The UK giving reports offer a reason to review fundraising plans, but they do not establish that every charity faces the same pressures or that one strategy will work for everyone. Start with your own income, supporter and service data, then use wider research to test your assumptions.
TL;DR: Review donor retention alongside acquisition, explain how funds are used, and plan for different income scenarios. Match grant opportunities to your charity’s eligibility and delivery capacity. Use digital tools to organise evidence and support drafting, with human review before decisions or submissions.
What the giving research actually tells us
Build Fundraising Resilience for UK Charities
CAF’s giving research describes a decline in charity supporters over the past decade. This is a historical finding, not a forecast that your charity’s income will fall by a particular amount.
The Charity Commission’s public-trust research identifies cost-of-living pressures as the primary reason given for reduced donations. The report also describes different forms of participation, including donating goods, volunteering and using charity shops. Avoid treating those activities as interchangeable measures of financial giving.
The same Charity Commission research reports that donations to local charities and personally relevant causes are more likely to be protected as donors seek visibility of impact. This supports asking how well you explain your work; it does not prove that local branding guarantees donations.
Use these findings as context. Your next decision should depend on which income streams are changing, which costs you can control and what your beneficiaries need.
Review retention and acquisition together
A useful review separates new supporters from those who have given before. Compare the cost and staff time involved in each activity with the income it produces. Account for campaign timing, exceptional gifts and restrictions on funds before drawing conclusions.
Do not assume that retention should replace all acquisition. A charity with a small supporter base may still need to reach new people, while another may benefit from improving its follow-up with existing donors.
Conduct a practical stewardship review
Preserve the useful parts of your current donor journey:
- Map periods when supporters hear nothing from your team.
- Check that acknowledgements explain what happens next.
- Review whether financial and impact reports use plain language.
- Ask whether supporters can choose appropriate communication preferences.
- Identify which updates require a personal conversation rather than an automated message.
There is no universal communication ratio in the captured evidence. Test a balance of thanks, impact reporting and appeals with your own supporters. Watch engagement, complaints, unsubscribes and income together, rather than treating email frequency as a proxy for relationship quality.
Explain local impact without overstating it
Use specific accounts of your work where you have evidence and permission to share them. Distinguish an individual story from a measured programme outcome, and do not imply that a single example represents every beneficiary.
If you segment updates by location or interest, check that the message accurately reflects the project a donor supported. Respect restricted-fund commitments and avoid promising an outcome your team cannot substantiate.
Give trustees a useful financial picture
Scenario planning can make uncertainty easier to discuss. Prepare a base case and alternatives showing what happens if income arrives later, a grant is not renewed or a major cost changes.
For each scenario, record:
- The assumptions behind expected income and expenditure.
- The timing of cash receipts and payments.
- Which income is restricted and what it can fund.
- Decisions that would require trustee approval.
- A review date and an owner for updating the forecast.
A dashboard can help organise this information, but its usefulness depends on the quality of the underlying records. Begin with the information your team can maintain reliably. A spreadsheet may be sufficient; software is useful when it reduces a real coordination problem.
Set a reserves policy for your circumstances
Do not adopt a universal reserves target from this article. Trustees should consider the charity’s commitments, income reliability, risks and applicable guidance when setting and reviewing its policy. Distinguish available reserves from restricted funds and account for the timing of expenditure.
This is a planning checklist, not financial advice for a particular organisation. Use appropriate professional advice where a decision requires it.
Review the income mix before adding another channel
Diversification is a choice about capacity and risk, rather than a requirement to pursue every source of funding. Review individual giving, grants, corporate relationships, events and other income already relevant to your charity.
For each option, ask:
- Does it fit our charitable purposes and delivery plans?
- What work is required before income could arrive?
- Are the funds restricted?
- Can we maintain the relationship and reporting requirements?
- What happens if the expected income does not materialise?
Do not assume that donor-advised funds, events or peer-to-peer fundraising will automatically produce growth. Evaluate the relevant route, its costs and your ability to sustain it.
The FundRobin Fundraising Strategy Tool can form part of your planning workflow. Check its current inputs and outputs before relying on a recommendation, and retain responsibility for deciding which activities fit your charity.
Make grant research more selective
Before drafting an application, check the funder’s current guidance. Record applicant eligibility, geography, beneficiary requirements, permitted costs, deadlines and reporting obligations.
Delivery geography and beneficiary location can be different. Record both when the funder’s rules require them; do not infer eligibility solely from your registered address.
A short qualification checklist can help your team decide whether to proceed, seek clarification or stop. Keep a record of the reason, especially when an attractive grant does not fit the project.
For a related approach, see High-Impact Grant Strategy for UK Charities. Treat any examples or performance figures in a linked article as claims requiring their own evidence, rather than universal expectations.
Keep a shared pipeline
Assign an owner to each opportunity and record the next action, deadline and supporting documents. Review the pipeline at a frequency your team can maintain.
The FundRobin Grant Tracker is a relevant resource to assess for this workflow. A shared tracker supports coordination; it does not guarantee that deadlines will never be missed.
Use AI with evidence and human review
AI can assist with organising material and drafting, but generated text still needs review. Providing approved source material does not guarantee that every statement is accurate or that the draft meets a funder’s requirements.
FundRobin’s Organisation Library provides a workspace for reusable knowledge and source material. Reviewed knowledge can inform the Organisation Brain and proposal drafting. Keep current information distinguishable from older material, and verify the source of each material claim.
Before using an AI draft:
- Check facts, dates, amounts and programme eligibility against the relevant source.
- Remove statements that cannot be supported.
- Confirm that the draft answers the funder’s actual question.
- Review permissions and confidentiality before including organisational or beneficiary information.
- Have an authorised person approve the final submission.
Do not treat a workflow tool as a substitute for governance, or assume that evidence grounding eliminates hallucination risk.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should we prioritise retention over acquisition?
Compare both using your own supporter data, costs and capacity. Improve weak follow-up where you find it, while considering whether new supporter development remains necessary.
Does declining participation mean our income will fall?
No specific income forecast follows from the historical participation finding. Review your own income sources, donor relationships and funding commitments before making a forecast.
How often should we contact donors?
There is no universal ratio established here. Set a communication plan, respect supporter preferences and review the results of your own approach.
How much should we hold in reserves?
Set a policy appropriate to your charity’s risks and commitments, using applicable guidance and advice. This article does not prescribe a fixed number of months.
Should we pursue every suitable-looking grant?
Check the actual eligibility rules, project fit and staff time before deciding. An apparently relevant theme does not establish that your organisation or proposed costs qualify.
Can software prevent missed deadlines?
A shared workflow can help people coordinate, but someone still needs to maintain the records, review requirements and own the submission.
Does grounded AI guarantee factual accuracy?
No. Approved evidence can support drafting, but people must verify claims, source context and the final application.
What should we do first?
Review the income and supporter data you already have. Choose a manageable improvement, assign an owner and a review date, and assess its effect before extending the work.
