food-bank.jpg
As she delivered the budget's bad news this week, Governor Gregoire challenged charities to fill the gap. (AP Photo/file)

Charities can't bear budget cut burden

December 17, 2010 @ 5:15 am (Updated: 1:37 pm - 3/28/11 )

By ALEX SILVERMAN
KIRO Radio
Listen to Alex's report

As she delivered the budget's bad news this week, Governor Gregoire challenged charities to fill the gap.

"For the functions government no longer will be able to provide, we must turn to neighbors, private charities, faith-based organizations, and other local programs," she said. "Our communities, more than ever, will be asked to step up."

When she returned to her Seattle office after her budget address Wednesday, she found a group of people. "I could recognize a couple of them," Gregoire told KIRO Radio's Ross and Burbank.

Listen to Governor Gregoire on Ross & Burbank

They were members of the state's charity community. "'We heard your call, governor,' they said. 'We're here to be that safety net.'"

"That's the kind of Washingtonian spirit we need to get through this," Gregoire said.

But are our state's non-profits capable of this monumental task?

"The first thing I'd respond to, is, what does she mean, a lot of the burden?" said Norm Rice, Seattle's mayor from 1989 to 1997, now president of the Seattle Foundation, which directs donors' donations to various local charities.

"Clearly, the non-profit sector cannot be the replacement for the loss of state or federal dollars going on," he said.

It's just not big enough, said Jon Fine, the CEO of King County's United Way.

"Government spends way more than non-profits on health and human services," Fine said.

A United Way study, Fine said, found that 90 percent of that money is spent by government, while only 10 percent comes from the charity sector.

"What we do best is partner and find alliances to help that [government money] go further," Rice said. "It's not going to be a substitute for that loss."

Non-profits can maximize their impact by getting leaner, Rice said. "What we'll have to do in these times is look at how to consolidate."

The draconian budget cuts don't come as a shock, Fine said. The Puget Sound nonprofit community has been gearing up for a challenge. "One example is, we've got a great parent-child home program going which is an investment up front, which is going to cause lots of savings in spending over time," he said.

That program might help soften the damage early education cuts will wreak. But Rice said that's all nonprofits can do: soften the fall -- for some.

"There are going to be a lot of people who fall through the cracks," he said.

Follow Alex Silverman on twitter @alexsilverman

More Local News
Top Stories

  • Snowy Passes
    Escape cold Seattle; go skiing at Crystal Mountain

  • Dirty Wars
    Director Jeremy Scahill says Obama hasn't been fighting a clean war

  • Dollars Per Student
    Washington spending per student is below the national average
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (10)


  • Add A Comment

  • wonderfullone wrote...
    What a bunch of crap
    December 17, 2010 5:37 am
    The private agencies have been carrying the load, better, for longer than any of these mush-head government welfare crooks.

    They feed more people for less money, they consistently offer more support to individuals in need.

    The number of options and resources dedicated to the poor exceeds that of the welfare trap of dependence that the state offers.

    Quit your belly-aching, lefty crap, and support those that are doing the real work in this state. Period.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • myopinion wrote...
    NOT SURE
    December 17, 2010 6:29 am
    WHAT YOU MEAN, BUT WITH THAT SAID, PRIVATE SECTOR ALWAYS DOES BETTER THAN GOVENMENT BECASUE THEY HAVE TOO THEY DON'T HAVE A POPULATION TO TURN TO TO RAISE TAXES TO FUND PROGRAMS. THE MISTAKE THAT WE AS A POULATION CONTINUE TO MAKE IS REELECTING THOSE THAT CONTINUALY GROW BUDGETS IN THE GOOD TIMES RAMP UP PROGRAMS THAT THEY THINK THE PEOPLE WANT, BUDGETS THAT IN THE LONG RUN ARE UNSUSTAINABLE THEN SAY WELL NOW IT'S THE PUBLICS TURN WHEN IN FACT IT HAS BEEN OUT TURN ALL ALONG. TO END THIS STUPIDITY OF ELECTED OFFICIALS TRYING TO KEEP THEIR ELECTED JOBS, WHILE NOT DOING THE REAL WORK OF THE PEOPLE, WE NEED TO INSTITUTE REFORMS, END LOBBYING BY SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS, TERM LIMITS, AND VOTE OUT THE PEOPLE THAT DONT DO THE RIGHT THING AND LIVE WITHIN THE MEANS THE WE AS TAXPAYERS PROVIDE THEM, WE NEED TO LAY OFF SOME STATE WORKERS AS OPPOSED TO CUTTING PROGRAMS, END THE LEGACY HEALTH CARE AND PERS PROGRAMS THAT ALL STATE EMPLOYEES ENJOY. BRING THEM INTO THE REAL WORLD THAT WE LIVE IN CONVERT THEIR PERS RETIREMENT INTO 401K OR 403B. LET THEM BE RESONSPOSIBLE FOR THIER OWN RETIREMENT. JUST A THOUHGHT
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • hnuh wrote...
    What
    December 17, 2010 6:47 am
    I want to know is "What is the actual situation with the economy and people's ability to take care of themselves?" The politicians seem to suggest that there is a large proportion of the population that cannot take care of themselves, but the politicians are well known for being self serving and untruthful. So, what proportion of our people are really impoverished? What proportion are just beggars drinking up our money?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • jpmarine wrote...
    Government employees used to be servants of the people
    December 17, 2010 6:54 am
    I konow, Iknow, that is just a stupid statement to Dems, but it's really true guys. The Government used to serve the people. Now, we have a left wing gov that sicerely believes that the people serve them. Government employees used to, on average, make less than the private citizen. 1- because they are paid by the private citizen, and 2- because of the job security and benefits. Not anymore however. The unions and the democrats are running our state, coast, and country into the dirt. If you just don't think that that's true, well look up the worst 10, or even 20 cities in this country, and they have been long run entirely by democrats, every single one. I know lefties, facts suck, but that's just the way life is, and maybe that's why libs are never happy, because deep down, they know they can't run anything.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Country_Dog wrote...
    Silverman = bad reporting; Do your homework
    December 17, 2010 7:00 am
    1) You are using non-profit sector as synonymous with charity. While most charities are non-profits, not all non-profits are charity. While "non-profit" sounds nice and all, many of them are merely ways for people to aggrandize themselves and draw a big salary. The quick definition of a non-profit is that it can't pay dividends to stakeholders.

