Federal government cuts target civil society

While the other day I wrote about the alleged "Nonprofit industrial complex" ("The "nonprofit industrial complex," city government and service delivery"), at the same time, nonprofit organizations are a key element of American civil society, as President George H.W. Bush said, "1,000 points of light." 

Many nonprofits are top down, with few opportunities for volunteers, while volunteers and efforts focused on delivering outputs helping communities are the mission of many others.

I haven't read Project 2025 : Building for conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training, but given that it is a handbook targeting "progressive action," we shouldn't be surprised.

Nonprofits are the foundation of civil society and civic engagement.

Grant cuts are likely to affect cities and counties as well, and in turn nonprofits that get grants this way ("Federal judge temporarily blocks Trump administration freeze on federal grants and loans," AP).  According to the Los Angeles Times:

... a Jan. 27 memo from the White House budget chief. The memo ordered a wide-ranging spending freeze, specifically calling out “the use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering.”

Image from "Community Gardens: What Are They and How To Find Them," Nourishing Neighbors.  Also see "8 Great Tips to Start a Community Garden," Sunset Magazine.

Cuts at the Agency for International Development ("Secretary of State Rubio says purge of USAID programs complete, with 83% of agency’s programs gone," AP) diminish civil society development in foreign countries, and reduce the effectiveness of "soft power" and public diplomacy efforts of the US.

At USDA ("USDA’s $1B in cuts leaves farmers and schools bracing for impact," Washington Post, "Trump's USDA secretary defends $1 billion cuts to funding for food banks, schools," NBC, "A message from the Board of Directors," Green Urban Lunchbox, Salt Lake City), from GLUB:

We are reaching out to share an important update regarding The Green Urban Lunch Box’s programs. After thoughtful deliberation, we have made the difficult decision to pause all our current programs for this year - including the Small Farm Initiative (SFI), CSA, FruitShare, and Back-Farms - while we evaluate the best path forward.

... This decision was not made lightly. We are deeply committed to exploring sustainable ways to continue serving our community and advancing our mission. We are actively engaging in discussions with like-minded organizations and partners to ensure that the impact of our collective efforts endures. However, we do not anticipate resuming our programs this year.

EPA (E.P.A. Plans to Close All Environmental Justice Offices," New York Times, "A West Philly nonprofit lost a multiyear grant worth $700K to DOGE cuts," Philadelphia Inquirer, "The protectors of Santa Monica Bay are caving to Trump’s dangerous demands," Los Angeles Times),  From the PI:

The Overbrook Environmental Education Center is now without up to $700,000 promised to the group for its work to support other organizations working on community gardens, waste reduction, sustainable agriculture, and other environmental projects in disadvantaged local communities, said Jerome Shabazz, executive director of the center.

From the LAT:

A page on the Bay Foundation’s website that previously explained how climate change is affecting the watershed — as seen on the Jan. 21, 2025, version of the page, available via the Internet Archive — was rewritten to delete all references to climate. The group also removed its Justice, Equity, Diversity & Inclusion page, which had previously pledged its commitment to “equity and inclusion across race, gender, age, religion, identity, and experience.”

Also alarming: a draft work plan presented last month to the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission. Before the Environmental Protection Agency doles out federal funding for Santa Monica Bay restoration, it must approve a work plan written annually by the commission and the Bay Foundation, then submitted to the EPA.

HUD ("Trump DEI Purge Hits Affordable Housing Groups," Bloomberg), from Bloomberg:

The canceled awards include ongoing projects in more than 1,000 communities to address homelessness, disaster recovery, persistent poverty and other housing issues, according to a list seen by Bloomberg CityLab.

... At least eight national organizations saw their technical assistance contracts with HUD terminated following the DOGE review of their public-facing sites. Technical assistance refers to grants for consulting on tools, coordination, systems and other solutions.

DOGE further eliminated awards for least two of the three groups that administer grants for a program known as Section 4. Federal law requires these awards to be managed and distributed by national intermediaries; HUD’s own guidance for these awards, which are meant to provide support for capacity-building and community development, requires recipients to “advance housing justice” and “support underserved communities.”

(Interestingly, while LISC and the Enterprise Foundation have lost their grants, Habitat for Humanity, which is religious affiliated, did not.)

parks ("Trump administration eyes 30 percent payroll reduction at National Park Service," The Hill, "Workforce cuts raise concerns over national park upkeep," Roll Call).  The National Park Service was one of the first agencies to face massive cuts, cuts so deep professionals are afraid the parks can't be managed and operated in the face of high usage ("National Parks cutting hours, limiting services as Trump layoffs reduce staffing," USA Today).  

