How NGOs Took Over Government

"At the federal level and on down, American government has come to rely heavily on nonprofits to deliver public services. This dependence is in many ways understandable, but it comes with serious risks. Feeding our Future, the Minnesota nonprofit whose employees were caught billing for services they didn't provide, was not the first instance of an NGO stealing from taxpayers, nor will it be the last."

"NGOs-private nonprofits that receive government funding-theoretically offer a nimble, targeted way to put policy into effect. Progressives like their grassroots nature; conservatives like that they might offer something closer to private-sector efficiency. Some NGOs perform admirably. Many others don't, and evidence is scant that this system overall delivers services better than the government. Despite this record, in the past several decades, NGOs have become not so much a policy instrument under democratic control as a sprawling, semi-autonomous administrative system with little accountability."

"NGOs emerged as an alternative to direct government services during the latter decades of the 20th century. The first growth spurt came in the 1960s. President Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty saw NGOs as a means of fusing big-government spending with localistic sensibilities. According to the then-influential philosophy of "community action," top-down solutions to social problems ran the unacceptable risk of race- and class-based discrimination."

Federal and local governments increasingly rely on private nonprofits to deliver public services. NGOs can offer nimble, targeted implementation, appealing to progressives for localism and to conservatives for potential efficiency. Many nonprofits perform well, but a substantial number underperform, and evidence is limited that outsourcing consistently improves service delivery over direct government provision. The model creates a sprawling, semi-autonomous administrative system with weak accountability. Historical efforts, such as the 1960s Community Action programs under the War on Poverty, delegated broad discretion to local organizations and experienced notable failures, exposing risks of fraud, misuse, and uneven outcomes.

Read at The Atlantic