When the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at Ghent University (Belgium) decided to renovate its Small Animal Clinic, fundraising was explored to help finance part of the refurbishment. New housing for dogs and cats was urgently needed, and other medical equipment also required upgrading.

A peer-to-peer fundraising campaign was launched to support the purchase of new animal enclosures. Target audiences included staff and clients of the clinic, as well as researchers, students and alumni of the faculty. To ensure visibility, the campaign relied heavily on online communication, with articles and a video promoted through paid social media. Users who engaged with this content were subsequently targeted with remarketing and conversion ads directing them to the campaign website. There, they could choose to either start their own fundraising action, donate to an existing one, or give directly to the campaign.

Examples of paid social media posts

The campaign not only generated €85,000 in donations, but also led to valuable new relationships, both with individuals and companies, that could be further developed for future support. Shortly after the campaign, the clinic also received three legacy gifts, and several individuals made enquiries about including the faculty or clinic in their wills. For the faculty, this was also a first meaningful experience with fundraising, firmly placing it on their radar as a potential income stream.

Thank you sign above the clinic’s entrance

Peer-to-peer fundraising proved to be the right choice for this campaign. It is now also part of our “always-on” fundraising offer: anyone can start a fundraising initiative to support research or education at our university.

This approach offers many advantages. Below are six reasons why you, as a fundraising professional, should consider peer-to-peer fundraising.

1. Avoid costly donor acquisition investments

Acquiring new donors can demand significant investment, particularly through traditional channels such as face-to-face fundraising, telemarketing or direct mail. Peer-to-peer fundraising is a relatively cost-effective and efficient way to acquire new supporters. In our veterinary clinic campaign, every euro invested generated €4.28, a return on investment that is often difficult to achieve through traditional channels.

2. Reach audiences you would not otherwise access

The network of people who organise a fundraising action is incredibly valuable. Many of these individuals would not support your organisation without a prompt, and you typically do not have their contact details to reach out to them directly. Peer-to-peer fundraising unlocks these networks. We observed this in our campaign as well. When a client of the veterinary clinic organised a fundraising initiative, most donations came from their personal network — friends, family and acquaintances.

3. Build your community

Online donations generated through peer-to-peer campaigns provide valuable donor data. This allows you to keep supporters informed about the impact of their contributions and your organisation’s work. Some may go on to organise their own fundraising initiatives in the future, helping your community grow organically. Thanks to the campaign, the clinic continues to maintain strong relationships with many of the contacts established at the time. Donations are still being made today. A peer-to-peer campaign can also serve as a way to nurture existing relationships or re-engage supporters. In our case, several well-known clients of the clinic (including a TV personality and a professional footballer) were willing to support the campaign.

4. A powerful engagement filter and fundraising catalyst

Someone who organises a fundraising initiative is often more engaged than a one-time donor. It reflects a deeper connection with your cause. These are valuable relationships to nurture. Some may become long-term supporters or even include your organisation in their will. Peer-to-peer fundraising therefore generates high-quality leads for the future. For instance, one company made a very substantial donation during the campaign. Such a company could become a valuable long-term partner by establishing a research chair funded by major gifts and linked to the clinic’s research.

5. Leverage user-generated content

Fundraisers are often willing to share their personal stories. These can be powerful assets for your communications. Engage with them early so their stories can support both their own fundraising efforts and your broader campaign. Many of these stories are deeply personal, authentic and inspiring: exactly the kind of content that resonates with audiences. Throughout the campaign, the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine regularly shared new fundraising initiatives on its own social media channels. This helped to inspire others to get involved.

6. Put the “fun” back into fundraising

Peer-to-peer fundraising invites creativity. Supporters can come up with original and engaging initiatives, while fundraisers can design creative campaign concepts. Donors are often more inclined to give to a personal, creative initiative organised by someone they know. We allowed people the freedom to decide how they wanted to raise funds. Some organised fundraisers in memory of a deceased pet or to celebrate their own birthday, while others set up physical events (such as bake sales or raffles).

Where to focus your time as a fundraiser

• Engaging key stakeholders, such as early adopters willing to launch a fundraising action, or contacts who can amplify visibility (e.g. through content sharing). Involve colleagues responsible for major donors and legacy giving early on.
• Aligning and coordinating campaign communications and content: from storytelling and inspiring messages to donor stewardship and impact reporting.
• Monitoring data and reporting: tracking donations, identifying key supporters and fundraisers, and adjusting communication efforts where needed.