NPS is a big utilizer of volunteers and the likelihood is that such programs will barely function this year.  It's one of the largest "citizen-facing" agencies.  And for many it begins to engender greater understanding of the environment and wilderness.  .

 It reminds me of my old joke, that the guiding principle of property management at DC Government was demolition by neglect.  The Trump Administration aims to wreck the Park Service ("DOGE cuts National Park staff as visitation rate peaks," Washington Examiner).  The Park Service was ordered not to share statistics on use ("National Parks Had a Record Year. Trump Officials Appear to Want It Kept Quiet.," New York Times).

To further diminish the quality of visits, the government is cancelling leases of land that hold visitor centers and museums ("Trump property purge to include national park visitor centers, museums," Washington Post).

transportation ("Sec. Duffy Moves to Rescind Billions for ‘Woke’ Transportation on Feb. 18 — So Advocates Must Speak Up Now," Streetsblog): cuts will target sustainable mobility programs and affect biking, walking and biking programs, among others

the arts ("'Chilling effect': Arts organizations react to end of DEI initiatives from fed agency," NPR), etc., public radio and television ("Trump's FCC chief opens investigation into NPR and PBS," NPR). are attacks on civil society.  From the PI:

====

Note: for Sugar House Park, I intended to apply for a grant to create a senior nutrition community garden in association with the Utah State University Extension Service--the grant proposal is due around now.  

But that call for proposals was issued by the Biden Administration, and with all the changes with grants in the Trump Administration, it seemed like a waste to put in the energy to apply, since it's not likely such grants will be proffered.

Nonprofit funding under threat by actions from the Trump Administration

 Reporting in Crain's Chicago Business, "Nonprofits turn to donors after shock of Trump federal grant freeze," reminds me of my writings about incorporating into organizational planning scenarios for exogenous changes in conditions.  From the article:

The Trump administration’s freeze on federal grants sent a shudder through nonprofits. Now the sector will look to donors and foundations to help shore up finances in the short term as they face an uncertain future.

“Trump's directives are a) reminder to all nonprofits not to be overly reliant on any single funder — be that the government or a big donor — because just as you're receiving that money, that money can suddenly go away,” says Bill Stanczykiewicz, director of The Fund Raising School at Indiana University's Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

Stanczykiewicz says nonprofits should now be reaching out to donors to remind them of the financial uncertainty they face, “explain to them what the situation is and why it's important to help now.”

Chicago-area nonprofits are already heeding that advice. WBEZ, an affiliate of NPR, sent out an email to subscribers explaining its financial precarity. P33, the civic-corporate partnership aimed at boosting the city's tech fortunes, made a similar plea in a recent email.

That writing was spurred by parks specifically, and how during federal shutdowns, national parks close, and these parks are often fundamental economic drivers for local communities.  The National Park Service does have a system where localities can pay for parks to be open during shutdowns, but you have to be prepared in order to do so.

Similarly, in recessions, state governments will close parks or rest stops, and the local community often doesn't have plans in place to be able to address the action in a timely fashion.

Local and state government planning doesn't like to make recommendations to higher ups.  In other words, when I said during my Baltimore County bike planning gig that we needed to make recommendations about state policy, my boss demurred, because "we don't have authority over them."  My counter was, if they don't hear what the problems are, they won't respond.

So I recommend local parks plans have recommendations for state, federal and other parks within their jurisdiction, if only to put these recommendations on record, and to represent the interests of local residents.  Similarly, parking plans for jurisdictions should acknowledge private parking resources, and recreation plans should at least survey and touch on the element of private sector provision of facilities and programs.

The Trump Administration takes this to a whole new level.  First, it isn't afraid to try illegal actions, like the recent funding freeze ("What does Trump's federal funding freeze mean for people who get aid?," CBS), later countermanded by the Courts--the Executive Branch doesn't have this authority.  Second, the House and Senate, Republican-controlled, are not likely to criticize the moves, even though such moves may significantly harm large segments of their constituencies--for example, Medicaid, the low income health insurance program, ended up being frozen as well.

(I'm on Medicaid so I have been paying attention.  And I have no agency, as Utah's elected Republicans are not likely to step up.  The only reason Utah, a very red state, participates in the program which grew out of Obamacare, is because there was a voter referendum.  Otherwise, the state government wouldn't have pursued.  They understand the importance, but health care conflicts with the Republican go it alone zeal-ology. "Medicaid Funding Freeze Would Hurt Trump’s Own Voters," US News).

