Somehow a misspelled sign in Minnesota and a rally in Lewiston are both part of the same news story.

The sign you may have seen on the national news in the past few days: the misspelled sign above the Quality “Learing” Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a daycare run by immigrants from Somalia.

That sign, featured in the video of conservative activist Nick Shirley, has become infamous. Shirley’s video has led to state and federal investigations of that and other social services agencies in Minnesota. It led to President Trump making derogatory comments about Somali Americans in general. Those comments led to a rally in Lewiston in support of our own Somali immigrant community and were widely denounced by state and local officials speaking there.

We have our own problems here in Maine, though. A well-connected Somali-owned community services provider, Gateway Community Services, has been accused by a former employee of fraud (charges it denies).

Without passing judgment on the specific accusations, it’s worth noting that this problem of fraud is not confined to Minnesota, or to Maine, or with the Somali immigrant community generally. In Arkansas in 2017, more than 400 people were charged with fraud that resulted in $1.3 billion in false billings to Medicare, for instance. 

It’s endemic, and it’s part of the problem with how our social services system is designed. Right now, the federal government gives money to states, which then hand it over to private agencies to give services to those in need.

While most of these agencies are undoubtedly honest and doing good work, there are bad actors out there stealing billions from taxpayers as well. The problem, of course, is that not only are these fraudsters stealing money from those who truly need it, but that the investigations themselves cost precious taxpayer money. And that’s not the only problem.

Even when one of these third-party social service agencies is competent and honest, the setup is problematic. Since they’re not actual government agencies, they have much more freedom to be involved politically than state or federal employees.

In Maine, for instance, state employees can’t run for partisan political office. This makes perfect sense: an employee of the executive branch, or any state agency, shouldn’t be able to serve in the Legislature that is supposed to oversee them.

This same restriction is not imposed upon the private social service agencies, however. Their employees can, and frequently do, run for office. They don’t just have employees running for office and serving in the Legislature; they also have current and former state legislators on their boards.

So, a private agency that gets its business directly from the state in the form of federally funded contracts can employ legislators who decide the funding of those contracts. The problem with this loophole should be obvious: it’s a blatant conflict of interest. This system gives the right legislators — or, perhaps, their immediate family — jobs that sustain their political career. In turn, those legislators make sure the agencies keep their funding. 

On top of that, the owners and employees of these agencies can, and do, make good salaries working for them — even if they’re established as nonprofits. Employees and executives of nonprofits can be paid, and paid well, of course; a nonprofit can compensate them as its board sees fit. Still, it’s galling to see the owner of a social services agency that gets most (if not all) of its funding from taxpayers not just be paid, but become wealthy.

We shouldn’t let the the president’s detrimental remarks about Somali Americans distract us from the problems inherent to the system. We can reject rhetorical attacks on Somali Americans while demanding that anyone who commits fraud be held legally responsible. We need to make sure that all fraud is unearthed and prosecuted, regardless of the national background of the people committing it.

That ought to just be the beginning of the conversation, however.

When I consider which charities to support, I evaluate whether they’re efficient and effective in how they use their resources. The state ought to consider that first and foremost when awarding contracts to provide services, rather than whether an agency is well-connected politically. Then, perhaps, we can start building a new system that directly and efficiently delivers assistance to those who need it. We owe that to taxpayers and those in need alike.