Thinking About Closing Your Nonprofit? Your Programs Might Not Have To

If you are on a nonprofit board right now having quiet conversations about winding things down, you are not alone, and you are not failing. Nonprofits close for all kinds of reasons: funding has shrunk to the point where audit fees and insurance premiums eat up money that should go to your community, the founder is ready to step back and no one wants to take on board and HR responsibilities, or the organization is simply too small to carry the compliance weight it was built to carry.

Here is the important distinction to hold onto as you think this through: the organization and the program are not the same thing. Your nonprofit's legal structure may no longer be sustainable. That does not mean the work itself has to end.

There is a real, legally recognized path for keeping a valuable program alive even when the organization running it can't survive: transferring it to a fiscal sponsor as part of your dissolution process.

What This Actually Looks Like

This isn't a workaround or a loophole. It is a well-established practice, sometimes called comprehensive or Model A fiscal sponsorship, described in the field's defining text, Gregory Colvin and Stephanie Petit's Fiscal Sponsorship: Six Ways to Do It Right. Gene Takagi of NEO Law Group has written about it plainly: a distressed nonprofit can transfer one or more of its programs to a fiscal sponsor, moving staff and volunteers over, so the sponsor provides the infrastructure and back-office support needed to keep the program running.

To be clear about what changes: your organization still needs to go through dissolution. This is not a way to avoid winding down the legal entity, and any nonprofit-law attorney worth talking to will tell you the same. Nonprofit law commentator Don Kramer has made a similar point: an organization that already holds its own 501(c)(3) status doesn't have the problem fiscal sponsorship exists to solve, since it can already raise tax-deductible funds directly. What changes is what happens to the program as part of your organization's asset distribution, which every dissolving 501(c)(3) has to sort out one way or another. Instead of the program simply disappearing when your organization closes, it can move to a sponsor that keeps it running.

In a comprehensive fiscal sponsorship arrangement:

• The program becomes part of the sponsor's own operations. It has no separate legal existence. Its assets, liabilities, and obligations belong to the sponsor, and by law, the program falls under the ultimate direction of the sponsor's board.

  
  

• Your staff and volunteers can move with the program. They generally become employees of the sponsoring organization, covered under its insurance and payroll.

  
  

• Day-to-day leadership usually stays with your program's people. An experienced sponsor typically delegates management to existing program leadership and rarely intervenes in programmatic decisions, as long as the program stays compliant with the law, the fiscal sponsorship agreement, and the sponsor's policies.

  
  

• Fundraising continues, but through the sponsor. All fundraising is done by authorized agents of the sponsor, so anyone raising money for the program needs to understand and follow the sponsor's fundraising policies going forward.

  
  

• You can build in an exit. Some agreements give an individual or committee connected to the program the ability to end the arrangement and move the program to a different fiscal sponsor if the relationship isn't working, a meaningful safeguard compared to a plain, no-strings transfer.

  
  

Why This Is Worth Considering

Funders increasingly understand this option too. A program that serves real people well, with real community trust behind it, does not have to disappear just because the nonprofit that built it can no longer sustain its own governance and compliance obligations. Fiscal sponsors that take on this kind of transfer give funders and donors a way to keep supporting proven work even through an organizational transition.

What the Process Actually Involves

If your board is seriously weighing this path:

1. Get honest about what's actually failing. Is it the mission, or is it the structure carrying the mission? If your programs are strong and your community still needs them, that is a meaningful signal worth exploring further.

   
   

2. Talk to a potential fiscal sponsor early, alongside your dissolution planning, not after. Sponsors will want to understand your programs, your finances, and your funding relationships before agreeing to take on staff, assets, and obligations.

   
   

3. Get legal guidance on the dissolution itself. Asset transfers, any remaining grant obligations, and final filings all need to be handled correctly and in the right order. This protects your board and ensures the transfer to a sponsor is done properly rather than informally.

   
   

4. Be direct with your donors, funders, and community about what is changing. People will have questions about what happens to their gifts, their grants, and the relationships they've built with your program. Address this clearly rather than letting people guess.

   
   

5. Understand the sponsorship agreement before you sign anything. What authority does the sponsor have over the program day to day? What is the administrative cost share? Is there a way out if the arrangement isn't working? A trustworthy sponsor will walk you through all of this without hesitation.

   
   

A Word of Honesty

This path is not free, and it is not a way to sidestep accountability. The fiscal sponsor takes on real legal and financial responsibility for the program, which is exactly why it has real authority over how the program operates and how funds are used within it. It is a genuine transfer of responsibility, not a rescue that leaves your original board in charge behind the scenes.

But if your organization is closing because the administrative load became unsustainable, and not because the work itself is finished, this is a conversation worth having before your programs disappear along with the entity that housed them.

Not every fiscal sponsor is the right fit for every program. Sponsors vary by geography, mission focus, and the models they offer, so it's worth looking beyond just one option. The National Network of Fiscal Sponsors member directory is a good place to see who else is doing this work and find a sponsor whose focus and footprint match your program's needs.

