Why One Charity Chose to Wind Down While Still Flush with Cash

Ben Gose, senior editor for the Chronicle of Philanthropy, explores the case of the Full Frame Initiative, who, despite having both money and more work to do, took the path toward dissolution rather than persistence or consolidation:

By the fall of 2024, Full Frame’s budget was down to $3 million from a peak above $4 million. The charity was doing all it could to save money — including not replacing frontline workers who left voluntarily.

[Founder Katya Fels] Smyth saw four possible scenarios. The one she dreaded the most was an implosion à la Benefits Data Trust, which closed in the summer of 2024, leaving clients in the lurch, despite having received a huge gift from MacKenzie Scott. That scenario seemed unlikely — but possible if one or more of Full Frame’s few remaining major donors pulled out.

The second option was to struggle onward, with the smaller staff taking on the additional work of departing employees and Smyth spending most of her time fundraising. The third option was to find a merger partner, perhaps another charity focused on movement building and systems change. Smyth and the board looked at options but ultimately decided none were the right fit.

For Smyth, the fourth option made the most sense — wind down, get the charity’s research out to the public, and put the ongoing mission in the hands of volunteers.

Rehttps://www.philanthropy.com/news/why-one-charity-chose-to-wind-down-while-still-flush-with-cash/ad the article here.