19,088 Nonprofits Get More Than Half Their Revenue From Government. Here's What Happens When That Money Disappears.

On February 26, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14222, giving the Department of Government Efficiency broad authority to review and terminate federal grants to nonprofits. What followed has been the largest disruption to nonprofit funding in modern American history. By early 2026, DOGE had driven the termination of nearly 16,000 federal grants totaling approximately $49 billion. The effects have been swift and severe.

The Urban Institute reported in October 2025 that one in three nonprofit service providers experienced a government funding disruption in the first four to six months of 2025. Twenty-one percent lost a grant or contract outright. Twenty-seven percent faced delays or funding freezes. Six percent received stop-work orders. Among those that experienced disruptions, 29% had already reduced staff and 21% were serving fewer people by mid-2025.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy documented 28,696 nonprofit job cuts in 2025, a 409% increase over the 5,640 cuts recorded in the first eleven months of 2024. Challenger, Gray & Christmas reported that nonprofit job cuts in the first four months of 2025 alone were up 229% year over year, with DOGE downstream impacts cited as the reason for 6,945 losses. AmeriCorps saw nearly $400 million in active grants slashed, shutting down over 1,000 programs and eliminating more than 32,000 positions. TRIO educational opportunity programs had $660 million withheld, affecting 2,000 programs serving first-generation college students.

Internationally, the impact has been even more dramatic. USAID was officially closed on July 1, 2025, after Secretary of State Rubio announced that 83% of the agency's programs (some 5,200 contracts) had been cut. The administration rescinded $3.9 billion in fiscal year 2024 funds and $8.8 billion in fiscal year 2025 funds from foreign assistance accounts. U.S. foreign aid spending fell from $68 billion in 2024 to $32 billion in 2025, less than half.

This is the context in which we analyzed government funding dependency across the U.S. nonprofit sector. Using IRS Form 990 filings from tax year 2024, we examined 56,397 organizations that reported government grants to understand which nonprofits, sectors, and communities are most exposed to what is, a significant shift in the relationship between government and the nonprofit sector.

Based on 56,397 IRS Form 990 filings for tax year 2024, U.S. nonprofits received $108.9 billion in government grants. That money flows to organizations of every size and type, from rural food banks receiving $50,000 in state grants to global health organizations managing billions in federal contracts. But the distribution of dependency is highly uneven, and that unevenness is what makes the current funding disruption so consequential.

Of the 56,397 organizations reporting government grants, 19,088 (33.8%) receive more than half their revenue from government sources. These are the majority-dependent organizations, the ones for whom a significant funding cut doesn't mean belt-tightening but potentially means closing programs, laying off staff, or shutting down entirely. One in three nonprofits that receives government money is in this category.

The dependency distribution reveals a critical concentration at the extremes. At the far end, 5,724 organizations receive 90% or more of their revenue from government grants. These organizations average $6 million in government funding each and $6.2 million in total revenue. For practical purposes, they are government-funded organizations operating under a nonprofit charter. If their government funding disappears, there is no alternative revenue base to fall back on. No donor base, no endowment, no earned revenue to speak of.

Another 4,655 organizations fall in the 75-89% range, averaging $4.1 million in government funding against $4.9 million in total revenue. Combined with the 90%+ group, that's 10,379 organizations (18.4% of all government-funded nonprofits) where government provides three-quarters or more of all revenue. These are organizations that would need to replace virtually their entire funding base if government pulled out.

At the other end, 17,133 organizations receive less than 10% of revenue from government. These organizations average $590,000 in government grants but $53.7 million in total revenue. Government funding is a complement to their operations, not a foundation. Many are large institutions (universities, hospital systems, cultural organizations) where government grants fund specific programs but don't drive the overall financial model.

The median dependency ratio across all 56,397 organizations is 26.8%, meaning the typical government-funded nonprofit gets about a quarter of its revenue from government sources. But that median obscures the bimodal reality: a large group of lightly dependent organizations and a substantial group of heavily dependent ones, with relatively fewer in between. The current funding disruption is not hitting the nonprofit sector evenly. It is hitting the most dependent organizations hardest.

The sectors most dependent on government funding are the ones that deliver services on behalf of government agencies. These are not organizations that happen to receive grants. They are organizations whose entire operating model is built around government contracts: public defender offices, court diversion programs, prisoner reentry services, community mental health clinics, Section 8 housing administrators, and homeless shelter operators. Government isn't supplementing their work; government is their primary customer.

Crime and legal organizations top the list with 55.5% of organizations getting majority government revenue. The typical crime and legal nonprofit that receives any government funding gets 56.8% of its revenue from government sources (the median among funded organizations). These are organizations like legal aid societies that provide court-appointed representation, diversion programs that keep nonviolent offenders out of prison, and reentry services that help formerly incarcerated individuals find housing and employment. The sector received $2.7 billion in government grants in 2024. If that funding were cut by even 20%, organizations serving people at their most vulnerable, in courtrooms, in jails, in the transition back to community life, would face immediate service reductions.

