The Impact of COVID-19 on Nonprofit Organizations: A Systematic Review and Future Crisis Research Agenda

Screening and Selection

After searching, the results were downloaded, and duplicates were removed using the citation management software Zotero and MS Excel. The titles and abstracts were screened based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1) to identify potentially relevant articles. A total of 1,874 records were obtained. After deduplication, we conducted title and abstract screening based on the criteria in Table 1, followed by a full-text eligibility assessment.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.

Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Topic Relevance: Articles must specifically focus on the impact of COVID-19 on nonprofit organizations.	Topic Irrelevance: Articles that do not specifically address nonprofit organizations during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Types of Impact: Includes studies analyzing any impact (e.g., financial, operational, and strategic) of COVID-19 on nonprofit organizations.	Publication Quality: Non-peer-reviewed articles (conference papers, book chapters, proceedings, reports) and opinion pieces.
Publication Type: Only original articles published in peer-reviewed journals.	Grey Literature: Annual reports, news articles, and blogs were excluded.
Language: Articles published in English.	Sector Relevance: Studies focus on the for-profit sector or other sectors unrelated to nonprofit organizations.

The unit of analysis in this review is the organization rather than individual staff members or volunteers. Studies primarily emphasizing individual experiences, such as burnout or personal coping strategies, without an explicit linkage to organizational-level outcomes, were excluded at the full-text screening stage, following the criterion in Table 1: “Articles must focus on organizational-level impacts.” This organizational-level focus was chosen because organizational responses to crises involve strategic decisions about resource allocation, service delivery adaptation, and stakeholder engagement, which are best captured at the institutional rather than the individual level. Although individual experiences are important, they are shaped by organizational contexts, structures, and strategies, making the organization the appropriate unit of analysis for understanding how nonprofits navigate systemic crises.

During the initial screening, 1,738 peer-reviewed articles were excluded because they focused solely on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals or communities and did not address its impact on nonprofit organizations. The full-text versions of the remaining articles were obtained. The introduction and conclusion sections were reviewed to assess the relevance of the research questions, and the methodology sections were evaluated for robustness and applicability. An additional 85 articles were excluded because they did not adequately address the research questions of this study.

Data Extraction and Management

For each article that met the inclusion criteria, relevant data were extracted using a predefined template (see Online Supplemental Material C) that included fields for the authors, year of publication, study objectives, methodology, key findings, and conclusions. All full-text articles were assessed using a predefined 24-item coding protocol adapted from the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual (Aromataris et al., 2024). An article was deemed to adequately address our research questions only if it explicitly linked COVID-19 to nonprofit organizations and reported organizational-level empirical findings on at least one of the following: (a) impact (e.g., financial, operational, human resources, and service delivery) or (b) strategies adopted during the pandemic. Articles lacking these elements were excluded. Two coders independently coded an initial subset of a quarter of the included studies (n = 13) to calibrate the codebook and the cluster assignment decision rules. Discrepancies were discussed in structured consensus meetings to refine operational definitions (including theme boundaries, primary cluster assignments, and outcome direction coding) and standardize application across coders. Intercoder reliability was assessed using this calibration subset, with excellent agreement (Cohen’s κ = 0.84) before consensus adjudication. After calibration, the remaining studies were coded using a stabilized protocol. The exclusions are itemized in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1). A total of 52 articles were included in this systematic review. Due to variability and limited specificity in the reporting of study samples, the precise number of nonprofit organizations represented cannot be definitively determined. However, based on the available information, the included studies collectively encompass data from an estimated 100 or more nonprofit organizations across approximately 30 countries worldwide.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram for systematic reviews.

We adopted systematic criteria for assessing the outcomes, relevance, and methodological rigor of this systematic review (Table 2). These criteria ensured a consistent and transparent evaluation of each article included in the review.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Evaluation Criteria to Assess the Reviewed Articles.

Criterion	Level	Description
Outcome	Positive	Explicit positive impacts (e.g., enhanced capacity, sustainability).
	Negative	Explicit negative impacts (e.g., adverse effects, operational difficulties).
	Both positive & negative	Mixed outcomes (e.g., increased costs and improved efficiency).
	No impact	No statistically significant effects reported.
Relevance	Highly relevant	Direct focus on nonprofits during COVID-19 (e.g., funding, service delivery, management).
	Relevant	Addresses peripheral aspects or subdomains (e.g., social networking only).
	Less relevant	Partial contribution to understanding the broader research question.
Methodological rigor	High	Robust design (mix-methods design, large sample sizes).
	Moderate	Sound but limited methodology (e.g., small sample, single data type such as surveys).
	Low	Weak design (lack of transparency, small sample sizes, and isolated case studies).