Another example is US Agency for International Development, which funds aid projects overseas.  The Trump Administration is trying to dissolve the agency, lay off its staff, and stop the grants, even though these actions require Congress approval.

Also see "WA Head Start programs shaken in aftermath of Trump funding freeze," Seattle Times. From the article:

As of Monday, about a quarter of Head Start grant recipients in Washington were locked out of a system they use to collect federal payments in the wake of the Trump administration’s brief but chaotic freeze on federal grants last week. As of early Wednesday morning, one program, on the Olympic Peninsula, still could not access the system, said Joel Ryan, executive director of the Washington State Association of Head Start and ECEAP, during a virtual news conference U.S. Sen Patty Murray held with other Washington officials. Shortly after the news conference ended, Ryan received word that the Olympic Peninsula program could reenter the payment system.

This is but one example of many from across the country.

Local government funding rescissions for nonprofits can be a threat too.  It's happened in Oakland, California as a result of budget gaps ("Oakland nonprofits lose critical funding amid city’s budget woes: ‘We are blindsided’," San Francisco Chronicle).

The changing of Brand America from positive to negative.  During the first Trump Administration, I commented to Simon Anholt, co-author of the book Brand America, which when written he opined it was the strongest brand in the world, that now the brand is:

Can't do.  Won't do.  You do.  Fuck you.

The book was updated in 2010, Brand America: The Making, Unmaking and Remaking of the Greatest National Image of All Time.

It's due for another update, with the focus on "Breaking Brand America."

Government grants are complicated and often beyond the capacity of small organizations to manage

This article, " ‘The EPA needs to humble itself’: why some US non-profits are turning down agency funds," in the Guardian makes a good point that government grants come with a variety of requirements that often exceed the capacity of nonprofits to manage and comply with.  

I joked on a grant I ran that was via the Federal Historic Preservation Fund, that if you don't do it right, you end up in Leavenworth.  DC Government grants were similarly problematic with lengthy reporting requirements, and allowed them to cancel grants with two weeks notice.  In Baltimore County, the county found it wasn't worth applying for Safe Routes to Schools money because of the reporting requirements.  They figured it was cheaper to just spend their own money on sidewalk and other improvements.  

This is true with a lot of government related grants to property owners for commercial district revitalization work, especially facades, or a program in SF to help business owners whose properties are damaged from vandalism but gives paltry amounts ("San Francisco restaurants grapple with vandalism," San Francisco Chronicle).  

Elements of a facade of a historic commercial building  

City of Creedmoor, North Carolina

The grants are relatively small, and the application and reporting procedures are onerous.  When I worked on a facade program in Takoma DC, the Main Street group actually did most of the applications and project management, making the program work for the businesses.

Earlier, in a facade program in Brookland, we screwed up, because some work was performed before the grants were awarded, and therefore, couldn't be reimbursed, abetted by the slowness of the grant process.

That's the kind of assistance that often needs to be provided.  But isn't.  Although, understandably with larger federal grants, there are a lot of provisions wrt accountability, bidding, etc., that the public demands.

From the article:

Local advocates wanted to monitor the air quality outside the school to help administrators figure out the safest times to let the kids play outside. “Most of these sites are completely unmonitored,” said Micah Parkin, the executive director of the non-profit 350 Colorado. 

She applied for an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant aimed at helping communities monitor their own air quality and was thrilled when her organization was selected to receive roughly $500,000. 

But Parkin and her colleagues quickly ran into hurdles. The EPA wanted her team to hold a competitive bidding process to find a local partner, even though 350 Colorado had already identified one: the air-quality monitoring firm Boulder Air. They also demanded financial information that Parkin said would require 350 Colorado to overhaul its accounting and reporting procedures. These processes required time and resources that 350 Colorado, with an annual budget of under $1m, simply didn’t have. 

In late 2023, after months of conference calls and untold amounts of paperwork, Parkin and her board made the difficult decision to turn down the money. “I kept saying: ‘Let’s just get this done – come on, people.’” she recalled. “But it became clear to me that there was no end in sight.”

...Near Denver, the community organization Cultivando also turned down a half-million dollar grant to monitor pollution in a largely Hispanic community near a petroleum refinery. The group had previously found high levels of radioactive particles and PM2.5, which is associated with increased incidence of respiratory problems, among other problems. 

