Appearance Based Services: Why many government funded services fail to deliver on outcomes

Why is that that initiatives like the NDIS, Disability Employment Services, Close the Gap and many other consistently fail to achieve their anticipated outcomes. Is it “Optimism Bias”? Are our aims and expectations unrealistic, are people and situations always more complex than we think? Are there key factors that program designers fail to take into account. All of the above may well hold, but also ….

When governments fund services, in health, education, social support, or employment, etc., they often do so by contracting private or not-for-profit organizations to deliver these services. Over time, however, these services tend to experience a gradual decline in funding, leading to a situation where they continue to operate but at a minimal level, producing poor outcomes. This phenomenon can be understood through economic concepts, realpolitik considerations, and even by drawing on metaphors from physics.  

Economic Concepts and Realpolitik

From an economic perspective, governments operate under budget constraints and competing priorities. Initially, when a service is funded, there is often enthusiasm and adequate resources allocated to achieve significant outcomes. However, over time, as new priorities emerge, the original service may face budget cuts or stagnant funding that does not keep pace with inflation or rising costs. This is particularly true when services do not directly impact the majority of voters or when the outcomes of these services are not highly visible to the electorate.

Realpolitik—the practice of politics based on pragmatic and strategic considerations rather than ideological or ethical principles—plays a significant role here. Politicians and policymakers are incentivized to allocate resources where they will yield the most visible benefits or where they can secure votes. Services that are essential but serve marginalized or less politically influential populations may see their funding erode over time, as they are not seen as critical to electoral success. This results in a cycle where funding diminishes gradually, leading to poorer service outcomes, but without significant political repercussions, since the electorate remains largely unaware of or indifferent to the service's declining quality.

Thermodynamics and Entropy as a Metaphor

Thermodynamics, particularly the concept of entropy, provides a powerful metaphor for this process. In thermodynamics, entropy refers to the measure of disorder in a system, and over time, systems tend to move towards a state of higher entropy or greater disorder unless energy is inputted to maintain order. Similarly, in the context of government-funded services, the initial funding and effort can be seen as the energy input that creates order and effectiveness in the service.

However, as funding diminishes or fails to increase in line with needs, the service begins to "decay," much like a system moving towards higher entropy. Without sufficient resources to counteract this decline, the service continues to function but at a lower and lower level of effectiveness. It reaches a point where it just survives—delivering poor outcomes, akin to a state of near-maximum entropy where there is minimal energy or organization left.

Voter Awareness and Impact on Policy

Most voters are aware that these services exist, but they are generally not informed about the specifics of their quality or outcomes. As a result, the decline in service quality does not significantly influence voting behavior. This lack of electoral pressure allows governments to continue underfunding these services without facing political consequences. The electorate's focus on more visible or immediate issues means that the slow degradation of service quality goes largely unnoticed and unaddressed.

The Perception Problem: Ineffectiveness and Blame

Consistent poor outcomes due to low funding create a damaging perception issue. To the public, who often see these services only from a distance, these persistent failures can look like inherent ineffectiveness of the services themselves. This misperception can lead to the assumption that the services are poorly managed or that the people they are intended to help are unmotivated or undeserving of support.

When a health clinic, school, or social service continuously fails to meet its goals, it is easy for the narrative to shift away from systemic underfunding and towards blaming the service providers or the beneficiaries themselves. This stigmatizes the very people these services are supposed to help and undermines public support for future funding increases.

Instead of recognizing that the root cause of poor outcomes is often the lack of adequate resources, the public may support further cuts, thinking that the services are simply a bad investment. This creates a vicious cycle where services are further starved of resources, leading to even worse outcomes, reinforcing the negative perceptions, and making it increasingly difficult to garner the political will or public support needed to reverse the trend.

Adequate Funding

While there are a few contra-examples extensive research across many sectors demonstrates that when services are adequately funded, outcomes can be significantly improved. This is often demonstrated in successful pilot programs where well-funded but short-term programs show great promise. But our record of picking up and turning successful pilot programs into ongoing initiatives is very poor. My bookshelves groan under the weight of successful but forgotten pilot projects.  

Conclusion

The combination of economic constraints, realpolitik considerations, and the natural tendency towards entropy in systems without sustained input leads to a gradual decline in the quality of government-funded services. Over time, without sufficient political or public pressure to maintain or increase funding, these services continue to operate but at increasingly ineffective levels, producing poor outcomes for those who rely on them.

This decline is often hidden from the broader electorate, allowing the cycle to perpetuate. Moreover, the consistent poor outcomes further damage public perception, wrongly attributing the failures to the services or the people they serve, rather than to the chronic underfunding that constrains their potential.

However, when services are fully and adequately funded, the right skills, resources, and supports can be put in place, leading to consistently high-quality outcomes even for disadvantaged individuals and communities. Proper investment in these services not only breaks the cycle of underperformance but also builds stronger, healthier, and more equitable societies.