Why would you think that? My take is that they’re spending the money the best they know - they just don’t have the expertise to do so effectively (i.e.: establishing and tracking metrics)
When it’s been decades of high profile failures, with no apparent attempt to establish or track metrics - despite a clear need to, it’s hard to see it any other way.
The relationship with taxpayers seems to be one of a roadside beggar (aka help me or feel bad), rather than a client/service (something for something), eh?
I think the issue is that government needs help from the non-profits to get things like this approved. A strong marketing effort. And the non-profits only agree to put their weight behind it if they get a significant benefit.
Thus there's nothing inherently nefarious, and the people in government might even have a good idea of how to do it more efficiently, but their choices are: 1) get nothing passed or 2) get something inefficient with handouts(or incentives depending on your view) to those groups that help pass it.
I'd like to see more ballot initiatives with a focus on efficiency. Run them alongside the similar initiative with all the handouts and see which voters choose when actually given the choice.
I think it depends on what you mean by ‘nefarious’.
If someone’s paycheck depends on them not noticing a particular problem (like things not working, or a possible metric that could be used but that would result in funding problems), then the people that still notice that problem will tend to no longer have paycheck eh?
Self correcting problem.
That the non profits are doing PR/publicity to guilt trip the public into giving out money is just good business/survival. As long as they aren’t getting too aggressive anyway.
Nefarious, in my mind, would be something like someone going out and setting peoples houses on fire (or starting riots) to make more ‘customers’, or sabotaging their job interviews to keep them locked in the system.
Ultimately, the voters are the ones who have to decide what they want. Are they okay continuing to give money to the same ‘beggar’ who has been camped on the side of that off-ramp for 20 years now, or do something different?
Don’t expect the beggar to like them stopping though.
