Delivering services to people in need often relies on partnerships between government and nonprofits, but reporting requirements may be too burdensome

Many Americans celebrate philanthropic giving to all kinds of private institutions – from Boys & Girls Clubs to church-sponsored charities – while mourning big government.

However, they may not realize how much nonprofit organizations, especially those providing services to people in need, rely heavily on the public sector for their budgets.

Beginning in the 1930s and continuing into the 1960s, many important social services in the U.S. were largely funded by the government but provided by private nonprofit organizations running job training programs, health clinics, child development centers, etc.

In the late 1970s, nonprofit social service agencies received almost half of their funding from local, state, and federal governments. This share gradually increased to over 60% by 2010 and has remained at this level since then.

In my new book, “Democracy’s Hidden Heroes: Fitting Policy to People and Place,” I explore the possibilities and pitfalls of such partnerships between government agencies and nonprofits. By relying heavily on private organizations to provide social services, the government can employ fewer people, reducing bureaucracy and wages.

But these partnerships can fail. Ironically, the key reason is one of the most widely used strategies for improving and tracking the impact of these services, commonly called “performance accountability.”

Financing and flexibility

Here’s how accountability for results works:

Government agencies determine the desired outcomes of the program or policy initiative they fund. They then hold the nonprofits implementing the program accountable for achieving these predetermined goals. For example, job training and job training programs ask you to report the percentage of clients who became gainfully employed and remained in paid employment after six months or a year.

At the same time, nonprofits have the freedom to decide how to achieve their goals. When projects are completed, nonprofits report not only on what they did with the money, but also on what they achieved.

Accountability for results may seem like an ideal way to combine the political ideals of strong government with community engagement. Government leaders gain a way to manage and hold local service providers accountable; nonprofits obtain the funding and flexibility necessary to meet the needs of the communities they serve; and policymakers can evaluate the return on investment in government-funded programs.

Failure to align

In practice, accountability for results requires three different things that rarely overlap and are often missing.

First, the goals must be clear and agreed by all parties. This is particularly difficult in collaborative partnerships where goals often diverge or change over time.

Second, there must be a way to measure the results so that they can be reported. However, obtaining performance data may be difficult or expensive.

Finally, there must be a way to use performance evidence to adapt policies and programs. This step is often completely missing in systems that are awash with numbers but have little time to think carefully about what those numbers mean.

In thirty years of evaluating grant programs, I have never encountered a situation in which all three conditions were met simultaneously.

Rigid bureaucratic requirements

I interviewed hundreds of nonprofit executives and other local leaders who were struggling with performance accountability requirements. In “Democracy’s Hidden Heroes,” I share their stories of being stuck between rigid bureaucratic demands and unique social circumstances.

These people work in places where bureaucracy and social networks meet and often collide. They tell stories of receiving funding from multiple government agencies with conflicting rules and requirements. They lament fixed performance targets that hamper the promised local flexibility. They fear that grants will cause them to abandon their core mission in favor of achieving the goals of funders.

Some grant goals are so broad, such as promoting a healthy community, that nonprofits are left wondering how to choose from a dizzying array of potential indicators of success. Sometimes small but important community improvement efforts, such as stream clean-up days or street beautification projects, are expected to be measured by sophisticated outcome measures that are ill-suited to the simple work being performed.

Nonprofit leaders warn that these metrics do not capture the most important elements of their work and are often costly to collect. They repeatedly explain that reporting requirements take away valuable staff time that could be spent helping customers. In some cases, reporting and other bureaucracy take up about two business days a week.

Government agencies and the nonprofits that fund them feel pressure to highlight achievements. They often avoid mentioning what isn’t working due to the pressure to appear successful, motivated by the need to secure future funding. This leads to a trend where they don’t learn from their mistakes and make adjustments that actually improve the system and help customers.

Strategies for getting things done

More often than you might expect, many nonprofits actually achieve their goal of meeting customer needs despite all the bureaucracy.

This is because of the often hidden, yet incredibly important role played by people who I consider hidden heroes who work for nonprofits and other community organizations.

Many of the stories I heard involved workarounds, workarounds, and informal arrangements that allowed governments and nonprofit partners to get things done.

Hidden heroes learn to navigate the separate worlds of government bureaucracy and community services. They will learn about both cultures and two different ways of talking about this important work. They encourage government experts to see themselves as members of the community and insist that they be seen as experts on their own situations.

When a funder’s policies don’t fit their situation, these hidden heroes of social services negotiate alternatives or find better-suited workarounds.

Assessment of the entire system

Government and nonprofit organizations are and have long been partners in the delivery of social services. However, my decades of research have made clear that these partnerships could better meet the needs of low-income people and their communities.

After decades of declining social spending and rising inequality, more funding would be helpful. The United States spends less on social services than most higher-income countries.

How this money will be spent is also important.

One of my key findings is that people who need social services often receive them from multiple agencies, some of which are nonprofits and some of which are government-run. How well these agencies work together determines how effectively they help their mutual clients. For example, it matters whether the inter-agency referral process runs smoothly or whether local agencies duplicate programs while some needs are not being met at all.

Government grants typically fund and evaluate programs one at a time. While this is often necessary, it is also important to evaluate the entire system and fund community planning and network development activities so that agencies can better work together to meet customer needs.

Metrics that evaluate performance can be helpful, but my research shows why the government, as well as foundations and other private donors, should carefully consider and limit the number of things that nonprofit social service organizations must measure to meet grant requirements.

Finally, it is clear from my research that most government policies and programs need to be tailored to the specifics of local communities or individual clients. The hidden heroes of social service nonprofits play an important role in making this a reality.

This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent, nonprofit organization providing facts and trusted analysis to help you understand our complex world. It was written by: David C. Campbell, University of California, Davis

Read more:

David C. Campbell has received funding from California state agency funders, including the Department of Employment Development, the Agency for Labor and Workforce Development, and the Department of Human Services. The foundation’s donors include the California Endowment, David and Lucile Packard, James Irvine, Peninsula Community, Miriam and Peter Haas, Walter and Elise Haas and Sierra Health.