What you need to get started

• A strong online peer-to-peer fundraising platform. There are many solutions available, so there is no need to build from scratch. Tip: pay close attention to the level of (technical) support when selecting a partner. Responsiveness matters.
• Access to content support (e.g. a content agency or copywriter) who can quickly turn user-generated stories into compelling content. Timing is often critical.
• A compelling case for support that can be translated into a creative campaign concept. A strong, original or even playful campaign angle can significantly increase engagement. Think carefully about what you are fundraising for and how to present it creatively. Tip: consider incorporating “matched giving”: for example, a donor who matches each contribution or unlocks funding when a milestone is reached.

Hopefully this article has convinced you of the value of peer-to-peer fundraising within your fundraising portfolio. If you are considering this approach, I wish you every success and fun in implementing it.

About Wim Van der Planken

Wim Van der Planken has been working in fundraising for two decades. He learnt the tricks of the trade through face-to-face fundraising. He subsequently had the opportunity to share that experience globally through face-to-face programmes run by one of the largest INGOs. He then coordinated the different fundraising streams for a Belgian NGO. Since 2019, he has been working for Ghent University, where he is responsible for fundraising communications, donations and fundraising campaigns.

This is according to new research by SwissFoundations based on data from 55 foundations with total assets of 15.1bn CHF (€16.1bn). They range from very large foundations with more than 250m CHF in assets, to others with less than 10m CHF.

The average cumulative return since 2021 is 23.9%.

Average five-year returns were even higher – an average of 29.6% – for foundations holding more than half of their assets in equities (i.e. shares).

The average foundation holds 49% of their assets in equities, with the rest in bonds (20%), real estate (16%), cash (5%) and other asset classes.

The larger foundations in the study generally had more assets in real estate and less than average in equities. Smaller foundations tended to have more in bonds, and more than twice as much (10%) in cash.

Some sustainable investments

While 80% of the organisations in the report said they included sustainability in their investment decision making, the majority of their assets were not held in sustainable funds. Of those using sustainable investments, 37% said less than 10% were in sustainable assets, and 36% between 11% and 25%.

The most common sustainability approach (used by 89%) of the sample was exclusion criteria for certain undesirable industries, followed by positive criteria (used by 73%).

Among the 11 organisations that didn’t apply sustainability criteria, the most commonly cited reasons were: concerns that it wasn’t suited to achieving their foundation purpose; lack of clarity around the issue; and concerns about a reduced financial return.

Beacon informed its customers of the attack on 4 August, which it said started in the early hours of the morning on 27 July. Beacon immediately reported the incident to the Information Commissioner’s Office and the authorities, bringing in expert support to help it conduct an investigation.

While the investigation confirmed that a copy of the database holding all Beacon customer data, including attachment files, was made and likely downloaded in a readable format by the threat actor, it found no evidence that any bank card details had been compromised, or that the data stolen had been “published, disclosed, or otherwise misused”.

The most recent update posted on its website (3 September) concluded the investigation, and said that while the threat actor had not been engaged with, they had contacted Beacon once towards the conclusion of the investigation to indicate they would be deleting any data they have exfiltrated and that no copy would be retained, sold, or shared. Beacon adds that dark web monitoring has found no mention of this incident or data related to it online, and that there is no evidence this was a targeted attack on Beacon, or any specific Beacon customer. Everything learned has been shared with law enforcement.

According to Beacon, the probable root cause of the incident was a compromised AWS access key. These are credentials used to allow the Beacon application to communicate securely with Amazon Web Services, its primary cloud hosting provider. Beacon’s understanding is that this access key was inadvertently exposed in its application code and subsequently used to gain unauthorised access to the organisation’s AWS environment.

The vulnerability that enabled this to happen has since been fixed, and measures implemented to ensure it cannot happen again. These are listed in Beacon’s report, accessible here.

During its investigation, Beacon published an Incident FAQs and Incident Guidance page on its website, providing advice and explanations of the situation and what customers should do next. These also clarified that Beacon was still “operating normally” and that charities could continue to collect payments through it. In a statement to Fundraising Europe on 1 September, Beacon said:

“Since containing the initial incident, we have not identified or observed any ongoing unauthorised access to Beacon’s systems. Our customers continue to access our platform and services as normal.”

Beacon’s website says it is used by more than 1,000 charities. The company is based in London and most client case studies on its website are charities based in the UK, with at least two from the Republic of Ireland.

