Public Trust in Nonprofits Leads Trust in Philanthropy by 27 Points

Independent Sector surveys public trust in nonprofits and in philanthropy on an annual cycle, because a sector that raises money on public confidence needs a consistent instrument to tell ordinary year-to-year movement apart from sustained erosion. Its July 2026 report records high trust in nonprofit organizations at 56 percent, one point below the 57 percent measured in 2025, and high trust in philanthropy at 29 percent, four points below the 33 percent measured in 2025. The distance between the two figures widened from 24 percentage points to 27.

The two words describe different things to the people answering the survey, which is why the divergence deserves attention before it deserves alarm. Nonprofit organizations are the entities that deliver services, so a respondent picturing a nonprofit is often picturing a food bank or a clinic they have used or walked past. Philanthropy names the practice of large-scale giving and the institutions that direct it, so a respondent picturing philanthropy is more often picturing a foundation making decisions at a distance from the work. The survey does not ask people to explain that difference, which means any account of why the two measures moved apart remains inference rather than finding.

Two further results in the same report bear on that distance, because both concern what moves a person from doubt toward confidence. Sixty percent of respondents said their trust increased because of a past interaction with a nonprofit, which locates trust in contact rather than in reputation. Seventy-four percent said they are more likely to trust a nonprofit that is transparent about how funds are used, and 73 percent said the same about transparency regarding where funding comes from. Both findings describe conditions an organization can act on, so they carry more practical weight than the headline percentages do.

The pattern those two results suggest is that trust accrues to the party a person can observe, which would explain why the measure attached to service delivery held while the measure attached to grantmaking fell. That reading fits the data without being proved by it, because the survey establishes the correlation and not the mechanism.

For nonprofit and foundation professionals, the useful move is to stop treating the two numbers as one sector reputation, because an organization that both delivers programs and makes grants is being measured on two different reputations at once, and the grantmaking side is the one losing ground. A community foundation that runs its own programs may find its program participants trust it while its applicant pool does not, which means the internal question is whether the grantmaking function is visible to the people it affects in the way the program function is.

For digital and crypto-native giving leaders, the interaction finding cuts against a common design assumption, because on-chain giving has largely pursued trust through verifiability, meaning a public record that lets anyone confirm a transaction happened, while the survey locates trust in having interacted with an organization at all. A donor who can audit a transfer has been given proof, and proof is not the same experience as contact, so a giving platform that optimizes only for the ledger may be building confidence in the rail while leaving confidence in the recipient untouched.

For donors and family-office advisors, the widening distance is a reason to ask where a client's giving actually sits in the public mind, because a client who gives through a private foundation or a donor-advised fund, meaning an account held at a sponsoring charity from which the donor recommends grants, is giving through the structures the lower-trust measure describes. That does not make the vehicle wrong, since the vehicle exists for tax and administrative reasons that remain sound, but it does mean the reputational return on a gift routed through an institution differs from the return on a gift the recipient can attribute to a person.

For corporate giving and CSR leaders, the employee audience is the one to reconsider, because corporate giving programs are usually evaluated on external reputation while the survey suggests the strongest trust effect comes from direct interaction, and a company's employees are the population most able to interact. A program that funds organizations employees never encounter is buying the kind of reputation the philanthropy measure tracks, whereas a program built around volunteering or matched giving to organizations employees already use is buying the kind the nonprofit measure tracks.

For NGOs and international organizations, the finding is harder to apply and more important to notice, because an organization whose beneficiaries live far from its funders cannot manufacture the interaction that drives trust among those funders, so it inherits the distance the philanthropy number reflects. The available substitute is specificity, meaning reporting that lets a supporter follow money to a named place and a described result rather than to a category, because specificity is the closest thing to contact that distance permits.

None of this establishes that the 2026 movement will continue, because one four-point drop against one stable year is a short series, and the report itself frames the nonprofit figure as stable rather than declining. What the year does supply is a question worth putting to any organization that raises money, which is whether it is trusted for what people have experienced of it or for what people have heard about it, since those two sources of confidence respond to entirely different work.

"Trust seems to follow the people who can be observed doing the work, which is why the institutions that fund at a distance keep paying a confidence penalty the organizations they fund do not."

EILEEN HERNANDEZ, THE STRATEGIC STEWARD

Share this𝕏 / TwitterLinkedIn

This is where the Disintermediated Impact pillar of the DIA Protocol earns its attention, because the pillar asks what happens to accountability when layers sit between a giver and a result, and this year's figures suggest the public is answering that question on its own by extending confidence to the layer it can see and withholding it from the layer it cannot.

Sources and Frameworks

Independent Sector. (2026, July). Trust in nonprofits and philanthropy. Figures cited: high trust in nonprofit organizations 56 percent in 2026 and 57 percent in 2025; high trust in philanthropy 29 percent in 2026 and 33 percent in 2025; gap of 27 percentage points, widened from 24; 60 percent reporting increased trust following past interaction; transparency figures of 74 percent regarding use of funds and 73 percent regarding source of funds.

Watkins, A. (2026, August 5). What's driving the public trust gap between nonprofits and philanthropy? Candid. Independent corroboration of the 29 percent philanthropy figure and the four-point year-over-year decline.

Hernandez, E. (2025). The DIA Protocol. Unpublished doctoral framework, Pepperdine University Graduate School of Education and Psychology. Disintermediated Impact pillar.

Note on scope: this piece does not draw on the report's findings regarding artificial intelligence, because repeated readings of that section returned inconsistent values for the same subgroup figures and those figures are held pending a direct reading of the underlying chart.