Are Americans Become Less Generous? What the Latest Research Tells Us.
This week the Generosity Commission released it’s long-anticipated report. You can download the full report titled, How and Why We Give. Here.
The $ 2 million Report is among the most comprehensive surveys ever taken of our sector. The last time such a broad assessment of philanthropy was published was in 1975, with the release of the Filer Commission, which fueled lasting reforms in nonprofit governance and tax policy.
Now, 49 years later, the Generosity Commission has also recruited top researchers to better clarify US philanthropic trends.
- The Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society studied contemporary giving patterns;
- The Urban Institute think tank researched the nonprofit sector specifically;
- The University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy and Practice drilled down on the role of the pandemic;
- The University of Maryland’s Do Good Institute looked at factors that influence giving and volunteering;
- Hattaway Communications led public opinion research on Americans’motivations and aspirations when they give.
In a Nutshell
For 15 years the Agitator and lots of others have been sounding the warning.. Charitable giving in the U.S. was shrinking. Then the pandemic –and for some, Trump–hit, and for a time, money and volunteers poured into nonprofits. Some thought the tide had turned. They were wrong.
This new Report with input from 200 philanthropic leaders, says COVID-19 didn’t stop the decline. If anything, it sped things up. Fewer people are giving now, and fewer are volunteering. Sure, the money’s still coming in, but it’s from fewer hands. The crowd has thinned. The downward trend from the 2010s is not just alive—it’s growing more pronounced.
The Decline in Generosity: A Sobering Reality
The Generosity Commission Report paints a stark picture of declining generosity in the U.S., a trend that has accelerated despite short-term spikes in giving during the pandemic. According to the report, fewer than half of U.S. households now donate to charitable causes, a sharp decline from 65% in 2008. By 2018, that number had fallen below 50%, and the decrease in donations has continued even as the economy rebounded. Not only is the number of donors shrinking, but fewer people are also volunteering—only 23% of Americans formally volunteered in 2021, down from 30% in 2019.
The decline is particularly pronounced among lower-income and less-educated demographic groups. Households with less wealth are giving less, even though historically, these groups have been among the most charitable. Meanwhile, the wealthiest donors are contributing more, with 43% of donations in 2020 coming from gifts exceeding $50,000. This trend toward concentrated giving has led to a reliance on high-net-worth individuals, which, while bolstering nonprofit coffers, raises concerns about the shrinking pool of everyday donors and the need for a diverse set of donors in a democracy.
Millennials, in particular, are donating at lower rates than previous generations did at the same life stage. As factors like delayed homeownership and marriage contribute to this shift, younger generations are also showing a preference for non-traditional giving methods, such as direct support through crowdfunding or political contributions, rather than through established nonprofit organizations.
The Report, informed by research from institutions such as the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and the University of Maryland’s Do Good Institute, makes it clear that while the total money flowing to nonprofits has increased, the number of donors and volunteers has continued to fall. Fewer people are giving, but larger donations from a concentrated pool of wealthy benefactors are making up the difference. In fact, 43% of all donations in 2020 came from gifts larger than $50,000. Yet, even among wealthier donors, participation is shrinking.
For nonprofits, the report paints a sobering picture. While organizations with substantial funding continue to thrive, smaller community-based groups—those heavily reliant on volunteers and grassroots support—are struggling the most. AmeriCorps reported that volunteerism fell from 30% in 2019 to 23% in 2021, marking the steepest decline since 2002. This has left nearly half of nonprofit leaders concerned about finding enough volunteer support to meet their mission.
So why are people donating and volunteering less? While economic instability plays a role, the report also highlights cultural shifts. Younger generations, especially Millennials, are giving less than their predecessors. Delayed life milestones such as home ownership and marriage may be contributing factors, but the decline in religiosity—often a key driver of generosity—also plays a major role. Additionally, there’s growing evidence that younger donors prefer direct giving (e.g., to individuals via platforms like GoFundMe) over traditional charitable institutions. These evolving preferences complicate efforts to engage the next wave of philanthropists.
What Can Charities Do to Encourage More Giving?
In light of these challenges, the Generosity Commission offers several key recommendations for nonprofits to bolster donor engagement:
- Personalize Communication: Donors today want acknowledgment, no matter the size of their contribution. Sending personalized thank-you notes or emails helps build a connection and makes donors feel their efforts are valued. This is particularly important for retaining smaller donors who may otherwise feel overlooked.
