logo
A Program That Helped Build 144,000 Jobs Gets Slashed by Budget Cuts — What Happens Next Is Pivotal for Small Business Support

A Program That Helped Build 144,000 Jobs Gets Slashed by Budget Cuts — What Happens Next Is Pivotal for Small Business Support

Entrepreneur22-07-2025
The agency is facing elimination. But this could be an opportunity.
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.
SCORE, the nonprofit that has supported small businesses for over six decades, recently faced a major setback: the latest tax and spending bill eliminated about 60% of its federal funding — a core part of its budget. For an organization that offers free mentoring to hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs annually, this looks like a serious blow.
But what if this funding cut is not the end of SCORE — but a new beginning?
With a vast network of 10,000 volunteer mentors and a proven track record of economic impact — including helping start 58,000 new businesses and creating 144,000 jobs in 2024 alone — SCORE has always been a vital lifeline for small business owners. However, without reliable federal support, SCORE faces a crossroads: continue to rely on uncertain government appropriations or reinvent itself as a self-sustaining business.
Related: 3 Solutions That Help Alleviate Everyday Pressures Small Business Owners Face
The real impact behind SCORE's numbers
According to SCORE, every federal dollar invested generated $45 in economic benefits. This was achieved through four million mentoring hours across 200 chapters, advising over 300,000 entrepreneurs annually. These numbers show that SCORE's work isn't just a feel-good story — it's an economic engine.
Yet, despite these impressive results, the realities of federal budget cuts have forced SCORE's leadership to confront a difficult question: How can SCORE continue fulfilling its mission without government backing?
Facing tough realities: the bigger budget picture
As an advocate and advisor for small businesses in this country, it pains me to see great organizations like this lose their support. SCORE is clearly a valuable agency that has helped countless small businesses in the more than 60 years since its founding in 1964. But I'm also a realist.
The reality is that, regardless of what we want, there are limitations to what we can afford. Yes, I'd like free education, free healthcare, clean water, safe highways and strong defense. I also appreciate all the research done by so many government agencies and academic institutions that received federal support. But I, like many business owners, also see a $2 trillion annual deficit and a $36 trillion national debt and don't know how we and our children and grandchildren can sustain that level of liabilities. Some things have to be cut. Some things have to go. And it looks like SCORE, like many other good programs the Federal government funds, is one of those things. Government spending must be prioritized and trimmed where possible. Unfortunately, this means good programs sometimes lose funding — even those with proven results. It's painful for advocates and advisors to see a respected organization like SCORE face these challenges. But the truth is, many federally funded programs will need to find new models to survive.
A bold proposal: what if SCORE became a business?
SCORE's greatest asset isn't just its volunteers or history — it's its infrastructure, leadership and brand recognition. These assets could enable SCORE to spin off from government support and operate as a private, self-sustaining entity.
It already has the foundation — a trusted name in the small business community, a robust volunteer network and experienced leadership. With the right strategy, SCORE could attract investors, lenders or equity partners who see the value in its proven return on investment. And that ROI can be translated into real dollars.
Imagine SCORE charging a sliding scale of fees based on a business's ability to pay — allowing startups and small enterprises with limited resources to still receive help, while those who can afford it contribute. Or consider raising funds from corporate sponsors who already invest heavily in small business programs, redirecting those dollars toward SCORE's mission.
SCORE could also contract its expertise to consulting firms or financial institutions — creating new revenue streams while expanding its impact.
Why change is necessary
SCORE's traditional model — volunteer consultants supported by government-paid staff — has its limitations. Volunteers vary in quality and motivation, and government employees don't operate under typical business incentives that reward customer satisfaction and performance. For SCORE to thrive in a post-funding world, it must adopt a model that encourages accountability, quality and sustainability.
The opportunity ahead
If SCORE were to disappear, would more small businesses fail? Would the economy suffer? Probably not dramatically — other organizations and market forces would fill some gaps.
But SCORE has a unique opportunity to redefine itself — not just as a nonprofit supporter of small business but as a business itself, accountable for its outcomes and financially self-sufficient. Like the entrepreneurs it helps, SCORE can pivot, adapt and innovate.
Related: How to Secure a Small Business Grant in 5 Easy Steps
Final thoughts
Brigett Weston, SCORE's CEO, recently said, "Without federal support, this incredibly efficient and effective program is at serious risk of no longer fulfilling its mission." That risk is real.
But it's also a chance.
SCORE can lead the way in demonstrating how public support programs might evolve to meet today's financial realities — continuing to empower entrepreneurs and build our economy, but on its own terms.
This is not just a story about funding cuts; it's about resilience, reinvention and the future of small business support in America.
Ready to break through your revenue ceiling? Join us at Level Up, a conference for ambitious business leaders to unlock new growth opportunities.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Pitney Bowes Inc (PBI) Q2 2025 Earnings Call Highlights: Strategic Moves and Financial ...
Pitney Bowes Inc (PBI) Q2 2025 Earnings Call Highlights: Strategic Moves and Financial ...

