Widening the Circle

When a nonprofit leader says the organization is out of capacity, it almost always means one of two things: out of money, or out of staff. We just spent three issues there — earned revenue, the ground the mission stands on, and the people you pay to carry it.

This issue is about the capacity that sits outside all of that, and that most organizations never count.

Here is the trap. Define your capacity as your payroll plus your grant list, and you've tied your mission's reach to the two things hardest to grow and quickest to vanish. A funder pulls out, a key staffer leaves, and the ceiling drops overnight — while you treat everyone outside the building as an audience rather than a resource.

The most resilient nonprofits know capacity also lives in the community itself — in money ordinary people pool, in skills experts will donate, and in judgment the people you serve will share if you hand them a real decision. None of it shows up on your payroll. All of it is real, and it's growing fast.

The three stories here show the pattern. In one, small donors combine their gifts until the pooled check rivals a foundation's grant. In another, professionals do the expert work a nonprofit could never put on payroll. In the third, funders hand the grant decision itself to the community.

Three resources — money, skill, and judgment. One idea: your real capacity is wider than your budget, and the organizations that thrive are the ones that widen the circle.

A portion of what you pay for this subscription goes to Rooted, a Madison-based nonprofit whose urban farms and seventy-plus community gardens run on exactly this principle — the labor, land, and care of a whole community, not a payroll. Thank you for making it possible.

Ordinary People Are Pooling Their Money and Handing Grant-Sized Checks to Local Nonprofits — Together

In 2025, a giving circle at the Catholic Community Foundation in Phoenix granted $251,432 to seventeen local organizations. Across the country, the NextGen Giving Circle at the Princeton Area Community Foundation awarded $27,500 to three more — a school-breakfast program, a workforce program for high-school boys, and job training for teens and adults. Neither pool came from a major donor; both came from regular people who put in what they could and decided together where it went.

That is a giving circle: people who pool their donations and collectively choose which nonprofits get the money — and it has quietly become the fastest-growing form of philanthropy in the country. I am certain you have heard of them, but they are worth a tactical examination.

The 2024 In Abundance study, from Philanthropy Together and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy, counted roughly 4,000 collective-giving groups with more than 370,000 members who have moved over $3.1 billion to causes they care about; the number of circles tripled between 2016 and 2023, after tripling again the decade before.

Most small nonprofits run on a dangerously thin donor base. Giving circles are the opposite — a wide base of engaged small donors whose gifts arrive pooled into grant-sized amounts, and the engagement is the point: in the research, 77 percent of members said participating raised their belief that their voice matters, and 83 percent their confidence to take action in their community. A giving-circle member isn't a name on a mailing list. They voted for you, and they tend to stay.

What makes it replicable: the money is pooled before it's granted, so a stack of $50 and $200 gifts becomes one check big enough to matter; the members decide together, which turns passive donors into advocates who follow you and bring their friends; and most circles already live inside a community foundation or a host like Philanthropy Together, so you don't build the structure — you get on their radar. Start by listing the circles at your community foundation and in your region, learn each one's focus and cycle, and get a board member or volunteer to join one whose interests overlap your mission.

Sources: NonprofitPRO — "New Research Shows Multi-Billion-Dollar Growth in Collective Giving"; Johnson Center — U.S. Collective Giving Research Initiative ("In Abundance"); Princeton Area Community Foundation — NextGen Giving Circle Awards More Than $25,000 in 2025.

Nonprofits Received Hundreds of Millions of Dollars of Expert Work Last Year — Without Paying for Any of It

Here's another item that may be so familiar that you have overlooked it.

More Than Bootstraps, a small nonprofit, needed help it could never afford to hire — grant writing, marketing, strategic planning. Instead of hiring, it used Catchafire to bring in skilled volunteers for each piece, and the capability it built helped it win a $157,500, three-year grant from the Johnson Scholarship Foundation for work it couldn't have shown a funder a year earlier.