Mental health is nearly as dependent: 50.9% of organizations are majority government-funded, with a median dependency of 51.4% among funded organizations. The sector received $3.1 billion in government grants. Community mental health centers, substance abuse treatment programs, crisis intervention services, and behavioral health clinics for low-income populations all operate on government contracts. The timing is particularly concerning. The United States is in the midst of what the Surgeon General has called a mental health crisis, with rising rates of anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders. The concurrent funding reductions and rising demand for mental health services create a tension that policymakers and providers are navigating in real time.

Housing and shelter organizations round out the top three at 49.0% majority-dependent. The sector includes housing authorities, affordable housing developers, homeless shelter operators, and transitional housing programs. With 3,326 organizations receiving government grants and 1,630 of them majority-dependent, this is the largest sector by volume in the high-dependency tier. Housing nonprofits received $5.1 billion in government grants in 2024. Navigate Affordable Housing Partners in Alabama alone received $885 million, 96.3% of its total revenue. Acacia Network Housing in New York received $342 million at 98.4% dependency.

Below the top three, the pattern continues through sectors that form the core of the social safety net. Community improvement organizations (44.3% majority-dependent) include community development corporations and neighborhood revitalization programs. Public safety organizations (44.1%) include fire departments, emergency medical services, and disaster preparedness groups operating as nonprofits. Human services (39.6%) is the broadest category, encompassing food banks, job training programs, domestic violence shelters, refugee resettlement agencies, and dozens of other service types. Together, these sectors account for tens of thousands of organizations and tens of billions in government funding.

Percentage dependency tells one story. Absolute dollars tell another. And for understanding the total impact of funding cuts, both matter. Human services receives $14.8 billion in government grants, the most of any sector, even though government accounts for only 14.4% of sector revenue. That's because human services is a massive sector: 36,443 organizations with 7,738 receiving government grants. A 10% across-the-board cut to government grants would take $1.48 billion from human services organizations. That's the equivalent of eliminating the budgets of hundreds of mid-size nonprofits.

Healthcare receives almost as much ($14.2 billion) but from a completely different structural position. Government grants represent just 1.4% of healthcare sector revenue because the sector generates over $1 trillion total, overwhelmingly from patient service revenue (Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance reimbursements). These payments are classified as program service revenue on Form 990, not government grants. Healthcare organizations are deeply dependent on government payment systems, but that dependency shows up in a different line item. The $14.2 billion in grants funds specific programs (community health initiatives, research, public health infrastructure) rather than core operations.

Education receives $10.3 billion, the third-largest amount. This includes university research grants, K-12 after-school programs, early childhood education, and workforce development. International organizations receive $6.9 billion, though the USAID closure has already reshuffled much of this funding. Housing and shelter ($5.1 billion), public and societal benefit ($4.8 billion), medical research ($4.8 billion), and community improvement ($4.7 billion) round out the top sectors.

The distinction between percentage and volume exposure matters for policy. Broad funding freezes and across-the-board cuts (the approach DOGE has generally taken) hit high-volume sectors hardest in absolute terms but high-dependency sectors hardest in survival terms. A $5 million cut from a $14.8 billion sector is a rounding error. A $5 million cut from a $50 million legal aid organization that gets 90% of its funding from government could threaten the organization's viability.

The 3,062 majority-dependent human services organizations alone account for $11.5 billion in government funding at risk. Housing and shelter has 1,630 majority-dependent organizations with $4.1 billion at risk. Education has 1,564 with $8.7 billion. These are the organizations that would face the most immediate disruption from continued funding cuts: the ones that are both large enough to matter in dollar terms and dependent enough that they have no alternative revenue to fall back on.

Government funding dependency is not distributed evenly across the country, and the geographic pattern is consistent: states with smaller philanthropic markets, higher poverty rates, and more government contracting of social services have higher rates of government-dependent nonprofits. The implications are significant. Federal funding cuts do not hit New York City and rural West Virginia the same way. In communities where government is the primary funder of social services, there may simply be no alternative when that funding disappears.

Delaware leads the nation with 46.0% of government-funded nonprofits being majority-dependent. Delaware is a small state with a relatively concentrated nonprofit sector, and many of its organizations operate as government service contractors. Louisiana follows at 45.6%, driven by its large network of community action agencies, social service providers, and disaster recovery organizations that operate on federal and state contracts. Louisiana's high poverty rate (19.6%, the third-highest in the nation) means greater demand for government-funded services and fewer private donors to fill gaps.

