Scaling with Government: Conventional Wisdom VS Reality

Four common beliefs about scaling with government, challenged by those who’ve made it happen.

As traditional funding streams shift, with major players like USAID exiting key regions, nonprofits are under growing pressure to find sustainable, locally grounded pathways to scale.

In this dynamic environment, scaling with government has become the rallying cry for nonprofits worldwide. And rightly so: partnering with public systems not only unlocks scale at a different magnitude, but brings with it credibility, legitimacy, and the possibility of impact that outlives any single programme or funding cycle.

To unpack what it really takes, Global Schools Forum hosted a webinar series on this topic, and Spring Impact had the honour of facilitating the fourth and final session. The panel brought together an exceptional mix of voices, including:

Srivathsan Ramaswamy, Co-founder of Madhi Foundation, which grew from a pilot in a few schools to a government-embedded programme across 37,000+ schools in the state of Tamil Nadu, India.
Dr. Antonie Chigeda, Head of Government Partnership at Imagine Worldwide, leading the bold effort to scale a tech-enabled foundational learning model across Malawi’s public schools.

The conversation didn’t just highlight what works. Importantly, it upended some of the most entrenched beliefs about what it really takes to scale through government. Assumptions that, if left unexamined, might be holding us back.

From both the implementer and funder sides, we heard tough truths, surprising insights, and actionable wisdom for anyone trying to drive lasting change through public systems.

Here are four pieces of conventional wisdom that got turned on their head, and what nonprofit leaders should take away.

Conventional wisdom 1: Evidence proving solution effectiveness is everything

Reality: Evidence opens the door, but you still have to walk through

Often, the gold standard for scaling with government is: run a pilot, generate rigorous evidence (preferably an RCT), take that to government, and voilà: scale achieved.

But this linear logic doesn’t hold up in real-world policymaking. This was echoed by all our panellists through their real-life experiences: Robust evidence is necessary but not sufficient to scale with government.

Organisations should not to fall into silver-bullet thinking, where a single compelling report magically triggers scale. In reality, decisions are influenced by many factors: politics, personalities, budget limits, egos, public opinion, etc. Nonprofits should expect to go beyond having good evidence; they need to do the work of advocacy, relationship building, navigating timing, and speaking to what matters most in the political moment.

Take Madhi Foundation, for instance. The turning point for scale wasn’t a report, it was a visit. A surprise visit by a bureaucrat to a Madhi classroom sparked interest in scaling the programme to 2000 schools across 2 districts. It wasn’t just data; it was witnessing the impact firsthand that shifted the decision from a handful of schools to thousands.

What this means for nonprofits:

Yes, invest in strong evidence. But don’t over-rely on it, and right-size it. Scaling with government requires more than a good paper, it requires a good fit. You need:

Political timing: Does this solve a live pain point for government right now?
Implementation ease: Can this be delivered in and by an already overstretched government machinery?
System alignment: Does it work within existing structures, not against them?

Conventional wisdom 2: Handing over to government = Sustainability

Reality: Government can’t take ownership of something it did not build

One of the most enduring assumptions in the sector is this: “If we hand over the programme to the government, it will sustain.” It sounds logical. The government has the mandate, the scale, and the infrastructure. This belief can dangerously oversimplify what sustainability really requires.

In Spring Impact’s Payers at scale research, we found that transitioning to government is hard. Handing over to the government usually takes a very long time and requires a lot of support and resources from the nonprofits.

Several speakers also reaffirmed the difficulty of government transition. Dr Antonie Chigeda put this decisively:

“If you design your programme with the mindset that ‘we (the NGO) run it now, and someday we’ll hand it to government,’ you’re setting it up to fail.”

Why? Because government can’t suddenly take ownership of something it didn’t build or integrate into its systems.

Instead, Dr. Chigeda advocated for co-creation.

“We didn’t hand over a finished product. We kept government in the loop through every step: research, iteration, even procurement decisions.”

Rather than a baton-pass, Imagine’s approach was built on co-creation, government responsiveness, and shared responsibility. Sustainability wasn’t an outcome: it was a design principle from the start.

Final advice:

The handover should feel like a non-event. By the time your solution is embedded within public systems and structures, the government should feel as though they have built it.

