1.  What mission-problems will the technology will help solve? “Clunky” software is not a mission problem (it’s just annoying). Things like missing data insights or time spent building reports instead of being with constituents — those are mission-problems. 
2. How will the new technology address those problems? Will it be more targeted fundraising, reduced barriers for constituents, increased staff capacity? The stronger your answers, the stronger the return on your investment in a new system.
3. How will your workflows change? Technology exists within a work ecosystem. Your process might not change, but your practical execution of tasks will. Being able to describe those changes will help speed up your transition. 
4. Does leadership believe in it? People can be resistant to change. A person in authority to help encourage that change and keep people accountable will lead to a deeper and more lasting transformation. 
5. Who will own the technology? A project that is not owned is a project that is not done. Someone needs to be responsible for overseeing and championing the transition. 
6. Can you make time for training? Training is an investment alongside technology. No matter how user-friendly something is, you will always get more out of it if you dedicate time to training. 
7. How will it affect your security? This question is especially important if you hold sensitive data. A new technology is like a new window in a house — it is a potential point of entry. Make sure you have a plan to protect it. 
8. What does success look like? If you don’t define the win, you won’t recognize it. Set and measure clear success markers, such as reduced hours on manual tasks, improved response time, better reporting accuracy, or some other tangible ROI. 
9. How will your tech grow with you? The political landscape shifts. Community needs evolve. Your tech must bend without breaking. Sustainable systems are flexible and adaptable. If your tech can’t grow with you, it will hold you back. 

For technology to make a difference, your team needs to be ready for it.

You don’t have to be able to answer every question right now in order to begin thinking about new technologies. Some of these questions are best answered while you’re looking. What matters is to keep things in perspective. 

Technology is just a tool, but when it’s paired with the right people and processes, it can have a profound and lasting impact. 

The post Eight essential tech readiness questions appeared first on NTEN.

Another newsletter. Another webinar. Another social media channel. Another platform. Another “quick” campaign that quietly becomes twelve more tasks on someone’s already-too-full plate.

And yet, even with all that communication, many organizations are still asking the same question: Why aren’t people engaging?

The answer is likely not that your audience does not care. It’s more likely that your organization has designed too many ways for people to consume and not enough meaningful ways for them to participate.

This is the pattern I see over and over again in nonprofit spaces, membership communities, and mission-driven networks: We have confused communication with community. We assume that if we publish enough content, launch enough campaigns, or create enough digital spaces, connection will naturally follow.

But a platform is only a venue. Content is only a starting point. And attention alone does not create belonging.

Also read: Keep your website traffic up in an AI-first search world

That is one of the biggest lessons I have learned through building The Nonprofit Hive. The strongest moments in that community have not come from the most polished content or the newest tool. They have come from helping nonprofit professionals meet one another in simple, human ways — often through one-to-one conversations that allow people to go deeper than they ever could in a comment thread or webinar chat.

According to NTEN’s 2024 Digital Skills and Equity Report, nonprofit professionals continue to report capacity strain, burnout, and increasing pressure to “do more digitally” with limited staff and resources. At the same time, many organizations are struggling with declining engagement rates across email and social platforms despite producing more content than ever before.

Why aren’t people engaging? The answer is likely not that your audience does not care. It’s more likely that your organization has designed too many ways for people to consume and not enough meaningful ways for them to participate.

That disconnect matters. Because if all we do is publish, post, and promote, we are not building community. We are managing an audience.

And audiences behave very differently than communities do.

Audience vs. community

Let’s start with some core statements that I have found to be true about audience vs. community from years of marketing and community building in this sector.

1. An audience listens. A community participates.
2. An audience consumes. A community contributes.
3. An audience receives your message. A community helps shape what happens next.

This distinction matters because many nonprofits are not only trying to build larger audiences. They are trying to build deeper engagement that leads to an action.

They want:

• More volunteer retention.
• Stronger donor loyalty.
• More peer connection.
• More advocacy momentum.
• More member participation.
• More community-led leadership.
• More trust.

And none of those outcomes are created through broadcasting alone.

They are created when people are invited to move closer to the work and closer to one another. In The Nonprofit Hive, that has looked like weekly Hive Chats, thoughtful prompts, member spotlights, and a steady belief that community starts at the scale of two people. One person meeting one other person. One conversation. One moment of recognition.

This is where participation design becomes important. Participation design is the intentional process of creating clear, low-pressure ways for people to move from receiving information to taking part.

Not everyone wants to become a community leader overnight. Most people simply want to know:

• Is there a place for me here?
• Does my presence matter?
• Is there an easy way to contribute?
• Will anyone notice if I do?

Strong communities answer those questions consistently.

And importantly, participation design is not about making people do more. It is about making participation feel easier, clearer, and more human.

We keep designing for broadcast instead of belonging

Most nonprofit systems and technologies we use today were built for communication efficiency, not relational depth.

Email platforms were designed to send updates. Social media was designed for visibility. CRMs were designed to track contacts. Webinars were designed for presentations.

None of those tools are inherently community-building on their own.

People need a reason to interact, contribute, and return. And right now, many nonprofit engagement systems unintentionally create passive behavior because they are optimized for distribution instead of participation.

Participation design is the intentional process of creating clear, low-pressure ways for people to move from receiving information to taking part.

This is especially important because research from Community Roundtable’s State of Community Management Report consistently shows that communities with intentional participation structures experience stronger retention, higher contribution rates, and greater long-term engagement than communities built primarily around content delivery alone.

In other words: People stay where they feel useful, connected, and seen. Not just informed.

What participation design actually looks like

Participation design sounds strategic — and it is — but in practice, it is often surprisingly small.

A strong participation system gives people:

1. A clear reason to show up.
2. A simple way to take part.
3. A feeling that their presence matters.
4. A reason to return.
5. A pathway to contribute more deeply over time.

That sounds too simple sometimes, but in my experience, THIS is the kind of space where depth of community builds from. Not every nonprofit needs a massive online community strategy or a complicated engagement funnel.

Sometimes the most meaningful shifts happen through tiny relational moments that are intentionally repeated. A thoughtful welcome email. A reply prompt. A peer introduction. A recurring question. A visible feedback loop.

Community is often built through accumulation, not spectacle.

The five layers of a simple participation system

Like many working in nonprofit marketing, I did not set out to create a “participation design system.” I was simply trying to solve a problem I kept seeing over and over again.

Organizations were working incredibly hard to engage people. Teams I worked with (and me!) were sending newsletters, hosting webinars, launching online groups, posting constantly on social media, and investing in new platforms. Yet somehow many of us still felt wildly disconnected from the communities we were trying to serve and grow.

Sometimes the most meaningful shifts happen through tiny relational moments that are intentionally repeated. A thoughtful welcome email. A reply prompt. A peer introduction. A recurring question. A visible feedback loop.

At the same time, I noticed something important: the moments that created the strongest sense of connection were rarely the most polished campaigns or the most sophisticated tools. They were usually small, intentional interactions. A thoughtful welcome message. A question that invited someone to share their experience. A simple introduction between two people with something in common. A follow-up that made someone feel remembered instead of processed.

Over time, I started paying closer attention to those moments and asking a different question:

What if stronger community engagement is not primarily about creating more content or adding more technology, but about designing better opportunities for participation?

