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.

Unsolicited Proposals: What Foundation Grant Statistics Really Mean

Quick Takeaway

Candid reports that only 23% of foundations accept unsolicited proposals, but this statistic is based on checkboxes foundations mark on tax forms—often for administrative convenience rather than actual practice. Additionally, when foundations report low acceptance rates (like 10%), that includes the 80-90% of applications that are immediately rejected for being poorly written or misaligned. For well-prepared, mission-aligned nonprofits, your actual odds are much higher than the statistics suggest. Focus on relationships, not percentages.

Imagine This: The Dating Profile Analogy

You're scrolling through dating profiles and see someone who's marked themselves as "single" and "open to meeting people." Does that mean you should show up at their house unannounced with flowers?

Of course not. "Open to meeting people" might mean:

• "Message me first so we can chat before meeting" (letter of interest required)

• "I only go on dates during summer when work calms down" (specific application windows)

• "I prefer meeting through mutual friends" (invitation-only grantmaking)

That's exactly what it's like when Candid reports that only 23% of foundations "accept unsolicited proposals."

What Candid's Data Says—and What It Doesn't

The Statistic: Candid's recent report notes that roughly 23% of foundations accept unsolicited proposals.

What People Think It Means: Only one in four funders are open to new applicants.

What It Actually Means: Only 23% of foundations have documented their detailed grantmaking procedures on a public tax form. The other 77% may still consider applications—they just didn't want to provide all the details on their IRS Form 990-PF.

As Candid itself points out, the data is easily misunderstood. The statistic doesn't mean that 77% of funders are off limits—it means that many prefer a relationship first, invite proposals through specific channels, or simply didn't complete the detailed disclosure section of their tax form.

What "Unsolicited" Actually Means on the IRS Form—and Why the Data May Be Unreliable

Here's where it gets complicated: foundations check a box on their IRS Form 990-PF that asks, "Do you accept unsolicited requests for funds?"

But this is a compliance question on a tax form, and the answer may have more to do with paperwork than actual practice.

The Tax Form Shortcut

The IRS requires Form 990-PF to ensure transparency and accountability of private foundations. This transparency helps donors, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders assess how the foundation operates and manages its resources. In Part XV of the form, foundations must disclose their grantmaking procedures to help potential grant applicants understand how to approach them.

Here's the catch: If a foundation checks the box saying they "only make contributions to preselected charitable organizations and do not accept unsolicited requests for funds," they're done. They can skip the rest of the section.

But if they leave that box unchecked, they must provide detailed information:

• The name, address, and contact information of the person handling applications

• The required form and materials applicants should submit

• Submission procedures and deadlines

• All restrictions and limitations on awards (geographic areas, funding priorities, organization types, etc.)

Why Foundations Might Check the "No Unsolicited Requests" Box

That's a lot of work on an already lengthy tax form. Foundations might check that box not because they refuse to consider new organizations, but because:

• They have informal or evolving processes that are hard to document

• They're a small operation without dedicated grant management staff

• They change priorities year to year and don't want to commit to specific procedures publicly

• They want flexibility to fund opportunistically

• It's simply easier than completing several detailed fields

...checking that box and skipping the detailed disclosures is the path of least resistance.

The result? Many foundations may check "no unsolicited requests" not because they refuse to consider new organizations, but because explaining their actual process is more administrative burden than they want to take on. Some might:

• Accept applications but only during certain windows (which change)

• Prefer a letter of inquiry first (but not always)

• Want to maintain flexibility in how they find grantees

• Simply not want to commit their informal process to a public IRS document

This means the 23% statistic may be less about actual accessibility and more about which foundations are willing to document detailed procedures on a tax form.

It's like checking "prefer not to say" on a survey—not because you're hiding something, but because explaining is more work than skipping.

Why Award Percentages Are Equally Misleading

Some grant writing experts advise nonprofits to call foundations and ask, "What percentage of applications do you award?" The theory is that you shouldn't apply unless the acceptance rate meets a certain threshold.

This advice sounds logical, but it's fundamentally flawed—and here's why.

Most Applications Are Immediately Rejected for Basic Reasons

The acceptance percentage includes terrible applications. Research on grant proposals reveals a sobering truth: at the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 80% of grant applications are immediately rejected because applicants didn't do their homework about the foundation's specific priorities. One foundation manager reported that 90% of the proposals they receive are badly organized and don't communicate well.

