READING THE NONPROFIT LANDSCAPE
Who faces the greatest pressure?
There is no single defensible ranking of the nonprofits “hurt most.” A funding interruption, a revenue loss, a cash shortage, and a service reduction describe different conditions. The explorer lets visitors compare specific measures without treating them as interchangeable.
The 2025 chart shows education, health, and human services among the subsectors with higher reported disruption. Organizations with larger annual expenses reported disruptions more often. This describes prevalence, not dollars lost or probability of closure. Urban Institute, Table 2 and Figure 2 ↗
Size alone is an incomplete guide to resilience. A small organization with limited reserves may have little room to absorb a delayed payment, while a larger provider can face substantial exposure through several public contracts. The practical question is how funding concentration, payment timing, fixed costs, and program obligations interact. This is our analytical interpretation, not an estimated risk score.
Political changes and financial pressures interact
In NFF’s early-2025 respondent survey, 84% of organizations with government funding expected cuts related to the 2024 election. That is an expectation, not a measured loss. Respondents also described pressures predating the policy changes: 86% reported inflation-related effects in 2024. NFF, 2025, page 9 ↗
The same survey found reported effects of pullbacks in diversity, equity, and inclusion commitments differed by leadership: 71% of organizations led by people of color reported an effect, compared with 57% of white-led organizations. These are respondents’ reported experiences, not a causal estimate of a specific policy. NFF, page 10 ↗
Our interpretation: an organization can experience pressure through public awards, private giving, demand for services, or several channels at once. A strategy based only on replacing one grant can miss operational and community consequences.
What the 2026 evidence adds
CEP’s February 2026 survey found financial stability concerns among 66% of respondents. Its funding-loss measures refer to changes since January 2025. Social-justice organizations were more likely to report difficulty obtaining some funding, and disability-focused organizations reported greater difficulty with certain donations; the report describes these associations as small effects. It found no meaningful relationship between focus area and the most recent fiscal year’s budget status. CEP, 2026, pages 15 and 20 ↗
This supports a more careful conclusion than declaring one mission area universally most affected. Funding relationships and operating conditions matter alongside mission. We show the 2026 measures separately because CEP’s foundation-funded sample and questions differ from Urban’s 2025 study.
Publication dates can conceal older observations
A May 2026 Urban Institute report found that 48% of nonprofit leaders reported worsening outlooks from 2024 to spring 2025, compared with 19% reporting improvement. Arts, education, and public-benefit leaders were more likely to report worsening outlooks. These are 2025 experiences analyzed in a 2026 publication, not fresh 2026 survey results. Urban Institute, May 18, 2026 ↗
Geography also changes the picture. Urban’s Greater Washington, DC analysis found early-2025 funding disruptions among 43% of nonprofits there, compared with 33% nationally. That regional result cannot be assigned to North Carolina, South Carolina, or other locations. Urban Institute, December 17, 2025 ↗
What organizations can do with this evidence
AS STRATEGY™ recommends beginning with a practical organizational review: identify concentrated revenue sources, map reimbursement delays, distinguish restricted from flexible funds, and connect each program to its costs and evidence. Bring board members and program leaders into the same conversation.
Then prioritize the capacity work that supports the decision: governance responsibilities, a realistic funding narrative, outcome reporting, staff development, and communication with community partners. These are service recommendations informed by the challenges above. They are not promises of funding, a substitute for financial advice, or findings tested by the cited surveys.
Explore the capacity house ↗How to interpret this research
Research reviewed September 14, 2026. The explorer is a curated evidence snapshot, not a live data feed. Estimates are rounded as published. Subsector and size comparisons are separate; the source does not provide the joint breakdown used by a combined filter. Survey associations do not establish causation. We have not ranked individual organizations or inferred outcomes for groups absent from the sources.
Use the linked reports for their complete sampling, weighting, questionnaire, exclusions, and statistical qualifications. The sources below identify both publication dates and observation periods.