The Downside of Government Programs

 As a liberal and retired bureaucrat I support government programs.  

But I need to recognize their downside, which relates to the "last mile". When a government sets up a program, it needs to make a connection with the customer/client/citizen who will benefit or whose conduct will be regulated. I've written before about our problems with making that connection.  But I've been writing from a government-centric viewpoint, saying that for example the Treasury has a hard time getting funds to support renters and prevent evictions out.

What about the perspecitve from the "man on the street", as we used to say? There's many problems--off the top of my head some are:

• the person may be "off the grid":''
• without a mailing address (i.e., homeless or on a reservation, etc).
• not have a landline or cellphone
• not have electricity
• the person may be on the grid, but not on the "social-government" grid:
• not interested in the world, not following news, etc.
• not receive information shared by friends or relatives
• the person may be in a position to receive information but:
• doesn't have the initiative, the time, the energy, the ability to research and make a connection 
• is reliant on a caregiver or guardian who's not conscientious
• is suspicious and must be educated and/or sold on the program.

Bottom line--how much effort do we expect government or NGO's acting for the government to expend in order to overcome the hurdles. My impression in the old days of ASCS, SCS, and FmHA was the different agencies had different expectations in dealing with their farmers.  

Even in the best scenario it's likely some people will fall through the cracks, meaning a government program always increases inequality between groups.

[Update: this isn't a government program but the principle is the same--as the article describes, most people are not aware of this alternative abortion option.]