1. Invitation

Most nonprofit engagement starts with an announcement; but stronger community engagement starts with an invitation.

There is a difference between: “Register for our upcoming session.”

And: “We’re bringing together nonprofit professionals who are navigating this same challenge. Come share what you’re seeing and learn from others in the room.”

One communicates information. The other communicates belonging. An invitation tells people: There is a place for you here. Simple invitation shifts might include:

• Asking donors why they chose to give.
• Inviting volunteers to bring one question to orientation.
• Asking webinar attendees to submit a challenge beforehand.
• Encouraging members to introduce themselves to one other person.

These are small changes, but they fundamentally shift people from passive recipients into active participants. And importantly, invitations lower the emotional barrier to engagement.

People are far more likely to participate when they understand what kind of participation is welcome.

2. Entry points

Not everyone wants to immediately speak on a panel, lead a discussion, or become an ambassador.

Some people are active contributors. Some people are quiet supporters. Both matter.

Also read: Seven ways to build an equitable website

Quiet does not mean disengaged. Sometimes quiet means people are looking for the right doorway in. Strong participation systems create low-pressure entry points that allow people to engage at different comfort levels.

Examples include:

• A one-question poll.
• A “reply to this email” prompt.
• A short intake form asking what someone hopes to learn.
• A “share one resource” thread.
• A simple “what brought you here?” question.
• A post-event reflection prompt.

The goal is not performative engagement. The goal is reducing friction. Because participation grows when people feel psychologically safe enough to contribute.

3. Connection

This is the layer many nonprofit systems unintentionally skip.

We create content for people. We create campaigns for people. We create events for people. But we do not always create enough opportunities for people to connect with each other. And peer connection is often where belonging actually begins.

Research from the Harvard Human Flourishing Program and multiple studies on social trust continue to reinforce the same truth: people are significantly more likely to remain engaged in communities where they form interpersonal relationships. Not just relationships with the organization. Relationships with each other.

This does not require building a giant networking infrastructure overnight. It can look like:

• Pairing two new volunteers together.
• Matching first-time attendees with returning participants.
• Creating breakout conversations after webinars.
• Inviting members to connect around shared challenges.
• Reflecting community stories back into future communications.

The goal is simple: Help people feel less anonymous. Because anonymity rarely creates long-term engagement. Recognition does.

4. Rhythm

One-off campaigns create attention. Repeatable rhythms create trust.

Community is built through repeated moments people can understand and return to. This is one of the biggest lessons I continue to see across healthy communities and networks: People return to what feels familiar, useful, and human.

People rarely move from passive audience member to active contributor in one leap. Participation has to be scaffolded.

Rhythm creates emotional predictability. And emotional predictability creates safety.

Simple rhythms might include:

• A monthly member question.
• A recurring peer conversation.
• A quarterly pulse check.
• A welcome email that always invites a reply.
• A monthly community spotlight.
• A “what we heard from you” update.
• A recurring reflection prompt after events.

These rhythms do not need to be complicated. In fact, simpler is often better. The goal is consistency, not perfection.

5. Contribution

People rarely move from passive audience member to active contributor in one leap. Participation has to be scaffolded.

One of the most helpful ways to think about this is through a ladder of contribution.

Most organizations unintentionally design only for the top layer. But healthy communities grow because they support movement between layers gradually.

People contribute more deeply when participation feels meaningful, possible, and recognized. Not pressured.

Your existing digital tools can become participation infrastructure

One of the most important things nonprofit teams need to hear is this: You probably do not need another platform.

You may simply need to redesign how people move through the systems you already have.

Here is what that can look like in practice:

What to measure instead of only clicks

Open rates matter. Clicks matter. Registrations matter. But they do not tell the whole story. Because attention is not the same thing as connection.

Participation design asks different questions:

• Are people replying?
• Are people returning?
• Are people introducing others?
• Are people sharing stories?
• Are people connecting with each other?
• Are new voices emerging?
• Are quieter supporters finding ways to participate?
• Are people moving from attention to contribution over time?

If we only measure attention, we miss the moment someone starts to feel like they belong. And belonging is often the thing that sustains engagement long after novelty fades.

A simple place to start

If this feels overwhelming, start smaller than you think you need to.

Choose one audience journey:

• New donors
• Volunteers
• Event attendees
• Members
• Advocates
• Alumni
• Program participants

Then ask:

Where does participation currently stop?

Maybe someone donates and only receives a receipt.
Maybe someone attends a webinar and never hears from anyone again.
Maybe someone joins a platform and is left to navigate it alone.

Find the dead end.

Then add one participation point.

• One question
• One invitation
• One introduction
• One recurring ritual

That is enough to begin. Because community is rarely built through dramatic gestures. It is built through repeated moments of recognition, contribution, and connection over time.

Make connection easier to repeat

Nonprofit teams do not need more pressure to create more content, manage more platforms, or chase every new engagement trend. They need simpler systems that make connection easier to repeat.

Also read: De-silo your nonprofit workplace

Community is not built because people are told to care. It is built when people are invited to participate, see themselves reflected, and feel that their contribution matters.

And often, the first step is beautifully small:

Ask a better question.
Make one introduction.
Create one repeatable ritual.
Show people there is a real place for them here.

The post You don’t have a community engagement problem. You have a participation design problem. appeared first on NTEN.

In cohort 10, 19 fellows created spaces where community members could ask questions without feeling embarrassed, try new things, and build confidence over time. Sometimes that meant learning how to turn on a computer. Sometimes it meant gaining skills for a new job, or helping a child with homework online.

Across this cohort, 19 fellows reached 5,745 participants, delivered 12,968 hours of training, and distributed 2,775 devices. The work shows up in individual moments—when something clicks, and access turns into opportunity.

Here are a few of those stories.

Also read: Digital inclusion after the Digital Equity Act was scrapped

Amanda Sweet

Technology Innovation Librarian, Nebraska Library Commission

Participants: 80 · Training hours: 204 · Staff trained: 8 · Devices distributed: 375 · Resources added: 169

Project
Tech Ready Nation helps people build the digital skills necessary to survive and thrive in a tech-driven world. The project brings together existing resources—from “this is a computer” to “this is AI”—into one place. Instead of reinventing the wheel, it aggregates resources from multiple providers, supports digital navigator training, and helps organizations better serve their communities.

Impact
“The wide-ranging world of digital skills can be overwhelming. People don’t always know what’s possible or where to start. Tech Ready Nation became a menu of what’s possible. The moment when someone finds a resource that takes a weight off their shoulders—that’s what sticks with me.”

Fabiola Sanchez

Resource Navigator, The Rosewood Initiative

Participants: 953 · Training hours: 953 · Volunteers & staff trained: 42 · Devices distributed: 60

Project
My project is about working with the Spanish-speaking community, especially people who are vulnerable. Many times they do not know how to read or write in their own language, and in order to access resources or apply for jobs, they have to use a computer but do not know how to turn one on.

Impact
One case that impacted me a lot was a person who had been volunteering for a long time and was finally given the opportunity to work, regardless of her immigration status. But there was a problem—she had to use a computer to enter information about participants. She would constantly ask if I knew about computer classes.

Fortunately, I started my project in collaboration with Free Geek. She was able to learn and receive her own computer. Now she is very happy and tells me that because she has a computer at home, she can continue practicing what they teach her at work and upload families’ information without any problem.

