Non-profit Bike Shop

Non-profit Bike Shop

CBN operated as a bicycle cooperative much like similar organizations like Bikes Not Bombs in Massachusetts and Our Community Bikes in Vancouver, BC. Its for-profit operations helped to support other non-profit projects in the community. The main activity of the bike shop was to collect donated bikes from individuals, condominiums, small business and the City of Toronto, and refurbish the bikes for resale. CBN also offered up the space for individuals to rent tools and fix their bikes with mechanic help. CBN's bike mechanic workshops were popular, with courses offered throughout the year and for specific topics. Other services CBN offered include bike and trailer rentals.

— — — — — —

Back on My Feet (non-profit organization)

Back on My Feet (BoMF) is a national non-profit organization focused on helping homeless people gain independence, living skills, and connect them with essential community resources, ultimately leading them to sustainable employment and stable housing. The organization's program is focused primarily on physical exercise, specifically early morning runs. The organization was founded in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States in 2007 and as of October 2019 has chapters in 13 US cities. Back on My Feet is privately funded and its 2019 operating budget is $7.5 million.

— — — — — —

is wikipedia really a non-profit organization ?

i do not know but im assuming they sell their information to companies

— — — — — —

Arguments for and against for-profit colleges

Although supporters of for-profit higher education have argued that the profit motive encourages efficiency, the for-profit educational industry has received severe negative criticism because of its sales techniques, high costs, and poor student outcomes. In some cases operators of for-profit colleges have faced criminal charges or other legal sanctions. BenefitsHistorically, for-profit education has offered open admissions to non-traditional students, convenience of schedule and location, instructors with workplace knowledge, and real world vocational training rather than traditional training. Critics of Wall Street-backed for-profit educators, however, have questioned these perceived benefits. For-profit schools like University of Phoenix have been more inclusive, recruiting and graduating more African Americans than public higher education. In 2012, The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education called University of Phoenix "a pillar of African American higher education." Through the Thurgood Marshall fund, students at 47 publicly supported historically Black colleges and universities, may supplement their on-campus course loads with course programs using the University of Phoenix online platform. For-profit colleges have also been seen as a second chance for students who have performed poorly in the past. It may be argued that for-profit colleges also created innovations that would force public higher education to be more responsive to student needs For-profit colleges have been compared favorably to community colleges in regards to graduation rates, but these comparisons may be offering misleading statistical comparisons DrawbacksA 2010 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) documented misleading sales and marketing tactics used by several for-profits. Critics have also pointed out that more than half of for-profits' revenues are either spent on marketing or extracted as profits, with less than half spent on instruction. A 2011 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, reported that students who attend for-profit education institutions are more likely to be unemployed, earn less, have higher debt levels, and are more likely to default on their student loans than similar students at non-profit educational institutions. Although for-profits typically serve students who are poorer or more likely to be minorities, these differences do not explain the differences in employment, income, debt levels, and student loan defaults. The Government Accountability Office has also found that graduates of for-profits are less likely to pass licensing exams, and that poor student performance cannot be explained by different student demographics. The same year, The New York Times noted that for-profit higher education institutions often have much higher student loan default rates than non-profits. Two documentaries by Frontline have focused on alleged abuses in for profit higher education. Compared to community colleges, some for-profits may have higher completion rates for certificates and associate degree programs, but higher drop out rates for four-year bachelor's degrees. However, studies suggest that one- and two-year programs often may not provide much economic benefit to students because the boost to wages is offset by increased debt. By contrast, four-year programs provide a large economic benefit. For-profits have been sued for allegedly using aggressive and deceptive sales and marketing practices. Holly Petraeus, a high-ranking official at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has accused for-profits of preying on vulnerable military personnel. Petraeus wrote:"This gives for-profit colleges an incentive to see service members as nothing more than dollar signs in uniform, and to use aggressive marketing to draw them in and take out private loans...One of the most egregious reports of questionable marketing involved a college recruiter who visited a Marine barracks at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. As the PBS program Frontline reported, the recruiter signed up Marines with serious brain injuries. The fact that some of them could not remember what courses they were taking was immaterial, as long as they signed on the dotted line." Opponents say that the fundamental purpose of an educational institution should be to educate, not to turn a profit. In 2000, Bob Chase, president of the National Education Association, stated that "educating children is very different from producing a product". Certain postsecondary education programs at institutions of higher education are eligible for participation in the federal student aid programs, known as Title IV of the US Higher Education Act (HEA). These programs, which are offered by public and private not-for-profit institutions, postsecondary vocational institutions, and by for-profit