Cheap gas makes you fat?

A study from Washington University in St. Louis suggests that 8% of the rise in obesity since the 1980s was due to low gas prices, which led to less walking and biking and more restaurant meals.

Wow.

Strategic Philanthropy often means Less Philanthropy

I'm a little behind on the news ... it is vacation season after all. This evening, I came across some scary statistics in an article entitled "Corporate Social Irresponsibility" by Leo Hindery Jr. and Curt Weeden of BusinessWeek. Here's a snippet:

Twenty-five years ago, businesses allocated about 2%, on average, of their pretax profits for gifts and grants, according to a report by the Giving USA Foundation and Indiana University Center on Philanthropy. Today, companies are only about one-third as generous.

Gulp. And ... what?! I had to read it twice to be sure I had read it correctly. Given all the hype around CSR in the past few years, one would think it was just the opposite. We know that corporations have increasingly targeted their giving to causes more aligned with their business goals under the term "strategic philanthropy" (think financial literacy programs supported by financial institutions, or health and wellness programs funded by pharmaceutical companies). But if more corporations are doing this, why has the giving declined? One answer, not offered by the authors, is staring us right in the face.

The downward trends in giving are actually a result of strategic philanthropy.

In other words, when a business gets "strategic" in its giving, very often, it is cutting its overall giving rather than transferring total philanthropic dollars to one or two strategic causes. In our work, we've seen this happen many times when calling on businesses about their philanthropic programs, and the cutting doesn't always stop with the overall giving. Oftentimes, even the strategic programs aren't fully funded. By doing so, corporate leaders are missing some big opportunities.

When fully funded and done well, strategic philanthropy programs can accomplish big things: they elevate awareness for the cause and the brand, encourage multiple-stakeholder participation, create attitude and behavior changes around the cause, and position the company well with all its stakeholders: consumers, employees, government regulators, and yes, shareholders. When poorly funded, these programs often serve as mere fodder for the PR machine and never receive the buy-in from stakeholders to truly elevate the brand.

If more corporations would be strategic and increase the percentages of their pretax contributions, then we’d really be on to something.

Get 'em outside

"Get 'em Outside" is a pretty well done five-minute video celebrating the value of environmental education. It's by the Cheasepeake Bay Foundation, the home of the No Child Left Inside Coalition.

In 20 years, 9 of 10 ...

 Americans will be overweight or obese. This latest news is from a report out of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Live on Charlotte Talks Thursday

For those interested in such things, I'll be on the local NPR affiliate (WFAE, 90.7 FM) this Thursday morning at 9am (with a taped 9pm re-broadcast on the same station) with Dr. Margaret Houlihan. The show is Charlotte Talks and Meg and I will be talking about "Nature Deficit Disorder," why kids should be spending more time outside, and offering suggestions for parents/teachers to accomplish this. Also, Jen Taylor, founder of Mountain Sprouts will also be calling into the show to participate.

You can stream the program live here: http://wfae.org/wfae/stat_listenwfae.cfm

And the programs are typically available for podcast download a day or so after they air. You can find the podcasts here, which re-directs you to the itunes music store (the podcasts are free.)

Ebenezer Scrooge Didn't Get Opportunity Costs

In “The Culture of Debt,” New York Times columnist David Brooks says something that should resonate with all of us in financial education.

Decision-making — whether it’s taking out a loan or deciding whom to marry — isn’t a coldly rational, self-conscious act. Instead, decision-making is a long chain of processes, most of which happen beneath the level of awareness.

I couldn’t agree more — particularly when equating financial decision-making with opportunity costs. What we decide invariably sets off a chain of events at the expense of/in lieu of other chains of events. And in the decision-making process, sometimes we're conscious of the opportunity costs, sometimes we're not. Brooks didn't state it that way, but he recognized that financial decisions (among others) result from a series of influences.

If you haven’t read the piece, you can guess correctly from its title that Brooks discusses our country’s consumerism and its impact on personal debt. In Sunday’s paper, Gretchen Morgenson examined the topic, focusing on it from the perspective of Diane McLeod — a 47 year-old drowning in debt. And with that story and the many comments submitted by readers as a backdrop, Brooks weighs in.

