Fundraising Trends To Watch

Philanthropy is evolving. For decades, major gifts have largely followed a familiar model. Campaign driven. Program restricted. Recognition centered. Important work, but often transactional in structure. What we are seeing now is something different. Venture philanthropy is not about replacing generosity. It is about reframing capital. Instead of asking, “What program would you like to fund?” we are asking, “What impact are we trying to create, and what level of investment will it truly require?” Here is where the shift becomes powerful: • An investment mindset replaces a gift mindset • Multi year horizons replace annual thinking • Capacity and growth are funded, not just programs • Impact becomes the central measure of success • Engagement becomes partnership This matters because the challenges facing our communities are not annual problems. They are systemic problems. Climate. Food insecurity. Educational inequity. Workforce disruption. These require infrastructure, innovation, and endurance. That takes patient capital, not just restricted funding lines. Venture philanthropy strengthens nonprofits by funding the engine, not only the output. It aligns donors and organizations around shared outcomes, measurable progress, and long term sustainability. For development leaders, this is not simply a new fundraising tactic. It is a structural shift. It requires stronger financial fluency. Better impact measurement. Closer partnership between advancement and finance. Boards that understand risk and growth. The future of philanthropy will belong to organizations that can translate mission into investable impact. The question is not whether donors are ready. Many already are. The real question is whether we are structurally ready to meet them there. #VenturePhilanthropy #Fundraising #Philanthropy

When I took on my role as Chief Corporate Citizenship Officer at PMI, I set a handful of parameters for myself and my team: 1. Don’t fall into the trap of arm’s-length checkbook philanthropy: One-off cash infusions can help nonprofits in the immediate term, but they don’t get at the issue of sustainable growth. 2. Focus, focus, focus: Diffusion is the enemy of progress. There are an endless number of worthy causes and charitable organizations, but our greatest impact will come from identifying a small number of causes that are intrinsically tied to our values and vision and making those causes priorities. (In our case, this is U.S. military veterans, women’s equity and empowerment, and hyperlocal activations.) 3. Empower—and learn from—those already in the trenches: We’re not going to dictate what happens at the community level. We’re here to listen and learn and find ways to support and expand the good works already underway. 4. Give a “hand up” instead of a handout: Band-Aid solutions may make us feel good in the short term, but they don’t get to the root problem. The cash infusions we give our community-based partners are meaningful, but their value grows exponentially when paired with our business expertise and insights. 5. Offer employees a chance to contribute to change: We polled PMI’s U.S. workforce earlier this year about our plans to support military veterans. An astonishing 97 percent of employees raised their hands to get involved. There’s a hunger out there for making a positive difference in local communities and the broader world. Find ways to connect your people to the issues that matter most to them. It turns out that this is the way the next generation of philanthropists is thinking about their impact as well. A recent article (I’ll share the link in comments) shares interesting insights into how our younger generations—millennials and Gen Z—are embracing a more comprehensive approach to philanthropy focused on measurable impact and deeper connections. They’re also showing a greater tolerance for the “long game,” willing to take risks in the short term to lay the groundwork for greater gains down the road. As the next generation of philanthropists takes the reins and starts investing more than money in the causes they care about, let’s make sure our organizations are prepared to do the same.

How philanthropy can find its future by relinquishing control 800 years ago, Maimonides wrote that the highest form of giving is to make charity itself unnecessary. That wisdom feels newly relevant as wealth and power converge in modern philanthropy. Laurene Powell Jobs recently warned that too often wealth becomes a substitute for participation. “Giving that expects control,” she said, “is anything but generous.” When benefactors decide what matters and who belongs, philanthropy drifts from love of humanity toward a contest for influence. MacKenzie Scott offered an image of a murmuration of starlings, millions of birds moving as one without a leader. Their direction, she noted, emerges from constant response to one another’s movements. Her metaphor captures what the next evolution of philanthropy might look like—decentralized, adaptive, and animated by trust. Both women describe a shared transformation. Powell Jobs warns against power disguised as generosity; Scott imagines generosity as shared participation. Each challenges the notion that change flows downward from donor to recipient. Both echo what frontline leaders have long known: real progress happens through proximity, not prescription. Philanthropy rarely lacks compassion, but its systems remain transactional. Short grant cycles, risk aversion, and a fixation on measurable outcomes shape. Transformation is rarely linear; it unfolds through learning and trust. Scott’s “seeding by ceding” approach replaces oversight with faith in those closest to the problems. Unrestricted gifts have enabled groups to hire staff, pay fair wages, and rest. Many say that what was strengthened most was not programs, but dignity. That dignity links all three perspectives. Powell Jobs argues that true generosity builds capacity, not dependency. Scott reminds us that care ripples outward in ways that can’t be counted but are real. And frontline organizers measure success by staying power—the ability to keep showing up. Seen from that view, the challenge is not to give more but to govern differently. Money alone rarely shifts power; the governance of money does. A more resilient model would treat funding as a relationship, underwriting the unglamorous foundations of endurance and accepting that some efforts will fail in ways that teach. Scott’s imagery applies here too: each participant adjusting to others in real time. No single actor directs the course, yet the movement coheres. Philanthropy’s future may depend less on innovation than humility—on returning to its original aim, the love of humanity. When funders move from control to accompaniment, they make space for others to lead. Perhaps real generosity lies less in the power to direct than in the willingness to belong: to a community of exchange where the roles of giver and receiver blur with time, and where the measure of impact is not what it buys but what it builds—a culture of trust and solidarity that outlasts any single fortune.

An AI named "Ava" just closed a $100,000 planned gift. She manages 140,000 alumni relationships. She never sleeps. And the donor likely didn't know she was software. The sector is calling this the future of fundraising. I'm calling it the consent question nobody wants to ask out loud. Here's what's happening: Virtual Engagement Officers (autonomous AI agents that text, email, and "build relationships" with donors) are being deployed at scale. One platform raised $1.7M across 50 institutions in its first year. Vendors are pitching them as the answer to fundraiser capacity gaps. The pitch makes sense on paper. 70% of donors aren't in any portfolio. Gift officers are stretched. AI can fill the gap. But there's a sentence buried in the Fundraising.AI Responsible AI Framework that almost nobody is quoting: "AI agents should be explicitly constrained to align with sector ethical standards, prioritizing trust and dignity. Fundraising AI systems must not exploit donor vulnerabilities or use undue influence, manipulation, deception or coercion." A donor who thinks they're building a relationship with a person - and isn't - is being deceived by omission. That's not a hypothetical. That's the deployment model. And here's what I keep waiting for and not seeing: A clear position from our professional associations on disclosure. A standard for what donors must be told, and when. A line between "AI helped draft this email" and "AI is the relationship." Right now there isn't one. Vendors are setting the norms. The frameworks are voluntary. The donor has no idea. My take: if you can't tell your donor what you're doing, you shouldn't be doing it. Disclosure isn't a tax on innovation. It's the floor. If you're a CDO, ED, or development director thinking about deploying autonomous AI in your donor engagement, the question isn't "does it work." The question is "would my donor consent to this if I told them?" What would you need to disclose to your top 20 donors before deploying a VEO on your file?

The biggest fundraising opportunity most nonprofits are missing isn’t a grant. It’s discoverability. Every few weeks, a nonprofit leader pulls me aside and asks the same question: "Do you have a personal connection to MacKenzie Scott?" And every time, my answer is the same: No, and you don't find MacKenzie Scott. She finds you. Her team quietly finds organizations already doing meaningful work and reaches out directly. No pitch decks. No cold emails. No introductions needed. And that's how a lot of major funders, partners, and collaborators work. They research the problem first, then look for who is solving it. Which means the real question isn't "how do I get noticed?" It's - if someone were Googling the problem your organization solves today, would your name come up? Many nonprofits today are doing incredible work but they are also too difficult to find. The work is real. The impact is real. But the digital footprint is INVISIBLE. Here's what being findable actually looks like in practice: 1. Your Google profile is complete and active. 2. Your leadership is writing, speaking, and sharing perspectives on the issue, not just the organization. 3. Your social media is contributing to the conversation and providing education and thought leadership around the cause, not just announcing events and asking for donations. 4. Your organization is quoted, referenced, and present in the spaces where your issue is being discussed. Visibility is not a marketing luxury. For a nonprofit, it's a strategic responsibility. The funders are already out there researching. The question is whether they'll find you.

Another lesson for scholar-athletes, guardians, and representation. Two marquee programs did jersey patch sponsorships this week. Five years ago nobody would have predicted this in college football. Now it is in. JP Morgan Chase is paying Ohio State a reported 17 million dollars a year for the patch on Ohio State football and other team jerseys. SoFi is paying Notre Dame a reported 18 to 20 million dollars a year for the same rights. College football has become pro football, and it now has more sponsorship real estate available than the NFL, which does not allow jersey patches. The front of a college jersey at a top program is more valuable inventory right now than the front of an NFL jersey. Georgia, Alabama, and Michigan are possible peers. Indiana may be close, but does not have the legacy yet. More of these deals will come before the regular season starts. These programs will pump the money into player acquisition and retention. Programs are running 25 million dollar college basketball rosters and 40 million dollar college football rosters. The 17 million at Ohio State covers roughly half the football team. The 18 to 20 million at Notre Dame covers roughly half of theirs. For context, the revenue share cap moved from 20.5 million to 21.3 million on July 1. Here is the teaching point. For scholar-athletes, the jersey patch is not just a check. It is a relationship with a major global brand. JP Morgan Chase and SoFi become part of your ecosystem. That means access to internships, mentorship, executive relationships, and a network that can shape the next 40 years of your career. The money funds the roster. The relationship funds the rest of your life. For guardians, ask where the sponsorship revenue is coming from, what portion is committed to the roster, and what access the program provides to the sponsor's professional network. Two schools with similar offers can have very different foundations behind them. For representation, the negotiation now requires you to trace the money and the network. Institutional revenue, revenue share, and third-party NIL are three different buckets with three different rulebooks. Corporate sponsor relationships are a fourth resource that sits alongside them. The professionalization of college sports is no longer a debate. It is a spreadsheet, a network, and a career pipeline. Learn how to read all three. What is the first question you would ask a program about how their sponsorship revenue and sponsor relationships actually reach the scholar-athlete? #NIL #RevenueShare #CollegeAthletics #ScholarAthlete #AthleteDevelopment #CollegeFootball #SportsBusiness #NameImageLikeness #NILEra #Recruiting #FinancialLiteracy #OhioState #NotreDame #PowerFour #NILEducation #JerseyPatch

An important new analysis of the 2024 VC landscape reveals critical insights into the persistent gender disparities impacting female founders and investors. My latest Forbes article, "Female Founders And Women VCs: An Unrealized Opportunity For Investors," highlights key findings from PitchBook's "2024 US All In: Women in the VC Ecosystem Report:" 📉 Declining early-stage funding for female founders signals a concerning trend. 📈 Record exit shares achieved by female-founded unicorns demonstrate their significant potential. 💰 Compensation progress for junior-level women VCs contrasts with persistent senior-level gaps. 👩🦰 Increased representation of women in VC decision-making roles is crucial for equitable change. 🤝 Expanding investment opportunities for women LPs is essential to support diverse venture funds. The data underscores the urgent need for collective action to address these disparities and unlock the full potential of women in venture capital. This is an important read for anyone invested in the future of innovation and economic growth. Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/eG-xuaUV Annemarie Donegan, Jody K. Thelander, J. Thelander Consulting, Julie Castro Abrams, How Women Invest, How Women Lead, Jo Ann Corkran, Loretta McCarthy, Golden Seeds #VentureCapital #FemaleFounders #WomenInVC #Investment

🚨 Scotland’s VC market just posted a 19% rise in funding… and a 57% drop in deals for women-led businesses. Progress for some. Exclusion for others. Record-breaking investment in 2024 - £704 million in total. But behind the headlines lies a serious imbalance. 💰 Yes, investment rose 19% year-on-year, defying UK-wide trends. ❗️But that growth was heavily concentrated in a few late-stage mega deals, 17 deals over £10m made up more than half the total pot (£372.7m). 🧊 Meanwhile, early-stage funding, where most women-led startups sit, collapsed, dropping 17% to £331m. ⚖️ Worse still, only 3% of the total funding (£22m) reached women-led startups. 🔁 This creates a vicious cycle: lack of visibility ➝ fewer deals ➝ smaller pipeline ➝ even less investment. It’s growth that celebrates the few, while starving the many. This isn’t just inequality. It’s a missed opportunity, and a £250 billion one at that. At egg, we’re working to close that gap: We’re supporting women founders with mentoring, visibility, and access to networks. We’re building the kind of confidence and community that drives long-term, scalable businesses. And we’re doing it without waiting for permission. 💡 The future of Scotland’s innovation economy depends on whether we choose inclusion over inertia. 📣 Investors: the pipeline isn’t empty, it’s ignored. It’s time to back women-led. Stats taken from a Substack article entitled "The Scottish Paradox - A £704m boom on a Foundation of Sand" - and shared in comments. Article written by John Glover Image Anna Moffat

