After a turbulent year for the nonprofit sector, 2026 did not begin as a wholly distinct new chapter but came loaded with the effects of significant shifts that have impacted funding, programs, and operational capacity within organizations. The original article notes that sharp changes in public policy, rapid technological advancement, and an unstable economy will continue to affect organizational performance this year as well.

This article is intellectually derived from material published in The Chronicle of Philanthropy titled 5 Trends That Will Shape Fundraising in 2026, and has been rewritten, edited, and adapted to fit the context of the nonprofit sector in Saudi Arabia, while preserving the author's moral rights, and then the original source. Hence, the question is no longer whether fundraising will change, but how organizations can early understand the forces reshaping it and then build their response before falling behind the new funding mood.

First: Artificial Intelligence Will Not Remain a Marginal Tool

Since the widespread emergence of ChatGPT in 2022, artificial intelligence has shifted from being a sideline experiment to becoming part of daily operations. This is clearly reflected in the article as it notes the expanding use of AI within nonprofits in tasks ranging from identifying potential donors to writing grant applications. It also highlights that an increasing number of donors are using AI tools instead of traditional search engines, which may reduce direct visits to main pages and donation sites.

In this context, the issue is no longer simply about using a new tool, but about maintaining a different digital presence. An organization that does not learn how to appear in AI search results and responses may find itself less visible, even if it is strong in traditional search engines. This has led many organizations to seek ways to master what the article calls AI search techniques to direct supporters to their sites and donation pages.

Although the nonprofit sector has not yet seen a wide wave of employee replacement due to AI, as happened in some tech companies, there are more sensitive signs reflected in some large organizations using donor interaction tools that are self-service, while advocates for these tools insist that they do not replace humans but accomplish tasks that the human team does not have enough time to complete.

This point becomes even more complicated when placed alongside employment data, as more than 20,000 nonprofit employees lost their jobs in the previous year, and it is noted that 1.1 million Americans are out of the overall labor market. Therefore, the question remains open as to whether organizational leaders will reconsider the role of AI in the future; however, the article predicts that its use will increase at least to fill gaps and ease the burden on overworked staff.

The issue is not that AI will immediately take the place of resource development personnel, but it is likely to redistribute roles within teams. Thus, humans will focus on what requires relationship, trust, and moral judgment, while the tool manages what is repetitive, preparatory, and analytical, and then the idea comes back directly to the fact that growth in AI usage is now almost certain.

Second: The Broad Base of Donors Needs Understanding and Explanation

From the American experience and the effect of the new tax law in the United States, one of the bright points for charitable organizations is the provision of a tax incentive for donors who rely on the standard deduction. It is noted that around 90 percent of filers have used this deduction in recent years, and analysts predict that this adjustment could generate an additional $20 billion for charities.

In the Saudi context, this tax framework does not apply in the same way, but the core idea remains very valid: the average donor often needs someone to explain why they give, how they give, and what value they receive morally, organizationally, or communally from this giving. Therefore, the idea can be locally transformed from “explaining the benefits of tax law” to “clarifying the clear motivation, the impact of donations, the ease of the process, and building trust,” and then return directly to building a broad base of donors, which can be said is not a one-time step but a long-term investment.

Thus, we emphasize that fundraising teams in 2026 and beyond need to help donors understand their new advantage and then encourage them to give, building a relationship with them that establishes what is termed the pyramid of giving. This is also linked to what is called the significant wealth transfer between generations over the next two decades, with estimates suggesting that up to $100 trillion may be transferred between generations.

When we quote Sharna Goldseker of 21/64, saying that it is like courtship, you do not wake up one day to find yourself married, but you need to build the relationship over time, the meaning here is crucial because many organizations want the donor to become loyal before giving them enough opportunity to understand, trust, and have the first experience.

Accordingly, the deeper message is not just in the tax advantage alone, but in that moments of transformation in donor awareness represent rare opportunities to begin a long-term relationship. This is a lesson that transcends the American context to any society that wants to shift giving from a seasonal response to a continuous connection.

Third: Donor-Advised Funds Will Continue to Expand, Complicating the Access Battle

Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs), which are accounts that enable the holder to allocate money for charitable work and receive a tax benefit before directing the grants later on, are noted to have reached $326 billion in assets in 2024, a 30 percent increase from the previous year. It seems that the data are delayed by a full year, which means the actual number could be higher since that time.

