The Future of Fundraising: What If AI Handled More of the Science So We Could Focus on the Art?

Written by Kerri Osborne

For more than 20 years, I worked inside nonprofits. I've carried big portfolios, chased the next funder, and stayed up too late rewriting a proposal that I already knew was a long shot.

So when people ask me about the future of fundraising, I don't answer from a distance. I answer as someone who remembers the feeling of a to-do list that grows faster than you can shrink it.

I want to say something up front, because I think it matters.

I know many of you will disagree with what I'm about to say. Some of you are skeptical of AI, and some of you are worried about what it means for your work, your donors, or your jobs.

Those reactions are reasonable, and I take them seriously.

I am not here to tell you that AI is the answer. I'm here to suggest it could be part of the answer, and to explain why I think the conversation is worth having.

The Overwhelm Is Real

Fundraising and development teams are stretched thin.

One 2026 nonprofit trends report found that 65% of nonprofits are dealing with severe labor shortages. A major gifts officer typically manages somewhere between 75 and 150 prospects at a time, according to Blackbaud.

And on top of stewarding those relationships, many of us are expected to find new funders, hit growing targets, report on everything, and keep the board happy.

That's not a strategy problem. That's a capacity problem.

And it's the reason so much of the AI conversation in our field is happening right now.

What People Are Talking About

The most common use of AI in fundraising today is modest: drafting content, summarizing donor activity, supporting reporting, and reducing administrative load.

Surveys suggest broad experimentation but shallow adoption. Nearly two-thirds of nonprofits and foundations report using AI in some form, yet in one survey of 826 nonprofits, only about 1% were using agentic AI or real-time fundraising intelligence software.

But the edges of the field are moving fast:

  • AI copilots for gift officers. Tools that suggest which donors to contact each day and why, and draft outreach in the fundraiser's own voice.

  • Virtual engagement officers. AI-powered tools that cultivate donors who would never otherwise get one-to-one attention. Illinois Institute of Technology's version engaged a portfolio of 709 prospective donors and closed 28 gifts. The vendor behind it reports much larger totals across clients, though those are company claims and worth treating with healthy scrutiny.

  • Agentic giving. A donor tells an AI assistant what causes they care about, and the assistant finds, compares, and may even complete a donation. Vendors report that organic search traffic to nonprofit websites is falling while AI-referred traffic is climbing quickly. Again, that's early and vendor-reported, but it signals where donor behavior may be heading.

  • A grant-side arms race. Funders are seeing more AI-assisted proposals, and many haven't decided how to respond. A Candid survey found only about 10% of foundations accept AI-generated applications, while two-thirds were still undecided.

The Concerns Deserve a Seat at the Table

If you're uneasy, you're in good company.

Here is what people are worried about, and I think they're right to be.

Trust

Blackbaud research found that 76% of donors want to know when and how an organization is using AI.

Give.org found that 35% of donors would react skeptically, and 17% negatively, to AI in solicitation materials.

Meanwhile, only about 15% of charities disclose their use of generative AI.

That gap is a trust risk.

Bias and Privacy

Donor scoring can quietly exclude underrepresented communities. Security and privacy concerns are the most common barrier to adoption.

Jobs

Concern about AI-related role elimination nearly doubled in one year, from 7% to 14% in a recent survey, and training hasn't kept pace.

The Hamster Wheel

Allison Fine of Every.org has warned that AI could supersize the fundraising hamster wheel, flooding inboxes and accelerating donor fatigue.

Her hope is that we use it to chase deeper relationships instead of more gifts, faster.

I think that is exactly the right fear and the right hope.

Where I Land: Fundraising Is Both an Art and a Science

Here is the lens I bring as a futurist.

Fundraising has always been both.

The science is pattern recognition, prioritization, segmentation, data hygiene, reporting, prospect screening, scheduling, and first drafts. It matters, and it's also the work that eats our days.

The art is listening, judgment, timing, trust, reading a room, and knowing when not to ask. It's the conversation where a donor tells you why they really care.

No dashboard captures that.

So here is the question I keep coming back to:

What if technology took on more of the science, so that people could spend more of their time on the art?

I think of it as a dividend of time.

In my work with leaders, I use an exercise that separates good work from transformational work, meaning what drives real impact versus what drains time, energy, and resources.

Much of what drains a development team is science. Much of what transforms is art.

If AI can responsibly carry some of the draining work, we may get hours back for the relationships that matter most.

But I'm Not Saying AI Is the Answer

Let me be clear, because this is the part that's easy to misread.

  • I am not saying AI should replace fundraisers. Relationships are the heart of this work.

  • I am not saying every organization should adopt every tool. Some should wait, and some should say no.

  • I am not saying the risks are overblown. They aren't.

  • I am saying AI could be one part of a larger answer to the capacity problem, if we use it thoughtfully, transparently, and with humans firmly in charge of the relationships.

The dividend of time is also not automatic.

If leadership responds to saved hours by raising targets, we haven't escaped the hamster wheel. We've just upgraded it.

The Missing Piece Is Alignment

In my consulting work, I keep seeing the same thing.

The issue is almost never effort. It's alignment: between vision and strategy, between board and leadership, and between the future you want to build and the decisions you make today.

AI doesn't fix that. It amplifies whatever direction you're already headed.

An organization with a clear vision can use AI to move toward it faster.

An organization that is drifting will drift faster.

And an organization chasing every funder AI surfaces, without asking whether the money strengthens its future, may find that its mission quietly slips.

That's why I believe the real question isn't whether AI can run the science of fundraising.

It's whether you know which science is worth running, and why.

Three Questions to Ask Before You Adopt Anything

1. Does this free my team for the art, or just speed up the transactions?

If the answer is "faster asks," pause.

2. Where do humans stay in charge, and have we said so out loud?

Decide in advance which decisions and relationships are never delegated, and tell your donors how you use AI.

3. Does this serve the future we say we're building?

If you can't connect the tool to your vision, it's a distraction.

Let's Keep the Conversation Going

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and I don't think we should.

The future of fundraising will be shaped by those who take both the promise and the risk seriously.

If you see this differently, I want to hear it.

Where do you think the line between art and science belongs, and what should always stay human?

Kerri Osborne is The Nonprofit Futurist™, helping nonprofit leaders define the future they're creating and build the alignment to get there.

Learn more at kerriosborneconsulting.com.

Sources & Further Reading

Kerri Osborne
Next

What It Means To Be a Futurist in the Nonprofit Sector