Collaboration and Nonprofit Developmental Stages
Today, we have an economic and social crisis that politicians have intentionally created. The crisis is marked by division and chaos and follows years of intentionally undermining the social fabric of our nation. Funding streams have been shattered, public policy at all levels of government continues to fracture, social service leaders are burning out, and demand for services continues to grow. Even if there is a magical change in November, it will take years to rebuild the shattered democracy of our nation.
In this context, we must face the reality that we are at the front end of a fundamental reordering of the nonprofit sector and, as a nonprofit, you can be dragged along because of agency and leadership hubris or you can control your place in the reordering. A recent opinion piece underscores the local crisis of the social service sector (1). In short, nonprofits and the broader social sector face a choice: react and descend into tribal chaos (think Lord of the Flies), or rediscover the lost art of collaboration.
Over the years large consulting companies like Bridgespan, McKinsey and Deloitte have floated various models of collaboration designed to reduce inefficiency in the social service/ nonprofit sector. Clearly some of that work focused on the nuts and bolts of consolidation and merger, but often, the conversations were about the next big thing. Remember when Venture Philanthropy was the next big thing --nonprofits guided by wisdom of successful private sector executives (2)? Or when shared back end services was a solution (3)? Or Collective Impact with backbone organizations and imposed metrics was something to strive for (4)? Recently, a new variation, the consortium model has captured the imagination (5). Others have preached for years , and have renewed calls for institutional philanthropy to fund acquisitions and mergers & increase funding (6).
These models cycle in and out of favor every time a new consultant discovers the archives of the Stanford Social Innovation Review or the Nonprofit Quarterly —for good reason. There is a lot of wisdom in what has been tried before. However, a missing piece of much of the collaboration literature is a discussion of “developmental stages” that differentiate nonprofits. Much of my consulting practice is built around a belief that nonprofits fall into one of four stages:
Start-Up: This stage is driven by a founder trying to prove an idea and raise revenues to keep doors open long enough to test the idea.
Emerging: As a program idea is tested, replicated and starts to attract resources, this second stage wrestles with the question of whether the program and outcomes merit building an infrastructure to sustain its existence at a micro or small scale, should merge with another organization, or should it scale.
Scale: The third development stage is that of a nonprofit scaling a nonprofit organization. Scale requires conversations about going deeper, longer or wider. Deeper is the idea that if 100 kids can benefit from 1-1 reading tutoring, then the nonprofit can deepen that one intervention (e.g., adding more rigorous research and refining the model) and expanding the number of kids served from 100 to 1,000 or 10,000. Longer is the idea of replicating the program model in other locations. If the model works in Portland, Oregon why not replicate it in Salem, Baker City or even nationwide. Wider if the decision to add additional interventions to expand the impact. For example, in addition to tutoring youth, the nonprofit adds parent training, advocacy for new school-based curriculum, or set up book giveaways as ways to further extend the organizational impact of
Leadership: Beyond scale, there are nonprofits to break through into a leadership position. Few organizations arrive at the point where they set the bar for others to follow - establishing standards, a research-base that influences the practices of other agencies doing similar work, developing public policy, and advocating the survival of the field or domain. I believe that this leadership could be regional, statewide or national.
I argue that many conversations about collaboration miss the critical point of developmental stages. When nonprofits come to the table to discuss collaboration, they may judge each other by organizational head count, budget size or brand recognition. That creates the implicit or explicit power differential. However, a facilitated conversation of developmental stages, helps the group understand that each nonprofit carries unique perspectives and challenges based on the stage where they are anchored. Collaborative solutions, to be effective, must recognize the competing and complimenting developmental realities of the players sitting at the table.
A developmental stage approach to collaborative conversations brings more understanding, equity, and widens the lens of what collaboration and partnerships looks like. A regional leader may have lost its ability to act like a start up or small nonprofit. How can the agencies learn and mentor each other? How can collaboration between an agency scaling wider, partner with a small organization to prevent reinventing the wheel? And when it comes to the harder conversations of program consolidation or mergers? Power is not based only on size but also on the unique, complimenting and additive capacities that each agency brings to the table and collaboration demands that we partner with the broadest lens possible.
The bottom line is we can react to the seismic shifts that are occurring daily and will collapse many nonprofits, or we can come to table of collaboration. The community is depending on us to come together and carve new pathways forward. So what are we waiting for?
References:
(1) Kerman, S. (Jan. 04, 2026) Opinion: Oregon’s social safety net is entering a dangerous squeeze. The Oregonian.
(2) Brennan-Levine, L. ( N.D.). The Nuts and Bolts of Venture Philanthropy. Giving Compass
(3) Butzen, J. (2010) Shared Service Alliances: Part One and Part Two. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
(4) Kania, J & Kramer M. (2011). Collective Impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
(5) Kaplan, S. (2025). The Impact Collaborative. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
(6) Buteau, E., Smith Arrillaga, E., Grundhoefer, S, & Im, C. (2026). A sector in Crisis: How U.S. Nonprofits and Foundations Are Responding to Threats.
I have spent my career building connections and supporting collaborative work. I was fortunate enough to be introduced to systems thinking as part of my graduate work in public health and have used community development skills in virtually every position I have held. If you need a meeting facilitator, trainer or someone to help design a process, the reach out and connect.
