Take the Risk Assessment Quiz
Since 2022, shifting funding patterns, fierce competition, and politicized environments have made “staying on mission” harder than ever.
When I published Managing Your Nonprofit for Resilience in late 2022, I listed “mission creep” as one of 50 reasons why it is so hard to run a nonprofit. What has changed since then? I discuss that below in the latest installment of our series.
Mission creep (also called mission drift) refers to a nonprofit gradually moving away from its original mission, often by taking on programs or activities outside its core purpose. Unlike a deliberate mission change, mission creep usually happens subtly over time. It often starts with well-intentioned decisions. For instance, saying yes to a project slightly outside the activities your mission supports, or pursuing an enticing new funding source even if it’s only moderately connected to your mission. Over time, these small detours can accumulate until an organization finds it has strayed significantly from its founding purpose.
Mission creep matters because a strong, clear mission is the compass that guides a nonprofit’s strategy and impact. When nonprofits drift off mission, they risk diluting their effectiveness, confusing stakeholders, and stretching resources too thin. Donors and community partners may lose confidence if they perceive an organization is no longer “walking its talk.”
Mission creep is not a new phenomenon. Current sector conditions, however, have heightened the risk and brought renewed attention to this issue. Since late 2022, nonprofit leaders have been operating in an especially turbulent environment, emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic into new economic uncertainties, shifting funding patterns, and polarized social climates.
Multiple converging trends since late 2022 have intensified the pressures that often lead to mission creep. Among the most frequently cited are:
Nonprofits depend on external funding, and with funding sources in flux, the temptation to “follow the money” is strong. Organizations may pursue grants or gifts that come with strings attached or encourage new programs outside their wheelhouse. This can lead to compromising the mission to fit what funders want. Donors with their own agendas can explicitly or subtly sway a board away from the nonprofit’s mission over the promise of funding. In the current climate, this donor-driven pressure is acute: as overall philanthropy dollars have rebounded post-pandemic, they are increasingly concentrated among large donors, while the number of grassroots donors has fallen.
Economic volatility since 2022 has put nonprofits under strain, making mission creep a tempting survival strategy. High inflation, labor shortages, and the tail end of pandemic-era funding boosts have created a financial squeeze. In 2023–24, nonprofits saw costs spike, with 86% reporting that inflation was impacting their operations and clients just as certain revenue streams tightened. According to the Nonprofit Finance Fund’s latest sector survey, 36% of organizations ended 2024 with an operating deficit, the highest rate in a decade. Over half of nonprofits had only three months or less of cash on hand, leaving slim margins for error.
At the same time, demand for nonprofit services remains elevated, with 85% of organizations expecting service demand to increase further. This dynamic of more need with fewer resources can push nonprofits to stretch their missions to capture any available funding or address urgent community problems. One nonprofit leader described the dilemma starkly: “Maintaining clarity of mission and financial sustainability over the next few years, in the current political climate, will be an existential challenge.”
As I have mentioned repeatedly in recent blog posts, the polarized U.S. political climate of the past few years has created additional challenges to mission fidelity. Nonprofits are operating amid contentious public debates and, in some cases, direct attacks on their work or funding sources. In a 2025 national survey by the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP), nonprofit leaders named “the polarized and unpredictable political climate” as a key challenge, “posing risks to funding, their organizational mission and values, and the communities they serve.” Some 84% of government-funded nonprofits expect reductions in public funding going forward. This not only creates financial pressure, as discussed above, but may also tempt organizations to adjust their mission or programs to align with new public priorities or mandates to secure alternate funding. Political influence can thus lead to mission drift in two ways: nonprofits either expand into advocacy or new service areas to respond to social issues that have become politicized (potentially beyond their original scope), or they self-censor or reshape their activities to avoid conflict with policymakers and funders.
The nonprofit sector in the U.S. remains highly crowded and competitive, with over 1.8 million organizations vying for funding and attention. This competitive pressure can inadvertently fuel mission creep. When multiple nonprofits compete for the same grants or donor pools, some may broaden their mission statements or launch new programs to appear more innovative or comprehensive than their peers. As one analysis put it, nonprofits are not designed to be “all things to all people,” and yet boards sometimes feel motivated to try.
A recent “Ask the Expert” forum in Blue Avocado highlighted that duplicative growth without strategy can devolve into a “‘Hunger Games’ scenario” for nonprofits – a fight for resources that “only the larger organizations... will win in the end.” In that forum, an experienced nonprofit director noted that many new charities start because a donor or founder had a dream, when partnering with an existing aligned nonprofit might have been more effective. Instead, each new organization adds to sector fragmentation, often replicating services and then stretching their missions to justify their existence.
Among nonprofit executives and analysts, there is a strong consensus that mission creep is a common and potentially growing problem in the sector. While it’s hard to quantify how many nonprofits are experiencing mission drift at any given time, qualitative evidence from recent surveys, interviews, and commentary reveals a high level of concern about staying mission-focused.
In 2023–2025, leaders frequently cite mission adherence as a top-of-mind challenge. This candid admission encapsulates a sentiment shared by many: in tough times, even seasoned leaders find it difficult to avoid mission drift. When nearly 600 nonprofit CEOs were asked about current risks, mission dilution came through as a recurring theme, with one leader calling it an “existential challenge” for the next few years.
Thought leaders in nonprofit management go as far as to describe mission creep as endemic. In a colorful 2025 commentary, one strategist dubbed mission creep “the sector’s most contagious disease”, noting that it “sneaks in through good intentions, donor pressure, and an allergic reaction to saying no.” The hyperbole underscores how easily and frequently organizations fall into the trap. Peter Greer – who co-authored the 2014 book Mission Drift – reflected in 2024 that after a decade of working with charities on this issue, “drift is the default path for every organization that pursues a higher purpose.”
In aggregate, these perspectives paint a clear picture: mission creep is widely perceived as a sector-wide problem in 2023–2025, and possibly a growing one given the external pressures of recent years. Nonprofit leaders are openly talking about it, and expert literature frequently warns about it. As Greer noted, the question for most organizations isn’t “if we’re drifting, but where are we drifting.” In other words, mission creep is almost assumed unless deliberate steps are taken to prevent it. In my next post, I will provide some strategies for combating mission creep.
Risk Alternatives enhances the resilience and sustainability of nonprofits through comprehensive tools, training, and support. For inquiries about conducting a risk inventory or other matters, please contact Risk Alternatives at info@tedbilich.com.