Reports to regulator & maintaining supporter trust

Following the incident, Beacon and the Charity Commission for England and Wales (CCEW) advised that charities should consider their reporting obligations, such as whether they needed to report the incident to the CCEW, to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) or other regulators. CCEW’s statement also said:

“We know many Beacon customers have moved promptly to inform their supporters about this incident. Clear communication with your charity’s stakeholders is crucial to retaining trust and protecting the relationships that sustain your work.”

 The Fundraising Regulator also said that all charities impacted needed to submit a report through its website.

The CCEW provides guidance on how to report a serious incident and how to protect charities from cyber crime and fraud.

The amount donated by the British public fell in 2025 for the first time in five years, with rising costs continuing to put pressure on public generosity and charity fundraising budgets. In response, the CIOF has partnered with CharityTracker, which surveys a nationally representative sample of 4,000 UK adults every month to provide insight for charities into how people are thinking, feeling and behaving, and how that is changing over time. As part of this monthly survey, respondents will now be asked the following question on behalf of the CIOF: Have you been asked to donate to charity in any of the following ways, in the last 4 weeks?

Participants are asked to select from a list of fundraising approaches, including a range of fundraising channels, workplace giving, and requests from friends and family.

By tracking responses to this question every month, the CIOF wants to establish how often people are being asked to give and through which channels. This will enable trends to be identified over time and a benchmark to be developed, providing its members with insight into what fundraising activity is reaching supporters effectively, where gaps exist, and whether changes or greater investment may be needed. The data will also help inform the CIOF’s wider work on growing giving and championing fundraising.

The initiative supports the pillar ‘Fostering a culture that inspires more people to give’ of the CIOF’s ten-year strategy, which launched in January 2026. A key strand of this work is to challenge the barriers and misconceptions that prevent people from giving and to encourage more to support charitable causes.

Rob Cope, executive director, membership & operations, Chartered Institute of Fundraising, says:

“It’s fantastic to have an organisation like CharityTracker join us as an official partner. We’ll work with them to gauge public awareness and perception of fundraising — using the data they share with us to identify trends in fundraising and any gaps where changes or improvements could be made. It will be a valuable resource for our members, and for informing the future work of our Growing Giving and Championing Fundraising Advisory Panels.”

Anna Turner, head of research & insight at CharityTracker, adds:

“Regular, evidence-based insight is essential to understanding donor behaviour, strengthening supporter relationships and helping charities develop more resilient, effective fundraising strategies. Tracking this question month by month will provide the sector with an invaluable new source of intelligence to inform future fundraising.”

The partnership’s first results have been uploaded to the CIOF website, and reveal that 63% of respondents were asked to donate to charity in August, mainly in-person, such as a street or door-to-door collector (20%), through an ad (20%), or by email (15%).

Trust-based philanthropy explained

Trust-based philanthropy is a giving model designed to reduce the power imbalance between grantmakers and grantees. It’s founded on the belief that no one understands an organisation’s work better than the organisation itself, making it best placed to decide the most effective use of resources.

In practice, this means:

• Flexible, often multi-year, grants that organisations can use where needed most, including as investments in fundraising or other infrastructure
• Lighter administrative burdens through simplified applications and reporting
• A shift in power towards the people on the ground, in recognition of their expertise
• Long-term relationships between grantmakers and grantee organisations, with open and transparent dialogue

The underlying goal is to strengthen organisations’ capacity and self-determination, enhancing their potential for achieving real and sustainable impact and societal benefit.

As European philanthropy network Philea has argued, what matters most is not simply what foundations fund, but how they fund it: flexible financing gives organisations room to adapt, take risks, and innovate as circumstances change.

Why flexible funding remains the exception

Yet so far, flexible funding is still the exception rather than the norm with many foundations remaining bound by requirements for detailed reporting and oversight of how funds are spent. Concerns over potential reputational risk and loss of control also play a role. Yet in today’s volatile world, nonprofits’ ability to adapt quickly is essential. Trust-based, flexible funding can strengthen organisations by giving them the capability to prioritise and to pivot when circumstances change, as well as to plan strategically for the long term.

The question that has hovered over this debate is whether that flexibility translates into measurable results. Giva Sverige’s analysis of the Swedish Postcode Lottery’s flexible support scheme shows that it does.