That is not a one-off. The Taproot Foundation has connected more than 10,000 social-good organizations with skilled professionals since 2001, for over $315 million in donated expertise; its Taproot Plus platform is free to any US nonprofit, and Catchafire runs a similar marketplace, often sponsored by a funder so local nonprofits use it at no cost.

The expertise a small nonprofit needs most — a real marketing strategy, a database that works, an HR policy that holds up, a finance dashboard a board can read — is exactly what it can't put on payroll. A skilled volunteer fills a gap a salary line never will. And the supply is rising: a 2026 Taproot/PwC report found professionals increasingly want this work, because donating a hard skill builds the human skills — judgment, communication, adaptability — their own careers now depend on. The talent is looking for a place to give; your unfunded project is that place.

What makes it replicable: scope a defined project with a deliverable — a logo, a one-page dashboard, a refreshed handbook, a website — not vague "ongoing help," because pro bono works on finishable work; use a platform that screens and matches, like Taproot Plus or a sponsored Catchafire account; and manage the volunteer like a consultant, with a clear brief, one point of contact, and real deadlines. Name the one project you've deferred for lack of budget, write a one-paragraph scope, and post it on Taproot Plus — or ask a local funder to sponsor Catchafire access. You can have a qualified professional scoping the work within weeks; your capacity isn't capped by what you can put on payroll.

Let me add for those of you who have read my materials for a long time that I am a strong believer in paying consultants to perform major tasks. Don't use free work to fill absolutely mission-critical needs. Instead use it to perform discrete tasks that will enhance your organization's overall operations.

Sources: Taproot Foundation — Taproot Plus; Catchafire — "Winning Major Grants With Skills-Based Volunteering"; PR Newswire — "Pro Bono Service Builds Human Skills Essential to Succeed in AI Era" (Taproot/PwC report).

A Growing Number of Funders Are Handing Grant Decisions to the Communities They Serve — And the Grants Are Getting Better

For most of its history, philanthropy has worked one way: people with money and little connection to a community decide which of its organizations deserve a grant. A small, fast-growing group of funders decided that produces worse decisions than it should — and started handing the decision to the people closest to the need.

iF, A Foundation for Radical Possibility, which funds work across Washington, DC, suburban Maryland, and Northern Virginia, makes its final grant decisions through a committee of community members; it calls the approach Community Power Grantmaking. The Haymarket People's Fund in New England has run this way since 1974, letting a panel of community organizers decide its grants for five decades. And the Disability Rights Fund, which puts grant decisions in the hands of people with disabilities, disbursed $5.2 million across 165 grants in 42 countries in 2025 alone.

This is participatory grantmaking, and it's moving toward the mainstream: one analysis found 83 percent of large US foundations now report some form of stakeholder participation, even as only about 10 percent have fully handed decision-making power to community members. The first number is where the sector is heading; the second is how much room is left to run.

The evidence points one way: proximity predicts both trust and impact. People who live the problem make sharper funding decisions, because they know which organizations actually deliver and which only look good on paper. For you, that has two consequences — a growing share of grant money is decided by community panels rather than program officers, so showing up credibly to the people you serve is becoming a funding strategy, not just a values statement; and the same logic works inside your own walls.

What makes it replicable, even though you're not a foundation: hand over a real decision, not a suggestion box — a vote, a defined budget, an actual choice (the line ordinary "community input" stops at, and crossing it is what changes the result); prepare and pay the people you ask to decide, so participation is a respected role, not unpaid extraction; and bound the scope — a slice of program dollars, one event's design, a single grant cycle. Pick one decision you now make alone that affects the people you serve, and this year give a prepared, compensated group the actual call. Be honest about the cost — doing it well takes time, facilitation, and money, and a sloppy version that ignores the input it asked for does more harm than never asking. Start with one bounded decision and widen from there.

