Movement Building Statistics: Capacity, Pressure, and Risk in 2026

Movement Building Statistics at a Glance

Movement building lives at the intersection of leadership, infrastructure, strategy, and community trust. The numbers in this dataset show that the most persistent challenges are not abstract ideals but concrete organizational pressures: staffing, fundraising, planning time, communications, and the ability to keep adapting under pressure.

Quick takeaways

• 819 nonprofit leaders were included in the capacity-building survey, with 39% identifying as BIPOC and 61% as white (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• The sample was evenly split across five geographic regions: East, West, Southeast, Southwest, and Midwest (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• 78% of respondents faced challenges in Operations, Communications, and Development, making it the most common pressure area in the dataset (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• 57% reported DEI as a challenge, while 55% reported Staff Wellness and Development challenges (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• In a separate survey, 553 nonprofit leaders responded to Sounding the Alarm, and 73% of organizations on controversial issue fronts faced or expected at least one negative consequence (Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate).
• The same Sounding the Alarm dataset shows that 70% of those consequences were attributed to DEI efforts (Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate).

Table of Contents

1. What the movement building statistics show
2. Organizational capacity by leadership and budget
3. Where the operational pressure is concentrated
4. Strategy, planning, and leadership constraints
5. DEI and external pressure on movement organizations
6. What the two surveys say together

What the Movement Building Statistics Show

The strongest pattern in these movement building statistics is that capacity is not a single issue. It is a stack of issues. Organizations need money, but they also need time, internal systems, leadership bandwidth, trusted partners, and the flexibility to respond when the external environment changes.

A useful way to read the data is to separate internal strain from external strain. Internal strain shows up in budget limits, staff wellness, strategic planning, and organizational development. External strain shows up in negative consequences, public backlash, funding loss, and the need to adjust language or operations to survive.

At a glance

• Internal capacity pressure: 78% in Operations, Communications, and Development; 55% in Staff Wellness and Development; 49% in Strategy and Evaluation; 57% in DEI (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• Leadership pressure: 66% identified time for strategic thinking and planning as a challenge, with 67% of white leaders and 64% of BIPOC leaders naming it a challenge (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• External pressure: 73% of organizations on controversial issue fronts faced or expected at least one negative consequence, and 70% attributed those consequences to DEI efforts (Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate).

That combination matters because it suggests movement building is not just about expanding reach. It is also about maintaining enough organizational stability to keep doing the work at all.

Organizational Capacity by Leadership and Budget

The capacity-building survey included 819 nonprofit leaders, with 39% BIPOC and 61% white participants (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations). The sample was also evenly divided across five geographic regions, which gives the results a broad cross-regional frame rather than a single-region snapshot (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).

Budget size is one of the clearest markers of organizational capacity in the dataset. It does not tell the whole story, but it helps explain why different groups may experience the same challenge in different ways.

Budget patterns by leadership group

Measure	BIPOC-led organizations	White-led organizations	Source
Annual budgets over $5,000,000	14%	14%	Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations
Annual budgets of $0-$250,000	26%	15%	Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations
Primary focus in Advocacy/Civic Engagement/Community Organizing	22%	13%	Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations
Boards that were majority people of color	Over 70%	20%	Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations
Majority-BIPOC staff	Three-quarters	About one-third	Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations

Several things stand out here.

First, the share of organizations with budgets above $5 million is identical at 14% for both BIPOC-led and white-led organizations (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations). That means the dataset does not suggest the largest organizations are exclusive to one leadership group.

Second, lower-budget organizations are more common among BIPOC-led groups, with 26% in the $0-$250,000 range versus 15% for white-led organizations (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations). That difference matters because smaller budgets usually mean less room for staffing, reserve building, specialized tools, and professional support.

Third, the staffing and governance profile of BIPOC-led groups is more likely to reflect communities of color. Over 70% of BIPOC-led groups had boards that were majority people of color, and three-quarters reported majority-BIPOC staff (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations). For white-led groups, the comparable figures were much lower: 20% with majority-POC boards and about one-third with majority-BIPOC staff (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).

That kind of internal composition can shape how organizations approach coalition-building, leadership development, and community relationships.