He divides the opinions on Ms. McLeod’s situation into two camps:

1. Credit card companies et al preyed on her, knowingly extending her credit that far exceeded her ability to pay back.
2. Ms. McLeod was irresponsible, knowingly spending well beyond her means just so she could feel better about herself.

I suspect that people in ALL camps recognize the need for more effective financial education, extending well beyond the Diane McLeods of the country.

Here's the thing, though ... too often financial education doesn't really help consumers make better decisions because the role and influence of opportunity costs within financial education tend to be both minimized and over-simplified. And while, I think it’s good for us to designate wants vs. needs (a common exercise stressed in financial education and first step in analyzing financial decisions), how often is a financial decision really that cut and dried?!

Here’s how opportunity costs come into the equation. A mentality of thrift and savings is a good thing, right? It’s certainly one that I wish were more widespread. However, I don’t think we want a world full of pre-Christmas Ebenezer Scrooges. His decisions to scrimp and save came at a terrible price on his quality of life and that of those people around him.

Ebenezer is an extreme and a fictional character, but he illustrates my point. The ways in which the opportunity costs of financial decisions manifest themselves are not limited to the impact on wallets, levels of debt, and balance sheets. Unfortunately, financial education far too often confines opportunity costs in that way.

In life, there are many influences that affect our financial decisions because they affect the desired outcomes we want and expect from our decisions. My influences and my desired outcomes may be completely different from yours. And with apologies to Stuart Smalley … that’s okay.

A financially-literate person is one who is aware of opportunity costs — they are at (or at least near!) the surface when making decisions. And the decisions factor in their likely impacts (short-term AND long-term) — impacts that extend beyond balance sheets.

Financial education and counseling shouldn’t shy away from a more nuanced approach to opportunity costs that better reflects the real-world. We should want people to reflect on what’s important to them and make decisions accordingly. Of course, that's not enough. Financial education and counseling should also provide the foundation of knowledge and skills that are necessary to understand the financial ramifications of their decisions.

Fat bellies, thin wallets?

The CDC reports today that more than 1/4 of all Americans are obese. And because the survey relies on self-reporting (and who actually gives their REAL weight over the phone!?!?), many believe the numbers from the survey are ... let's call them conservative.

So, 26% of Americans are clinically obese -- not overweight; not chunky, not big boned, not pudgy. Obese. And the rates tend to go up as a states' per capita wealth goes down. That is, Mississippi, the nation's poorest state also has the highest obesity rates in the union, about 30%.

Now, if 1/4 of us are obese -- and the if the situation is worse as poverty levels increase -- wouldn't that suggest that the raising cost of food might be a GOOD thing in the long term?

Bad as it sounds, I'd probably like to think so. 

But the problem is, as my friend Adam Werbach likes to say, too often regular folks are not choosing between  organic carrots and conventional carrots. They are choosing between carrots and twinkies. And picking the latter.

In an article from 2007 New York Times, Michael Pollan explains why that may be.

Newt's Ideas for More Newtons

This past weekend the Charlotte Observer published an excerpt of an article by Newt Gingrich. I shook my head as I read things like:

A more radical idea is to pay students directly for getting a B or better in their math and science classes. The idea offends many who either believe learning should be its own reward or don't think we should place special value on math and science over the arts, humanities and social sciences.

The idea doesn’t “offend” me – nor do I imagine that others are questioning the wisdom of the idea because of some sort of purist perspective. It’s fraught with impracticalities. Just the subjectivity of grades (which I think is a good thing on balance) poses a huge problem on systematically incentivizing students with monetary rewards.

But … before completely dismissing his ideas, I thought it was important to examine his whole piece [probably a better way to word that, eh?!] Moving on ...

In the context of the entire essay, it’s a little easier to stomach. Like the excerpt, it sounds the alarm on the state of students’ math and science performance.

The United States continually ranks near the bottom in OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development] rankings of student mathematical achievement. The National Science Foundation found that in 2005 only 35% of U.S. eighth graders were deemed to be proficient in math. China and India graduate five times as many engineers as the United States.

No argument here. We could and should be doing better. But he sets up his diagnosis with this gem:

The facts show that money alone is not the answer.

