2026 Giving in Faith Report Methodology

2026 GIVING IN FAITH REPORT

Giving in Faith Report Methodology

This section explains the research methods and behavioral analyses used to help faith leaders and the broader field better understand and advance consistent giving.

Meet the research team & contributors

Tiffani Ng, Ph.D.

Abiodun Mafolasire, M.D.

David King, Ph.D.

Erica Dollhopf, Ph.D.

Ron Williams, Ph.D.

Mona Calhoun, Ph.D.

Bishop Walter S. Thomas, Sr., D.Min.

On this page

Overview

Survey development

Survey administration and sample

Survey weighting

Consistent giving analysis

Factor analysis methods

Champions of Good field study

Survey-linked recurring analysis

Recurring giving methods

Statistical significance

The consistent shortfall

Overview

The report is based on surveys of 1,987 faith-based donors and 894 church leaders across the U.S.
Giving analyses draw on data from 1,719,069 donors across 47,506 churches nationwide — one of the largest church giving datasets available.
This research combines surveys, transactional giving data, and behavioral studies to examine consistent giving.

How this applies to faith leaders

Use the survey methodology and sample details to assess how well the findings apply to your congregation, recognizing that respondents were generally more engaged churchgoers than a typical U.S. attendee.
Reference the consistency shortfall model and its assumptions when applying the $50,000 per congregation figure to your own context —outcomes will vary based on congregation size, income levels, and geography.
Cite the Champions of Good experiment and recurring giving analyses when building the case for evidence-based giving strategies within your church. Both analyses include full statistical details for researchers seeking to build on the findings.

Survey development

The survey for faith-based donors was comprised of 44 questions covering a range of topics, including charitable giving in 2025, motivations for giving, beliefs regarding tithing, attitudes and motivations for consistent giving, expectations for future giving, sentiments around technology and faith, religious behaviors, and demographics.

The survey for church leaders consisted of 36 questions covering topics such as congregational financial information in 2025, emphasis on tithing, approaches to fostering generosity, beliefs about the definition of and motivations for consistent giving, expectations for future giving, and personal and congregational demographics. Minor differences existed between versions of the survey administered online and those conducted via computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) to facilitate the collection of verbal responses.

Survey administration and sample

A total of 1,987 completed responses were received from Christian faith-based donors across a range of ages, ethnicities, U.S. geographic locations, educational attainment, income levels, and levels of religiosity. The survey for faith-based donors was distributed online to a random sample of Givelify customers and respondents from Prolific, an academic survey platform. Respondents who did not self-identify as Christian, did not belong to a Christian church, and had not given money to a place of worship in 2025 were screened out of the full survey. A total of 1,186 Givelify customers and 801 Prolific respondents fully completed the 2026 Giving in Faith survey for faith-based donors between Jan. 19, 2026, and Feb. 6, 2026. The margin of error for the full sample is approximately ±3.8% at the 95% confidence level when accounting for the effects of weighting. Due to response weighting (see below), margins of error are higher and vary for subgroups.

A total of 894 fully completed responses were received from church leaders between Jan. 19, 2026, and Feb. 2, 2026. The survey for church leaders was distributed through two channels. A random sample of congregations on Givelify was contacted to complete the survey online, with a total of 489 officials completing the survey. Church leaders were also recruited from proprietary lists of church leaders and qualified financial decision-makers within Christian congregations by a contracted market research firm, New American Dimensions. A total of 405 church leaders completed the survey via computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI). Sampling was conducted on a natural fallout basis, and the sample was monitored to ensure balanced representation across denominations. Respondents whose congregation did not belong to a Christian denomination or who were neither the spiritual leader of the congregation, nor knowledgeable about the congregation’s finances were screened out of the full survey. The margin of error for the full sample is estimated to be approximately ±4.6% at the 95% confidence level when accounting for the effects of weighting. Due to response weighting (see below), margins of error are higher and vary for subgroups.

Survey response weighting

An intentional oversampling of predominantly Black churches and Black Christian faith-based donors was performed as part of a separate planned research study. Post-stratification weights were thus applied to responses from church leaders to reflect U.S. demographics of Christian churches by predominant racial composition and geographic region, using benchmarks from Lake Institute of Faith & Giving’s National Study of Congregations' Economic Practices^[11] and the National Congregations Study,^[12] respectively.

Church giving report methodology: unweighted and weighted survey responses for 894 Christian church leaders by denomination and region.

