现任和前任高管，以及其他在慈善事业和政府中担任要职的人士，就这一问题和追究组织责任等问题发表了看法。文章《Are nonprofits the permanent government of New York City?/非营利组织是纽约市的永久政府吗？》发布在City & State New York上。City & State是一家政治新闻机构，总部设在纽约市，出版的周刊报道纽约市和纽约州的政治和政府事务。《Vital City》的联合编辑Greg Berman是本文作者。作者指出，纽约市严重依赖非营利组织来执行包括儿童保育、教育、住房在内的政府任务。无论谁管理该市，这些大型非营利性社会服务提供商基本保持不变。因此，与城市签订合同的非营利组织相当于一个“永久政府”。这一现实也引发了多方的批评和争论，所以作者联系了现任和前任非营利组织高管，以及曾在慈善机构和政府部门担任高级职务、负责资助和监督非营利组织的人士，来讨论非营利组织为城市提供基本服务所涉及的问题。
When New York City Comptroller Brad Lander questioned the city’s $432 million no-bid contract with DocGo Inc. to provide services to recent immigrants, he inadvertently highlighted an underappreciated reality of urban governance: the city relies heavily on private contractors to perform a host of tasks that we typically associate with government, from childcare to education to housing.
当纽约市审计长布拉德·兰德质疑该市与DocGo公司签订的、为新移民提供服务的、价值4.32亿美元的无竞标合同时，他无意中强调了一个未被充分重视的城市治理现实：该市严重依赖私人承包商来执行人们通常与政府联系在一起的一系列任务，从儿童保育，到教育，再到住房。
Many of these contractors are non-profit agencies.
其中许多承包商都是非营利机构。
Some have argued that the nonprofits that contract with the city amount to a “permanent government” – mayors and other political players may come and go, but these large nonprofit social service providers remain basically the same no matter who runs the city. Because of their heft and their stability, these groups can exert enormous influence over how the city works.
有人认为，与城市签订合同的非营利组织相当于一个“永久政府”。市长和其他政治人物可能来来去去，但无论谁管理城市，这些大型非营利性社会服务提供商基本保持不变。由于它们的影响力和稳定性，这些组织可以对城市的运作方式产生巨大的影响。
Viewed positively, nonprofits help to give the city an institutional spine, ensuring continuity, maintaining standards and building the kind of trusting relationships with local neighborhoods and residents that can take decades to develop.
从积极的角度看，非营利组织有助于为城市提供制度支柱，确保连续性，维持标准，并与当地社区和居民建立信任关系，而这种关系的建立可能需要数十年的时间。
But not everyone views nonprofits positively these days. The nonprofit sector has recently sparked a fair amount of criticism from the left. At the root of this criticism is the idea that the “nonprofit industrial complex” bleeds resources from the state and blunts more radical kinds of organizing while lining the pockets of nonprofit executives. In “The Long Crisis,” historian Benjamin Holtzman accuses a number of New York City nonprofits of being unwitting (and sometimes witting) handmaidens of “neo-liberalism.” In “Nonprofit Neighborhoods,” Claire Dunning goes further, arguing that the very existence of nonprofits represents “the failure to create a more inclusive and responsive government.”
但如今并非所有人都对非营利组织持积极态度。非营利领域最近引发了大量批评。这种批评的根源是：“非营利组织工业复合体”从国家榨取资源，削弱了更激进的组织形式，同时为非营利组织高管们敛财。在《长期危机/The Long Crisis》一书中，历史学家本杰明·霍尔茨曼指责纽约市的一些非营利组织在不知不觉中（有时是故意）成为“新自由主义”的帮凶。在《非营利社区/Nonprofit Neighborhoods》一书中，克莱尔·宁更进一步指出，非营利组织的存在本身就代表着“未能创建一个更具包容性和响应性的政府”。
In an effort to get a better understanding of the issues involved with nonprofits providing essential services for the city, I recently reached out to a half dozen experts in the field. My informants included current and former nonprofit executives as well as people who have held high-ranking positions in philanthropy and government where they have been responsible for funding and overseeing nonprofits. I asked them to respond to four questions and promised them anonymity in order to maximize candor. What follows are highlights from what I heard back.