Think about what this means. If a foundation reports a 10% acceptance rate, that statistic includes:

• Applications that don't match the funder's priorities at all

• Proposals with poor writing and mechanical errors

• Submissions that don't follow basic guidelines

• Requests from organizations that aren't even eligible

Popular foundations get flooded with applications—most of them poor. Well-known foundations like Gates, Ford, or Kellogg receive thousands of applications. A significant portion come from organizations that haven't done basic research, don't fit the funding priorities, or submit substandard proposals. These low-quality applications drag down the overall acceptance rate, making the foundation appear more selective than it actually is for qualified applicants.

The Question You Should Actually Ask

The question you really want answered is different. What you actually need to know is: "What percentage of well-written, mission-aligned applications from strong organizations get funded?" That's a very different number—and one that foundations can't easily provide.

As Candid itself notes in its analysis: "How many grant proposals submitted by well-run, well-governed nonprofits that perform a valuable service with effective programs actually get funded? Our guess: most of them."

Why Relationships Matter More Than Statistics

The overall acceptance rate statistics are misleading because they don't account for relationship quality or application strength. Here's what the numbers actually mean for your organization:

Three Reasons Why Relationships Matter More Than Statistics:

1.     Overall statistic: Foundation funds only 5% of all applications Your reality: With an established relationship and board connection, your odds improve to approximately 50%—ten times better than the posted rate.

2.     Overall statistic: Foundation reports 25% acceptance rate Your reality: This number includes everyone. Cold applications from unknown organizations have nearly 0% success, while known partners have significantly higher odds.

3.     Overall statistic: 80% of applications rejected immediately for poor quality Your reality: Most rejections are for poor quality or misalignment. A well-researched, perfectly aligned proposal from a strong organization competes in an entirely different pool with much better odds.

The acceptance percentage tells you almost nothing about your chances—because your chances depend on the quality of your proposal, the strength of your relationship, and the alignment of your mission with their priorities.

Reframing the Statistic

Instead of reading, "Only 23% of foundations accept proposals," interpret it as:

"23% of foundations have publicly documented their detailed grantmaking procedures on a tax form—but that doesn't mean the other 77% won't consider your application."

Many of those 77% might be open to proposals—they just didn't want to spell out all the details on their 990-PF.

The Grant Writer's Secret Advantage: How to Read Between the Lines

Strong grant writers know that numbers don't determine access—relationships do.

6 Strategies That Work Better Than Statistics

1. Look beyond the form. Even if a funder "doesn't accept unsolicited proposals," a thoughtful email, board connection, or participation in their initiatives can open doors.

2. Track actual funder behavior. Use tools like Instrumentl or Foundation Directory Online to see:

• Who they've funded in the past 2-3 years

• Geographic giving patterns

• Average grant sizes

• Program areas that receive the most funding

3. Build trust before you ask.

• Attend foundation-hosted webinars

• Comment thoughtfully on their impact reports

• Share success stories that align with their mission

• Connect on LinkedIn (appropriately)

4. Time it right.

• Respect application deadlines

• Lead with letters of inquiry if preferred

• Apply during their active funding cycles

5. Do your homework. The vast majority of rejected applications fail not because they're bad programs, but because applicants didn't dig deep enough into the funder's specific priorities and initiatives.

6. Don't be afraid to have a conversation. Sometimes guidelines seem to disqualify you—but a phone call can reveal unexpected opportunities.

Real-World Grant Writing Example: When Guidelines Don't Tell the Whole Story

The Boeing Foundation changed its funding priorities one year, shifting from providing direct grants to early learning nonprofits to funding only early learning coalitions—regional networks of providers working together.

At first glance, this seemed to disqualify my client, a small early learning provider on an island of just 10,000 people. They weren't a coalition, and they certainly weren't a region. By the letter of the guidelines, they appeared ineligible.

But my client had already been collaborating informally with other early learning providers on the island, identifying gaps in services and working to better serve their community. We had the collaborative spirit Boeing was looking for—we just didn't fit the geographic definition of a "region."

Instead of simply not applying based on the guidelines, I picked up the phone and called the program officer. I explained our situation: we were an island with no access to the mainland except by ferry. In essence, we were a region unto ourselves, with our own unique needs and challenges. We were already doing the collaborative work Boeing wanted to support—just on a smaller geographic scale.

The program officer understood. Not only were we invited to apply, but we also received a substantial grant.

The lesson: relevance and relationships outweigh statistics every time.