West Virginia (43.9%) represents the pattern most clearly. The state has one of the lowest levels of per-capita charitable giving in the country, a shrinking population, and significant poverty. When the federal government funds a job training program in West Virginia, there is often no local foundation or major donor capable of picking up the tab if that funding disappears. The same dynamic plays out across much of the South and in rural states generally: Oklahoma (42.5%), Mississippi (42.1%), South Carolina (39.9%), and Alabama all show elevated dependency rates.

North Carolina stands out as a large state with high dependency. With 1,877 government-funded nonprofits (the fifth-most of any state) and 42.5% majority-dependent, it represents significant scale. North Carolina's nonprofit sector includes a large network of community health centers, housing authorities, and social service agencies that operate on a mix of federal and state contracts. A broad federal funding cut would affect nearly 800 organizations in the state.

Candid's state-level analysis underscores the concentration of risk. In New York State alone, 1,366 nonprofits could run out of cash within three months if government grantmaking halted, putting more than 361,000 nonprofit jobs at immediate risk. New York's absolute numbers are larger because its nonprofit sector is larger, but the proportional risk is highest in states like Delaware, Louisiana, and West Virginia, where a larger share of organizations depends on government for survival.

Ohio (39.2% majority-dependent, 2,377 organizations) and Maryland (38.5%, 1,227 organizations) represent mid-Atlantic and Midwestern states with significant government contracting ecosystems. Oregon (38.5%, 919 organizations) shows that the pattern extends beyond the South. Alaska (39.9%) faces a unique version of the challenge: its remote communities depend on federally funded nonprofits for services that the private sector and state government cannot economically provide.

Among organizations with revenue under $1 million, 35.8% are majority government-dependent. That's 11,325 organizations. These are the small community nonprofits that operate on tight budgets: after-school programs, rural health clinics, community development organizations, small housing authorities. They receive an average of $154,791 in government grants. Individually, the dollar amounts are modest. Collectively, they represent the infrastructure of community-level social services across the country.

Small nonprofits are the most vulnerable for a simple reason: they have the fewest alternative revenue sources. A $500,000 nonprofit that gets 70% of its revenue from a federal contract probably doesn't have a development staff, a major gifts program, or an endowment. If the contract is terminated, the organization's options are limited to emergency fundraising appeals, foundation grants (which take months to secure), or closure. The timeline from funding loss to service disruption is measured in weeks, not years.

The dependency rate declines steadily with organization size. Organizations in the $1M-$5M range are nearly as dependent (34.5% majority-dependent, 5,323 organizations) as the smallest tier. At $5M-$10M, the rate drops to 32.2% (1,193 organizations). At $10M-$25M, it falls further to 28.2% (817 organizations). And among organizations over $25M, only 15.5% are majority-dependent. Larger organizations typically have diversified revenue: major gifts, earned revenue from fee-for-service programs, investment income, and multi-source grant portfolios that buffer against the loss of any single funding stream.

But the picture reverses in absolute dollar terms. The 430 large organizations ($25M+) that are majority government-dependent receive an average of $24.5 million each in government grants. A single large organization losing funding could eliminate more total services than dozens of small ones. These are organizations like The MITRE Corporation, which receives $2.46 billion in government grants (99.3% of revenue), or BakerRipley, which receives $617 million (97.1%). When one of these organizations loses a major contract, the ripple effects extend to subcontractors, partner organizations, and the communities they serve.

The size distribution creates a dual vulnerability. At the small end, 11,325 organizations under $1M in revenue would struggle to survive a significant government funding cut because they lack the infrastructure to pivot to alternative revenue sources. At the large end, 430 organizations over $25M carry enormous concentrated risk, where the loss of a single contract could eliminate services for tens of thousands of people. Both groups are exposed, but through different mechanisms: the small organizations through fragility and the large organizations through concentration.

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is the single largest recipient of government grants in the nonprofit sector, receiving $3.17 billion (89.6% of its $3.54 billion in revenue). The organization coordinates international disease-fighting programs funded primarily by government contributions from multiple countries. The U.S. government is the Global Fund's largest donor. Any reduction in U.S. contributions directly reduces the organization's ability to fund programs that provide antiretroviral therapy, insecticide-treated bed nets, and tuberculosis treatment in dozens of countries.

The MITRE Corporation, based in Virginia, is a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) that manages key national security and technology infrastructure. Its $2.46 billion in government grants represents 99.3% of revenue. MITRE operates under specific congressional authorization, so its funding is more insulated than discretionary grants, but it illustrates the extreme end of the dependency spectrum: a $2.5 billion organization that is, in financial terms, almost entirely funded by the federal government.

