Page 1 of 2

Peer to Peer and Crowdfunding

How strong is your peer to peer and crowdfunding practice? This short, evidence-based self-assessment scores your organisation against fundraising standards, shows where your biggest gaps are, and puts the most useful fixes first.

It takes about 10 minutes. Every question is optional, and the more you can share, especially real numbers and documents, the more accurate your result.

Which best describes your organisation on: Staff who refer beneficiaries to, or run campaigns on, general-purpose crowdfunding platforms understand that these platforms are built on a disintermediated, self-policing model, the platform does not vet campaign legitimacy, and beneficiaries are tasked with crafting and defending their own appeals, rather than assuming the platform applies charity-sector-style gatekeeping?

Which best describes your organisation on: Staff who refer beneficiaries to, or run campaigns on, general-purpose crowdfunding platforms understand that these platforms are built on a disintermediated, self-policing model, the platform does not vet campaign legitimacy, and beneficiaries are tasked with crafting and defending their own appeals, rather than assuming the platform applies charity-sector-style gatekeeping?

Staff assume a crowdfunding platform vets or endorses campaigns similarly to a registered charity regulator; no one has reviewed the platform's actual governance model before referring beneficiaries or launching a campaign

Staff have a general awareness that 'anyone can start a campaign' but have not documented what this means for the organisation's own duty of care when referring or assisting beneficiaries

The organisation has documented, in plain language for staff and beneficiaries, that the platform performs minimal vetting and that legitimacy assessment is effectively deferred to donors, and factors this into how it advises beneficiaries or manages its own campaign

The organisation maintains an internal briefing/decision-tool on platform governance models (vetting, dispute resolution, fund-release rules) across the specific platforms it uses or refers to, and reviews this understanding periodically as platform policies change

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: Where the organisation refers or assists beneficiaries running personal crowdfunding campaigns, it actively manages the privacy-versus-funding trade-off and default public-visibility settings, rather than leaving beneficiaries to discover and absorb these risks alone under donor or platform pressure?

Which best describes your organisation on: Where the organisation refers or assists beneficiaries running personal crowdfunding campaigns, it actively manages the privacy-versus-funding trade-off and default public-visibility settings, rather than leaving beneficiaries to discover and absorb these risks alone under donor or platform pressure?

No guidance is given to beneficiaries about privacy trade-offs, default public visibility, or donor-messaging pressure; beneficiaries are simply pointed to a platform link

Staff are aware that beneficiaries may feel pressured to over-disclose personal information, but no concrete guidance, checklist, or privacy-setting walkthrough is provided before a campaign launches

The organisation provides beneficiaries with concrete guidance on privacy-protective settings (e.g. opting out of public search directories where available) and on handling intrusive donor messaging, before or at campaign launch

The organisation has a documented beneficiary-protection protocol covering privacy-calculus trade-offs, default-visibility settings, and donor-probing boundaries, reviewed with legal/safeguarding input, and proactively revisited as platform default settings change

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation recognises that beneficiary-run crowdfunding narratives built on individual 'deservingness'/worthiness framing can produce shame and psychological harm for the beneficiary, and moderates how it encourages or coaches such storytelling accordingly, rather than treating maximal worthiness-competition framing as simply good fundraising practice?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation recognises that beneficiary-run crowdfunding narratives built on individual 'deservingness'/worthiness framing can produce shame and psychological harm for the beneficiary, and moderates how it encourages or coaches such storytelling accordingly, rather than treating maximal worthiness-competition framing as simply good fundraising practice?

The organisation actively coaches beneficiaries toward maximally dramatic worthiness/deservingness narratives with no consideration of dignity or shame effects, or blurs 'charity' and personal-need framing without reflection

Staff have an informal sense that worthiness-framing can feel uncomfortable for beneficiaries, but no guidance moderates how appeals are coached or reviewed

The organisation's guidance to beneficiaries/campaign coaching explicitly avoids requiring beneficiaries to compete on worthiness or deservingness narratives, and distinguishes its own institutional storytelling (where a featured individual represents a broader population served) from platform-driven personal-crisis narratives

The organisation has a documented ethics review step for any beneficiary-facing crowdfunding storytelling, informed by evidence on deservingness-narrative shame and worthiness-competition harm, and tracks beneficiary feedback on how campaign coaching affected their sense of dignity

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation designs its P2P/crowdfunding campaigns to actively extend reach beyond a campaigner's strong ties (family/close friends) into latent ties (people previously unknown to the campaigner but reachable through platform/social-network mechanics), recognising this is what distinguishes successful from failed campaigns?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation designs its P2P/crowdfunding campaigns to actively extend reach beyond a campaigner's strong ties (family/close friends) into latent ties (people previously unknown to the campaigner but reachable through platform/social-network mechanics), recognising this is what distinguishes successful from failed campaigns?

