I was on a call the other day with another nonprofit association leader —someone I am getting to know and who I respect. She had just finished traveling around her state, meeting with nonprofit leaders and asking one simple question:
"What's your biggest challenge right now?"
The answer?
Funding. Over and over again.
"We need funding."
And I just sat there thinking... yeah. We do.
I know that's true.
Especially right now.
Federal funding is uncertain. Applications have been delayed. Cash flow has been interrupted because funding gets stalled. Government shutdowns. Changes to federal priorities. The uncertainty alone has caused organizations to hesitate before they even apply for certain opportunities.
It's hard.
I say "we" because I want you to know I'm not sitting over here pretending I have it all figured out. I'm part of this community too.
Now, I also want to acknowledge that I'm in a unique position. Associations are different than many direct-service nonprofits. We have diversified revenue. We don't rely on state and federal funding in the same way many of our members do.
That doesn't mean I don't have to raise money. I absolutely do.
But fundraising is one of the things I happen to be good at. It's something I genuinely enjoy, and because of that, I honestly don't think I fully understand the level of burnout some nonprofit leaders are carrying right now.
I want to understand it better because I want to help.
But here's the thing I can't stop thinking about.
We've been talking about funding for... forever.
When I left the nonprofit sector a few years ago and came back, I realized something.
The conversation hasn't really changed.
We still say we need more funding.
And we do.
But what if that's just the starting point?
What if we've spent so much time agreeing on the problem that we've stopped asking the next question?
Now what?
Because yes, people need a safe place to vent.
People need a place to say, "This is hard."
But eventually every hard conversation has to move from identifying the problem to designing a solution.
And I wonder if we're there.
One of the things I've always believed as a leader is that if someone comes to me with a problem, I hope they've spent at least a little time thinking about possible solutions.
Not because I expect them to have the answer, but because we're partners and I really just need the help.
If I'm paying someone to help solve problems, I don't want them to simply hand the problem back to me and say, "Here."
I want them to say, "Here's what I'm seeing. Here are a couple of ideas I have. What do you think?"
That's a partnership. Having to make all the decisions all the time is exhausting and I only want to work with true partners.
As I was driving to Oakes the other day I had the thought...
What if that's how we approached funding?
What if we stopped saying, "We need more operational funding."
And started asking, "How do we build a funding system that actually works better for everyone?"
Because I think there's a relationship that needs repairing.
Right now, it often feels like funders are the authority and nonprofits are the ones asking permission.
I don't know that either side actually wants that relationship.
Funders don't want to spend all their time creating more requirements, more reporting, and more red tape.
Nonprofits don't want to spend half their time documenting the work instead of actually doing it.
The conversation cannot be about getting rid of accountability. That is not an option because things like fraud exist.
There will always be bad actors who intentionally do things that are just wrong.
Funders have every right —and frankly, every responsibility —to do their due diligence.
But I also think it's fair to ask...
Is there a better way?
Could nonprofits help funders design systems that create trust without creating unnecessary burden?
Could funders invite nonprofits into those conversations instead of designing every process in isolation?
Could we spend more time asking each other,
"What information actually helps you?"
"What reporting actually matters?"
"What requirements are protecting the investment... and which ones only exist because they've always existed?"
I don't know the answer. Honestly, I don't.
But I do think we're asking the wrong questions.
We've been saying we need more funding for years.
Maybe it's time to start talking about how we build better partnerships.
Hard truth: Maybe the nonprofit community needs to stop showing up with only problems and start bringing ideas, AND funders need to stop assuming nonprofits just want money and start recognizing that what we actually want is to solve problems together.
Here's what I know. If all either side sees is a transaction, we'll keep getting transactional relationships.
But if we start acting like partners...
Maybe we finally start building a funding system that works better for everyone.
A Few Things I'm Still Thinking About...
“We need more funding” is true —but it cannot be where the conversation ends. We have to get more specific about what kind of funding we need, what problem it would solve and what a better system could actually look like. What if "we need more funding" isn't the conversation anymore? What if that's simply the reality we've all agreed on, and now it's time to focus on building better ways to get there?
What does it mean to need more "unrestricted funds" if all funders have different requirements?
Nonprofits and funders both have to own their 50%. Nonprofits need to bring ideas, outcomes and thoughtful solutions to the table. Funders need to listen, reduce unnecessary barriers and be willing to build the process with the people doing the work.
How do nonprofits and funders each own their 50%? Better relationships don't happen because one side changes. They happen because both sides are willing to listen, adapt, and solve problems together.
Accountability and trust can exist at the same time. Less red tape does not have to mean less responsibility. It could mean creating smarter ways to show that organizations are healthy, transparent and capable of doing what they said they would do. Are we measuring the right things? If reporting takes so much time that it keeps organizations from doing the work they're funded to do, is it creating accountability... or just creating activity? What would it look like to build trust at the beginning instead of proving it over and over again? Could stronger vetting up front lead to less red tape, more flexibility, and healthier long-term partnerships? Could more foundations require audits and pay for them themselves?
People are not overhead. The work does not happen without people. Paying qualified staff well and giving them the tools and space to do meaningful work is not a waste of funding —it is how the mission gets accomplished. They're the ones changing lives. If we believe in the mission, we have to believe in investing in the people carrying it out.
We need to pay people competitively to get exceptional leaders to want to be and stay in the nonprofit profession. I would not be here if that was not true.
We also need better advocacy for equal pay in an industry where 95% of the workforce are women and people from diverse backgrounds.
- Someone has to be willing to start the conversation differently. I do not have the solution, but I think the nonprofit community is ready to try something new —and I want to be part of figuring out what that could look like. Who is already doing this well? Somewhere, a funder and a nonprofit have figured out a better way to work together. Instead of continuing the same conversations we've had for years, let's find those models, learn from them, and build on what's already working. What conversation aren't we having yet? Sometimes the biggest breakthroughs don't come from finding better answers —they come from asking better questions.
How do we remove the fear and have better conversations? Fear in approaching the funder? Fear in saying the truth without retaliation? Sometimes it feels like the smaller nonprofits are afraid they will say the wrong thing and have the plastic spoon taken out of their mouths. I have observed fear from retaliation of foundations, state funding, federal funding, other larger nonprofits... There is a LOT of fear. It seems it might be much easier to just stay in their silo.
The truth is that no one should be using or given plastic spoons. (P.S. They are bad for the environment all around!)
Is there equity in how the funding is being distributed to the nonprofit community of North Dakota? Is this even being considered in the criteria? If 5% of North Dakota's nonprofits are receiving the most funding, is this fair? Are funders talking about this as a whole? I am not stating an opinion, but I am wondering and thoughtfully asking the question.
How do both funders and nonprofits that are receiving the money justify this?
I want to understand.
I don't have the blueprint. I'm just asking the questions.
After meeting with hundreds of nonprofit leaders in the last few months, I know there is a conversation here worth having.
Be well,
Kayla
