Nonprofits are going incognito

Some fear for staff and are choosing anonymity

Image description: black silouette of a person’s head and shoulders. Image by Rheo from Pixabay

It is noticeable that nonprofits are changing how they show up in the world these days due to threats from the Trump administration. I’ve noticed two areas where folks are actively discussing how to balance authenticity and transparency vs. risk of harm:

1. What language is used on public-facing documents such as the organization’s 990 and website (covered in my next post), and

2. whether staff and board are listed with full names and/or photos on the organization’s website (read on).

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but many nonprofits no longer list their staff and/or board members on their websites, or list only first names. In a changing atmosphere, it seems that some nonprofits feel it is more prudent to go incognito and protect their team from unwanted communications or other negative consequences of being associated with the organization. At their most serious, these could include doxxing and swatting, government harassment, or even being targeted for violence by extremists. The trend is understandable and saddening.

Nonprofit staff have typically been proud to be associated with their organizations, and having staff and board listings facilitate networking and collaboration, e.g. “who was that person I met from X organization at the conference?” The change piles on to other changes that reduce transparency and access like the lack of posted email addresses due to bot activity and the lack of physical offices and main telephone numbers answered by a live person. Overall, our visibility is reduced, which may have consequences for public awareness and for people who need us connecting with us.

The team at Washington Immigrant Solidarity Network (WAISN) has a powerful and detailed statement on their website about their decision not to list their staff members publicly. As they point out, “the immigration industrial complex thrives on surveillance” and they are engaging in “a collective refusal to be vulnerable in ways that would threaten our ability to serve.” WAISN’s “strategic resistance” does not surprise me. Ramped up immigration enforcement and violence by ICE, extending even to green card holders and citizens, is a real threat for people actively working in support of immigrants’ rights.

A survey of several other immigrant-serving organizations in the Northwest reveals a variety of approaches, including retention of the full listing of staff with names, photos and bios, listing of staff names only, listing of executive staff only, and omission of any staff listing.

Last week, I attended a community forum hosted by Solid Ground regarding the state of human service nonprofits in Seattle. A leader from a different large Seattle social service provider that currently has a full staff directory online indicated that their organization is currently holding internal conversations to determine whether they will keep the directory posted in the future. That listing is probably very helpful for community members navigating the 43 programs they offer, but with a focus on serving a community that includes many immigrants, their concern is understandable.

In addition to some immigrants’ rights organizations, there are other organizations that do not list staff names for safety reasons. This is an established practice for domestic violence service providers and organizations providing reproductive health services such as Planned Parenthood. In the current climate, the list of types of nonprofits that might want to consider anonymity is growing to include LGBTQIA+ organizations, organizations centering BIPOC or Jewish communities, and political advocacy groups. Lavender Rights Project states here, “In the face of increasing threats and systemic violence, we are removing the public visibility of our staff and board to ensure their safety, security, and well-being…To fight for liberation, we must first ensure the safety of those on the frontlines.”

As the trend spreads, I encourage nonprofits to be intentional about their decision, including a realistic assessment of risk for your field of work, and communicate with constituents about your rationale.