Impact on Nonprofit Funding

Dear philanthropists, you need to start funding core operations in nonprofits. One of the most problematic things I’ve heard in the philanthropic space is that “no donor will want to fund operations.” Ugh. This gives me the ick. It should not be something we ask nonprofit leaders to work around. It should be a funding criterion that philanthropists actively CHANGE t to serve what activists and nonprofit teams truly need. Operations (from organizational development, HR and finance, to strategy planning, communication and fundraising) ARE the backbone of how social justice is literally PUT IN ACTION. Refusing to fund operations is extremely anti-feminist and perpetuates power imbalances. It reminds me of a system that still refuses to see domestic or caregiving labor as labor that should be paid. Domestic and caregiving (informal and formal) professionals, much like operation professionals (often women!!) remain invisible, often thankless, and terribly undervalued, but they are essential for the wellbeing, sustainability and flourishing of communities and organizations they serve. Would it sound okay if a philanthropist who also supports feminist or social justice causes claimed that domestic or caregiving labor is unworthy of fair monetary remuneration? If you, too, believe that the answer is no, well, it’s time to be louder about funding nonprofit operations! The truth is that without operations, no program nor activism can develop sustainably and scale in the long term. Operational capacity is foundational in social justice efforts and, therefore, a real feminist issue.   People with money privilege who want to do good need to get on board with this and support it, and stop letting the ego get in the way of their funding agendas (apparently, funding operations does not sound “cool” or “prestigious” enough in the philanthropy bubble…). The truth is that when philanthropy fails to invest in nonprofits' impact engines, it undermines the core impact that leaders and activists are trying to achieve. Philanthropists, if you want to truly serve communities and do your part in contributing to systemic change, this is your opportunity to put the money where the real needs of frontline leaders and activists are.

Philanthropy’s irony: funding inequality unequally. The data are damning. 🙅🏽 Local and national NGOs receive just 0.4% of all international aid. ♀️ Only one in 100 gender equality dollars goes to feminist organizations. ✊🏾 Black-led nonprofits hold 76% fewer unrestricted assets than white-led counterparts. 🌍 5.2% of U.S. foundation grants to Sub-Saharan Africa go to African-led organizations. 🌱 Half of climate change philanthropy goes to just 20 orgs — 90% white-led, 80% male-led. 🫶🏾 Endowments at BIPOC-led orgs are 4x smaller than at white-led orgs. ⛑️ Refugee-run organizations are granted less than 1% of humanitarian aid. 🤷🏾♀️ Indigenous Peoples are 6.2% of the global population, but get just 0.4% of U.S. and 0.5% of Australian philanthropy. And on and on. “To sum it up: when it comes to getting or giving access to money, white men are usually in charge, and everyone else has to be twice as good (or more) to get half as much (or less),” says Edgar Villanueva. That’s why I say — Fighting one injustice (global inequality)... by perpetuating another injustice (keeping local, BIPOC, feminist, refugee, and Indigenous leaders in the #nonprofit starvation cycle)... 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙚. Decolonizing wealth? Years of talk. Localization? Decades discussed. Gender equality? Centuries old. Racial reckoning? Since 2020. So how do we flip the script on this funding disparity? It isn’t rocket science or bureaucratic gymnastics. We’re not awaiting a tech unicorn, policy overhaul, or think tank blueprint. The fix is clear. Fund locally-led nonprofits. Fund BIPOC-led nonprofits. Fund refugee-led nonprofits. Fund feminist-led nonprofits. Fund Indigenous-led nonprofits. The worthy organizations are there. The worthy leaders are there. The worthy impact is there. “There is power in proximity. Shifting our giving… is not only more just – it is more effective,” said Katie Bunten-Wamaru and Dedo N. Baranshamaje. “Grassroots organisations are consistently delivering impact at the frontlines — without the benefit of frontline funding.” The money is also there. “Foundations’ endowments currently account for well over $1 trillion, while about $160 billion more sits in donor-advised funds,” says Philip Rojc. “... wealth inequality continues to skyrocket as the fortunes of the very rich climb over the long term.” This is also a call to arms for #brand builders and storytellers. Build the brands of these nonprofits. Ensure they’re too compelling to ignore, too loud to silence, and too fundable to underfund. And keep this new narrative alive. Put heat on the gatekeepers of #philanthropy. Because this funding gap is a justice gap. So comment and repost below to be a part of the change. Let’s close the gap together. 💪🏽💛 ________________________________ If you enjoyed this daily brand insight: 1. Follow Kevin L. Brown to maximize your funding 2. Click the 🔔 to get notified about new posts 3. Engage below 👇🏽

