When donor support ends, organizations are often seen adjusting programs, cutting staff, and hoping to survive the transition. That's what I witnessed firsthand when the USAID-funded project I worked on was cancelled. It was more than just an operational shiftâit felt like an identity crisis. But it also sparked a question: What does it really take for organizations to stay resilient after a donor exists?
While the end of donor funding is undeniably disruptive, it does not have to be the end of impact. In this blog, I share some personal reflections and learnings from a strategic management course focused on helping organizations like mine rethink sustainability in a post-donor landscape.
When external funding dries up, the instinct is often to cut costs and wait for the next grant. But surviving isn't enough. Organizations need to strategically plan for long-term resilienceâstarting with understanding their internal strengths and external environment.
Using tools like SWOT and PESTLE analysis, critical gaps can be examined such as overdependence on one donor, limited revenue generations, and weak internal systems. This will also help to identify organizational strengths: a skilled workforce, trusted brand, and technical excellence that could be leveraged beyond traditional donors. Many development organizations have untapped expertiseâresearch, training, data analyticsâthat can be translated into paid services. Developing a lean, mission-aligned consulting wing isn't just a funding tacticâit's a step toward independence.
Staff are often the first to feel the shock of donor exits. Supporting their wellbeing, growth, and involvement in changing processes isn't optional, it's foundational. Resilient organizations recognize that people are their greatest asset. Investing in staff wellbeingâthrough flexible policies, mental health support, or leadership developmentâis not a luxury; it's a survival strategy. When staff feel valued, they stay engaged, innovate from within, and carry the organization forward, even during transitions.
Change is hard. But using structured models like Kotter's 8-Step Change Model can make it manageable. Change cannot be imposedâit must be co-created (Kotter, 1996). Top-down mandates may lead to temporary compliance, but lasting transformation happens only when people feel ownership of the process. When staff across all levels are included in identifying challenges, brainstorming solutions, and shaping new practices, they are more likely to engage meaningfully and adapt with purpose. Co-creation fosters trust, reduces resistance, and surfaces practical insights that top leadership alone might miss. In uncertain times, listening becomes just as important as leading.
Bangladesh is entering a new phaseâgraduating from donor dependency and moving toward self-reliance. For NGOs, thinktanks, and research institutes, this moment is both a risk and an opportunity. Organization's leaders must embrace complexity, welcome collaboration locally, and take bold steps toward sustainability. That means moving away from donor-driven logic toward locally grounded innovation, strategic partnerships, and accountable systems.
We can no longer rely solely on external funding. The departure of a major donor like USAID is not just a loss, it's a signal! A signal to adapt, innovate, and lead differently. It's time to build systems that are locally grounded, staff-powered, and financially diverse. Only then can we continue to make impacts regardless of who signs the checks.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press. Read more
Afroja Yesmin is a public health professional with over a decade of experience in health system strengthening and project implementation. She previously served as Senior Implementation Manager for the USAID Strengthening Local Level Health Systems (SLLHS) Activity in Bangladesh, which was cancelled following USAID's program closure in the country. She is a Public Health graduate and currently perusing her Master of Public Affairs in Governance and Public Policy at Bangladesh Institute of Governance and Management.
