New & free: the Fundraising.AI AI Conversation Readiness Program. Get your team ready for AI, responsibly.Learn more

Research

Donor Perceptions of AI 2025

Insights from 1,031 current US donors on the future of AI in philanthropy.

Download the 2025 ReportDownload the 2024 Report

Key numbers

Conditional optimism, with trust as the deciding factor

1,031
current US donors surveyed

August 2025

92%
say it is important that nonprofits plainly disclose where and why AI is used
61%
see enhancing fundraising efforts as a benefit of AI

The top perceived benefit

34%
rank “AI bots portrayed as humans representing a charity” as their #1 worry

Overview

Donor perceptions of AI have clearly matured

In 2025, donor perceptions of AI have clearly matured. What was once defined by uncertainty and fear of dehumanization has become a more thoughtful balancing act between curiosity and caution.

Donors now approach AI with a sense of conditional optimism. They see its potential to strengthen fundraising, sharpen operations, and demonstrate impact, but expect the same rigor and responsibility they demand in every other part of nonprofit life. Familiarity has replaced novelty; interest has replaced anxiety.

At the same time, trust remains the deciding factor. Donors continue to draw sharp boundaries around data use, fairness, and authenticity, but they’re more willing to reward organizations that are open about their approach. Transparency has shifted from reassurance to requirement, and accountability is now part of what makes a nonprofit credible.

The question for 2025 is no longer whether nonprofits should use AI, but whether they can use it responsibly.

Key findings

What donors value, and what keeps them cautious

What Donors Value

Across the board, respondents want AI to make nonprofits both smarter stewards and stronger fundraisers.

  1. Priorities flipped to revenue and results: Enhancing fundraising efforts (61%) became the top perceived benefit, narrowly exceeding improving operational efficiency (58%). This shift shows donors now connect AI with revenue growth, not just risk reduction.
  2. Impact measurement surged: 53% cited improving impact measurement and reporting, up nearly 20 points from the previous year, indicating that donors increasingly expect AI to deliver proof of effectiveness.
  3. Transparency is non‑negotiable: 92% deem it important that nonprofits plainly disclose where and why AI is used, how humans remain in control, and what evidence shows the technology works. New expectations included the ability to opt-out of AI-driven interactions (52%) and the implementation of third-party audits of AI systems (48%).

What Keeps Them Cautious

Donors hesitate where AI risks weakening the trust, equity, and connection they expect from nonprofits.

  1. Ethical red line identified: The single greatest worry, ranked #1 by about one-third of donors (34%), was “AI bots portrayed as humans representing a charity.” Half of all donors placed this concern within their top three worries, making it the clearest ethical red line identified.
  2. Privacy and data security are named by two thirds of donors as key concerns, followed by worry about algorithmic bias and a lingering fear that technology could erode the “human touch.”
  3. Influence on giving: When asked how AI would influence their own giving, the sample splits: 14% say they would give more to an AI‑enabled organization, 32% would give less, and the remainder remain neutral or conditional, signaling that reputation risk and opportunity sit side by side.

Donor perceptions by segment

Enthusiasm and resistance are not evenly spread

Enthusiasm concentrates among the most AI‑savvy donors and the youngest age band. Resistance peaks with older cohorts and those only vaguely familiar with the technology.

  • Human‑services and faith‑oriented donors are especially sensitive to the potential loss of empathy, while education‑ and justice‑focused donors emphasise fairness and bias mitigation.
  • Higher‑income households are modestly more open to AI‑generated solicitations, yet still demand the same transparency safeguards as their mass‑market peers.
24%
of Gen Z donors (18-29) are more likely to give; 30% appreciate personalized appeals.
23%
of “very familiar” donors are more likely to give; 60% are comfortable with personalization.
9%
of Boomers (60-75) are more likely to give; 15% appreciate personalized appeals.
7%
of “somewhat familiar” donors are more likely to give; 40% are comfortable with personalization.

The findings in charts

A closer look at the data

Bar chart: donor self-rating of familiarity with AI, 2024 compared with 2025. Very familiar rose from 31.6% to 42.0%.

AI Literacy Among Donors

Donor familiarity with Artificial Intelligence surged significantly from 2024 to 2025, indicating that AI is no longer a niche concept but has fully entered the mainstream consciousness of the donor base. The percentage of donors who reported being “very familiar” with AI jumped by 10 percentage points year-over-year. This increased awareness is driving a shift from cautious, risk-focused curiosity toward a stance of conditional optimism.

Bar chart: perceived benefits of AI in 2025. Enhancing fundraising efforts 61%, improving operational efficiency 58%, improving impact measurement and reporting 53%, fraud detection and prevention 39%, better targeting of services to beneficiaries 34%.

Where Donors See AI’s Value

Donors place the highest value on AI that strengthens a nonprofit’s core capacity — raising more funds, improving efficiency, and proving impact — while seeing fraud detection and service targeting as important but secondary gains. Their priorities signal a shift from viewing AI primarily as a risk-management tool to seeing it as a driver of growth and effectiveness.

Bar chart: top donor concerns about AI use in charities. AI bots posed as humans 34%, automated grant allocation 22%, AI-written appeals or reports 16%, predictive donor analytics 9%, AI support chatbots 8%, none of the above 3%.

What Worries Donors Most

Donors draw the sharpest ethical lines around AI that disguises machine identity or delegates mission-critical decisions to algorithms. More “plumbing-like” applications such as analytics and chatbots still face scrutiny but provoke far less visceral pushback.

Pie chart: impact of AI on giving behavior. Less likely to give 32%, no effect either way 29%, it depends or not sure 25%, more likely to give 14%.

Impact on Giving Behavior

Most donors (43%) say AI use would have a positive or neutral effect on their giving. Although 32% report they would be less likely to give, 14% say they’d be more likely to give, 29% say it would make no difference, and 25% say their response would depend on how AI is implemented.

AI and Donor Trust: 2025 Snapshot

See the study at a glance in one infographic.

View the infographic (PDF)

Methodology

This study employed a quantitative approach, surveying 1,031 individuals who had made charitable donations in the past 12 months. The study was conducted in August 2025, using a managed sampling service to ensure data quality. Respondents were asked about their familiarity with AI, concerns about its use in nonprofits, perceived benefits, and how it might impact their giving behavior.

The research aims to bridge the gap between technological innovation by understanding and analyzing donor sentiment in the charitable sector through quantitative measures. This study was funded by the independent collective Fundraising.AI to ensure objectivity and mitigate perceived bias.

Use of AI

Note: Portions of this page and related materials were prepared with assistance from AI systems to help summarize, visualize, and interpret the study’s findings. AI-generated content is provided for informational purposes only and may be incomplete, outdated, or omit nuance; nothing here constitutes legal, financial, or fundraising advice. Readers are responsible for how they interpret and use these materials and should independently verify important decisions. As always, Fundraising.AI strives to follow responsible and beneficial AI practices that prioritize human values, trust, and user privacy.

Get the full study

Download the 2025 Report

Download the 2025 ReportDownload the 2024 Report