The Future of Trust-Based Philanthropy: Building Trust That Includes Every Nonprofit

Trust-based philanthropy has reshaped the conversation about how nonprofits, 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.

However, working with thousands of nonprofits 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.

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.

They were responding to a very real problem: nonprofits were drowning in bureaucracy. Many spent more time writing grant proposals and reports than fulfilling their mission.

The movement offered six core principles: multi-year unrestricted funding, streamlined paperwork, transparent communication, and mutual learning among them. It quickly spread across the United States and beyond, influencing major private and community foundations to seek out nonprofits that are making significant community impacts.

At its best, trust-based philanthropy channels multi-year, unrestricted resources to high-impact nonprofits, creating stability and flexibility that strengthen their long-term effectiveness. It affirms that nonprofits 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 nonprofits that get to participate in trust-based philanthropy are a narrow selection of all the nonprofits in the community making an impact. What happens to organizations that funders don’t 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 or not. 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.

For smaller nonprofits, grassroots organizations, 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 don’t have solutions. I have a solution. 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. Peer review in the grant review process 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 nonprofits

·      Fairer evaluation of proposals

·      Improved equity in funding decisions

Let’s Imagine What Peer Review Could Look Like in Philanthropy

1. Practitioner Panels
   Funders could invite nonprofit leaders working in similar issue areas to review applications, using their practical understanding to assess viability. A literacy nonprofit could review reading programs. An environmental justice leader could assess climate initiatives.

2. Rotating Community Reviewers
   Some community foundations already do this by inviting residents to score proposals or recommend awards. However, this could go further. Instead of one-time participation, reviewers could be trained, compensated, and rotated regularly to create continuity and equity.

3. 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.

4. Reciprocal Feedback
   Peer review should not only decide winners. It should strengthen organizations. Constructive feedback, even for those not selected, helps nonprofits grow, refine ideas, and try again. Lately, I’ve been seeing decline letters from foundations that preemptively state they do not provide feedback on grant proposals.
   
   What?!
   
   When I have reviewed grants for foundations like 4Culture and School Out Washington, we are asked to leave comments for the applicants as we go. That way, if they request feedback, it’s available. It's really not that hard to do. And guess what? I also received anti-bias training as a part of my reviewer orientation.

5. 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 and nonprofit field rediscover compassion. Peer review can help philanthropy rediscover wisdom, creating inclusive funding systems that welcome every organization doing meaningful work.

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.

Impact Words that Win Grants

The difference between "We help people" and "We serve 300 families annually" isn't just word choice—it's the difference between getting funded and getting overlooked.

Impact language is about precision, not complexity. Sharper, not longer. But exceptional grant writing goes beyond clarity—it transforms how you present both your work and the people you serve.

The Foundation: Action Verbs

Action verbs create immediacy and energy in your writing. Instead of passive phrases like "assistance is provided" or "services are offered," use active language: "we deliver," "we connect," "participants achieve." Action verbs make your work sound immediate and results-focused.

Compare these examples:

• Passive: "Support is given to families"

• Active: "We support families"

• Action-focused: "Families build financial stability"

Notice how the progression moves from vague to specific to empowered.

The Next Level: Empowering Language

Empowering language positions program participants as the heroes of their own stories, not passive recipients of services. This approach recognizes people's inherent strengths, agency, and capacity for growth. Instead of describing what your organization does TO people, describe what people accomplish WITH your support.

Person-first language puts the person before their circumstances or characteristics. This means saying "adults experiencing homelessness" rather than "the homeless," or "young people ages 14-18" instead of "at-risk youth." Person-first language recognizes that circumstances don't define people—they're individuals with goals, dreams, and capabilities who happen to be navigating challenges.

Compare these approaches:

• Service-centered: "We provide financial literacy classes to low-income families"

• Person-centered: "Parents increase their savings and reduce debt through our financial coaching program"

The second version puts people first, uses empowering language about what they accomplish, and positions your organization as the supportive resource rather than the primary actor. This shift matters because funders increasingly want to see that organizations respect and recognize participants' agency and potential.

Here are 15 phrase upgrades that incorporate these principles and will make your next proposal more compelling and credible.