Cluster 1 – Digital Service Delivery

Across the studies in Cluster 1, a common pattern is that nonprofit organizations responded to pandemic disruptions by reconfiguring service delivery, rather than suspending services altogether. Organizations shifted along a continuum from fully onsite to hybrid and fully remote models, and these choices were shaped by service type, client characteristics, and digital infrastructure (Lu & Wang, 2023). Collectively, the evidence suggests that digital transformation functioned both as a continuity strategy and as a new source of inequality (Davidson et al., 2023; Guntrum et al., 2024; Hoang, 2024), depending on the extent to which client access barriers (e.g., connectivity, devices, and privacy) could be mitigated.

Though the included studies reported that the pandemic-induced rapid service delivery reconfiguration (Giamberti et al., 2021; Van Hout et al., 2022), the evidence does not support a single, uniform “pivot to remote.” Instead, the literature documents a hybridization of delivery models, in which nonprofit organizations combine remote/digital modalities with modified onsite delivery depending on mission requirements, organizational size, and local restrictions (Moise et al., 2022; Schmid & Bradley, 2022).

A recurring pattern in this cluster is the selective continuity under constraints. Several studies have described disruptions to services requiring close physical interaction and temporary discontinuation of certain activities, alongside continuity achieved through procedural modifications and targeted adaptations (Van Hout et al., 2022; Vicknasingam et al., 2021; Waniak-Michalak et al., 2022, 2024; Yan et al., 2020). This pattern extends to specialized service domains, where pandemic conditions led to sharp reductions in programs’ activities (Giamberti et al., 2021; Honeyman et al., 2022). Taken together, the evidence suggests that many nonprofit organizations prioritized maintaining core functions while filtering out service components that could not be sustained under public health constraints.

This cluster also features digital communication and online engagement as distinct, although related, domains of adaptation (Hoang, 2024). Studies reporting social media outputs have shown mixed effects. Some found no significant changes in posting activity, while others reported sustained declines in posting volume or shifts in content emphasis during the early crisis periods (Hoang, 2024; Lebenbaum et al., 2024; Szamrowski & Oliński, 2023). These mixed patterns caution against the assumption that “digital transformation” necessarily implies increased online activity. Instead, organizational attention and capacity constraints may reshape the quantity and types of communication.

Finally, the findings consistently indicate that service delivery changes were accompanied by access and equity challenges. Nonprofit organizations working with migrants and other vulnerable communities reported intensified barriers to access, including constraints linked to mobility restrictions and pre-existing access gaps (Klinton et al., 2021; Knieć et al., 2023). In homelessness policy contexts, implementation challenges prompted temporary solutions, illustrating how access depended not only on organizational decisions but also on policy feasibility and local infrastructure (Davis et al., 2024).

In synthesis, COVID-19 not only accelerated hybrid service models and digital experimentation but also exposed, and sometimes widened, disparities in organizational and client capacity to engage through remote modalities (Davis et al., 2024; Doğan & Genç, 2021; Klinton et al., 2021). For instance, organizations serving migrants and refugees could expand their reach by offering telehealth consultations to clients who previously faced transportation barriers, but only when clients had reliable internet access and digital literacy. Where these conditions were absent, as reported among rural and elderly populations, the same digital tools created exclusion, forcing organizations to maintain costly dual-track delivery systems or accept service gaps. When organizations had the capacity to redesign services based on client preferences (e.g., combining remote channels with targeted in-person outreach), digital tools expanded their reach and made certain services more resilient to disruption. However, where client access barriers remained high, the same tools shifted the burden of adaptation to clients and risked excluding those with fewer resources (Davis et al., 2024; Doğan & Genç, 2021; Klinton et al., 2021).