Embolden WI is a Wisconsin-based fiscal sponsor supporting organizations working in health equity, health justice, and civic health. If your nonprofit is heading toward dissolution and you're wondering whether one or more of your programs could continue under a fiscal sponsor, we're happy to talk it through, no pressure, no obligation.

Giving with Purpose: What Donors Should Know About Donor Advised Funds (DAF)

When it comes to charitable giving, most people think of writing a check, donating online, or dropping something in a collection plate. Those are all meaningful ways to give. But there is another tool that more and more donors are using to make their generosity go further, and it is called a Donor Advised Fund, or DAF.

You may already have one. Or this may be the first time you are hearing about them. Either way, read on.

Why Individual Donors Matter More Than Ever

People everywhere are looking for ways to make a real difference. And right now, that desire to help could not be more timely.

The foundation and grant landscape is increasingly competitive and difficult to navigate. Nonprofits across the country are feeling the pressure, and organizations like Embolden WI and our fiscally sponsored partners are counting on individuals to step up. Institutional funding alone cannot sustain the work. Individual donors, people who believe in a cause and choose to act, are what make it possible.

A DAF grant is one of the most powerful ways you can respond to that moment. It is direct, it is meaningful, and it goes exactly where you intend it to go.

What Is a Donor Advised Fund?

A Donor Advised Fund is a charitable giving account that you open through a sponsoring organization like Fidelity Charitable, Schwab Charitable, Vanguard Charitable, or a community foundation like the Madison Community Foundation.

Here is how it works:

You contribute money (or assets like appreciated stock) to your DAF and receive an immediate tax deduction. Then, whenever you are ready (this year, next year, or years from now), you recommend grants to the nonprofits and causes you care about. The sponsoring organization sends the money on your behalf.

Think of it like a charitable savings account: you fund it when it makes sense financially, and you give from it when it feels right.

DAF giving has grown dramatically in recent years. According to Candid, there are now nearly 690,000 DAF accounts nationwide holding close to $350 billion in assets. And account minimums have largely disappeared, meaning this tool is no longer just for major donors. Anyone who gives intentionally can benefit from one.

Why Donors Are Choosing DAFs

Whether you already have a DAF or are considering opening one, here is why so many donors find them valuable:

Flexibility. You do not have to decide where to give at the moment you make a contribution. You can take your time, research causes, and give thoughtfully, on your own timeline.

Tax efficiency. Donating appreciated stock or other assets directly to your DAF lets you avoid capital gains taxes while still receiving the full charitable deduction. This can meaningfully stretch the impact of your gift.

Simplicity. Instead of tracking receipts from a dozen organizations at tax time, your DAF records everything in one place.

Momentum. Money contributed to a DAF is irrevocably committed to charitable giving. It is already out of your taxable estate and designated for good, which has a way of making the giving feel more intentional.

If You Already Have a DAF: Your Giving Can Go to Work Right Now

For those who already have a DAF account, here is something worth sitting with: of the nearly $350 billion held in DAF accounts nationwide, a significant portion has not yet been granted out. Donors contribute with good intentions, and then life gets busy.

The causes you care about are still out there, still doing the work, still needing support.

If your account has been sitting dormant, consider this a gentle nudge to put it to work. The organizations and ventures you believe in, including those Embolden WI is proud to support right here in Wisconsin, are ready to receive your gift today.

How DAF Giving Works with Embolden WI

Embolden WI is a 501(c)(3) fiscal sponsor supporting a growing community of ventures working for a better Wisconsin. Our fiscally sponsored partners, including initiatives like PATCH and ECCHO, are eligible to receive DAF grants because Embolden holds the legal 501(c)(3) status on their behalf.

If you have a DAF and want to direct a grant to one of our partners, the process is simple:

1. Log into your DAF portal (Fidelity Charitable, Schwab Charitable, your community foundation, etc.)

2. Search for Embolden WI using our EIN: 80-0287566

3. Enter your chosen venture in the memo or purpose field such as, "For the benefit of PATCH" or "For the benefit of ECCHO"

4. Submit your grant recommendation

Embolden WI receives the grant and transfers the funds directly to your chosen venture. The memo line is what ensures it gets to the right place, so do not skip it.

One important note: DAF grants cannot be used to fulfill pledges or purchase event tables. They are grants, not payments, and that is part of what makes them so powerful.

A Note on Timing

DAF grants typically process within a few business days to a couple of weeks, depending on the platform. If you would like your gift to reach a particular venture by a specific date, we recommend initiating the grant a few weeks in advance.

When your grant arrives, Embolden WI will send you a gift acknowledgement letter. Some DAF platforms share limited donor information with recipient organizations, so if you would like the venture you are supporting to know the gift came from you, consider reaching out to them directly. Your generosity matters. The people doing this work notice it. And they want to thank you.

They Didn't Just Cut TPP. They Replaced It.

Yesterday I wrote about what it felt like when PATCH lost $130,000 in federal funding overnight. If you haven't read that post yet, I'd encourage you to start there: "It Happened. What We Warned About Is Here."

