All Posts

Only 41% of nonprofit CEOs believe they can be completely honest with their foundation funders, according to new research from the Center for Effective Philanthropy, and most of those who hold back fear losing funding. CEP calls for better conditions for candid conversation, and it is right; however, more access does not change what an honest conversation could cost. This post looks at the financial structure behind the fear and proposes a question for CEP’s next survey.

Benefactor Group's white paper makes a case for endowment building from a demand perspective. This essay considers what endowments can contribute to a nonprofit's financial mix.

A survey asked 380 nonprofit CEOs how they are responding to federal funding cuts. It listed twelve actions. Not one was a different way to earn money, and 88% chose new funders. I call it the grant-substitution reflex: a funder leaves, another of the same kind replaces it, and the exposure never moves. The cause is capacity, not character. Here is why, what surveys of NGOs abroad show, and one question every board should answer.

Howard Buffett didn't say the money is missing. He said he can't find organizations able to absorb $500 million at a time. At Devex Impact House during UNGA week, senior investors made the same case from the other side: capital exists; the mechanisms to move it don't. ODA fell 23.1% in real terms in 2025, but that's not the whole story. This is about instrument design, not scarcity.

A panel called itself 'Beyond Aid' and spent the hour on scarcity. Wrong diagnosis. IBM's own answer proved it: NGOs get routed around, not invested in. Project Last Mile and BRAC show what changes when partnerships are built to return something. $518 trillion in personal wealth and $3.4 trillion in Fortune 500 profit aren't the constraint. The infrastructure to deploy them is.

Most NGO leaders agree that grant dependency is a risk. They agree earned revenue and corporate partnerships should play a bigger role. Then the meeting ends, the grant calendar reopens, and nothing changes. The problem isn't a shortage of ideas; it's three barriers, hit in sequence, that most organizations treat as separate.

Last October at Devex Impact House, panel after panel talked around private capital without ever naming what moves it: profit. Eleven months later, a new Devex survey confirms the sector has caught up; over 80% now call private capital essential. But the survey never asked about profit itself, and that gap hasn't closed. Drawing on fresh data and an unlikely example from a cancer research hospital, this piece asks the question the field keeps avoiding, ahead of a live audienc

Global aid just fell 23% in a single year. Meanwhile, Fortune Global 500 companies made $3.4 trillion in profit — and spent just 0.6% of it on the causes NGOs are fighting each other over. The pond isn't the problem. Nobody built a boat for the lake.

Bridgespan says nonprofits scale by concentrating revenue, not diversifying it. That's true, and it's not the whole story. Ten government contracts or twenty foundation grants can look diversified and still fail together if they run on the same clock. Scale and resilience are different measurements. This post asks the question Bridgespan's data can't answer: not how many revenue streams, but whether they fail for the same reason on the same day.

The three canonical U.S. governance frameworks assign boards financial oversight duties around budgets, audits, and cash flow. Not one requires monitoring revenue composition, funder concentration, or dependency risk. The sector's governance infrastructure was designed to oversee fundraising performance, not to govern revenue architecture. Five structural questions every NGO board should be asking, none of which appears on a standard board self-assessment.

The State Department's $2 billion faith-based announcement is a step in the right direction. It is also 0.01% of global wealth. The SDG gap is $4.3 trillion annually. Total global ODA covers 4% of it. The most ambitious U.S. reform framework in a generation gets the policy architecture right. The missing half is the implementation architecture: who helps hundreds of thousands of organizations build the financial resilience the reform demands.

Impact investing manages $1.5 trillion. The industry has never measured whether any of it reaches nonprofits. But nonprofits have not built for capital either — most projects end at outcomes without asking who benefits economically and whether that value can sustain the work. The failure belongs to both sides. The architecture that works already exists. Neither side has adopted it. Hits all three beats — the industry failure, the nonprofit failure, and the forward-looking pr

Grant dependency is not a funding problem. It is a power problem. When NGOs build durable non-grant revenue, foundations lose leverage they never earned — and both parties get better. Three recent analyses by Jan Masaoka, Stephanie Beasley, and Joanne Sonenshine converge on this territory from the funder side. None asks the question from the nonprofit side. This post names the self-reinforcing loop that keeps the current dynamic in place confronts a scale mismatch the sector

When profit and purpose collide in NGOs, governance – not avoidance – keeps commercial revenue aligned with mission and beneficiaries

The Alt Funding Field Guide asks who captures value when our work succeeds — and why they are not paying to sustain it. What it reveals about digital inclusion is true across the entire nonprofit sector. The binding constraint is not capital scarcity. It is mechanism scarcity.

A 501(c)(3) health system earned $127.7B last year, almost none of it from donations. If Kaiser Permanente holds the same tax status as your NGO, why treat it as a ceiling on earned revenue?

A record $617.2 billion in U.S. giving last year masks a sector quietly coming apart at the base — micro, small, and mid-size gifts all declined while the top 50 donors gave 35% more. The real story isn't that aid is shrinking. It's that capital holders have only ever been offered one mechanism for moving money toward social outcomes, and the other $470 trillion has never been asked to try another.

Candid's recent webinar, "The Invisible Majority," put hard numbers on something small nonprofits have felt for years: they make up most of the sector, yet barely register in the foundation funding economy. According to Candid's own data, very small organizations account for roughly 60 percent of registered nonprofits but receive only about 0.4 percent of foundation grants. Even when they do win a grant, it is more likely to be a one-time award than a renewable relationship t

The sector's response to the USAID crisis has been busy, visible, and mostly wrong. Press releases. Emergency fundraising campaigns. Resilience rebranding. Coalition sign-ons. Roundtables. None of this is wrong. It is simply not the thing. There is a name for what most organizations are doing right now: resilience theater.

Since its founding, the nonprofit sector – and international aid and development in particular – has relied predominantly on external resources: grants, official development assistance, and philanthropy. That reliance was not a temporary arrangement. It became the architecture. The sharpest contraction of those resources in the sector's history has now made the architecture visible. The sector's leading response is consolidation. Before challenging that logic, take it serious