Form cover
Page 1 of 2

Fundraising Behaviour

How strong is your fundraising behaviour 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 15 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: The organisation has deliberately designed at least one giving mechanism (recurring donation enrollment, payroll giving, checkout add-on) so that giving/a specific option is the default, requiring an active opt-out rather than an active opt-in?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation has deliberately designed at least one giving mechanism (recurring donation enrollment, payroll giving, checkout add-on) so that giving/a specific option is the default, requiring an active opt-out rather than an active opt-in?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation understands and can articulate that a default option works because donors infer it represents the socially normative choice, not because it supplies new information about the cause or anchors an amount, and designs its defaults accordingly (e.g. does not undermine the norm signal with contradictory messaging)?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation understands and can articulate that a default option works because donors infer it represents the socially normative choice, not because it supplies new information about the cause or anchors an amount, and designs its defaults accordingly (e.g. does not undermine the norm signal with contradictory messaging)?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: Where the organisation uses a stated campaign funding target or threshold (provision point), it recognises this as a distinct anchor mechanism from social information about prior donors' gifts, and calibrates the stated target deliberately rather than treating it as an arbitrary number?

Which best describes your organisation on: Where the organisation uses a stated campaign funding target or threshold (provision point), it recognises this as a distinct anchor mechanism from social information about prior donors' gifts, and calibrates the stated target deliberately rather than treating it as an arbitrary number?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation deliberately identifies and solicits its highest-status, most prominent, or most recognised prospective donors before soliciting the broader donor base, and makes a considered choice about announcing those gifts publicly, rather than soliciting donors in an arbitrary or purely administrative order?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation deliberately identifies and solicits its highest-status, most prominent, or most recognised prospective donors before soliciting the broader donor base, and makes a considered choice about announcing those gifts publicly, rather than soliciting donors in an arbitrary or purely administrative order?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: Staff responsible for campaign sequencing can articulate why soliciting high-status donors first works: lower-status donors mimic high-status givers because they want to be socially associated with them, a distinct mechanism from inferring an appropriate gift amount (si1) or matching a shared in-group category (si6)?

Which best describes your organisation on: Staff responsible for campaign sequencing can articulate why soliciting high-status donors first works: lower-status donors mimic high-status givers because they want to be socially associated with them, a distinct mechanism from inferring an appropriate gift amount (si1) or matching a shared in-group category (si6)?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation recognises that some donor segments respond to visible giving/status cues (conspicuous givers) while others do not, and calibrates whether and how it publicises high-status gifts accordingly, rather than assuming all donors are equally responsive to visibility-based social proof?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation recognises that some donor segments respond to visible giving/status cues (conspicuous givers) while others do not, and calibrates whether and how it publicises high-status gifts accordingly, rather than assuming all donors are equally responsive to visibility-based social proof?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation offers at least one giving mechanism explicitly designed for visibility (public recognition wall, wearable/shareable token, social-media-shareable receipt or badge), alongside options that preserve donor privacy, rather than treating all recognition as a uniform thank-you letter?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation offers at least one giving mechanism explicitly designed for visibility (public recognition wall, wearable/shareable token, social-media-shareable receipt or badge), alongside options that preserve donor privacy, rather than treating all recognition as a uniform thank-you letter?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation recognises that visibility-seeking is a distinct donor trait (linked to self-monitoring and desire for public prestige/ego-enhancement), separate from warm-glow or cause-commitment motivation, and designs its recognition programme with this segment explicitly in mind rather than assuming all donors are motivated the same way?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation recognises that visibility-seeking is a distinct donor trait (linked to self-monitoring and desire for public prestige/ego-enhancement), separate from warm-glow or cause-commitment motivation, and designs its recognition programme with this segment explicitly in mind rather than assuming all donors are motivated the same way?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: Where the organisation's giving model economically or structurally depends on donor visibility (e.g. a social-media-driven fundraising format), it deliberately manages the resulting tension with the norm of quiet/anonymous giving, rather than treating visibility as an unexamined default?

Which best describes your organisation on: Where the organisation's giving model economically or structurally depends on donor visibility (e.g. a social-media-driven fundraising format), it deliberately manages the resulting tension with the norm of quiet/anonymous giving, rather than treating visibility as an unexamined default?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation understands that a single, identified beneficiary (named, aged, pictured) elicits substantially more giving than an equivalent statistical or grouped set of beneficiaries when each is evaluated separately, and deliberately chooses single-story vs aggregate framing with this effect in mind rather than defaulting to whichever is administratively convenient?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation understands that a single, identified beneficiary (named, aged, pictured) elicits substantially more giving than an equivalent statistical or grouped set of beneficiaries when each is evaluated separately, and deliberately chooses single-story vs aggregate framing with this effect in mind rather than defaulting to whichever is administratively convenient?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation recognises that the singularity preference for one identified victim over a group can REVERSE when both are presented together for a comparative/joint choice (e.g. a donor choosing between two campaigns), and designs comparative appeal contexts (e.g. donor choice menus, campaign comparison pages) with this reversal in mind?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation recognises that the singularity preference for one identified victim over a group can REVERSE when both are presented together for a comparative/joint choice (e.g. a donor choosing between two campaigns), and designs comparative appeal contexts (e.g. donor choice menus, campaign comparison pages) with this reversal in mind?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation avoids pairing an identified individual beneficiary's story with victim-count statistics in the same appeal (or otherwise inducing analytic/calculative thought about the identified victim), understanding that this combination suppresses giving relative to the identified story alone, without increasing giving to the statistical portion?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation avoids pairing an identified individual beneficiary's story with victim-count statistics in the same appeal (or otherwise inducing analytic/calculative thought about the identified victim), understanding that this combination suppresses giving relative to the identified story alone, without increasing giving to the statistical portion?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: Where the organisation must appeal on behalf of multiple beneficiaries, it considers presenting them as a coherent unit (e.g. a family) rather than as an unrelated list of individuals, understanding that this entitativity/unitization framing can restore giving levels toward those seen for a single identified victim?

