The Great Donor Decline Isn’t the Crisis You Think It Is: Part 1
Have you ever tried to haul water with a leaky bucket? No matter how much water you collect, it doesn’t seem to make a difference.
That’s how fundraising can feel when the primary focus is attracting new donors. You keep collecting, but the bucket never seems to fill.
For years, nonprofit leaders have watched donor participation decline and reached the same conclusion: we have a donor acquisition problem. The solution seems obvious: work harder to attract more donors.
Decades of data have shown us that philanthropic donor bases continue to shrink. At first glance, that sounds like bad news for nonprofits. Fewer donors should mean less support, fewer resources, and an uncertain future.
But donor count doesn’t tell us much about the financial health of an organization.
The way people give is changing, and organizations that recognize those changes are in a better position for the future.
You may not need to collect more water. You may just need a better bucket.
A Long-Term Trend
In 2017, I wrote an article about donor retention based on research from the Association of Fundraising Professionals’ Fundraising Effectiveness Project (FEP). At the time, the data painted a troubling picture. Surveying nearly 10,000 U.S. nonprofits, the 2016 FEP report found that only 46% of donors who made a gift in 2014 gave again in 2015. That represented a steady decline from the 50% retention rate reported in 2008.
The outlook for first-time donors was even more concerning. Fewer than 23% made a second gift, down from 29% in 2008.
Those declines may seem modest. But in fundraising, small percentages can have a big impact.
For nonprofits with annual revenues of at least $5 million, a one-percentage-point increase in donor retention translates into an average of nearly $187,000 in additional revenue the following year alone. The cumulative impact is far greater. That one percentage point doesn’t consider subsequent years of giving, which could include planned gifts and/or increased gift sizes.
Donor retention has long been one of the strongest indicators of an organization’s sustainability, and the latest data only reinforce that connection.
A New Story
Fast forward nearly a decade.
Donor counts continue to fall. In 2025, the number of charitable donors declined an estimated 3.6%, extending a trend that began in 2021. If donor participation were the only metric worth watching, those numbers would be discouraging.
However, the rate of decline has slowed each year since 2022. Overall donor retention also improved slightly, increasing from 43.1% to 43.3%.
More surprisingly, charitable giving itself grew by an estimated 5% in 2025, the strongest annual growth in five years.
Fewer donors. Stagnant retention. More charitable support.
These trends, though seemingly puzzling, tell us something important about the direction philanthropy is heading.
The Donor Base Is Shrinking. Giving Isn’t.
The old saying that 90% of gifts come from the top 10% of donors has always been an oversimplification. Today, though, charitable giving appears to be becoming even more concentrated. A relatively small group of committed donors is responsible for an increasingly larger share of total giving.
Other trends tell us that fourth-quarter giving is especially strong and that repeat donor trends continue to improve. First-time donor retention, on the other hand, remains largely flat.
The concentration of charitable giving continues to grow.
Every lost donor represents more than a lost gift. It represents a relationship that was not fully developed or maintained.
Average Isn’t Good Enough
For years, fundraising has placed enormous emphasis on acquiring new donors. New supporters are certainly important. But the data increasingly suggests that retention is a better indicator of long-term success.
Repeat donors give more consistently. They tend to make larger gifts. They deepen their relationship and commitment over time. They are significantly less expensive to retain than new donors are to acquire. And notably, they are the individuals most likely to make transformational gifts later in life.
Every lost donor represents more than a lost gift. It represents a relationship that was not fully developed or maintained. Understanding why donors leave is the first step toward building stronger connections with the ones who stay.
Remember the bucket. Before we work harder to fill it, we need to patch the holes.
Understanding donor retention matters even more as nonprofits are competing in an increasingly crowded marketplace.
In 2025, around 1.8 million organizations were registered as public charities. That number is up from 950,000 in 2013, which itself was a 20% increase from 2003. The competition for donors is heating up, and organizations cannot aim for average. Every retention statistic represents a human decision to continue believing in your mission.
The size of a donor database has never been the full measure of an organization’s strength. The relationships behind that database are what determine whether generosity continues.
The FEP donor retention data is based on averages, with the majority of participating organizations reporting retention rates from 30% to 60%. Fundraising professionals don’t read books, attend seminars, or hire consultants to be an average organization with mediocre practices. They’re looking to be exceptional and to learn practices that set the strongest organizations apart.
The size of a donor database has never been the full measure of an organization’s strength. The relationships behind that database are what determine whether generosity continues.
We know that donor retention matters.
The challenge is then putting that knowledge into practice. How do organizations actually improve retention? How do you plug the holes in your bucket?
That’s where we’ll turn in Part Two.
©2026, Eddie Thompson, Ed.D., FCEP
Founder and CEO, Thompson & Associates
“If we merely aim for the industry standard, then our goal is mediocrity. Emulating the average nonprofit, we are destined to live with all the problems the average nonprofit faces. So, we suggest you aim to be exceptional in your approach to fund development.”
