Community Perspectives Survey: Insights from the Field

By Nishesh Chalise, Violeta Gutkowski, Steven Howland, Becky Kropf

August 19, 2025

Map of the United States with iconographic showing collaboration, saving, housing, health, and community.

This two-part report provides an overview of economic conditions in low- and moderate-income (LMI) communities and among the entities serving them based on a national survey conducted by the Federal Reserve during April and May 2025. This information is intended to help equip decision-makers with key insights for developing approaches to foster economic security in LMI communities.

Part 1 of this report addresses economic conditions in LMI communities, while part 2 focuses on the health of the organizations that work in them. Throughout, we offer quotes from those serving LMI communities to provide additional context to the survey results.

The survey asked respondents to provide self-assessment on various factors, including demand for services, ability to provide services, revenue, and expenses which are likely to impact their organization’s health. Overall, respondents indicated that they are able to serve their communities well, but that challenges with funding and lack of staffing are putting pressure on their ability to fully meet demand. Additionally, adapting to uncertainty is a new challenge that entities brought up in this survey.

Main findings for entities serving LMI communities

  • Ability to serve: Slightly over three-fourths of entities reported that their ability to provide services is good, and 40% expect their ability to serve to improve in the year to come (figure 1).
  • Financial health: Entities’ financial health was mixed. About half of respondents indicated that their organizations are facing at least some stress, while the other half responded that their finances are steady or very healthy (figure 2).
  • Ability to meet demand: Almost one-third of entities reported that at the time of the survey they could meet most of their demand up from only 10% in 2024. Only 15% expect to do so in the year to come (figure 3 and figure 4). 
  • Sources of funding: More entities reported a decrease in funding than those reporting an increase across all sources except fees for services and credit/loans. Government funds decreased for 63% of respondents (figure 7).

Overall, entities responded positively in terms of their ability to serve their communities; however, they also reported considerable challenges. When asked about the entity’s current situation compared with last year, 80% reported an increase in demand for their services, while 83% reported increased expenses. Additionally, entities noted that funding and fundraising were their top challenges. These challenges have hampered entities’ ability to fully meet their demand for services; only about one-third of respondents reported being able to do so.

A majority of entities (76%) reported they are able to serve their communities well. Forty percent of respondents indicated that their ability to provide services has improved since 2024, and a similar percentage expect their ability to serve LMI communities to continue improving in the year ahead (Figure 1).

a. April 2025 (N=334)

b. Expectations for the year ahead (N=333)

Top challenges that entities expect will affect their ability to provide services over the next year (N=331):1

  1. Funding/fundraising (36%)
  2. Adapting to uncertainty (22%)
  3. Rising expenses (materials, wages, rent, insurance, etc.) (12%)

Entities’ financial health was mixed. About half of respondents indicated that their organizations are facing at least some stress, while the other half responded that they are doing fine. Specifically, 39% indicated that they are facing some stress and are trying to find efficiencies to save money; another 11% of entities reported being under a lot of stress and having to cut positions or programs (Figure 2). On the other hand, 34% of respondents described their financial health as steady with no changes expected for the year ahead, and another 14% indicated they are very healthy and are expanding services.

(N=319)

In April 2025, almost 80% of respondents reported that demand for services had increased over the preceding year, with 35% stating that demand had increased significantly (Figure 3). Higher demand places additional pressure on entities’ ability to meet the needs of LMI communities. Figure 4 shows that only about 10% of respondents were able to meet most (75%-100%) of their demand in 2024. While 30% of entities indicate that at the time of the survey, they could meet most of their demand. Only 15% of entities expect to meet most of their demand in the coming year.

Respondents noted that they expect a combination of a lack of funding, a lack of staff and/or volunteers, and an increase in demand to have an adverse impact on their ability to meet demand going forward.

“Federal uncertainty/changes are creating a huge drag on the organization—taking time, attention, and resources away from meeting demand/need for services.”

(N=323)

(N=272)

Top challenges that entities expect will affect their ability to meet demand for services over the next year (N=316):

  1. Lack of funding (46%)
  2. Lack of staff and/or volunteers (12%)
  3. Increase in demand (10%)

Changes in staffing levels over the preceding year were mixed across respondents. Some entities (29%) reported an increase in their staffing levels, while others reported a decrease (27%) or no change (43%) since 2024. (Figure 5). Nearly twice as many respondents indicated staffing did not change as compared to either decreases or increases in staffing.

(N=317)

Top challenges that entities expect will affect their staffing levels over the next year (N=312):

  1. Not enough resources to create new openings or positions (28%)
  2. Do not expect to face major challenges with respect to staff (19%)
  3. Staff well-being (physical and mental health, stress, burnout, etc.) (12%)

During the survey period, 83% of respondents indicated that their entities had experienced increased expenses in the preceding year (Figure 6).

(N=319)

Top challenges that entities expect will affect their expenses over the next year (N=311):

  1. Higher compensation (wages and benefits) (35%)
  2. Higher input costs (goods and services) (18%)
  3. Nonlabor overhead costs (office, property insurance, utilities) (15%)

The responses for changes in revenue compared with those of the preceding year were mixed across respondents. Figure 7 shows that 31% of respondents indicated that revenue had increased, 27% reported that revenue had remained unchanged, and 40% reported that it had decreased.

