Here’s what’s different, and what’s staying exactly where you left it.

An expanded virtual program

Since 2021, we’ve committed to an NTC you can join from anywhere, and this year, we are expanding the virtual NTC experience significantly.

We heard consistently that spreading virtual sessions across the same four days as the in-person conference made them hard to attend. So we’ve condensed the virtual educational program into a single day: Tuesday, March 23.

That day will carry a full slate of virtual sessions and, for the first time, a dedicated virtual keynote with its own speaker. Until now, virtual attendees have received a version of the in-person mainstage. Starting in 2027, the virtual program gets a mainstage of its own. In-person attendees will be able to access that keynote as well.

Virtual sponsored sessions are also changing. Rather than occupying agenda slots, they’ll be available as on-demand content you can watch whenever it suits you. Virtual attendees will also be able to engage with each other through bespoke virtual engagement opportunities, as well as interact with in-person attendees through common discussion boards and interaction features on our conference platform.

The intent is a virtual NTC that is accessible and focused for people who want to join a virtual experience. Virtual registration remains priced well below in-person registration and we will continue to offer scholarships.

Session materials, available to everyone

Notes and recordings from both the in-person and virtual programs will be available to all attendees after the conference. Collaborative session notes have long outlived the conference itself — people return to them for years — and this extends to session recordings from both in-person and virtual experiences.

Accessibility shapes how we plan the NTC, online and in Portland alike. Expanded access to recordings is one result of that, and the more compact venue layout described below is another.

In Portland, everything on one floor

We’re glad to be back in Portland, where we’ve had good experiences working with local vendors and the Oregon Convention Center.

To expand we’ve reorganized how we use the space so that everything sits on a single floor at one end of the building. No more crossing the venue between sessions. It’s a small change that makes a real difference to the parts of the NTC that matter most: moving easily from session to session, finding a lounge when you need quiet, running into someone you’ve been meaning to talk to.

Tuesday, March 23 is a full day in Portland too. Pre-conference sessions run during the day, offering in-depth content from our partners. Badge pickup opens, and the evening brings our welcome reception, with programming on the mainstage, food, and a chance to meet with sponsors and tech vendors before the conference proper begins on Wednesday.

A new approach to presenter materials

We’re piloting a presentation management platform for sessions.

Presenters will upload their session materials to a central hub ahead of time, and those materials will be loaded and waiting on the computer in their session room. Last-minute changes on-site are supported. No dongles, no laptop swaps, no hunting for the right adapter while a room full of people watches.

This is also what makes audio recordings of in-person sessions possible, capturing session audio synced to slides so we can add those recordings to the platform afterward.

We’re building our own conference platform

Returning attendees know that we’ve used external event platforms for our conference, resulting in retrofitting our offerings to platform features. So this year we’re building it ourselves, designed around how this conference actually works.

You’ll get an agenda you can filter and search, a personal schedule that follows you from your laptop to your phone without vanishing when you log out, attendee profiles you can search, and granular privacy controls.

For 27NTC, it will be a mobile-responsive website you can save to your phone’s home screen, rather than a native app. We’re building it through summer and fall, and we’ll leave room for feedback so you can help us build on it each year.

What isn’t changing

The core of the NTC is the same. The educational sessions are still the heart of the program. They’re proposed by this community and selected by this community, and they’re taught by people doing the same work you do, under the same budgets and constraints. That’s why the advice tends to be usable.

Sponsor tables, Connect hubs, and User feedback rooms are where many attendees find the tools and services they end up adopting. You can ask the people who build nonprofit software or work with organizations just like yours direct questions and get advice right in the moment.

Then there’s everything around the sessions, which is what most people name first when they explain why they come back: Birds of a Feather tables at lunch, dine-arounds at Portland restaurants, affinity lounges and quiet rooms, attendee-led events, and the hallway conversations with people who understand your job without needing it explained.

What to do now

Session proposals open September 1, 2026. You’ll be able to propose for either the in-person or the virtual program. If you’ve been thinking about teaching something, that’s your date. Sign up for the information session on September 1.

