3 Ways AI Misalignment Shows Up in Nonprofits
Picture this: A food bank's new AI system recommends closing distribution sites in neighborhoods with "low engagement metrics." A youth mentorship program's chatbot starts suggesting weight loss tips to teenagers seeking emotional support. A grant-making foundation's algorithm consistently ranks applications from BIPOC-led organizations as "higher risk."
These aren't hypothetical scenarios. They're real examples of how AI misalignment creeps into nonprofit operations, often disguised as efficiency improvements or data-driven decision making. While tech companies debate existential AI risks, nonprofits face a quieter crisis: everyday AI tools that subtly but systematically undermine their missions.
This pattern exemplifies what Bernardi et al. (2024) describe as "societal adaptation to advanced AI"—the process by which organizations integrate AI systems without fully understanding their impact on existing social structures and vulnerabilities. Research from TechSoup's 2025 AI Benchmark Report reveals that 76% of nonprofits lack an AI strategy, yet they're rapidly adopting these tools for everything from donor management to service delivery. The result aligns with Dobbe et al.'s (2022) warning about "system safety" failures: a perfect storm of good intentions meeting algorithmic bias, creating what researchers call "mission drift at scale."
Let's examine three critical ways AI misalignment manifests in nonprofit work—and why developing the vulnerability detection tools and "third party audit ecosystems" that Raji et al. (2022) advocate for has never been more urgent.
1. When Algorithms Reinforce Who "Deserves" Support
Sarah, a development director at a mid-sized environmental nonprofit, was thrilled when her organization invested in an AI-powered donor segmentation tool. The promise was compelling: identify high-value prospects, optimize outreach timing, and increase donation rates. Six months later, she discovered something troubling.
The AI had learned that their "ideal donor" was a white homeowner over 55 with a desktop computer and a history of giving to similar causes. It wasn't explicitly programmed with these biases—it simply analyzed historical data and found patterns. But those patterns reflected decades of systemic inequities in philanthropy, illustrating Mittelstadt's (2019) observation that "principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI" when the underlying data encodes societal biases.
This scenario plays out across the sector. Research from the Chartered Institute of Fundraising found that 72% of AI users in fundraising report data bias and discrimination as significant risks (Civil Society UK, 2024). Yet organizations continue deploying these systems, often without realizing how they perpetuate what Veale and Edwards (2018) term "enslaving the algorithm"—becoming dependent on systems that reinforce rather than challenge existing inequalities.
Consider Facebook's advertising algorithm, which the Department of Housing and Urban Development sued for discriminating based on race, gender, and age—even when advertisers don't intend it (ProPublica, March 2019). When a housing nonprofit runs a campaign about affordable homeownership opportunities, the platform's "optimization" might systematically exclude the very communities most in need of that information. This exemplifies Latonero's (2018) concern about AI systems violating human rights and dignity through seemingly neutral mechanisms.
The Stanford Social Innovation Review documented how these algorithmic biases compound existing disparities: Black-led organizations receive 24% less revenue than white-led counterparts, with unrestricted net assets 76% smaller (Dorsey et al., 2020). When AI systems train on this biased historical data, they create what Dobbe et al. (2022) identify as "feedback loops" in system safety—they don't just reflect inequality, they amplify it.
The harm extends beyond lost revenue. By narrowing their donor base to algorithmically-defined "safe bets," nonprofits miss opportunities to build diverse, resilient communities of support. They inadvertently send a message about who belongs in their movement and whose contributions matter, undermining the "societal resilience" that Bernardi et al. (2024) argue is essential for healthy adaptation to AI systems.
2. How AI Tools Favor the Already-Powerful
When a small rural health clinic applied for a major foundation grant, they spent 180 hours crafting their proposal—only to receive an automated rejection within minutes. The foundation's AI screening tool had flagged them as "high risk" based on their limited financial history and lack of previous large grants.
This is the reality of what Our Community Group's research calls the "bias trade-off" in grantmaking algorithms (Our Community, 2023). These systems must choose between different definitions of fairness, and smaller organizations consistently lose. This aligns with Raji et al.'s (2022) analysis of how "outsider oversight" becomes impossible when the very organizations that could provide community accountability are systematically excluded from resources.