When most people hear that a federal program lost its funding, they picture an empty line item. A gap. Something that used to exist and now doesn't.

That is not quite what happened to the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program. I spent the past several days digging through the federal government's own documentation, and what I found is more troubling than a simple funding cut. The program wasn't eliminated. It was replaced, with a new version that looks similar on the surface but is fundamentally different underneath.

I think Wisconsin's donors, advocates, and elected officials deserve to see exactly what changed.

What TPP used to be

For more than a decade, the federal Teen Pregnancy Prevention program operated with an annual budget of approximately $101 million. It funded 73 organizations across the country under a five-year grant structure, organized around a deliberate continuum: incubate new ideas, accelerate the most promising ones, evaluate them rigorously, and only then implement proven approaches at scale.

This was not a haphazard program. It had eight straight years of published performance data, tracking reach, dosage, fidelity, quality, partnerships, and dissemination. It reached deeply into communities with the greatest need, including 11,515 youth in juvenile justice settings, 8,203 youth in foster care and out-of-home care, and 1,561 youth experiencing homelessness, just within three specialized settings tracked between 2015 and 2023.

This is the program that funded PATCH here in Wisconsin. It is the program that funded similar work in Milwaukee, in Oneida County, in Bayfield County, and in a dozen other Wisconsin communities. It is the program responsible for a 72 percent decline in teen birth rates since 2007.

What replaced it

On June 26, 2026, the federal government terminated the bulk of this program nationwide, including Wisconsin's award. A few days later, I found the replacement sitting quietly on the same federal website.

It is called "Replicating Effective Teen Pregnancy Prevention Programs." It offers up to $63.4 million, a one-time solicitation, not a stated annual budget, for an estimated 52 awards. Grants last up to two years, with an optional third year, down from the five-year horizon organizations like PATCH had built their work around.

The language has changed too. The old program talked about reducing teen pregnancy and STIs through rigorously evaluated, evidence-based approaches. The new solicitation talks about "body literacy," "informed consent," and helping teens "clarify reproductive life goals." These are not phrases from the public health literature I have spent my career working in. They are phrases drawn from a different ideological tradition, one focused on abstinence and natural fertility awareness rather than comprehensive, evidence-based education.

There is no published commitment to reaching homeless youth, foster youth, or justice-involved youth in this new solicitation. There is no evidence base yet, because the model is new. There is no eight-year track record, because it does not have one.

Why PATCH won't be applying

I want to be direct about something: PATCH will not be competing for this new $63.4 million pool, and it is worth explaining why.

The new funding is explicitly governed by the priorities of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, the same office overseeing this transition. Those priorities state plainly that the administration considers health equity an "ideologically-laden concept" and commits to "ending diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies and practices" across all OASH-funded programs. They go further, warning against funding anything that could be characterized as "discriminatory equity ideology."

PATCH's entire model is built on equity. We exist because health care systems have historically failed to listen to young people, particularly young people from communities that face the greatest barriers to quality care. Our work centers youth voice specifically because some voices have been left out of decisions about their own health for too long. That is not an ideological add-on to our program. It is the program.

Applying for funding that requires us to disavow that framework, or to redesign our work around "informed consent" and "body literacy" language rather than equity and youth leadership, would mean becoming a different organization. We are not willing to do that, and we do not believe we should have to.

This is, I think, the clearest illustration of what I mean when I say TPP was not simply cut. It was rebuilt around a value system that organizations like ours cannot, in good conscience, compete within. The price of admission to the new program is abandoning the principles that made the old one work.

Why this distinction matters

I want to be precise about what I am and am not saying. I am not simply saying funding was cut, although it was, and PATCH lost $130,000 of it overnight. I am saying something more specific: the federal government dismantled a mature, evidence-based public health infrastructure and replaced it with an unproven, ideologically driven model, under the same program name, in the same week.

That distinction matters because it tells you this was not a budget decision. A budget decision reduces funding. This was a substitution. Roughly $63 million in, roughly $68 million out. The dollar figures are even similar. What changed was not the amount of money. What changed was who gets it and what they're required to say, and believe, to get it.

What I'm asking of you

If you have read this far, you understand something most people do not yet know about what happened to programs like PATCH. I am asking you to do three things with that knowledge.

Share this post. Most people, including many people who care deeply about teen health, do not know that TPP wasn't simply defunded. They think it disappeared. The fact that it was replaced with something built on a different premise entirely, one that organizations like ours cannot in good conscience apply for, is a story that needs to travel further than our blog.

Support PATCH directly. We are still here, still committed to this work, and still need community support to bridge the funding gap created by this transition. You can donate at patchprogram.org/donate.

Talk to your elected officials. Whether you reach out to your member of Congress, your state legislators, or write a letter to the editor, decision-makers need to hear that their constituents understand the difference between cutting a program and quietly rebuilding it around a different set of values.

We did not choose this fight. But understanding exactly what we are up against is the first step in winning it.