Methodology: Bonterra 2026 Impact Report 

What’s it actually going to take to grow the charitable giving and volunteering rate from 2.5% to 3% by 2033? We went looking for answers in the data.

Meeting this ambitious goal will require the sector to make decisions based on real evidence, not just intentions. That’s why the recommendations in our 2026 Impact Report are tied to rigorous research and real-world findings.

This methodology walks through 15 of the report’s core claims, including the analysis and assumptions that shaped our actionable recommendations. We’re also diving deeper into the calculations for what it will take to make the 3% by ‘33 goal a reality.

Here’s a peek behind the curtain.

Claim 1: Charitable giving is stuck at 2.5%.

That historical giving rate comes from Giving USA, the longest-running annual report on US philanthropy. In 2024 (the most recent data available at the time of this report’s creation), Giving USA estimated total charitable giving at $592.5 billion, or approximately 2% of US GDP. According to the organization’s historical records, this percentage has shown little sustained upward movement over the past 50 years, despite significant growth in both the number of nonprofits and total dollars raised.

To reflect the full scope of the giving ecosystem, Bonterra also put a dollar figure on the economic value of volunteering. We started with AmeriCorps data showing that Americans logged approximately 4.99 billion hours of formal volunteer service in 2023. We valued those hours using the wage-replacement rate published by Independent Sector and the University of Maryland’s Do Good Institute ($34.79 per hour for 2024). That produced an estimated $173.6 billion in volunteering value.

Added to Giving USA’s $592.5 billion in charitable giving, the combined picture comes to approximately $766 billion — roughly 2.5% of GDP.

Claim 2: Reaching 3% represents a massive funding opportunity. 

One of the report’s core claims is that increasing giving to 3% could unlock ~$155B+ in additional annual funding for communities in need. This is rooted in simple math: US GDP in 2025 was approximately $31.1 trillion, based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Reaching 3% would require closing a gap of roughly 0.5 percentage points, and 0.5% of $31.1 trillion is approximately $155 billion.

Claim 3: Achieving 3% requires significant but realistic growth. 

To reach 3% of GDP by 2033, combined charitable giving and volunteering must grow from roughly $766 billion to approximately $1.2 trillion: a 57% increase.

We calculated this by projecting US GDP growth through 2033, determining the total giving and volunteering value required to represent 3% of that projected economy, and measuring the gap against today’s baseline. In total, the sector needs to add roughly $434 billion in annual giving and volunteering by 2033 to meet the goal.

Translating that into an annualized target using standard compound growth formula produces a required growth rate of approximately 5.1% per year.

Claim 4: Most organizations believe the 3% by ‘33 goal is achievable, especially with the help of technology.

Bonterra commissioned two surveys through Hanover Research to understand how people across the social good ecosystem think about the 3% by ’33 goal.

• The first surveyed 496 donors and volunteers who had given to or volunteered with a nonprofit within the past 12 months.
• The second polled 345 nonprofit and philanthropic leaders in manager-level or higher roles with fundraising, grantmaking, or CSR decision-making responsibility.
• Both studies were fielded in late 2025 and early 2026.

Both groups surveyed believe reaching 3% by ‘33 is feasible: Eighty percent of donors and volunteers and 65% of nonprofit and philanthropic leaders consider the goal achievable.

Leaders also point to technology as a reason for optimism: Nearly 9 in 10 nonprofit and philanthropic leaders said technology has increased trust with their stakeholders, and 80% said it has expanded their ability to engage more participants.

Claim 5: Many donors already behave like repeat supporters; systems that capture that behavior stand to boost overall giving.

The Hanover survey of active donors and volunteers found that giving two to five times per year is the most common frequency of participation, which suggests that repeat giving behavior is already the norm.

Bonterra’s data science team ran an additional analysis of donation records from EveryAction, Network for Good, and Salsa Engage — the three platforms in Bonterra’s suite that maintain full donor history. Excluding recurring gifts to isolate one-time and sporadic giving behavior, the analysis found that 27% of donors gave multiple times in 2025, with an average of 1.87 gifts per donor and a maximum of 19 gifts from a single donor in the year.

These combined findings suggest that a meaningful share of donors is already inclined toward repeat giving — and that organizations with the systems to recognize, track, and respond to that behavior are better positioned to deepen it over time.

Claim 6: Personalization is one of the highest-impact levers for boosting fundraising outcomes.

Two separate data sources support the relationship between personalization and fundraising outcomes. The first comes from DonorDrive, where fundraisers who personalized their campaign stories (e.g., by adding their own language about why a cause matters to them) raised 332% more on average than those who did not. This figure is drawn from DonorDrive platform data across 2025 campaigns and reflects the difference in outcomes between personalized and non-personalized fundraising pages.

The second comes from an internal analysis of EveryAction email data. Bonterra’s data science team analyzed outbound emails from 2025 that included a donation ask, splitting the dataset into two groups: emails that featured a matched giving component and those that did not.

Using a logistic regression model, Bonterra’s data team measured whether including the recipient’s first name in the email body affected the likelihood of receiving at least one donation. First-name personalization increased that likelihood by 8% for standard emails and 18% for match emails.

The two findings measure different things but point in the same direction: Donors respond to signals that a message was tailored to them. Whether that’s a name in an email or a fundraiser’s personal story on a campaign page, personalization closes the distance between ask and action.