为了更好地理解非营利组织为城市提供基本服务所涉及的问题，作者最近联系了该领域的六位专家。作者的线人包括现任和前任非营利组织高管，以及曾在慈善机构和政府部门担任高级职务、负责资助和监督非营利组织的人士。作者要求他们回答四个问题，并承诺他们匿名，以获得最大限度的坦诚。以下是作者收到的反馈中的要点。
Most of my respondents admitted that there was at least a grain of truth to the notion that there are well-established nonprofit service providers who have become an embedded part of the governance of New York.
大多数受访者都承认，有一些历史悠久的非营利性服务机构已经成为纽约治理的一个组成部分，这种说法至少有一定的道理。
A former nonprofit CEO says that the analogy is “apt” but thinks that this is a positive thing, since nonprofit leaders can help ensure “continuity of critical programs and services during disruptions in political leadership.” She points out that well-established nonprofit leaders often feature prominently on mayoral transition teams and thus help determine the shape and staffing of new administrations. A current nonprofit executive director concurs, saying that experienced nonprofits can be of particular value to new mayors and their policy teams who aren’t well-versed on a particular issue, helping them “translate abstract ideas into practice.”
一位前非营利组织CEO说，这个比喻是“恰当的”，但她认为这是一件好事，因为非营利组织的领导者可以帮助确保“在政治领导出现混乱时，关键项目和服务的连续性”。她指出，成熟的非营利组织领导人往往在市长的过渡团队中占据重要位置，从而帮助确定新政府的形态和人员配置。一位现任非营利组织执行董事也表示赞同，他说，经验丰富的非营利组织对不熟悉特定问题的新市长及其政策团队具有特殊价值，帮助他们“将抽象概念转化为实践”。
According to a former nonprofit leader, the analogy is fair “up to a point.” While it is true that many nonprofits become “entrenched,” she argues that the state of “mutual dependence” between the government and the nonprofit sector is “better than the alternatives” since it allows for “flexibility, innovation, experimentation and expertise that benefits the recipients of services.”
据一位前非营利组织领导人所说，这种类比在一定程度上是合理的。虽然许多非营利组织确实变得“根深蒂固”，但她认为，政府和非营利部门之间的“相互依赖”状态“比其他选择更好”，因为它允许“灵活性、创新、实验和专业知识，使服务对象受益”。
A philanthropic executive says that the city benefits from longtime nonprofit practitioners “who have seen various administrations come and go” and can serve as “critical voices in policy debates,” offering a valuable perspective about “how things really work and what’s likely (or not) to filter down to the ground.”
一位慈善机构的高管表示，这座城市受益于长期从事非营利活动的人士，他们“见证了各种政府的更迭”，可以成为“政策辩论中的关键声音”，为“事情的真正运作方式，以及哪些可能（或哪些不可能）会落实到实处的事情” 提供了宝贵的视角。
A nonprofit leader says that a vibrant nonprofit sector is one of New York City’s “hidden strengths” and that critics should “be careful what they wish for – if we were to eliminate all of New York’s nonprofit service providers and replace them with government workers tomorrow, the quality of life in New York would go down, not up.”
一位非营利组织的领导人说，一个充满活力的非营利领域是纽约市的“隐藏优势”之一，批评者应该“小心他们的愿望，如果我们明天就取消纽约所有的非营利服务提供商，用政府工作人员取而代之，纽约的生活质量将下降，而不是上升”。
Almost everyone I reached out to pushed back on this critique.
几乎作者联系过的所有人，都对这种批评进行了反驳。
One nonprofit executive says that the argument is fundamentally “misguided.” She believes that “the notion that radical change will result from organizations declining government funding and withholding services from those who need them is a kind of magical thinking.” Moreover, she argues that “we should not underestimate how much radical change has been affected by the partnership between government and nonprofits,” identifying the creation of a right to counsel in housing court as an example.
一位非营利组织高管说，这种说法从根本上说是“误导的”。她认为，“认为组织拒绝政府资助、拒绝为有需要的人提供服务就会带来根本性变革的观点，是一种神奇的想法”。此外，她还认为，“我们不应低估政府与非营利组织之间的伙伴关系，对激进变革的影响”，并以在住房法庭设立律师权为例。
A former high-ranking government official makes the case that, far from being a drain on the public sector, nonprofits make life easier for those in government: “Nonprofits are more nimble than government and can do things faster and easier in ways that benefit communities. Most public agencies welcome the kind of partnership offered by nonprofits for this reason.”