The nonprofit sector is in the middle of a crisis. Nearly 29,000 nonprofit jobs were cut in 2025, a more than 400% increase over the prior year. This is particularly alarming because nonprofits employ nearly 13 million people, about 10% of the private workforce and more than the entire manufacturing sector. When the nonprofit sector destabilizes, the impact isn’t just felt on the organizations themselves, it ripples out into the communities those organizations serve. This destabilization is almost entirely driven by financial instability. Federal grants make up roughly a third of nonprofit revenue, and freezes and cuts over the past year have destabilized already fragile and tight budgets. At the same time, changes to the tax code under the (so-called) One Big Beautiful Bill Act have reduced incentives for charitable giving, especially for corporations and middle-income donors who no longer itemize. So what does this actually mean? For nonprofits: You can’t plan, staff, or scale the way you used to. Sustainability now requires ruthless clarity about what work is essential, what capacity is real, and what growth narratives and goals are no longer relevant or realistic. For funders: Pulling back doesn’t just “tighten belts,” it directly cuts services and jobs. Multi-year, flexible funding is needed to create greater stability and allow for stronger planning. For boards: This is a true governance moment. Financial oversight, scenario planning, and hard tradeoffs are now core fiduciary responsibilities. For employees: Layoffs aren’t a reflection of your value, they’re the unfortunate outcome of structural instability. If you’ve been laid off, make sure to collect your unemployment (if it’s available to you), don’t feel bad asking others for help, and lean into your network for support. If you haven’t been laid off, prepare for the possibility that it could happen, and take advantage of all of the benefits your organization offers to you (e.g. professional development funds that can help you upskill for the future) while you do so. For job seekers: The market is crowded, unpredictable, and fast-moving. Work your network, talk to everyone, don’t self-select out of roles you’re interested in and want to apply for, and find ways to prioritize and sustain your mental health in your search.

💡 CSR Funding in India (2025): Why Most NGOs Fail — And How to Win Indian companies spent ₹17,967 crore on CSR in FY 2023–24 (↑16% YoY). Yet, thousands of NGOs with real impact still struggle to access these funds. Why? Because CSR funding is not charity — it is compliance-driven, outcome-oriented capital. ❗ The gap is not impact. 👉 The gap is strategy, positioning, and pitching. After working closely with NGOs, corporates, and government systems, here’s what actually moves CSR decisions 👇 📌 What Corporates Fund ✔ Schedule VII–aligned projects ✔ Measurable outcomes linked to SDGs ✔ Strong governance & audited financials ✔ Brand visibility, employee engagement, long-term partnership potential 📂 Minimum Eligibility (Non-Negotiable) • CSR-1 registration • 12A & 80G approvals • Transparent budgets and reporting 🎯 What a Winning CSR Pitch Looks Like 1️⃣ Clear problem backed by data + human story 2️⃣ Solution with scalability 3️⃣ Impact metrics (baseline → outcome) 4️⃣ Clean budget & governance 5️⃣ Clear ask: ₹ amount + timeline 🚫 Common NGO Mistakes ❌ Generic proposals ❌ No clarity on funding ask ❌ Overpromising impact ❌ Weak follow-ups 👉 Key Insight: Corporates are mandated to spend CSR funds. If your NGO brings credibility, clarity, and outcomes — you are not asking for money. You are offering a solution. #CSRIndia #NGOFunding #CSR2025 #SocialImpact #NGOPartnerships #NonprofitLeadership

