Giving Is Up, But Fewer of Us Give: Why That Should Terrify You

Why is giving to charity at an all-time high while the number of donors keeps shrinking? That’s the question I keep coming back to as I pore over the latest giving data. If you care about nonprofits, you need to sit with this uncomfortable truth: we’ve built a philanthropy that depends on a smaller and smaller pool of very rich people, and that’s a recipe for disaster.

The record-breaking paradox

Let’s start with the good news, because it’s real. Americans gave an estimated $592.50 billion to charity in 2024, a record that grew another 5.7% to $617.20 billion in 2025 (Giving USA 2026). Individuals alone contributed $394.20 billion in 2025. That’s a staggering sum, and it’s tempting to celebrate. But here’s the catch: the share of households that donate has fallen from 65% in 2008 to about 49.6% by 2018 (NPTrust). That’s a 15-point drop in a decade. So we have more money than ever, but fewer people are writing checks. The money is coming from somewhere—and it’s not from the middle class.

The concentration of generosity

The data is clear: giving is increasingly a sport of the affluent. The top 50 donors alone gave $16.2 billion in 2024, up 32% from the year before (Giving USA 2025). Affluent households—those with a net worth over $1 million or income over $200,000—gave 81% of them in 2024, and their total contributions have surged more than 30% since 2015 (Bank of America Study of Philanthropy 2025). They give roughly ten times the average household. This concentration should worry you, not because rich people shouldn’t give, but because it makes the entire nonprofit sector hostage to the whims of a few thousand individuals and the stock market’s mood swings. When the market sneezes, charities catch a cold.

The counter-argument: more money, more impact

You might argue: who cares who gives, as long as the total goes up? If the wealthy are stepping up, why does broad participation matter? That’s a fair point, and the impact is undeniable—record gifts have funded medical research, food banks, and disaster relief. But consider this: giving that is concentrated among the wealthy is more volatile. When the economy dips, affluent donors can tighten their belts, and they often do. The 2024 data showed that while total giving grew, giving to religion—the largest recipient sector—declined in inflation-adjusted terms (Giving USA 2025). That’s not a coincidence. Religious giving relies heavily on small-dollar donors, and as those donors vanish, even a booming economy can’t prop up every cause. Moreover, broad participation is a civic good in itself. When millions of people give, they are engaged, they volunteer, they vote for policies that support the nonprofit sector. Concentrated wealth in charity mirrors concentrated wealth in society—and that’s not a healthy foundation for democratic change.

What we should do about it

So what’s the fix? I’ll make a specific recommendation: nonprofits and funders must stop treating small donors as an afterthought and invest in recurring giving programs. The data shows that monthly donors have a median annual value of $275, nearly three times the $100 median of one-time donors (GivingTuesday Data Commons). Yet the median organization still has only about 4% of its donors on recurring schedules, and at least half of organizations acquire zero new recurring donors in a given year. That’s a massive failure of imagination. If we could shift even a fraction of one-time givers to monthly, the sector could unlock upwards of $20 billion a year—money that’s just sitting there (GivingTuesday Data Commons). It’s not about guilt-tripping the poor; it’s about building sustainable relationships. And it works: when donors see the consequences of their previous gifts, they give 14% more next time (Nature Communications 2026). Charities that show impact, not just ask for money, can turn a one-off donor into a lifelong supporter.

But we also need to be honest about the limits. The affluent are not going away, and their giving is essential. The answer isn’t to shame the rich; it’s to broaden the base without alienating the big givers. Donor-advised funds, for instance, have exploded—assets reached $327.87 billion in FY2024, with grants of $64.60 billion (DAF Research Collaborative). But DAFs are primarily a tool of the wealthy; only 42% of giving Millennials used one in the past year (Financial Planning). If we want to democratize giving, we need to make it as easy for a teacher to give $25 a month as it is for a billionaire to open a DAF.

The takeaway is simple: record totals are not a sign of health. A charity sector that relies on the top 0.1% is a sector that will crash when the next recession hits. We need to rebuild the habit of giving among everyday Americans—not because the rich aren’t doing enough, but because a movement that only the elite can sustain is not a movement at all. So next time you see a headline about record giving, ask yourself: how many people actually gave? The answer might keep you up at night.

Sources

• Giving USA 2026 - https://givingusa.org/wp-content/uploads/woocommerce_uploads/2026/06/Giving-USA-2026-Key-Findings-0623-v2-ofsa0x.pdf
• NPTrust - https://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics/
• Bank of America Study of Philanthropy 2025 - https://newsroom.bankofamerica.com/content/newsroom/press-releases/2025/09/-affluent-americans-increase-donations-by-30--over-past-decade--.html
• GivingTuesday Data Commons - https://www.givingtuesday.org/blog/recurring-giving/
• Nature Communications (2026) - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/s41467-026-70230-8
• DAF Research Collaborative - https://www.dafresearchcollaborative.org/research/annual-daf-report