More Political Courage
I'm a simple guy, so it's possible I'm not understanding this story, so let me run it by you, and you tell me if I'm getting it right.
The state of Minnesota, like all other states in this nation, gives a lot of money to non-profits in their state. Generally, these monies are given out to non-profits so the non-profits can do things that many people think our governments should do but don't; things like running day-care centers, taking care of the elderly, providing community health programs, and cleaning up the environment. Minnesota gave out about $5 billion last year to non-profits to do these things.
Minnesota, also like most states (and unfortunately, like many individual donors), has done a very lousy job of tracking these non-profit donations and isn't really sure which ones have been spent well and which have not. A report came out last month that argued that the state had a "fragmented and inconsistent approach to tracking" the money.
So what should Minnesota do? Being the simple guy I am, I would have proposed that the state do a better job of monitoring and tracking the taxpayer money they send on to charities to do the public's work.
According to State Rep. Erik Paulsen, however, my idea is silly. He prefers that the state just eliminate giving any money to non-profits until they can figure out how to track it better. Says Paulsen, "Until state agencies enact better controls and procedural safeguards, the only responsible course of action is to enact a moratorium."
This is a heck of a lesson to teach the kids. Got something easy to do (give away money) that is hard to measure? Don't work hard to figure out the measuring, just stop doing the easy thing. I believe they call this "throwing out the baby with the bath water."
And like I said before, I'm not sure I understand.
The state of Minnesota, like all other states in this nation, gives a lot of money to non-profits in their state. Generally, these monies are given out to non-profits so the non-profits can do things that many people think our governments should do but don't; things like running day-care centers, taking care of the elderly, providing community health programs, and cleaning up the environment. Minnesota gave out about $5 billion last year to non-profits to do these things.
Minnesota, also like most states (and unfortunately, like many individual donors), has done a very lousy job of tracking these non-profit donations and isn't really sure which ones have been spent well and which have not. A report came out last month that argued that the state had a "fragmented and inconsistent approach to tracking" the money.
So what should Minnesota do? Being the simple guy I am, I would have proposed that the state do a better job of monitoring and tracking the taxpayer money they send on to charities to do the public's work.
According to State Rep. Erik Paulsen, however, my idea is silly. He prefers that the state just eliminate giving any money to non-profits until they can figure out how to track it better. Says Paulsen, "Until state agencies enact better controls and procedural safeguards, the only responsible course of action is to enact a moratorium."
This is a heck of a lesson to teach the kids. Got something easy to do (give away money) that is hard to measure? Don't work hard to figure out the measuring, just stop doing the easy thing. I believe they call this "throwing out the baby with the bath water."
And like I said before, I'm not sure I understand.
Labels: Erik Paulsen, government funding for charities, Minnesota
posted by Trent Stamp at 1:42 PM
3 Comments:
Unbelievable that a state government would not have oversight and evaluation requirements for its grants. I'm used to California's Dept of Health Services, which generally requires all grants to include 10% of the budget for evaluation. It's hard to believe that other states don't have similar requirements for at least some level of evaluation.
Even more unbelievable that the proposed solution is to penalize the nonprofits and not the negligent state agencies.
hey, who says governmental agencies do their job? I would be surprised if they did, besides, politics in general serve themselves, not the people.
sooner we get it, better chance we have to prevent these practices.
Good for CA, that sounds smart but most states are so under the gun from having to reduce staff that it's not surprising they can't keep track. If you want to be shocked check out the numbers on Rep. Henry Waxman's Oversight committee in Congress.
I'll take this opportunity to rant a little on another rip-off. The requirement that charities register with states. First, the fee structures are all over the place and penalize the small to mid-size charities. Second, non-profits get Nothing in return. Hardly anyone checks the state databases (donors use Charity Navigator because it really provides a Service). Third, it takes significant staff time, expense and effort to comply.
I've only touched the surface of this subject. Seems both foundations and NGO's could collaborate and get legislation to do away with the state by state registrations and replace it with Guidestar and Charity Navigator (I wouldn't want just one) Phil
Post a Comment
<< Home