Case Study: Why Some NGOs Get Funded Repeatedly 💡 Not all NGOs are created equal in the eyes of funders. Some consistently secure grants and donations, year after year. What’s their secret? Let’s break it down: 1. Clear and Measurable Impact These NGOs don’t just say they help people—they show it. Data-driven results Success stories Quantifiable outcomes Impact + evidence = funder confidence. 2. Alignment with Donor Goals They understand the funders’ priorities. Mission alignment Geographic and thematic fit Demonstrated relevance Funders invest in solutions that match their objectives. 3. Strategic Proposal Writing Proposals are not generic. Clear problem statements Realistic solutions Measurable outcomes Sustainability plans Clarity = credibility. 4. Professionalism and Accountability Transparent budgets Strong reporting Clear organizational structure Funders know their money is in good hands. 5. Relationship Building They engage donors consistently, not just when asking for money: Regular updates Impact storytelling Visibility and trust Long-term relationships = repeat funding. Key Takeaway: Getting funded repeatedly is not luck. It’s strategy, clarity, trust, and measurable impact. 👇 Question for NGOs reading this: Which of these five areas do you think most NGOs overlook, and how would fixing it change your funding outcomes? #NGO #Nonprofit #GrantWriting #Fundraising #NGOFunding #SocialImpact #Philanthropy #CommunityDevelopment #ImpactDriven #Charity #ProposalWriting #InternationalFunding #DonorRelations #DevelopmentSector #SustainableDevelopment #HumanitarianWork #NonprofitLeadership #ChangeMakers #GlobalImpact #MakeADifference

New data on giving suggests it’s getting even harder for nonprofits to access the funding they need to scale. Global giving is under pressure. In the UK, the share of people donating has dropped from ~60% to ~50%, with total donations falling by ~£1.4bn. In the US, giving is increasingly concentrated among wealthy donors and large gifts. Meanwhile at the institutional level, ODA is declining and philanthropic funding is concentrating among fewer, larger funders. What does this mean? 👉 Fewer small donors 👉 More concentrated large funding 👉 Greater emphasis on proven, scaled solutions, ie ‘big bets’. And of course, the impact sector still loves innovation, so we’ve built plenty of funding pathways for early-stage ideas. 𝐒𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞? The nonprofits with proven models, ready to scale - but who need flexible, multi-year funding to get there. The ‘missing middle’ isn’t a new problem, but I believe it’s becoming even harder to bridge. If fewer organisations can access the capital they need to scale, then: 👉 fewer solutions reach the people who need them most 👉 we risk continuing to generate new ideas without ever scaling the ones that work 👉 and we hollow out the very pipeline that produces the big bets funders increasingly want to back 𝐈𝐟 𝐰𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐰𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐭 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐣𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐞, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐝.

Things I’m Not Falling For (Nonprofit Edition) 🙅🏾♀️ ❌ “Participant numbers = impact.” Serving 500 people isn’t impact — it’s activity. Funders don’t care how many walked through your doors. They want to know how lives changed. “We had 200 participants” tells me nothing about transformation. “85% secured stable employment within 6 months” tells me everything. Stop counting bodies. Start measuring change. ❌ “You can figure out evaluation later.” Wrong. Impact measurement isn’t an afterthought — it’s baked into your program from day one. Nonprofits scrambling to pull together inconsistent reports usually waited too long. The ones landing multi-year, six-figure grants? They planned for impact before serving their first participant. ❌ “Good work speaks for itself.” Not today. Your passion got you the first $50K grant. Scaling to $250K+ requires proof. Funders invest strategically, not emotionally. Your heart might be in the right place, but your data better be too. ❌ “Relationships are all you need for funding.” Relationships open doors. Impact keeps them open. I’ve seen nonprofits raise millions on founder connections — then lose funding when leadership changes or tough questions come. The survivors? They built programs that prove their worth beyond personal ties. Ready to move beyond myths and build real impact? Let’s talk.

