The Future of Trust-Based Philanthropy: Building Trust That Includes Every Nonprofit
Trust-based philanthropy has reshaped the conversation about how organizations, foundations, and grantmakers work together to create more equitable funding systems. It challenges old habits of control and paperwork, asking funders to loosen their grip and invest in long-term, flexible partnerships.
That is a welcome shift. The grant world has needed more humanity for a long time.
But working with thousands of organizations and grant writers, I have seen something else, too. The traditional grant application system was broken, but removing it entirely creates new risks. When funding becomes invitation-only, many incredible organizations simply never get seen.
The goal is not to end applications. It is to build trust that includes, trust that discovers.
Table of Contents
A brief history of trust-based philanthropy
The modern trust-based philanthropy movement began in the late 2010s with the launch of the Trust-Based Philanthropy Project, which encouraged foundations to embrace multi-year, unrestricted funding and stronger grantmaker-grantee relationships.
Its founders were responding to a very real problem: organizations were drowning in bureaucracy. Many spent more time writing grant proposals and reports than fulfilling their mission.
The movement offered six core principles, including multi-year unrestricted funding, streamlined paperwork, transparent communication, and mutual learning. It quickly spread across the United States and beyond, influencing major private and community foundations to seek out organizations that are making significant community impacts.
At its best, trust-based philanthropy channels multi-year, unrestricted resources to high-impact organizations, creating stability and flexibility that strengthen their long-term effectiveness. It affirms that organizations closest to the work are best positioned to make decisions. It recognizes that trust is a form of respect.
But as the model gained popularity, a quiet tension emerged. The organizations that get to participate in trust-based philanthropy are a narrow selection of all the organizations in the community making an impact. What happens to organizations that funders do not even know about?
Where grant proposals began
Long before philanthropy became an industry, scholars were writing proposals to fund their research. In eighteenth and nineteenth century European universities, researchers wrote funding petitions describing their ideas, methods, and anticipated discoveries. These proposals were reviewed by peers who were scientists themselves. They could evaluate whether the research was viable. Peer review was not bureaucracy. It was accountability. It ensured that promising ideas received support based on merit and feasibility, not on connections or reputation.
It allowed researchers to engage one another as peers, creating a system built on learning, credibility, and shared growth. Over time, philanthropy professionalized. Proposals became forms, then portals, and eventually entire compliance systems. The bridge turned into a gate guarded by jargon and unspoken expectations.
So when trust-based philanthropy emerged, it was a breath of fresh air. But like every reform, it is only a beginning.
The paradox of trust-based philanthropy
Trust-based philanthropy rightly asks funders to simplify, listen, and support grantees holistically. Yet in practice, it often replaces one imbalance with another.
When the only way to receive funding is through a personal connection or invitation, we have traded one gate for another that is softer but still closed. The funder still decides who gets in, only now without an open line for others to introduce themselves. This is not a small corner of the field. According to Candid's analysis of IRS filings, 71% of the private foundations that filed Forms 990-PF for fiscal year 2023 reported that they do not accept unsolicited requests for funds, which leaves only about 29% open to new grantees. I make the case for what grant writers should do about that in Why 2026 is the Year to Stop Writing Grant Proposals to Every Foundation.
For smaller organizations, grassroots groups, and new grant writers, that means fewer entry points into philanthropic funding opportunities. They are simply unknown.
The original purpose of the grant proposal, to bring new ideas into view, quietly disappears.
The solution: peer review for modern philanthropy
I dislike it when people bring up problems but do not offer solutions. So here is mine. If the problem is that trust-based philanthropy can become exclusive, the solution is peer review in philanthropy, a practice that brings expertise, diversity, and accountability into the grantmaking process.
In science, peer review works because peers understand the work. They can assess methods, potential, and integrity in ways outsiders cannot. It is not only about fairness; it is about competence.
Why should philanthropy be any different?
Too often, funding decisions are made by people far removed from the problems they aim to solve. Philanthropy needs more insight at the table, not just oversight.
Peer review offers that. It allows funders to rely on practitioners who understand real-world challenges, making grant funding decisions more credible and community-informed. It introduces expertise, context, and diversity into decision-making. It brings credibility from the ground up rather than judgment from the top down.
The benefits of peer review in the grantmaking process
Greater transparency for organizations
Fairer evaluation of proposals
Improved equity in funding decisions
What peer review could look like in philanthropy
None of this is hypothetical. Pieces of it already exist. Here are a few models worth building on.
Practitioner panels
Funders could invite leaders of organizations working in similar issue areas to review applications, using their practical understanding to assess viability. A literacy organization could review reading programs. An environmental justice leader could assess climate initiatives.
Rotating community reviewers
Some community foundations already do this by inviting residents to score proposals or recommend awards. This could go further. Instead of one-time participation, reviewers could be trained, compensated, and rotated regularly to create continuity and equity.
Tiered review
Short concept notes could first be reviewed by peers, who identify the most promising ideas. Funders could then deepen relationships and provide resources, turning peer insight into partnership.
Reciprocal feedback
Peer review should not only decide winners. It should strengthen organizations. Constructive feedback, even for those not selected, helps organizations grow, refine ideas, and try again. Lately, I have been seeing decline letters from foundations that preemptively state they do not provide feedback on grant proposals.
I had to read that twice.
When I have reviewed grants for foundations like 4Culture and School's Out Washington, reviewers are asked to leave comments for the applicants as we go. That way, if an applicant requests feedback, it is available. It really is not that hard to do. And I also received anti-bias training as part of my reviewer orientation.
Cross-sector collaboration
Cross-sector peer review models can help both philanthropic foundations and community-based organizations make smarter funding decisions rooted in local expertise.
How this differs from participatory grantmaking
Participatory grantmaking, where community members or beneficiaries help allocate funds, is an important cousin of trust-based philanthropy. Peer review is slightly different.
Where participatory models emphasize inclusion, peer review emphasizes expertise. It asks, "Who truly understands this work, and how can we use their insight to fund wisely?"
That is what makes peer review powerful. It combines inclusion with discernment.
Building trust that includes
Trust-based philanthropy helped the grantmaking field rediscover compassion. Peer review can help philanthropy rediscover wisdom, creating inclusive funding systems that welcome every organization doing meaningful work. That pursuit of meaning over mechanics is the throughline of my forthcoming book, The "Of Course" Factor: A Guide to Meaningful Grant Writing.
When peers help shape funding decisions, the result is not only fairer but also smarter. It balances empathy with expertise and humanity with accountability.
Real trust is not about stepping back. It is about inviting others in.
Trust-based philanthropy has made giving more compassionate. Now it is time to make it more inclusive.
Let's build a future where trust-based does not mean invitation-only, but instead means peer-informed. Let's make it easier for good ideas to be found, even when the people behind them do not have the right connections.
In the end, trust is not just about believing in people we already know. It is about being willing to meet the ones we do not, and giving them a way to be seen.
That is the kind of trust that changes everything.
Cheering you on,
Allison