proprietary institutions, should prepare students for gainful employment. For decades, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) had not established regulations that explicitly outlined what it means for a program to be properly preparing students for gainful employment. As pressing concerns about the quality of programs at for- profit institutions began to arise, the concerns about the level of student loan debt assumed by students did as well. Such issues led to new initiatives and rules to be set in place outlining the parameters for what should be mandated to help ensure gainful employment. The 2011 Senate HELP committee released data showing one in every four students who enroll at a for-profit school default on their loans within three years of leaving, with for-profit students accounting for almost half of all loan defaults. Most for-profit colleges charge enrollees much higher tuition rates than analogous programs at community colleges and state public universities despite credits being likely not eligible to be transferred to other institutions. In fact, 96% of students attending for-profit college apply for federal student loans compared to 13% at community colleges. During the 2009-2010 school years, for-profit colleges received almost $32 billion in grants and loans provided to students under federal student aid programs. This staggering number means nearly all students at for-profit institutions acquire student loan debt, even when they do not earn the end product of a degree or accumulate increased earning power through their studies (Sessions, 2011). These statistics represent a large portion of for- profits, uncovering the serious need for greater accountability in ensuring students are making sound investments in such institutions. According to the Government Accountability Office, enrollment in such institutions has increased faster than traditional higher-education institutions in recent years. With the student and federal interest in such programs growing, so has the concern with their productivity. Regrettably, this is not a simple matter to address, as the issue is multidimensional. For-profit institutions have become an increasingly visible portion of the U.S. higher education sector. For-profits also acquire the largest percentage of their overall revenue from federal student aid programs, highlighting tax dollars are potentially not being used efficiently. Federal regulatory actions by the ED have attempted to address these issues in the Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. These efforts were very contentious. For-profit institutions argue their sector is unfairly targeted and believe the Department of Education over stepped its boundaries in 2010 by implementing regulations specifying requirements for Gainful Employment. These rules outlined in a report by Congressional Research Service (CRS), aimed to hold for-profits accountable by creating standards which must be upheld and followed, which will in turn attempt create more opportunity for gainful employment amongst enrollees. Through these regulations the ED believed that institutions will reinforce their educational programs to meet these higher standards, and relatively few programs will fail. Programs that offer a rewarding education at a reasonable price will succeed, and institutions will continue to innovate to assist students and taxpayers. The regulations mandated by the ED were to help regulate the for-profit sector and to combat the issue of gainful employment. However, the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, which endorses for-profits, challenged these regulations in court. On June 30, 2012 the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided to vacate most aspects of the regulations. The court sustained that the ED had the authority to regulate gainful employment, yet it cited the ED had not provided rationale metrics or measures in the debt measures. At present, only the disclosure requirements of providing prospective students with placements rates, on time graduation rates and other similar information remain. On March 19, 2013 the judge ruled again in response to the ED's motion to reinstate the reporting requirements in order that it could implement the disclosure requirements of Gainful Employment. The judged denied the motion of the ED on the basis that the reporting requirements would violate the federal ban on the student unit record system. It is strongly debatable that the court's ruling negates the small amount of transparency and accountability mandated by the disclosure requirements, leaving the policy issue of for-profits being accountable for Gainful Employment unattended. Some former students claim that for-profit colleges make them feel like they went to the flea market and bought themselves a degree. According to James G. Andrews of the American Association of University Professors, corporate models of education harm the mission of education. Some critics have called for-profit education "subprime education", in an analogy with the subprime mortgages bubble at the heart of the Great Recession - finding uninformed borrowers and loading them with debt they cannot afford, then securitizing and passing the loan onto third-party investors. Activist short seller Steve Eisman (famous for being a character in Michael Lewis's The Big Short) has described the accreditation situation regarding for-profits like ITT as follows: "The scandal here is exactly akin to the rating agency role in subprime securitizations." A two-year congressional investigation report-from a committee chaired by Senator Tom Harkin, D-Iowa-examined enrollment numbers in selected for-profit higher education institutions. The committee found that $32 billion in federal funds were spent in 2009-2010 on for-profit colleges. The majority of students enrolled in the institutions left without a degree and carried post-schooling debt. Regarding the dropout rates, the report said 54% of students in bachelor's degree programs dropped out before degree completion and 63% of students in associate degree programs dropped out. In 2019, the Department of Education reported median student debt from for-profit colleges and found that among people pursuing a bachelor's degree, those who graduated from for-profits borrowed $43,600, compared to $27,900 for public college graduates and $32,500 for private nonprofit college graduates.