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Pitney Bowes Inc (PBI) Q2 2025 Earnings Call Highlights: Strategic Moves and Financial ...

Share Repurchase Authorization: Increased to $400 million. Dividend Increase: $0.01 increase for the third consecutive quarter. Free Cash Flow Guidance: Reiterated for the full year. Revenue Guidance: Reduced by $50 million. EBIT Margin Guidance: Tightened by reducing the high end of the range. EPS Guidance: Increased by $0.10. Adjusted Leverage Ratio: Now below 3x. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 4 Warning Sign with PBI. Release Date: July 30, 2025 For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript. Positive Points Pitney Bowes Inc (NYSE:PBI) reported significant earnings and cash flow growth on a year-over-year basis. The company nearly exhausted its $150 million share repurchase authorization and increased its dividend for the third consecutive quarter. The Board increased the share repurchase authorization to $400 million, reflecting confidence in the company's financial position. The company has a strong free cash flow and liquidity position, with an adjusted leverage ratio now below 3x. The SaaS business within SendTech showed strong performance, with a 17% year-over-year growth for the quarter. Negative Points Pitney Bowes Inc (NYSE:PBI) reduced its revenue guidance range by $50 million due to customer losses in the Presort business. The company tightened its EBIT margin range by bringing down the high end of the range. The reduction in revenue guidance was attributed to previous management decisions not to offer price concessions to at-risk Presort customers. The Presort business has not yet reversed customer losses, impacting revenue and EBIT guidance. The overall shipping revenue was down 2.5% year-over-year for the quarter due to declines in the non-core part of the business. Q & A Highlights Q: With the new share repurchase authorization, do you intend to continue buybacks in 2025, or will you wait to see how the business performs? A: Kurt Wolf, CEO: We can't comment on future market activities, but our historical share purchases reflect where we see value in the company. Our incentive structure, with options at strike prices of $12, $14, and $16, indicates our valuation perspective. With our leverage ratio below 3.0, we have increased access to restricted payments, providing flexibility for future buybacks. Q: Does the appointment of a new CFO change the timing of the strategic review? A: Kurt Wolf, CEO: The new CFO, Paul Evans, accelerates rather than delays the review. We are conducting a thorough internal review, identifying numerous opportunities for shareholder value creation. The internal review will likely continue through 2025, with a more comprehensive review starting in 2026. Q: How is the shipping subsegment within SendTech performing, and what is the outlook for the rest of the year? A: Kurt Wolf, CEO: The overall shipping revenue was down 2.5% year-over-year due to declines in non-core business. However, core shipping grew by 6%. The SaaS business within shipping grew by 17% year-over-year, and we expect it to continue outpacing core shipping revenue. Q: Are there any structural weaknesses in the Presort business following recent customer losses? A: Kurt Wolf, CEO: The reduction in revenue guidance is largely due to competitive losses in Presort, which were avoidable. We believe Presort and SendTech are strong businesses with high profitability and competitive capabilities. We are working to regain lost customers and capture new ones, leveraging our position as a low-cost provider. Q: How do you view the potential for refinancing bonds, given the current high-yield market conditions? A: Paul Evans, CFO: We are considering refinancing options, balancing our debt's average life and coupon rates. We have the liquidity to pay off the 2027 notes, but we will evaluate the best timing and approach based on market conditions and our strategic needs. For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Factbox-Trump tariffs threaten India's export edge; key sectors brace for impact
Factbox-Trump tariffs threaten India's export edge; key sectors brace for impact

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Factbox-Trump tariffs threaten India's export edge; key sectors brace for impact

