Your board sees a headline about rising donations to veterans' organizations. Your own appeal is flat. Before anyone calls that a fundraising failure, ask which organizations drove the increase.
The 2026 Military & Veterans Community Index offers an answer. Indiana University's Lilly Family School of Philanthropy reports that the 10 largest recipients accounted for nearly a third of giving to the organizations it tracks. They also generated most of the annual gain. The practical lesson is to choose your comparison group before you set next year's target.
The total rose, but the gain was concentrated
In its October 22 research announcement, the school puts direct philanthropic support at $4 billion in 2024, up 5.9% in current dollars. That means before inflation. These are historical results, not a reading of donor behavior in October 2026.
The report’s inflation-adjusted chart shows giving rising from about $3.89 billion to $4 billion in 2024 dollars. That is roughly $110 million of real growth. The rounded current-dollar totals imply a larger gain of about $200 million before inflation.
The report's concentration analysis says the top 10 received 31.6% of the total and accounted for 85.4% of growth from 2023 to 2024. Concentration of the total and concentration of the increase answer different questions. The first describes where support went; the second shows how little of that year's increase was left for everyone else.
That does not mean every other organization struggled. Nor does it establish that a small charity should expect the same growth as a national organization. A sector total is a useful map. It is a poor performance review.
What does the index actually measure?
It measures philanthropic support to organizations primarily serving military members, veterans, their families, and caregivers. It is not a tally of every dollar spent helping veterans.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy's reporting explains that government funding is excluded and that the index focuses on organizations primarily dedicated to serving this community. A general-purpose shelter can serve veterans without appearing in this group. The Chronicle also reports that the index does not separate cash from donated goods and services.
Those boundaries matter when you use the findings in an appeal or board presentation. Do not describe the total as all support for veterans, or treat it as cash available for payroll. Keep the population, funding type, and data year next to any number you quote.
Build a comparison your staff can use
For a local service provider, start with peers doing similar work at a similar scale. The school's guidance for nonprofit leaders recommends comparisons by mission, size, geography, and organizational type.
Turn that into a short board exercise. Name the organizations you consider peers and explain why. Then compare your own unrestricted cash contributions across consistent periods. Keep donated goods separate for this exercise, and identify unusually large gifts before drawing conclusions. This is a management comparison, not a substitute for your financial statements.
For example, a housing organization might build its target from renewed individual gifts, likely foundation renewals, and a documented plan to reach new donors. A national total can provide context around that plan. It cannot supply the missing evidence that a particular donor will renew.
Bring your own donor retention math into the discussion. How many prior donors returned? Which relationships need attention before another acquisition campaign? Asking those questions makes the conversation specific enough to assign work.
Use the findings to sharpen your case
If you serve veterans, explain the work your organization does and the need a gift addresses. Resist the temptation to turn a national funding share into proof that your program deserves a particular amount. The index describes giving; your program records must establish your local case.
Ask a funder to look at the part of the service system your organization covers. Pair the research with your own evidence of demand, capacity, and results. Be explicit about the limits of both: a national dataset cannot establish local unmet need, and your waiting list cannot describe the whole country.
For board members, the useful question is whether the fundraising plan fits the organization's actual position. A concentrated national gain is a reason to inspect assumptions, not a reason to lower every target or raise every one.
The takeaway
Use this research to improve your benchmarks before you rewrite your budget. Present the data year and scope alongside the headline, then build your target from peers and donor relationships you can explain. National growth becomes useful when it leads to a better local decision.