Faculty Advisor Name
Dr. Frederick Mayhew
Description
When considering modes of delivery of public services, traditionally people depend on the government to supply these goods and services. Citizens believe in the social contract and that it is the duty of the government to deliver services to the public. However, beginning in the 1970s, the traditional form of public goods delivery moved away from strictly government distribution, towards market delivery in hopes of greater responsiveness and ability to deliver at a lower cost. However, can nonprofits deliver goods and services once provided by the government with the same equity standards as the government? When examining the literature on this topic, many sources do not directly address this issue. Researchers have discussed the strain mission creep takes on an organization and how equitable the government itself is in delivering goods and services, but sources rarely combine the two to discuss how equity in delivery can shift the mission of nonprofits. This paper aims to examine the effects of moving the delivery of public goods and services from direct delivery by the government to indirect delivery by nonprofits by examining if nonprofits can deliver these goods and services as equitable as the government, without compromising their mission, due to competition in the market. The government must provide goods and services to their citizens in a fair and equitable manner in order to maintain accountability, trust, and respect with their constituents. However, as governments move towards nonprofits to deliver these goods and services the expectation of equitable delivery, responsiveness, efficiency, accountability, and maintaining a fair budget changes due to different regulations for nonprofits versus government delivery. The movement towards using nonprofits stemmed from the notion that nonprofits could deliver the good at a lower, more efficient cost, while still taking into account the public good. Nonprofits have the ability to deliver the goods without the “bureaucratic red tape” the government deals with and allows for innovation in delivery to develop. However, over time the public’s opinion on how much money the government should spend on public goods and services has entered the conversation. Due to this, the government has shifted its focus towards competition in the delivery of public goods and services. This marketization of the delivery goods and services shifts competition into the private sector taking away the compassion component and forcing nonprofits to think of these deliveries as straight business transactions not as providing a need to citizens. Is this shift detrimental to the equity of delivery due to a focus on satisfying consumer self-interest and increasing capital and does it undermine accountability and damage citizen support?
Included in
Ethics and Equity in Nonprofits
When considering modes of delivery of public services, traditionally people depend on the government to supply these goods and services. Citizens believe in the social contract and that it is the duty of the government to deliver services to the public. However, beginning in the 1970s, the traditional form of public goods delivery moved away from strictly government distribution, towards market delivery in hopes of greater responsiveness and ability to deliver at a lower cost. However, can nonprofits deliver goods and services once provided by the government with the same equity standards as the government? When examining the literature on this topic, many sources do not directly address this issue. Researchers have discussed the strain mission creep takes on an organization and how equitable the government itself is in delivering goods and services, but sources rarely combine the two to discuss how equity in delivery can shift the mission of nonprofits. This paper aims to examine the effects of moving the delivery of public goods and services from direct delivery by the government to indirect delivery by nonprofits by examining if nonprofits can deliver these goods and services as equitable as the government, without compromising their mission, due to competition in the market. The government must provide goods and services to their citizens in a fair and equitable manner in order to maintain accountability, trust, and respect with their constituents. However, as governments move towards nonprofits to deliver these goods and services the expectation of equitable delivery, responsiveness, efficiency, accountability, and maintaining a fair budget changes due to different regulations for nonprofits versus government delivery. The movement towards using nonprofits stemmed from the notion that nonprofits could deliver the good at a lower, more efficient cost, while still taking into account the public good. Nonprofits have the ability to deliver the goods without the “bureaucratic red tape” the government deals with and allows for innovation in delivery to develop. However, over time the public’s opinion on how much money the government should spend on public goods and services has entered the conversation. Due to this, the government has shifted its focus towards competition in the delivery of public goods and services. This marketization of the delivery goods and services shifts competition into the private sector taking away the compassion component and forcing nonprofits to think of these deliveries as straight business transactions not as providing a need to citizens. Is this shift detrimental to the equity of delivery due to a focus on satisfying consumer self-interest and increasing capital and does it undermine accountability and damage citizen support?
