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.]

The Last Mile in Health Care

 I follow Atul Gawande in the New Yorker and his books, particularly his advocacy for checklists (an indispensable tool for bureaucrats).  The new print issue of the New Yorker has an article by him concerning health in Costa Rica. 

Costa Rica has longer life spans than the US while spending much less on health care. Gawande credits the way in which they have done public health, a systematic way of having health care professional interact with everyone in their district. 

To my mind it's another example of the benefits of government focusing on the "last mile", the connection between government and the citizen.  FSA does it well for its clientele and programs but the US pattern is to have government work through states and localities. 

10 Percent of Rental Aid--the Last Mile Problem

I've blogged before about the "last mile" problem in government: the fact the structure of government in the US means a gap between government and the citizen. Here's another example, as reported by Politico: 

The Treasury Department said Wednesday that state and local governments had disbursed just over 10 percent of federal rental assistance funds as of the end of July, indicating that millions could be at risk of losing their homes once eviction protections end.

The Last Mile Problem for US Government

 I've used the idea of a "last mile" problem before, but didn't really describe it.  The "last mile" in the internet is linking a home to the internet.  It's relatively easy to run fiber cable around the land.  It's like our blood--the veins and arteries are easy, but the capillaries are where it gets complicated.  In my mind the American federal government has such a problem--it can't connect reliably with all its citizens in all aspects of society.

I just noticed another instance: Treasury Department has 9 million checks it hasn't gotten to citizens.

The problem is more than 9 million--these are people who are part of the economy--IRS knows who they are, as opposed to people who are "off the grid" entitely.

The Last Mile Problem in Government--AMS

One of the problems of our government is the threads connecting national legislation to local effectiveness are often broken. 

I think I just found one such case today.  The USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service has a program called "Farmers to Families Food Box".  Briefly the concept is to buy food, mostly perishable, which can't find a market under our pandemic conditions, and provide it in boxes to needy families. I'm thinking the boxing is a new idea being pushed by Secretary Perdue.

AMS has experience buying perishable food and providing it to schools for school lunches, tribes, etc.etc. But this is a new program using money appropriated by Congress (and perhaps CCC funding, not sure).  So AMS ran a new bidding process to find more vendors capable of handling the boxing and distribution to nonprofit organizations..  (I'm not sure how much overlap between the vendors in the new program and those AMS has dealt with before.  I do know there has been some scrutiny of some vendors with allegations political influence was involved in awards to new vendors.) 

So my picture is, you've this established network of AMS procurements, intermediaries, and recipients.  But now you have new additional money, additional intermediaries, and hopefully new recipients.  Where the threat is broken in my metaphor is the last mile problem--connecting new recipients with the old or new intermediaries.

If I understand the program correctly, which is a problem, AMS and the administration are making the assumption that existing nonprofits can make the connection.  But a question on the FSA employee group Facebook page raised the question.  Checking the AMS sit they have a list of the approved vendors who are getting the food and boxing it.  But there is no national database showing which nonprofits the vendors are dealing with. So the question is, if Jane Doe in Mississippi is interested in getting a box--who does she contact?  As far as I can see, she has to use the phone book to locate a nonprofit which might be  distributing the boxes.