Mega-donors are increasingly steering the ship. Their gifts – at time in the hundreds of millions – are making headlines, shaping capital campaigns, and shifting the direction of entire sectors.

At the same time, participation from small and mid-level givers is slipping. The number of Americans donating to charity has dropped from 66% of households in 2000 to barely 50% today (Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy). That means more of the philanthropic load is carried by fewer shoulders.

It’s a trend that sustains board demands for growth while carrying risk beneath the surface. For nonprofits, it raises an uncomfortable question: Are we building a future where philanthropy is big but narrow? Or can we sustain a model where both transformational gifts and everyday support work together to create change?

Why Concentration Could Change the Game

When a large share of revenue depends on a handful of donors, financial stability becomes more fragile. A change in one major donor’s priorities – or one economic downturn – can leave an organization scrambling.

The risk isn’t only financial. Grassroots giving is often tied to grassroots influence. Everyday supporters bring advocacy power, volunteer energy, and a network effect that money alone can’t replicate. Grassroots donors create movements. If those voices fade, so does community ownership of the mission.

Concentrated giving also creates blind spots. High-net-worth donors may see the world differently from the communities being served. When their perspectives dominate, the agenda may shift away from local priorities.

What’s Driving this Change

Several trends are converging to widen the gap between large and everyday donors.

• Economic polarization continues, concentrating wealth in fewer hands. Those hands are generous, but the giving power is increasingly uneven.
• Generational shifts are reshaping expectations. Younger donors – often carrying student debt and higher living costs – give differently and in smaller amounts. They are more likely to contribute through peer-led campaigns, cause-linked purchases, or micro-donations via apps, rather than traditional giving directly through institutions.
• Digital habits have created both opportunities and challenges. Mobile giving and influencer-led campaigns can reach new audiences, but online donor acquisition costs have climbed, and retention is stubbornly low. Many nonprofits see a surge of first-time digital givers who never reengage – an expensive problem when budgets are tight.

The Allure – and Risk – of Mega-Giving

There’s no denying the catalytic power of large gifts. A single check can fund a research lab, launch a program, or endow a scholarship for decades. Foundations and wealthy individuals are also experimenting with approaches like trust-based philanthropy, providing unrestricted, multiyear support that frees nonprofits to focus on mission rather than paperwork.

The challenge is that when mega-donors dominate, they can unintentionally become the “north star” for strategy. Entire programs may be shaped to secure big checks rather than to grow broad, sustained participation. That can make smaller givers feel sidelined – when in fact their consistent support is critical for stability. Most importantly, mid- and lower dollar giving is often the doorway into an organization, offering a first touchpoint to engage and grow relationships over time. Without a broad foundation at the bottom of the donor pyramid, the runway to major giving is much shorter, with fewer overall philanthropists supporting both individual nonprofits and the sector as a whole.

This is why cultivating mid-level donors and monthly giving options, even quietly, matters so much. They provide a revenue bridge between micro-gifts and major gifts, creating a more balanced portfolio that weathers change.

What’s at Stake

The sector’s resilience depends on both ends of the spectrum. Mega-donors can supercharge innovation and expansion. Everyday supporters bring diversity, stability, and a sense of shared ownership.

If we allow one to eclipse the other, philanthropy risks becoming less representative and less responsive. In 2024, just 1% of donors accounted for more than 70% of total revenue for many organizations (Giving USA 2025). If left unchecked, this trend risks making philanthropy less representative and less responsive. But if we intentionally nurture both side of the pyramid – without over-relying on either – we can build a future where concentrated generosity and broad participation reinforce, not replace, each other.

The question for every nonprofit leader is no longer if this shift is happening. It’s: What will we do now to shape it?