How soft euphemisms turn the suffering of millions into an abstraction stripped of emotion or urgency. Plus, examples of straight talk that will rally supporters. 



When the government shutdown left 42 million people without food assistance last week, nonprofits stepped in to help, as they always do. Across the country, community foundations, congregations, and service organizations were hard at work feeding families.

But too often, poverty can seem like an abstract concept in the philanthropic world — something to analyze rather than experience. That's partly because the language the sector uses to describe poverty drains it of urgency. Hunger is "food insecurity." Eviction is "housing instability." Poverty itself is "economic vulnerability." These are academic terms of art, not human ones. They make survival sound like strategy and turn suffering into a statistic. Over time, this language persuades some that poverty is a problem faced by others, not by family members, neighbors, or colleagues.

This distance is dangerous. It allows inequality to feel normal and strips away empathy. When language becomes abstract, people stop seeing one another's pain. It lets leaders sound caring while staying comfortably removed from the effects of their words.

Words have real world consequences. They determine who gets funded, who gets ignored, and who feels seen. They define what counts as a problem, who is responsible for fixing it, and what solutions sound legitimate.

When foundations call hunger "food insecurity," the focus moves from feeding people to tallying the number of "food insecure" households — a shift from action to observation. When poverty is described as "lack of economic mobility," urgency turns into aspiration. And when the language of experts replaces the language of care, the work begins to sound optional.

Words also organize people to act. They build the shared understanding that moves donors, voters, and volunteers. Clear language doesn't just express empathy — it creates it by reminding people that poverty isn't someone else's issue; it's a test of fairness and decency that belongs to all of us. It's a mother skipping meals so her children can eat. It's a child sitting through class hungry and ashamed. It's a senior choosing between rent and medicine.

Words People Can Feel

To help people grasp what's at stake and rebuild trust in institutions working to confront poverty, philanthropy leaders need to use plain language that brings people closer to the work. That means describing poverty in human terms and recognizing that everyday words don't oversimplify the problem — they make it solvable.

With hunger dominating national headlines, this is an ideal moment to adopt language that turns the reality of poverty into something tangible and immediate. Here's a guide to get started:

  • Say "feed families," not "address food insecurity." Hunger is not a data point — it's a child going to bed without dinner.
  • Say "keep people housed," not "advance housing stability." Stability sounds optional. Rent is not.
  • Say "help workers earn enough to live," not "increase economic mobility." Survival comes before success.
  • Say "prevent eviction," not "reduce displacement risk." Eviction is immediate, visible, and preventable.
  • Say "cover medical bills," not "remove barriers to care access." The barrier is the bill. Say so.
  • Say "keep families together," not "preserve family units." Families are not units. They are people bound by love and responsibility, doing their best to get through the month together.

Clear language should also be deployed when reporting results. Talk about meals served rather than nutritional interventions completed; rents paid rather than housing stability outcomes achieved; and prescriptions filled rather than health-care access metrics improved.

Foundations and grantees need to be intentional about making this shift. Train staff to translate compliance language into community language. Test words with those living the reality — teachers, parents, caregivers — to make sure they resonate.

Philanthropy exists to step in when government chooses not to and to ensure everyone has a fair shot at a decent life. That promise depends on more than money. It depends on how we speak about the people we serve. Use technical terms when law requires them but use human words everywhere else. Replace distance with connection, process with presence, and ideals with results people can touch.

Poverty does not need softer language. It needs honesty that moves people to act. Until philanthropy can talk about poverty as if it belongs to all of us, it will keep sounding like someone else's problem.


Source: https://www.philanthropy.com/