Overview: 2025 Q4 FEP Report
The topline metrics factor in late data adjustments and the margin of error.
Dataset Overview
Donors
7.8 M
Dollars
$13.2 B
Organizations
15,102
There was an estimated 5.0% (±0.5%) increase in dollars raised in Q4 2025 compared to 2024 — the highest growth rate in five years, as seen in fundraising data from the Fundraising Effectiveness Project (FEP). But the headline number masks a deeper problem: donor counts declined an estimated 3.6% (±0.5%) from the previous year, extending a slide that began in 2021. Growth was driven almost entirely by Major and Supersize donors, leaving the sector more dependent than ever on fewer, larger gifts.
As nonprofits approach mid-year, these trends demand a strategic response. Nonprofit orgs need to invest aggressively in broad-based donor acquisition and first-year donor conversion to reduce that dependency and build a more resilient revenue base — now, before 2026 planning locks in.
Strategic Insights to Strengthen 2026 Fundraising
Strategic Insights
Overall giving increased by 5.0%, but that growth is being carried by a smaller group of major donors while the total number of donors continues to decline. The result is a sector that can look healthy at the top line while becoming more exposed underneath, particularly when a large share of revenue is tied to a relatively small number of relationships. In times of economic uncertainty, large donors have historically pulled back on their giving; overreliance on this segment undermines sector resilience.
In practice, this calls for a steady effort to broaden participation while deepening the relationships you already have. For smaller organizations, that often means staying close to the community and creating consistent, visible ways for people to take part in the work. For larger organizations, it means being more deliberate about balancing major donor revenue with ongoing engagement that keeps a wider base active over time, even when individual contributions are modest.
Retention is edging up overall, but that improvement is being driven by people who have an existing relationship with the organization, while those who are new are still less likely to return. Rather than a contradiction, this points to a gap in the early experience, where the first interaction is not consistently leading to a second.
What this looks like in practice is treating the first month after a donation as the start of a relationship. A timely acknowledgment, followed by a clear sense of what the donation made possible, and then a more personal follow-up helps establish that the donor is part of something ongoing. Smaller organizations often do this through proximity and familiarity, and can introduce simple recurring options as part of everyday giving, while larger organizations need to design recurring programs so they feel intentional, easy to manage, and connected to real outcomes rather than automated. The aim is to make ongoing participation visible and shared over time, not to position the donor as the sole driver of the outcome.
The number of donors is declining even as total giving rises, which means organizations need to prioritize relationship building with each donor, regardless of gift size. Both acquisiton and stewardship become crucial to building a broader base of support.
In practical terms, this means paying closer attention to where donors disengage, how often they return, and what encourages them to continue. Smaller organizations can often rely on more direct relationships and clearer lines of sight to impact, while larger organizations need to ensure that systems and communication do not reduce engagement to a one-time event. Across both, the goal is to make the next step clear so that giving becomes a pattern rather than a one-off action.
People who give at mid-levels tend to stay involved more consistently than those giving at lower levels, and over time they are more likely to deepen their participation in ways that support the work. That makes this group one of the most reliable places to focus when looking for steady, long-term engagement.
The practical approach is to recognize the consistency already present in this group and build on it. For smaller organizations, this can happen through direct contact, shared context, and regular opportunities for people to connect with one another around the work; for larger organizations, it requires intentional pathways that create that same sense of community at scale, such as bringing people together, connecting them more directly to the work and to each other, and reinforcing how their participation fits into something larger over time. In both cases, the work is about reinforcing the idea that continued participation has direction and meaning.
Performance across organizations is uneven, and much of that difference comes down to how clearly an organization can communicate why its work matters now. Donors respond to what is specific, understandable, and grounded in real outcomes.
This means being straightforward about what you do, who it benefits, and what changes because of your work. Smaller organizations often have an advantage because their impact is easier to see locally, although that advantage is often offset by immediate financial pressures that pull attention away from retention and ongoing engagement, while larger organizations need to work harder to make scale feel tangible and relatable. In either case, clarity tends to carry more weight than complexity.
Trust is formed through what people experience over time, beginning with their earliest interactions. The period immediately after a donation sets expectations, but those expectations are either reinforced or weakened by what follows.
In practice, this comes down to creating repeatable experiences that help people see themselves as part of the work over time. When communication is timely, clear, and connected to real outcomes, people begin to recognize their role and build a sense of identity around their participation. Smaller organizations often reinforce this through familiarity and repeated interaction, while larger organizations need to ensure that teams and systems are aligned so those experiences feel consistent across channels. Trust builds when people can return to the same patterns of engagement and see themselves reflected in the work again and again.