I've seen this. It's great. But it doesn't excuse poor governance.
I work part-time running a not-for-profit program that offers outreach services for seniors - we don't take money from clients, we operate using grants and donations, and we're great at working with a myriad of community partners to ensure that we offer the most effective services. We also actively seek out collaboration with other complementary groups, and we ask for feedback from clients and partners so we can adjust based on the needs of our clients.
When any program like mine accepts public operating grants, they must be accountable. There must be a basic understanding between the public bodies and donors supporting the program. We have to work collaboratively, and be open to change if it's in the best interests of our client base. We must be open to feedback. And we have to make sure that we are effectively managing our funding to provide the best outcomes. We are not an island isolated from other community and government programs, and it would be irresponsible to operate as if we were.
My quarterly/annual/grant reports are filled with stories - of the questions we're asked, the resources we provide, the collaboration we've taken part in, and the struggles we and our clients face. Our worth as a not-for-profit program is not a dollars and cents game, but it doesn't mean that I shouldn't be fully accountable when using public and donated funds.