Where the Operational Pressure Is Concentrated

If one headline number defines the capacity-building dataset, it is 78%. That is the share of respondents who faced challenges in Operations, Communications, and Development (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).

That category is broad, but the sub-facts show what is actually inside it. Many organizations are dealing with the ordinary machinery of survival: fundraising, reserves, communications, technology, legal help, and the basic ability to keep operations moving.

Operations, communications, and development challenges

• 68% of BIPOC respondents and 71% of white respondents cited dealing with organizational growth and development as an issue (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• 64% of BIPOC respondents and 65% of white respondents cited fundraising as an issue (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• 52% of BIPOC respondents and 46% of white respondents cited lack of reserves for a rainy day (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• 49% of BIPOC respondents and 46% of white respondents cited social media and communications strategies (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• 37% of BIPOC respondents and 35% of white respondents cited access to technology and equipment (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• 41% of BIPOC respondents and 28% of white respondents cited financial management and banking help (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• 36% of BIPOC respondents and 27% of white respondents cited legal issues for nonprofits (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).

A compact reading of these figures is that fundraising is a nearly universal pain point, but the support gaps widen when the question shifts from fundraising itself to the infrastructure around fundraising. That includes reserve-building, banking, financial management, legal compliance, and communications capacity.

Fast facts on the operational gap

• The challenge is not only money, but the systems needed to use money well.
• BIPOC respondents more often reported difficulties tied to banking, legal support, and community-relevant provider access (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• White respondents were slightly less likely to report some of those support gaps, but the overall burden remained high across both groups (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).

The barrier scores reinforce that point. Respondents gave 3.6 as the average barrier score for finding time to participate in programs and technical assistance, and 3.5 for finding providers they could afford (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations). For white respondents, the average barrier score for finding providers representative of the communities served was 3.4; for BIPOC respondents it was 3.0 (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).

Those scores suggest that even when support exists, access is not frictionless. Time and affordability remain bottlenecks.

Strategy, Planning, and Leadership Constraints

The strategy section of the survey is a reminder that movement building is not only about action. It is also about design.

49% of respondents faced challenges in Strategy and Evaluation, while 73% selected evaluating and reporting impact as a Strategy and Evaluation issue, and 69% selected strategic direction and planning (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations). That means a large share of organizations are trying to do two things at once: run programs and make sense of whether the work is producing the intended effect.

Strategy and evaluation themes

1. Evaluating and reporting impact was the most common strategy issue at 73% (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
2. Strategic direction and planning followed closely at 69% (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
3. Including stakeholders in strategy, decision-setting, and evaluation still mattered at 51% (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
4. Building coalitions or collaborations showed up for 43% of BIPOC respondents and 35% of white respondents (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
5. Engaging with policy issues appeared for 36% of BIPOC respondents and 29% of white respondents (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
6. Dealing with competition between organizations appeared for 36% of BIPOC respondents and 27% of white respondents (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).

The leadership challenge data sits right on top of those strategy results. 66% of respondents overall identified setting aside time for strategic thinking and planning as a leadership challenge (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations). Among white leaders, 67% said time for strategic thinking was a challenge; among BIPOC leaders, the figure was 64% (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).

Other leadership pressures were also close to universal:

• 61% of white leaders and 57% of BIPOC leaders identified developing networks to meet new donors and funders as a challenge (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• 60% of white leaders and 50% of BIPOC leaders identified demanding workload as a challenge (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• 53% of white leaders and 46% of BIPOC leaders identified dealing with staff issues as a challenge (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• 40% of BIPOC leaders and 35% of white leaders identified inadequate salary as a challenge (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• 39% of BIPOC leaders and 38% of white leaders identified working with the board as a challenge (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).

What this says in plain terms is that leadership time is being consumed by maintenance. When leaders cannot get enough uninterrupted time for planning, the organization tends to become reactive. That reactive mode then makes strategy harder, which in turn makes it harder to build sustainable capacity.

DEI and External Pressure on Movement Organizations

DEI appears in both datasets, but in different ways. In the capacity-building survey, 57% of respondents reported DEI as a challenge (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations). In Sounding the Alarm, DEI appears as a major source of external consequences and financial pressure.