By Vivek Kumar M and Bharath Rajeswaran (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday slapped 25% tariffs on Indian goods, along with an unspecified penalty tied to energy and defence purchases from Russia — a move that, if enforced, could erode India's export competitiveness and weigh on investor sentiment. India's trade surplus with the U.S. — its largest export market — stood at 1.2% of GDP in 2024. Analysts warn halving that surplus could shave 25–40 basis points off GDP, undermining India's 'safe haven' narrative amid a global slowdown. The relative appeal of Indian markets has also faded, with local equities underperforming peers like Vietnam and Indonesia, which have secured trade pacts with Washington. CLSA said the tariff threat adds to uncertainty in an already expensive market. With negotiations set to resume in mid-August, markets expect the final tariff rate to be lower than 25%. But until clarity emerges, export-linked sectors face significant near-term headwinds. See below for a sector snapshot on who is exposed: PHARMACEUTICALS The U.S. accounts for nearly one-third of India's pharma exports (about $9 billion in FY24). Jefferies estimates a 2–8% EPS hit for Biocon, Sun Pharma and Dr. Reddy's, if generics are included. HSBC warns of an up to 17% downside to FY26 earnings forecasts. TEXTILES Exporters like Welspun Living, Gokaldas Exports, Indo Count and Trident derive 40–70% of sales from the U.S. Higher tariffs could shift market share to Vietnam, which benefits from lower U.S. duties. OIL REFINING A proposed penalty on Russian oil imports could hit Reliance Industries and state-run refiners Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum. Companies may face higher costs if forced to diversify crude sourcing. AUTO COMPONENTS Automakers have limited U.S. exposure, but parts makers including Bharat Forge and Sona BLW are Motors' Jaguar Land Rover unit is shielded under U.S.-UK/EU trade arrangements. CAPITAL GOODS & CHEMICALS Cummins India, Thermax and KEI Industries have 5–15% U.S. exposure. Chemical exporters such as Navin Fluorine, PI Industries and SRF may face margin pressure, especially on refrigerant gas exports. SOLAR EQUIPMENT Waaree Energies and Premier Energies count the U.S. as a key market. Nearly 20% of Waaree's FY24 revenue came from the U.S., which also accounts for a major chunk of its 59% overseas current order book. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Editorial: Hands off — Trump's off-base attack on NYC's sanctuary immigration policy
Editorial: Hands off — Trump's off-base attack on NYC's sanctuary immigration policy

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Editorial: Hands off — Trump's off-base attack on NYC's sanctuary immigration policy

Intentionally misstating New York City's sanctuary immigration policy as thwarting the prosecution of violent criminals, the Trump administration continued its war on local government by filing suit in federal court last week, one of a number of similar lawsuits across the country that conflate civil noncooperation with active criminal interference and attempt to conscript local officials into President Donald Trump's destructive crackdown. This should prove to Mayor Mayor Adams and other state and city leaders that no amount of appeasement is going to forestall the targeting from Trump. Adams met multiple times with immigration coordinator Tom Homan, insisting that the two men had 'the same goal,' making concessions like signing off on the opening up of an ICE office on Rikers Island years after a city sanctuary law had kicked them out. It's clear that Trump and Homan were not and probably could not be placated to the extent that they would leave Adams and New York City alone. The reality is that this is a totalizing project; Stephen Miller and the rest of the White House want to rid the country almost entirely of immigrants, with or without legal status, and regardless of where they are or what effect that will have on our economy and society. They've been routinely violating the law to do so. It's worth noting once more that Trump's is a political movement that often proclaimed itself a defender of state rights and local control, but apparently that only extended to allowing local officials to detain immigrants, pull books from school shelves, limit access to abortion, curb labor and environmental protections and drive LGBTQ people from public life. When it comes to a refusal to participate in federal operations that have so far involved masked and unidentified agents shoving people into unmarked vehicles — just the sort of thing that we would call authoritarianism and tyranny anywhere else — then states and localities get no say beyond being extensions of a central government. We're not particularly worried that any competent judge would accept these nonsensical claims. A day after the New York case was filed, a federal judge in Chicago dismissed the Trump lawsuit against that city's sanctuary immigration policy. We just want to remind readers that sanctuary is not immunity from prosecution, especially prosecution for violent crimes. What it is however is that when someone is treated at a city health clinic for TB or enrolls a child in school or reports a crime to the police as a victim or a witness, the person's civil immigration status is irrelevant. We want everyone in the city to get treated when sick, we want all children to be in school, we want all crime victims and witnesses to come forward to the cops. The idea of anti-commandeering — the notion that the federal government can't force state and local governments to carry out its own agenda and enforcement functions — has been foundational from the genesis of our country's federalized system. The right of jurisdictions to enact sanctuary provisions that block the use of local resources for this federal function has been litigated over and over again, and always found to be on solid legal footing. We are, however, more worried about the U.S. Supreme Court, which has in the past several months taken it upon itself to sign off on Trump's expansive power grabs. It has allowed among other things Trump to fire federal employees and independent agency members in direct contravention of statute, allowed the limiting of a nationwide order blocking Trump's attempt to overturn the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship provisions and allowed parents to impose religious beliefs on whole school curricula. If these questions get up to that high court level, we hope that the justices will exercise some of their independent power, as they did on other absolutely egregious instances like Trump's efforts to remove people without due process under the Alien Enemies Act proclamation. Anything else will destroy the trust of people in their own local officials and governments and strike at the very foundation of this country's system of government. _____

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store