Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
I don't know exactly how this fits into the debate, but there is always a struggle with non-profits to make sure they have enough cash to stay afloat. The first example I have is a privately run NPO called Leave Out ViolencE, which specialized in rehabilitating street youth to be independant and learn how to, eventually, become valuable members of society. Part of my own volunteer work there was transcribing hand-written accounts of abuse, be it drugs, physical or sexual, onto a computer for archival purposes, which was a depressing job, but that isn't the point. The point there was that their staff consisted of three people, the executive director who managed the business side of the organization, the program director who organized and ran the presentations and recruitment drives and the photojournalism course (the heart of the program) teacher. In spite of having a small staff and small overhead, the program was, in the best of times, 6 months from going under (well before I showed up), and at worst of times roughly a month(shortly before I showed up).

Their biggest obstacle was funding. The first 5 years were fine, because the government of British Columbia provided a provincial grant geared to start-up NPO's in the province. After 5 years had passed, the backbone of their funding was cut out and the government had no more grants to offer that fit the mold. They borrowed from philanthropist businessmen in Vancouver, and spent the majority of their energy in the 3 months I was there making asks from corporations and philanthropists to keep in business. This isn't to say that they neglected their mission statement, but more that they couldn't focus on the mission statement because their energy had to be spent on ensuring that they could continue to operate. They weren't a business that sold things to raise funding, they were a community service provider to those who could not afford it themselves.

The point that I'm making here is that the program, if it received steady government funding for the social work it was doing, social work desperately needed in the state Vancover is in, they would be able to deliver their message and recruit others on a wider basis and with more impact than they do currently. Fortunately, their new hire as ED of the board (whose first day on the job was also my own) had majored in fundraising in her business studies, which was a desperately needed asset.

I think that NPOs that provide a valuable social service should be funded by the government, because they improve the social fabric of whatever area they are in. When they don't receive funding, they have to hire people whose sole purpose is to bring in more and more money into the system without actually doing anything to benefit their cause.

An extreme example of this is the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Scandal, which is really just the tip of the iceberg. 81% of their earnings were used to cover administrative and telemarketing fees. They disputed the allegations made by saying that because they used certain wording in their asks through telemarketers and door-to-door askers, it counted as 'education' under their mission statement, and so they presented it as being funding spent on the execution of said mission.

This is where my issue with the idea of government funding comes in. When the NPO has to spend that much (time and money) on ensuring a constant revenue stream, it's very easy to slip into being an organization that exists solely to fundraise and continue it's own existence, rather than effectively funding programs in the communities on the levels they say they are. In this case, they are using a tragic occurence as a high horse to ask for money, but the action they take is minimal. If the government would help to fund these NPOs and they, in turn, focused more on their work, rather than asking for cash, I'm sure they would be significantly more effective.

Of course there are logistical nightmares within this that I haven't thought out yet, but still, government funding is something necessary, especially in regards to social programs.
You see this scenario as evidence that the government should be funding these programs. I see it as evidence that the government should be enabling the private funding of these programs. The government does have a unique ability to unite philanthropic offerings with groups requiring money; since non-profits are government-regulated, the government has a great deal of knowledge about their workings and needs and can bridge the gap between people willing to give and the organizations needing money. The government should be providing access to money, not providing the money.

Consider how much more efficient the system would be if the government's budget for NPO funding was eliminated and instead offered as a tax incentive; if you give to an NPO, you receive a credit on your taxes in the amount X, totaling the same giving. This encourages the programs while letting us decide how we give our money.