February 17, 2026
What keeps donors with you when things get contentious? New insights on trust, engagement and care in polarized times
Nonprofit organizations today are operating in an increasingly polarized environment. Donors are paying attention not only to missions, programs and impact, but also to how organizations communicate when controversy arises.
Whether the issue involves politics, culture or social values beyond an organization’s core mission, nonprofits are often pulled into debates they did not seek but cannot avoid. Our research team wanted to understand a pressing practitioner question: What actually helps maintain donor trust and support when communication becomes politically contentious? To answer these questions, we conducted a national survey of U.S. nonprofit donors.
Across a national survey of nonprofit donors, one finding stood out clearly: how organizations engage donors matters more than what position they take, especially during polarized moments. When donors perceived that a nonprofit engaged dialogically — by listening, inviting conversation and responding respectfully — they reported higher trust, stronger relationships and greater willingness to continue supporting the organization, even amid controversy.
In politically contentious situations, dialogic engagement emerged as the strongest predictor of supportive intentions, stronger than financial transparency or formal accountability messaging. Donors were not looking for perfectly worded statements or strategic neutrality. They wanted to feel heard, respected and treated as relational partners.
Values still matter, but only when they’re lived
Organizational values were another consistent predictor of trust and relationship quality. Donors responded positively when nonprofits clearly communicated their values and demonstrated consistency between words and actions. However, when we examined donors’ care identity, which is the extent to which individuals see themselves as caring and relational, we found something unexpected.
Care identity became a key driver of support during contentious moments and, in some cases, replaced the influence of organizational values altogether. This suggests that values resonate most when they are enacted through care-centered, dialogic communication, not simply stated.
What surprised us most
We expected transparency and financial stability to dominate donor trust, and they do matter. But once polarization entered the picture, their influence declined. Donors became more attentive to relational cues: Is this organization listening? Does it engage with empathy? Does it stay in dialogue rather than retreat or dictate? We learned polarization isn’t just a political challenge, it’s a relational one.
Takeaways:
Prioritize engagement over perfection: Donors value openness and dialogue more than flawless messaging.
Lead with values, but show them through action: Values build trust when they are demonstrated, not declared.
Treat donors as relational partners: Dialogue strengthens relationships during disagreement.
Don’t underestimate the power of care: Empathy and relational respect sustain support when tensions rise.
Expect diversity and design for it: Donors bring different values, identities, and expectations into relationships.
In sum: Trust is not maintained through silence or certainty, but through dialogue and care. In a divided world, nonprofit organizations that commit to listening, engaging, and communicating with integrity are not just protecting donor relationships, they are modeling the kind of ethical public communication society needs most.
For more information about this study, email Morehouse at Jordan.Morehouse@colorado.edu. This project was supported by a 2024 Page/Johnson Legacy Scholar Grant from the Arthur W. Page Center.