Democratizing Organizational Structures: How Social Workers Can Improve the Nonprofit Landscape

Background and Purpose:

Social workers employed by nonprofit organizations have faced unique challenges to professional obligations and stability in recent years. In 2025, one-third of nonprofit organizations experienced significant funding disruptions (Tomasko et al., 2025). Such financial precarity may push nonprofits toward securing funding over adhering to their mission, values, and goals (Campos-Moreira et al., 2020; Hyde, 2018), which can result in organizations aligning with systems of oppression and perpetuating harmful practices (INCITE!, 2017; Jensen, 2018; Samimi 2019; Samimi & DeHerrera, 2020). These organizational shifts can create barriers to social work’s professional values and obligations, especially if social workers are left out of decision-making processes. The purpose of this study is to analyze a nonprofit organization’s responses to the author’s advocacy efforts over the course of 19-months of employment and their attempts to shift policies, procedures, and practices to better promote social work’s Code of Ethics. It showcases the challenges with enacting organizational changes when confronted by exclusive decision-making structures, rigid policies, and other organizational constraints. Implications emphasize social works’ unique role within nonprofits to promote more democratic and equitable organizational structures that better serve clients and constituents, with considerations for the Trump administration’s assault on diversity, equity, and inclusion (White House, 2025).

Method:

This study utilized critical autoethnography and reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022) of personal journal entries and organizational documents exchanged between the author and a mid-sized nonprofit over 19-months of employment. This includes emails, meeting notes, policies and procedures, an organizational assessment, and a 149-page FOIA document received from the National Labor Relations Board. Critical autoethnography was used to showcase how institutions privilege some people while simultaneously marginalizing others (Boylorn & Orbe, 2020; Holman et al., 2018), and for its alignment with social work’s Code of Ethics (Witkin, 2014). Critical autoethnography is a unique and effective methodology for uplifting the stories of marginalized persons and produces knowledge and research to develop more equitable practices (Holman Jones et al., 2013; Witkin, 2022).

Results:

Findings show the nonprofit exhibited characteristics of an Excluding Organization (Minors, 1996) and a hierarchical organizational structure which it used to maintain rigid power imbalances and a harmful status quo, utilizing various interpersonal and structural responses like punitive measures, intimidation, inconsistent policy enforcement, poor communication, and monitoring and controlling dissent. An inequitable distribution of decision-making processes and disrespect for low-power actors (Hyde, 2018) facilitated the use of these and other responses to stifle advocacy efforts and prevent substantive organizational changes better aligned with social work’s professional values and obligations.

Conclusions and Implications:

With around 250,000 social workers employed by nonprofits across the country (Salsberg E., et al., 2020; United States Department of Labor, 2025), it’s vital for social workers to examine their organizational structures and culture to ensure adherence to shared goals of equity, inclusion, and social justice. Social workers are uniquely positioned to support organizational assessments and strategic planning to democratize decision-making processes and improve policies and procedures, minimize harmful and inequitable organizational practices, and improve program outcomes.