Grantee Stories
Kona Low Storms, Flood Grantee Stories
"My life changed in an instant when a flash flood swept through my neighborhood around 1 a.m. on March 20th, destroying both…
What 1,700+ GoFundMe.org grantees told us about unrestricted cash
It’s a persistent narrative in American philanthropy: “people facing financial hardship can’t be trusted with unrestricted cash.” This viewpoint has shaped how billions of dollars in aid are delivered, with too many philanthropists choosing vouchers, restricted cards, mandated case management, and elaborate verification of how recovery dollars are spent.
GoFundMe.org has a different approach. Through our Signature Impact Funds, we provide direct, unrestricted cash grants to people in moments of acute need, offering the flexibility and dignity to spend funds where they are needed most. This includes our Essentials Fund, which supports Americans facing an unexpected crisis like a lost job, a medical bill, or a broken-down car; and our Crisis Funds, which support individuals and families directly impacted by floods, hurricanes, and wildfires.
Between December 2024 and May 2026, we surveyed more than 1,700 grantees about how they used the money they were granted, and what receiving the grant meant to them. They answered, often at length: more than 82% wrote us a long-form response, averaging over 500 characters.
What they told us makes a strong case in support of our model.
Three things we learned by surveying emergency cash grantees
1. Cash goes to purchase essentials
Across all funds, grantees spent their grants on the universal short-list of household necessities: rent or mortgage, utilities, food, transportation to work, medical care, and their children’s basic needs.
Among Essentials Fund grantees – surveyed upon receiving the grant – the leading uses for the money were rent or mortgage (54.7%), utility bills (38.9%), food and groceries (36.5%), daily living essentials (29.3%), and vehicle repair to get to work (17.3%).
Among Crisis Fund grantees — surveyed six weeks after a wildfire, flood, or hurricane — the leading uses were everyday essentials replacement (47.7%), utility bills (38.5%), temporary housing (37.8%), and food and water (32.1%).
What is most striking is not that grantees spent the money on essentials — it is how specifically they chose within those essentials, with a level of contextual judgment that restricted grants or voucher programs can’t anticipate.
“This made such a huge difference to us. Thank you. We had to get tools to pull up flooring and take out drywall and this grant covered those expenses so now we aren’t worried about mold in our home.”
“We spent all of it on formula, which we are still using for our babies, and without it I don’t know what we would have done. Your donation might have saved our lives, or at least our financial security. Thank you for your kindness and generosity.”
These surveys bear out our understanding of effective crisis relief: grantees are the most informed decision-makers about their own situations. Unrestricted grants give them the dignity and control to make their own recovery decisions based on their specific urgent needs, making near term relief more potent, and recovery more possible.
2. The grant offers more than money alone
When asked how receiving the grant makes them feel, Essentials Fund grantees most often report gratitude. After that, more than half describe feeling relieved (57%), half feel supported (51%), nearly half feel hopeful (48%), and 40% feel less anxious.
"My life has been a nightmare for the past 5 months. I've had to sell almost everything of value that I own just to cover the mortgage every month because I haven't been able to find a job. This grant is an absolutely incredible blessing and will allow me to start my new job ahead of my bills for the first time in a long time."
This emotional dimension is not incidental. Unrestricted cash communicates trust, and grantees feel that.
3. Six weeks later, more than 9 in 10 grantees still rate the grant “Very” or “Extremely” helpful
Six weeks after receiving a grant, both Crisis fund and Essentials fund grantees are asked to score how helpful the grant was in terms of their Financial Security and Emotional Well Being on a 1-5 scale with 1 being “Not at All Helpful” and 5 being “Extremely Helpful.”
Grantees who selected 4 or 5 (“Very Helpful” or “Extremely” Helpful)
- Financial security 91.0%
- Emotional well-being 90.8%
Across the nearly 1,000 scored responses, the average score for both financial security and emotional well-being is over 4.6/5, showing that these grants have a significant, positive impact.
"It was a gift straight from God to see to it that my needs were met! My rent was paid with that grant and I was actually able to go grocery shopping! Disability payments were cut off from me abruptly... this gives me so much hope!"
What the 2% who said the grant fell short tell us
Of all 1,738 surveyed grantees, 34 (2.0%) told us the grant was not helpful enough.
These 34 grantees reported that the grant was real and meaningful, but the unexpected crisis they faced was bigger than $1,000–$1,200 could solve on its own. Their insurance was inadequate. They were already struggling with homelessness. They were facing eviction with debts in the tens of thousands.
“I appreciate the money that was sent to me and it helped pay some utilities but wasn’t near enough of what I need to save my home — but any help was appreciated tremendously.”
“I don’t want to sound ungrateful at all, as any money we received in donations is deeply humbling and we truly appreciate it. But the reality is that we were (without our knowledge) very underinsured, and insurance is only going to cover about half the cost to rebuild our home, meaning we are hundreds of thousands of dollars short of being able to return to our community.”
None of these grantees told us they wished the grant had come with restrictions or strings. None told us they wished we had decided for them what to spend it on.
Across our systematic review of all 1,416 open-ended responses and all 198 explicit “other use” answers in this dataset, not a single grantee mentioned using their grant for anything outside of basic necessities for them or their families.
Rather, we saw people making careful, specific decisions about their own lives, and explaining how they made these hard decisions, to choose rent over utilities, repair an engine before paying down the credit card, or remediating mold instead of replacing furniture.
What this means for donors
GoFundMe.org’s grants change lives in crisis because the people receiving them are given the freedom to make choices. This is what 1,738 grantees have told us.
Via our model of direct cash assistance:
- Cash quickly reaches people who use it for the basic necessities. Across Crisis Fund and Essentials Fund grantees, grants are spent on heat, electricity, food, shelter, transportation, medical care, and children’s needs.
- The model produces measurable impact. Six weeks after getting a grant, more than 9 in 10 grantees rate the grant Very or Extremely helpful to their financial security and emotional well-being.
- When the grant falls short, it is because the magnitude of need is larger than any single grant. Not because the help was misdirected. Not because grantees lacked the judgment to use it well. Simply because they need a larger amount to make a dent in their hardship.
Conclusion
The evidence from 1,738 grantees shows us that unrestricted cash works. People in crisis spend it on exactly what they need most — rent, food, utilities, transportation, and their children’s essentials — and they do so with a level of contextual judgment that no voucher or restricted program could replicate. Importantly, nine in ten grantees still describe meaningful impact on both their financial security and emotional well-being six weeks later.
The data make a simple, powerful case: trusting people in crisis with direct cash is not just compassionate, it is effective.
Methodology in brief
GoFundMe.org surveys all grantees after they receive funds. Essentials Fund grantees receive two surveys (one at receipt, one six weeks later); Crisis Fund grantees receive one survey six weeks after grant receipt. All responses are voluntary. Figures cover 1,738 completed survey responses received between December 2024 and May 2026. Quotes are presented verbatim from grantee responses, with first names used for readability; full attribution is preserved in our internal dataset and companion analyses.
Sign up for our newsletter
Get the latest updates on our work, partners, and community impact.