Campaign design and coaching only anticipate strong-tie funders (family, close friends); no consideration is given to reaching people unknown to the campaigner

Staff are aware latent-tie funders exist and matter, but campaign coaching and channel choice do not deliberately design for extending reach beyond the campaigner's immediate network

Campaign coaching and channel-mix design deliberately aim to activate latent-tie funders (e.g. via shareable platform features, targeted community framing), consistent with evidence that successful campaigns draw a significantly higher share of funding from latent ties

The organisation tracks the proportion of funding coming from strong/weak/latent ties across its own campaigns and adjusts campaign design and channel investment based on this internal data, not just published research

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation calibrates message type (informational update vs. explicit solicitation) to the specific channel used, understanding that platform updates and Twitter-style informational posts can drive performance while explicit solicitation language performs differently by channel and can even reduce funding from strong ties on some channels (e.g. Facebook)?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation calibrates message type (informational update vs. explicit solicitation) to the specific channel used, understanding that platform updates and Twitter-style informational posts can drive performance while explicit solicitation language performs differently by channel and can even reduce funding from strong ties on some channels (e.g. Facebook)?

The same message and framing (typically a generic direct ask) is pushed unchanged across every channel with no channel-specific tailoring

Staff have a general sense that channels differ, but campaign communications are not deliberately varied by channel or message type (informational vs. solicitation)

The organisation deliberately varies message type by channel, e.g. more informational/update-style content on channels where solicitation underperforms, explicit asks where they are shown to work, informed by evidence that channel and message-type interact with donor tie-strength

The organisation tests and tracks its own channel-by-message-type performance for P2P/crowdfunding campaigns and iterates campaign communication plans based on this internal evidence, treating the finding as context-dependent rather than a fixed rule

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation deliberately manages platform-native trust signals, promoter/campaigner credibility and transparency on fund use, visible donor counts/amounts, and (where relevant) platform-level rules and monitoring signals, as distinct levers from its own institutional brand credibility, since donors on a crowdfunding platform partly infer trust from these platform-mediated signals rather than from the NGO's brand alone?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation deliberately manages platform-native trust signals, promoter/campaigner credibility and transparency on fund use, visible donor counts/amounts, and (where relevant) platform-level rules and monitoring signals, as distinct levers from its own institutional brand credibility, since donors on a crowdfunding platform partly infer trust from these platform-mediated signals rather than from the NGO's brand alone?

The organisation relies solely on its own brand reputation and does nothing to manage platform-level trust signals (promoter transparency framing, visible donor-count/amount display, campaign reporting) on the crowdfunding page itself

Staff recognise that platform-level signals (visible donor activity, promoter transparency) matter, but no deliberate design choice has been made about how to present them on the campaign page

The organisation deliberately designs its campaign page's promoter-transparency framing (clear fund-use reporting, avoiding withheld information) and is aware that visible donor counts/amounts function as a platform-native quality signal distinct from brand trust

The organisation actively tests or monitors how its own promoter-transparency practices and visible social-proof signals (donor counts, reported fund use) affect campaign performance, and where it uses a platform with visible fundraiser-reporting requirements, ensures its own campaign reporting meets or exceeds those requirements

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation assigns explicit, budgeted staff time to running crowdfunding/P2P campaigns rather than treating it as an unfunded extra task layered onto an existing job description, recognising that under-resourcing this function produces burnout and role strain?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation assigns explicit, budgeted staff time to running crowdfunding/P2P campaigns rather than treating it as an unfunded extra task layered onto an existing job description, recognising that under-resourcing this function produces burnout and role strain?

