Raise your hand if you’ve heard this before: Two weeks before a foundation announced its annual RFP, my organization found out we wouldn’t be invited to reapply. After five years of funding, deep collaboration, and conversations just months earlier that suggested continued support, 30% of our overall budget suddenly disappeared. I was funder ghosted.
BS – Not as in a Bachelor of Science
My work now straddles capital-P Philanthropy, so I see the other side in how some foundations are trying to become more equitable stewards of their funds. Not everyone can stay on the roster, and yet I still think that excuse is BS. If we want more equitable relationships across sectors, Philanthropy needs to be as desperate to give money away as capital-N Nonprofits are to acquire it.
If Philanthropy were truly committed to supporting nonprofits, then even when funding had to end, it would look more like conscious uncoupling than ghosting. Nonprofit leaders do everything they can to find a way: new resources, new angles, late nights, multiple roles. There’s much to unpack and repair, but Philanthropy needs to take a page from the Nonprofit handbook.
Not Goop, but Gwyneth Paltrow Made It Famous
“Conscious uncoupling” reframes an ending as an intentionally thoughtful next chapter rather than a closing credit; a concept popularized over the past decade through high-profile divorces. Relationship coach, New York Times–bestselling author, and originator of the term Katherine Woodward Thomas, MFT, describes it as “another path to the end of a relationship—one filled with mutual respect, kindness, and deep caring.”
The aim is to leave people more whole and better positioned for what comes next. Much like co-parents, foundations and former grantees often continue to operate in the same ecosystem after a “divorce,” sharing networks, collaborations, and community spaces.
Instead of getting side-eye at the next community gathering, try what I call philanthropic conscious uncoupling, a five-step approach to ending funding with intentionality, respect, transparency, and kindness.
1. Intentionality as Legacy
Recognize the importance of intentionality in this moment and commit to philanthropic conscious uncoupling; how you end funding becomes the legacy of your relationship with a grantee. As Katherine Woodward Thomas advises parting couples, don’t go from “‘soulmate to soulhate’ and let the legacy of your relationship be tainted by poor feelings and behaviors at the end.”
Even after positive relationships or years of generous giving, it’s easy to understand why a grantee may have ill feelings towards a foundation when funding ends, especially depending on how that ending is handled. Don’t excuse the need for intentionality and kindness by relying on past goodwill or the size of previous grants.
As Woodward Thomas put it best, “The end of a relationship is the litmus test for character.”
2. Own the Impact; Honor and Respect the feelings
Ending (or anticipating the end of) funding has real consequences for nonprofit leaders: service cuts, layoffs, added workload, and stress. Foundations need to fully own that impact. As Katherine Woodward Thomas notes, rejection can register in the brain like physical pain, especially for neurodiverse folx who are impacted by rejection sensitivity disorder or RSD. For many in the sector, the end of funding feels like a personal rejection, a failure, or a judgment about their character.
While I think it’s OK to convey some of your own feelings, prioritize the nonprofit leader’s experience. Avoid minimizing the difficulty of the moment, centering your own discomfort, or offering explanations that dilute the gravity of the decision. Care enough to sit in the discomfort of the situation with nonprofit leaders.
Important warning: don’t be surprised if the grantee tries to make you feel better. Nonprofit leaders are conditioned to maintain appearances and prioritize funder comfort – it’s a professional survival instinct deeply ingrained in the sector. Don’t let it derail you from owning the impact and honoring their feelings.
In practice, this can look like:
- Giving a personal heads-up before, or follow-up after, formal notices. Don’t send news via CRM form letter from NoReply@YourFoundation.org. You might as well make the subject line, “Ding – Dong, your funding’s gone!” Checking in periodically after difficult news instead of going radio silent. Revisiting the conversation gives leaders time to process the news on their own and come back with questions.
- Timing announcements about changes (funding, philanthropic focus, RFP, etc.) right before holidays or staff absences, like a conference or retreat.
- Creating space between ending funding and celebrating shiny new grants, or public wins.
3. Default to Transparency and Kindness
As Brené Brown (and my boss Heather) often says, “Clear is kind. Unclear is unkind.” Transparency costs nothing from your corpus, yet it can carry immense value, so give it generously. Whether the answer is “no,” “no more,” or “not now,” be 100% clear with your response, and whenever possible, explain why. Don’t leave a door open that you don’t expect to use.
