If philanthropy really wants to bring people together, it might consider how its jargon and penchant for grandiose language keeps average Americans at arm’s length.

Like any field, philanthropy has its own vocabulary. Insiders talk about pay-out rates, mission-related investments, and fiscal sponsorships. Some of these technical terms are legal necessities or the lingo of highly specialized practices. But they can fall flat with a broader audience, says Tony Proscio, a retired consultant to large foundations. “They definitely leave outsiders scratching their heads,” Proscio says.

So why are letters, blogs, and annual reports from philanthropy littered with 75-cent words?

In a series of surveys, Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement, a network of donors and foundation leaders, has found a disconnect between philanthropy professionals and the public. Foundations, for instance, freely use “civic,” as in “civic engagement” and “civic infrastructure.” But the term barely registers with the average person.

Philanthro-speak often lands differently on different people, says Amy McIsaac, the group’s managing director of learning and experimentation.

“We’re using the same words, but our meanings are so different that we’re actually not having the same conversation,” she says.

The Worst Offenders

Here are a few terms — suggested by our staff as well as nonprofit leaders and communications experts — that may alienate or confuse rather than inspire:

  1. Asset mapping
  2. Best practice
  3. Bridge building
  4. Concretize
  5. Ecosystem
  6. Impact
  7. Leverage
  8. Socialize
  9. Systems change
  10. Theory of change

Read the full article about philanthropy terms to avoid by Alex Daniels at The Chronicle of Philanthropy.