Skip to content
October 23, 2012 / Christian Clansky

Getting the elderly and disabled back into the community proves difficult…43k kids in the region aren’t enrolled in school…D.C. takes over Chartered Health Plan [News, 10.23.12]

– If you haven’t heard about it, Money Follows the Person is a $4 billion federal program designed to move disabled and elderly low-income individuals out of nursing homes and back into the community. Our region is seeing mixed results from the program (WaPo, 10/23):

Maryland’s program is doing well compared with efforts in most of the 43 participating states and the District, having already moved 55 percent of its original target of 2,413. But the same is not true for the District and Virginia…As of July 2, only 126 people had moved in the District, just 11 percent of its original five-year goal of 1,110. In Virginia, where the latest figures are from May, 362 people had moved, 35 percent of the original goal of 1,041.

– Which age group is most concerned about retirement instability? Hint: it isn’t the Baby Boomers. And it isn’t babies either, because they can’t understand retirement. (WTOP, 10/23)

HEALTH | D.C. insurance regulators take over Chartered Health Plan (WaPo, 10/23)

– More than 43,000 kids in our region, ages 5-19, are not enrolled in school. Venture Philanthropy Partners breaks down the numbers by jurisdiction. (Capital Kids)

Analysis: How Much States Spend on Their Kids Really Does Matter (National Journal, 10/23)

Montgomery officials hesitant to give extra money to schools (Examiner, 10/23)

PEOPLE | The Kellogg Foundation’s president, Sterling Speirn, has announced that he plans to step down in 2013. (Chronicle, 10/22)

OPINION | I usually keep my Daily comments short and irrelevant, but on occasion I need a few more sentences. The Chronicle posted two articles today that struck me as particularly important and connected – one about a soup kitchen that is losing donations following a campaign visit from Paul Ryan and one about donors who want their money back from Lance Armstrong’s foundation following his fall from grace.

In both cases, it seems to me that the donors are frustratingly missing the entire point of charity. Soup kitchens, despite any tangential involvement with politics, help feed the hungry. Armstrong’s foundation helps fight cancer, regardless of its namesake’s disappointing ethical indiscretions. So, what does this say about the intentions or commitments of the donors who are turning their backs now? Your thoughts?

Last night’s final debate was pretty boring. But I loved Bob Schieffer’s sign off as he credited his mother for saying, “Go vote. It makes you feel big and strong.”

On the subject of much bigger things, the Smithsonian posted a gallery of images taken by NASA’s Chandra X-Ray Observatory. They are jaw-droppingly beautiful.


  1. Susan Bodiker (@Orion_Advert) / Oct 23 2012 12:20 pm

    @Opinion. I think the reaction you describe (donors turning away from the soup kitchen and Live Strong) illustrates the dark side of celebrity endorsements. Live Strong’s success was in large part due to the appeal of its founder. To associate with him and his cause had a halo effect. Once he was shown to be a fraud and a cheat, his organization, whatever good it had accomplished, paid the price. Suddenly, its credibility was in question, whether or not it deserves to be. In the case of the soup kitchen, that’s just donor ignorance. As I understand it, the organization didn’t want Ryan there. It didn’t invite him. He put them in an awkward and really unfortunate position. Like LS, it doesn’t deserve the censure. But bigger egos have gotten in the way–to everyone’s detriment.

    • christian clansky / Oct 24 2012 8:35 am

      Thanks for the response, Susan.

      In both cases, it seems like the organizations should be able to articulate a case to donors about why they should continue their support. If the organizations haven’t made that case (or haven’t made it well), then I’m a little more comfortable with the backlash. But if they have made the case and donors are still demanding refunds or pulling funding, then I think that reflects poorly on the donors themselves.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: