And while the 2024 spike followed a deadly natural disaster in Spain, there was still good underlying growth between 2023 and 2025, according to data from the Observatorio del Fundraising, an initiative of EFA member Asociación Española de Fundraising (AEFr).

In 2023, the 26 organisations providing data to the Observatorio received 5.3m donations, worth €197.6m in total, with an average gift of €37.

In 2024, the floods drove the number of donations to 13.7m, more than two and a half times the previous year’s figure. The growth in income to €242.7m was still significant, while the average gift more than halved to less than €18.

In 2025, donations fell back to 5.5m, slightly above 2023’s level. However, the average gift recovered to €42, higher than before the floods, meaning income versus 2023 was up by 17.1%, at €231.5m.

Previously, data published by AEFr showed that a group of 13 nonprofits had raised more than €149m in response to the DANA meteorological event which caused huge floods in October 2024. The disaster claimed more than 220 lives, mostly in the eastern province of Valencia.

As Fundraising Europe detailed last year, the relief effort included more than 9,000 volunteers and 500 professionals, with more than 160,000 food kits, 40,000 hygiene kits and 5,000 kg of medical supplies delivered.

The article accompanying the new AEFr stats urges fundraisers to study their data closely, saying:

“An emergency like the one caused by the DANA can bring in people who have never donated, reactivate former donors or generate additional gifts from those who already give. Once the emergency has passed, it is worth knowing how many of those people give again, how often and in what way.”

Funding Organisational Development: From Insight to Action is aimed at foundations that currently provide funding for nonprofits’ organisational development (OD) activities, and foundations that want to do more of this in future.

OD — a term often used interchangeably with ‘capacity strengthening’ or ‘capacity building’ — is defined in the guide as “the ongoing work of strengthening an organisation so it can deliver its mission effectively, adapt to change, and sustain its impact over time”.

It lists six areas of capacity strengthening that are receiving increasing interest from funders, with financial resilience being one of them. The guide says there is a stronger emphasis on “more systemic and forward-looking approaches” to financial sustainability, and comments:

“In response to shrinking institutional funding and the growth of alternative financing models, some funders are supporting organisations to think beyond grants, strengthen decision-making under uncertainty, and develop more adaptive approaches to financial sustainability.”

The other five areas are:

• Crisis-oriented capacity strengthening, with the guide calling this a “major, rapidly expanding frontier”. This helps organisations needing to survive a crisis, close responsibly or undergo other processes such as mergers or shared staffing models.
• Well-being and mental health. This reflects the view that organisational resilience “depends heavily on human resilience”.
• Safety and security, including legal preparedness and digital security, with organisations increasingly “operating under constraint, repression or heightened scrutiny”.
• Conflict sensitivity, which the guide says is particularly important as organisations operate in increasingly polarised or fragmented environments. It aims to strengthen organisations “without reinforcing harm or division”.
• Digital transformation, especially in relation to access to AI tools, responsible use of data and the limited funding available for digital infrastructure.

Across all six areas, the guide says that support is becoming “more expansive, adaptive, and grounded in real-world complexity”.

Unrestricted funding guidance

Separately, Philea has published Unrestricted Funding: A Practical Guide for Funders. This new resource is designed to provide grantmakers with the “knowledge and tools they need to address their concerns as they shift more to unrestricted funding”.

It includes three documents designed to support an individual wanting to make the case to a board for shifting to unrestricted funding. The three different versions respectively aim to convince a cautious or risk-averse board, an impact-driven board, or a board concerned about organisational legitimacy.

For example, should commission-based payment for fundraisers be universally prohibited, or could it be appropriate in some cultures? And is it always the best option to adopt messaging which praises a donor for the impact they have enabled, or might it be less effective in societies with more collectivist as opposed to individualist values?

These and other questions are posed by fundraising think tank Rogare in a new project that will eventually provide tools supporting fundraisers across the world to adopt professional practices grounded in their local culture.

To kick off the project, Rogare has published a working paper entitled Does one size fit all? Cultural differences in the evolution and development of global fundraising professions.

It highlights that much of the thinking about fundraising standards originates in English-speaking regions — also referred to as the anglosphere or the Anglo-Saxon world — and is then exported to fundraising communities around the world.

Building on this initial working paper, Rogare intends to establish working groups in different countries, regions and cultures, to examine these issues. Rogare’s website says:

“The purpose of this project is not for Rogare to tell fundraisers in any particular country how they should professionalise (which would not be in the spirit or ethos of the thing). Instead ‘Does one size fit all?’ aims to provide a template approach that fundraisers in different countries or cultures can follow or adapt.”

Alice Ferris, a partner at consultancy GoalBusters and a member of Rogare’s Council and its Critical Fundraising Network, writes in her foreword to the paper:

“The fundraising profession keeps mistaking its own reflection for a universal law. What gets called best practice is often just the dominant culture’s practice, treated as though it were neutral and beyond question. Left unexamined, that habit exports the assumption that one culture’s way of fundraising is the way for communities who never agreed to that premise.

“My hope for this project is that it builds humility in both directions. Humility from the anglosphere to ask why something became ‘best practice’ before assuming it belongs everywhere, and humility from local cultures to look honestly at the assumptions of their own fundraising practices. The real work isn’t defending or throwing out any single standard. It’s asking what value that standard was meant to serve, and then finding out how that value already lives, or could live, in a given community.”

Full details of the project, including the downloadable working paper can be found here.

The survey of almost 500 fundraisers was conducted by the French Association of Fundraisers (AFF) between February and April 2026 to better understand the pressures they face, the impact on their mental health, and what can help. Most were full-time employees with more than two years’ experience.  