Is there ANYONE who says that money alone will solve this education issue – or any other education issues, for that matter? Okay. Okay. I’m starting to nitpick. Let’s get to his ideas for addressing the issue of science and math performance.

No surprise that he frames it up in the school choice silver bullet.

School choice must be included in our set of solutions. In addition to the urgent national security need for improving our educational system, there is also the moral imperative of liberating students in poor neighborhoods from an environment that will cripple their lives. School choice will provide immediate relief to those trapped in failing schools. Furthermore, introducing market forces to our education system by forcing schools to compete for students will inspire improvement faster than the slow, cumbersome movement of the education bureaucracy.

Yes, yes … this issue deserves multiple posts. And there’s a lot about offering more choice that is good for students and families. HOWEVER, I will say that “moral imperatives” and “market forces” don’t often play well together – particularly when market forces focus on the short term (which they tend to do). What’s the financial incentive to take on a student with severe learning disabilities and answer the moral imperative to educate every child? When seats are limited at a school, what’s the financial incentive to liberate students in poor neighborhoods who require transportation, two meals, and after-school care when the seats could easily be filled by students without these higher-cost needs?

I debated whether to include this because it is an issue that warrants a much deeper exploration. But I think Mr. Gingrich’s view of school choice as “immediate relief” for suffering students and as an elixir to breaking through the education bureaucracy is grossly oversimplified and illustrative of his ideas for fixing our math and science woes.

We’ll start with:

We should also experiment with offering direct incentives to students to accelerate their pace of learning beyond what is expected of them by school curricula. Imagine if students who finish high school early were given the cost of their remaining years in the form of scholarships. This would cost the taxpayers nothing and motivate students--especially those in poorer neighborhoods--to learn as rapidly as possible.

I’m all for pushing students to accelerate learning, providing them with opportunities and encouragement to do so. I’m not sure how his idea, though, “would cost taxpayers nothing.” Okay, maybe there’s some proficiency test that could demonstrate mastery of chemistry or trig. And because he’s talking about finishing high school early, those tests would have to extend to English and history, et al. Having taught both English and history, I can tell you that a test to show mastery of those subjects would invariably boil down to regurgitation of dates and events in history, and English/language arts would be more like the verbal section of the SAT. And as a student, I bet I could’ve “passed” a history test without benefit of the class, but I wouldn’t have learned what I did, nor would I have been as prepared for college. In fact, I bet I could have passed the GED in 10th grade, but there’s no way I would’ve been ready for college or would’ve been accepted to Davidson College.

Of course, there are ways to actually take the classes and finish early through summer school, but that costs taxpayers money. And what often happens with students who are really advanced in math is that they take advanced math classes while still in high school – either at their school or through a nearby college/university. We should certainly encourage more of that, but it ain’t free.

He continues:

Of course, an essential part of allowing students to learn on their own, independent of the set patch of the school curriculum is developing a clearinghouse of knowledge that is accessible to everyone for free. The federal government can play a role by contributing to the Library of Congress online learning programs that teach basic math through trigonometry and calculus as well as the physical sciences.

I’m all for the federal government increasing its contribution to education, and this is one way that would be effective. I also think that such a clearinghouse would benefit adults who would like to expand their understanding of math and science. However, if these online learning programs are going to count toward high school graduation, Mr. Gingrich will need to convince many people in his party that we need to cede some of that the local control of curriculum to the federal government. Moreover, the bigger challenge for science is how to replicate labs, how to replace the human interaction that’s so crucial in developing and testing a hypothesis, and how to foster the skills of scientific reasoning and representation of ideas. Any science educator will tell you that science isn’t just knowledge (as Mr. Gingrich implies) – it’s a combination of knowledge and skills.

So … the clearinghouse idea is a good one, but I think it’s more of a supplement to class time. His idea that came on the heels of the clearinghouse is a really good idea.

This initiative would be especially powerful combined with initiatives like Nicolas Negroponte's One Laptop per Child, which has produced a durable, $189 laptop specifically designed for young children. These laptops operate on an innovative peer-to-peer networking system that allows near-universal internet access over large areas despite a lack of traditional wireless coverage. Much focus has been paid in recent years to putting computers in the classroom. Instead, we should focus on putting the classroom in the computer. Compare the cost of these laptops to what most schools spend on textbooks, and you begin to see how such an investment would pay immediate dividends. Furthermore, immersing all students from a very early age in an interactive, dynamic learning environment--accessible from anywhere where students are allowed to learn at their own pace on the paths of their choice--will do more to build a culture of independent, life-long learning in America than any of the normal, bureaucratic, curriculum-based education models we have in America today.

