We Went Looking for a Trust Problem. We Found Something Bigger.
We surveyed 1,030 Americans to better understand what is holding back giving. Trust matters, but the bigger story turned out to be connection. Americans who feel connected to a cause give nearly eight times more than those who don't.
For years, trust has been one of many familiar explanations for declining participation in charitable giving. The logic is understandable and one we assumed true: if people are unsure whether nonprofits are effective, responsible, or honest, they may be less likely to give. Strengthen trust, the thinking goes, and more generosity should follow.
That explanation is not wrong. But it is incomplete.
This year, Charity Navigator and Mutiny Co. set out to better understand what is really shaping Americans' willingness to give. We surveyed 1,030 U.S. adults and sat down with everyday Americans to hear how they actually decide whether to support a cause, a nonprofit, or a person in need.
We expected trust to be central. But the clearest actionable pattern was something broader and more human: connection.
Trust Is in Better Shape Than You'd Expect.
One of the first surprises was that broad trust in nonprofit organizations is not as broken as some might assume.
- 70% of people said they trust charities to use donations responsibly.
- Just 19% said their trust overall had declined in recent years.
- 27% said their trust overall had actually grown.
Among those whose trust had fallen, many tied that decline to a broader distrust of institutions, not necessarily to something specific that nonprofits had done.
But trusting nonprofits in general is one thing. Trusting a specific charity you've never heard of is another. Even among people who completely trust the sector, 44% say their first move with an unfamiliar charity is to want proof before they believe anything. More on that below.
The Gap That Best Explains Giving
When we looked at giving behavior against everything we measured, one factor stood out: How personally connected a person feels to a charitable organization and the cause it’s working on.
People who feel very connected give an average of $1,376 a year. People who feel no connection at all give an average of $181.
That is a 7.6x difference. And the steps in between follow the same pattern: $906 for the somewhat connected, $482 for those in the middle. Few other measures separated people this sharply.
Connection also carries more than dollars. People who feel more connected are more likely to give regularly, trust charities and be able to name an organization working on something they care about.
The pattern suggests that connection often does more of the work than trust alone. When people feel close to a cause, trust tends to have somewhere to land. But trust by itself does not always create that closeness. Plenty of people trust nonprofits in general and still feel no real relationship to charitable work, felt no role in it, and no reason to act.
The Impulse to Give Is Still Here
If the fear is that Americans have stopped caring, the data tells a different story. 95% said they would give under the right conditions. Even among people who feel disconnected from charitable causes, most still want to help.
What has changed is where that impulse lands.
While only 50% gave money last year, 85% of people engaged in non-monetary giving — volunteering, donating goods, helping someone directly, or spreading the word. Even among people who gave nothing financially, more than half still helped in some other way.
The charitable impulse is still present, but it is increasingly moving toward forms of help people can see, feel and understand.
When money does change hands, it often follows the same logic. Sending money directly to someone through a giving platform earned as much trust as giving to a large, established national nonprofit. But local community organizations scored higher than either. Across the study, the closer the impact feels, the more readily people connect with it.
One person we interviewed, a longtime animal rescue supporter, told us she keeps her giving local because she can watch it land in her own community rather than disappear into a national budget she cannot see. That instinct shows up throughout the data.
Three More Insights Worth Noting
- Skepticism cuts both ways
People who called themselves "extremely skeptical" of charities gave more on average than any other skepticism group — around $1,160 a year. But that average hides a real split. The same group also held some of the most disengaged people in the study, including roughly 22% who gave nothing at all last year. For some people, skepticism is part of how they give: they research, compare, look for proof (using tools like Charity Navigator) and then commit. For others, it is the reason they stay out of the sector entirely. Doubt on its own does not tell you which way a person will go.
- Small money feels pointless; small time does not
Roughly 14% of people said they held back because a single gift felt too small to matter. Yet many of those same people volunteered without hesitation. Two hours spent sorting donations rarely feels like nothing, but twenty dollars often can. The difference is visibility. People can watch their time accomplish something, whereas a minor financial donation often disappears without a clear trace.
- The sector often only shows up with an "ask"
More than a quarter of respondents said they hear from nonprofits only when they want money. Another 15% could not recall the last time a nonprofit crossed their mind. Together, that means roughly 43% of the public experiences the nonprofit sector as either a transaction or a blank space.
That is fundamentally a connection problem.
What This Means for Fundraisers
It is tempting to treat "building connection" as soft, nice-to-have work. The data suggests it belongs much closer to the center of strategy.
When we asked what had actually increased people's trust over time, the top answers were not reports or ratings alone. They were having a good personal experience with an organization, hearing about it from someone they know and seeing real evidence of impact.
Those are real acts of proximity building. They shorten the distance between a person and a cause. Accountability tools still matter, but primarily as a way to validate existing interest rather than introduce new donors to your cause.
While they are essential for skeptical, high-giving “researchers” who want to vet before they commit, they mostly serve people who are already paying attention. They do little to draw in the broader public, who rarely encounter the sector outside of a direct donation request.
Which is why the ask itself deserves a hard look.
When we asked what would still get in the way even after someone found an organization they fully trusted, the most common answer had nothing to do with trust. It was “ask fatigue”: being asked by so many charities so often that giving starts to feel exhausting. That held across age groups.
Roberta, a singer and voice teacher in Los Angeles, described what that feels like from the receiving end: "When you do give, then you get bombarded. Can you give more? Can you give a little more? It becomes a turnoff. Even the person who wants to give as much as they can might stop giving."
A full 8% of people said they want to give but are worn down by how often they are asked, and they still gave about $584 a year on average. They have not checked out. But the constant asking may be crowding out everything else the relationship could be.
For many organizations, the most impactful move this year may not be a better ask. It may be finding more ways to show up before the ask, between asks and beyond the ask.
That means giving people ways to encounter the work without being asked to fund it immediately. Stories that reveal the people and places behind the mission. Local impact people can actually see. Volunteer pathways. Updates that make impact visible. Invitations that make people feel part of something, not just responsible for paying for it.
Local organizations often do this naturally because presence and relationship are built into their operations. National organizations may have to design for it more deliberately. But the opportunity is the same: make the work feel closer, more visible and more human.
There Is More Here, and More on the Way
We have only scratched the surface of what the study revealed. The full report explores the seven emotional groups the public sorted itself into, what younger givers are signaling about the future of generosity and the moments where connection starts to take hold.
This is also the beginning of a greater effort. Charity Navigator and Mutiny Co. are building a multi-year initiative to put generosity and connection back at the center of the public conversation, and to measure real movement over time.
If any of this resonates, whether you want to talk it through, tell us what you are seeing in your own work, or explore being part of what comes next, we would love to hear from you.
Send us an email to lminniear@charitynavigator.org or connect with us on
 |  |  |