For much of U.S. history, nonprofits have operated as a check on government by providing private avenues to serve the public interest. Unfortunately, American charities—and more broadly, the entire nonprofit sector—have become a creature of big government…
The publication Giving USA, which tracks charitable spending, reports that the government now supplies one-third of all funds raised by not-for-profit organizations.
… According to a recent report by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, government funding of such charities grew by 77% between 2000 and 2010, while private support for such groups grew by just 47%.
I keep emphasizing that the main difference between non-profit and for-profit is that non-profits are accountable to donors and for-profits are accountable to customers. This means that the non-profit sector is going to be more elitist and more less efficient than the for-profit sector. It does not mean, as so many people think, that the non-profit sector operates from better motives or provides more social benefit.
I am not saying that a non-profit sector is a bad thing. Just remember that it is inherently paternalistic, and that is problematic.
Given my view, the trend for the non-profit sector to align with government is not surprising, but still disturbing.
UPDATE: Steven Moore also weighs in.
The Civitas Institute, a conservative think tank in North Carolina, recently published an analysis of the financial statements of the left-wing groups sponsoring these rallies, such as the Community Development Initiative and the Institute of Minority Economic Development. It found they have collected about $100 million in state grants, loans and contracts. No wonder they’re enraged over GOP lawmakers’ attempts to rein in spending.
I keep emphasizing that the main difference between non-profit and for-profit is that non-profits are accountable to donors and for-profits are accountable to customers.
I work as a grant writing consultant and see this basic principle at work in virtually all of my clients, to the point that I wrote a post about “Why Nonprofits Are More Like Businesses Than You Realize.”
There is a website in the UK to monitor (some of) these:
http://fakecharities.org/
“We define a Fake Charity as any organisation registered as a UK charity that derives more than 10% of its income—and/or more than £1 million—from the government, while also lobbying the government.”
You write “It does not mean, as so many people think, that the non-profit sector operates from better motives or provides more social benefit … I am not saying that a non-profit sector is a bad thing. Just remember that it is inherently paternalistic, and that is problematic.”
My experience from receiving services from with non profits is that those which provide the most basic of services, such as no-charge voice mail service, a meal service, a shower and laundry service, or an overnight cot to sleep on, are of the least paternalistic and thus least psychopathic.
A real danger of being a consumer of non-profit services is that it places one in contact with antisocial people who are also making use of the services, that is those who have animal spirits of bear, or of lion, or of leopard, where one can be mauled emotionally, mentally or spiritually, by the thugs and narcissists.
What functions of governments are facilitated by the transfer of governmental revenues (and borrowings) to civic associations?
Are such transfers made within the constitutional constraints that purportedly determine the operations functions and limitations of those governments?