- Show Tangible Impact: Donors are more likely to contribute when they can see the direct impact of their giving. Nonprofits should invest in transparency tools—such as visuals that demonstrate how donations are being used—to build trust and encourage continued support.
- Leverage Trusted Community Leaders: Many donors respond better to calls to action from figures they trust. Nonprofits should consider enlisting local influencers, whether religious leaders, mayors, or school principals, to advocate on their behalf.
- Offer Flexibility: Make giving and volunteering as easy and flexible as possible. Whether through online donation platforms or volunteer opportunities that fit around donors’ schedules, the easier it is for people to give, the more likely they are to do so.
- Incentivize Participation: Offering perks such as service hours or free promotional items can help engage younger generations who may be motivated by immediate, tangible rewards.
The Report suggests that by adopting these strategies, nonprofits may be able to reverse some of the declines in participation and build stronger, lasting relationships with their donors and volunteers.
How Donors Feel About Their Treatment by Charities
The Commission Report includes several insights into how donors feel about their treatment by charities, including recognition, appreciation, communication, and how these factors influence their likelihood to give. Key sections related to this topic include:
Importance of Acknowledgment and Gratitude
Donors, especially Next-generation Doers, want acknowledgment and gratitude for their contributions. They appreciate when their generosity is recognized, but they also want it to be perceived as genuine and altruistic. While they desire acknowledgment, they prefer it when generosity is seen as a natural part of their values rather than something done for public recognition. For these donors, communication that emphasizes the personal impact of their giving is crucial.
Small Gifts and Engagement
Communication with donors, especially with Connection Seekers, should emphasize how each person’s contribution matters, no matter how small. Recognizing small gifts and showing how they add up to create a larger impact is critical. This type of recognition helps maintain engagement and encourages continued support. Simple gestures like sending thank-you emails or notes can significantly boost feelings of appreciation and connection.
Tailored Communication and Personal Connection
Different donor segments, those the Report calls “Super Givers” and “Civic-minded Hopefuls”, respond well to personalized communication. Super Givers trust institutional philanthropy and look for clear communication about how their donations make a difference. They appreciate transparency and seeing the tangible effects of their contributions.
Civic-minded Hopefuls, on the other hand, value messages that highlight social justice and the community impact of their giving. They are motivated when they feel their generosity is making a broader social contribution.
Recognition as a Minor Motivation
Interestingly, for many donors, gaining recognition or impressing others is one of the least common reasons for giving or volunteering. [All those alumni mags that have published donor lists and Honor Rolls take note] Only a small percentage (4%) said that recognition from the organization influences their decision to donate. Most donors prioritize helping those in need or contributing to causes they care deeply about over seeking personal accolades.
You’ll find plenty of other goodies in this Report and I urge you to go through it. Most Agitator readers have already been alerted (probably ad nauseum) to many of the problems and opportunities, not to mention advice (again, probably ad nauseum) on what can be done to seize the opportunities and solve the problems.
Roger
11 responses to “Are Americans Become Less Generous? What the Latest Research Tells Us.”
Leave a Reply
Leave a Reply
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
Thank you for the helpful summary, particularly the synthesis of the recommendations offered by the team.
But I wonder what you felt was new in the five points? What will the Agitator do (or recommend that clients do) that is different this morning?
You’ll know that I’m asking because I struggled. There is certainly a role for establishing where the sector is now – so we have something to benchmark against when similar studies are (hopefully) conducted in the future. But shouldn’t we be looking to drive more significant innovation if we really want to stem the decline in participation? Telling nonprofits that they should personalize thank yous and be transparent isn’t really going to be news to most.
Adrian,
Why settle for new ideas and thinking when you pay a fortune for a Commission confirm what you already suspected and sprinkle in a Persona profiling to nowhere. Here is my five, in no particular order and each has multiple layers. And it’s worth noting, we aren’t just talking about this or “consulting” on it, we are doing it, day in and day out as agency of record for clients.
1) Stop the volume machine. People don’t give because we ask. Most $ is shifted forward, robbing Peter to pay Paul. And that’s the inefficient part. The ineffective is what causes our ‘success’ (giving in short-term) also contributes to our failure (attrition, tuning out)
2) Go beyond one-size-fits nobody. Tailor message/touchpoints to Identity and Personality. We do this, at scale, everyday.