Project
As a Digital Inclusion Fellow, I led initiatives that expanded digital access and STEM education for low-income families across Utah. Through programs like Triunfa en Tecnología and Tech for All, we worked with entire families—children, youth, and parents—to build digital literacy and technology skills together.

We provided hands-on training in coding, robotics, and digital tools, and distributed laptops to students without access to devices so they could continue learning from home. Over the course of the fellowship, we served hundreds of students and delivered thousands of hours of instruction.

Impact
Madelayne is a 12-year-old Tech Creator, bilingual, and full of initiative when it comes to proposing ideas. She stands out for actively participating in classes.

She has been a student at Club Ability since 2022, where she discovered her passion for programming, with Minecraft Education being her favorite subject. She has also volunteered in different Club Ability activities.

In recognition of her dedication, we awarded her a laptop. She has since participated as a speaker at conferences like Triumph in Technology.

Emily Spradling

Digital Program Manager, Literacy KC

Participants: 1,886 · Training hours: 2,574 · Volunteers & staff trained: 90 · Devices distributed: 149

Project
My Digital Inclusion Fellowship project expanded digital skills courses at Literacy KC with a focus on workforce development and entrepreneurship. We introduced six-week courses in Canva and QuickBooks, giving students hands-on experience with tools that support career advancement. Participants also received one-year subscriptions to both platforms.

Impact
A participant came into my first Canva class saying she “hates computers.” She would often get frustrated during class, but she kept coming back.

Later, I learned she was in recovery and working at a sober-living house. She had been told that improving her computer skills could help her move into a management role.

After earning her Canva certification, she was proud of how far she had come. She ended up getting a promotion and continued taking additional computer courses.

Marina Alvarez

Special Projects Program Manager, Latino Network

Participants: 131 · Training hours: 250 · Volunteers & staff trained: 15 · Devices distributed: 8

Project
Our project focused on addressing the need for digital literacy in our community. We developed culturally responsive curricula, offered workshops in Spanish, and distributed devices. Through guest speakers, interactive projects, and community partnerships, we worked to make digital literacy more accessible and engaging.

We also opened a community technology center where participants could access devices during workshops and continue learning.

Impact
We had participants who attended almost every session. One in particular was an older woman who loved coming in to learn.

One day, we piloted a Canva resume workshop in English. Even though she didn’t understand the language, she still showed up and said she wanted to learn as much as she could.

We sat together, and I helped her through the basics. She ended up creating a flyer and had so much fun being creative. She left with a completed project and asked us to offer the workshop again in Spanish.

The post Cohort 10 spotlight: Digital inclusion in practice appeared first on NTEN.

As we talked, I felt a wave of relief wash over the room. It wasn’t because I had all the answers—it was because everyone realized they weren’t alone. We were a room full of accidental managers. You know the story: you’re amazing at the mission, you hit your goals, and your “reward” is a promotion into a management role that nobody actually taught you how to do.

That session was the spark for our 2026 Nonprofit Management Readiness Report. We wanted to know: Is it just us? The answer was a resounding “No.” Our research found that 77% of nonprofit managers feel like they were tossed into the deep end without a life vest.

In the tech world, we would never deploy a critical software update without a framework, a beta test, and a support manual. But in nonprofits, we often “launch” managers with little more than a new title and a “you’ll be great!”

Why “winging it” is exhausting

In the tech world, we would never deploy a critical software update without a framework, a beta test, and a support manual. But in nonprofits, we often “launch” managers with little more than a new title and a “you’ll be great!”

It’s not just stressful; it’s a setup for burnout. Our data shows that 60% of new leaders feel like they’re failing within their first two years. This isn’t a “you” problem; it’s a support problem.

To fix it, we need to stop treating management like a personality trait you’re born with and start treating it like a simple operating system—a few reliable rhythms that keep the wheels from falling off.

We often feel “unprepared” because all the “how-to” knowledge is stuck in someone else’s head. When that person leaves, the system breaks.

3 simple rhythms to stop the firefighting

You don’t need a corporate makeover to find your footing. You just need a few purposeful workflows to give you some breathing room.

1. Find your rhythm: The 20-minute tactical

Most of us spend our days reacting to pings and “quick questions.” That’s exhausting. Our Management On Purpose Framework puts you back in the driver’s seat with a proactive “pulse.”

• The habit: One 20-minute chat per week with each direct report.
• The secret sauce: Use a simple agenda: What went well? Where are you stuck? What are your top 3 for next week?
• The result: You stop being a firefighter and start being a “blocker-remover.”

2. The 5-minute check-in: real-time feedback

We found that feedback is the thing people want most, but get the least. When you wait for the “Annual Review” to say what’s on your mind, it’s like trying to fix a bug a year after the code was written.

• The habit: Give “micro-feedback” in the moment.
• The secret sauce: A quick, “Hey, when you did X, it really helped the team because of Y.”
• The result: No more awkward surprises in their review. (BTW, nothing in a review should be a surprise!) Just constant, helpful calibration.

3. Share the know-how: Documentation

We often feel “unprepared” because all the “how-to” knowledge is stuck in someone else’s head. When that person leaves, the system breaks.

• The habit: If you do it more than twice, write it down.
• The secret sauce: Create a simple “How We Do Things” folder. From onboarding a volunteer to running a report, give your future self (and your team) a map.
• The result: You stop answering the same questions ten times a day.

Management doesn’t have to be a mystery, and it definitely shouldn’t be a source of constant “impostor syndrome.” When we give ourselves a few simple systems to lean on, we stop just “surviving” our roles and start actually leading our missions.

The post Beyond the “accidental manager”: Why nonprofit leadership needs a systems upgrade appeared first on NTEN.

The loss of federal funding disrupted programs and expansion plans, but fellows in NTEN’s Digital Inclusion Fellowship describe something broader, too: uncertainty that touches nearly every part of the work, even beyond digital inclusion programs. Community organizations are losing staff, funding, and partners. Libraries are defending their existence. Some organizations are changing language to avoid political scrutiny. In immigrant communities, people are increasingly hesitant to attend trainings or gather in public. At the same time, the need for digital inclusion work has not changed.

Passed with bipartisan support, the legislation recognized internet access and digital literacy as essential infrastructure for participation in modern civic life. 

Also read: NTEN statement supporting the Digital Equity Act

“Over the past year, the digital equity field has been moving through a lot of uncertainty,” said Maria Lara, Digital Equity Manager at NTEN. “The cancellation of the Digital Equity Act didn’t just affect specific programs; it shifted the overall momentum of the work. Many organizations are trying to plan while holding a lot of unknowns, even as the need in communities keeps growing.”

For the past decade, NTEN’s Digital Inclusion Fellowship has supported nonprofit and community leaders building digital literacy programs rooted in the realities of their local communities. Fellows work in libraries, schools, housing organizations, workforce programs, immigrant-serving organizations, and community centers across the United States. Their projects range from basic computer skills training to device access, accessibility support, digital navigation, and community-based technology education.

The Digital Equity Act had created new possibilities for this work. Passed with bipartisan support, the legislation recognized internet access and digital literacy as essential infrastructure for participation in modern civic life. One year since the Act was scrapped, we must ensure that Congress does not heed the President’s budget request to eliminate the Digital Equity Act funds from the FY2027 budget. Learn more and see how you can get involved in the DEA Month of Action by the National Digital Inclusion Alliance.

