So a really interesting piece of information I've gathered as a result of my Fellowship work is this:
When it comes to government money, grants are watched relentlessly. The reporting requirements for organizations who receive grants are stringent and can be extensive. There seems to be an obsessive quality to completing the datasets which track grant funding- the organization, the purpose, the funding program and accounts - almost very literally the whole nine yards - for every single transaction. The categories of funding programs are much more narrow and specific.
When it comes to government contracts, however, are a completely different story. Gaping holes in the data set you can drive trucks through. Sometimes the vendor information is incomplete, sometimes the funding programs are not identified, other places the purpose for the contract is completely missing. The categorical purposes are ridiculously vague and sometimes bring about some WTF moments: Namely, what the hell is Hewlett-Packard doing getting just shy of $39 Million dollars to administer "social services"?!
A visit to usaspending.gov (a ridiculously useful site, by the way) and few clicks later, it was more apparent that HP is getting the funds because they (well, a California-based subsidiary called the NHIC) won the bid to process Medicare/Medicaid A&B claims in MA, ME, CT, NH, VT and RI.
Considering the contract is from the Department of Health and Human Services "social services" makes sense. But it's not really what they're doing. HP is providing QA tech support for claims processing.
And then there's the issue of "location of service": The company is based in CA, but "place of service" is listed as MA. That does add a layer of complexity in terms of property and corporate taxes, etc. And makes it even harder to track the money.
I applaud the efforts of the government to make things more transparent, accountable, etc. etc. But why the double standard of grants vs. contracts? Grants are not "free money"; recipients jump through ridiculous hoops to get them and keep them even as they are delivering needed services to the public. Or adding useful and crucial knowledge to the body of scientific evidence. It seems almost as much of a pay-for-service system as contracts... Why are contractors not equally scrutinized?
Or is there that nasty belief still present that if you work with the poor you might be tempted by all that free money? Or that if you work with ex-convicts you're a criminal yourself?
Transparency is great. But let's not pretend that we're actually following all the money, or even all the money we're supposed to.
Comments