Opportunity Finance Network in Pennsylvania ($2.29 billion, 98.2%) manages community development financial institution (CDFI) programs, channeling federal funds to underserved communities. The International Committee of the Red Cross ($2.04 billion, 88.8%) and GAVI Alliance ($1.62 billion, 63.7%) represent international organizations where U.S. government funding is a critical component of their global health and humanitarian work.

At the domestic level, the most exposed organizations are often the least visible. BakerRipley in Houston operates workforce development, immigration services, Head Start programs, and community centers, funded at 97.1% by government grants ($617 million). Catholic Charities Diocese of Fort Worth receives $345 million (94.5%) for refugee resettlement, disaster recovery, and social services. Dallas County Workforce Development Board receives $184 million (98.8%) to operate job training and employment programs.

In housing, the dependency is equally extreme. Navigate Affordable Housing Partners in Alabama receives $885 million at 96.3% dependency. Acacia Network Housing in New York receives $342 million at 98.4%. Westhab Inc in New York receives $171 million at 95.3%. These organizations develop and manage affordable housing for low-income families, seniors, and people experiencing homelessness. Their funding comes overwhelmingly from HUD, state housing finance agencies, and local government contracts.

What connects these organizations, whether they are billion-dollar global health programs or $5 million local housing authorities, is a common financial structure: they were built to deliver services that government pays for. They exist because government decided to provide certain services through nonprofit contractors rather than through direct government agencies. When government reverses that decision, these organizations do not have an alternative business model. They have a government contract, and without it, they have no viable path forward in the near term.

The direct impact of funding cuts on the 19,088 majority-dependent organizations is substantial. But the downstream effects multiply outward in ways that the dependency numbers alone don't capture. When a community mental health clinic loses its federal grant, it doesn't just lay off clinicians. It stops serving patients who then present at emergency rooms (which are more expensive and less effective for mental health treatment). It stops training the next generation of mental health professionals. It eliminates the local economic activity generated by its payroll and vendor contracts.

NPR reported in April 2025 that even nonprofits that don't rely on federal funding are feeling the ripple effects. When government-funded organizations cut services, demand shifts to other nonprofits in the same community. A food bank that doesn't receive government grants may see a 30% increase in demand when a nearby federally funded anti-poverty program shuts down. A domestic violence shelter funded entirely by private donors may face more clients because the government-funded crisis hotline stopped operating. The funding disruption doesn't eliminate the need for services; it redistributes the burden to organizations that weren't built to carry it.

The labor market effects are already visible. The Challenger, Gray & Christmas job cuts report showed that DOGE downstream impacts accounted for 6,945 nonprofit and education job losses in just the first four months of 2025. When nonprofit workers lose their jobs, they don't just lose income. Communities lose the institutional knowledge, relationships, and expertise that took years to build. A caseworker who has spent a decade building trust with families in a specific neighborhood cannot be replaced by a new hire if funding is restored a year later. The expertise is gone, and the relationships must be rebuilt from scratch.

The international ripple effects have been even more dramatic. With USAID's closure and the rescission of nearly $13 billion in foreign assistance funds, approximately 50,000 aid worker jobs were disrupted worldwide. Organizations that had been providing HIV treatment, malaria prevention, and maternal healthcare in developing countries were forced to halt programs mid-implementation. The Better World Campaign estimated that 23 million children stood to lose access to education, and as many as 95 million people would lose access to basic healthcare.

For the domestic nonprofit sector, the compounding nature of these disruptions is the greatest concern. Organizations that lose government funding don't just face a revenue shortfall. They face a cascade of challenges: difficulty meeting payroll, breaking lease obligations, defaulting on vendor contracts, losing key staff to organizations that can offer stable employment, and and risk losing years of programmatic progress. The organizations best positioned to survive are those with reserves, diverse revenue, and strong private donor relationships. The data suggests that these are disproportionately the larger, wealthier nonprofits in states with robust philanthropic markets. The organizations most likely to fail are the small, government-dependent nonprofits in rural and Southern states where the need for services is greatest and the alternatives are fewest.

This analysis does not take a position on whether specific government grants should or should not be cut. There are legitimate policy debates about the effectiveness of government-funded programs, the accountability of nonprofit grantees, and the appropriate level of federal spending. What the data can do is illuminate the consequences of those decisions with specificity. Not "nonprofits will be affected" in the abstract, but precisely which organizations, in which sectors, in which states, serving which populations, face the greatest exposure.

The 56,397 organizations in this analysis represent the portion of the nonprofit sector that has a direct financial relationship with government. They run programs funded by government grants: mental health treatment, affordable housing, job training, legal aid, disaster recovery, disease research, community development. Whether those programs continue, and in what form, is ultimately a policy decision. But the data makes clear that these decisions will be felt most acutely by specific organizations, in specific places, serving specific populations. Those specifics matter.