The Swedish Postcode Lottery has taken a trust-based approach to funding with members of the Swedish Postcode Lottery Association for many years. Its support is non-earmarked, meaning organisations can use where it is needed most, including as investment capital to enhance fundraising and monitoring capacities, rather than being restricted to a specific project.

To assess the difference this support has made, Giva Sverige conducted an analysis of the financial development of 100 of its member organisations between 2014 and 2024. Of these, 35 had access to basic, flexible support from the Swedish Postcode Lottery throughout the full ten-year period, while 65 did not.

Giva Sverige tracked and compared each organisation’s income from donations and grants over time, and controlled for other explanatory factors, such as size and purpose, and how income trends were affected in conjunction with major societal events, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The results

The analysis found that nonprofits receiving long-term, non-earmarked flexible support saw their income from donations and grants grow significantly faster than that of organisations without such support. The differences remained, even after adjustments for organisational size and purpose, suggesting that trust-based funding helps augment organisations’ basic capacity and generates greater societal benefits over time.

• Organisations that received flexible support recorded, on average, a 52% greater increase in income from donations and grants than organisations without it
• Across the full ten-year period, donations and grants for the Lottery’s beneficiaries increased by 82%, compared with 54% for organisations without flexible support
• Restricting the comparison to smaller organisations – those raising less than SEK 50 million — flexible support was still associated with 23% higher growth
• Even after excluding organisations that received large, one-off donations linked to the Ukraine invasion, flexible support was associated with 47% higher growth in funds raised

Taken together, the results suggest that flexible funding strengthens an organisation’s underlying capacity to raise money – its infrastructure, its resilience, its ability to plan – in a way that compounds over time.

Giva Sverige head of insights & analysis Mårten Palmefors comments:

“The analysis indicates that when organisations are given the opportunity to take a long-term approach through non-earmarked resources, their ability to bolster their own viability and to generate greater societal benefit over time is enhanced, strengthening the case for trust-based, flexible philanthropy.”

What this means for funders

For foundations weighing the trade-off between oversight and trust, the Swedish Postcode Lottery data offers a real-world test of trust-based philanthropy’s core premise – showing that unrestricted, long-term support appears to build organisations that are structurally better equipped to sustain and grow their own income, year after year.

Meta began restricting ads relating to political, electoral or social issues on its platforms in October 2025, following new EU rules on digital advertising.

An EFA survey of 170 organisations in 12 EU countries in April showed significant concerns that these changes had impacted donations and made it harder for NGOs to communicate around their mission.

ISOBRO suggestions

ISOBRO is the latest EFA member to publish guidance on reacting to the rules.

It suggests that ads should “shift the focus from the causes of a crisis to the aid that can alleviate the situation”, and that ads are more likely to be approved if they “do not place responsibility on a particular actor”.

ISOBRO also makes clear that it’s not just about the words you are using – and that it may be an advantage to let images speak for themselves, and use symbols and visual code which your target audience already associates with your cause. It says:

“For example, if you show a picture of people fleeing, instead of writing ‘Thousands of political refugees live in fear’ you can say ‘Show your support’ and let the picture convey what the message is about.”

You should also be careful to use neutral terminology in the names of images or files you upload, even if those filenames were not going to appear publicly, and in the name you choose for the campaign in Meta Ads Manager.

The same is true of URLs you use in an ad. Meta may also analyse the content on the landing page to which that URL takes users, ISOBRO warns.

The organisation’s advice says:

“If your ad is rejected, you should avoid uploading exactly the same ad again. A piece of advice may be to take down the material, give the files new names and possibly change a little on the cropping or size of the image so that it is registered as a new file. Also review the text and assess whether individual words, formulations or requests can be changed before you try again.”

It would be sensible to create two folders – one of ads that were rejected, and another with ones which were approved, it suggests.

However, ISOBRO also acknowledges that it can be difficult to understand the reason for an ad being rejected, as Meta’s policies “change constantly” while its enforcement “may be inconsistent”.

The ISOBRO document also includes a link to Meta’s page ‘How ads about social issues, elections or politics are reviewed’.

Italy’s system of “percentage philanthropy” allows taxpayers to allocate a small share of their income tax to a cause of their choice, at no additional cost. Three separate instruments coexist: the 5×1000, dedicated to non-profit organisations and, more broadly, to social and welfare activities — including those run by municipalities; the 2×1000, which taxpayers can direct to political parties; and the 8×1000, reserved for religious denominations. Together, they form one of the most distinctive and closely watched fiscal-subsidiarity systems in Europe. This year, ASSIF — the Italian Fundraising Association — is marking a significant moment with three initiatives converging around research and advocacy.