Registration reopens on October 13, 2026. Subscribe to NTEN’s emails and we’ll make sure you hear about it, along with deadlines and announcements as they land.

We can’t wait to see you in March.

The post What’s new at the 2027 Nonprofit Technology Conference appeared first on NTEN.

The room did not exactly light up.

Some people were uncomfortable with the subject. Others seemed unsure why a small rural organization needed to discuss it at all. The general feeling was that we were not quite ready for that conversation.

The central question should not simply be whether AI can perform a task. It should be whether using AI for that task will strengthen the organization’s ability to serve people well.

I understood the hesitation. Many nonprofit leaders are already managing limited funding, staff shortages, growing community needs and a list of responsibilities that rarely seems to get shorter. Developing an approach to artificial intelligence can feel like one more demand competing for attention. But not having the conversation is itself a decision, and often the riskiest one available.

AI features are increasingly appearing inside tools that nonprofits already use for communication, fundraising, data management, research and administration. An organization may begin using AI without ever making a deliberate decision to adopt it.

The central question should not simply be whether AI can perform a task. It should be whether using AI for that task will strengthen the organization’s ability to serve people well.

Start with the problem, not the platform

AI can support nonprofit work in many practical ways. It can assist with research and planning, organize information, draft and restructure content, identify patterns and reduce repetitive administrative work.

These are meaningful benefits, particularly in smaller organizations where one person may be responsible for programs, communications, fundraising and reporting, sometimes before lunch.

However, the existence of a tool does not establish a reason to use it.
How many times have organizations purchased a subscription and quietly assumed that proficiency would follow? Buying an AI tool is no different. Access is not the same as learning to use it well.

AI cannot decide what an organization should stand for, whose needs should be prioritized or what risks are acceptable. Likewise, it cannot repair weak leadership, rebuild broken trust or compensate for poor decision making.

Before selecting a tool, nonprofit leaders should identify the organizational problem they are trying to solve. Where are our staff losing time? Which repetitive tasks prevent them from
concentrating on community needs? What parts of the current process frustrate employees, volunteers or program participants.

Those questions should not be answered by senior leadership alone. Staff members who perform the work often understand the limitations of a process better than anyone else. When a technology decision may affect clients or community members, their experiences should also help shape the conversation.

This is especially important for smaller and rural nonprofits. These organizations may not have dedicated technology staff, extensive training budgets or much room for costly experimentation. That does not make responsible adoption less important. It makes clear and proportionate guidance more important.

A tool is not a strategy

Nonprofits need more than access to AI. They need purpose, boundaries, oversight and a shared understanding of how the technology supports the mission.

Not every organization needs an elaborate governance structure. A small community nonprofit is not a multinational technology company. It does, however, need to answer some basic questions.

What information are staff entering into the tool? Could that information identify a client, donor, volunteer or community member Who checks the accuracy of the output? Who remains accountable when AI contributes to a document, communication or decision?

These questions are not barriers to innovation. They are part of using innovation responsibly. Technology can support a clear mission and strategy, but it cannot create either. AI cannot decide what an organization should stand for, whose needs should be prioritized or what risks are acceptable. Likewise, it cannot repair weak leadership, rebuild broken trust or compensate for poor decision making.

A tool can sharpen a healthy strategy. It can also help an organization execute a confused strategy more quickly. Greater capability does not guarantee greater wisdom.

Where AI helps and where people must lead

AI may produce something faster, but speed alone does not make the result thoughtful, credible, or aligned with the mission.

Consider community engagement. AI can organize survey responses and identify recurring themes, saving staff considerable time. But the tool does not know the community the way a trusted practitioner does. It may not understand why a comment carries historical weight, why silence from one group matters or why similar words can reflect very different experiences.

AI can help organize what people have said. Human beings must still listen for what they meant.

AI is especially useful when it helps organize, summarize, compare, draft or surface possibilities. People must lead when the work requires moral responsibility, relational trust, cultural understanding, empathy or accountability.

The same principle applies to donor communication. AI can prepare an initial draft or adapt information for different audiences. But donor relationships are not built through efficient sentence production. They are built through credibility, gratitude, shared purpose and sustained
human connection.