The data reveals what Stein et al. (2024) would recognize as a failure of "interconnected post-deployment monitoring": 33% of AI-generated grant recommendations contain critical errors (Globe and Mail, July 2025), yet small nonprofits invest 80-200 hours per federal grant application with only 10-15% success rates. Without the monitoring systems Stein et al. advocate for, these errors compound invisibly.
The systematic disadvantage operates through multiple mechanisms that echo Dobbe et al.'s (2022) framework of system safety failures:
Data Poverty: Smaller organizations often lack the extensive data history that AI evaluation systems require. A grassroots organization doing innovative work in their community for three years appears "riskier" to an algorithm than an established nonprofit with decades of mediocre outcomes. This reflects what Mittelstadt (2019) identifies as the absence of "common aims and fiduciary duties" in AI development—the systems optimize for risk reduction rather than mission impact.
Technical Barriers: When 23% of foundations ban AI-generated proposals while only 10% explicitly accept them (Chronicle of Philanthropy, 2024), smaller organizations face an impossible choice. They need AI tools to compete with larger nonprofits' grant-writing teams, but using these tools can disqualify their applications. This creates what Veale and Edwards (2018) call the "transparency fallacy"—the illusion that making AI use transparent provides meaningful remedy when it actually creates new forms of discrimination.
Compound Discrimination: Multiple AI systems create cascading barriers that exemplify Bernardi et al.'s (2024) concept of failed "societal adaptation." First, donor targeting algorithms limit their fundraising potential. Then, grant evaluation algorithms score them as higher risk. Finally, impact measurement algorithms undervalue their community-centered approaches that don't fit predetermined metrics.
The Globe and Mail reported cases where faulty AI grant tools led to $2.3 million in misallocated funding (July 2025). While large organizations have reserves to weather such storms, smaller nonprofits can be destroyed by a single algorithmic error—a violation of what Latonero (2018) frames as the human right to equal treatment and non-discrimination.
Most perniciously, these systems encode and legitimize human biases under the guise of objectivity. Bridgespan Group's research found that it took a Native American nonprofit with 25 years of successful operations 18 months to renew funding, while a white-led startup secured millions with a preliminary proposal (Dorsey et al., 2020). When these patterns get encoded into "smart" systems, discrimination becomes automated and scaled, creating precisely the kind of systematic injustice that Raji et al.'s (2022) proposed audit ecosystems are designed to detect and prevent.
3. When Efficiency Replaces Human Connection
The National Eating Disorders Association (NEDA) thought they were innovating when they replaced their human-staffed helpline with an AI chatbot named "Tessa." The bot would be available 24/7, never burn out, and could handle unlimited conversations. What could go wrong?
Everything, as it turned out. The chatbot began dispensing dangerous advice to vulnerable people seeking help, including recommendations to lose "1-2 pounds per week" and restrict calories—exactly the behaviors that fuel eating disorders (NPR, June 2023; CNN, June 2023). Most alarmingly, NEDA discovered their vendor had switched from a rules-based system to generative AI without their knowledge or consent (AI Incident Database, 2023).
This catastrophic failure exemplifies what Dobbe et al. (2022) warn about in their system safety framework: the danger of replacing human judgment with algorithmic efficiency in safety-critical applications. It also demonstrates the urgent need for what Stein et al. (2024) call "interconnected post-deployment monitoring"—systems that would have detected the chatbot's harmful outputs before vulnerable users were affected.
Stanford Social Innovation Review's analysis reveals how this drift occurs through stages that mirror Bernardi et al.'s (2024) patterns of maladaptive "societal adaptation to advanced AI":
Stage 1 - Administrative Automation: Organizations begin with back-office tasks, seeing immediate time savings. Success here builds confidence in AI solutions, but without what Mittelstadt (2019) identifies as "proven methods to translate principles into practice."
Stage 2 - Supporter Engagement: Chatbots handle donor inquiries, AI personalizes email campaigns. The human element begins to fade from relationships, violating Latonero's (2018) emphasis on human dignity in AI governance.
