The headlines are increasingly confusing. On one hand, we hear major institutions touting their largest campaigns and most massive individual gifts to date. On the other, we read sobering statistics about a shrinking donor base. What should we actually make of this paradox? At the heart of this conversation is a phrase often heard in the nonprofit sector: “Donors down, dollars up.” This refers to a long-term trend where the total amount of money raised by charities is increasing, but the number of individual people participating in that giving is steadily shrinking.

The Numbers Behind the Trend

The total number of donors has been on a downward trajectory for decades. The data is clear: in the year 2000, roughly 66% of households gave to charity. By 2025, that figure dropped to 47% (CBS News). If you look even further back, the participation rates were even higher.

Here is my take on why this is happening and what it means for nonprofit organizations:

Yes, the decline is real, but we must examine the trend closely before we panic. “Total donors” includes those who give to religious institutions—traditionally the largest driver of charitable giving. As church attendance has decreased over the past decades, so too have the number of people who give in that context.

While church giving is certainly charitable, the mechanism is different from organizational giving. People often give in a house of worship because they are physically present and part of a weekly ritual. Giving to a specific cause or nonprofit requires a different kind of intentionality.

Therefore, I don’t believe that a drop in church attendance necessarily correlates to a loss of interest in social causes. Fundraising is never easy, but we shouldn’t subscribe to a “scarcity mindset.” Many nonprofits are growing and thriving despite these shifting demographics. This data shouldn’t create a sense of doom; it should create a sense of focus.

The hidden danger of “Dollars Up”

Despite the shrinking number of donors, total contributions continue to climb. There are a few clear reasons that explain how this happens: 

1. The Rise of Mega-Gifts: We have seen a rapid increase in massive gifts from ultra-high-net-worth individuals. These eight- and nine-figure gifts can dramatically skew the national data.
   
   
2. Concentrated Wealth: Even beneath the “mega-donor” level, wealth has become more concentrated. Organizations are successfully securing larger gifts from a smaller, wealthier pool of supporters.
   
   
3. Market Performance: Strong market performance has boosted the results for those who give from assets rather than income—a strategy primarily utilized by the wealthy.
   
   

This trend is pervasive, and frankly, it’s discouraging. While some large institutions benefit from billionaire donors, the vast majority of nonprofits do not have those individuals in their database.

As wealth concentrates, middle-class donors feel the squeeze of stagnant wages and inflation. These are the people who traditionally made the mid-level and lower-level gifts that added up to sizable, reliable revenue year after year. They were also the ones who left planned gifts that sustained organizations for the next generation.

Why Philosophy Matters

While “dollars up” might look good on fundraising reports, “donors down” is fundamentally a problem for our society. If we argue that it’s “fine” to raise what we need from a small group of people, we lose the core focus of our work.

The word Philanthropy comes from the Ancient Greek for “love of humanity.” Therefore, modern philanthropy must be inclusive of all humanity—not just for the ultra-wealthy.

A Better Way to Measure Success

We need to rethink our metrics. Many organizations use “Average Gift Size” to demonstrate fundraising success. But in today’s landscape, a single massive gift can make a struggling program look like a success on paper.

Rather than focusing on gift size, I prefer to look at Donor Retention: what percentage of donors who gave last year gave again this year? Retention is the true metric of health. It measures loyalty, community, and the long-term viability of your mission.

What Should We Do?

• Continue to identify, cultivate, and steward large donors. “Large” means different things to different organizations. Whatever your baseline, continue to see out donors who help your organization move forward.
  
  
• Build a Robust Mid-Level Donor Program. The mid-level (often defined as the $1,000–$10,000 range) is frequently overlooked. Organizations spend time looking for the game-changing large gifts or focusing on systems to acquire lower level donors. But these donors are your pipeline for future major gifts. Build a system to steward these donors.
  
  
• Craft Systems for Lower-Level Donors. Small-dollar donors are the lifeblood of many organizations. They provide a diversified revenue stream that protects you from the whims of individual higher level donors. Create a monthly giving program. Remember that a donor contributing $10 per month gives more in one year (and over time) than a one-time $100 donor.
  
  
• Prioritize Donor Loyalty and Retention. Loyalty is a better metric for health than total dollars raised this quarter. A donor who gives $25 every year for 10 years is more likely to leave a legacy gift than a one-time $5,000 donor. Similarly, overall donor retention is the best metric for fundraising health.
  
  
  • Spend time focusing on retaining a first-time donor. The most important moment in a donor’s journey is the window immediately after their first gift. Quickly acknowledge their gift and then work to build a relationship with them so when their gift anniversary rolls around, you already have a strategy and a relationship in place.
    
    
  • In addition to donor retention, start looking at lifetime giving and number of gifts. Those metrics are strong predictors of people who have the capacity of making a larger gift and/or a planned gift.