AI can help prepare the communication. A person must remain responsible for the relationship.

Program data offers another example. AI may surface patterns worth examining. Yet a pattern in a dataset is not a complete understanding of a person’s life. Data may show that participation has declined without explaining whether transportation, work schedules, caregiving responsibilities, mistrust or an earlier negative experience caused that decline.

AI may help us see where to look. Human judgment, community knowledge and direct conversation help us understand what we
are seeing. This is the dividing line.

AI is especially useful when it helps organize, summarize, compare, draft or surface possibilities. People must lead when the work requires moral responsibility, relational trust, cultural understanding, empathy or accountability.

The last thing any nonprofit should become is more efficient at the expense of becoming less relational, less trusted or less human.

Four questions to ask before automating

Before incorporating AI into a task or process, nonprofit leaders can ask four questions.

1. Will this give us more time for people?

Efficiency should have a purpose. When reducing repetitive work allows staff to spend more time with clients, volunteers, donors or community partners, efficiency can strengthen the mission.

When automation simply increases expectations, produces more content or places additional pressure on staff, it may not be creating meaningful capacity at all. Leaders should define where the saved time will go.

The goal should not be to complete more tasks simply because technology now makes that possible. It should be to redirect attention toward work that requires human presence and judgment.

2. What are we placing in the tool?

Staff should understand whether they are entering confidential, identifying or sensitive information into an AI system. They should also consider whether they would be comfortable explaining that decision to the person whose information it is.

This question requires more than checking whether a tool technically permits the use of certain data. It requires examining the organization’s obligations to the people it serves. Information does not become less personal simply because it is entered into a convenient platform.

Organizations should establish clear boundaries around what staff may and may not share with AI tools. Those expectations should be written in language that employees and volunteers can understand and apply in everyday situations.

3. Who is responsible for checking the result?

Human oversight should mean more than glancing at an AI generated product before approving it. Responsibility should be assigned before the tool is used, not after a problem occurs.

Someone must examine the accuracy, context, tone and possible consequences of the result. That person must have enough knowledge of the subject and the community to recognize when
something is missing or misleading.

When AI contributes to a communication or decision, the organization still owns the result. Accountability cannot be delegated alongside the task.

4. Could we explain this use openly to the people affected?

Transparency is a useful test of alignment. Would the organization be comfortable telling a donor that AI helped prepare a communication?
Could it explain to a program participant how technology influenced the review of their information? Would staff understand how an AI supported decision was reached?

The answers will differ among organizations. The questions help leaders distinguish between using AI because it strengthens the work and using it simply because the capability exists.

Begin with a small and reversible experiment

A responsible approach does not require an organization to create a perfect policy before learning anything about AI. It can begin with a small experiment involving a lower risk task. An organization might use AI to reorganize public information, summarize notes that contain no identifying details or prepare questions for a staff planning session.

Before beginning, the organization should define what it hopes to improve. It should establish what information may be used, identify who will review the output and decide how staff will evaluate whether the experiment helped. Afterward, leaders should ask what changed.

Did the tool actually save time? Was the final result accurate and useful? Did it create new work for someone else? Were staff members comfortable with the process? Did the experiment allow the organization to spend more time on mission focused work?

The organization should also be willing to stop. An experiment is only responsible when declining to continue remains a genuine option.

Keep the mission at the center

A human centered approach to AI does not require nonprofits to reject the technology. It requires them to begin with the mission rather than the capability. Instead of asking, “Where can we use AI?”, organizations might ask, “Where are staff losing time that could be better spent serving people?”

AI may help nonprofits work more efficiently and extend the capacity of organizations long expected to accomplish more with less. Those opportunities are worth exploring. Yet the qualities at the heart of nonprofit work, including trust, empathy, judgment, integrity,
compassion and relationships, cannot be treated as inefficiencies waiting to be automated away. They are not obstacles to effective work. They are often the reason the work is effective in the first place.

The last thing any nonprofit should become is more efficient at the expense of becoming less relational, less trusted or less human.