Claim 7: Communicating clear, measurable outcomes can bolster both funding decisions and individual giving/volunteer participation.

Evidence from both the Hanover surveys points to measurable impact as a central driver of participation across the giving ecosystem — for funders and nonprofits making allocation decisions, and for individual donors and volunteers deciding whether to deepen their involvement.

Among nonprofit and philanthropic leaders surveyed, the three most influential factors in funding decisions were program impact, evidence-based outcomes, and alignment with organizational mission and priorities (in that order). Separately, 75% identified measurable impact reporting as one of the most helpful resources for advancing the 3% by ’33 goal.

The pattern holds on the individual side as well. Among donors and volunteers surveyed, 43% said they would give more if they had clearer proof that their contributions were making a difference, and 55% said they want the ability to track the return on their donations or volunteer time.

Claim 8: Capacity-building outperforms one-off campaigns.

The case for capacity-building over one-off campaigns comes through clearly in both the survey data and Bonterra’s own program results. Among the nonprofit and philanthropic leaders surveyed by Hanover, 74% ranked fundraising development and capacity-building as the most helpful resources for reaching 3% by ’33 (above other forms of support including direct funding and technical assistance).

Bonterra’s Jumpstart program offers a concrete data point for what that looks like in action: In 2025, 40 funder partners invested $1,048,600 to support 214 nonprofits across 17 states through a combination of one-on-one coaching, peer learning, and AI-powered fundraising technology. Those nonprofits generated $7,801,072 in increased revenue, a 7.4x philanthropic return on investment. The fact that 22 of the 40 participating funders were returning partners from previous years speaks to the model’s staying power.

Claim 9: Expanding participation channels increases both reach and resilience.

The data clearly indicates that when donors can’t give financially, they’re often still willing to contribute their time. Among the donors and volunteers surveyed by Hanover, 77% said they would volunteer if they were unable to donate money.

Bonterra’s own data highlights the growth opportunity in expanding those channels. In 2025, OneCause — Bonterra’s event-based fundraising platform — helped organizations raise $1.63 billion, a 28.3% increase over the prior year. (That figure was compiled by aggregating totals across OneCause’s three product lines, drawing on data from Salesforce reporting, direct queries run on the production database, and an export from the production instance.)

Claim 10: Multi-year funding is widely recognized as effective, but most funders still aren’t operating that way.

Among the nonprofit and philanthropic leaders surveyed by Hanover, 55% identified multi-year funding commitments as one of the most effective funder practices for strengthening nonprofit capacity and sustainability. Yet the same survey found that 87% of funders still rely primarily on project-restricted grants — a format that limits grantees’ ability to plan, hire, and invest beyond a single budget cycle.

Claim 11: Workplace giving and matching programs can amplify participation.

Bonterra’s CSR platform data from 2025 shows that 31% of employee donations facilitated through Bonterra received a corporate match. This was calculated by dividing the total number of matched employee donations by all employee donations processed that year.

Combined, employee contributions and their matched amounts totaled $1.2 billion ($762.8 million in employee donations and $441.4 million in matched funds).

It’s worth noting that the $1.2 billion figure represents the full activation value of these programs (both what employees gave and what employers added) rather than employee donations alone. That combined figure is the more comprehensive measure of workplace giving’s total impact, since matching programs are specifically designed to amplify individual contributions.

Claim 12: Collaboration is already common, and appetite for pooled funding is strong.

The Hanover survey of nonprofit and philanthropic leaders found that collaboration is already a regular practice across the sector: Thirty-seven percent of respondents collaborate with other funders or organizations monthly or weekly, and another 37% do so quarterly. The same survey found that 55% identified pooled or collaborative funding as an effective model.

That combination — high collaboration frequency paired with broad recognition of pooled funding’s effectiveness — suggests the sector has both the relationships and the conviction to pursue more coordinated approaches to grantmaking.

Claim 13: When people can’t give money, they’re often still willing to give time, and most prefer in-person volunteering experiences.

When donors face financial constraints, volunteering may be a more attractive way to contribute to the causes they care about.

Our data bears that out on both sides: Among the donors and volunteers surveyed by Hanover, 43% cited financial limitations as a barrier to giving more, and 77% said they would volunteer if they were unable to donate financially. More than half (55%) of volunteers also prefer face-to-face experiences, suggesting in-person programming remains one of the most reliable ways to convert giving intent into action.

Bonterra’s own platforms reinforce that assertion: in 2025, more than 7.8 million participants logged volunteer activity across CyberGrants and EveryAction, while Mobilize connected 131,059 participants with 7,280 opportunities — 70% of which were in-person.

Claim 14: Donor/volunteer generosity is driven by perceived impact.

A clear majority of active donors already believe in what they’re doing; finding ways to show them the results of their contributions in concrete terms stands to deepen that commitment further. Among donor and volunteer respondents, 49% said they give or volunteer specifically to make a positive impact on their communities, and 83% believe their contributions already make a measurable difference.

Claim 15: Convenience and flexibility are critical to increasing donor/volunteer participation.

The survey data also points to convenience and flexibility as persistent barriers to deeper participation. Among the donors and volunteers surveyed, 29% said they want opportunities that better fit their schedules, 28% want more flexible ways to give or participate, and 28% want giving itself to be easier.

It stands to reason that motivation isn’t the hurdle; rather, friction in the participation experience — whether that’s timing, format, or process — is costing organizations meaningful support from people who are already motivated to give.