Sunday, February 11, 2018
Government spending versus Philanthropy
By definition, a government is an entity that holds monopoly over legitimate usage of power. By function, a government provides public services. As a political science major, I have accepted these two statements since the Freshman year. However, a discussion during one of our classes gave me a push to challenge certain views that I hold.
As mentioned, government is responsible for public services such as transportation, education, emergency services etc. At the same time, according to one of our readings, where the government funding falls short philanthropists tend to take initiative and fill the gaps. With this in mind, I ask myself, which method is more effective? As we think about the known stigma of government not being entirely efficient with money, can charity be more effective to tackle social issues? I will go a lot of people's views and argue that social initiatives such as philanthropic organizations can be more effective if given the right amount of resources. I argue so because I think that what makes the difference is the staff and their passion towards a certain goal. Volunteers and paid workers for charity organizations are there because they care about the issue, while government bureaucrats do not necessarily hold the same dedication towards their job (Visit any government run social services office and you will see what I mean).
Surprisingly enough, Forbes wrote a piece about this discussion back in 2014. However, as we are about to witness big budget cuts on social services, I think this topic is more relevant to our times. Forbes' writer, Howard Husock will help me out with some examples of how charity can be more effective if done right. A great comparison that he provides in the article is between enrolled programs of Workforce Installment Act and private, philanthropic organization called Cincinnati Works. The government under Workforce Installment Act provides services to 7 million people annually. Out of the 7 million, only 56% of the participants found a job, and 20% of those people lost the acquired job within 6 months of being hired. On the contrast, Cincinate Works has 84% rate of job placement and retention rate. How? Because they teach their population the habits of successful job searching and work ethic needed to succeed after being hired.
Let's talk about numbers, The Administration for Children and Families has an annual budget of $51 billion which supports roughly 60 social services program. Department of Labor supports around 47 job-training programs with a budget of 18$ billion. These are some extensive resources that are not being effectively spent. The issues that these programs are trying to address need more than just a fat check sent out by the government. Social problems such as teen gang involvement that the Administration for Children and Families is supposed to be fighting need passionate individuals that can create personal connection with the given teens.
Can philanthropy replace the government function of providing public services? No shot. However, the government can definitely learn a lesson or two from the philanthropists. Certain social issues can only be tacked if treated case based by caring individuals. The billions of dollars that are being spent by the US government to support underachieving social programs makes you wonder what the private run, charity organizations could achieve with that money.
Link to Forbes article: Lesson For April 15: Why Government Can't Replace Charit
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Rati,
ReplyDeleteWhile I feel it is reasonable to be skeptical of the role of the government in "social insurance", I believe there are some things you may have to keep in mind while offering criticisms. First, government officials have to abide by multitudes more of regulations than private donors and organizations do, possibly limiting the amount of results their money can engender. Now, while some might offer the idea that the money should just be given to philanthropic organizations instead to bypass those regulations, I believe that the laws are necessary to protect society from donors who truly don't have other's best interest in mind (hoping of course that government officials do). With that in mind, I think it is unfair for you to say that government officials do not care about helping the community as much as volunteers or workers for philanthropic organizations do because they might just be limited by the rules and regulations they have to follow, making them unable to carry out plans they might be really passionate about.
However, I see your concern for the quality of programs coming from government funding, especially with the examples provided by Husock's article. I think it is possible that there needs to be a re-allocution of funds between the government and philanthropic organizations, giving more funding to the private sector. That being said, I do believe that both entities are necessary, and provide good outcomes to people that need it.
Hi Rati,
ReplyDeleteYour discussion is certainly a drastically different view as opposed to what is presently viewed as the "norm." I absolutely agree with you in the fact that government workers are definitely not as passionate and involved as those who volunteer or work for a nonprofit. Drawing from my personal experience as an example, there was definitely a noticeable difference between the attitudes of my driving instructor and the employees at the DMV as I was learning to drive many months ago. You are probably wondering why I chose this specific experience since it does not involve a nonprofit organization: the reason I did so was because the DMV is just like any other government-run service that I have had past experience with: slow, lazy, and simply indifferent toward peoples' satisfaction. Meanwhile, my driving instructor genuinely cared about my success and that of everyone else in my class, simply because he wanted to be there to teach us how to be safe on the road. In terms of your discussion, yes, employees of government services tend to be lazy and inconsiderate. However, I think the key to fixing this issue may be to remind them every now and then as to why they chose to go into public service and that it is a part of something bigger than themselves. The best way to get private nonprofits involved would be to allow them to keep doing what they are doing and look toward them for advising in terms of how to run an efficient system.
You make a solid argument; however, we must realize that this is not a two-dimensional topic which we are discussing. There are many potential solutions to fixing ineffective government-run social service programs. Yours is certainly intriguing; I do see why you believe that the nonprofits should become more involved in government-run programs. Although what you are presenting may not be the solution, I agree that the government could certainly learn a thing or two from the way many of today's successful nonprofits are run.
Rati, I find your topic of choice interesting and the Forbes article to be very informative. I agree that some government workers are not necessarily passionate about the field they work in, but I do not think that this is the cause for the ineffectiveness of some government services. Like Sarah wrote, the government does have many regulations and restrictions when it comes to handling money. Although this may not be practical when trying to help others, it can prevent the money from being misused. Being tied to a political party does not help either. Someone’s personal beliefs may urge them to allocate the money to a certain cause in a certain (probably effective) way, but in order to please constituents, this course of action cannot be taken. Finally, there are hundreds of millions of people living in the United States that the one government is required to protect. There are 1.4 million charities in the U.S. according to csmonitor.com. With so many charities, and these charities being able to be selective with whom they help, it is not surprising that they will sometimes be more effective than the government. While neither institution can replace the other, perhaps more collaboration between the two would be the most effective way to help people.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0924/p09s02-coop.html
Dear Rati,
ReplyDeleteI definitely understand your criticism towards ineffective government spending and programs. However, I think she question shouldn’t be, if philanthropy can replace the government but rather if it should, to which I would answer: no. You have presented some valuable information regarding ineffective government spending and I believe there is definitely a need to address these, I would call for more government spending and not more philanthropy. Because ultimately, philanthropy is not interchangeable with government spending and it should not be. Ideally, “The basic debates in any type of government are always over what is in the public’s interest. [...] one way we answer that question is by electing people to represent all of us and reach agreement – if they can -- on what government should do about issues of general concern, like helping the poor or the elderly.“ According to David Callahan from the New York Times, one of the problems is that federal funding has flatlined, especially particular funds that could be used flexibly, while the giving power of private funders has actually grown significantly. As I have mentioned in my own blog comment, most of the donors have the best of intentions yet, “their influence is growing in tandem with their largess, shifting power away from democratic institutions.”
I agree that philanthropy could crucially enhance governmental funding, maybe by supporting those critical services that the government has only limited funding for but “It is not the role of philanthropy and the non-profit sector to replace government funding to support the many services citizens need and should expect.” The better role for philanthropy is to enhance governmental funding by supporting the critical services government cannot, or is limited in, funding. The current and probably future political situation calls for improvement, for a much needed re – structuring; I would like this to happen within the framework of the official political spectrum, not outside of it. There is no question that philanthropic organizations have a fundamental structure that often makes them more imaginative, flexible and interested in transformation. Ultimately leading to a more individualized, pluralistic and more efficient approach. I agree with you that it wouldn’t hurt if governments, not just the U.S., took some notes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/opinion/jeff-bezos-bill-gates-philanthropy.html.
http://sff.org/philanthropy-and-government-unique-roles-for-the-common-good/.
http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/how_philanthropy_fuels_american_success_part_III.