Providing services to people in need often requires partnerships between government and nonprofit organizations, but reporting requirements will be too burdensome.

Many Americans welcome philanthropic donations to privately run institutions of all types – from Boys and Girls Clubs to church-sponsored charities – during Complaint about big government.

But they might not realize how much nonprofit organizations – especially those who provide services to those in need – depend on public funding to fund their budgets.

Already within the Nineteen Thirties and accelerated within the SixtiesMany necessary social services within the United States, although largely funded by the federal government, are provided by private, nonprofit organizations that run job training programs, health clinics, child development centers, and so forth.

In the late Nineteen Seventies, nonprofit social services almost half their funding by local, state or federal governments. This share step by step grew to over 60% by 2010 and remained near this level since then.

In my recent book “The hidden heroes of democracy: A policy that matches the people and the place“I examine the opportunities and pitfalls of those partnerships between government agencies and nonprofit organizations. By relying heavily on privately run organizations to offer social services, the federal government can hire fewer staff, thereby reducing its bureaucracy and labor costs.

But these partnerships can fail. Ironically, a key reason for that is some of the commonly used strategies for improving and tracking the impact of those services, commonly often called “Responsibility for results.”

Financing and suppleness

This is how result responsibility works:

Government agencies discover the specified outcomes of a program or policy initiative they fund, after which hold the nonprofit organizations implementing that program accountable for achieving those predetermined goals. For example, workforce and job training programs are asked to report the share of their clients who enter and retain employment after six months or a 12 months.

At the identical time, nonprofits are given the flexibleness to choose tips on how to achieve their goals. When projects are accomplished, they report not only on what they did with the cash, but in addition on what they completed.

Accountability for results may look like a really perfect method to mix the political ideals of strong government with citizen engagement. Government leaders get a method to manage and hold local service providers accountable; nonprofits get the funding and suppleness they need to fulfill the needs of the communities they serve; and lawmakers can assess the return on investment of government-funded programs.

Self-help group meeting with exclusively female participants, some with shaved heads.
While keeping track of results is a useful goal, sometimes it conflicts with achieving as much as possible.
SDI Productions/E+ via GettyImages

A failure in alignment

In practice, accountability for results requires three various things which can be rarely coordinated and infrequently briefly supply.

First, the goals have to be clearly defined and agreed upon by all parties. This is especially difficult in collaborative partnerships, as goals often diverge or change over time.

Second, there have to be a method to measure outcomes so that they will be reported, but obtaining final result data will be difficult or costly.

Finally, there have to be a method to evaluate results based on evidence to adapt policies and programs. This step is usually completely missing in systems which can be awash in numbers but have little time to delve deeply into what the numbers mean.

Over the course of three a long time of evaluating grant programsI actually have never experienced a situation where all three conditions were met concurrently.

Rigid bureaucratic requirements

I actually have interviewed a whole bunch of nonprofit directors and other local leaders who’ve struggled with the demands of accountability for results. In “The hidden heroes of democracy“, I tell their stories of being caught between rigid bureaucratic requirements and unique societal circumstances.

These people work in places where bureaucracy and community networks meet and infrequently collide. They tell stories of receiving funds from multiple government agencies with conflicting rules and requirementsThey complain about predetermined performance targets that stand in the way in which of the promised flexibility on the bottom. They fear that grants will force them to desert their core mission while trying to fulfill donors' targets.

Some grant goals are so broad, reminiscent of promoting a healthy community, that nonprofits wonder tips on how to pick from a dizzying variety of potential success indicators. Sometimes small but necessary community improvement efforts, reminiscent of river cleanup days or street beautification projects, are expected to be measured by sophisticated final result indicators that don't do justice to the work being done.

Non-profit leaders indicate that these Key figures don’t capture an important elements of their work and are sometimes expensive to gather. They repeatedly state that the reporting requirements take invaluable time away from employees that they might otherwise spend on serving their customers. In some cases, this reporting requirement and other bureaucracy consumes two working days per week.

Both government agencies and the nonprofits they fund are under pressure to spotlight successes. Don't mention what doesn't work on account of the pressure to look successful and the necessity to secure future funding. This leads to them not learning from mistakes and making corrections that may actually improve the system and help customers.

A woman with a clipboard and a badge hanging on a lanyard around her neck smiles during an event where people wear matching t-shirts.
Every strong nonprofit organization has not less than one strong leader who juggles plenty of things behind the scenes and solves problems – including with regards to reporting requirements.
SDI Productions/E+ via GettyImages

Strategies to get things done

Despite all of the bureaucracy, many nonprofit organizations achieve their goal of meeting the needs of their clients more often than expected.

The reason for this lies in the usually hidden, yet extremely necessary role of the people I consider the hidden heroes who work for nonprofits and other community organizations.

Many of the stories I heard were about Bypasses, evasive manoeuvres and informal agreements This enabled the federal government and nonprofit partners to perform their tasks.

Hidden Heroes learn to face between the various worlds of presidency bureaucracy and community-based services. They find out about each cultures and tips on how to discuss this necessary work in two alternative ways. They encourage government experts to see themselves as community members, and challenge community members to see themselves as experts on their very own situation.

When a funder's rules don't apply to their circumstances, these hidden social service heroes negotiate alternatives or find more appropriate workarounds.

Evaluation of the general system

Government and nonprofits are and at all times have been partners within the delivery of social services. But my a long time of research have made it clear that these partnerships could higher meet the needs of low-income people and their communities.

More resources would help after Decades of declining social spending and growing inequalityThe USA spends less on social services than most higher-income countries.

How the cash is spent can be necessary.

One of my key findings is that individuals who need social services often receive them from multiple agencies, some nonprofit and a few government-run. How well these agencies work together affects the degree to which they successfully help their shared clients. It makes a difference, for instance, whether the referral process between agencies works easily or whether local agencies duplicate programs while not meeting some needs in any respect.

Government grants typically fund and evaluate programs individually. While this is usually crucial, it’s also necessary to judge the complete system and fund community planning and network development activities in order that agencies can higher work together to fulfill client needs.

Metrics to measure outcomes will be helpful, but my research shows why the federal government, in addition to foundations and other private funders, should fastidiously consider and limit what number of things social service nonprofits must measure to fulfill funding requirements.

In conclusion, my research makes it clear that the majority government policies and programs have to be adapted to the particular needs of local communities or individual clients. The hidden heroes of nonprofit social services play a very important role on this.

image credit :