Sources: Urban Institute — "Participatory Grantmaking Aims to Dismantle Power Imbalances"; iF, A Foundation for Radical Possibility — Community Power Grantmaking; Disability Rights Fund — "Our Grantmaking in 2025".

Recruit One Skilled Volunteer for a Single Defined Project

Most small nonprofits carry projects they'll "get to when there's budget" — the decade-old website, the dashboard no one built, the two-years-overdue HR policy. That budget is never coming. But the skill is free, if you ask for one finishable project instead of open-ended help.

Action: Pick the single project you most need and least have the skill or money to do. Write a one-paragraph scope: the deliverable, a realistic time frame, and who the volunteer works with. Post it on Taproot Plus (free to any US nonprofit) or ask a local funder to sponsor a Catchafire account. Choose a clear finish line — an annual-report template, a Google Ad Grant setup, a board-ready budget model — not "help us with marketing." Then manage the volunteer like a consultant: one contact, a clear brief, real dates.

ROI: Professional marketing, finance, or technology work runs well over $150 an hour. One scoped project delivers thousands of dollars of expertise for the cost of writing a paragraph — and a well-treated volunteer often returns.

Time: 30 minutes to scope and post. A few hours to manage it to delivery.

Find and Approach One Giving Circle That Funds Organizations Like Yours

There's almost certainly a group near you that pools money every year and votes on which local nonprofits receive it — and they may never have heard of you. Most are actively looking for strong local organizations to fund. The only thing between you and that room is an introduction.

Action: Call your community foundation for a list of the giving circles it hosts, with each one's focus area and grant cycle. Search "[your city] giving circle" and check national networks like Philanthropy Together. Identify the one or two whose interests overlap your mission, learn how they choose grantees — many take nominations or applications, others rely on a member to champion a cause — and either apply when the cycle opens or ask a board member or volunteer to join and speak for you from the inside.

ROI: Recent giving-circle grants to a single organization have run from a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands, and a circle that funds you once often funds you again — and brings its members to your events. The research costs you an afternoon.

Time: 60 minutes to identify the circles. A few hours to make contact and prepare a submission.

Publish a Specific In-Kind Wish List for Your Community

Your community is full of people and businesses who'd give you something other than cash — a used laptop, a meeting space, printing, legal review, a pallet of supplies — but they'll never guess what you need. Keep the ask vague ("donations welcome!") and you get nothing usable. A specific, public wish list turns latent goodwill into real resources.

Action: List the ten concrete non-cash things that would help most next quarter, with a rough dollar value beside each: "three refurbished laptops," "a conference room for our monthly volunteer training," "200 printed program booklets," "four hours of bookkeeping." Post it on your site and social channels, hand it to your board with a request that each member forward it to one business contact, and keep it current. When a gift arrives, thank the giver publicly and specifically — which prompts the next one.

ROI: In-kind gifts displace real expenses — equipment, space, and professional services you'd otherwise buy. A handful of fulfilled requests frees hundreds or thousands of dollars for the mission, and each named donor becomes a warmer prospect for a cash gift later.

Time: 45 minutes to build the list. 15 to post it and brief your board.

Scope a Pro Bono Project and Write the Recruitment Pitch That Lands a Skilled Volunteer

The reason most nonprofits never get the free professional help available to them isn't the platform — it's the brief. Skilled volunteers pass over vague, sprawling requests and respond to a tight scope with a clear deliverable and a real finish line. That's exactly the kind of structured writing an AI tool can draft with you in minutes. Run it before you post, so the project that goes live is the one a busy professional actually wants.

Draft a Case for Support You Can Hand to a Donor, a Giving Circle, or a Volunteer

Every time someone in your community is ready to help — a giving-circle member deciding where the pool goes, a skilled volunteer choosing a project, a board member's contact asking "what do you actually do?" — you have a few seconds to make the case, and most nonprofits answer with a mission statement that persuades no one. Run this when you need one clear, reusable document that turns interest into a decision — the foundation under your appeals, applications, and conversations.

