Lettersnatcher

When 3,557 people nationwide were asked about their thoughts on philanthropy, very few understood what foundations did in the charity landscape. A recent study by the Council on Foundations and the Center for Public Interest Communications at Florida University found that Foundations are poor communicators.

They fail at storytelling. They are not transparent about decisions they take. And, they do not explain goals and results of their work in common terms that ordinary folk can understand.

The worst part? They steal metaphors from the military and sports to talk about their work in undecipherable terms. That’s why we have “RFPs,” “Capacity Building,” “Theory of Change,” “Giving folks a seat at the table.”

The study also found that Foundations are eager to talk about results but never describe how they do their work. This obscurity makes people and policy makers doubt transparency among foundations.

They use battle cry words in describing “impact,” “equitable transfer of wealth” and they want to hit “the nail on the head” when they tell us stories. This leads to the question: Do Foundations have humility or do they wield a lot of power, money and political influence?

There is no easy solution for this failed storytelling. We need a culture shift to hear any meaningful narratives about the work Foundations do.