Church giving report methodology: demographic breakdown of 13,015 churches surveyed by size, geographic region, and Christian denomination.

Church giving report methodology: demographics of 894 church official respondents by role, congregation size, and denomination.

Post-stratification weights were also applied to survey responses from Christian faith-based donors to match U.S. demographics of practicing Christians using benchmarks from the Pew Research Center’s Religious Landscape Study for age, education, employment status, ethnicity, gender identity, income level, and geographic region.^[13]

Church giving report methodology: unweighted and weighted survey responses for 1,987 Christian faith-based donors weighted to U.S. demographics.

Chapter 4: Consistent giving data analysis methodology

Rate of consistent faith-based donors calculation

First, among all possible donors on Givelify, only donors who gave to a church (i.e., faith-based donors) in 2025 were included. Donors who did not have a minimum of four months of giving data and those who gave exclusively to nonprofit organizations on Givelify were excluded. If available, the prior-year (2024) giving activity of faith-based donors was also included. For each donor, all available donations were included in the calculation, meaning that some donors could have given to multiple churches. In total, 783,814 faith-based donors were included in this analysis.

The rate of consistent faith-based donors was calculated using our definition of consistent giving: A consistent donor is one who gives one or more times a month for most months. The quantification of “most months” depended on whether the donor made their first donation on Givelify before or during 2025. Faith-based donors who had given prior to 2025 were considered consistent if they gave at least once a month for nine or more months out of the 12 months in 2025. Faith-based donors who made their first donation in 2025 were considered consistent if they gave at least once a month for 75% of the possible months remaining in 2025. In total, 240,066 faith-based donors were considered consistent by this definition.

Rate of consistent giving within churches calculation

Among all possible organizations that are registered as churches on Givelify, only churches with at least some giving activity were included. This means that churches had to have been on Givelify for a minimum of six months in 2025, had at least one month of donations, and had a minimum of eight active donors. In order to segment the analysis by church size, churches that did not self-report their size were excluded. In total, data from 13,015 churches were used for this analysis.

Within each church, only donors who gave to that church in 2025 were included, along with only the donations those donors made to that respective church in 2025. The rate of consistent donors was determined using the same calculation as described above.

Because this analysis is based only on giving activity observed within Givelify, the estimated rate of consistent giving within churches may differ from the true consistency rate across an entire congregation. Donations made outside the platform are not included, and attendees who do not give are also not represented in the data. As a result, these estimates should be interpreted as the rate of consistent giving among donors who give through Givelify at participating churches.

Calculation of consistency shortfall impact

This is a simplified model that illustrates how changes in donor composition can affect total giving. It is intended as an illustration rather than a prediction.

As shown in Chapter 4, consistent givers represent 30.2% of donors and account for 81.5% of total giving. For simplicity, assume 100 donors contributing a total of $1,000.

Under these conditions:

30.2% of consistent givers contribute $815
69.8% of other donors contribute $185

This implies an average giving of about $27 per consistent giver and $2.65 per other donor, or roughly a 10-to-1 difference.

Given this scenario, if the share of consistent givers increases to 40%, while the number of donors and per-donor giving remain unchanged:

Consistent giving: 40 × $27 = $1,080
Other giving: 60 × $2.65 ≈ $159

Total giving increases to approximately $1,240.

The result would be an increase of about 24% in total giving, driven solely by a change in donor composition.

To estimate the potential industry-wide implication, this 24% increase is applied to national estimates of annual congregational giving. If U.S. congregations collectively receive approximately $110 billion to $120 billion in annual giving, then a 24% increase would correspond to roughly $26 billion to $29 billion in additional annual giving. For simplicity and to avoid overprecision, this report estimates the potential impact of the consistency shortfall at approximately $25 billion to $30 billion.

The same approach can also be applied at the congregational level. The median U.S. congregation receives approximately $205,000 in annual contributions. Applying the same 24% increase would correspond to approximately $50,000 in additional annual giving for the median congregation.

This model holds behavior constant to isolate the structural effect of consistency. Actual outcomes will vary, but the example demonstrates how increasing the share of consistent givers can meaningfully increase total giving without adding new donors.

Chapter 5: Factor analysis methodology

To dig into group-level motivational differences, we performed a factor analysis on questions that assessed how donors felt about various motivations for giving to their churches.

This factor analysis reduced the motivations of faith-based donors into the following four categories:

1. Giving with faith: The role of giving in growing or strengthening their faith, linking generosity to spiritual growth, maturity, and the donor's relationship with God.