As one who has his hands in the creation of a lot of interactive learning experiences, I strongly agree that we could and should do so much more to harness the capabilities of the Internet and technology, in general. Outfitting students with laptops and improving learning resources can go a long way toward increasing student engagement and fostering life-long learning mindsets and skills.

Our current emphasis on testing as the sole means of stressing and measuring accountability is a key inhibitor to fostering life-long learning mindsets and skills. There are, of course, many many exceptions, but educators are going to teach to the test. The standardized tests largely center on surface-level understanding – on the regurgitation of information. Again, I’m treading into an area that warrants a much deeper exploration, which I will do in the future. But suffice it to say now that testing has done a great disservice by squashing creativity and personalized learning in the classroom.

Which brings me to my closing idea on what I think we should do to improve science and math. I find it interesting that Mr. Gingrich never mentions teachers in his essay. Not once. They are the common denominator [pun intended, I guess] among all students. I’m guessing that he views teachers as part of the problem – part of the education bureaucracy. And they are part of the bureaucracy, and they are part of the problem. But they HAVE TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTION.

I’ll state something broad that requires “bold action” (in Mr. Gingrich’s words), and leave it there, but then I’ll give a specific idea. We need bold action to cultivate a society that rewards teaching and encourages teachers to continually improve their craft – to have a much larger level of control over their instruction so that it matches their strengths with the interests and strengths of their students. It’s different from year to year and class to class, so teachers must constantly assess, reflect, react, and experiment. [Sounds rather scientific, doesn’t it?!]

Now for the specific idea that relates to this one. I’m convinced that the majority of younger kids love science. It’s hands-on, it’s observational – it taps into their natural curiosity. Something happens, though, to stifle that interest, so by middle school and high school, science is primarily the domain of the “dorky.” What I think happens is that science is given short shrift in elementary schools because many elementary school teachers avoid it and are even afraid of it. They didn’t study it in college. And they got into teaching because they love kids, they love teaching reading, etc. [I’m generalizing, of course.]

So here’s my simple, bold solution: Dramatically increase the level and emphasis on professional development for elementary school teachers around science. Help them experience the thrill and help them translate that to their classroom instruction. Help them teach reading and math in the context of science experimentation and observation. Help them feel comfortable introducing ambiguity and problem solving in age-appropriate ways.

We won’t see the impact immediately on the numbers of engineers we produce, but we will quickly see an impact on student engagement, which can go a long way in impacting learning.

Nature Deficit Disorder covered on Today (today)

Good piece on NDD on this morning's Today episode on NBC. Just a couple of bullets to tease the video:

• 8 year-olds can ID 25% more Pokemon characters than wildlife species
  
• The greatest increase in childhood obesity occurred in the same two decades as the greatest increase in participation in organized sports in our history
  
• (My personal fav) Only 6% of kids (ages 9-13) play outside on their own each week.
  

Glacier National Park is beautiful

There are some really great perks to this job! Client meeting in NW Montana in July? Yeah, I think I can make it! If this place doesn't make you want to spend more time outdoors, I don't know what will.

Pickens Plan

Oil man T. Boone Pickens (heck of a name, no?) wants to replace the 22% of our nation's energy production that comes from natural gas with wind. He wants to use that displaced natural gas -- supposedly the cleanest transportation fuel available today -- for transportation instead, cutting down the $700 billion worth of oil we import for that purpose every year by 38%.

Regardless of whether you think he's heading in the right direction (my opinion? it's a great start), you've got to love his multimedia social networking website. What a fantastic vehicle for the message; and why aren't more causes using social networking so effectively?

And here's his video from the site ...


Find more videos like this on PickensPlan

The solutions are going to be messy

wsj this morning says that soaring food costs increased the number of hungry people by 122 million around the world.

Though by how much is still under debate, most acknowledge that the biofuels industry/research shares at least some responsibity for this.