A permanent Observatory for Italy’s fiscal-subsidiarity instruments

ASSIF has formally launched the Osservatorio ASSIF sul 5, 2 e 8 per mille (ASSIF Observatory on 5, 2 and 8×1000) https://5×1000.assif.it/, presented publicly in Genoa in May 2026. The Observatory turns a decade of informal monitoring work (ASSIF’s “Tavolo 5×1000”, active since 2017) into a permanent institutional structure, sitting within ASSIF’s Advisory Board and working alongside its Governing Board.

Its mandate rests on four pillars:

• Continuous data analysis and annual reporting
• A comparative European outlook
• The combined use of human expertise and AI-assisted tools for data interpretation
• Advocacy toward policymakers

The Observatory has also opened a public open-data platform, making historical data on all three instruments searchable by researchers, journalists, fundraisers and citizens alike — data that until now has been public in principle but rarely accessible in practice.

Alongside the platform, the Observatory is putting forward five concrete policy proposals: removing the spending cap that currently prevents part of the 5×1000 funds taxpayers allocate from actually reaching beneficiaries; greater transparency in the relationship between donors and recipient organisations, within privacy rules; the stable reintroduction of the 2×1000 for culture, trialled intermittently since 2016; opening fiscal subsidiarity to companies, as already happens in Spain, Slovakia and elsewhere in Europe; and stronger public support for fundraising capacity within beneficiary organisations, over 13% of which currently receive no allocations at all.

A European comparative study on percentage philanthropy

Building on this Italian groundwork, ASSIF is launching a comparative research project on percentage philanthropy systems across Europe. A structured questionnaire has been developed and circulated to other European fundraising associations (EFA members and non-members), covering the legal basis of each national instrument, eligible beneficiaries, taxpayer participation, funds distributed, privacy arrangements and an overall qualitative assessment. This allows, for the first time, a systematic side-by-side reading of how these mechanisms work (and don’t work) across the European countries that have adopted them.

The findings will be shared with contributing national associations and publicly once consolidated — offering a shared evidence base for countries considering the introduction, extension or reform of similar instruments.

“Il voto fiscale degli italiani”: a conference at the Italian Parliament

The advocacy work converges on 13 October 2026, when ASSIF and the Observatory will bring these findings to the Italian Parliament with the conference “Il voto fiscale degli italiani” (“Italians’ fiscal vote”), held at the Camera dei Deputati in Rome.

The date marks two anniversaries: twenty years of the 5×1000 and twelve years of the 2×1000 — two instruments that have progressively reshaped the relationship between citizens, the Third Sector and politics. In 2025, over 18.4 million taxpayers (43.1% of the total) allocated a share of their income tax to non-profit organisations through the 5×1000, for a combined value exceeding €602 million — the highest figure on record — while the 2×1000 involved over 2.2 million taxpayers and channelled €32.5 million to political parties.

Drawing on Observatory data, the conference will present historical trends, the territorial distribution of funds, and — for the first time in this setting — the European research described above. The programme also includes a preview of the annual Ipsos-DOXA survey on public awareness and take-up of the 5×1000 and 2×1000, and a shared basis for reforming proposals.

For more information on the Observatory, the European comparative research, or the 13 October conference, contact ASSIF at presidenza@assif.it and osservatorio@assif.it

The Tour will bring together eight campaigners and fundraising experts to share how they are mobilising communities, raising money and turning public concern into action.

Join EFA online on 29 September, from 14:00 to 15:30 CEST, to discover:

• How to respond to breaking news in hours rather than days from Ali Walker Davies, Forward Action (GB)
• How community-driven Meta advertising can mobilise supporters with Ján Plišnák, PS:Digital (SK)
• What young people can teach us about trust, engagement and AI with Oriane Penny-Lepastier, Institut de l’Engagement (FR)
• How grassroots fundraising can strengthen voting rights from Martina Turola, The Good Lobby Italia (IT)
• How crowdfunding becomes a tool of democratic resistance with Gvantsa Kakauridze, Orbeliani Foundation (GE)
• What motivates giving within the LGBTQ+ community from Antonio Vega, Outhouse LGBTQ+ Centre / Technological University Dublin (IE)
• How music can generate solidarity and support democracy from exile with Sara Tokina, Belarus Outside Sound System (PL)
• How a civil society network successfully defused a disinformation campaign from Larissa Probst, Deutscher Fundraising Verband (DE)

Join fundraisers, campaigners and civil society leaders from across Europe to discover new tactics, challenge your thinking and connect with others using fundraising to protect democracy and civic space.