What this means for nonprofits:
Sustainability isn’t an outcome you reach after implementation, it’s a condition you design for. That means:

Building with government, not just handing it off at the end
Embedding your programme in technical systems, budgets, routines, and behaviours
Focusing less on sudden “exit strategies” and more on gradual institutional absorption

Conventional wisdom 3: Government Adoption = Top-level buy-in = Systems change

Reality: Systems change happens by changing behaviours, mindsets, and routines of multiple people within the government machinery

It’s tempting to think of government as a single, rational system you can plug your programme into: flip the switch, and your intervention runs at scale. But government adoption does not guarantee system change. As Srivathsan pointed out, “sustainable transformation is about people.”

True system change, he argued, is about changing the behaviours, mindsets, and routines within it. That means moving beyond short-term delivery wins or scaling a pilot across districts. It means shifting how actors inside the system see their role, use data, define success, and continuously adapt.

And if sustainable transformation is about people, which people do you need by your side? Often the predominant thinking is to get the buy-in from above: the minister, the highest ranking officer, the secretary, and the rest will follow. But real system change doesn’t cascade neatly from a single “yes.”

As Shrivathsan reiterated- system change happens when people across the delivery chain, from bureaucrats to technical agencies, to district officials and trainers, start to shift how they think, behave, and solve problems.

So, rather than pouring all energy into a single gatekeeper, organisations should work to cultivate a web of champions across multiple levels of government. These are the people who will carry the work forward through elections, leadership changes, and competing priorities.

What this means for nonprofits:

Create a systems web: Build a real-world systems map of actors inside government: champions, movable middle, warm leads, bystanders, blockers. Understand who influences what, who needs convincing, and who can unlock momentum from within.
Invest in people, not just structures: Especially at technical and delivery levels. Ensure ownership and traction at different levels in the government.
Think long-term: What mindsets should endure even when you ‘step away’?

Conventional wisdom 4: Just keep pushing. They’ll scale it eventually

Reality: Government pull, not just NGO push, leads to scale

In the nonprofit world, we’re used to the hustle: making the case, advocating, pitching, following up. So when the government isn’t responding, the instinct is often to push harder. But what if that’s a red flag? Often funders look for a ‘pull from the government, not just a push from the organisation.’

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t advocate for your work. You absolutely should. But if you’re constantly investing disproportionate energy to convince, it might mean that your solution isn’t solving a live, felt challenge for the government. Or perhaps, even if effective, it isn’t designed for implementation at scale.

So what makes a solution pullable?

There are many factors, but one matters deeply: your solution must solve a felt pain point, one that is visible and pervasive.

There is a powerful analogy to remember: your solution should be a ‘vitamin’ for ultimate beneficiary, but a painkiller for those who deliver the service. For example, in maternal health, great solutions focus on the core need, safer births and healthier babies. But scaling also depends on whether your solution is a painkiller for frontline health workers. Does it reduce workload, simplify decision-making, or work even when staff are stretched thin?

Many nonprofits focus on the vitamins or core needs. But if your programme doesn’t provide a painkiller, if it adds monumentally to existing workloads, complicates training, or requires heroic effort to implement, it won’t scale. Government adoption hinges on making things easier for those delivering them.

What this means for nonprofits:

Test for pull early: Before investing deeply in advocacy, ask: Is there clear demand from government partners? Do they see this as a current priority?
Reframe your solution so it lands: Sometimes the solution is solid, but the way it’s framed doesn’t resonate. Ask yourself: Is there a component of our work that solves an immediate, high-priority challenge for the government? Lead with that. Tailor your language, align with government priorities, and knock on the door with what matters most to them right now.

“
There is a powerful analogy to remember: your solution should be a ‘vitamin’ for ultimate end user, but a painkiller for those who deliver the service.
”

Final thoughts

This conversation brought together voices who have actually walked the talk, often over years of iteration, compromise, and conviction. What emerged wasn’t a tidy playbook, but a deeper, more honest understanding of what it really takes to scale with the biggest impact player: The government.

The path to lasting impact through public systems isn’t easy, but it’s possible. Whether you’re an implementer, funder, or policy advocate, the question isn’t just: How do we scale with government? It’s: What assumptions do we need to let go of first?

So here’s our invitation to you:

What’s one piece of conventional wisdom about scaling with government that you want to challenge? Which of these insights stuck with you, and which ones are you still wrestling with? Drop us a note.

Article authored by Ankita Nawalakha, Spring Impact Senior Consultant.