Cultivando had planned to hire Boulder Air, the same air-quality consulting firm that Colorado 350 intended to work with. But like Colorado 350, Cultivando wasn’t equipped to carry out the competitive bidding process required before they sign on Boulder Air, executive director Olga Gonzalez said. 

“I was actually shocked that they didn’t know more” about how community-based organizations operate, she said. “The EPA needs to really humble itself and think about what it means to partner with community-led efforts.” 

An update on community participatory budgeting: New York City

Many localities set aside a "small" amount of money for each council district for local projects. 

Typically, the monies are allocated by the councilmember.  Participatory budgeting is a different method, where citizens get together and through an organized process, set the priorities and pick the projects to fund.

-- Participatory Budgeting Project

I think this is a great method, because it adds a great deal of openness and transparency to the process, when typically such grants come as a result of connections, as a way to help foster incumbency, and in murkiness.

New York City is one place where Councilmembers have the option of having funds allocated through participatory budgeting methods, and this year 27 of city's 51 districts are participating ("City Council program lets you choose what public projects to fund in your neighborhood," AMNew York) for a total allocation of about $30 million.

Some Chicago Alderman also use participatory budgeting, and some cities, like San Jose, are experimenting with the process both city-wide and at the district level.

====
DC doesn't have set funding for local projects, although most Councilmembers have a small "constituency services" fund.  I've argued those funds could be allocated through participatory budgeting, but that suggestion has made no headway here:

-- "More on ethics: discretionary funding-constituent funds," 2011
-- "Missing the point on constituent service/discretionary funds available from legislators," 2011
-- "The bane and benefit of constituent services funds: a response to the Washington Post editorial," 2015

I've also argued that the city Attorney General should use participatory budgeting, really it should be called "participatory allocation" as a way to distribute money from settlements to "worthy projects" ("Participatory "budgeting" and disposition of funds from legal settlements," 2015 ), rather than solely to groups with special connections to the AG.

What should be the future of the Children & Youth Investment Trust

In last Sunday's Post, Councilman Tommy Wells, former chair of the Council committee with oversight over the CYIT, the quasi-city government organization that was the source of funds that were ultimately converted and used for personal aggrandizement by Councilman Harry Thomas, argues for the continuation of the organization. From "Undoing the damage to D.C.'s Children and Youth Investment Trust":

Former D.C. Council member Harry Thomas Jr.’s theft of more than $300,000 in city funds that were intended to help children was an outrageous and despicable act. But it does not justify disbanding the Children and Youth Investment Trust Corp., the public-private nonprofit that was the source of the stolen money.

Instead, Mr. Thomas’s embezzlement of grant dollars through intermediaries for his personal use spotlights the urgent need for a leadership change at the trust and for a full review by the mayor and D.C. Council of the qualifications of the trust’s board of directors and president. And we need to make sure future appointees fulfill their responsibilities to strictly control the program’s funds.

In the current issue of the Washington City Paper, Alan Suderman has an important piece, "Who Do You Trust?," about how the problems with the CYIT date almost to its beginning.

The organization was set up as a nonprofit so that it could receive donations from foundations and businesses. Typically, foundations and businesses cannot give monies directly to a city government.

But the interest of foundations and businesses giving monies to the CYIT instead of to beneficiary organizations directly was minimal, so the CYIT mostly received monies from the city government, and the CYIT board--appointed by the Mayor--and officials, subject to the persuasive powers of Councilmembers, allocated monies too often at the direction of elected officials, who were able in the case of Thomas to take the money for their own benefit.

Personally, I think that the CYIT should be disbanded, and if the Council or Executive Branch wants to provide monies to nonprofit organizations--which I have no problem with necessarily--the monies should only be appropriated through an open, public, transparent process, with an application and review process independent of extranormal involvement by Councilmembers or the Executive Branch.

Note that if the City of Takoma Park, Maryland, with fewer than 17,000 residents, can manage to have an open, public, transparent, application process for grants to nonprofit organizations, there is no excuse for DC to not have a comparable process. From the city website:

Small Community Grant Program Information
January 18, 2012
Information on the City's FY 2012 Small Community Grant Program is now available online. Projects must be completed by June 30, 2012. The application deadline is February 8, 2012.

One way to do that would be through a "participatory budgeting" process, where citizens are engaged in the process and shape the results in a significant fashion.

I can see giving the CYIT one more chance, if it shifts to a participatory budgeting process. Otherwise, disband the organization, because it is set up to be a creature of elected officials, even if there is a seeming arms length distance from public officials and the appointees who oversee the organization, and the employees who divvy up the funds.