Is there a good way for an NGO to go out of business?

After 38 years of working on the global response to HIV, United Kingdom-based nonprofit Avert closed in 2024 after transitioning its work to three separate organizations in Africa. “We do not see our decision as a sign of failure,” the organization stated in a report about its ending, which specified that Avert was still “in relatively good financial health.” Since the loss of the U.S. Agency for International Development funding in January, the global development landscape has shifted dramatically. Organizations around the world are being forced to end programs, shutter offices, or close operations entirely. A Humanitarian Action survey published in April this year found 81 NGOs had already closed down at least one office. Save the Children announced in February that it would close five country offices as a result of funding cuts, which it described as “an outright failure of responsibility of those in power and a moral failure of us all.” But some civil society practitioners specializing in endings argue that such endings can be positive if handled correctly. Devex spoke to three about how NGOs facing closure can wind down operations in the least harmful way, both for beneficiaries and staff — and why more organizations should think about their endings even at their beginning. Forced endings “The kind of endings happening now are very short and the kind we in the [closure] community don’t want to see,” said Camille Acey, who runs The Wind Down, a U.S. consultancy supporting organizations facing closure. “Everything from the USAID cuts was frantic, confusing, hard to communicate. There’s no time to do the sort of intentional, thoughtful closures that we’re facilitating.” On the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly this year, Acey said many conversations were about transitions. Organizations are considering mergers, fiscal sponsorship models, “slimming down to weather the storm,” and localization as solutions. But Acey warned against rushing into any of these if possible, especially localization. “The kind of work that's required to sort out an international partner can be really overwhelming,” she said. “The most honorable thing to do is be clear about something ending, and work transparently and collaboratively with whoever's on the ground to say: What can we do to make this as dignified an ending as possible?” Acey said the focus should be on finding other ways the organization’s mission can be sustained even if the organization ceases to exist. She suggested appointing volunteer stewards to carry on delivering some of the work. Leaving guidance and advice might allow the work to restart. “If five or 10 years from now someone’s inspired by your work and wants to carry it forward,” she said, “Make sure they can find you.” Avoid being avoidant Closing down operations is taboo, meaning too many chief executives leave it too late to reach out for help, said The Decelerator co-founder Iona Lawrence. Her nonprofit company offers U.K. NGOs free closure advice via a helpline. She estimated that more than half of The Decelerator’s callers are experiencing social conflict within their organization as a result of the scarcity of resources. This leads to disagreements about how to move forward. The Decelerator often recommends that a conflict facilitation mediator visit the NGO to guide internal communications. It also deploys insolvency and HR practitioners. “You need people who can help you create humane redundancy packages wherever possible, because it can be very, very damaging to an organization's legacy when a redundancy process goes wrong,” said Lawrence. Global development specialists need to help change attitudes that survival at all costs is the goal, she said. Instead, they should aim to design and plan legacies that preserve what is most viable in an organization and enable it to endure. “We also need to support the workforce to find future employment ways that help them bring their skills to other sectors where they might be valuable,” said Lawrence. “It has to be more than just survival until no other options are on offer, at which point something, or many things, completely collapse, causing significant loss and harm.” Leave a legacy In 2018, Cassie Robinson founded Stewarding Loss in the U.K., which later became The Decelerator. It offered funding to help nonprofits end their operations responsibly with help from consultants. A toolkit published by the organization guides nonprofit leaders on how to decide, design, and deliver better endings. It is harder to do this work in organizations forced to shut down suddenly by funding loss, Robinson told Devex. But organizations can always try to bring something “honoring of the work” into their ending, she said: “What’s the legacy, what can be salvaged that goes on living?” Communication is key, Robinson said. She recommended that leaders not try to hide what is happening from staff, but bring the whole team on board and include them in the ending’s design. Staff members may value having specific roles in the closure, so they feel they play a particular purpose. Practically, she suggested investing time in helping workers discuss next career moves and letting them take time off for job interviews. It is also important that the organization celebrates its achievements and communicates these externally, said Robinson, and potentially holds a celebration to mark its achievements, creates an archive of its work, or even performs some kind of closing ritual. “That can be really powerful,” she said. Forward thinking By far the best way to close an organization is to have planned its ending from the start, Acer and Lawrence agreed. Acer suggested organizations set themselves a time frame from their foundation, noting the example of WaterSHED, an NGO that committed to building a market for water, sanitation, and hygiene products in Cambodia over 10 years, then exit the country. It closed down in 2021. Data collected by The Decelerator hints at another attitude Lawrence would like more CEOs to adopt: thinking about an ending does not mean it is the end. “Half of people who call us about a possible closure go on to close within 12 months, and half of people don't go on to close,” she said. “Trying to make space for conversations about what might need to end doesn’t mean everything is going to end — it just means we’re better prepared for the turbulence civil society is experiencing.”