Our current cohort of Digital Inclusion Fellows describes what it looks like to continue this work while funding disappears and political pressure intensifies. 

Funding instability is reshaping day-to-day work

For many fellows, the most immediate effect of the Digital Equity Act’s cancellation was the disappearance of funding that organizations had already begun planning around.

One fellow working in a library described how quickly priorities shifted:

“Progress was slowed for a couple of months because we all had to pause from doing the real work to make sure the state library would still exist months from now – updating documents with the ‘correct’ phrasing. We still don’t know the fate of the next fiscal year. On the funding side, the digital skill grants I had applied for no longer exist. $1.2 billion in nationwide funding was gone overnight. Some partner organizations had all or most of their funding pulled, further slowing progress. Book bans and reports of death threats to librarians across the state are a scary little backdrop as we all try to connect our communities with the resources they need to survive and thrive in a changing world.”

We must ensure that Congress does not heed the President’s budget request to eliminate the Digital Equity Act funds from the FY2027 budget.

Others described smaller but equally disruptive changes inside their organizations.

“One of our team members was laid off in June due to funding losses, and we have been experiencing ongoing staffing challenges since then.”

“We are not certain of the funding we have in the future for me to expand and put funds towards this project. Although it is needed, extensions for Microsoft Accessibility would need to be purchased, and funds cannot be allocated to this at this time. I had more plans to further this project, but they may have to wait for approval.”

Several fellows also described the ripple effects of funding losses across local nonprofit networks.

“Many nonprofits that I collaborate with have lost grant-funded staff. It has made it more difficult to get a hold of people and contacts.”

“Our funding has not been affected, but I lost a major partner that was utilized for the project.”

 As we’ve said before, digital inclusion work is not abstract policy work — it affects whether people can apply for jobs, access healthcare, communicate with schools, stay connected to loved ones, and participate fully in their communities. Fellows’ responses make clear how difficult it becomes to sustain that work when organizations are operating with reduced staff, uncertain budgets, and fewer community partners.

Fear and political pressure are changing how communities participate

Several fellows working with immigrant communities described a growing fear of attending in-person programming.

As these fellows shared:

“The Latin community that I work with is afraid to leave their homes, which affects us a lot since my project is meant to have groups of 10 people. There are times when I only have 4 or 5 participants.”

“While our communities trust our organization, there is still a fear we see from folks not wanting to be outside as often, impacting attendance at our programming.”

Book bans and reports of death threats to librarians across the state are a scary little backdrop as we all try to connect our communities with the resources they need to survive and thrive in a changing world.”

Another fellow described seeing both challenges and opportunities in their work right now:

“The current funding and political climate have presented both challenges and opportunities for digital equity work in our community. As a Digital Inclusion Fellow, I’ve seen how fluctuating funding streams and shifting political priorities can make it difficult to sustain long-term digital literacy programs, especially with limited resources. However, there are many opportunities, especially right now, to connect with families and our community. It has also been hard to get families to show up in person due to the immigration climate.”

For some fellows, those concerns have become part of the daily reality of teaching and outreach.

“The current political climate has affected my digital equity work heavily. I remember one night when I was teaching late, and we had an ICE-spotting three blocks away from where we teach. Even as a birthright citizen, I’m concerned about traveling to teach.”

Fluctuating funding streams and shifting political priorities can make it difficult to sustain long-term digital literacy programs, especially with limited resources.

Others described pressure inside their organizations to change language or avoid terminology that might draw political scrutiny.

“We had to rebrand our program to keep away from ‘buzzwords’ that would jeopardize other funding needed to keep our organization afloat. We are no longer able to serve undocumented community members in any capacity, which goes against the very nature of digital equity work.”

That fellow also described how conversations about future collaboration stalled after expected state funding disappeared.

“Without that funding, those conversations halted as no one had the extra funds for digital equity. We are working on creative solutions and creating new partnerships to continue closing the digital divide for everyone in our communities.”

The responses reflect a difficult tension. Organizations are continuing to respond to community needs while also navigating growing pressure around who can safely participate, what programs can be publicly supported, and what language feels safe to use.

Also read: The Digital Equity Act one year later – NDIA

The work continues because the need has not gone away

Despite the strain evident in many responses, fellows also described continuing to adapt their programs and partnerships because the need for digital inclusion work remains immediate.

One fellow explained:

“Despite these challenges, our team continues to collaborate with community partners, adapt our curriculum, and seek alternative funding sources to keep workshops running. The cuts have underscored the urgent need for long-term, reliable investment in digital inclusion – not just as a program, but as a fundamental part of community development and equity.”

We had to rebrand our program to keep away from ‘buzzwords’ that would jeopardize other funding needed to keep our organization afloat. We are no longer able to serve undocumented community members in any capacity, which goes against the very nature of digital equity work.

In her role managing the Digital Inclusion Fellowship at NTEN, Lara hears directly from fellows across the country about what sustaining this work looks like right now.

“In my day-to-day, I hear from fellows across the country, and what they share stays with me,” Lara said. “Their stories, their creativity, the way they show up for their communities with so much care. There is a lot of love and passion in this work, and you can feel it in how they talk about the people they serve and their projects.”

Over the past decade, fellows in NTEN’s Digital Inclusion Fellowship have worked across 28 regions, partnered with more than 125 organizations, and reached nearly 59,000 participants.

Those numbers reflect work happening in libraries, classrooms, housing organizations, and community centers across the country. They also reflect the reality that digital inclusion is ongoing community infrastructure, not a short-term initiative.

“The need is still there, and this work is far from done,” Lara said. “Digital inclusion is not something temporary. It requires continuing commitment, trust, and investment in the communities we serve.”

One year after the cancellation of the Digital Equity Act, practitioners are still finding ways to continue serving their communities. But the fellows’ responses also make clear that community commitment alone cannot replace stable investment, staffing, and long-term support.

The post Digital inclusion after the Digital Equity Act was scrapped appeared first on NTEN.

After the conference, I no longer questioned whether we should invest in mobile messaging, but what I didn’t realize the hardest part wouldn’t be making the case to leadership. (That was surprisingly easy!) It would be choosing a platform.

The trend toward mobile marketing is hard to ignore. Not only were many organizations at NTC showcasing innovative and engaging campaigns, but the data backs it up.

Thus, my mobile messaging exploration began. And, thanks to the NTC conference, I had several vendors I could reach out to.

What started as a few introductory calls and demos quickly had my head spinning. Unlike many CRMs, email marketing tools, and social media scheduling tools, comparing mobile messaging platforms is not apples to apples.

One vendor priced per message, while the other priced per segment. A third vendor used credits, where one SMS equals one credit, and MMS equals three credits. Now it was time to pull out the calculator. How many credits equal one dollar? How many contacts do we have? And, how often do we plan to text? In addition to messaging fees, there were setup and compliance costs, short- and long-code lease, 10DLC registration, and platform software license.

I started to feel like the confused math lady meme. What am I actually paying for? 

Part of the problem was that I thought I was comparing different tools, but it turns out I was comparing different approaches to using mobile messaging. 

One approach functions like a broadcast channel. You rent a list, send a message or two, reach thousands of people quickly, and drive them to a landing page. This option is best for lead generation or crisis campaigns. 