Full event information and registration here.

Phase one of the project from fundraising think tank Rogare and Kingston University Business School has just been completed with the launch of a white paper, Death by a thousand cuts: How other actors are displacing charities from giving, asking for support, and providing help.

The paper, out now, examines the threat of disintermediation to charities, and expands the typology of disintermediation (first published in the now Journal of Philanthropy in 2023) with more examples of how other actors, especially companies, are assuming ‘doing good’ roles.

It also introduces two new ideas, exploring how who controls relationships with donors is a marker of whether disintermediation is occurring, and the concept of ‘citizen fundraisers’ – people who carry out fundraising on their own initiative outside the remit of reach of charity fundraising departments.

It considers too how philanthropy advisors, along with donor advised funds and giving cycles, can displace fundraisers from stewarding relationships with donors.

Commenting, Ceri Edwards, EFA president and executive director of engagement at the UK’s Chartered Institute of Fundraising, said:

“The concept of the ‘citizen fundraiser’ is helpful precisely because it describes something distinct from a traditional volunteer role. The evidence on peer-to-peer giving illustrates how much activity now takes place through individual fundraising pages rather than charities’ own channels. That creates opportunity, but it can also leave charities with limited visibility of, or influence over, the supporter experience.

“The answer is not to constrain people’s initiative. It is to build better routes into a charity’s mission: clear and proportionate onboarding, accessible tools and advice, appropriate safeguards, and stewardship that recognises citizen fundraisers as valued partners. If charities make engagement slow, difficult or controlling, people will go around them. But if they offer support and a compelling sense of shared purpose, they have a much stronger chance of building lasting relationships.”

Next steps

The three remaining phases of the project are as follows:

Phase 2 will explore the reasons why people might prefer to help directly, and identify the motivations and reasons that stakeholders cut charities out of philanthropic processes, with a paper expected to be published towards the end of the Northern hemisphere autumn/fall of 2026.

Phase 3 will examine the regulatory and ethical issues that emerge as disintermediation of giving, asking and service delivery becomes more widespread, with a discussion paper to be published before the end of 2026.

Phase 4 will enlist the input of the fundraising profession in identifying the ways that charities could reintermediate. Throughout 2027, this will include a series of webinars, seminars and roundtables – based on ideas from the first three phases – to gather the input of practitioners. The Chartered Institute of Fundraising in the UK will work with Rogare and Kingston University Business School on this phase and other partners will be sought in Europe.

The aim is to produce a toolkit for reintermediation towards the end of 2027 or early in 2028.

Ian MacQuillin, director of Rogare – The Fundraising Think Tank, said:

“We are all looking to grow giving and reverse what seems to be a decline in donations to charities. But what the move towards a ‘democratised’ disintermediation of charities tells us is that giving could be substantially grown, without any of that growth ever going near a charity bank account.

“Looking ahead a decade, if the majority of giving were disintermediated in a way that provided money directly to beneficiaries, would this be in the best interests of people who currently rely on the services provided by charities?

“While fully recognising that charities have no right to claim this space – that it has to be demonstrated and earned – and that in some, possibly many, cases, alternative ways of helping might indeed be the best ways, it might still be that charities are the most effective and efficient channels though which people who want to help can provide that help for those who need. If that is the case, then we need to find ways to reintermediate into the relationship and processes from which we are currently being cut out.”

Dr Rita Kottasz, associate professor at Kingston Business School, added:

“Should we accept a shrinking third sector when nonprofit mission and expertise still have so much to offer? Or is the right response to welcome more providers, precisely because the demand for help has never been greater? We need the map before we can begin to answer them.

“The beneficiaries we care most about are not donors but the people at the end of the pipeline – those who depend on well-coordinated, professionally-managed help. If charities are displaced by actors who cannot match charities’ expertise or safeguards, the risk to those people is real. If charities can understand where they have been cut out, and why, they can think far more clearly about what must change. 

“This expanded typology is the necessary first step. You cannot plan a route until you have a map.”

The whitepaper Death by a thousand cuts: How other actors are displacing charities from giving, asking for support, and providing help can be downloaded from the project page of the Rogare site.