Rethinking Annual Grants: The Case for Multiyear Grantmaking

Multiyear grantmaking offers something nonprofits value deeply: predictability. When a foundation commits funding for two or more years, it changes the nature of the relationship. Nonprofits can plan beyond the next grant cycle. Staff retention becomes more realistic. Strategic investments feel less risky. Leaders can focus less on short-term survival and more on long-term outcomes. In a funding environment marked by volatility and tighter budgets, predictability is not a luxury. It is infrastructure.

Why Time Matters

Time changes how work is designed, how risk is managed, and how success is defined. When funding spans multiple years, nonprofits are better able to align strategy with the true pace of change rather than compressing ambition into annual cycles.

Brigitte Lehner Kingsbury of the Orchard Foundation in Maine offers a simple test:

“Ask yourself of a potential grant request, ‘Do you think this can be done in one year?’ If it can’t, why not commit?”

For many philanthropic priorities: systems change, advocacy, capacity building, and early-stage ventures, the answer is clear. Meaningful progress rarely unfolds within a 12-month window. It requires iteration, learning, and sustained effort.

David Greco of All Stars Helping Kids in California put it this way:

“If you’re an investor, do you just give one year of funding and walk away? No. You recognize investments take time.”

Multiyear grantmaking aligns funding with reality. It allows funders and grantees to pursue long-term outcomes without artificial deadlines, and to measure success on the timeline that real impact demands.

What Multiyear Funding Makes Possible

Extending support beyond a single year changes what nonprofits can realistically pursue. Multiyear funding expands strategic options, reduces uncertainty, and aligns grant structure with the pace of real-world change.

Multiyear grants are especially valuable when supporting:

Long-Term Goals

Many philanthropic outcomes—systems change, workforce development, environmental progress—take years to achieve. One-year funding can unintentionally narrow strategy to what feels achievable in the short term.

Multiyear commitments allow organizations to plan, test, and adapt over time rather than focusing on annual renewal cycles.

Capacity Building

Leadership development, financial systems, technology upgrades, and board strengthening do not happen in a single grant period.

Multiyear funding gives nonprofits room to invest in internal strength, positioning them to achieve stronger programmatic results over time.

Advocacy

Policy change rarely follows a one-year timeline. Legislative progress often requires sustained organizing, coalition building, and persistence.

As Sean Dobson wrote in an NCRP article:

“The campaigns I ran for an advocacy nonprofit rarely concluded in one year—victory or defeat could only be determined after several years.”

Multiyear funding reflects the long arc of advocacy work and helps organizations maintain momentum across cycles

New Ventures

Launching new initiatives involves uncertainty and iteration. Early-stage efforts need time to refine strategy and demonstrate results.

Scott Brazda of the Stuller Family Foundation in Louisiana observed:

“Multiyear grants allow new projects time to develop and take root, giving them a better chance of succeeding.”

Time reduces pressure for immediate results and increases the likelihood of sustainable growth.

Reduced Administrative Burden

Each grant cycle carries transaction costs: applications, reviews, agreements, and reports. Multiyear grants reduce repetitive processes, freeing capacity for learning and partnership rather than paperwork.

Across these areas, one theme is consistent: time expands possibility. When duration matches ambition, nonprofits can operate with greater stability, focus, and long-term perspective.

Multiyear Grantmaking and Equity

Short-term funding structures can unintentionally reinforce inequities. Organizations serving historically underfunded communities are more likely to receive smaller, shorter, and more restricted grants, limiting their ability to plan and build long-term strength.

Multiyear grantmaking can help counter this pattern by extending planning horizons, supporting leadership stability, reducing administrative burden, and creating space to build financial resilience. In this way, time becomes more than a structural choice. It becomes an equity strategy.

Moving Beyond the One-Year Default

Lean foundations that adopt multiyear grantmaking rarely begin with a full portfolio shift. Instead, many take practical, incremental steps:

• Start with organizations they already know and trust
• Commit for two to four years
• Maintain simple annual check-ins rather than adding new reporting requirements
• Introduce multiyear funding within a portion of the portfolio

Many report that this approach reduces renewal cycles and simplifies grantmaking rather than adding complexity.

If you are considering multiyear grantmaking, begin with reflection:

• Which goals cannot reasonably be achieved in one year?
• Where would greater predictability meaningfully strengthen outcomes?
• How might extending support reduce administrative work for both funder and grantee?

Even extending the duration for a small group of partners can reveal how deeply the grant structure shapes results. Time is one of the most meaningful forms of support a funder can offer. The question is whether your grant structures are built to provide it.

Editor’s Note

This article focuses on the role of time in grantmaking. For a deeper look at how multiyear funding works most effectively when paired with unrestricted support, read Multiyear Funding and General Operating Support: Why They’re Stronger Together. For a broader discussion of why flexibility matters in any form, see The Power of Flexibility: Why General Operating Support Matters.

---

---

About the Author

Hannah Smith manages editorial content and publications at Exponent Philanthropy.