Welcome to the Future of Fundraising. When my team and I built the first fully autonomous fundraiser, we saw how digital labor could expand outreach and deepen engagement. Which is why now, in collaboration with our Innovation Partners, we are tackling one of the most persistent challenges in fundraising: scaling meaningful stewardship. The cycle of giving feels transactional for too many donors. They make a gift, receive a generic thank you email or letter, and then the next time they hear from the organization, it’s another solicitation. This unintentional pattern leaves many donors feeling like just another name in a database rather than a valued partner in the mission they support. Hundreds of our conversations about digital labor lead us to believe there is a solution to these challenges. Research tells us they are worth solving: Mid-level donors are often the most loyal donors, yet they receive the least personalized stewardship. In a study of mid-level giving, donors cited “lack of communication and feeling unappreciated” as a top reason for stopping their gifts. (Nonprofit Quarterly) Younger donors are making lasting connections to causes now, even if their giving capacity isn’t fully realized yet. Organizations that don’t retain these donors will lose out on major returns as they age into their prime giving years. (The Chronicle of Philanthropy) This is why we introduced the Virtual Stewardship Officer (VSO) as the next logical step in our mission to accelerate and transform philanthropy. Donors give because they care and they continue giving when they feel genuinely valued. Yet meaningful stewardship, personalized impact updates, heartfelt gratitude, and long-term engagement, is often reserved for top-tier donors making six- and seven-figure gifts. The VSO expands meaningful stewardship beyond top donors, using digital labor to create personalized touchpoints that acknowledge donor history, reinforce impact, and build lasting relationships. By scaling engagement, it ensures no donor feels overlooked, making long-term relationship-building and meaningful pipeline development sustainable for every giving level. Traditional stewardship models make it nearly impossible to engage donors in a truly personal way at scale. The VSO personalizes 1:1 stewardship to donors who give year-after-year, stretching their budgets to contribute in a way that is personally significant, even if it isn’t classified as a "major" gift; long-time supporters who have probably made their last large donation but remain deeply invested in the organization’s mission; first-time donors who, regardless of gift size, we want to retain; and more. These donors are often the backbone of an organization’s giving pipeline. The future of fundraising isn’t just about raising more money—it’s about ensuring every donor feels like their gift matters. With digital labor, meaningful stewardship is no longer just for a select few—it’s for everyone who chooses to give.

When it comes to VC funding for UK female founders, The picture is bleak and getting bleaker. 😫 Research shows that female founders are facing significant headwinds ↳ c2.5% of VC funding went to female-founded ventures last year, and it’s sitting at about 1.8% in 2024 so far. ↳ Female representation is also an issue at GP and LP level - with 10x more money going into all-male VC funds. ↳ Investors treat female founders differently to male founders - Dana Kanze from London Business School found that female founders get two thirds ‘prevention’ (downside / negative) questions, whereas male founders get two thirds ‘promotion’ (upside / positive) questions. 🤑 It’s so important that we change this picture, for everyone’s benefit ↳ c£250bn would be added to the UK economy if women created and scaled businesses at the same rate as men. ↳ Diverse teams outperform those that are not diverse, with researchers having found that female-led businesses tend to perform best when it comes to profitability and customer experience, for example. 😍 The ‘Women-Led High-Growth Enterprise Taskforce Report’ published earlier this year, sets out solutions to this challenging picture - including: ↳ Increase signatories to the Investing in Women Code. ↳ Increase diversity of teams at all levels and areas in the ecosystem. ↳ Increase government support of girls and women, when it comes to entrepreneurship and STEM, from school, through university and beyond. 👏 It’s not all doom and gloom, there are shining examples in the VC space when it comes to investing in and supporting underrepresented founders - like Calm/Storm VC with c30% female Founder CEOs across their portfolio, and Ada Ventures becoming the first VC in Europe to fund childcare for their founders. 💪 Actions speak louder than words, when it comes to the implementation of these solutions and the delivery of change. Just a few key threads from our important panel at the Care Show last week: ‘Show me the money’. Great to join my fellow panellists in this dynamic discussion - Ioto Iotov, CA, CFA, CAIA, Karolina Gerlich FRSA, Niamh O'Connor and chaired by the brilliant Lizzie Pillinger. I’m proud to have been able to draw on my experience as a state-school educated, sole female founder who has raised c£3m+ investment - closing the most recent round of investment earlier this year, when my daughter was two weeks old. Our discussion focussed on the challenges that female founders face but the societal conversation needs to address challenges faced by under-represented founders more broadly. 🤔 What are your observations or experiences of representation in the ecosystem? #CareShowBHAM24 #CareShow ➕ Follow me, Hannah Thomson, for age positivity, leadership and community building insights - plus, life as a female founder and new mum.