一位前高级政府官员认为，非营利组织非但不会耗费公共部门的资源，反而会让政府部门的工作更轻松：“非营利组织比政府部门更加灵活，能够以有利于社区的方式更快、更容易地开展工作。出于这个原因，大多数公共机构都欢迎非营利组织提供的这种合作伙伴关系。”
Another former government official hit a more skeptical note: “My instinct is that the increasing dependence of government on nonprofits is a sign of government weakness. Government’s single obligation is to the well-being of the people. When government contracts out to non-profits they make an implicit trade: government trades that single commitment to New Yorkers well-being to a non-profit cottage industry that by its nature is committed first and foremost to its own survival. The nonprofit is constitutionally unable to judge whether the particular service it offers is still needed.”
另一位前政府官员持更为怀疑的态度：“我的直觉是，政府对非营利组织的依赖日益增加，是政府软弱的表现。政府的唯一义务是造福人民。当政府将合同外包给非营利组织时，他们进行了一次隐含的交易：政府将其对纽约市民福祉的唯一承诺，交易给了一个家庭作坊式的非营利组织，而该家庭作坊本质上首先致力于自身的生存。从宪法上讲，非营利组织无法判断其提供的特定服务是否仍然需要。”
A former nonprofit executive admits that “there is corruption, waste and pocket-lining in the nonprofit sector,” and that “highly motivated and savvy nonprofit executive grifters can go for years without getting caught.” Further, “I’ve seen cases where government agencies feel like they have no choice but to go with suboptimal partners because there are too few nonprofit vendors available at scale to get the work done.” Another executive acknowledges that “there is little incentive for nonprofits to be efficient,” which can lead to “bloated organizations and overpaid chief executives.”
一位前非营利组织高管承认，“非营利组织存在腐败、浪费和私吞现象”，而且“积极性很高、精明的非营利组织高管骗子可以逍遥法外多年”。此外，“我见过一些案例，政府机构觉得他们别无选择，只能与次优合作伙伴合作，因为规模太小的非营利组织供应商不足以完成工作”。另一位高管承认，“非营利组织几乎没有提高效率的动力”，这可能导致“组织臃肿，首席执行官薪酬过高”。
While there was a recognition that some nonprofit organizations are mismanaged, in general my respondents believed that nonprofit service providers significantly out-perform government service providers: “The best nonprofits center the needs of their clients and program participants, using their government contracts as a means to a mission-oriented end.” By contrast, they characterized government agencies as overly bureaucratic and guilty, in many cases, of processing people like widgets in a factory.
虽然受访者承认有些非营利组织管理不善。但总体而言，受访者认为非营利服务提供者的表现明显优于政府服务提供者：“最好的非营利组织以客户和项目参与者的需求为中心，将政府合同作为实现使命的手段”。与此相反，他们认为政府机构过于官僚，在很多情况下，对待人们就像处理工厂里的零部件一样。
Criticisms of the nonprofit sector, almost always come back to the issue of accountability. Elected officials can be voted out of office. Private sector companies are subject to the Darwinian logic of the marketplace. What mechanisms exist to manage or constrain the behavior of nonprofit organizations?
对非营利领域的批评，几乎都会回到问责问题上。民选官员可以被投票赶下台。私营公司受制于市场的达尔文逻辑。有什么机制可以管理或约束非营利组织的行为呢？
One philanthropic executive suggests that substantial accountability mechanisms are already in place, pointing to the fact that “nonprofits are required to provide significant disclosure about their programmatic purposes on their IRS 990 form” and that the city and state comptroller offices “have significant auditing power and conduct thorough audits of larger nonprofits with City or State contracts on a rotating basis.”
一位慈善机构高管认为，实质性的问责机制已经到位，他指出，“非营利组织必须在国税局的990表格中提供有关其计划目的的重要披露”，而且市和州的审计长办公室“拥有很大的审计权力，并轮流对与市或州签订合同的较大型非营利组织进行彻底审计”。
A nonprofit leader argues that it may be possible to build on the existing 990 reporting structure to require nonprofits to provide more timely information that would enhance the ability of both private and public funders to assess organizational efficiency. At the same time, she cautions that “improving accountability is challenging as there are already many burdens on nonprofits to comply with reporting and other obligations.”
