on that meme alone had raised PPGNW $1.1 million (Bartley, 2012). Section D Define and make brief comments about the following terms in the nonprofit context: 1. Sarbanes-Oxley- The more well-known name for the American Competitiveness and Corporate Accountability Act that was enacted in 2002 (Grobman, 2011). The primary effect this act has had on the nonprofit sector has been creating provisions to protect whistleblowers. 2. conflict of interest- This is an ethical dilemma when an organization or a person has more than one interest involved in a decision-making process, that could possibly cause them to be corrupt, or make decisions that are not in the best interest of the organization. 3. cash-flow analysis- This report is one of the most important for internal financial management. It shows how much money is needed for operations, when it is needed, and where it will be coming from (Brinckerhoff, 2009). 4. accrual basis of accounting- This factors in accounts payable and accounts receivable. It gives a more realistic picture of an organization's financial state, when compared to the "cash basis" system, because it looks at a transaction when it is made, not when goods or services are received (Grobman, 2011). 5. collective (public) good- Collective goods, also known as public goods, are goods that are non-excludable and where there is no economic rivalry. Often, these goods are cared for by the nonprofit sector. Examples include public media, libraries, and green transportation

infrastructure. 6. intermediate sanctions- These are regulations endorsed by the IRS that relate to nonprofits who are guilty of financial abuses that were created through the Tax Payers Bill of Rights 2. The important thing is the intermediate sanctions gave the IRS a larger arsenal of sanctions outside of simply revoking an organization's tax-exempt status (Grobman, 2011). 7. inurement- The giving of assets from a tax-exempt organization to a private party (Grobman, 2011) 8. management letter- The management letter is the product of an audit. After an audit is performed, the management letter is given to the board listing any organizational deficiencies, in areas like financial integrity and ethical concerns (Grobman, 2011). 9. outcome measures compared to output measures- This is like quality over quantity. Outcome based metrics look at the impact of what was produced, while output measures looks at the amount of what was produced (Grobman, 2011). 10. substantiation letter- This document provides written proof of contributions made. By law it must be created for contributions of $250 or more (Grobman, 2011). 11. inverted management pyramid- This a management style that is organized by prioritizing the line workers, or staff on the lower tiers of the organization, over the senior management and executive director (Brinckerhoff, 2009). This is important because it acknowledges that bringing decision-making to those who provide the service is important, and it empowers the staff to take more ownership over the organization. 12. SWOT- This stands for "strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats". It is a strategic planning method used to identify the objective of the organization's mission (Brinckerhoff, 2009).

Part E 1. A nonprofit must be incorporated before it can qualify for federal tax-exempt status (provide a citation for your answer). True False Per the IRS Instructions for Form 1023,

incorporation is not always necessary to qualify for federal tax-exemption 2. 501(c)(4) organizations may not engage in any political activities (provide a citation for your answer). True False On page 18 of the Grobman (2011) text it states, "Organizations

exempt under Section 501(c)(4) of the [IRC], on the other hand, may (and do) engage in substantial lobbying activities." 3. 501(c)(3) organizations may not engage in lobbying (provide a citation for your answer). True False In the Grobman (2011) text on page 74, it states "such organizations may not

substantially engage in lobbying" meaning that limited lobbying is permissible. 4. If you wanted to file an application for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status today, you could do so by using the IRS CyberAssistant system and have your application fee reduced by $200. True False

5. A deontological approach to ethics relates more to relying on a principle, and a teleological approach relates more to how an action results in outcomes that might be favorable or unfavorable to those affected by an action. True False

6. The halo effect refers to the fact that for-profit businesses are more likely to provide quality services to consumers than their nonprofit counterparts because they are more sensitive to the increased competition such businesses have, compared to nonprofits, which often have a monopoly. True False

7. Outsourcing potentially dangerous activities (such as transportation) is an example of a risk management strategy. True False

8. Segregating all telephone expenses from all programs within a budget is an example of a program budget. True False

9. Nonprofit organizations should try to cram as much into their mission statements as they possibly can. True False

10. Having no members of the organization in the Articles of Incorporation legally means that the organization will not offer memberships to the public in exchange for a dues payment. True False

References American Civil Liberties Union. (2010). Network Neutrality 101 - Why the Government Must Act To Preserve the Free and Open Internet. New York: American Civil Liberties Union. Bartley, N. (2012, May 24). Komen Controversy Hurting Race for the Cure. The Seattle Times. Borosage, R. (2012, August 16). Game Changer: Biden Guarantees No Changes in Social Security. The Huffington Post. Brinckerhoff, P. (2009). Mission Based Management. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Chappell, B. (2012). 2012 Social Network Analysis Report. Cary: Ignite Social Media . Charbonneau, C. (2011). Report to the Community. Seattle: Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest. Feller, B. (2012, April 24). Obama Pushes Low-Rate Student Loans, Wooing Young. Associated Press.

Grobman, G. (2011). An Introduction to the Nonprofit Sector. Harrisburg: White Hat Communications. Howard, J. (2011, September 20). Paul Ryan Supports Rick Perry: Social Security Is A Ponzi Scheme. The Huffington Post. Kohut, A. (2011). Internet Gain on Television as Public's Main New Source. Washington, DC: The Pew Research Center. Kost, K., & Henshaw, S. (2012). U.S. Teenage Pregnancies, Births and Abortions: National and State Trends by Age, Race and Ethnicity. Washington, DC: Guttmacher Institute. Lewis, C. (2012). Trends in Northwest Giving. Seattle: Philanthropy Northwest. Luzer, D. (2012, July 3). The Best Education You Can Afford. The Washington Monthly. Nelson, L. (2012, May 24). Romney's Higher Ed Platform. Inside Higher Ed. Ostrom, C. (2010, October 20). State's Lower Teen-Pregnancy Rate Doesn't Tell Whole Story. The Seattle Times. Romm, T., & Raug, D. S. (2012, April 22). Mitt Romney's Record in Silicon Valley. Politico.