Another approach offers flexible, pay-as-you-go tools with no upfront or annual commitment but minimal customer support. You are on your own to make it work. This option is best for an organization looking to test before they buy. 

I realized the problem wasn’t that I was comparing vendors. It was that I was comparing them on their terms instead of mine. That realization led me to build a scorecard.

The third approach treats mobile messaging as a relationship channel.  You grow your own list, segment it, and send intentional, strategic messages. Supporters who opt-in to your messages have chosen a more intimate channel, and the strategy should reflect that. This option is best for supporter stewardship. 

The details that quietly derail you

Even after I got clear on the strategic differences, the operational details kept getting in the way. 

Message length, for example, sounds minor. It isn’t. In most cases, mobile messages are billed in 160-character segments. Go over that, and your “one message” becomes two or three, and your cost doubles or triples. MMS adds another layer. Using images and video incurs higher costs, and, depending on the platform, you may not realize how much more until you’re already in.  

From setting up the tool, integrating it with existing systems to managing the list and writing the messages, I quickly realized that the comparison wasn’t only about cost and features; it was about my capacity. 

Then there’s compliance. You can’t just start texting people. There’s a registration, approval process, and opt-in language requirements. Some vendors handle all of it, but many leave it to you. Then there was the issue of understanding how many mobile numbers we had in our database. Some platforms validate or append phone numbers, while others can recommend their preferred third-party tools to do it. If your data isn’t clean going in (ours wasn’t—we genuinely had no idea how many mobile numbers we had), that can meaningfully affect costs and setup. 

Like many nonprofit marketing teams, ours is small. I was the one organizing the calls and demos, and I had to map what internal implementations would look like. From setting up the tool, integrating it with existing systems to managing the list and writing the messages, I quickly realized that the comparison wasn’t only about cost and features; it was about my capacity. 

What actually helped

At some point, I realized the problem wasn’t that I was comparing vendors. It was that I was comparing them on their terms instead of mine. I was taking the information they gave me and trying to make it align with my goals, but I hadn’t asked the right questions on each call. I had to go back to each vendor with specific questions to evaluate them side by side.

That realization led me to build a scorecard. A clear list of what matters most to our organization, weighted by priority. This helped me with each follow-up conversation and forced vendors to answer the same questions, making the comparison much easier.  My scorecard looked something like this: 

A scorecard helps to keep every conversation grounded in what your organization actually needs rather than what a vendor is trying to sell. Vendors are doing their job – they’re selling! The scorecard is how you do yours.

Where that leaves us

The trend toward mobile marketing is hard to ignore. Not only were many organizations at NTC showcasing innovative and engaging campaigns, but the data backs it up.

SMS open rate is at 98%. People read texts, often within minutes, which creates a different kind of opportunity, especially for urgent campaigns, time-bound appeals, and moments when attention matters most. 

Also read: Meet rising compliance requirements with smarter workflows

Mobile messaging done well is one of the best ways to reach supporters directly and with purpose. And that is worth getting right.

The good news is that the decision gets easier once you have clear objectives and a framework to guide it. Start with your goal and understand your capacity. Translate the pricing into something concrete before you’re under contract. The potential makes this worth the effort. SMS revenue grew 48% year over year in 2025. The organizations that started figuring this out early won’t be scrambling ot catch up later. Mobile messaging done well is one of the best ways to reach supporters directly and with purpose. And that is worth getting right.

The post Choosing a mobile messaging vendor shouldn’t be this hard appeared first on NTEN.

When a security researcher finds a vulnerability in a large company’s systems, the path forward is well-defined. The company has a policy, a contact process, and staff who know what to do with an incoming report. The researcher submits what they found, the organization reviews it, and the vulnerability gets addressed.

Now consider the same scenario at a nonprofit. A researcher finds an exposed database containing donor financial records, or a security flaw in a case management system used by an immigration services organization. In most cases, there is no policy, no contact process, and no internal capacity to receive or act on that report. The researcher has nowhere structured to send what they found.

This is not primarily a problem of awareness. Most nonprofit IT teams know what responsible disclosure is. The problem is structural. The tools and processes that make organized disclosure work were built for organizations with dedicated security staff, legal departments, engineering resources, and enterprise software budgets. Those conditions do not describe most nonprofits.

This is not primarily a problem of awareness. The problem is structural.

The consequence is predictable. Reports go undelivered, get posted publicly, or arrive through informal channels with no process behind them. The vulnerability persists. The organizational risk compounds.

Nonprofits are being targeted at a rate most would not expect

The scale of attacks on the nonprofit sector is not well understood from the outside. Okta’s Businesses at Work 2025 report identified nonprofits as the second most targeted sector for cyberattacks globally, with an 18% rate of malicious login attempts, putting them ahead of healthcare and financial services. That number represents attempted unauthorized access across thousands of organizations, and it is not coincidental.

Nonprofits hold sensitive data: donor financial records, beneficiary healthcare information, immigration case files, and advocacy communications for vulnerable populations. The data profile of a mid-sized nonprofit often rivals that of a regulated financial institution, without the corresponding security resources.

Nonprofits are the second most targeted sector for cyberattacks globally, with an 18% rate of malicious login attempts, putting them ahead of healthcare and financial services.

Microsoft’s Digital Defense Report 2024 places nonprofits fourth among sectors targeted by government-sponsored attackers—groups defined by patience and sophistication, not just opportunistic financial crime. Cloudflare’s Project Galileo recorded a 241% increase in attacks on human rights and civil society organizations between 2024 and 2025. NetHope’s 2025 cybersecurity report found that phishing and account takeovers affected 94% of surveyed nonprofit organizations, up from 74% the prior year. The trend is not leveling off.

Also read: Innovative phishing simulations to build cyber-resilience

Why existing solutions don’t fit nonprofit realities

The UC Berkeley Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity found that 46% of nonprofits identify funding as the primary obstacle to improving their security posture. That framing is accurate but incomplete. The barrier to running a disclosure program is not only a budget issue—it is also the assumptions baked into every major platform designed for this purpose.

These platforms assume organizations have:

• Lawyers who can draft legal policies
• Security staff who can evaluate incoming reports
• Engineers who can manage the operational side

These are not reasonable assumptions for a 30-person advocacy organization or a regional social services provider. As a result, a large portion of the nonprofit sector has been effectively excluded from a practice the rest of the technology world has broadly adopted.

The problem has a second side

A responsible disclosure program depends on two things working together:

1. Organizations that can receive reports
2. Researchers who have accessible programs to participate in

The current landscape fails nonprofits on both fronts.

The absence of nonprofit programs does not stop researchers from finding issues in nonprofit systems. It removes the responsible path for reporting what they find.

Security researchers’ attention concentrates on large, well-funded programs where competition is high and financial rewards are substantial. Early-career researchers, students, and security professionals motivated by mission-driven work have limited options for engaging with organizations where their findings would carry real weight.

The absence of nonprofit programs does not stop researchers from finding issues in nonprofit systems. It removes the responsible path for reporting what they find.

What nonprofits can actually do

Building a disclosure program does not require starting at enterprise scale. The most important first step is creating a structured, documented path for reports to arrive and be handled. There are accessible approaches that do not require dedicated security staff or significant budget.