Problem Identification

1. Replace general populations with person-first, specific demographics

• Weak: "Many seniors struggle with isolation"

• Impact: "Over 2,000 adults ages 65+ in our county experience chronic isolation"

• Why it works: Person-first language with specific numbers and demographics

2. Replace "struggle with" with empowering, action-oriented language

• Weak: "Families struggle with food insecurity"

• Impact: "Families work to overcome irregular meals and nutritional gaps"

• Why it works: Acknowledges effort and resilience rather than depicting people as victims

3. Replace vague statistics with local, person-centered ratios

• Weak: "Homelessness is a growing problem"

• Impact: "1 in 8 students in our district seeks stable housing solutions"

• Why it works: Shows agency while making the issue immediate and local

4. Replace "there is a need" with community-voiced evidence

• Weak: "There is a need for mental health services"

• Impact: "Community members report a 6-month wait for counseling services"

• Why it works: Centers community voice rather than organizational assumption

Solution Positioning

5. Replace organization-centered language with participant achievements

• Weak: "We provide job training"

• Impact: "Participants achieve welding certification and connect to employers through our resources"

• Why it works: Participants are the heroes; your organization provides support

6. Replace "program" with participant-focused descriptions

• Weak: "Our youth program serves at-risk teens"

• Impact: "Young people ages 14-18 build leadership skills through mentorship partnerships"

• Why it works: Person-first language that focuses on growth, not deficits

7. Replace "we offer services" with what participants accomplish

• Weak: "We offer comprehensive support"

• Impact: "Participants navigate housing options, access benefits, and secure employment"

• Why it works: Shows people taking active steps toward their goals

8. Replace "we will implement" with participant-centered outcomes

• Weak: "We will implement evidence-based practices"

• Impact: "Participants benefit from the nationally recognized Housing First approach"

• Why it works: Centers the people who benefit rather than organizational actions

Outcome Description

9. Replace "will help" with measurable changes

• Weak: "The program will help participants succeed"

• Impact: "Participants increase their income by an average of 40%"

• Why it works: Reviewers see concrete return on investment

10. Replace "better outcomes" with quantified improvements

• Weak: "Students achieve better academic outcomes"

• Impact: "Students improve reading levels by 1.5 grades in 6 months"

• Why it works: Specific metrics demonstrate real progress

11. Replace future promises with past performance

• Weak: "We expect to reduce recidivism"

• Impact: "Our graduates show 15% lower re-arrest rates than county average"

• Why it works: Track record beats promises every time

12. Replace "positive impact" with specific participant transformations

• Weak: "Our work creates positive impact in the community"

• Impact: "Families transition from emergency shelter to permanent housing within 90 days"

• Why it works: Shows the human transformation and participant agency in achieving goals

Organizational Credibility

13. Replace "we believe" with "our experience shows"

• Weak: "We believe in community-centered approaches"

• Impact: "Our 15-year track record demonstrates that resident-led initiatives succeed"

• Why it works: Experience carries more weight than philosophy

14. Replace "we are committed to" with "we have successfully"

• Weak: "We are committed to serving diverse populations"

• Impact: "We have successfully served clients speaking 12 different languages"

• Why it works: Actions speak louder than intentions

15. Replace "we plan to" with current capacity

• Weak: "We plan to leverage community partnerships"

• Impact: "We currently collaborate with 15 local organizations"

• Why it works: Shows existing infrastructure rather than future hopes

Character Count Reality Check

You'll notice that many of the improved examples are slightly longer than the originals. That's okay—and often necessary. The goal isn't fewer words; it's more impactful words.

Person-first language and specific details naturally require more characters, but they're worth every keystroke. "Adults ages 55+ earn welding certifications" uses more characters than "seniors get job training," but it's infinitely more compelling to funders.

The real test: Does each additional word work hard? If you're adding empty phrases like "innovative and comprehensive" or "cutting-edge approach," cut them. But if you're adding specifics, demographics, or empowering language that shows participant agency, those extra characters earn their place.

Put It Into Practice

Ready to transform your next proposal? Pick 3 phrases from your current draft and upgrade them using the principles above. Focus on replacing weak verbs with action verbs, and vague statements with specific, measurable language.

For grant writers who want to go deeper, our Action Words for Grant Writing e-book provides 200+ carefully selected verbs organized by program type—from direct service to advocacy to capacity building. It's designed specifically for nonprofit professionals who want to transform their proposal language from ordinary to outstanding.

The difference between a funded proposal and a rejection often comes down to these small but crucial word choices. Start with these 15 phrases, and watch your proposals become more compelling, more credible, and more successful.