The Long Game

By Kirsten Stevens, MBA, CFRE, CAP® — BoardSource® Certified Governance Consultant, The Kannico Agency

A few weeks ago, I stood in front of a room full of non-profit leaders and grant professionals. I had a slide up on the screen with two phrases on it: "Not delayed. Clawed back."

The talk I gave was centered around the trends of 2025 individual giving from the Giving USA 2026 report that came out in July, along with a look toward where we are headed in 2026 and 2027.

I did some recon for this talk. One of the reasons I enjoy workshops, training, and speaking opportunities is that they force me to brush up on data and trends in order to provide a richer experience to the audience. So I immersed myself in the GivingUSA data, but I also had some informal conversations with funders in the community, a handful of nonprofits, and some fellow consultant colleagues. It was one of the funders who told me the true story about federal dollars that had been promised and even partially disbursed, that were pulled back mid-cycle. This situation was a devastating blow to the organization that had counted on it for beds in their shelter, food and basic needs, and program enhancement.

Oh, and did I mention there was no warning? There was no heads up - no word of caution about what might be coming down the line. That's a blow.

What is the lesson from this?

The obvious one is that organizations need to diversify the funding. To me, that's an overly simplistic statement and doesn't really get to the heart of a solution. These are empty words unless we use them to spearhead the creation of a strategy that enables us to systematically diversify funding streams. For that, I would say the activation of a task force or advancement committee is essential.

But I think there might be another, simpler lesson learned.

Before we talk about that, let's think about the relationship we typically have with a donor or funder. Our instinct is to keep them at arm's length and not share anything but positive news about the work being done. We don't reach out unless there is something polished to report, because closeness feels like vulnerability. Vulnerability means they might ask a question that I can't answer to their liking, and they could choose to pull their funds. That is the worst-case scenario that we roll over and over in our minds.

The reality? They're not going to do that. We worry unnecessarily. We tell ourselves stories that are not the truth. We see silence as rejection. As a result, we remain guarded, and we talk ourselves into being okay with the distance that we created. In our efforts to protect ourselves and our organizations, we become separate and disconnected from the very people who want to get close to us.

So here is the lesson that I think we should be focused on: the relationships that will carry us through are the ones that we've spent time developing before the crisis. Showing up to support a cause other than our own but that is near and dear to our donors; sharing an honest update outside of a report deadline; being involved in the community with fellow organizations; and simply being human by being willing to pick up the phone or meet a donor in person. These are the ways in which we can strengthen and deepen our relationships and develop a trusted network of individuals to whom we can turn when things get difficult. And we can be doing this with our board too. Did you know that one of the main reasons organizations lose great board members is lack of engagement? That level of engagement can be greatly impacted by how much time we're spending with our board members individually outside the boardroom, without there being a dumpster fire that needs to be put out. 

Your role as CEO should be Chief Connector. That's the piece that no one else can do as well as you. And frankly, the outside world wants to hear from you the most.