Cluster 2 – Funding and Cost Management

Across the 20 peer-reviewed COVID-19 studies in Cluster 2, most described financial impacts in aggregated terms as financial strain, resource scarcity, heightened uncertainty, or survival threat, without specifying whether disruptions arose from changes in earned income/fees-for-service, private donations, or government contracts/grants (Fuller et al., 2023; Fuller & Rice, 2022; Grønbjerg et al., 2021; Kabbara & Ozgit, 2023; Kc, 2022; Kim & Mason, 2020; Lebenbaum et al., 2024; Plaisance, 2022, 2024; Schulpen et al., 2024; Szamrowski & Oliński, 2023). Where stream-specific conditions are mentioned, they frequently lead to decreases in earned income/fees-for-service, which has traditionally been one of the largest revenue streams for nonprofit organizations (Young, 2017), such as those caused by lockdowns (Clifford et al., 2025). Governments compensated by offering emergency funding, such as the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in the United States, for which nonprofit organizations could qualify (Johnson et al., 2021). While previous research has examined revenue diversification under normal conditions (Choi, 2025; Froelich, 1999; Hung & Hager, 2019), COVID-19 revealed that crises create unique challenges that simultaneously affect earned income, donor behavior, government capacity, and the organizational capability to pursue alternative funding sources (Clifford et al., 2025; Kim & Mason, 2020; Schulpen et al., 2024). Shi (2022) linked greater vulnerability to weaker government financial support, indicating that public support can condition the severity of the impact, whereas other studies identified public funds and grants as part of a broader bundle of success conditions that depend on implementation capacity and cooperation (e.g., Waniak-Michalak et al., 2024).

These studies reflect the considerable heterogeneity in the effects of the pandemic. Clifford et al. (2025) found that COVID-19 reduced the median income of 90,000 charitable organizations in the United Kingdom by 13%. In contrast, smaller charities and charitable organizations in the culture and recreation sub-sector, as well as parent-teacher associations, had a higher median income decline due to COVID-19 distancing rules, which made it more difficult to host concerts or in-person fundraising events (Plaisance, 2022). Evidence of philanthropic dynamics was similarly heterogeneous. Donor relations and charitable giving experienced uneven effects across organizations rather than a single-directional collapse (Schulpen et al., 2024; Waniak-Michalak et al., 2022). Studies have also shown shifts in fundraising channels and positioning. Digital peer-to-peer fundraising appears to be a growing channel (Martin & Schlereth, 2024), and resource scarcity intensifies competition and pushes nonprofits toward survival-oriented postures (Daolei, 2024).

Regarding costs, studies have provided evidence of increased operating expenses and the need to modify budgets under pandemic conditions (Fuller & Rice, 2022; Newby & Branyon, 2021), such as increased costs due to the mandatory use of personal protective equipment and the need to adhere to evolving health guidelines (Schulpen et al., 2024). Several studies across diverse contexts have demonstrated that protocol-driven redesign can reduce costs or improve efficiency without apparent negative effects. Alier et al. (2024) found that community-based acute malnutrition program adaptations in South Sudan, including reduced follow-up visit frequency and simplified screening procedures, lowered costs while maintaining recovery rates, particularly for larger programs. Similarly, Nigerian NGOs reported improved efficiency through virtual tools and effective resource management (Asogwa et al., 2023), food banks in Texas leveraged social media to achieve cost savings in stakeholder engagement (Hoang, 2024), and tuberculosis programs across seven countries rapidly adapted by shifting tasks and budgets toward digital tools and patient-centric services (Klinton et al., 2021).

These examples illustrate that cost-reducing adaptations typically involve (a) shifting from in-person to virtual delivery, (b) simplifying procedures without compromising outcomes, (c) leveraging technology to reduce transaction costs, and (d) restructuring tasks to enable less-specialized staff to perform key functions. Buffering capacity is most explicitly captured through operating reserves, which determine whether organizations can absorb immediate program and financing shocks without resorting to reactive cuts (Kim & Mason, 2020). Alier et al. (2024) illustrated a distinct buffering mechanism: protocol redesign reduced resource dependence on specialized clinical staff and facility-based care, thereby lowering operational costs without compromising outcomes. This demonstrates that buffering capacity can be enhanced not only through financial reserves but also through operational adaptations that reduce resource requirements.

Taken together, Cluster 2 supports the conclusion that pandemic-era financial resilience is best characterized as a heterogeneous disruption often unspecified by revenue streams, with conditional stabilization tied to context-dependent access to public support, uneven philanthropic dynamics, selective fundraising-channel adaptation, and significant cost pressures. This heterogeneity reflects the mechanism of resource elasticity; organizations with diversified funding sources and stronger government support relationships were better able to buffer revenue shocks because they had alternative resource channels to activate when primary streams dried up. Conversely, organizations dependent on earned income from in-person activities (e.g., cultural events and direct service fees) experienced more severe impacts because lockdowns simultaneously eliminated their revenue sources while preventing alternative service delivery.

Cluster 3 – Crisis Management Processes, Cross-Sector Collaboration, and Accountability

Crisis management focuses on pre-crisis preparedness, in-crisis response, post-crisis recovery, governance, and decision-making processes (Aranda et al., 2025; Asogwa et al., 2023; Bednar et al., 2024; Corvo et al., 2022). For example, Kc (2022, 2025) characterized crisis management processes arising from a three-fold pressure comprising service demand spikes, reductions in support resources, and state-imposed mobility constraints, highlighting how crisis response is bounded by resource conditions and regulatory environments.

The literature further indicates that cross-sector relationships and partnerships function as key response mechanisms, but with meaningful variations in structure and effects (Asogwa et al., 2023; Bednar et al., 2024; Corvo et al., 2022; Merkle et al., 2022).

Research on collaboration between nonprofit and public organizations in Italy showed transformative changes in internal operating mechanisms during emergencies, including shifts from paper-based to digital administrative processes, reconfiguration of inter-agency communication protocols, and the integration of third-sector representatives into public emergency-response structures. These changes fundamentally altered organizational routines, rather than merely adding new activities. These changes are considered transformative because they altered the core infrastructure of how third-sector organizations operate, replacing established paper-based workflows with digital systems, restructuring communication hierarchies, and embedding nonprofit representatives within government decision-making structures rather than simply adding temporary COVID-specific activities alongside existing routines. Similar transformative patterns have been observed in other studies. Nigerian NGOs reported that crisis-driven network creation fundamentally changed how they conducted peer interventions (Asogwa et al., 2023), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention partnerships reconfigured sustainability planning processes among the grantees (Bednar et al., 2024). Moreover, evidence from funded partnerships indicates positive contributions to organizational sustainability and capacity, implying that partnership design and resource flows can directly shape response capabilities (Bednar et al., 2024). The evidence supports the interpretation of cross-sector collaboration as a resource-conditioned, governance-embedded response strategy that can expand capacity and reconfigure internal operations during a crisis.

Studies have shown that crisis reporting can strengthen stakeholder satisfaction and trust, whereas the absence of formal reporting negatively influences stakeholder satisfaction and may increase the perceived need for auditing and formal oversight structures (Nemțeanu et al., 2022). These findings imply that accountability during systemic disruption functions as a resilience-relevant governance process, demonstrating that nonprofit organizations are effective even during a crisis, strengthening organizational legitimacy, stabilizing stakeholder expectations, and facilitating resource continuity (Carman, 2010).

Accountability-focused studies suggest that COVID-19 altered the practice of and emphasis on accountability, rather than simply increasing or reducing it (Fagbemi et al., 2024; Intindola & Burke-Kolehmainen, 2023; Liwanag et al., 2023; Uygur & Napier, 2023). Under crisis conditions, organizations face heightened reputational risks, constrained monitoring routines, and intensified demand for stakeholder communication (Azevedo et al., 2022; Finchum-Mason et al., 2020). Studies have reported that accountability practices are shaped by organizational responses aimed at preserving reputation and maintaining legitimacy, including measurable shifts in accountability dimensions such as accessibility and engagement (Uygur & Napier, 2023). Accountability appears to be intertwined with communication capacity in networked environments. Evidence from a nonprofit network indicates positive adaptation in partner communication and stakeholder engagement, suggesting that communication infrastructure and relational routines can serve as operational support during turbulence (Azevedo et al., 2022). Synthesized across the cluster, accountability is best conceptualized as an adaptive governance domain that mediates stakeholder trust and organizational continuity during crises.

Cluster 4 – Capacity, Human Resources, and Operational Adjustments

Across the studies in this cluster, the most consistent finding was that crisis impacts were mediated through internal operating capacity and workforce strain (Aranda et al., 2025; Case & Eady, 2022). Evidence from nonprofit organizations suggests reduced program implementation, increased operating burdens, and heightened staff demands, while also identifying improvements in efficiency via virtual tools and network creation, indicating the co-occurrence of internal strain and adaptive innovation (Asogwa et al., 2023). Similarly, rural third-sector organizations reported slowed tasks, abandoned projects, and volunteer/member attrition alongside reports of expanded activity fields and widened cooperation networks, suggesting both contraction and adaptive reorientation during the same crisis period (Knieć et al., 2023).