Stage 3 - Service Delivery: AI tools start making decisions about who receives services, what interventions to recommend, how to prioritize resources. Context and nuance disappear, creating what Veale and Edwards (2018) critique as algorithmic decision-making without meaningful human oversight.
Stage 4 - Mission Transformation: The organization optimizes for what AI can measure and manage, not what communities actually need—a complete inversion of the "fiduciary duties" Mittelstadt (2019) argues are essential for ethical professional practice.
A youth services nonprofit discovered their AI chat system was reflecting internet training data filled with "white supremacist, misogynistic, and ageist views" (Nonprofit Quarterly, 2023). An animal welfare organization found their adoption bot could "repeat racial slurs or inappropriate sexual innuendos" (Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2024). Each incident represents not just a technical failure but a fundamental misalignment between efficiency-optimized algorithms and human-centered missions—precisely the kind of systematic failure that Raji et al.'s (2022) third-party audit frameworks are designed to prevent.
The International Center for Journalists documented how this drift can be prevented through comprehensive governance frameworks that maintain human oversight at critical decision points (ICFJ, 2024). Their approach aligns with Dobbe et al.'s (2022) system safety principles: maintaining human agency and accountability throughout the AI lifecycle. But without such frameworks, nonprofits risk becoming mere interfaces for algorithmic decision-making, losing the very qualities that make them vital to civil society.
Building a Better Path Forward
These three forms of AI misalignment—biased donor targeting, systematic disadvantaging of smaller organizations, and mission drift through automation—don't exist in isolation. They compound and reinforce each other, creating what Bernardi et al. (2024) characterize as cascading failures in "societal adaptation to advanced AI."
A small, BIPOC-led nonprofit serving youth might find their donor pool artificially constrained by biased targeting algorithms, receive lower scores from grant evaluation systems due to limited data history, and feel pressure to adopt AI service delivery tools that don't understand their community's needs. Each system appears neutral in isolation, but together they create an ecosystem that systematically undermines equity and justice—violating what Latonero (2018) identifies as fundamental human rights to dignity and equal treatment.
The urgency for action is clear. As Microsoft's AI Governance Framework for Nonprofits notes, 68% of nonprofit leaders believe AI can help identify at-risk populations earlier—but only with appropriate safeguards (Microsoft Community Hub, 2024). The NIST AI Risk Management Framework provides a starting point (NIST, January 2023), but the sector needs tools specifically designed for nonprofit contexts and constraints, incorporating the "third party audit ecosystem" principles that Raji et al. (2022) advocate.
This is why developing vulnerability detection frameworks tailored to nonprofits is critical. These tools must embody the principles outlined across AISI's priority research areas:
Surface hidden biases in donor and grant systems before they compound into systematic exclusion, implementing Stein et al.'s (2024) vision of comprehensive post-deployment monitoring
Preserve human judgment at mission-critical decision points while leveraging AI for genuine efficiency gains, following Dobbe et al.'s (2022) system safety framework
Center community voice in defining success metrics rather than accepting predetermined algorithmic definitions, actualizing Latonero's (2018) human rights approach to AI governance
Enable smaller organizations to identify and challenge algorithmic discrimination, creating the "outsider oversight" capacity that Raji et al. (2022) identify as essential for AI accountability
The path forward isn't about rejecting AI—it's about ensuring these powerful tools align with nonprofit values rather than undermining them. As Mittelstadt (2019) emphasizes, "principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI." We need practical tools, ongoing monitoring, and governance frameworks that recognize the unique role nonprofits play in society—frameworks that transform Veale and Edwards' (2018) critique of algorithmic opacity into actionable transparency and accountability.
The alternative is a future where algorithms quietly reshape the nonprofit sector in their own image: efficient, scalable, and utterly disconnected from the communities they claim to serve. That future represents a fundamental failure of what Bernardi et al. (2024) call "societal resilience"—our collective ability to adapt to AI in ways that strengthen rather than weaken our social fabric.
The time for action is now. Before another vulnerable teenager receives dangerous advice from a chatbot. Before another grassroots organization is algorithmically denied the resources they need. Before efficiency fully replaces empathy in our social sector.
