Abstract Recent shifts in U.S. federal policy have significantly altered the operating environment for nonprofit organizations, particularly those serving marginalized communities. This article examines how LGBTQ+ nonprofit organizations are experiencing and responding to rapid policy retrenchment under the Trump administration. Drawing on qualitative, semi-structured conversations with leaders from eleven LGBTQ+ nonprofit organizations, the analysis explores perceived impacts on constituencies, organizational vulnerability to administrative discretion, and the strategic responses nonprofits have adopted in the face of funding withdrawal and political hostility. Findings highlight three primary response strategies: organizational retrenchment and restructuring, intensified efforts to diversify revenue amid declining government support, and the use of litigation as a defensive policy tool. While these strategies demonstrate resilience and adaptive capacity, leaders emphasized the limits of philanthropic substitution for public funding and the precarity of legal remedies absent durable policy protections. The article situates these organizational experiences within broader nonprofit policy debates concerning government–nonprofit relations, political risk in public contracting, and the role of civil society organizations under conditions of democratic backsliding. Although grounded in the experiences of LGBTQ+ nonprofits, the findings have broader implications for nonprofit governance and policy design in periods of rapid administrative change.
Abstract Nonprofits face persistent challenges in using data for program evaluation, research, and impact assessment, while simultaneously managing sensitive information about the communities they serve. Existing data governance frameworks have largely been developed for commercial or institutional contexts and are poorly suited to the organizational structures, capacity constraints, and mission-driven priorities of most nonprofits. More resource-intensive approaches, such as data trusts, have robust data governance but involve overhead costs that make them inaccessible to much of the nonprofit sector. Through a review of data governance literature and outreach to nonprofit stakeholders, we identify a gap in practically available tools for responsibly governing non-public data: data that cannot be made fully open. We propose the Better Deal for Data (BD4D), a lightweight framework of standardized commitments to ethical data stewardship modeled on the approach taken by open source software licenses and Creative Commons frameworks. The BD4D commitments address key barriers including declining trust in data sharing and the absence of consistent governance norms. By fostering sector-wide adoption, we aim to unlock vital non-open data for impact and research while promoting a culture of trust and ethical data stewardship.
Abstract The composition of leadership and staff working at international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) has gained increased scrutiny from funders and other stakeholders. This attention is often driven by how diversity of INGO personnel matters for organizational performance and perceptions of legitimacy. In the United States, disclosing demographic information about leadership and staff remains voluntary. In this study, we analyzed how the top 1 % of U.S.-based INGOs self-reported demographic data about their personnel using GuideStar’s organizational demographics reporting system. Building on the GuideStar system, we propose a novel demographic diversity score (DDS) designed to ascertain and compare INGO reporting practices. We find that the most frequently reported role category is the organization’s leader, while the leading reported demographic categories were gender and race/ethnicity. We also find that the current GuideStar demographic reporting system highlights social identity-based diversity categories, while not covering functional or cognitive dimensions. The DDS can help INGO leadership and staff have conversations about two questions relevant for performance and legitimacy: what specific diversity dimensions matter to a given mission (1), and how much reporting of such information is appropriate for engaging stakeholders (2). Specific choices and trade-offs in answering each of these questions are elaborated. As diversity issues have become more controversial in U.S. public discourse, this research not only advances our understanding of how demographic composition matters but also frames further discussions about possible reforms of nonprofit (self-)regulatory frameworks focused on demographic issues in the United States and elsewhere.