Crowdfunding/P2P campaign management is assigned to an existing employee with no adjustment to their job description, workload, or other responsibilities

Leadership acknowledges the workload but has not formally adjusted job descriptions, staff time budgets, or removed competing responsibilities from the person running the campaign

The organisation has formally allocated staff time (a defined share of one or more roles, or a dedicated hire) to crowdfunding/P2P campaign management, reflected in job descriptions or budget lines

The organisation tracks staff workload/burnout indicators for crowdfunding/P2P campaign owners and adjusts staffing allocation proactively between campaigns based on this data, treating it as a standing operational function rather than a one-off project

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation coordinates crowdfunding/P2P campaign execution across fundraising, marketing, finance, and relationship-management functions rather than concentrating full responsibility and accountability in one autonomous employee?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation coordinates crowdfunding/P2P campaign execution across fundraising, marketing, finance, and relationship-management functions rather than concentrating full responsibility and accountability in one autonomous employee?

One employee is solely responsible for the entire campaign (content, promotion, finance tracking, donor relations) with no formal involvement from other departments

Other departments are informally consulted or asked for help on an ad hoc basis, but there is no defined coordination structure or shared accountability

The organisation has a defined cross-departmental coordination structure (e.g. a working group or clear handoff points between fundraising, marketing, finance) for running crowdfunding/P2P campaigns

Cross-departmental coordination for crowdfunding/P2P is a standing operational process (not assembled fresh per campaign), with documented roles/responsibilities per department and a feedback loop to adjust the structure based on staff experience

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: Before launching a crowdfunding/P2P campaign involving direct public solicitation of individuals, the organisation has explicitly assessed whether this style of fundraising is culturally congruent with its institutional identity and history, rather than assuming any organisation can adopt it without friction?

Which best describes your organisation on: Before launching a crowdfunding/P2P campaign involving direct public solicitation of individuals, the organisation has explicitly assessed whether this style of fundraising is culturally congruent with its institutional identity and history, rather than assuming any organisation can adopt it without friction?

The organisation launches direct public-solicitation campaigns with no discussion of whether this fits its institutional identity or history of funding relationships (e.g. an institution historically reliant on government/foundation funding)

Staff privately express discomfort with 'asking for money' publicly, but this is not surfaced as a deliberate readiness question before campaigns launch

The organisation explicitly discusses and documents whether direct public solicitation fits its institutional identity before launching a crowdfunding/P2P programme, and adapts messaging/positioning to reduce identity friction where needed

The organisation has a standing readiness checklist or decision process for identity-fit assessment before any new crowdfunding/P2P initiative, informed by staff feedback from prior campaigns, and uses it to decide whether, and how, to proceed

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: Staff understand crowdfunding as the internet-mediated pooling of many small contributions from a large, partly-unknown audience, a fundamentally different funding logic from raising large sums from a few known funders (major gifts, grants), and calibrate their expectations (gift size, reach required, effort, success rates) to that reality?

Which best describes your organisation on: Staff understand crowdfunding as the internet-mediated pooling of many small contributions from a large, partly-unknown audience, a fundamentally different funding logic from raising large sums from a few known funders (major gifts, grants), and calibrate their expectations (gift size, reach required, effort, success rates) to that reality?

Staff treat a crowdfunding campaign like a grant application or a major-gift ask, expecting a few large gifts from known funders, and are surprised when success depends on reaching many small donors across a wide, partly-unknown audience

Staff know in general terms that crowdfunding means 'lots of small online donations', but campaign planning and targets are not deliberately calibrated to the breadth-of-reach and low-average-gift reality of the channel

The organisation plans crowdfunding campaigns around the actual mechanics of the channel, many small contributions, wide online reach beyond existing known donors, realistic average gift size and success odds, distinct from how it plans grant or major-gift fundraising

The organisation documents its own crowdfunding channel assumptions (typical gift size, reach needed, conversion, success rate) from prior campaigns or benchmark data and uses them to set realistic targets and go/no-go criteria before committing to a campaign

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: Staff can distinguish the four core crowdfunding models, crowd-lending and equity (investment models) versus reward and donation (non-investment models), and understand which are appropriate and legally available to the organisation as a non-profit?

Which best describes your organisation on: Staff can distinguish the four core crowdfunding models, crowd-lending and equity (investment models) versus reward and donation (non-investment models), and understand which are appropriate and legally available to the organisation as a non-profit?

