Discover the transformative impact of shifting from deficit-based to asset-based language in your nonprofit communication and grant proposals. Learn why this change matters and how to effectively make the transition.
TOPIC
AUDIENCE
Words have power, and what we say matters just as much as how we say it.
So often, when describing the needs of a community, nonprofits use unhelpful deficit-based language.
Making the shift to asset-based language can make a huge difference in your grant proposals and empower the communities your organization serves. In this article, you’ll learn all you need to know about:
Ready to get started? Let’s jump in!
Let’s start with the basics: What is deficit-based language?
Deficit-based language involves using negative words or phrases that focus on all the things that are broken or lacking in a community—rather than on the things that are working.
Essentially, deficit-based language places an emphasis on what’s not working over what is.
So, what are some hallmarks of deficit-based language?
Gary Paul Green and Anna L. Haines do a great job of outlining the concept of deficit-based language in their book “Asset Building and Community Development.”
Here are some hypothetical examples of deficit-based language a nonprofit might use:
All of these examples place an emphasis on what these communities lack—they come from a deficit-based perspective.
It can be very easy to fall into using deficit-based language in the nonprofit world, even with the best of intentions. However, you may spend more time focusing on the problem than the solution, perpetuating a negative mindset and disempowering communities as a result.
Although unintentional, deficit-based language can have major psychological implications on the communities it’s used to describe.
When focusing on all the things that are wrong or lacking in a community, it’s easy to create an us vs. them dynamic. The communities you describe are inadvertently “othered” based on their weaknesses and deficits.
This deficit-based mindset can affect how these communities see themselves and their surroundings.
To the nonprofits trying to help them, their challenges become their identity. A never-ending, negative-based lens can make it difficult to see beyond the problems at hand.
Deficit-based language can easily take a toll on a community’s self-perception—which is why it’s important for nonprofits to shift to an asset-based mindset (more below).
Deficit-based language isn’t just harmful to communities. It’s bad for landing new funding opportunities.
Here’s why:
Grant funders want to be part of the solution. They want to make a difference and a meaningful impact with their funding.
Unfortunately, when you approach an opportunity with a deficit-based lens, you can alienate potential funders.
Funders may find it difficult to see how your nonprofit could really be a part of a solution when all you focus on are the challenges.
Funders notice how you frame your proposals, and while your application may focus on real and tangible needs in the community, they may pass you up for another organization with a more holistic and collaborative approach.
As we mentioned before, deficit-based language can create an us vs. them dynamic. It has an othering effect that can tarnish your nonprofit’s reputation.
Despite your best intentions, deficit-based language can unintentionally introduce a savior complex in your work.
In any of your nonprofit’s efforts, you want to be viewed as a partner—not a savior, and you want your funders to be on that journey with you.
When you use deficit-based language, you may be reinforcing stereotypes or perceptions rather than empowering communities and joining together to overcome barriers.
There’s always more work to be done, but constantly moving the goalpost further and further away can be incredibly draining and demoralizing for your team and for funders.
Using deficit-based language can turn away funders as they feel like no matter how much they give, it will never be enough to make a difference.
As much as it’s disheartening to think, If funders feel they’ll never make a dent in a problem, they may question whether they should even try.
When you use deficit-based thinking, you can easily discourage your team, your funders, and the communities you serve.
Why Using Asset-Based Language In Your Grant Proposals Is Effective
Shifting from deficit-based language to an asset-based perspective can make a significant difference in your grant proposals.
Here’s all you need to know about how asset-based language can make your grant writing more effective.
Unlike deficit-based language, asset-based language focuses on what’s already working in a community, leaning into existing resources to make positive changes and sustainable solutions.
When you use Asset-based language, you’re taking a collaborative approach to problem-solving, focusing on opportunities and tapping into resources within a community.
The following chart outlines the characteristics of asset-based language in the book, “Asset Building and Community Development:”
Using asset-based language isn’t simply about putting a positive spin on an existing issue. It’s about empowering communities and identifying solutions from a position of strength rather than weakness.
In addition to empowering communities and minimizing negative stereotypes, there are also many benefits to using asset-based language in your grant writing.
In using asset-based language in your grant proposals, you:
Using an asset-based framework is a subtle shift in your mindset, but it’s an effective one that funders recognize. It helps them see how you’ll operate in a community and whether they want to be a part of it.
Transitioning to an Asset-Based Framework
Now that you know the difference between deficit-based language vs. asset-based language, how can you make the shift for yourself and your organization? Here are a few tips for you to keep in mind that can help.
Take a look at your most recent grant proposal. Examine the words you used when talking about your project. Highlight or circle all the times that you notice the following types of language:
Chances are, you’ll find some of these, possibly even in your mission statement. The good news is you’re not alone. Many of these terms have become industry standards to help inspire people to get involved.
However, we’ve already explored how focusing on the negative can be damaging to the communities you serve and to your chances of receiving funding. By making note of the places where you use deficit-based language in your writing, you can more easily identify where to make the shift to an asset-based perspective.
Now that you’ve identified where you’ve used deficit-based language, it’s time to adjust to stronger, more empowering language.
Here are some strategies for incorporating more asset-based language to write successful grant proposals:
At the end of the day, you want to make a difference in the world around you, but you’re limited by the funding that’s available.
Set yourself up for success by incorporating asset-based language and helping your application stand out.
Wrapping Up: The Next Steps
Deficit-based language can be detrimental to your grant proposals and the communities it’s describing. Instead, you should focus on using asset-based language that empowers those your nonprofit works with.
By now, you know:
For more insights and ways to improve your proposals, check out this list of 24 grant writing tips for stronger proposals.
Deficit-based language focuses on the shortcomings or needs of a community or organization, such as highlighting problems without mentioning strengths or solutions. In grant writing, this approach can unintentionally portray the applicant as lacking capability, which might not resonate well with funders.
Using deficit-based language can make a proposal seem overly negative, reducing the perceived ability of the applicant to address challenges effectively. Funders often prefer a balanced narrative that includes both the challenges and the strengths or potential of the applicant organization.
Look for language that focuses solely on problems, weaknesses, or gaps without mentioning existing strengths or accomplishments. Phrases that emphasize "lack of resources" or "underserved populations" without providing solutions are examples of deficit-based language.
An asset-based approach emphasizes the strengths, resources, and potential of the community or organization. This approach balances discussing challenges with highlighting how the applicant is uniquely positioned to address them, which often appeals more to funders.
Yes, it is possible to acknowledge challenges while also emphasizing strengths and potential solutions. A balanced approach demonstrates self-awareness and capability, showing funders that you understand the problem but also have the tools and strategies to address it.
Table of contents
