Readers Respond to Op-Ed Criticizing MacKenzie Scott for Ignoring Small Nonprofits

To the Editor:

Thank you for publishing Sneha Dave’s op-ed, “MacKenzie Scott, Stop Ignoring Small Nonprofits Like Mine” (March 20). Everything she said reflected what I’ve been feeling and discussing with others in similar circles.

My husband and I founded a small nonprofit in South Carolina, New Destiny Center, that provides community outreach, mentoring services, family empowerment workshops, and more. Our budget has always been less than $1 million. When I first saw MacKenzie Scott’s open call grant competition last year, I was excited. I felt we finally had a chance to benefit from her generosity.

But, like Dave, upon reading that organizations needed at least a $1 million budget, my heart sank. I even reached out through Scott’s Yield Giving website to express how I felt and ask if she would do another competition for nonprofits with smaller budgets. I was informed that future open calls “may focus on one or more specific themes, geographies, and types of organizations at a time.”

If Scott does repeat this competition, she should know that arbitrary requirements that shut out small nonprofits are disheartening. The problem doesn’t end with generous donors such as Scott but includes the many foundations who only notice organizations with large operating budgets. Those nonprofits already get the most grant dollars, while organizations like mine are left behind. And don’t get me started on the ridiculous and stringent grant guidelines, many of which require audited financial statements that cost nonprofits thousands of dollars.

I don’t know what’s needed to solve these problems, but op-eds like Dave’s will at least spread awareness. Let’s hope Scott and other donors pay attention.

Y. Lashawn Murray
Executive Director
New Destiny Center Inc.

###

To the Editor:

Sneha Dave’s op-ed profoundly resonated with my experience as the founder and executive director of a small nonprofit, Dreamsickle Kids Foundation. It provides educational resources and advocacy for the more than 100,000 Americans — primarily of African descent — with sickle cell disease.

Like Dave, my organization’s journey began with a personal crisis. My second child’s sickle cell disease diagnosis revealed how scarce resources are for this condition. Despite substantial hurdles, including a lack of support from large nonprofits and needing to build awareness and infrastructure from scratch, we helped pass a bill to improve access to equitable care for people with sickle cell disease and established Nevada’s first sickle cell community center.

And, like Dave, we’ve faced challenges securing grants due to skepticism about our size and capacity. We’ve also grappled with the reality that minority-led nonprofits often begin at a financial disadvantage and receive less funding, reflecting broader racial inequities in philanthropy. This disparity is particularly apparent when comparing sickle cell to other rare diseases such as cystic fibrosis, which affects even fewer people but receives more donor dollars.

Dave’s message is crucial: Philanthropy must increase its support of small, grass-roots organizations that offer invaluable services but are overlooked in favor of more established, higher-revenue nonprofits.

I join Dave in urging grant makers to create more inclusive and accessible opportunities for small organizations like ours. Grant makers should acknowledge the unique challenges faced by nonprofits led by people of color and foster an environment where every organization, regardless of size or revenue, can get philanthropic support.

Gina Glass
Executive Director
Dreamsickle Kids Foundation

###

To the Editor:

Sneha Dave writes solely from her own perspective, but she should try putting herself in donors’ shoes.

Grant makers have to fulfill their own fiduciary and legal requirements. Most major foundations and philanthropists avoid giving thousands of small grants to organizations that may not be able to provide necessary reporting about their finances and programs. Instead, big donations go to experienced recipients. This greatly reduces the administrative burden and potentially increases financial efficiency and the ability to measure success.

If a nonprofit’s budget is less than $1 million, even a seemingly small grant from a large foundation could prove overwhelming in terms of record-keeping and funder reporting.

In my experience, a small nonprofit receiving a large grant or gift is like winning the lottery. Big money is life-changing in both good and bad ways. The grant maker’s requirements could alter the nonprofit’s mission and focus. And existing donors could feel their role is reduced as new money inspires new initiatives — and new loyalties.

When large grant makers give to small nonprofits, both parties need to make a deliberate effort to recognize each other’s limitations and the potential harm that could result.

Michael Wyland
Owner and Partner
Sumption and Wyland

###

To the Editor:

Sneha Dave’s commentary resonated with me because donors also sent me the application for MacKenzie Scott’s recent grant competition. And, like Dave, I was also disappointed to see that Scott was only considering organizations with $1 million budgets.

Grant makers often overlook the grass-roots organizations who need funding the most to increase capacity and sustainability. But small nonprofits are more connected to the community they serve and often achieve more tangible results. Yes, small groups like mine can manage $1 million. Often, we can stretch it further than large nonprofits because we know how to make a bounty out of scraps.

I hope Scott sees this op-ed and rethinks her giving strategy to include and elevate smaller nonprofits that have a large impact.

Kayenecha Daugherty
Executive Director
Creative Nomads