Comments
WorkStream Nonprofit is a nonprofit dedicated to removing operations bottlenecks to impact. We’re an operations support organization for mission-driven nonprofits. Most of our work is hands-on: back office operations + fractional COO work, financial management, hiring support, and operations training and coaching.
GRIP, our Growth Readiness Improvement Program, is a program we developed in 2025 to make that impact more accessible: it’s a lightweight diagnostic and improvement program designed to help small and mid-sized nonprofits identify operational constraints, strengthen internal systems, and build the foundation needed for sustainable growth.
We’ve now run 15 orgs through it to completion, with 6 still in progress. We have some data now - and it seems to be a very effective intervention.
Here’s our write-up of what we assumed going in, how we ran it, what the numbers say, and what we’d tell founders and funders based on the results.
GRIP is built on a few beliefs about how small nonprofits operate:
If those are true, then a short, structured program should be able to improve operations without a big consulting budget. That was our belief, and what we set out to test.
Between July 2025 and August 2026, 21 orgs went through GRIP: 3 early completers of a test, then a structured 15-org batch that ran from February to August 2026, and 3 rolling participants. 6 of the 21 are still mid-program. Deena Englander and Freddy Zwanzger facilitated these sessions, bringing in specialists and team members to support as needed.
We deliberately recruited a diverse cohort; we believe organizational fundamentals apply across sectors, cause area, and org structure. Cause areas included animal welfare, AI safety, arts and music education, housing, mental health, maternal and infant health, food rescue, environment, women’s economic empowerment, youth development, and community development. Geographically, the orgs were spread across North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia. We accepted 65% of all applicants.
The format was the same for everyone: a 1.5-hour intake, three 1-hour follow-up sessions, and a recap either as its own session or folded into a follow-up. Across 2026, that was 70 sessions.
To measure progress, we used our Growth Readiness Index (GRI): 10 operational dimensions, each scored 1 to 10, for a 100-point total. The dimensions cover things like growth strategy, staffing plans, internal processes, technical infrastructure, metric tracking, and compliance. Scores are self-reported, which has obvious limits, so we sit with each org and help them calibrate their scoring to keep it honest. With our facilitation, each org scored themselves at intake and again at the end.
Every org that completed the program improved. All 15 completers so far gained an average of 11.5 points on the 100-point index, an 18.6% average improvement. The average score rose from 65.8 at intake to 77.3 at completion, and individual improvements ranged from 7.2% to 46.3%. None declined.
The orgs that started lower gained more. Our three lowest intake scorers (47, 53, and 54 out of 100) improved 30%, 36%, and 46%, while our two strongest orgs at intake (87 and 83) still gained 13% and 7%. The sample size is limited, so treat this as a pattern rather than proof, and some of it makes intuitive sense: an org that starts at 87 doesn’t have 20 points to gain.
Looking at the individual dimensions tells you where the program actually does its work. Where the needle moved most (based on averages):
After 21 orgs, the same gaps keep showing up at intake. Three stand out:
Would these orgs have gotten there on their own? We can’t rule it out; we don’t have a control group. But look at the shape of the data points. The gains cluster in exactly the dimensions we worked on most (growth strategy +2.9, staffing plans +2.1, metric tracking +1.9), while the dimensions we don’t touch, funding availability and talent supply, stayed flat over the same months. If orgs were simply maturing on their own, we’d expect movement across the board. Participants described the value the same way: surfacing things they had overlooked, not speeding up work already in motion.
The case for GRIP is straightforward: relatively low cost (time + $) with significant operational improvements. Four sessions moved average readiness by more than 11 points. Better operations infrastructure means you can improve the impact process and scale effectively.
When should an org do this? Based on what we saw:
It’s helpful at other stages too. Every completing org improved regardless of its starting point, and the orgs with the most room to grow gained the most.
Life happens, and orgs change; we’d recommend repeating it every 2 years, or more frequently if there’s been significant growth.
Note for funders: Subsidizing enrollment means a higher likelihood of impact per dollar spent. Operational readiness is cheap to build relative to program budgets, and every dollar that flows through a better-run org goes further.
A few reflections from the cohort, shared with permission:
“Freddy was professional, supportive, patient, and adaptive to our needs. The GRIP program covered many key aspects of what we needed to focus on to grow at this stage of our nonprofit journey. It’s set us up to be more mindful of how we are growing sustainably.”
Meredith Marin, Vegan Hospitality
“Deena quickly surfaced levers, including executive assistant support, and thinking more deeply about our role scopes, and translated them into concrete next steps. The result was sharper accountability and momentum across our work, which should translate into impact for animals!”
Aaron Boddy, Managing Director, Shrimp Welfare Project
“The process pushed us outside of our comfort zone to think more expansively and creatively about what our organisation could become. Freddy was really insightful and full of different ideas, which sparked a lot of useful internal conversations for us.”
Hereward McGillivray, Active for Animals
“The GRIP Readiness program provided invaluable clarity and strategic direction for our food rescue organization. Participating in April allowed us to re-evaluate our day-to-day operations and evaluate our long-term impact through a fresh lens, and I appreciated Deena’s honesty from an outside perspective. The external perspective and consulting brought by the Workstream Nonprofit team was transformative and something we still refer to and use today. They identified operational efficiencies and strategic opportunities we had overlooked, equipping our leadership team with actionable frameworks to scale our food redistribution efforts effectively. For any nonprofit looking to strengthen its foundation and expand its mission, the GRIP Readiness program is an exceptional investment.”
Omar Tarabishi, Leftover Love
“GRIP was great — it was very helpful to work with someone as knowledgeable as Freddy, who helped us systematically work through our priorities, develop strategies, and identify opportunities for improvement.”
GRIP participant (org anonymized at their request)
“Deena helped us to identify the areas in which we could really improve our operational capacity. She then provided guidance, tools and resources to support that growth while providing much needed accountability through the implementation process. As a small team, operating at capacity constantly, focusing on the highest impact priorities and making progress was empowering and gave us momentum to stay focused on our goals. We achieved measurable success and came away from the program with new clarity. Most of all, Deena felt like a valuable team member who learned to speak our language and help us tell our story. Overall a very expansive and transformative experience for me in my role and for the organization overall. I highly recommend working with Deena and GRIP! “
Gia Baiocchi, Apis Arborea
Scores are self-reported. We facilitate the scoring to keep it calibrated, but an org that just spent four sessions with us has some pull toward scoring itself well. There’s no control group. The sample is small, 15 completers, and participation was self-selected: these are orgs that sought out operational help and stuck with it, which is not the average nonprofit. And we don’t yet know whether the gains hold. We score at the end of the program, not 6 or 12 months later. If anything, we’d expect scores to drift down for some orgs as they grow: new programs and new staff create operational gaps that didn’t exist before. The index measures readiness relative to where an org is now, which is why we recommend repeating the assessment rather than treating one score as permanent.