Staff treat 'crowdfunding' as a single undifferentiated thing and cannot distinguish donation-based from reward-, lending-, or equity-based models, risking use of a platform or model that mismatches the organisation's charitable purpose or legal form

Staff know donation-based crowdfunding exists and that it differs from Kickstarter-style reward crowdfunding, but have not clearly mapped the full four-model taxonomy or the investment vs non-investment distinction

Staff can clearly distinguish the four core models (lending, equity, reward, donation) and the investment vs non-investment logic, and understand which models are appropriate and legally available to the organisation as a non-profit

The organisation has documented, for internal use, which crowdfunding models it will and will not use and why (tied to its legal form and charitable purpose), and screens any new platform or campaign proposal against that model map

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: Before launching, the organisation deliberately selects the crowdfunding model whose backer-obligations it can actually meet, recognising that reward-based crowdfunding creates a fulfilment/delivery obligation that donation-based crowdfunding does not, rather than defaulting to whatever a popular platform offers?

Which best describes your organisation on: Before launching, the organisation deliberately selects the crowdfunding model whose backer-obligations it can actually meet, recognising that reward-based crowdfunding creates a fulfilment/delivery obligation that donation-based crowdfunding does not, rather than defaulting to whatever a popular platform offers?

The organisation picks a platform or model by default or popularity, with no assessment of the obligations it creates (e.g. launching a reward campaign without the capacity to fulfil the promised rewards, or using a model mismatched to its legal form)

The organisation has an informal preference for donation-based crowdfunding but has not explicitly checked that the chosen model's obligations (fulfilment, reporting, legal) match its actual delivery capacity

The organisation deliberately chooses its crowdfunding model based on the obligations it can meet, using reward-based only where it can reliably fulfil the promised rewards, and donation-based otherwise, and documents that choice before launch

The organisation has a standing model-selection step (which model, on which platform, with what fulfilment/legal obligations) applied to every crowdfunding initiative, and reviews fulfilment/obligation outcomes after each campaign to refine the rule

Not applicable / not sure

Suggested uploads

These are optional. If you can share a few, we can check your answers against real evidence and give you a sharper, more useful result:

• Internal guidance or briefing documents for staff/beneficiaries on crowdfunding platform governance and vetting model
• Any beneficiary-facing privacy or safeguarding checklist used before launching a personal campaign
• Campaign coaching materials or scripts used with beneficiaries running crowdfunding appeals
• Any documented ethics-review step for beneficiary storytelling
• Campaign communication plans or channel calendars showing message-type variation by channel
• Campaign page content/screenshots showing promoter transparency framing and visible donor-count/amount display
• Any internal data on funder tie-strength composition (strong/weak/latent) for past campaigns
• Coaching materials given to individual P2P fundraisers on channel and network-extension strategy
• Job descriptions or budget lines showing allocated staff time for crowdfunding/P2P management
• Documentation of a cross-departmental working group or coordination process for campaigns
• Internal discussion notes or decision documents on institutional identity fit for direct public solicitation
• Any written online fundraising strategy (or its absence, evidenced by exclusive reliance on offline/word-of-mouth channels)
• Any internal note, briefing, or training material describing the crowdfunding model(s) the organisation uses and why
• Campaign planning documents showing targets/assumptions calibrated to the crowdfunding channel (reach, average gift, success rate) rather than to grant/major-gift logic
• A documented model-selection or platform-selection decision for a specific campaign, referencing the obligations of the chosen model

Upload any of these documents (optional). You can add several files.

Size limit: 10 MB

A little context

Over the last 3 years, is your work in this area getting better, staying the same, or getting worse?

Getting better

Staying the same

Getting worse

Not sure

Peer to Peer and Crowdfunding

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation coordinates crowdfunding/P2P campaign execution across fundraising, marketing, finance, and relationship-management functions rather than concentrating full responsibility and accountability in one autonomous employee?

Which best describes your organisation on: Staff can distinguish the four core crowdfunding models, crowd-lending and equity (investment models) versus reward and donation (non-investment models), and understand which are appropriate and legally available to the organisation as a non-profit?

Suggested uploads

Upload any of these documents (optional). You can add several files.

A little context

Over the last 3 years, is your work in this area getting better, staying the same, or getting worse?

Where do you keep the relevant records?

Anything outside your control that recently affected this area? For example a crisis, a funder leaving, or a sector shock.

This is a demo of the tool. If you have any feedback on it, we would appreciate hearing it.