    2) There is not a clear distinct gap between non-profit charity and government assistance. Silverman does not reveal that many non-profits draw a significant amount of their income from government grants. (That is another reason for their existence -- to absorb money from taxpayers.) I am betting that the various secular non-profits he mentions in this story get government grants, and hence their pessimistic mood about charities not being able to help.

    3) Notice that the charities that Silverman cites are run by former government employees. See my point above. Again, this explains the pessimistic mood; the folks that run those non-profits are big gov't types.

    4) Much of the charity that is distributed in society is "invisible" in that it comes from small churches that don't necessarily record this stuff on the books. Indeed, Silverman completely ignores the religious sector in his story. He probably never even thought that churches give charity, which they historically have.

    5) There is something that economists call "crowd out" that occurs between government provided welfare and private charity. As gov't moves into new welfare activities, they tend to push out private charities in the same area (and gov't often has higher deadweight costs compared to private charities). Gov't regulations make it difficult for private charities to compete.

    Silverman, do your homework next time.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Irish Rover wrote...
    Hand-outs Vs Hand-up
    December 17, 2010 7:28 am
    There are 2 types of charitable cases; those who are truly in desperate straits who need help, and those who are leeches on the welfare system that need to be rejected. The welfare system could be greatly diminished if they would implement more "helping Hand Up" and less "Hand-out". I once needed help and saw the welfare system as a self-perpetuating business - in fact, it was against their personal interest to get people off the dole. It was all take and no give. The reason many won't go to church-type welfare activities is because they encourage a life-style change that promotes self-reliance, good work-ethics, and, yes, WORK. I once got help from the Mormon church, and they expected me to do community service for what I received - I didn't like having to get the assist from the church (no self respecting person would), but doing the community service made me feel a sense of having somewhat paid back for what I got. It also helped me to work with others that ultimately helped me get a new job. (and they didn't need a single penny from the government to do so).
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • happygo wrote...
    Yes, she finally got a clue
    December 17, 2010 7:44 am
    The private sector should be the default for these 'human good works'. It should not be assigned to any government agency. Go conservative!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Roark wrote...
    Charities taking over for Government?
    December 17, 2010 8:34 am
    Great idea...just like they USED TO before government got into the charity business. This is what happens when government steps in and makes charity a mandate on the taxpayer. People figure they're taxes are being mis-used for charity, why give to real charities? Now that the government has finally run out of other people's money, they are tossing the ball back to the scrawny little ball boy and telling him to go score. How heroic of government... So where's my tax cut?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    This is what happens
    December 17, 2010 8:34 am
    when you spend your life with your hand constantly out toward big Liberal government and not taught to take care of yourself and your family!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chris Halliday wrote...
    Where is the %10 going that all these churches receive?
    December 17, 2010 11:44 am
    Churches don't pay taxes. Yet they instruct their floks to give %10 of their income. Can you imagine how much money churches get every Sunday? Where does all this money go? I was told by this decon that he collected $20,000.00 sometimes. If all churches get that kind of money,weekly, they should have no problem covering for lost government assistance. But here's the kicker. That decon I was talking about is a millionaire. Probably of the multi variety. Casey Treat drives expensive cars and travels quite often. He tells his flok the lighting is expensive in his multimillion dollar church. It will be quite interesting to see how this situation plays out. Will crime rates go up? Will people be starving in the streets? I doubt they'll be starving. Times are not as tough as the media would have you believe. Just go back to the jobs that over %90 of you have and watch what happens next. It should be an interesting show. Or the impact will be quite minimal and boring. I'm guessing that last sentence to be true.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }