When Nonprofits Lose Their Independence

Americans often imagine nonprofits as independent institutions standing between the citizen and the state.

Increasingly, many are not.

Universities depend on federal research grants. Human-service agencies depend on government contracts. Hospitals depend on public reimbursements. Charities depend on tax incentives. Foundations depend on legal and regulatory frameworks that permit philanthropic capital to be accumulated and deployed.

The greatest irony in American civil society is that many institutions created to be independent have become dependent on the very forces they were designed to balance.

And that may be the greatest threat facing the nonprofit sector today.

The conventional story is that nonprofits are under political pressure.

The deeper story is that they have become vulnerable to political pressure because their independence has quietly eroded.

For generations, Americans built a vast network of nonprofit institutions to occupy the space between government and the marketplace. They educated students, advanced scientific research, preserved culture, protected religious freedom, cared for the sick and served vulnerable populations. Their value rested not only in what they did, but in what they were: independent institutions capable of pursuing public purposes outside the direct control of politics or profit.

That independence was never merely a legal designation.

It was a democratic safeguard.

Yet many nonprofit leaders spent decades assuming the conditions supporting that safeguard would remain largely unchanged. Government funding would continue. Tax advantages would endure. Regulatory interpretations would remain stable. Public legitimacy would be broadly accepted.

Increasingly, those assumptions are proving fragile.

Universities face congressional scrutiny. Diversity initiatives face litigation. Endowments are targeted for new taxes. Donor-advised funds face calls for reform. Religious organizations, cultural institutions and charities increasingly find themselves drawn into political controversies that once would have remained outside their walls.

Whether one welcomes or opposes those developments is almost beside the point.

What matters is what they reveal.

Many nonprofit institutions are discovering that independence is not a permanent condition.

It is an asset that must be protected.

The defining governance question facing nonprofit organizations is no longer simply whether they have enough resources.

It is whether they have enough independence.

A government grant that appears secure can become uncertain after an election.

A regulatory interpretation can change.

A public contract can disappear.

A tax preference once considered untouchable can become politically contested.

A program viewed as admirable in one environment can become controversial in another.

These developments are not unusual.

They are the normal consequences of democratic politics.

The real question is whether nonprofit leaders have adequately prepared for them.

Most nonprofit boards devote considerable attention to financial risk. They review investment performance, audit findings, cybersecurity threats and insurance coverage.

Far fewer devote equal attention to dependency risk.

What happens if a major funding source disappears?

What happens if regulators reinterpret existing rules?

What happens if litigation targets a core program?

What happens if public support can no longer be assumed?

These are no longer hypothetical questions.

They are fiduciary ones.

The nonprofit sector’s challenge mirrors a broader challenge confronting American institutions.

Organizations that assumed their operating environments were stable are learning that they are not.

Organizations that believed themselves independent are discovering how much they rely on systems beyond their control.

The nonprofit sector simply makes this reality easier to see.

The problem extends beyond politics.

Financial concentration creates many of the same vulnerabilities.

Too many organizations are built upon a single pillar of support.

One depends overwhelmingly on government funding.

Another relies heavily on foundation grants.

A third survives because of a handful of major donors.

For years, these arrangements can appear secure.

Sometimes for decades.

Until they aren’t.

Dependence has an uncanny ability to disguise itself as stability.

The danger is not that nonprofits will run out of money.

The danger is that they will mistake concentration for resilience.

Every investor understands the principle.

No prudent adviser would place an entire retirement portfolio in a single stock.

Diversification is not primarily a strategy for growth.

It is a strategy for survival.

Yet many nonprofit organizations build ambitious missions atop one dominant funding stream, one regulatory framework or one set of political assumptions and quietly assume those conditions will continue indefinitely.

Hope is not a strategy.

A donor is not a strategy.

A grant is not a strategy.

A government contract is not a strategy.

Political goodwill is not a strategy.

Resilience is a strategy.

The strongest organizations cultivate multiple sources of support. They diversify revenue. They broaden stakeholder relationships. They avoid becoming captive to any single source of money, influence or power.

Increasingly, some are rediscovering the value of earned revenue.

Not because they aspire to become businesses.

Because they aspire to remain independent.

Goodwill Industries learned this lesson long ago. Revenue generated through mission-related activity helps sustain mission-related work. The enterprise strengthens the mission rather than displacing it.

Many nonprofits possess similar assets: expertise, research, training programs, intellectual property, facilities and trusted brands.

The question is not whether nonprofits should behave more like businesses.

The better question is this:

What value are we already creating that others would willingly support, purchase or invest in?

Organizations that combine philanthropy, earned revenue, endowment resources and mission-driven investment are often better positioned to withstand political and financial shocks.

This is not mission drift.

It is mission insurance.

But financial resilience alone is not enough.

The deeper challenge is institutional.

A healthy civil society depends upon organizations capable of maintaining their independence even when powerful interests seek influence.

Today’s controversy may involve a university.

Tomorrow’s may involve a religious ministry.

The next may affect an environmental organization, a museum, a community foundation or a social-service agency.

The targets change.

The pressure remains.

The healthiest institutions understand this.

They cultivate trust before they need it.

They build relationships beyond their traditional allies.

They understand that credibility is not merely a reputational asset.

It is a strategic one.

Most important, nonprofit leaders should remember that threats to civil society rarely arrive announcing themselves as threats to civil society.

Instead, they arrive as isolated controversies.

A funding restriction here.

A lawsuit there.

An investigation somewhere else.

Each appears specific.

Each appears temporary.

Each appears manageable.

Until a pattern becomes impossible to ignore.

America’s nonprofit sector performs functions neither government nor markets can achieve alone. It educates, heals, researches, preserves, serves and strengthens communities.

Its greatest asset is not its endowment.

It is not its tax exemption.

It is not its fundraising capacity.

It is its independence.

And independence, contrary to popular belief, is not a legal status.

It is an institutional achievement.

A healthy democracy requires organizations capable of pursuing lawful missions regardless of which party holds power, which causes are politically fashionable or which donors happen to be supportive at a particular moment.

It requires institutions that remain accountable without becoming captive, regulated without becoming intimidated and engaged without becoming subordinate.

The defining challenge facing nonprofits today is not whether political pressure will arrive.

It already has.

The real question is whether institutions built to serve the public can remain independent when governments, donors, regulators, activists and markets all possess increasing power to influence them.

Every nonprofit has a mission statement.

Increasingly, every nonprofit needs a resilience strategy.

A mission statement explains why an organization exists.

A resilience strategy explains why it will still exist when circumstances change.

America’s nonprofit sector was never intended to be an extension of government, a subsidiary of philanthropy or a captive of political fashion.

Its role is different.

It exists in the vital space between state and market where independent institutions pursue the public good.

But independence is not guaranteed by a tax exemption.

It is not secured by a government contract.

It is not protected by a generous donor.

And it is not preserved by political goodwill.

Independence is built through resilience.

The institutions that define the next generation of American civil society will not necessarily be those with the largest endowments, the wealthiest benefactors or the strongest political allies.

They will be those capable of losing any one of them and continuing their work nonetheless.

Because the greatest threat to nonprofits is not politics itself.

It is the quiet erosion of institutional independence.

And the organizations that flourish in the years ahead will be the ones that learn, before they are forced to, that independence is not something a nonprofit receives.

It is something a nonprofit earns, protects and continually rebuilds.

How can nonprofits become less dependent on any single source of funding or support without compromising their missions? I’d love to hear more about your thoughts and ideas in the comments.

And, if this essay resonated with you, please consider sharing it with someone who might enjoy Capital & Conscience and the conversations we’re building around the ways we can drive positive social change through innovation, law, capital, and policy.