If you find yourself avoiding clarity, ask:
- Am I being unclear because I am trying to downplay a difficult moment?
- Who benefits from my avoiding clarity or keeping a group in limbo?
- What information capital do I hold as a philanthropic gatekeeper?
Once you have your answers, move forward with as much transparency, honesty, and kindness as possible. Remember: limbo is only fun as a party game, not a funding status.
Proactive transparency means giving organizations plenty of time to react to change and building kindness into your foundation’s processes, along with resources. Start by sharing news as soon as reasonably possible, then examine your systems:
- Do we give enough notice when funding is ending?
- Are renewal decisions shared early enough to support advance planning?
- Do we explain our decisions when we don’t renew a grant and provide organizations with individual feedback?
- Are our communication channels ample, clear, and easy to access?
- Where could multi-year grants support better long-term planning?
When strategies shift, should we continue to support current grantees financially through the transition, and how can we extend that support to help them land more securely? Though sometimes controversial, temporary increases in payout or corpus withdrawals are the kind of bold action foundations need to consider to provide nonprofits with real stability during times of change.
4. Foster a “Happy Even After”
When a romantic relationship isn’t “happily ever after,” Katherine Woodward Thomas encourages aiming for “happy even after.” The same holds true for philanthropic conscious uncoupling. As funding ends, or the end approaches, this is the time to ask how you can support the nonprofit’s health and simultaneously define what a relationship looks like without funding.
In practice, this can look like:
- Clarifying whether and when the organization might be eligible for future funding, and what would need to change
- Offering specific, constructive feedback on strengths and areas for growth
- Making thoughtful introductions to other funders
- Continuing to uplift the organization’s work in your networks and online
- Writing letters of support or serving as a reference
- Sharing access to non-grant resources, such as convenings, space, or capacity-building opportunities
- Offering time for guidance, brainstorming, or thought partnership
- Reaching out when aligned opportunities arise in the field
5. Break the Pattern
Steps 1–4 focus on the immediate work of philanthropic conscious uncoupling. The final step asks us to look long-term at the big picture and “break the pattern,” which Katherine Woodward Thomas describes as healing the heart.
This step brings to mind a parable about babies and a river. A person out for a casual walk sees a cooing baby floating downstream and rescues it. Soon, more babies drift by, and systems are put in place to manage the ongoing flow. We can keep rescuing babies downstream, or we can go upstream to understand why they’re there in the first place. The lesson isn’t to abandon rescue; it’s that lasting impact requires both immediate intervention and systemic change.
In philanthropy, this means pairing the care and accountability of steps 1–4 with deeper efforts to improve how the sector supports nonprofits and avoids future harm. Woodward Thomas is sometimes framed as a “breakup queen,” but she offers two alternatives for her reign: decency and love. “I’m a deep believer in love…,” she says, “And if there comes a time to let each other go, there’s a way to do [it].”
From trust-based and community-centric philanthropy to research and advocacy addressing chronic underinvestment in nonprofit workers, there are real opportunities to break philanthropy’s harmful patterns—if we choose to build a sector grounded in intentionality, respect, transparency, and kindness.
Learn More
This post is based on writing by Victoria Marie Fernandez. Her LinkedIn and the full, original version are available here. Hannah Smith helped edit this piece.
For more on romantic Conscious Uncoupling and the work of Katherine Woodward Thomas, visit katherinewoodwardthomas.com. Quotes referenced are from The Healthy Breakup Blueprint webinar, recorded by Woodward Thomas and available at katherinewoodwardthomas.com/healthy-breakup-blueprint-optin.
About the Author
Ms. Victoria Marie Fernandez, MPA (she/hers), is a nonprofit generalist with over 20 years of experience. Since 2022, she has been the Director of Thriving Communities for the Grunin Foundation, where she leads the foundation’s capacity building and equity, diversity, inclusion, and belonging efforts. Before coming to Grunin, Vicki Co-Founded the Nonprofit Professionals of Color Collective with Tyneisha Gibbs (Co-Founder & Executive Director), a national group that supports the holistic development of BIPOC leaders in our sector since 2019.