At first glance, the latest fundraising results may appear reassuring. In the United States, total charitable dollars raised increased by about 5% in 2025. Yet during the same period, the number of donors fell by 3.6%. The Fundraising Effectiveness Project notes that donor numbers have declined year over year since 2021.

This apparent contradiction deserves more attention than a simple review of annual revenue. Raising more money does not necessarily mean fundraising is becoming healthier. Revenue can grow while an organisation becomes increasingly dependent on a smaller number of contributors and loses part of its broader donor community.

Financial growth can hide declining participation. For fundraising leaders, that is a strategic signal, not merely a statistical one.

Growth is becoming increasingly concentrated

Fundraising Effectiveness Project data show that the strongest revenue growth in 2025 was disproportionately supported by higher-value donors. There is nothing inherently problematic about major giving: major donors, foundations and institutional funders are essential to the nonprofit ecosystem.

The risk arises when strong revenue masks a shrinking base of support. An organisation may close the year with more income while having lost hundreds or thousands of small and mid-level donors. Financially, the year looks positive. From the perspective of the community behind the mission, the picture may be very different.

Switzerland also needs to look beyond the headline total

Switzerland remains a strong philanthropic market. According to the Zewo Foundation, charitable organisations received around CHF 2.25 billion in donations in 2024 — the fifth consecutive year above CHF 2 billion.

But the same data point to an important shift: Zewo-certified organisations benefited from higher average gifts and stronger foundation contributions despite a decline in the active donor base. The overall volume remains high, but its composition is changing.

For 2025, Zewo projected total Swiss giving of around CHF 2.3 billion. Once again, the headline total alone cannot describe the health of a donor base. Maintaining broad, durable participation is becoming a strategic measure in its own right.

The UK shows how far the trend can go

The warning signal is even clearer in the United Kingdom. The Charities Aid Foundation’s UK Giving Report 2026 estimates that the British public donated around £14 billion in 2025, down from £15.4 billion the year before.

More significant over the long term, CAF estimates that there are now almost six million fewer donors than ten years ago. Its 2026 reporting also notes that one in five people say they do not give because they cannot afford to.

The issue therefore goes beyond campaign performance: how many people are still actively participating in philanthropy? A country can maintain substantial levels of giving through larger donations while its broader culture of participation becomes more fragile.

The first donation is not the finish line

The second major signal concerns retention. M+R Benchmarks 2026 reports that only 24% of new online donors from 2024 made another online gift in 2025. Retention among established prior donors reached 66%.

The gap is substantial. Organisations can invest significant time and resources to secure a first gift, only to lose many of those supporters before a meaningful relationship has had time to develop.

The Fundraising Effectiveness Project points in the same direction: new-donor retention remained essentially flat in 2025. Converting a first gift into a second act of support remains one of the sector’s most persistent challenges.

A successful acquisition campaign should not end with “We acquired 5,000 donors.” The next question is: “How many will still be with us twelve months from now?”

From acquisition to relationship

Fundraising has traditionally been organised around campaigns: acquisition, year-end, emergency, digital, events. Each has its own objectives, budget and performance indicators. Donors, however, do not experience their relationship with an organisation as a series of campaigns.

They encounter a cause. They decide whether to trust it. They give. Then they observe what happens next: were they thanked well? Do they understand what their support makes possible? Does the organisation only contact them when it wants more money? Can they easily change a donation or payment method? Do they feel part of a community?

These ordinary moments may shape retention far more than any campaign slogan.

Recurring giving points to a different model

Monthly giving offers another useful perspective. M+R reports that 71% of monthly donors were still active after twelve months. A direct comparison with one-time giving requires caution because recurring gifts continue until they are cancelled. Still, the figure illustrates the value of designing donor relationships around continuity.

Part of future fundraising performance may depend less on constantly creating another transaction and more on preventing unnecessary breaks in existing relationships: expired cards, failed debits, temporary financial difficulty, address changes, poorly timed communication or excessive solicitation.

We measure acquisition cost closely. Do we measure acquisition quality closely enough?

Imagine two campaigns that each recruit 1,000 new donors at roughly the same cost. Twelve months later, one still has 700 active donors while the other has only 400. Did those two campaigns really create the same value?

Traditional metrics — volume, first-gift value, cost per acquisition, short-term return — remain essential. But they should be complemented by a longer-term measure: the quality of the relationship created.

  • How many new donors remain active after six and twelve months?
  • What proportion make a second gift?
  • Which acquisition channels generate the most durable relationships?
  • How many donor losses begin with a payment failure rather than a genuine decision to disengage?
  • Why do donors stop, reduce or pause their support?

A smaller donor base is also a more vulnerable one

Revenue concentration creates strategic risk. The more an organisation depends on a limited number of major donors or institutional funders, the greater the impact when one of them leaves.

A broad donor community provides far more than income: legitimacy, visibility, word of mouth, volunteers, advocates, campaign participants and people whose involvement may deepen over time.

A small gift is therefore not necessarily a small contribution. It can be the first step in a relationship lasting ten or twenty years.

Change the metrics and the perspective changes

Financial indicators are not going away, nor should they. But in 2026, relational indicators deserve a place alongside them: the actual number of active donors, new-donor retention, second-gift rates, acquisition quality by channel, and the concrete reasons people stop or interrupt their support.

The shift sounds modest, but it changes the central question of fundraising.

Instead of asking only “How much did we raise?”, we begin asking “How many lasting relationships did we build?”

Fundraising may not be running out of generosity. It may be running short of continuity.

The 2026 evidence does not suggest that generosity is disappearing. Swiss giving remains historically high. US charitable dollars grew in 2025. Millions of people continue to support causes they care about.

But several markets are sending the same signal at the same time: individual participation can no longer be taken for granted.

The danger is to take comfort in a rising revenue line while the community beneath it quietly becomes smaller. Fundraising will continue to require acquisition. But it will also need to become better at welcoming, listening, understanding, supporting and retaining people.

Behind every row in a donor database is a person who, at a particular moment, chose to trust an organisation.

Perhaps the real measure of fundraising performance begins after that first yes.

Sources

Methodological note: these sources cover different markets and use different methodologies. US and UK figures should not be directly extrapolated to Switzerland. Their value lies in the convergence of the signal: financial volume can remain strong while participation or retention weakens.