American foundations have more than $1.5 trillion in assets, a total about equal to Mexico’s gross domestic product (GDP) and nearly 6% of GDP in the United States. Their impact is reflected in support for libraries, education, athletics, hospitals, and medical and scientific advances enabling longer, healthier, and more fulfilling lives.
But the sector has a messaging problem. “From small towns to Washington, D.C., Americans have a limited picture of what foundations do. This leaves the door open for others to define foundations through critiques and harmful narratives about foundations and the nonprofits they support,” write the authors of Philanthropy’s New Voice: Building Trust With Deeper Stories and Clear Language.
The new 36-page report was a collaboration between the Council on Foundations in Washington, D.C. and the University of Florida’s Center for Public Interest Communications. Researchers wanted to better understand what they described as a “narrative vacuum” and what can be done about it. To do so, they surveyed 3,557 Americans from all walks of life. They also interviewed 14 congressional staffers, studied social media posts by members of Congress mentioning foundations or philanthropy, and consulted with communications practitioners who work in the field. Two important findings emerged.
The first key finding was that foundation leaders need to tell better stories, not just about the results of their work but how they do the work. Stories that include specifics about how money is spent and decisions are made were found to increase trust the most. Additionally, stories that depict grantee partners, community leaders and directly affected people as protagonists partnering proactively to address systemic challenges are preferable to “hero” or “savior” narratives that tokenize beneficiaries of philanthropy or rely on themes of “bootstrap individualism.”
The second key finding was that foundation leaders need to use better and more relatable language when describing their work to the public. “Internal jargon or ‘philanthro-speak’ needs to be eliminated from communication with the public,” write the authors. “This may seem like an obvious best practice for communicators, but people can forget just how many terms they use regularly are abstract and meaningless to people outside, and sometimes even within, their sector.”
Many foundation leaders fall into these habits because they have reams of data and are eager to disseminate it. Many are also eager to please major donors who want to see the impact of their gifts measured in “deliverables” or other key performance indicators (KPIs). However, using field-specific language such as “endowments,” “datapoints,” “capacity building,” “technical assistance,” and “501(c)(3)” when interacting with the public can reinforce stereotypes of philanthropy as a rarefied, exclusive club impenetrable to outsiders.
Too many sector leaders are also prone to leaning heavily on metaphors borrowed from the military (“people on the frontlines,” “fighting the good fight”) and sports (“tackling problems”) that can be alienating and play into notions of change as “an adversarial, zero-sum game,” according to the authors. Some sector leaders have made a conscious effort to embrace more inclusive language that better describes their work such as “ecosystems” of change, “navigating” toward solutions, and getting money “flowing” where it’s needed, but not enough are doing so. “Metaphors that portray abundance, future-oriented scenarios, and interconnectedness better align with positive narratives about change,” write the authors.
Encouragingly, researchers found that 69% of Americans have positive attitudes toward foundations. Respondents also ranked foundations among the most trusted institutions in America, behind only nonprofits in general (which were rated the most trustworthy) and small business and ahead of universities, religious organizations, and corporations. Members of Congress share these positive perceptions for the most part.
“With some notable exceptions, members of Congress seem more interested in collaboration with foundations than increased regulation,” write the authors. However, lack of understanding of the sector inhibits lawmakers from entering into potential partnerships.
“Foundations play an indispensable role in communities across the country, but the important role philanthropy plays in American society is unclear to many,” said Kathleen Enright, president and CEO of the Council on Foundations. “With these research-backed recommendations, philanthropy can adapt to counter harmful narratives and build trust.”