Frequently Asked Questions About Foundation Grants and Unsolicited Proposals

Should I apply to a foundation that doesn't accept unsolicited proposals?

Not directly—but don't write them off entirely. First, try submitting a brief letter of inquiry asking if you may apply. Request a conversation with a program officer to discuss your project and their current priorities. Seek an introduction through a board member or mutual contact. Attend their public events or webinars to begin building a relationship. Many foundations marked as "invitation only" will invite you to apply after these preliminary steps demonstrate your alignment with their mission.

Should I avoid foundations with low acceptance rates?

No. Low acceptance rates—like 5% or 10%—are misleading because they include the 80-90% of applications that are immediately rejected for poor quality, misalignment, or not following basic guidelines. If your organization is well-run, your proposal is excellent, and your mission aligns perfectly with their priorities, you're not competing against all those applications—you're competing in a much smaller pool of serious contenders. A foundation that funds "only 5% of applications" might actually fund 40-50% of well-prepared, mission-aligned proposals. Focus on fit and quality, not overall statistics.

How do I know if a foundation is really open to new applicants?

Look beyond the checkbox on their 990-PF and examine their actual behavior. Do you see any new organizations in their recent grants list—organizations they've never funded before? Are they funding in your geographic area? Do they fund organizations your size? Does their website information contradict or clarify the 990-PF data? When in doubt, call and ask directly about their openness to new applicants in your program area.

What percentage of grant applications actually get funded?

This varies widely by foundation, but overall statistics are misleading. While many foundations fund only 10-20% of applications, 80-90% of applications are immediately rejected for poor quality, misalignment, or failure to follow guidelines. For well-prepared, mission-aligned organizations, the real success rate is much higher. You're not competing against all applications—you're competing against the small subset that cleared basic quality hurdles.

How can I increase my chances of getting a grant?

Focus on perfect alignment—only apply when your mission clearly matches their priorities. Do deep research beyond the guidelines to understand their recent funding patterns. Build relationships with the foundation before applying. Submit a letter of inquiry first to test the waters. Follow every instruction exactly. Write clearly and compellingly. Demonstrate strong impact with solid outcomes data. These strategies matter far more than acceptance rate statistics.

Can I contact a foundation before submitting an application?

Yes, and in most cases this is encouraged! Appropriate pre-application contact includes calling to verify your eligibility and fit, asking clarifying questions about guidelines, requesting feedback on a preliminary idea, and submitting a letter of inquiry. What to avoid: don't ask them to read your draft proposal, don't be pushy or demanding of their time, and don't ignore stated preferences (if they say "no phone calls," respect that).

How long does it take to build a relationship with a foundation?

Building a meaningful relationship typically takes a minimum of six to twelve months for initial recognition and trust, one to two years for a strong relationship that improves funding odds, and three or more years for deep partnership and multi-year funding. You can accelerate relationship building by attending their events, sharing relevant success stories without asking for anything, demonstrating mission alignment through your work, and making connections through board members or current grantees.

Key Takeaways: What Grant Writers Need to Know

Your Action Plan

✓ Research funders based on their actual giving patterns, not their 990-PF checkboxes
✓ Start with a letter of inquiry or phone call—even to "invitation only" foundations
✓ Build relationships over time through authentic engagement
✓ Only apply where there's strong mission alignment
✓ Make your proposal exceptional—eliminate yourself from the 80% who get immediately rejected
✓ Be patient and strategic, not desperate and scattered

The Bottom Line

Candid's data isn't wrong—but the way it's collected and read often is. The 23% statistic is based on checkboxes on tax forms, where foundations may be choosing the easiest path rather than accurately describing their practices. Numbers can inform your strategy, but they shouldn't define it. Behind every statistic is a story of people, values, and alignment.

The "23% accept unsolicited proposals" figure is like someone checking "single" on a form. It's technically accurate, but it doesn't tell you how to actually connect with them—and it might not even reflect their real openness to meeting new people.

Don't let acceptance percentages scare you away from strong prospects. A 10% overall acceptance rate means very little if your organization is well-run, your proposal is excellent, and your mission aligns perfectly with their priorities. You're not competing against all applicants—you're competing against the small subset of qualified, well-prepared organizations.

And sometimes, you're not competing at all—you're having a conversation that opens a door you didn't even know existed.

Grant writing isn't about chasing odds—it's about building trust, one relationship at a time.

This post responds to insights from Candid's recent analysis: Do foundations accept unsolicited requests for funds from nonprofits?