This article is intellectually informed by content published in Stanford Social Innovation Review, and has been rephrased, edited, and analytically adapted to suit the context of the non-profit sector in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with due credit to the original source.

In the non-profit landscape, large numbers might seem reassuring at first glance.

In the United States, for example, total charitable giving reached $592.5 billion in 2024, a new record, but this abundance obscured a more serious shift: the number of individual donors continued to decline for the fifth consecutive year, down 4.5% in just one year, following a longer trend that has cost the charitable sector about 20 million donor families since 2000. Here emerges the deeper question: is the problem really about the size of money, or about the shrinking social base that gives the non-profit sector its real life?

This question is not limited to the American context alone; it also concerns the Saudi non-profit sector, though the stage is different. The Kingdom is moving to expand the sector's contribution within Vision 2030, with clear targets to raise its contribution to the GDP to 5%, and it has already surpassed the goal of one million volunteers early.

However, this very progress makes it essential that success not be measured only by the size of funding, but also by the organizations' ability to build a broader giving base, because an organization that grows only from the top may appear strong on the surface while remaining more fragile in its relationship with the community.

Amid this progress, a possibility that should not be overlooked arises, which is that some entities might focus on measuring their success by the size of funding while neglecting how deep their relationship with the community really is. This difference may seem minor on the surface, but in reality, it is the difference between an organization with resources and one with a living social presence.

Small donations are not marginal numbers

The seriousness of the issue increases when we realize that only 3% of donors account for 78% of total donations. The problem here is not a lack of money as much as it is its concentration; the more giving is concentrated in a few capable people, the more the community participation base that grants the non-profit work its vital legitimacy diminishes, making it closer to people, not just its funders.

One of the most common mistakes is viewing small donations as limited-impact contributions, while the reality is that their value is not reduced to their financial amount. A small donation means that the organization managed to enter people’s awareness and convince an ordinary individual that what it does is worthy of support, which in this sense is not just an amount, but a sign of trust, an indication of acceptance, and evidence that the cause is not detached from the community.

When the giving base widens, not only does the money increase, but the circle of belonging expands as well, leading to an organization with an audience that knows it, talks about it, returns to it, defends it when needed, and gives it a chance to survive even during difficult times. However, if funding is concentrated in a limited number of large supporters, the institution may seem strong from the outside, but it becomes more prone to instability if priorities change or policies shift, or if one of the main resources is cut off.

Therefore, the real question is not: how much has the organization raised this year? But also: who are its supporters, and is the circle of participants in its carry expanding or narrowing?

When funding rises and the connection weakens

Large funding is not a problem in itself; rather, it is often a strategic necessity, especially in phases of building, transformation, and expansion, and in funding quality projects. However, the problem begins when this type of funding becomes the only model that the institution relies on, or the only criterion by which it measures its success.

An entity that relies on a single large funder or a limited number of major partners may gain quick stability, but it may lose something else in the longer term, such as flexibility, diversity of decision-making, the ability to experiment, and reliance on the community rather than a single funding relationship.

When we look at the essence of the non-profit sector, we find that it is not merely a channel for receiving funds, but a social space to test solutions, build initiatives, and engage people around public issues. Thus, if the base it relies on narrows, this role may gradually weaken, even if the numbers continue to rise.

Why do organizations need a broader giving base?

Because true sustainability is not built only on grants, but on relationships. The small donor, no matter how limited their financial impact may seem at a single moment, remains a crucial element in forming this relationship, as it expresses the community's willingness to respond, the organization’s ability to reach out, the quality of its messaging, the clarity of its impact, the ease of its experience, and the degree of trust it builds.

The danger, then, is not that large donations will come; they are important and necessary, but that they come alone, because a sector that loses its small donors does not just lose limited amounts but loses its wider social network.

When 20 million families are outside the giving circle as happened in the American experience, the question shifts from: how much has entered the sector? to: who actually remains within it?

In the Saudi environment, this meaning gains additional importance; the Saudi community is inherently charitable, and its motivations for giving manifest during many seasons, in humanitarian cases, in community initiatives, and in various forms of solidarity. However, the challenge is not the presence of willingness to give but turning this willingness into a continuous connection with non-profit entities.

Here lies the difference between someone who collects a donation and someone who builds a culture of giving; the former may succeed with a temporary campaign or seasonal event, while the latter needs clarity, consistency, a trusted experience, a clear message, and an impact that people can see or feel.

