The Trump Administration has decimated longstanding patterns of federally-funded, nonprofit-delivered services. But the system's many and mounting contradictions made it a pushover.
This is very good. I have been reflecting that by shifting this function to non-profits, it really had a devastating function on state capacity.
So this practice simultaneously gutted government capacity, broke the non-profit sector in important ways, and probably made polarization worse by elevating the PMC without much accountability. It also did dump money into more ideological groups through shared service structures.
I have been fascinated and shocked by how many funders didn't appreciate that their grantees were doing lots of work for the government.
Thanks Soren for reading and this helpful point. The second installment will tease out the interplay between this history and the state capacity challenge.
Thanks for this, Daniel. I learned a great deal from this post, thanks to your thoughtful analysis and commentary.
I have been thinking about innovative ways philanthropy can meet this moment and am particularly intrigued by “Social Impact Bonds.” SIBs allow philanthropy to pay nonprofits to do service work that delivers on government services or drives down government expenses. If the work is done well (as judged by a third party investigator), government reimburses the philanthropist (not nonprofit). In short, philanthropy takes the risks, government pays if it works.
I’m hopeful we see more experimentation here, as SIBs get around some of the problems you have identified.
As an employee at a Community Action Agency, I have firsthand experience of this menace. My agency was one of the first in the country. What started as a small organization in a rural community run by volunteers is now a behemoth filled with bureaucracy and more rules about what we can't do than what we can. Our best solution is often to refer clients to organizations that don't rely on government money because they are the ones that have the flexibility to actually help our clients the way they need to be helped. On top of that, we have an abundance of reporting requirements that require multiple full-time staff people.
This is very good. I have been reflecting that by shifting this function to non-profits, it really had a devastating function on state capacity.
So this practice simultaneously gutted government capacity, broke the non-profit sector in important ways, and probably made polarization worse by elevating the PMC without much accountability. It also did dump money into more ideological groups through shared service structures.
I have been fascinated and shocked by how many funders didn't appreciate that their grantees were doing lots of work for the government.
Thanks Soren for reading and this helpful point. The second installment will tease out the interplay between this history and the state capacity challenge.
Thanks for this, Daniel. I learned a great deal from this post, thanks to your thoughtful analysis and commentary.
I have been thinking about innovative ways philanthropy can meet this moment and am particularly intrigued by “Social Impact Bonds.” SIBs allow philanthropy to pay nonprofits to do service work that delivers on government services or drives down government expenses. If the work is done well (as judged by a third party investigator), government reimburses the philanthropist (not nonprofit). In short, philanthropy takes the risks, government pays if it works.
I’m hopeful we see more experimentation here, as SIBs get around some of the problems you have identified.
Thanks Tyler for reading and your feedback. I will speak a bit to SIBs in the Part II post. I tended to be skeptical early on when they first emerged, as you can see here, https://www.frbsf.org/community-development/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/pay-for-success-not-panacea.pdf, and I am afraid that they have subsequently struggled to get traction, largely for the reasons I previewed.
As an employee at a Community Action Agency, I have firsthand experience of this menace. My agency was one of the first in the country. What started as a small organization in a rural community run by volunteers is now a behemoth filled with bureaucracy and more rules about what we can't do than what we can. Our best solution is often to refer clients to organizations that don't rely on government money because they are the ones that have the flexibility to actually help our clients the way they need to be helped. On top of that, we have an abundance of reporting requirements that require multiple full-time staff people.
Thank you Brandi for reading and sharing your first-hand experience.
Slowly then all at once. Indeed a tough time to work in the sector trying to help others. Guess that's not the point any more..
You’re ignoring corruption and the rather non monastic lifestyle and income of “non profits.”
🤣