IT and Cybersecurity Risks Nonprofits Can’t Afford to Overlook

Leadership teams focus on fundraising, outreach, programming, and measurable impact. Boards concentrate on governance and sustainability. Staff dedicate their time to serving communities.

Technology quietly enables all of it.

Across New York and New Jersey, however, nonprofit organizations are being targeted more frequently by cybercriminals. Not because they are wealthy — but because they are trusted, interconnected, and often operating without dedicated internal IT security structure.

For nonprofits with 10–150 employees, cybersecurity risk isn’t abstract.

It’s operational.

Why Nonprofits Have Become Attractive Targets

There’s a persistent belief that cybercriminals focus primarily on large corporations.

In reality, nonprofits present a different type of opportunity.

Many organizations:

• Store donor financial data
• Manage personally identifiable information (PII)
• Process recurring online contributions
• Depend heavily on cloud-based collaboration platforms
• Operate with hybrid staff and volunteers

As organizations grow, operational demands increase. If security processes don’t evolve at the same pace, small gaps begin to form.

Threat actors look for those gaps.

The Risk to Trust

Nonprofits operate on credibility.

Donors trust that financial contributions are protected.
Communities trust that sensitive information is handled responsibly.
Boards trust that leadership is managing operational risk appropriately.

A cybersecurity incident does more than disrupt systems.

It can undermine confidence.

And for nonprofits, confidence is inseparable from continuity.

Common Cybersecurity Gaps in Nonprofit Environments

Across NY and NJ, several recurring patterns increase exposure within nonprofit organizations.

Inconsistent Multi-Factor Authentication

MFA may be enabled for leadership accounts but not enforced consistently across all users, volunteers, or program staff.

Limited Oversight of Remote Devices

Hybrid and remote work environments can create visibility gaps, particularly when endpoints are not actively monitored.

Shared Credentials for Workflow Efficiency

Credentials may be shared to simplify operations, unintentionally reducing accountability and traceability.

Delayed Software Updates

Patching may be postponed out of concern for disrupting donor platforms or internal systems — leaving known vulnerabilities exposed.

Backups Without Defined Recovery Testing

Backups may exist, but restoration timelines and tested recovery procedures are unclear — a serious concern if fundraising systems become inaccessible.

None of these decisions are reckless. Most reflect resource constraints and competing priorities.

But attackers do not differentiate between under-resourced and unprotected environments.

Insurance Requirements and Board-Level Oversight

Cyber insurance requirements for nonprofits are becoming more rigorous.

Applications increasingly require:

• Enforced Multi-Factor Authentication
• Documented backup testing
• Defined incident response procedures
• Evidence of active monitoring

At the same time, boards are asking more informed questions about cybersecurity governance and operational resilience.

Organizations that assume protections are “already handled” often discover gaps during insurance renewals or audits — when time pressure is highest.

Why Mid-Sized Nonprofits Face Unique Exposure

Nonprofits with 25–50 employees often occupy a vulnerable middle ground.

They:

• Manage substantial donor databases
• Oversee multiple programs
• Depend heavily on digital communication and online giving
• Lack dedicated internal cybersecurity personnel

They are large enough to hold meaningful data but lean enough that structured oversight may lag behind operational growth.

That gap requires intentional structure.

What Structured Protection Looks Like in Practice

Effective cybersecurity for nonprofits does not require unnecessary complexity.

It requires clarity and consistency.

That typically includes:

• Consistent enforcement of Multi-Factor Authentication
• Active monitoring of endpoints and user behavior
• Structured patch management
• Regular backup testing with defined recovery objectives
• Clear incident response ownership

When these controls are aligned, risk becomes manageable rather than reactive.

A Pattern We Continue to See

A nonprofit staff member receives what appears to be a legitimate invoice from a familiar vendor.

Credentials are entered.

Access expands quietly.

Days later, donor records become inaccessible and fundraising efforts pause.

The breach was not sophisticated. It was the result of accumulated small gaps.

Preparation — or lack of it — determines the outcome.

Strengthening Nonprofit Resilience in the Northeast

For nonprofits across NY and NJ, cybersecurity must align directly with mission continuity.

That means:

• Protecting donor trust
• Preserving fundraising systems
• Maintaining community confidence
• Meeting evolving insurance requirements
• Ensuring operational stability

A structured, security-focused IT strategy allows nonprofit leadership to focus on impact without leaving preventable risks unmanaged.

Closing Insight

Nonprofits are not targeted because they are profitable. They are targeted because they are connected, trusted, and often operating with limited internal security resources. In highly interconnected regions like New York and New Jersey, resilience depends on structure and consistency.

Proactive cybersecurity does not distract from the mission. It safeguards it.

If your board or leadership team would benefit from clarity around your current risk exposure, you can request a cybersecurity assessment to better understand where small gaps may exist.

‍

‍

‍