The goal should not be to use AI everywhere it can be used. The goal should be to use it wherever it helps us serve people better, and to possess the wisdom to recognize where humanity must continue to lead.

The post Before your nonprofit automates: Four questions to keep people at the center of decision making appeared first on NTEN.

When I started the museum job in 1997, I didn’t know what an “accidental techie” was – I don’t think the phrase was even part of the lexicon back then. Looking back, however, I can see the phenomenon I was experiencing was happening in organizations all over the country.

The nonprofit sector has notoriously been slow to change and adoption of technology is no different. This is due in no small part to the lack of funding for operating costs to run our organizations. In the late 90s, we were not only up against the “overhead myth,” but personal computers were still relatively new and not a regular fixture on peoples’ desks at home or even at work!

When I started the museum job in 1997, I didn’t know what an “accidental techie” was – I don’t think the phrase was even part of the lexicon back then. Looking back, however, I can see the phenomenon I was experiencing was happening in organizations all over the country.

In my new role at the museum, I attended training on Novell Networks within my first few weeks so I could confidently manage the server and computers. At the time, all of our applications were DOS-based. I helped secure two technology grants that upgraded many of our systems to Windows-based software.

I managed and maintained the organization’s computers, printers, and peripherals, provided user support for multiple software applications, and served as liaison to our technology support company. I also helped design the museum’s first website and selected its first digital camera, which stored photos on 3.5-inch floppy disks.

In 2002, after advocating for myself, my position was changed to membership and technology manager. It took five years of managing the technology, while also doing development work, to have my title reflect all my responsibilities.

As I continued to progress in my role, I found the technology aspects of my job interesting and challenging, so I decided to further my education. I went back to school to get a degree in computer science to go with my first degree in fine arts.

In the fall of 2003, I attended an event in Indianapolis called The Nonprofit Technology Summit hosted by the Indiana affiliate of NPower, a national network of nonprofits dedicated to “putting technology know-how in the hands of nonprofits.”

After spending years feeling alone working at a nonprofit and having to figure out how to use technology, largely on my own, here was a conference full of people in the same boat.

The tagline for the Summit was “helping nonprofits achieve their mission through the creative and innovative use of technology.” After spending years feeling alone working at a nonprofit and having to figure out how to use technology, largely on my own, here was a conference full of people in the same boat. Attending the event felt like coming home – I had found my people – and I never forgot that feeling.

In January 2004, I left the museum to be the development coordinator at the social service nonprofit where I still am today – Brightpoint. While I didn’t end up taking a tech job, my experience with technology helped me land my new role. My position had just been created to start a development program. My first order of business was to set up the donor database, software that had been purchased, but was literally still in the box.

In February 2021, I got an email from Amy Sample Ward, at NTEN. The subject of the email was “Being in community has gotten difficult and a whole lot more important.” This struck a chord with me. During the Covid-19 pandemic, I was reminded just how important it is “to be in community with people who ground me, support me, and really see me” – as Amy said in the email.

That month, I signed up to be a member of NTEN and registered to attend the Nonprofit Technology Conference. It was phenomenal. I found people who understood me, ideas that challenged me, and a community of like-minded individuals wanting to do good in the world. It was reminiscent of the way I felt at the Technology Summit in 2003.

Before I joined NTEN, I had forgotten that there were other people out there like me – nonprofit professionals trying to put technology to work for social change – many of us doing it while filling other roles at our organizations. At 26NTC this year, I left with a renewed sense of the importance of community.

When I tell someone who is unfamiliar with NTEN about it, they often look confused. Why am I involved with a technology organization when I have a development job?

I signed up to be a member of NTEN and registered to attend the Nonprofit Technology Conference. It was phenomenal. I found people who understood me, ideas that challenged me, and a community of like-minded individuals wanting to do good in the world.

Unlike the world I started my career in, computers are now part of all of our jobs. And the unique challenges of navigating technology in our sector are something that make NTEN a community that anyone working at a nonprofit can benefit from.

Because the reality is: we all work in technology now. And it’s challenging, but you don’t have to go it alone.

The post You don’t have to go it alone. How I found my people in nonprofit communities like NTEN. appeared first on NTEN.

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.