My opinion is that this fact shouldn't preclude further research on biofuels as a net positive alternative to oil, but it may get worse before it gets better.

Simple truth is that we still can't escape the fundamental natural laws that exist. Every action still produces an equal and opposite reaction. Newtons laws are still valid.

Philanthropy is Personal: Engaging individuals directly is key to success

By Phelps Sprinkle

Adam came out of nowhere that cold November morning – walked right up and asked how he could help. My wife and I, along with six or seven others, were stamping our feet, blowing into our hands, and draining our coffee before getting down to the business of setting up for our annual Easter Seals UCP Walk With Me event. These volunteers, though passionate and dedicated, were involved because we had a direct connection to the organization. But Adam, as far as I know, had no such connection. In fact, when I asked him how he came to be with us that early morning, he told me he’d simply read about it in the paper earlier in the week and decided, “to show up and see how I could help.”

What amazed me about Adam wasn’t any one thing, but a combination of things: his age (17), the hour (6 am … for a teenager!), his enthusiasm (he was downright chipper), his fearlessness (he came alone knowing no one), and his sincere interest in helping strangers. Plus, at the end of the day, he simply went home – no need for thanks, no request for a college application reference, no required signature on some service hours sheet. He had simply come to serve, for his own personal reasons.

This story is heartwarming and compelling, but I tell it because it’s a great demonstration of how philanthropy, of any kind, is personal; it starts with the individual.

The good news is, there are lots of Adams out there. The even better news is that these days, empowered through technology and social networking, an individual can have a huge impact in a short period of time. In today’s world of high-speed online access to information, networks, and markets, individuals who are passionate about a cause can spread their messages like wildfire, attracting like-minded individuals and driving movements.

Similarly, corporations and social nonprofits that are seeking to contribute to the greater good while aiding the bottom line are learning to tap into this powerful new reality, implementing ever more complex and creative mechanisms to reach their audiences. As an active donor, community volunteer, and partner in a communications firm that helps organizations “do well by doing good,” I’m exposed to this strategic philanthropy in various forms and on a daily basis.

Recently, I’ve noticed more and more organizations’ efforts are focused less on breadth of outreach and more on depth of outreach; they understand that the value of a relatively small but passionate group of volunteers, employees, or consumers can often be much more powerful than a larger group that is unorganized around a mission or cause. Regardless of whether their programs are trying to reach youth, parents, educators, community leaders, consumers, employees, or all of the above, organizations want to engage individuals directly, to compel them to get involved.

The strategy that seems to work best is simply to meet audiences where they are. That means targeting people who have already expressed interest in a specific idea or cause or who have close relationships to those already engaged. That means communicating the message appropriately in tone and style for the target audience. And that means delivering the message through the type of media that the target group prefers. When a program taps into people’s needs and/or desires and takes into consideration their time constraints and message preferences, allowing them to engage in ways that are meaningful and natural to them, it has a much better chance of success, meeting organizational goals while successfully supporting the greater good.

You can’t force philanthropy on folks. People have to be engaged on a personal level, whatever it might be. Just ask Adam.

Teachable Moment: DonorsChoose.org

DonorsChoose.org was started by New York City high school teachers in 2000 to connect public schools with individuals who want to help address the scarcity of classroom materials and the impact on students' learning experiences. The group screens all project proposals, allows donors to choose the specific project they wish to fund, and collects teacher and student feedback and thank-yous for donors to read.

Why We Like It: The site empowers people to specify the use of their charitable donations for projects they believe will have the greatest impact. Donors engage directly with the real needs of school classrooms, which benefit from new supplies and technologies to improve kids' education.

Top Five: What We're Reading...

From classics to current bestsellers, we couldn't limit ourselves to just five this month.

	Phelps is reading Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
	Josh is reading In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan
	Jenna is reading The Art of Racing in the Rain by Garth Stein
	Chris is reading Crazy: A Father’s Search Through America’s Mental Health Madness by Peter Early
	Scott is reading Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond
	Billy is reading To the Best of My Ability by James McPherson
	Bruce is reading When You Are Engulfed in Flames by David Sedaris
	Caitlin is reading Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver
	Holt is reading Under The Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer
	Liz is reading The Geography of Nowhere by James Howard Kunstler