Operationally, the evidence highlighted rapid change, time pressure, uncertainty, and reliance on ad hoc solutions, accompanied by leadership fatigue and exhaustion. These conditions are consistent with sustained crisis operations rather than brief disruptions, emphasizing the durability of the capacity strain (Stötzer et al., 2022). Simultaneously, organizational learning and formalization of response routines were visible when adaptive capacity increased and crisis protocols were developed during the pandemic (Chui, 2022). These findings suggest that capacity dynamics encompass both depletion (e.g., burnout and volunteer turnover) and capability building (e.g., protocol development and new routines).

Evidence from international development contexts reinforces the fragility of organizational capacity in the face of systemic shocks. Southern nonprofit partners reported substantial and largely negative consequences for staffing, activities, and finances, highlighting how capacity constraints can translate into direct reductions in programmatic reach and stability (Schulpen et al., 2024). Public health prevention and service contexts have reported similarly high adverse impacts on organizational work and intensified pressure to maintain safe and timely service delivery (Swahn et al., 2022; Walters et al., 2022). Finally, evidence from nonprofit organizations illustrates how capacity strain, program curtailment, and online shifts co-evolved with revenue shortfalls and a shortage of volunteer labor, underscoring the interdependence of workforce, operations, and financial constraints (Grønbjerg et al., 2021).

Overall, this cluster supports a synthesis in which human resources and operational capacity function as the central mechanisms linking pandemic-induced crisis disruptions to service continuity, adaptation trajectories, and long-term organizational resilience. The mechanism operates as follows: when volunteer support became unavailable owing to mobility restrictions and health risks, organizations either had to absorb additional workloads with existing paid staff (increasing overtime pay, burnout, and turnover risk) or reduce service capacity. Organizations with stronger pre-existing digital infrastructure and formalized protocols could substitute for in-person volunteer support with virtual engagement, while those lacking these adaptive capacities experienced direct service reductions. This explains why similar revenue shocks produce divergent organizational outcomes and how capacity constraints mediate the relationship between financial stress and service continuity.

Crisis Context and Field Pressures

Future research could conceptualize crisis context not only as “shock severity” but also as a configuration of policy and regulatory constraints, volatility in resource environments, and shifts in community needs. Institutional and resource dependence theories jointly indicate that nonprofit organizations face simultaneous legitimacy pressures (to conform to new norms and mandates) and resource pressures (to stabilize funding and critical inputs) that vary across policy regimes, funder ecosystems, and subsectors. This variation creates heterogeneous starting conditions for organizational responses, suggesting that future comparative studies should treat institutional regimes and resource environments as boundary conditions rather than as background contexts.

Mechanisms and Outcomes

Cluster 1, Digital Service Delivery, captures how organizations reconfigure delivery modalities (onsite, remote, and hybrid) and how these shifts affect access. A key mechanism for future research is the accessibility trade-off. Digital delivery may expand continuity and reach for some clients while excluding others, depending on client resources, service type, and the digital infrastructure. Institutional theory further implies that these delivery choices are shaped by evolving expectations regarding equity, duty of care, and acceptable service standards under crisis conditions.

Cluster 2, Funding and Cost Management, examines how organizations stabilize cash flow and reduce cost exposure during crises. A central mechanism is resource elasticity, which reflects the extent to which organizations can adjust revenue and cost structures without undermining mission delivery, consistent with the resource dependence theory’s emphasis on dependence, bargaining power, and constraint (Froelich, 1999; Sukens et al., 2023). Although a meta-analysis (Hung & Hager, 2019) showed that revenue diversification can improve the financial health of nonprofit organizations, the overall effects were small and have not been explicitly examined in crises that create novel challenges and pressures on nonprofits. Future research could investigate (a) the vulnerability of different revenue streams to crisis-induced shocks, recognizing that earned income, private donations, and government funding exhibit differential sensitivity to crisis conditions; (b) the temporal sequencing of revenue recovery, as some streams rebound quickly, whereas others remain distressed; (c) the administrative costs and burden associated with diversification, particularly for smaller organizations with limited capacity to pursue potential donors; and (d) the trade-offs between revenue diversification and mission alignment when organizations are forced to attract emergency funding sources that may diverge from core mission priorities.