Internal and external DEI pressure

• 45% of respondents said DEI posed a challenge to their mission (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• 65% of BIPOC respondents and 77% of white respondents reported internal DEI issues (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• 41% of BIPOC respondents and 30% of white respondents reported difficulty identifying partners who know how to work with BIPOC-run organizations (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• 44% of BIPOC respondents and 28% of white respondents reported difficulty identifying providers from the communities they served (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).
• 41% of BIPOC respondents and 12% of white respondents reported racism and other discrimination against the organization (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).

Those numbers suggest DEI is not a single issue with a single owner. It touches mission, partnerships, service delivery, and lived experience of discrimination.

The Sounding the Alarm survey adds a different layer. It included 553 nonprofit leaders, and 73% of organizations on controversial issue fronts faced or anticipated at least one negative consequence (Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate). The most common consequence attribution was DEI: 70% of those organizations linked the consequences to DEI efforts (Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate).

Consequences tied to issue areas

Issue area	Experienced or anticipated consequence	Source
Public support on current issues such as Palestinian rights	44%	Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate
LGBTQIA+ rights work	39%	Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate
Immigrant rights work	30%	Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate
Reproductive rights work	24%	Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate
Education and racial equity work	24%	Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate

The pressure is not just reputational. It is operational.

• Social media attacks were experienced or anticipated by 32% of reproductive rights groups and 30% of LGBTQIA+ groups (Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate).
• Negative media was experienced or anticipated by 23% of reproductive rights groups and 18% of immigrant rights groups (Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate).
• Doxxing affected 20% of reproductive rights groups and 20% of LGBTQIA+ groups (Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate).
• Threatening calls ranged from 4% to 24% depending on issue area, while picketing or in-person threats ranged from 4% to 16% (Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate).
• Physical attacks were experienced or anticipated by 2% to 12% of groups depending on issue area (Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate).

Organizations are not only absorbing pressure; they are changing behavior in response to it. That shows up in added legal help, added security, and message adjustments.

• 28% of reproductive rights groups added legal assistance and 28% added security (Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate).
• 25% of LGBTQIA+ rights groups added legal assistance and 27% added security (Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate).
• 24% of immigrant rights groups added legal assistance and 26% added security (Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate).
• 12% to 15% of organizations changed program language in response to negative consequences (Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate).
• 18% of DEI organizations changed or considered changing communications around race (Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate).

Funding pressure is part of the same pattern. 31% of LGBTQIA+ rights groups had already experienced funding losses, 28% of immigrant rights groups had already experienced funding losses, and 27% of DEI groups had already experienced funding losses (Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate). At the same time, 48% of organizations expressing public support for current issues anticipated funding loss, along with 47% of DEI organizations and 47% of immigrant rights organizations (Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate).

What the Two Surveys Say Together

Taken together, the two surveys show a consistent picture: movement building is capacity work under pressure.

The first survey emphasizes internal operating limits. Organizations are juggling lean budgets, limited reserves, staffing strain, legal needs, communications gaps, and the challenge of finding time to think strategically (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations). The second survey shows what happens when the political and cultural environment becomes hostile or unstable. Groups then face negative consequences, funding losses, public attacks, and the need to adapt language, security, and legal strategy (Sounding the Alarm: Nonprofits on the Frontlines of a Polarized Political Climate).

A practical reading of the data

• Capacity is not just staffing headcount or annual revenue.
• A strong movement organization needs reserve funds, trusted partners, infrastructure, planning time, and room to absorb risk.
• External pressure tends to force internal reallocation: more legal support, more security, more communications caution, and less time for strategy.
• The gap between BIPOC-led and white-led organizations shows up less in the existence of challenge and more in the type of challenge and the surrounding support structure (Meeting the Need: Building the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations).

One of the clearest lessons in these movement building statistics is that the work gets harder when organizations are forced to operate at the edge of their capacity. The numbers do not point to one fix. They point to a layered set of conditions that need to improve together: funding stability, operational infrastructure, strategic time, staff support, and the ability to work without penalty for the issues an organization chooses to advance.