Publish a security contact file

• A security.txt file is a plain text file hosted on your website that tells researchers how to contact your organization if they find something.
• It is a recognized standard, takes under an hour to set up, and signals that your organization has a way to receive reports.
• The securitytxt.org website provides a free generator and step-by-step documentation.

Write a basic disclosure policy

• A disclosure policy does not require a lawyer.
• At minimum, it should define:
  • What systems are in scope
  • What you expect from researchers (e.g., good faith, minimal data access, no service disruption)
  • What researchers can expect from you (e.g., response timeline, legal safe harbor for good faith research)
• CISA publishes free coordinated disclosure guidance, and templates from established platforms are publicly available and easy to adapt.

Assign ownership internally

• Incoming reports need a defined destination and response process.
• The owner does not need to be a security professional—an IT generalist, technology director, or operations lead can fill this role.
• A dedicated inbox (e.g., security@yourdomain.org) and a simple escalation process are enough to begin.

Look at platforms built for similar organizations

• Several platforms now offer disclosure program infrastructure at low or no cost for organizations without large security teams.
• These include templates and public frameworks for responsible disclosure.
• CISA offers direct support for organizations setting up basic programs.
• A growing category of tools can handle intake, communication, and tracking workflows without requiring custom development.

Engage existing community resources

• Organizations like CISA, the Center for Internet Security, and nonprofit-focused technology groups publish free guidance for building security programs under resource constraints.
• Peer networks within the sector—including NTEN’s community—are increasingly active and can surface practical approaches from organizations facing similar challenges.

In conclusion

The gap in nonprofit disclosure programs has real consequences—for organizations, for the people whose data they hold, and for the researchers who want to help but have no structured way to do so.

Nonprofits that build even a basic path for receiving security reports are not just reducing their own exposure. They are making it possible for the security community to work with them rather than around them.

The barriers that created this gap are addressable with the right starting point—and that starting point is more accessible than it has ever been.

Nonprofits that build even a basic path for receiving security reports are not just reducing their own exposure. They are making it possible for the security community to work with them rather than around them.

The post Why nonprofits are missing from the responsible disclosure ecosystem appeared first on NTEN.

The gradual decline of the generic phish

The most significant innovation in phishing simulation is the move toward hyper-personalization. Traditional one-size-fits-all campaigns, such as a generic “Your package is delayed” email, often fail to challenge savvy employees and produce misleadingly low click rates. According to Gartner, nearly 29% of cybersecurity leaders reported that their organizations have faced GenAI-driven attacks in the past year, with GenAI used across a broad range of use cases, including phishing, deepfakes, and social engineering. The simulations of today must leverage new-age tactics, such as Business Email Compromise (BEC). These tactics leverage no malicious links at all, but rather a request for a conversation or a change in banking details. According to the FBI IC3 2023 Report, BEC remains one of the most financially devastating forms of cybercrime, with losses exceeding $2.9 billion, underscoring that the human element is the ultimate exploit.

By replicating the exact essence and cadence of corporate communications, employees can be pushed to look for the subtle technical red flags rather than obvious stylistic ones.

To simulate this effectively, internal security teams should analyze the specific software and communication styles used within their own organization. If an organization uses Slack for 90% of its internal chatter, an email-based “Internal Memo” will look suspicious from the start. On the contrary, a simulated direct message on a collaboration platform or a notification from a specific SaaS tool like Jira or Workday is far more likely to test the user’s actual judgment. By replicating the exact essence and cadence of corporate communications, employees can be pushed to look for the subtle technical red flags rather than obvious stylistic ones.

Technical sophistication and MFA bypass

We are gradually going to an era where a simple message such as “don’t enter your password” warning is insufficient. Threat actors are increasingly using Adversary-in-the-Middle (AiTM) techniques to bypass Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA). In such cases, the victim is directed to a certain proxy server that mimics a real login page. After the victim enters their credentials and enables MFA, the attacker captures the session cookie, granting them full access without ever needing the password again. Microsoft’s Security Blog highlights how these session-theft attacks are becoming a standard in the criminal toolkit.

Innovating simulations in organizations means moving toward “session hijacking” simulations. Instead of a static page that tells the user they failed, the simulation should demonstrate the danger of “proxy phishing.” This involves using tools that can simulate the redirection of a user through a middleman server. When employees see that their MFA code, something they previously thought was an “invincibility cloak,” can be intercepted, the educational impact is significantly higher. This shift in training aligns with MITRE ATT&CK Technique T1566, which categorizes the various ways attackers subvert traditional defenses.

Also read: Meet rising compliance requirements with smarter workflows

The psychology of the ‘teachable moment’

The goal of a simulation is not to catch people; it is to teach them. The “teachable moment” occurs within seconds of a user failing a simulation. If a user clicks and is met with a 30-minute mandatory training video, they will feel punished and likely grow resentful of the security team. Innovation in this space involves Just-in-Time micro-learning. A successful landing page after a click can be visually engaging and immediately highlight the missed cues in the specific email they just interacted with.

The “teachable moment” occurs within seconds of a user failing a simulation.

Furthermore, the NIST PhishScale provides a framework for security leaders and teams to understand why certain emails are more effective than others. It analyzes the cue visibility and the human context of a phish. For example, an email sent during a busy period, such as year-end accounting, is naturally more difficult to handle than one sent during a quiet summer week. By using the PhishScale, innovators can ensure they aren’t just making hard phishes, but relatively fair ones that provide measurable data on employee resilience under different levels of cognitive load.

Accessibility for all: the nonprofit strategy

It goes without saying that nonprofits often operate under very tight constraints, such as limited budgets and skeleton IT teams, making them a prime target for threat actors who know that their defenses are not that robust. However, the reality doesn’t have to be that expensive with modern phishing simulation tools and techniques. They can innovate using powerful open-source tools like Gophish, which is an industry-standard toolkit for managing phishing campaigns for free. As outlined in the Gophish User Guide, the platform allows organizations to clone their own login pages and track results without a recurring subscription fee. 

For a low-friction approach, nonprofits can also utilize the starter or free tiers of commercial platforms. For example, certain organizations offer a free phishing simulation starter tool that includes incident insights. Additionally, for the educational component, the SANS OUCH! Newsletter provides high-quality, free security awareness materials that can be linked directly to the failure pages of a Gophish campaign. This allows a nonprofit to run a professional-grade simulation program with limited or even zero software spend, focusing its limited resources on remediating the vulnerabilities identified during the tests.

From click-rates to a reporting culture

The final frontier of innovation in phishing simulation is the metric of success. For too long, the industry has obsessed over the click rate. However, a low click rate might simply mean the simulation was too easy. The more valuable metric is the reporting rate. A high reporting rate indicates that with humans in the loop, they can actively contribute to the company’s threat intelligence. 

A high reporting rate indicates a vigilant human team that actively contributes to the company’s threat intelligence. When an employee clicks the ‘Report Phishing’ button, they are not just protecting themselves; they are alerting the SOC to a potential campaign.

When an employee clicks the ‘Report Phishing’ button, they are not just protecting themselves; they are alerting the SOC to a potential campaign.