Cluster 3, Crisis Management Processes, Cross-Sector Collaboration, and Accountability, captures how nonprofit organizations maintain trust under uncertainty. Future studies should examine how nonprofit organizations coordinate actions across partners and sectors. The core mechanism is coordination capacity: collaboration can expand resources and operational reach while also creating coordination costs and power asymmetries that shape the outcome dynamics predicted by resource dependence theory when dominant actors control critical resources. Research should also focus on accountability reconfiguration during crises, which involves shifts in reporting cadence, communication channels, and stakeholder engagement to preserve legitimacy while managing administrative burdens. Future research could examine how accountability demands differ across the crisis life cycle, from preparedness to response and post-crisis recovery.

Cluster 4, Capacity, Human Resources, and Operational Adjustments, deals with internal execution capabilities. Future studies should examine crisis leadership, staffing stability, volunteer management, and the ability to convert ad hoc decisions into durable routines, consistent with the organizational resilience theory’s focus on how organizations absorb shocks, adapt operations, and institutionalize learning (Kedia et al., 2025; Wu et al., 2021). Crisis management theory implies that timing matters across these mechanisms. The same strategy may function differently in the pre-crisis phase than in the peak disruption or recovery phases (Bundy et al., 2017).

Cross-Cluster Interactions

A key implication of this framework is that the mechanisms identified across clusters are interdependent rather than additive. The effect of any response is likely contingent on how it co-occurs with others. Therefore, future research should model and test cross-cluster interactions that determine whether interventions stabilize services or redistribute costs. First, although digital transformation may enhance continuity and operational capacity by reducing transaction costs and sustaining contact, it may also undermine equity when it shifts compliance and access burdens to clients (e.g., devices, connectivity, and digital literacy), thereby amplifying their exclusion (Clusters 1 and 4). Second, financial stabilization can preserve organizational viability when cost controls buffer shocks; however, it may erode service continuity when fiscal discipline induces mission drift, narrowing of eligibility, or incremental service retrenchment (Clusters 1 and 2). Third, accountability may sustain trust when transparency and engagement are decision-relevant and proportionate, but weaken capacity when reporting requirements divert scarce managerial and frontline attention (Clusters 3 and 4). Fourth, collaboration can stabilize resources and expand capacity when partnerships diversify funding and expertise, but can deepen resource dependence when dominant partners constrain strategic choices and reorient priorities (Clusters 2 and 4). Therefore, research designs that examine the effects across clusters are needed.

Boundary Conditions and Feedback Loops

Future research should examine the moderators that influence whether response mechanisms produce positive, negative, or mixed outcomes, thereby strengthening explanatory leverage. The key boundary conditions include pre-crisis slack and operating reserves, revenue concentration and dependence structures, digital maturity, workforce structure (staff versus volunteer intensity), network position, and governance capacity (Chen, 2021; Kim & Mason, 2020). These boundary conditions map directly onto the four theoretical lenses: institutional theory suggests that legitimacy expectations and regulatory mandates can amplify or dampen the effects of response choices; resource dependence theory highlights how reliance on concentrated funders or partners conditions discretion and adaptation; organizational resilience theory emphasizes slack, routines, and learning capacity as determinants of absorptive and adaptive performance; and crisis management theory implies that the timing and sequencing of actions across the preparedness, response, and recovery phases shape downstream outcomes.

Finally, the model includes a feedback loop. Crisis learning and institutionalization can alter future preparedness (e.g., protocols, digital governance, and partnership routines), producing path-dependent trajectories across subsequent crises. In particular, crisis management and resilience perspectives imply that what begins as improvisation can be codified into durable routines that strengthen future readiness or become brittle practices that constrain flexibility in the face of the next shock, depending on leadership capacity, governance, and resource availability.

Overall, our proposed model provides a roadmap for future crisis research and a practical tool for nonprofit organizations seeking to strengthen their resilience (Schwarz et al., 2026). By linking field-level pressures and resource environments to cluster-aligned response mechanisms and outcomes, the model supports systematic and comparative investigations of how nonprofits sustain legitimacy, secure resources, maintain service continuity and equity, and protect workforce capacity across crises, not only during COVID-19 but also in the face of future systemic disruptions.