The theoretical frameworks exist—from Dobbe et al.'s (2022) system safety to Raji et al.'s (2022) audit ecosystems to Latonero's (2018) human rights approach. The practical tools are emerging. What's needed is the collective will to ensure AI serves nonprofit missions rather than subverting them. Because in the end, the measure of these technologies isn't how much data they can process or how many decisions they can automate—it's whether they help us build a more just and equitable world.
That's not just a technical challenge. It's a moral imperative that sits at the heart of AISI's mission to ensure AI systems are safe, aligned, and beneficial for all of society—especially those most vulnerable to algorithmic harm.
References
AI Incident Database. (2023). Incident 545: Chatbot Tessa gives unauthorized diet advice to users seeking help for eating disorders. https://incidentdatabase.ai/cite/545/
Bernardi, A., et al. (2024). Societal Adaptation to Advanced AI. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.10295
Chronicle of Philanthropy. (2024). How Nonprofits Really Feel About A.I. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/how-nonprofits-really-feel-about-a-i
Civil Society UK. (2024). Report highlights fundraisers' ethical concerns about AI use. https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/report-highlights-fundraisers-ethical-concerns-about-ai-use.html
CNN. (June 2023). National Eating Disorders Association takes its AI chatbot offline after complaints of 'harmful' advice. CNN Business. https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/01/tech/eating-disorder-chatbot/index.html
Dobbe, R., et al. (2022). System Safety and Artificial Intelligence. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.09292
Dorsey, C., Kim, P., Daniels, C., Sakaue, L., & Savage, B. (2020). Overcoming the Racial Bias in Philanthropic Funding. Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://doi.org/10.48558/7WB9-K440
Globe and Mail. (July 2025). Small Nonprofits Bleed Funding as Faulty AI Grant Tools Mislead Research. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/markets-news/GetNews/33414334/small-nonprofits-bleed-funding-as-faulty-ai-grant-tools-mislead-research/
International Center for Journalists. (2024). How to Develop an Ethical AI Use Policy for a Nonprofit. https://www.icfj.org/news/how-develop-ethical-ai-use-policy-nonprofit
Latonero, M. (2018). Governing Artificial Intelligence: Upholding Human Rights & Dignity. Data & Society.
Microsoft Community Hub. (2024). AI Governance Framework for Nonprofits. https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/nonprofittechies/introducing-an-ai-governance-framework-for-nonprofits/4217132
Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(11), 501-507.
NIST. (January 2023). AI Risk Management Framework. National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework
Nonprofit Quarterly. (2023). Nonprofits & Algorithms: The Danger of Automating Bias and Disconnection. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/nonprofits-algorithms-danger-automating-bias-disconnection/
NPR. (June 2023). An eating disorders chatbot offered dieting advice, raising fears about AI in health. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/06/08/1180838096/an-eating-disorders-chatbot-offered-dieting-advice-raising-fears-about-ai-in-hea
Our Community Group. (2023). White paper: The bias trade-off for grantmaking algorithms. https://www.ourcommunity.com.au/general/general_article.jsp?articleid=7388
ProPublica. (March 28, 2019). HUD Sues Facebook Over Housing Discrimination and Says the Company's Algorithms Have Made the Problem Worse. https://www.propublica.org/article/hud-sues-facebook-housing-discrimination-advertising-algorithms
Raji, I. D., et al. (2022). Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.04737
Stanford Social Innovation Review. (2024). Responsible AI for Nonprofits: Smart, Ethical Ways to Use New AI Technology. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/8_steps_nonprofits_can_take_to_adopt_ai_responsibly
Stein, S., et al. (2024). The Role of Governments in Increasing Interconnected Post-Deployment Monitoring of AI. arXiv. doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.04931
TechSoup. (2025). AI Benchmark Report: The State of AI in Nonprofits 2025. https://page.techsoup.org/ai-benchmark-report-2025
Veale, M., & Edwards, L. (2018). Enslaving the Algorithm: From a 'Right to an Explanation' to a 'Right to Better Decisions'? Duke Law & Technology Review, 16(1), 18-84.