Building this culture requires positive reinforcement. According to a benchmark report, it is observed that organizations that gamify the reporting process, including regular simulation, training, and reporting mechanisms, see a drastic reduction in their phish-prone percentages. Instead of shaming those who fail, companies that thrive tend to celebrate their top reporters. This shifts the perception of the security team from simply being digital police to partners in defense. Ultimately, a realistic simulation program should strive to turn every employee into a sensor, creating a mesh network of human intelligence that is far more difficult for an attacker to penetrate than any single technical control.

The post Innovative phishing simulations to build cyber-resilience appeared first on NTEN.

Last summer, I had the privilege of completing a student capstone paper, Contemporary Practices in Nonprofit Technology Use and Management: An Exploratory Data Analysis, that was a collaborative effort between NTEN and our University of Minnesota team, composed of Nick Bovee-Gazett and me. Our goal was to conduct an exploratory analysis of NTEN’s Tech Accelerate dataset. Our work included quantitative analysis, and a structured literature review to contextualize findings within broader nonprofit sector trends.

What the data confirms: Size, age, and staffing matter

Our analysis examined a dataset of Tech Accelerate assessments from almost 1,300 organizations spanning the past eight years. We found clear, consistent patterns:

• Smaller organizations (by staff and budget) report higher technology risk across all categories. Micro-sized nonprofits with fewer than one full-time employee trigger risk flags on 65% of survey answers, compared to just 34% among organizations with 150+ staff.
• Newer organizations face greater digital vulnerability. Nonprofits founded in the 2010s and 2020s show significantly higher risk levels than those established in earlier decades.
• Dedicated technology staff make a difference. While disparities were evident across multiple dimensions—size, budget, age—the number of technology staff employed by an organization appeared to have the biggest impact. Organizations with no tech staff averaged nearly 60% risk flags, while the rate among organizations with more than ten tech staff dropped to 28%. Investment in people—not just tools—appears to be the most effective lever for digital readiness.

These findings may sound familiar, but the granularity of the Tech Accelerate data brings some disparities lurking underneath into sharper focus. Fifteen individual assessment questions show risk flag rate differences of 50 percentage points or more between the smallest and largest organizations. These gaps aren’t just statistical—they’re indicators of structural deficiencies that shape how nonprofit staff perceive and self-report on their digital readiness.

Investment in people—not just tools—appears to be the most effective lever for digital readiness.

Repeat engagement appears to drive improvement

Our most encouraging finding was that organizations conducting multiple Tech Accelerate assessments over time tend to show improving scores. Among 181 organizations with repeat assessments, 61% reduced their overall risk flag rate, with average risk levels falling from 44.2% to 40.8%. The share of organizations in the lowest-risk quartile increased by 50%, suggesting that repeated engagement may support real progress.

This trend raises important questions: Are these improvements actually a reflection of substantive organizational change, and if so, what role does Tech Accelerate play in driving that change? While the data cannot establish causality, it points to the potential of self-assessment as both a diagnostic and developmental tool. Further research is needed to explore whether score improvements correlate with real-world outcomes and how assessment use or cohort participation contributes to that journey.

Cohort participation: A promising advantage

Since 2024, organizations participating in NTEN’s Nonprofit Tech Readiness cohorts have reported lower average risk levels than non-group peers. While pre-2024 data showed similar distributions, cohort scores have since diverged in a positive direction. This suggests that structured engagement and support through cohort programs may yield cumulative benefits, though more research is needed to confirm the link between participation and lasting organizational change.

Beyond the numbers: Technology adoption is not just technical

The evidence gathered in this analysis reinforces a critical lesson: technology adoption in the nonprofit sector cannot be treated as a purely technical exercise. Progress requires:

• Cultural change
• Leadership commitment
• Equitable governance
• Intentional alignment of digital tools with mission outcomes

Emerging technologies, especially AI, bring both transformative potential and new risks. The urgent need for clear policies, robust data hygiene, bias audits, and cross-functional governance structures is more apparent than ever. The sector stands at a critical juncture: opportunities for impact are expanding, but so too are the risks of exclusion, inequity, and strategic drift.

Toward integrated, intentional strategies

Meeting modern challenges requires strategies that weave technology into every layer of organizational planning and practice—strategies grounded in equity, informed by data, guided by community voices, and supported by sustained investment in people and systems. The path forward is not about adopting the newest tools for their own sake, but about building the technical, ethical, and organizational capacity to ensure that technology serves as a true enabler of mission and social good.

Organizations conducting multiple Tech Accelerate assessments over time tend to show improving scores.

The challenges are real, but so are the opportunities. By embracing integrated approaches, investing in people, and centering equity and mission, nonprofits can harness technology to lead.

To learn more about the technical details, check out “Walking through the Power Query data model behind the analysis of NTEN’s Tech Accelerate dataset” by Jason Samuels.

The post Technology adoption in nonprofits: An analysis of NTEN’s Tech Accelerate data appeared first on NTEN.

These changes to website traffic and search are happening right now to nonprofits everywhere. We’re seeing this pattern across organizations, from small local charities to major international NGOs.

The good news is that there are concrete steps your team can take to adapt to keep your website traffic up. This guide covers what’s happening to nonprofit search traffic, how to make your content AI-readable through structured data, the types of search terms that still drive visitors to your site, and how to measure success.

What exactly is happening to nonprofit website traffic?

Google’s AI Overviews now appear above traditional search results, answering questions without requiring clicks. When someone searches “how to help homeless veterans,” Google’s AI pulls information from your website but displays it directly in search results. The person gets their answer, but you lose a potential volunteer, donor, or advocate.

This creates zero-click conversions where users get answers without visiting your site. AI Overviews could reduce organic traffic by 18-64% for websites with informational content. That’s exactly the type of educational content nonprofits create.

What’s reassuring is that donation conversions seem to be holding steady as traffic being lost comes primarily from informational queries that don’t typically convert to donations immediately anyway.

The timing couldn’t be worse. Many organizations are already stretching limited budgets while depending heavily on organic search for awareness and donor acquisition. Unlike businesses that can quickly pivot marketing spend, nonprofits often lack the resources for rapid digital strategy changes.

What’s reassuring is that donation conversions seem to be holding steady, as traffic being lost comes primarily from informational queries that don’t typically convert to donations immediately anyway. The real challenge lies in losing that crucial top-of-funnel awareness that eventually leads to engagement.

Also read: Seven ways to build an equitable website

How do you make your nonprofit’s content AI-readable?

Think of structured data as creating a “nutrition label” for your content that AI can easily read. 

This structured data, also called “schema markup”, is a short snippet of code that labels key information on your web pages, like your mission, donation options, or upcoming events. It helps search engines and AI tools interpret and surface your content more accurately, and can be added manually, through a CMS plugin, or with tools like Google’s Markup Helper.

This is code you add behind the scenes that doesn’t change how your site looks to visitors, but dramatically improves how AI understands your content.

Think of structured data as creating a “nutrition label” for your content that AI can easily read. 

This approach includes Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), and it’s different from traditional SEO. Instead of optimizing for human searchers clicking through to your site, you’re optimizing for AI systems that need to understand and reference your content in their responses.

Google’s algorithms now prioritize content with clear, structured information. When AI systems can quickly identify your organization’s mission, contact information, and donation opportunities, they’re more likely to reference your content in responses.

Essential schema types for nonprofits

Organization schema helps search engines display your contact information, mission, and credibility indicators. This markup tells AI systems exactly what your organization does and how people can support your work.