The nightmare of restricted funding (aka, the Window Problem): Charity: We need to build a house for the people we serve. Funder: We’d love to fund the windows! They let in light and help people see the future. Charity: Yes, but… we need walls first. Otherwise, the windows won’t have anything to go in. Funder: Walls feel too administrative. Windows are more tangible and inspiring. Charity: But windows without walls are just glass on the ground. Funder: Can’t someone else pay for the walls? Sound familiar? If you’ve worked in nonprofits, you’ve lived this. Funders love the parts they can see — the “inspiring” elements. Realistically though, you can’t build impact without structure. Here’s the shift in language that can help: Don’t separate infrastructure from mission. Use language like “core mission support,” “capacity for impact,” or “infrastructure that serves people.” Show how the walls are part of the vision — the sturdy, reliable structure that makes the whole house stand. 💪The people we serve don’t just need a view. They need a home. Help your funders see the whole blueprint. Happy fundraising! #fundraising #nonprofit

Every time I hear someone say, “We want our money to go directly to the cause,” I cringe a little. Not because it’s wrong — but because it misses the point. This overhead myth has quietly crippled the nonprofit sector for decades. We’ve been conditioned to believe that low administrative costs = good stewardship. But efficiency is not effectiveness. A Stanford Social Innovation Review analysis found that most nonprofits underspend on infrastructure by up to 40% below sustainable levels. That means fewer skilled staff, outdated tech, and underfunded systems — all in the name of “lean” operations. Imagine telling a hospital to cut back on doctors’ salaries to spend more on patients. Or telling a school to pay teachers less to buy more desks. It’s absurd — yet this is how we treat the organizations trying to solve humanity’s hardest problems. The truth? Impact requires investment. If we want lasting change, we must fund capacity, not just charity. #nonprofitleadership #fundraising #impact #overheadmyth #nonprofit #maine #philanthropy

We live in a world run by nonprofits. Proof? They employ 12.8 million people, accounting for 9.9% of all private-sector jobs in the U.S. Here are a few you probably use regularly: → NPR & PBS local affiliates? Nonprofits. → Consumer Reports? Nonprofit. → Better Business Bureau (BBB)? Technically a network of nonprofit organizations. → Museums & Zoos? Nonprofits. Community Health Centers (e.g. Federally Qualified Health Centers or FQHCs) - like Planned Parenthood? Nonprofit. → TED Talks? Yup, a nonprofit. Even Google.org is a nonprofit arm of a tech giant. We don’t just “benefit” from the nonprofit sector. → We live in it. → We learn in it. → We grow up shaped by it. 1.8 million nonprofits operate in the U.S. alone. They employ over 12 million people. That’s more than the entire manufacturing sector. And they generate $3.3 trillion in annual economic impact. Yet here’s what most don’t realize: Nonprofits are expected to save the world on a shoestring budget. → No investor rounds. → No unlimited ad spend. → No margin for error. They’re constantly walking a tightrope: ● Complex grants ● Scrutiny on admin costs ● Pressure to “prove” their impact with every dollar And now, it’s getting harder to keep the balance. → AmeriCorps just faced a $400 million funding cut, leading to the termination of nearly 1,000 programs and affecting over 32,000 members. → 95% of nonprofit leaders express concern about staff burnout, with 34% reporting it as a significant issue. → At least 14,000 nonprofit jobs have been lost since early 2025 due to federal budget cuts. When nonprofits struggle, it’s not just their loss. → It’s our classrooms. → Our healthcare. → Our communities. Nonprofits hold up the system quietly, daily, and relentlessly. The sector doesn’t need more applause. It needs investments rooted in relationships, policies shaped by those on the ground, and a system that sees trust as the starting point and not the reward. Because at the end of the day We don’t just benefit from nonprofits. We depend on them.