Technology alone is not enough

The digital transformation has provided the sector with tremendous tools, from easier donation platforms, faster payment methods, wider access, greater transparency, and higher performance measurement capabilities, all of which are important gains. However, technology, no matter how mature, cannot alone create long-term loyalty.

A link may work, a campaign may reach, and the experience may be easy, but the donor does not necessarily return just because the process was convenient, because returning requires meaning, not just a facade, and requires a feeling that this entity is clear, close, and genuine, and that my contribution was not just a fleeting moment that ended with the transfer.

Thus, some organizations may fall into a common mistake, thinking that the ease of donation automatically means a strong relationship, whereas the reality indicates that the first donation is one thing, and retaining the donor is another; the first can be created by a good campaign, while the second is built on a trust accumulation.

Trust is not requested but built

In the non-profit sector, it is not enough for an entity to be licensed or organized or committed to regulations, although this is an essential foundation, but what also matters is how this regulatory reliability translates into trust that is understood by people. A donor does not always read systems and regulations, but he reads their signals in the entity's language, the way it presents its impact, its clarity in communication, and its ability to answer the simple question: why do you exist, and what are you really doing?

Society does not shy away from giving, but it does not reassure towards ambiguity; therefore, the clearer the entity is in its idea, the more sincere it is in its messaging, and the closer it is in presenting its impact, the greater its ability to transform empathy into commitment, interest into participation, and a fleeting contribution into an extended relationship.

From here, it can be understood that building a broad giving base is not only a marketing task, but much of it is institutional work that connects to identity, governance, narrative, donor experience, relationship management, and clarity of impact.

The new generation does not reject giving; it rejects the old formula

The transformations we see among new generations should not be interpreted as a weakness in social sensitivity or apathy towards charitable work; rather, what happens in many cases is that the modes of response themselves have changed. Today's youth are more sensitive to sincerity, quicker to judge public messages, less receptive to exaggerated rhetoric, and more inclined to engage with clear stories, direct experiences, and tangible results.

They do not want to hear that the entity "serves the community" only; they want to understand who benefits, how the impact occurred, why this priority, and what difference my support makes.

This means that organizations that want a broader giving base need to raise their calls not only, but also to review how they build the entire experience; it is not required for people to revert to old methods of giving, but that institutions advance with a format that is more aware of their language, their expectations, and their way of trust and engagement.

What do Saudi organizations need now?

The Saudi sector is currently facing a significant opportunity, but major opportunities require a similar awareness of their magnitude, so what is required is not to downplay the importance of large funding, nor the significance of strategic partnerships, but to build a smarter balance between financial stability and community outreach.

Organizations that seek a more solid future need to ask themselves: do we only have supportive funders, or do we also have a community that knows us, supports us, and returns to us? Have we built a crossing attraction mechanism, or a replicable relationship? Can we show our impact in a language that people comprehend, or are we only speaking to major funders and donors?

These questions are not peripheral; they touch the essence of sustainability, because the institution that expands its base of supporters becomes more vibrant, more resilient, and more capable of evolving. Conversely, an institution whose support is concentrated in a limited number of sources may achieve much, but it remains more fragile in the face of change.

When expansion becomes a guarantee for impact

In the coming years, larger amounts, more programs, and greater possibilities may enter the Saudi non-profit sector, and its organizational, technical, and institutional environment may expand significantly. However, all of this does not absolve the fundamental question: does the sector grow from within as it grows from the outside?

Large funding may create a leap, but it does not alone create a social base, and a grant may open a project, but it does not automatically build a relationship, while wide giving, even if it comes in small amounts, is what provides the institution with its roots in the community, makes it closer to people, more resilient, and has a broader impact in the long term.

Thus, the success of the organization is no longer just tied to what it collects, but to how well it knows how to retain it around it, meaning the trust of people, their closeness, their willingness to return, and their tendency to be part of the story rather than just passing funders. In this way, expansion becomes not an organizational luxury, but one of the conditions for solidity, and any institution that succeeds in transforming community support into an ongoing relationship is building for itself a more stable future, a deeper impact, and a more genuine place in public consciousness.

Because an organization supported by a small group of generous donors may progress, but an organization upheld by a community that knows it, trusts it, and participates in carrying its message is more capable of survival and broader in its ability to create an impact that does not stop at a single funding cycle.

This article is intellectually informed by content published in Stanford Social Innovation Review, and has been rephrased, edited, and adapted to fit the Saudi context, with preservation of the literary and intellectual rights of the original source.