Nonprofits’ Addiction to Jargon Is Eroding Public Trust
By leaning on abstract language to satisfy funders and signal expertise, organizations are losing the clarity and recognition they need to maintain public support.
By Matt Watkins
Contributor
February 18, 2026 | Read Time: 6 minutes
Keep up with everything happening in The Commons by signing up for our monthly newsletter.
Note: This column is part of a series on why the nonprofit world uses the language it does, why it’s a problem, and what can be done about it.
Why does the nonprofit world speak in ways most people cannot understand?
I return to that question often in this column and in my work with organizations across the country, from small rural nonprofits to urban community foundations. This is not about tone or style. It’s about how the sector’s language has drifted away from the people it serves and whose trust it depends on. If civil society hopes to rebuild that trust, it must change how it speaks.
Nonprofits need people outside their own circles to understand what they do and why it matters. When funding is threatened or reputations are attacked, institutions survive only if others are willing to defend them. That won’t happen if the public cannot explain, in plain terms, what those institutions actually do.
This situation did not emerge by accident. It is the product of incentives that reward reassurance to funders, boards, and regulators over clarity to the public. Over time, nonprofits have learned to speak in ways that reduce risk, signal sophistication, and satisfy internal gatekeepers.
The result is a communications style that keeps goodwill circulating inside institutions instead of carrying it to the people whose trust and defense matter most. Today, the same language habits that once protected nonprofits leave them dangerously vulnerable. Here’s how we got to this point.
Compliance Rewards Ambiguity
Modern nonprofit work exists inside dense grant requirements, reporting standards, audits, and legal constraints. Federal contracts and foundation grants demand consistency and defensibility. They prize language that minimizes risk.
As someone who has raised funds inside this system, I know that writing a strong grant proposal often means aligning your work with a funder’s preferred language, even when those words don’t reflect how you would naturally describe your mission. The goal becomes meeting requirements rather than communicating clearly.
Specific claims may expose a nonprofit to scrutiny. Saying “We housed 120 families” invites audits and the risk of falling short. Saying “We advanced housing stability through coordinated interventions” satisfies compliance while committing to far less. Organizations are taught which phrases pass muster through templates, scoring rubrics, and feedback loops. They internalize this language because funding depends on it. Practitioners working inside these constraints come to consider clarity risky and abstraction safe.
But what protects organizations from compliance risk also prevents them from being understood.
Professionalization Turns Language Into Identity
As the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors professionalized, language became a signal of belonging. Policy schools, philanthropy programs, and consulting firms produced a shared vocabulary that marked who was serious and credible. Saying “We facilitate cross-sector capacity building” instead of “We help organizations work together” demonstrated training and fluency. Over time, this way of speaking stopped being a tool and became a credential.
The expertise behind this language is real. Policy analysis and program evaluation require precision. The problem emerged when these frameworks became the only acceptable way to speak, even to audiences who don’t share that training and whose support and trust the sector depends on.
When nonprofits rely on professionalized jargon, they quietly signal that the work is meant for insiders. The result is disengagement and fewer people willing to defend these institutions when they are challenged.
Moral Language Replaces Accountability
Within philanthropy, using the right moral language signals values alignment and lowers risk. It’s safer to say a program “advances equity” than to describe exactly what it does, for whom, and with what result. Moral framing like this discourages scrutiny because questioning outcomes can be misread as questioning values.
This creates a culture where saying the right things matters more than showing the work. Institutions learn that public commitment to justice is rewarded, while clear evidence of impact is optional. Over time, language becomes performative, signaling virtue without requiring accountability.
The values behind such language matter. Racial justice and economic equity name real and enduring problems. But justice isn’t practiced through language alone. It’s practiced through fewer evictions, affordable prescriptions, reliable child care, and food on the table. When institutions cannot explain what changed in people’s lives, they are asking the public to trust claims rather than results.
People defend organizations that help their neighbors in concrete ways. They do not defend abstract concepts, no matter how morally correct they sound.
Systems Thinking Weakens Recognition
The shift toward systems thinking helped philanthropy move beyond treating symptoms and start grappling with root causes. That shift was necessary. Foundations recognized that funding individual programs without changing the conditions around them would never be enough.
But the way this thinking shows up in public language is problematic. Systems language pulls people out of the picture. Individuals turn into populations, and their lived experiences become abstract categories.
People do not experience “housing instability.” They experience the fear of losing their home. They do not live inside “food systems.” They worry about whether dinner will be on the table. When organizations speak only in analytical terms, people stop recognizing themselves in the work. Analysis requires abstraction. Trust requires recognition. The sector needs both, but too often it chooses the first and forgets the second.
Rewarding What Matters
The sector is ensnared in a web where goodwill circulates within institutions but rarely reaches the public. Foundations sit at the center, and the language they require in applications flows downstream into nonprofits and outward into public communication, until grant compliance becomes the way the sector explains itself to the world.
That bargain no longer holds. In the current political environment abstract language does not protect institutions, it makes them more vulnerable. If funders want a sector the public will defend, they must change what they reward.
That means recognizing that plain language and concrete outcomes are not signs of weak thinking. They are proof that the work is real, understood, and accountable. Until grant makers acknowledge this, nonprofits will keep optimizing for funder approval while losing public trust, and commitments to justice will remain words on paper rather than practices people can recognize in their own lives.
In my column next month, I’ll offer a framework for how nonprofits and foundations can identify problematic language and speak more clearly to the outside world.
The Commons is financed in part with philanthropic support from the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, Einhorn Collaborative, and the Walton Family Foundation. None of our supporters have any control over or input into story selection, reporting, or editing, and they do not review articles before publication. See more about the Chronicle, the grants, how our foundation-supported journalism works, and our gift-acceptance policy.