DonateAction schema makes your fundraising pages more visible to AI systems:

• Add to donation landing pages and fundraising campaign pages
• Include donation amount options and currency
• Specify recipient organization details
• Link to your secure donation processing page

Event schema helps your fundraising events and program activities appear in AI-generated event listings:

• Mark up fundraising galas, volunteer training sessions, and awareness events
• Include date, time, location, and registration details
• Add performer or speaker information when relevant
• Specify ticket prices and availability

FAQPage schema structures your common questions about your cause:

• Use for “How can I help?” sections on your website
• Include donation process explanations
• Cover volunteer opportunity questions
• Address common misconceptions about your cause

Implementation approaches

Google’s Structured Data Markup Helper provides a free, user-friendly way to add this markup to your pages. The tool walks you through tagging different elements on your pages without requiring extensive coding knowledge.

WordPress users can leverage several nonprofit-focused plugins that automatically generate appropriate schema markup. These plugins handle the technical implementation while you focus on content creation.

Organization schema helps search engines display your contact information, mission, and credibility indicators. This markup tells AI systems exactly what your organization does and how people can support your work.

For complex websites or organizations with extensive technical needs, bringing in developer support makes sense. A developer can implement complex schema markup across your entire site so it integrates properly with your existing systems.

Testing your structured data

Google’s Rich Results Test tool shows you exactly how your markup appears to search engines. Paste your URL into the tool and it reveals which schema elements Google can detect and any errors that need fixing.

Common mistakes include marking up content that doesn’t actually exist on your page or using incorrect schema types. The testing tool catches these issues before they affect your search visibility.

Which search terms should nonprofits focus on now?

AI Overviews appear most often for broad, informational queries. Specific, actionable queries still drive clicks to your website. Understanding this shift helps you create content that keeps reaching your audience despite AI changes.

Query types that still work vs. those that don’t

Queries that still drive clicks:

• “How to donate to [specific cause]” – requires transaction completion
• “Volunteer opportunities in [location]” – needs real-time, local information
• “[Organization name] contact information” – branded searches
• “Register for [specific event]” – requires interactive registration

Queries now answered by AI (fewer clicks):

• “What is climate change?” – general educational content
• “Homelessness statistics 2024” – factual information AI can summarize
• “How to help endangered species” – broad advice AI can compile
• “Nonprofit fundraising best practices” – general guidance

Content strategy shifts

Focus on “how to take action” rather than “what is this issue.” Instead of writing “What is food insecurity,” create content like “How to volunteer at your local food bank this weekend.” The difference matters because AI can easily summarize abstract concepts, but it can’t help someone actually show up to volunteer.

Create interactive content like donation calculators, volunteer matching tools, or impact assessments. These require user engagement that AI can’t replicate. When someone needs to input their zip code to find volunteer opportunities or calculate their potential tax deduction for a donation, they have to visit your site.

AI Overviews appear most often for broad, informational queries. Specific, actionable queries still drive clicks to your website. Understanding this shift helps you create content that keeps reaching your audience despite AI changes.

Build content around specific, local needs rather than general topics. For instance, “Animal rehoming shelter in Miami” performs better than “animal rehoming shelter information” because people searching for local help need current details that can change daily. Your Miami shelter content might include specific locations, supply drop-off times, and volunteer coordinator phone numbers.

Think about the questions people ask after they’ve learned the basics. AI handles “What is climate change?” well. But it struggles with “How do I start a climate action group at my workplace?” or “What supplies should I bring to the beach cleanup this Saturday?” These actionable queries still send people to your website.

Protecting your brand visibility

With organic clicks declining, Google Ad Grants become even more critical. Nonprofits get up to $10,000/month in free advertising to maintain visibility for branded searches and high-intent keywords.

Focus paid campaigns on branded terms and high-intent phrases like “donate to [your cause]” or “volunteer with [your organization].” These queries have clear commercial intent that AI responses can’t fulfill.

Google Search Console now shows which queries trigger AI Overviews for your content. Monitor this data to understand how AI affects your specific keywords and adjust your strategy accordingly.

How should nonprofits measure success when clicks disappear?

Traditional metrics like total organic traffic become less meaningful when AI answers questions without sending visitors to your site. New measurement approaches focus on engagement quality and brand visibility.

Set realistic expectations for both timeline and results. Schema markup might take 3-6 months to show measurable impact, and Google continues tweaking how AI Overviews work.

New metrics that matter

Track brand mentions in AI responses rather than just click volume. When AI references your organization’s expertise or data, that builds authority even without direct traffic.

Monitor conversion rates rather than total visitors. Higher-quality traffic that converts at better rates can be more valuable than previous traffic volumes with lower engagement.

Email sign-ups and newsletter subscriptions become leading indicators of engagement. These metrics show whether your content resonates with the people who do visit your site.

Tools for tracking AI impact

Setting up Google Search Console tracking:

• Performance report filtered for “AI Overview” impressions
• Query data showing which terms trigger AI responses
• Click-through rate changes for high-volume keywords
• Brand name search performance trends

Third-party tools for AI tracking:

• SEMrush: AI Overview keyword tracking (premium feature)
• Ahrefs: SERP feature monitoring for AI responses
• BrightEdge: AI impact measurement dashboard
• Custom Google Alerts for brand mentions in AI responses

Set up Google Alerts for your organization name and key terms to monitor when AI systems reference your content. This helps you understand your brand’s AI visibility beyond traditional click metrics.

Reporting to your board or leadership

Explain the shift from quantity to quality metrics. Board members need to understand that fewer, more engaged visitors can drive better outcomes than high-volume, low-intent traffic.

Create dashboards that show multiple traffic sources rather than focusing solely on organic search. Include email traffic, social media referrals, direct visits, and paid advertising performance. When board members see that email newsletter clicks are up 40% while organic search drops 25%, they understand you’re successfully diversifying your digital reach.

Set realistic expectations for both timeline and results. Schema markup might take 3-6 months to show measurable impact, and Google continues tweaking how AI Overviews work. Let leadership know that early wins might include better brand mention tracking rather than immediate traffic recovery.

Frame the challenge as an opportunity to strengthen owned media channels. While you can’t control Google’s algorithms, you can build email lists, social media followers, and direct relationships that don’t depend on search engines. Building these owned channels often creates more reliable long-term engagement than chasing organic search rankings.

Also read: Cybersecurity strategies for nonprofit websites

Ready to take action?

Google’s AI changes require immediate action, but you don’t need to overhaul everything at once. Start with these foundational steps that will protect your nonprofit’s search visibility as AI continues evolving.

Immediate next steps:

• Audit your current content’s AI Overview presence by searching for your organization’s key terms and noting when AI responses appear and whether they reference your content
• Implement basic organization schema markup on your homepage and about page to help AI systems understand your organization’s basic information and mission
• Begin tracking new metrics in Google Search Console by setting up custom reports that monitor impression data and AI Overview performance alongside traditional click metrics
• Train team members on structured data basics so your team can make informed decisions about content optimization and technical improvements
• Establish ongoing optimization processes rather than treating this as a one-time project, since AI search continues evolving and successful nonprofit website ranking requires consistent attention to these changes

Many nonprofits haven’t realized what’s happening to their search traffic yet. If you’re reading this you likely have a head start. Time to use it.

The post Keep your website traffic up in an AI-first search world appeared first on NTEN.