Key findings 

• 57% report high or very high stress 

• 63% have experienced burnout or a near-burnout situation at some point in their career 

• Managers are more affected: 67% report high stress (versus 50% of non-managers), and 73% have experienced burnout or come close 

• 76% think about work outside working hours, and 58% struggle to switch off 

• Only 20% often or always feel calm and relaxed, and just 14% woke up feeling rested in the two weeks before the survey 

• 51% have seriously considered leaving their job in the past 12 months 

At the same time, there were also positives: half said their daily lives are often or always filled with interesting things, and 41% reported being in good spirits. 

Sources of pressure 

Respondents cited declining funding (54%), pressure to compensate for falling resources (58%) and rising targets as resources shrink (51%) as key sources of pressure. 42% are very concerned about their organisation’s long-term viability, rising to 52% among lone fundraisers. 

How work is organised also adds to the strain, particularly last-minute requests (52%), short-term demands overriding strategy (50%) and administrative and reporting burdens (45%). The report adds that the pressure many fundraisers put on themselves reflects strong commitment but can also become a vulnerability. 

Relationships with donors and supporters are seen positively, with 65% describing them as built on trust and partnership. However, only 48% feel able to set professional boundaries, and 17% have encountered inappropriate behaviour. 

Impact on work 

The stress experienced has tangible effects on professional practice: 47% have cut back on high-value activities due to lack of time, 45% said their motivation suffered and 40% felt the quality of their work declined. Some 74% have worked while their ability to function was impaired by stress, including 30% who do so often or very often, yet despite this the majority (78%) have never taken sick leave because of stress. 

Support gaps 

Flexible hours and remote working are widespread (77%) and the right to disconnect is generally respected (65%). Formal support such as coaching and mentoring is less common however, although the more measures an organisation has in place, the lower the reported stress.  

Two in three respondents said mental health is discussed in their organisation, mainly by HR (26%) and senior leadership (25%), while only 15% said their line manager raises it. 

Overall though: 

• 46% do not have regular conversations about their wellbeing 

• 39% feel their workload is rarely or never prioritised 

• 27% do not feel safe discussing their difficulties 

What fundraisers want 

Asked what measures they would like to see implemented respondents most often chose peer discussion groups (20%) and tools for prioritising workloads. Open-ended answers pointed to working conditions, with fundraisers keen to see more staff, resources matched to fundraising targets, clearer priorities, and a better understanding of the profession from management and governing bodies. 

More on this topic: Read AFF CEO Yaële Aferiat’s reflections on the study findings here.

CFRE International is conducting research to better understand the experiences and perspectives of fundraising professionals across the sector. This includes how they view professional certification, career development, and employer recognition, including what influences their decision to pursue credentials such as CFRE Certification. The findings will help shape its next strategic plan and future research priorities.

All fundraising professionals are encouraged to participate. CFRE wants to hear from fundraisers at every career stage, including current and former CFREs, those pursuing certification, and those who have never considered it.

The survey takes approximately 15 minutes to complete. Participation is voluntary and a separate, optional section asks about compensation and career experiences. Findings will be reported in aggregate.

The survey closes on 6 November at 12pm ET (6pm CET). Take part here.

The report asked 807 organisations questions including their digital communications and fundraising priorities for the next 12 months.

Growing reach, presence and engagement was the top answer (59% of respondents), followed by increasing online fundraising income (51%); using data to better understand and engage with supporters (43%); revamping their website (36%) and developing content to improve visibility in AI search tools (29%).

Larger charities placed a greater emphasis on improving supporter engagement (57%) and improving AI search visibility (45%), while smaller charities generally had a smaller group of priorities, with growing reach and presence still the most common goal overall (60%).

Young supporters: low priority

The report’s authors say that they were “surprised that, once again, growing a young supporter base was only a priority for a small proportion of charities – 25%, similar to 2025 data and identical for both large and small charities”.

This figure rises to 31% among charities identifying children and young people as a core target group, and to 45% of charities led by what it calls “global majority communities” (i.e. with leaders or founders from minoritised ethnic groups).

AI uses

The report also looks at how charities are using AI organisationally, with the top five applications being:

1. Administration and project management: 63% (versus 48% in 2025’s report)
2. Grant fundraising: 45% (2025: 36%), rising to 52% among smaller charities
3. Social media: 39% (2025: 36%)
4. Communications and fundraising: 36% (2025: 34%)
5. Monitoring and evaluation: 31% (2025: 17%)

It flags that 58% of grantmaking organisations responding to the survey say that AI appears to be changing their applications – either increasing the volume of applications, or making them more repetitive.

However, 55% of grantmakers in the report said they weren’t sure how many of their applicants were using AI, and 19% said they thought none were.

Digital capacity lacking

The report expresses concerns about a lack of digital skill in charities’ leadership, saying that 46% of respondents (rising to 49% among smaller charities) do not have a trustee or board member with digital skills.

It also shows that only 22% of small charities and 37% of larger charities accessed funding towards digital costs in the last year. For 2026, 59% say that building skills of staff, volunteers and leaders is a priority, a significant jump from 43% in 2025.

Consultants and co-authors Zoe Amar and Nissa Ramsay write in the report foreword:

“Funders and support organisations must define their roles in supporting charities as AI and digital creates far-reaching changes across their work and society.

“Our data shows that charities are making digital and AI progress despite the huge financial and service demands they are facing. The fact that charities have achieved this growth, when the odds are against them, indicates that charities could increase their impact even further if funders step up to help charities at this critical stage in digital and AI development.”

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%).

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’.