2) “Cadence” is garbage. Pulse with on-off periods. Campaigns are 3-4 channels. Reach is King.
3) Get (a better) handle on attribution. The amount of money wasted is staggering.
4) Spend $ on brand building. Direct Response is almost 100% driving Current Demand. Brand ads/comms are about Future Demand. Direct response is typically very bad at increasing recognition and recall, much less building distinctive assets. We know how to build a brand ad, it’s very different from direct response. Spend 70/30 of any fundraising budget on direct response to brand. More on brand if more well established brand.
5) Collect feedback, act on it. Do this in automated way. Measure and collect Commitment Scores, and Autonomy/Relatedness/Competence scores and use to fix user experience and build on positives.
6) Bonus: this is tactical but important. Abide by well established preferences – payment method (stop mailing non-check writers asking for check), realize the mode on most files for one-off/cash givers is 1. Put people on annual auto-renew and stop soliciting for more. Be satisfied with donors being psychologically satisfied and giving each year.
Adrian, Chip, Pamela, Kevin…
Many thanks for your observations and comments. All are valid and valuable and I agree with all.
However, when it comes to “innovation” and making change cranking out more ideas no matter how valuable –ideas
we already know work –will do little unless we recognize and deal with the elephant in the room: the established habits and patterns that mililtate against change in organizations both large and small.
These habits, and often the bureaucracies that enforce or institutionalize them, actually stifle innovation.
Of course, every organization needs to mimimize risk. And this can be done through small pilot projects (“skunk works”) to test innovative strategies and tactics without undue risk. Sadly, few organizations take this path. Instead, they consciously or subconsciously resist change and innovation in the names of “safety”. As a result innovation grinds to a halt, usually smothered in the crib.
Good point, Adrian. This should be a call-to-action to transform fundraising. I hear a lot of talk about the need for change, but I haven’t seen anyone that is doing anything new and innovative.
I would propose a focused attention on Gifts of Assets (i.e. DAF’s, QCD’s, stocks) and legacy giving. Almost every charity offers these “other ways to give” on their website, but very few are making this a priority. This strategy needs to include specific, different and intentional communication, stewardship and cultivation.
Step 1 to do today to see if this makes sense for you. Assess the potential. Pull a report of the number of DAF donors on your file. The average DAF account is $117,000. A regional Food Bank or Rescue Mission could easily have 250 DAF donors on their file. On average, that means there could be $29 million in irrevocable assets in these accounts owned by your donors. QCD donors can be just as valuable.
What are other ideas to transform fundraising?
Chip Grizzard
Chip,
Terrific. Thank you. All of these sources are soooo valuable–and increasingly so. With today’s technology it’s so simple to offer these giving options on the donation page or response form. See the donation page at the Wise Giving Alliance’s https://give.org/donate as an example of offering the options from Crypto to DAF’s to Stocks etc. And if the organization feels it can’t do this by itself there are firms like Giving Block that will handle it for them.
Again, thank you.
Terrific summation, Roger.
Question. Are these recommendations from the Generosity Commission any different from what you (and I) have been recommending for over a decade?
Personalize and segment. Show impact. Make it as easy as possible to give. That is precisely what Ken Burnett — and yourself — have been advocating for for decades. The Ask+Thank+Report+Repeat system, with a liberal dose of “secret sauce” donor feedback.
There is a wealth of free training out there (some good, some bad), so it isn’t a lack of knowledge that’s holding nonprofits back. Yet for the over 90% of nonprofit organizations classified as “small” (annual budget less than $1 million), the biggest problem isn’t the lack of knowledge, it’s the failure to commit to the donor-centered model. And, of course. the failure to invest in systems.
Lol – yes, you can’t beat a little gratuitous persona profiling. I was much too polite to offer my views on that earlier. So essentially all we need now is lists of these individuals to be able to communicate in a segmented way with them. And clearly, for those already giving, these archetypes will outperform segmentation based on preferences, interests and identity. NOT.
My own concern here was that in this 93 page report there was only one mention of the word “love” which is at root what philanthropy is supposed to be about. And the one mention there was, was centered on an odd scale item about changing pain into love.
Anyhow – my five
1. Set an expectation that every fundraiser will have (or be working towards) a professional certification or qualification. So that we’re not the only profession that folks need to know nothing to join. All aspiring fundraisers should be exposed to the knowledge, for example, that Kevin describes above.