(N=318)

Government funds represented the top source of revenue for 35% of respondents, followed by fees for services (20%) and foundation funds (14%).

The following section (Figures 8 to 13) highlights how revenue from six different sources changed over the past year. Note that only entities identifying a particular source of revenue as one of their top three sources were asked about changes in that source. For example, if an organization did not include government funds as one of its top three sources of revenue, then the organization was not asked about changes in government funds.

More entities reported a decrease in funds than those reporting an increase across all sources except fees for services and credit/loans. Over 35% of the organizations relying on fees for services reported an increase in funding from this source over the past year. However, the organizations that saw the biggest increase in funding were those that relied on credit and loans, reporting a 41% increase.

Respondents did note a significant decrease in government funds. About 63% of entities for whom government funding was their top source of revenue reported experiencing a decrease compared to the previous year. Nearly a quarter of organizations relying on government funding reported their funding significantly decreased—the largest share for any funding source by a large margin.

“Our main fee-for-service contract has been dependent on the federal budget, and much of our funding has felt uncertain”

(N=194)

Funding from government funds decreased for 63% of respondents in the past year, while 13% reported an increase.

(N=131)

Funding from fees for services increased for 35% of entities, while 39% reported no change.

(N=101)

Funding from individual donations decreased for 38% of respondents in the past year, while it increased for 32% of respondents.

(N=111)

Funding from corporate donations decreased for 39% of respondents, while one-third did not see any changes.

(N=164)

Funding from foundation funds increased for 28% of respondents relative to 2024, while 29% reported a decline.

(N=51)

Funding from credit and loans increased for 41% of respondents, while 31% reported a decline.

Respondent profiles

Does the entity you represent offer services directly to individuals and families?
No17.0%
Unsure3.0%
Yes80.0%
To which type of geographic area does your entity dedicate the most resources?
Equal across all geographic areas 41.5%
Metropolitan 40.0%
Rural (including frontier) 18.5%
What type of geographic area does your entity serve?
Nationwide11.0%
Statewide or multiple states 24.0%
Within a county or some counties within a state 37.0%
Within a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) 28.0%
Note: Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Endnote

1. Percentages are the share of respondents ranking the item as the No. 1 factor. Overall ranking is based on a weighted ranking of the top three factors.

About the survey

The Federal Reserve System performs five key functions that serve all Americans and promote the health and stability of the U.S. economy and financial system. Understanding the obstacles that may hinder lower-income and under-resourced communities’ greater participation in the economy offers the Federal Reserve valuable insight into the challenges they, and the entities that serve them, face. To that end, from 2020 to 2023, the Federal Reserve System conducted surveys, called “Perspectives from Main Street,” to better identify the range of challenges facing LMI communities as an effect of the COVID19 pandemic. In 2024, the survey was renamed “Community Perspectives,” and it continues as a national survey aimed at reporting the economic conditions of LMI communities and the health of entities serving them. This survey has two objectives: 

  1. Monitor the economic conditions of LMI communities
  2. Understand the needs and capacity of organizations serving LMI communities 

The most recent survey was open from April 14, 2025, to May 23, 2025. Responses were collected through a convenience sampling method that relied on contact databases to identify representatives of nonprofit organizations, financial institutions, government agencies and other community organizations. These representatives were invited to participate in the survey via emails, newsletters and social media posts. The survey had a total of 440 responses from entities that serve LMI communities. However, the total number of responses across sectors could differ since not all entities serve in all areas. Respondents were asked to select a topic area based on their entities’ top programming areas and to answer questions related to that sector specifically and not others.  

Views expressed are those of the report team and do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Reserve System. 

Please cite this report as: Chalise, Nishesh, Violeta Gutkowski, Steven Howland, and Becky Kropf. “Community Perspectives Survey: Insights from the Field – Health of entities serving low- and moderate-income communities,” August 2025.

Acknowledgements

The Federal Reserve’s community development function seeks to promote the economic resilience and mobility of low- to moderate-income and underserved households and communities across the United States. We thank the following survey team members for their contributions:

Survey advisors

Sydney Diavua, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Karen Leone de Nie, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

Nick Sly, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City

Survey core group

Surekha Carpenter, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

Nishesh Chalise, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Violeta Gutkowski, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Steven Howland, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City

Matthew Klesta, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland

Becky Kropf, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City

Lisa Nelson, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland

Report assistance

Whitney Felder, Fed Communities

Crystal Flynn, Fed Communities

Natalie Karrs, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland

Melissa Kueker, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Nicholas A. Ledden, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Derek Stacey, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland

Allyson M. Sykora, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Survey fielding team

Amy Brewer, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

Suzanne Cummings, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston

Michelle Dailey, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Steven Howland, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City

Molly Hubbert Doyle, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

Kellye Jackson, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Elizabeth Kneebone, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco

Susan Longworth, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

Grace Meagher, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

Ryan Nunn, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

John Rees, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

Edison Reyes, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Brianna Smith, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

Authors

  • Nishesh Chalise is a senior manager for Community Development Research at the St. Louis Fed.

  • Violeta Gutkowski is an associate economist in the Research division of the St. Louis Fed.

  • Steven Howland is a senior researcher in the Community Development department at the Kansas City Fed.

  • Becky Kropf is a community development research associate for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.