The giving with faith factor includes respondents’ agreement with the following statements, on a scale of 1 (strongest disagreement) through 5 (strongest agreement):

I expect that consistent giving helps strengthen my relationship with God.
I believe that consistent giving will lead to long-term blessings.
I expect that when I give faithfully, God will meet my needs.
I believe that being consistent in giving reflects spiritual maturity.
Giving helps me grow spiritually.
Giving is an act of worship and gratitude.

2. Trust in church: Trust in their church and perceived impact of giving, capturing donors' confidence that their contributions are being used responsibly and make a difference

The trust in church factor includes respondents’ agreement with the following statements, on a scale of 1 (strongest disagreement) through 5 (strongest agreement):

I trust that my church(es) will use our monetary contributions responsibly.
I understand the mission(s) of the church(es) that I belong to.
When I give, I trust that my contribution makes a lasting impact.
When I see how giving to my church(es) is used to help others, I feel encouraged to keep giving.

3. Importance of impact: The personal importance of impact and appreciation, which capturing how much donors value knowing their effect and feeling appreciated for their generosity

The importance of impact factor includes respondents’ agreement with the following statements, on a scale of 1 (strongest disagreement) through 5 (strongest agreement):

It is important for me to know the impact of my giving to my church(es).
It is important that I feel appreciated by my church(es) for my giving.

4. Positive emotions: Feelings of “warm glow,” fulfillment, and appreciation, which describe the extent to which giving produces positive emotional experiences for the donor

The positive emotions factor includes respondents’ agreement with the following statements, on a scale of 1 (strongest disagreement) through 5 (strongest agreement):

I experience a warm feeling or sense of happiness after giving.
I feel personally fulfilled when I give.
I feel appreciated by my church for my giving.

We then quantified each factor by calculating the total scores for each donor across the set of questions that comprise it.

To assess differences in religiosity, we created a religiosity composite score that combined the numerical value of donors' self-reported religious behaviors and perceptions.

The questions included in this religiosity composite score include:

Aside from weddings and funerals, how often do you attend religious services (whether in-person or virtually)?
How important is religion to your daily life?
How much do they consider themselves a religious person?
How much do they consider themselves a spiritual person?
Besides attending religious services, how often do you take part in other activities connected with your place of worship?
Which of the following best describes your ritual of prayer and/or reading scripture on a typical day?

In general, the more frequent the donor’s religious behavior (e.g., prayer, church) or the higher the donor’s self-reported religiosity or spirituality, the higher their composite religiosity score.

Chapter 7: Champions of Good experiment methodology

A one-year field experiment was conducted in 2023 to compare giving outcomes among donors who used Givelify’s Champions of Good within the app and those who did not. Champions of Good is a set of features that reinforce generosity behaviors. Data for this analysis were examined in early 2024 and included donor activity from 2022 (baseline) and 2023 (test period).

The Test group (N=21,775) consisted primarily of faith-based donors who had Champions of Good enabled, used the feature, and had recorded donation activity from 2022. Eligibility for feature enablement required donors to have made at least three gifts in 2023.

Because Champions of Good was made broadly available to donors using the Givelify mobile giving app, a 1:1 propensity score matching approach was used to construct a comparable control group. Matching controlled for key demographic and behavioral characteristics, including gender, number of donations during the baseline period, feature availability, total number of lifetime gifts on the platform, and the size of the donor’s primary place of worship. The resulting control group (N=21,775) consisted primarily of faith-based donors who also had Champions of Good enabled but did not use the feature.

It was hypothesized that donors who engaged with Champions of Good would become more generous, as reflected in a significant increase in the number of gifts in 2023 compared to their baseline behavior in 2022. It was further hypothesized that the increase in the Test group would exceed any change observed in the matched Control group.

To evaluate these hypotheses, a 2 (group: Test vs. Control) x 2 (time: 2022 vs. 2023) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted, with the number of gifts given by donors as the outcome variable. Results indicated a statistically significant interaction between time (2022 vs. 2023) and group (Test vs. Control) on the number of gifts given (p<0.001).

In general, the number of donations that people make is positively correlated with the total amount given. Thus, it was hypothesized that the Test group would significantly increase their total dollar amount given during the test period compared to baseline, and that this increase would be greater for the Test group than for the Control group.