The issue does not only stop at the asset size; these funds granted $65 billion to charities in 2024, a figure that is slightly more than half of what grant-making institutions provided, which amounted to $118 billion. This also indicates that the institutions hosting these accounts have started targeting a broader segment of people, and GoFundMe has launched a donor fund aimed primarily at small donors.

Here, the practical problem emerges. With the increase in these accounts, fundraising workers continue to struggle to find their owners and engage with them. They have tried altering request formats and participating in newly established events to celebrate these funds, among other methods, yet the challenge remains. Therefore, it is likely that the most successful organizations this year will be those that can build meaningful interaction with the owners of these funds instead of merely acknowledging their existence.

Locally, the organizational format may not be present at the same scale, but the corresponding idea in Saudi Arabia is very clear: an increasing portion of charitable money may flow through intermediary vessels or platforms or institutional arrangements that do not allow for direct access to the funding decision-maker as it once did. Thus, the following idea directly returns to the origin of the article: understanding the new giving channel is no less important than understanding the donor itself.

Fourth: Economic Uncertainty Will Make Public Messages Less Effective

Now, let us shift to the economy in the American experience as well, as it serves as a pressing background for all of the aforementioned. It is mentioned that the year 2025 witnessed significant cuts in U.S. governmental funding directed to nonprofits, tariffs raised prices, and the unemployment rate increased slightly, making the economic outlook appear uncertain for millions of donors. Conversely, the good performance of the stock market allowed some medium and large donors to continue giving.

From here, a very important question arises: do large donations suffice to maintain balance if the stock market remains strong while the broader economy remains weak? We also wonder if ordinary donors will continue giving at the same rates or if their numbers will continue to decline as shown by the Fundraising Effectiveness Project repeatedly.

This leads to one of the most important recommendations of the text, which emphasizes that those working in fundraising need to continue listening to donors to design their interaction approaches based on what they hear, not on their assumptions. It also calls for leaning toward programs that find acceptance among donors during times of uncertainty, detailed messaging that suits donors facing economic pressures, and adopting different approaches for ordinary, medium, and large donors.

Additionally, some organizations have already begun reinventing themselves to align with the new model arising from the decline in federal or governmental funding, and they will be better positioned to build upon those practices during 2026.

In the Saudi adaptation, we do not need to replicate the details of federal cuts, but the essence of the idea is strongly present, as any organization reliant on a single source of funding or addressing all donors with a single tone or treating economic pressure as if it were a distant issue will find itself weaker in adaptability. Therefore, the message to be derived here is that diversification, listening, and tailoring messaging are no longer cosmetic improvements but have become resilience requirements.

Fifth: Teams Will Not Succeed Without Meaning, Support, and the Ability to Sustain

Referring to an internal issue that may sometimes seem less glamorous than discussing technology or the economy, but is, in fact, more decisive in the long run, is the status of teams. Employee turnover has long been a chronic issue in the nonprofit sector, especially in fundraising, and the current labor market difficulties due to widespread layoffs do not mean that employees will not leave or that those who remain will not experience burnout or declines in motivation and productivity.

Thus, it becomes essential that focusing on retaining workers and helping them give their best will be more important than ever, which includes averting triggers that lead to burnout and resignations, as well as helping employees deal with economic uncertainty and other crises, besides their need to develop personal strategies to maintain mental well-being and lean on friends or mentors to withstand stresses.

In the conclusion of this article, we arrive at a direct idea stating that the greatest asset of any nonprofit organization is its human capital. Therefore, leaders this year and beyond need to nurture their teams so that their organizations can thrive.

This might be the most wave worth reflecting upon in our local environment as well, as many organizations focus on developing outward messaging while leaving the internal environment strained, distracted, and threatened with meaning loss, while building trust with donors often begins with a team that inherently feels trust, clarity, and the ability to achieve.

What Do the Five Waves Say Together

If we pull the threads of the article together, it becomes clear that fundraising in 2026 will not be defined solely by the size of need or the quality of the message, but will be shaped at the intersection of five intertwined forces: the rise of artificial intelligence, the shift in the average donor's understanding of the giving process, the expansion of intermediary channels for funds, the continuation of economic uncertainty, and the urgent need for resilient and revitalizing work teams.

If we want to, the organization that will win this year is not just the one with more donors, but the one that understands the shift faster and rearranges its tools, relationships, and team before the environment imposes them rigidly.

This text is intellectually derived from material published in The Chronicle of Philanthropy titled: 5 Trends That Will Shape Fundraising in 2026, and has been rewritten, edited, and adapted to fit the context of the nonprofit sector in Saudi Arabia, while preserving the moral rights of the original source.