一位非营利组织领导人认为，可以在现有990报告结构的基础上，要求非营利组织提供更及时的信息，从而提高私人和公共资助者评估组织效率的能力。与此同时，她警告说，“改善问责制具有挑战性，因为非营利组织在遵守报告和其他义务方面已经承担了很多负担”。
Picking up on this theme, another nonprofit leader complains that “the quest for accountability regarding contracts and payments with the city results in byzantine, bureaucratic, and maddening processes for nonprofits, often with the result of existential threats to organizations and the sector at large. One need only look at the increasingly late payments from the city on contracts. The germ of the problem comes from the processes put in place to try to ensure compliance and root out waste and the misallocation of funds.”
谈到这个主题，另一位非营利组织领导人抱怨说：“对于和市政府签订的合同和付款的问责制的追求，导致非营利组织面临错综复杂的、官僚主义的和令人发狂的程序，往往会对组织和整个行业造成生存威胁。我们只需看看市政府越来越迟的合同付款就知道了。问题的根源在于为确保合规性、消除浪费和资金分配不当而制定的程序。”
A former nonprofit executive director points out that he has seen government and philanthropy continually add new demands over the years, expecting more and more detailed accountings of fiscal expenditures, programmatic impacts, and the achievement of diversity and inclusion goals. He observes, “While obviously this is motivated by a desire to improve performance, it has also had some perverse consequences, making many nonprofits more bureaucratic, more top heavy, and more like government. If nonprofits are no different than government, then what’s the point?”
一位前非营利组织执行董事指出，多年来，他看到政府和慈善机构不断提出新的要求，希望对财政支出、项目影响力以及多元化和包容性目标的实现情况进行越来越详细的核算。他观察到，“虽然这明显是出于提高绩效的愿望，但它也产生了一些不良后果，使许多非营利组织变得更加官僚、头重脚轻，更像政府。如果非营利组织与政府没有区别，那么意义何在？”
A current nonprofit executive director agrees: “Accountability checks in the public sector tend to encourage risk aversion. Adding more oversight of nonprofits might cut down on rank corruption but lead to mediocrity and a lack of entrepreneurial energy.”
一位现任非营利组织执行董事表示赞同：“公共领域的问责制往往鼓励规避风险。加强对非营利组织的监督，可能会减少等级腐败，但会导致平庸和缺乏创业活力。”
Overall, the leaders I reached out to did not see a powerful rationale for increasing nonprofit accountability. Indeed, it was suggested that instead of attempting to enhance accountability, we should be taking a more positive approach, looking to “recognize and reward organizations that demonstrate best practices and that focus on holistic outcomes for people.”
总体而言，我接触到的领导者认为，加强非营利组织问责制的理由并不充分。事实上，有人建议，与其试图加强问责制，我们还不如采取更积极的方法，“表彰和奖励那些展示最佳做法并注重为人们带来全面成果的组织”。
Nonprofit Industrial Complex
complex n. 复合体；综合体
Industrial adj. 工业的；产业的
翻译、撰稿：丁适于（杭州市基金会发展促进会）
杭基会是由杭州地区致力于推动基金会行业发展的社会组织、企事业单位等机构和个人自愿结成的联合型、枢纽型社会团体，是继深圳市基金会发展促进会后，国内第二个专门针对区域基金会行业的联合性组织。
杭基会由杭州市慈善总会、浙江省微笑明天慈善基金会、浙江都快传媒集团有限公司、浙江省残疾人福利基金会、浙江省妇女儿童基金会、阿里巴巴公益基金会、浙江正泰公益基金会、浙江嘉行慈善基金会、杭州市西湖教育基金会、浙江锦江公益基金会、浙江传化慈善基金会、杭州青荷公益基金会、杭州市德信蓝助学基金会、杭州诸商慈善基金会等14家基金会和媒体共同发起。目前有会员74名，包含36家基金会、14家慈善会系统、以及媒体、学界、金融、法律、文艺、企业等领域代表。
杭基会的宗旨是遵守宪法、法律、法规和国家政策，践行社会主义核心价值观，遵守社会道德风尚，推动杭州市公益慈善事业持续、健康、快速发展。根据《中华人民共和国慈善法》的有关依法成立慈善行业组织的规定，促进基金会行业自律机制建设，健全基金会行业运作规范，加强对基金会行业的服务，提升基金会行业专业水平和社会公信力。
责任编辑：