2. Redefine fundraising or the role of the fundraiser. Yes, it can be about raising money for a good cause – but one can also see the role as stewarding the human capacity to love. One can imagine how exposure to each approach might feel rather different.
3. Allied to (2) – stop talking about money – or its proxies – and start talking about love – even if your organization is too “shy” to come out with it. Allow people to soak in that love and make it unconditional. You get our love even if you don’t make a gift today. Remember – monetary pots are limited – the human capacity to love is not.
4. Add in metrics to the mix that speak to the quality of the donor experience, track them and act on them – just as we do with the metrics that are about money.
5. Abandon simplistic surveys and have foundations invest instead in new service/idea development. We need some kind of sectoral R&D function that creates or encourages innovation. Then feed this into the curriculum for point (1) – above.
People give because they find it meaningful to do so. They don’t give (or they stop) when that meaning is lacking. So I’d be looking (particularly) for innovation somewhere in the meaning space.
Roger, Thanks for your report on the report.
In the mid-1800s surgical patients often died as a result of infection. Medicine didn’t understand that germs can kill people. Dr. Joseph Lister invented antiseptic surgical procedures and more than 80% of his patients with compound fractures survived. But most physicians were set in their ways and wouldn’t even wash their hands, and for years many patients continued to be carried into the surgical room and a few days later carried out in a body bag.
Even in the face of solid evidence, change is both hard and slow. Studies in 2011 and 2017 found that moving clinical research into clinical practice takes 15 to 17 years. Medicine is beginning to use something called Implementation Science, a systemic process to move research into practice, to bridge the research-practice gap. It is a variation on the change management theory and practice common in the business world. But the problem remains, unless the powers that be are moved to promote change, little actually changes.
I fear the Generosity Commission’s report isn’t going to fuel lasting reforms in the nonprofit fundraising sector, as you say the 1975 Filer Commission did. I was hoping for a clear call to-action to transform fundraising. Instead, the report affirms the downturn that is old news (though the sector seems to be ignoring it) and provides some good advice that has already been advocated by thought leaders. We need a strategy at the CEO and CDO levels to drive change.
Steve
Change is both hard and slow AND change happens within a context. That context right now is itself changing at a rate we’ve never before experienced in the history of humankind.
Yes, arguably we know some stuff about human beings’ minds and habits. And yes, there’s a whole bunch of stuff that if nonprofits did better would likely stave off some of the hemorrhaging.
But if we don’t apply the same sort of innovative thinking alluded to above at a meta level – including the way we think about change– then the sector’s still doomed.
So much of what I see in the way of well-intentioned and research-informed consulting completely disregards both the individual human beings leading organizations as well as the complexity of the internal and external organizational environments.
I see lots of cookie cutter solutions based on what [insert respected fundraising guru] says works… according to THE research. They start with the premise that in order to be successful, they must scale their operations in order to implement some sort of “comprehensive” fundraising program based on what’s working for [insert stalwart institution with massive brand recognition].
The real mission of the organization becomes sustainability that presupposes relevance. And “progress” is measured largely based on a set of metrics derived within a context that no longer exists.
Meanwhile, some small and nimble orgs are embracing complexity, their efforts focused on using the research to create the conditions for the love of humankind and their eyes trained on emergent signals of success.
And when we’ve exhausted our lungs fighting over my way or your way or why they won’t just listen, or which data set serves best to allay our own fear about the fact that certainty is an illusion, or or or… ( that one’s for Simone), they’ll be the ones left standing, innovating, and leading us all into the future that we can’t possibly imagine right now.
Love,
Ashley
With overall giving down, it’s time for nonprofits to switch things up to something easier and more sustainable. Monthly giving is a great solution. It’s dependable, keeps donors engaged, and fits right into the budgets of many supporters who prefer smaller, regular contributions. Plus, it can really resonate with younger folks who might be more attracted to the idea of contributing consistently rather than making big one-time donations. Embracing this could help nonprofits maintain steady support and build lasting relationships with their donors.
[…] Are Americans Become Less Generous? What the Latest Research Tells Us. This piece by Roger Craver of The Agitator-DonorVoice is sobering, to be sure. It’s based on the recently released Generosity Commission Report. There hasn’t been such a broad-based report in the social benefit sector since 1975! And the news is not good. […]