To evaluate this hypothesis, a 2 (group: Test vs. Control) x 2 (time: 2022 vs. 2023) ANOVA was conducted, with total dollar amount given in each year as the outcome variable. The results indicated a statistically significant interaction between time (2022 vs. 2023) and group (Test vs. Control group) on the total dollar amount given (p<0.001).

Chapter 7: Survey-linked recurring giving analysis

To examine how the use of recurring giving varies by donor household income, survey respondents were matched to their giving records on the Givelify platform. Donors’ use of recurring giving was determined by their behavior on the Givelify platform rather than by self-reports from the survey. Household income was drawn from survey responses.

The analysis compared recurring giving use among respondents with household incomes above $50,000 with that of respondents with incomes below $50,000. To identify donor demographics more likely to use recurring giving, usage was also examined across more specific household income bands.

This analysis only describes observed patterns of recurring giving usage across household incomes, and the findings should not be interpreted as showing that income causes recurring giving adoption.

Chapter 7: Recurring giving analysis methodology

Used recurring giving vs. never used recurring giving analysis

This analysis had two components. First, a comparison of descriptive giving baselines examined how donors who used recurring giving in 2024 differed in giving behaviors from those who never used it. Second, a matched difference-in-differences design estimated the relationship between recurring giving usage and subsequent giving behaviors among comparable donors.

The Test group for both comparisons consisted of donors who used (“activated”) recurring giving at least once on the Givelify platform during 2024. The activation month was defined as the month in which the donor first donated using the recurring giving option, and it served as the anchor point for measuring giving behavior before and after adoption.

The first analysis examined differences in baseline giving behavior between donors who used recurring giving and those who did not in 2024. Giving behaviors were measured over the 12 months prior to the activation month and included total amount given, donor consistency, and number of months with at least one donation. Baseline giving behavior was measured over a comparable 12-month period for donors who did not use recurring giving. Donors were classified as consistent if they gave in at least nine of 12 months.

The Test group from the first analysis was also used in the matched difference-in-differences analysis. The Control group for the matched analysis consisted of donors who had never used recurring giving. These donors were assigned eligible pseudo-activation months in 2024 so that their giving behavior could be measured over equivalent baseline and comparison periods. To ensure comparable baselines, the control sample was restricted to donors whose first gift occurred before January 1, 2023. Potential control donors were further restricted to donor-month observations with the same activation month and similar platform tenure as Test group donors.

A 1:3 nearest-neighbor propensity score match without replacement was performed to create the matched Control group, with exact matching on activation month. Additional matching was performed on likely gender, months on the platform, and giving behavior during the baseline period, including gift count, total amount given, and number of months donors made at least one donation. After matching, the Test and matched Control group donors appeared highly similar on these baseline characteristics.

To perform the matched analysis, giving behaviors were measured 12 months before (baseline period) and after (test period) the activation month. Outcomes were evaluated using a difference-in-differences framework comparing changes in number of gifts, total amount given, months with at least one gift, and consistency between the Test group and the matched Control group between the baseline and test periods.

This analysis focused on the real-world effect of recurring giving usage. Because donors actively chose whether to use recurring giving, it was treated as an intervention in this analysis. However, since the groups were not randomly assigned, the results should not be interpreted as causal.

Used recurring giving continuously vs. canceled recurring giving analysis

An observational study of the donors who activated recurring giving (see above analysis) followed whether these donors continued to use recurring giving or discontinued it after initial activation.

The sample was restricted to donors who activated recurring giving in 2024, made their first gift before January 1, 2023, and contributed a positive giving amount during the baseline period described in the prior analysis. Donors were classified as “maintained recurring” if they continued to use recurring giving to give at the end of the 12-month follow-up period. Otherwise, they were classified as “canceled recurring.” Classification was based on recurring feature status rather than successful execution of scheduled gifts, which may fail for reasons unrelated to donor intent, such as expired payment methods or insufficient funds.

This longitudinal analysis was conducted with transactional donation data from the Givelify platform. It evaluated differences in giving behavior between donors who maintained recurring giving against those who canceled it in the 12 months prior to and after activation. The giving behaviors measured included the total number of donations made, total amount given, number of months with at least one donation given, and consistency. Donors were classified as consistent if they gave in at least nine of 12 months. Since the groups were not randomly assigned, the results of this analysis should not be interpreted as causal.

Notes on statistical significance

Throughout this report, numerical comparisons are referred to as “significant” or “statistically significant.” Where this language is used, the differences emphasized are statistically significant at the 0.05 level or lower.