Readers Push Back on Op-Ed’s Call to Reject Government Funding

To the Editor:

Denis Dunn’s op-ed “Trump Funding Cuts Show Why Nonprofits Should End Reliance on Federal Grants” (August 28) improperly paints the government as a nonprofit financial bogeyman. It’s true that no organization should rely completely on a single funding source, including the government. But it’s misleading for Dunn to suggest that public funding harms nonprofits.

Having worked in the nonprofit field for 27 years, including 20 years managing finances for small organizations, I can attest that government funding provides clear value. With it, nonprofits can deliver essential services more efficiently and cost-effectively than the government can on its own — from managing invasive weeds on rural rangelands to providing medical care to underserved communities.

Dunn argues that the requirements associated with government funding increase nonprofits’ administrative costs and slow service delivery. But that’s true for many foundation grants as well. Many philanthropies and large donors also have drawn-out proposal processes, restricted funds, and unrealistic overhead caps.

And while Dunn casts these administrative costs as overly burdensome, they often reflect sound financial practice. The nonprofit I lead, COMPASS Science Communication, regularly conducts an outside fiscal audit and reviews financial reports with the board — not because of federal grant requirements, but because it’s the responsible thing to do.

The Philanthropy Roundtable report Dunn cites also claims that utilizing government grants leaves nonprofits “vulnerable to…political shifts and executive overreach.” But the nonprofit world is used to adapting. Just as public funding changes with election cycles, other funding sources also fluctuate based on board members’ whims or economic challenges. Many foundations, for example, only provide grants for one, three, or five years, leaving nonprofits in a constant scramble to replace dollars when donor priorities change.

Ultimately, the government is just like any other donor. It can be an excellent partner, filling budget gaps or funding new initiatives, or it can bring frustrating constraints. Every leader should diversify funding sources and evolve as the world changes. Advising nonprofits to dismiss government funding just ties the hands of small- to medium-sized organizations, which already struggle to keep the lights on.

Kelly Reardon
Co-Executive Director & CFO
COMPASS Science Communication, Inc.

To the Editor:

Denis Dunn’s recent op-ed urging nonprofits to stop relying on federal grants rests on faulty assumptions.

Beginning in the 1960s, U.S. nonprofits have traditionally performed work that in other countries is the government’s responsibility, including caring for the sick, poor, and disabled. It’s laughable for Dunn to expect organizations to shoulder that burden without significant government assistance.

Dunn also argues that public funding comes with paperwork and reporting that pull nonprofits away from more important work. But why not just simplify the process? He even misleadingly cites a study to claim that boards are less involved in fundraising when their organization receives government dollars. While true, the study also shows that winning these grants allows board members to focus on financial accountability and advocating for the nonprofit’s mission, which is a better use of their time than running bake sales.

Abraham Lincoln said that the government’s role is to do for individuals what they cannot do themselves. That includes caring for people who need support, which the government has long funded through nonprofits. Dunn’s op-ed ignores this history —and is both paternalistic and wrongheaded.

Suzanne Hoban
Executive Director
Family Health Partnership Clinic

To the Editor:

In my 45-year career as a nonprofit leader and consultant, I have written or managed dozens of government grants. The money allowed organizations to perform a service or enact an initiative for a federal, state, or local government body.

I know from this experience that when a nonprofit receives federal funding, they largely act as a pass-through. If a community needs a service, the government essentially contracts a nonprofit to deliver it on its behalf. The organization isn’t relying on federal dollars, as Dunn claims, but accepting government funding to perform a government function.

The nonprofit also provides the service for less money than the government can. For instance, many public grants must be matched by private funding, meaning the government gets the service at a 50 percent discount. Organizations such as food banks or homeless shelters also use volunteers, further reducing costs.

Dunn’s suggestion that nonprofits should “end reliance on federal grants” won’t work because private philanthropy can’t replace public funding. Following his advice just means that communities across the country will suffer.

Jerold Kappel
Foundation CEO
Irvine, Calif.