What Gets Erased When Nonprofits Scrub DEI Language

How nonprofits talk about the communities they serve shapes more than messaging. Their language affects trust, public perception, and how those communities are treated by the media, politicians, and the public.

This is becoming increasingly important as the Trump administration continues to pressure organizations to move away from language associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). For nonprofits that rely on federal grants or corporate philanthropy, changing language may seem like a practical way to protect funding. But those words help determine who is visible and which disparities are named.

Avenues for Justice (AFJ), which provides alternatives to incarceration and support services for young people in New York City, has heard from funders asking it to describe the young people it serves as “justice involved” or “justice impacted,” rather than using words like Black and Brown.

“Language isn’t neutral. It shapes perception, policy, and power.”

But this language doesn’t explain why those young people are justice impacted—or what systems and disparities shaped their experiences. For Liz Frederick, executive director of AFJ, this isn’t just a change in terminology. It erases part of the story.

Other nonprofit leaders who spoke to NPQ agree that language is more than word choice. It can restore dignity, or it can reinforce the same stereotypes and systems their organizations are working to dismantle.

Dexter R. Hall, interim executive director of the Providence Foundation of San Francisco, which offers supportive services for children, families, seniors, and people experiencing homelessness in Bayview Hunters Point, explained why: “Because language isn’t neutral. It shapes perception, policy, and power.”

How Federal Pressure Reaches Nonprofits

In July 2025, the Department of Justice issued guidance framing some DEI programs as potentially discriminatory under federal civil rights law. The guidance warned of legal risks and the potential loss of federal funding, leaving nonprofits that serve communities facing systemic barriers at risk because their programs could fall under the broad “DEI” category.

Even before that guidance was released, DOGE employees used ChatGPT and keyword searches—including terms like “immigrants” and “equality”—to target grants. A federal judge ruled those actions unconstitutional in May 2026, but by then, more than 1,400 grants worth over $100 million had already been canceled, disrupting the organizations and projects that depended on that funding.

Early in the second Trump administration, Jill Habig, founder and CEO of Public Rights Project (PRP), warned that the uncertainty itself was part of the pressure.

“Even though it feels overwhelming, this effort is about getting people to comply in advance, so the administration doesn’t have to defend these actions in court,” Habig told NPQ. “Everyone should remember that.”

Frederick said that the way these decisions are made is part of the problem, with those making policy often failing to talk to the people doing the work. The response, as she explained, should involve the communities affected and the boots-on-the-ground organizations.

She added, “Regardless of the administration, regardless of what the police commissioners are saying, regardless of how the criminal justice system, the court systems are reacting to our participants, we’re here for them.”

Language Can Feed Existing Bias

Changing a few words may look like a small concession to protect funding. But the effects reach far beyond a grant application.

“How are we talking about these young people? And why is there a difference in language when we talk about Black and Brown youth compared to their white counterparts?” asked Frederick.

“We can’t just remove a whole demographic for funding. It boils down to, as an organization, how much of your narrative do you want to change to chase that grant, and is it worth it?”

Frederick continued: “And it starts with an understanding of empathy, where you’re going to be more empathetic if you hear there was a teenager who jumped the turnstile who was white than if there was a teenager who jumped the turnstile who was Black.”

That language doesn’t create the bias. It feeds the unconscious stereotypes already shaping public perception, especially when it is repeated by the media, politicians, or nonprofit leaders.

A similar issue appears in how society talks about age.

Katherine Martinez, president and CEO of Neighborhood SHOPP, an organization that supports older adults, caregivers, families, and the wider community, says stereotypes about older people shape how they are treated and can even affect whether aging services are considered a priority.

“We’re always trying to engage in that type of conversation with our elected officials,” she told NPQ, “so that they know that services to older adults should be at the top of their priority list.”

Frederick also stressed the importance of taking an individualized approach to language. AFJ never refers to the young people it serves as “clients.” Instead, the organization calls them Participants, with a capital “P.”

The distinction is intentional. It recognizes that the young people coming through AFJ’s doors have different circumstances and need individualized support—not a cookie-cutter approach.

Dexter Hall of the Providence Foundation of San Francisco says broad labels can cause harm, too.

“Too often, we hear terms like ‘at-risk,’ ‘vulnerable,’ or ‘low-income’ tossed around by media outlets, politicians, and even well-meaning community members,” said Hall. “These words flatten complexity. They imply deficiency. They frame people by what they lack, not by what they carry.”

Make Language Review Part of the Work

A commonality among the nonprofit leaders who spoke to NPQ was that language is constantly evolving and so reviewing it cannot be a one-time communications exercise. It has to become part of how the organization operates.

At Neighborhood SHOPP, Martinez said that process included bringing together staff members from each program to discuss how they viewed the people they served, as well as how they interpreted the organization’s mission statement.

Those conversations showed that SHOPP needed to reframe its language and led the organization to invest in training through LiveOn NY, a membership organization for nonprofit aging service providers.

Frederick reinforced the same point. She said the process starts with talking to the people who work directly with the community, as well as community members themselves, about how the organization’s language affects them.

This includes being especially careful with labels like “at risk.”

“We try to be very careful in terms of when we’re saying at risk,” said Martinez. “Yes, they may be at risk, but we’re trying not to use language that excludes people and be more inclusive. We are mindful that our language really reflects individuals and provides dignity.”

Don’t Erase Who You Serve to Win Funding

The words nonprofits choose become the stories society hears about the people they serve.

In the short term, altering language may appear to be a reasonable way to preserve a grant or attract corporate support. But changing how an organization describes its community can also change the narrative it presents to the public.

Hall explained how those stories can affect public understanding and policy: “When the media uses deficit-based language, it distorts public understanding. When politicians echo it, it shapes policy that manages poverty instead of ending it. And when nonprofits adopt it, even unintentionally, we risk reinforcing the very systems we’re trying to dismantle.”

Sometimes the problem is the language that gets added. Other times, it’s what nonprofits are asked to leave out.

When funders ask AFJ to replace references to Black and Brown Participants with “justice involved” or “justice impacted,” the new language removes the racial disparities central to understanding why many of those young people encounter the criminal legal system in the first place.

Naming those racial disparities doesn’t exclude other communities. It makes the inequity visible.

“We can’t just remove a whole demographic for funding,” Frederick stated emphatically. “So, it boils down to, as an organization, how much of your narrative do you want to change to chase that grant, and is it worth it? And in changing your language, are you really changing who you are as an organization and what you represent?”

Rather than changing how AFJ describes the young people it serves, Frederick and her staff are pivoting to other funding sources with realistic benchmarks that don’t compromise the integrity of their work.