The erosion of trust in American nonprofits — evidenced in surveys as well as eruptions like the Ivy League donor revolt — can seem inexorable, the product of societal forces beyond the control of any single group. Yet such fatalism is wrongheaded: Trust is earned and lost in everyday decisions and practices.
That’s the contention of a new guide that aims to arm nonprofit leaders with the strategies, principles, and mind-set to build and maintain trust with all their constituencies — staff, trustees, donors, those they serve, and the public. Conversely, it hopes to illustrate how commonplace routines of raising money and running an organization can undermine faith in a group’s integrity and competence.
“We do have agency,” says Kristen Grimm, founder of Spitfire Strategies, a leading national communications firm, which produced the guide. “The next time you see one of these reports where trust is declining, it’s a great time to get your team together and say, ‘We want to be part of the solution.’”
Grimm and her colleagues at Spitfire — whose clients include the Environmental Defense Fund, the Ford Foundation, and the Innocence Project — turned to social-science research and tapped more than two dozen nonprofit leaders to assemble the guide. It features practical advice, including 10 concrete steps to earn trust (No. 8: Own up to mistakes).
The guide also includes mini-case studies of the good (MIT’s Real Talk for Change) and the bad (the imbroglio at Time’s Up, the #MeToo-era anti-sexual harassment group whose leaders privately counseled then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo when he was accused of harassment).
Beyond that, Spitfire hopes organizations will elevate earning trust as a priority. Grimm says leaders should ask themselves: What have we done this week, this month, this year to build trust? And what have we done to damage it?
Answering those questions, Grimm says, “you’re actually going to find ways that you can do the same things you need to do but do them a little differently and end up as a more trustworthy institution.”
Take Care of the Little Stuff
Here are examples from the guide of common practices that bolster or diminish trust. For some groups, harmful tactics or strategies are too valuable to revenue or mission to stop. But the guide urges leaders to assess the impact on trust as they weigh the benefits.
The website “donate” pop-up. “When I go to a nonprofit site and the very first thing that pops up is that they want me to give money, that’s probably not the right way to build trust,” Grimm says. It may convey that a group places its self-interest above the public interest. If a group concludes it needs that pop-up, it should consider other ways to signal the importance of its mission, she adds.
The campaign. “When organizations create new campaigns every four years with new names, they may find themselves facing a lack of trust,” the guide notes. This is true for successive efforts to enact policy or raise money and awareness, Grimm says. Groups can lose credibility if they champion a new “critical” policy initiative or “vital” new funding effort before the echoes of the last campaign have faded.
The emergency fundraising campaign. At times, organizations may go to supporters to avert a budget shortfall or other fiscal crisis. Sweet Briar College, for instance, staved off closure with a $44 million “save the college” effort. Repeated emergency pleas, however, can seem like crying wolf and stir uneasiness about your management. “You might get the money in the short term, but over time, if you do that enough, they’re going to start to think you’re incompetent,” Grimm says. “And incompetence erodes your trust.”
New leadership. Trust in an organization drops the moment it announces a leadership change, Grimm says. “It’s automatic.” Groups need to anticipate that and work before, during, and after the new hire to make clear that the search-and- hiring process is focused on identifying a person whose values align with those of the organization. “Listening tours” for the new leader help, Grimm says, but it’s even better that the organization promotes action taken that demonstrates the new executive’s commitment to integrity and the public interest.
Social media. Much of the public has come to see Facebook, X, and other online networks as toxicity accelerants. Many “communication platforms are filthy with trust issues,” University of Florida scholar Janet Coats says in the guide. Yet nonprofits continue to rely on these means of communications, even sustaining their X feeds despite Elon Musk’s questionable practices.
The strategic plan. Organizations often develop a plan or a solution and present it as a fait accompli to their community or the people they serve. The community is just a checkbox, Giselle Cordero of the Centre for Public Impact says in the report. “Don’t assume you’re the expert. Don’t come up with a solution before even talking to communities. Let them guide you instead.”
Statements or signals of support. The guide applauds leaders and institutions that take action that aligns with their values. Case in point: As he rhetorically championed women’s advancement in science, engineering, and medicine, then National Institutes of Health chief Dr. Francis Collins boycotted panels that featured only men. “It’s not enough to give lip service to equality,” Collins said.
Indeed, it’s lip service that can hurt an organization’s credibility, the guide says. An example: “When organizations put up rainbows during Pride month but don’t take other actions to walk the talk or create an inclusive world, they invite skepticism and foster distrust.”