Build a One-Page Theory of Change for One of Your Programs

Funders, board members, and the skilled volunteers you're now recruiting all ask a version of the same question: how does what you do actually lead to the change you promise? Most small nonprofits have a confident answer in the founder's head and nothing on paper. Writing a theory of change usually reveals one link the organization has been assuming rather than testing. Run it on a single program, so the logic stays specific enough to act on.

The Network Map — A 30-Minute Board Exercise to Surface the Doors Your Board Can Already Open

What makes it worth trying: Most boards treat fundraising and connections as a vague hope — everyone nods that the board "should open doors," and almost no one names which doors, or to whom. Meanwhile every board member is sitting on a personal network of relationships, skills, and access the organization has never asked them to use. This exercise makes that hidden capacity concrete. It surfaces the specific introductions, expertise, and resources the board could put to work right now — the giving circles a member belongs to, the marketing executive who owes them a favor, the company that would donate the laptops on your wish list.

It works because it replaces a guilt-laced abstraction ("we need to do more") with a short, concrete inventory that anyone can fill out — and then turns the most promising entries into named asks.

How to run it (30 minutes):

1. Setup (before the meeting, by the board chair or ED): On one page, list four columns — People (who do you know who could help?), Skills (what can you personally do for us?), Access (what spaces, events, or organizations can you get us into?), and Resources (what goods or services could you or your employer donate?). Send it out so members arrive having thought about it.
2. Round 1 — fill it in privately (8 minutes): Each board member writes their own answers in all four columns. No discussion yet. Private first means the quiet, well-connected member contributes as much as the loud one.
3. Round 2 — share and connect (12 minutes): Go around the table. Each member names their single strongest entry in each column. The chair or ED captures them on one shared list and looks for matches to current needs — an open project, a funding gap, an item on the organization's in-kind wish list.
4. Round 3 — commit to three asks (10 minutes): From everything on the board, choose the three highest-value, most reachable opportunities and assign each one to a specific person with a date: make the introduction, write the email, bring the contact to the next meeting. Not "we'll keep this in mind." Three named asks with owners and deadlines.

In-person: A printed four-column sheet for each member and a flip chart where the chair captures the strongest entries and circles the three the board commits to.

Virtual: A shared spreadsheet with the four columns and a row per board member. Each fills in their own row privately, then the group reviews together and highlights the three commitments.

Watch out for: The board that turns this into a fundraising-guilt session about who has rich friends. Keep it broad — skills, access, and in-kind resources matter as much as donors, and a member who can bring a pro bono accountant or a free meeting space is opening a real door. Watch, too, for the list that gets made and never worked; the value is entirely in the three named asks at the end, not in the inventory itself. (Readers of Managing Your Nonprofit for Resilience will recognize this as turning a latent asset into a managed one — naming a resource, assigning ownership, and acting before the need becomes a crisis.)

You'll know it worked when: Within 60 days, at least one of the three commitments has produced something concrete — an introduction that led to a meeting, a skilled volunteer who took a project, a donated resource that showed up. The deeper signal is whether "who do we already know who could help with this?" becomes the board's reflex when a need surfaces, instead of "where will we find the money?"

There is a pattern in the nonprofits that keep growing when their budgets do not. Their leaders stopped measuring capacity by the size of the payroll and the length of the grant list, and started counting the money, the skill, and the judgment already sitting in the community around them — and then they asked for it.

Who is already in your community, ready to give money, skill, or judgment to your mission — and what have you actually asked of them this year?

See you next week.

— Ted

P.S. Thanks again for supporting Rooted with your subscription.

Founder and CEO Risk Alternatives, LLC 202.758.7572 (cell) ​Website​ Author of ​​Managing Your Nonprofit for Resilience​​​ I help nonprofits thrive by providing practical tools and support to address uncertainty and improve resilience.

Did a cool person forward you this email?

​Sign up here​