Which best describes your organisation on: Where the organisation must appeal on behalf of multiple beneficiaries, it considers presenting them as a coherent unit (e.g. a family) rather than as an unrelated list of individuals, understanding that this entitativity/unitization framing can restore giving levels toward those seen for a single identified victim?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation understands that donors respond differently to case materials and mission framing depending on which moral foundations (binding: authority, in-group, purity vs individualizing: harm, fairness) are emphasised, relative to the donor's own political/moral identity, and considers this when positioning campaigns to different audience segments?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation understands that donors respond differently to case materials and mission framing depending on which moral foundations (binding: authority, in-group, purity vs individualizing: harm, fairness) are emphasised, relative to the donor's own political/moral identity, and considers this when positioning campaigns to different audience segments?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation understands that moral-identity-internalized donors do not give unconditionally: they give MORE to beneficiaries perceived as blameless for their plight, but give LESS to beneficiaries perceived as responsible for their own situation -- and calibrates case-for-support materials for stigmatized or responsibility-ambiguous causes (e.g. addiction, homelessness) with this deservingness dynamic in mind, rather than assuming moral appeals uniformly increase giving?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation understands that moral-identity-internalized donors do not give unconditionally: they give MORE to beneficiaries perceived as blameless for their plight, but give LESS to beneficiaries perceived as responsible for their own situation -- and calibrates case-for-support materials for stigmatized or responsibility-ambiguous causes (e.g. addiction, homelessness) with this deservingness dynamic in mind, rather than assuming moral appeals uniformly increase giving?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation understands guilt-driven moral-identity-repair as a distinct motivational lever from empathy-for-beneficiary appeals -- including a major-donor-specific 'wealth-legitimacy guilt' variant among high-net-worth donors -- and considers, where ethically appropriate, how case materials or major-donor conversations might engage this mechanism rather than relying solely on beneficiary-focused empathy framing?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation understands guilt-driven moral-identity-repair as a distinct motivational lever from empathy-for-beneficiary appeals -- including a major-donor-specific 'wealth-legitimacy guilt' variant among high-net-worth donors -- and considers, where ethically appropriate, how case materials or major-donor conversations might engage this mechanism rather than relying solely on beneficiary-focused empathy framing?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation explicitly recognises that donor decision-making can follow either an affective/empathic route or a rational/deliberative route, and does not assume all donors or all solicitation contexts operate through a single uniform decision process?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation explicitly recognises that donor decision-making can follow either an affective/empathic route or a rational/deliberative route, and does not assume all donors or all solicitation contexts operate through a single uniform decision process?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation understands that donors' perceptions of environmental factors (timing, tax policy, macro conditions) and organisational factors (anonymity design, coordinator/asker status, promotion quality) can shift which processing route -- emotional or rational -- is activated, and adjusts message design (emotional vs. evidence-forward) to the diagnosed route for the relevant context?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation understands that donors' perceptions of environmental factors (timing, tax policy, macro conditions) and organisational factors (anonymity design, coordinator/asker status, promotion quality) can shift which processing route -- emotional or rational -- is activated, and adjusts message design (emotional vs. evidence-forward) to the diagnosed route for the relevant context?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation understands that a donor's general altruistic disposition does not translate directly into giving intention: it must first convert into a favourable attitude toward the SPECIFIC organisation and toward the SPECIFIC appeal/advertisement, implying that both the organisation's reputation and the individual appeal's quality must be independently cultivated rather than relying on general altruism alone?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation understands that a donor's general altruistic disposition does not translate directly into giving intention: it must first convert into a favourable attitude toward the SPECIFIC organisation and toward the SPECIFIC appeal/advertisement, implying that both the organisation's reputation and the individual appeal's quality must be independently cultivated rather than relying on general altruism alone?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation understands that loss-framed appeals (emphasising what will be lost without donations) outperform gain-framed appeals (emphasising positive impact) specifically among donors who perceive themselves as personally susceptible to the cause's negative outcome, and calibrates valence framing to donor susceptibility rather than applying loss- or gain-framing as a fixed house style?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation understands that loss-framed appeals (emphasising what will be lost without donations) outperform gain-framed appeals (emphasising positive impact) specifically among donors who perceive themselves as personally susceptible to the cause's negative outcome, and calibrates valence framing to donor susceptibility rather than applying loss- or gain-framing as a fixed house style?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation understands that combining positive-mood and guilt-based emotional appeals in sequence does not add their individual effects together -- the combination can cancel out entirely -- and that each emotional register (positive-mood vs guilt) is congruent with a different appeal frame (positive/rewarding ask vs negative/obligation ask), so mixing them without regard to congruence risks neutralising the intended effect?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation understands that combining positive-mood and guilt-based emotional appeals in sequence does not add their individual effects together -- the combination can cancel out entirely -- and that each emotional register (positive-mood vs guilt) is congruent with a different appeal frame (positive/rewarding ask vs negative/obligation ask), so mixing them without regard to congruence risks neutralising the intended effect?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation understands that gain/loss and other valence-framing effects are not universal -- some rigorous studies find no significant main effect of valence framing at all, and effects can depend on cause salience or context -- and therefore tests its own framing choices per-campaign rather than assuming a framing tactic will work because it worked in a published study or another organisation's campaign?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation understands that gain/loss and other valence-framing effects are not universal -- some rigorous studies find no significant main effect of valence framing at all, and effects can depend on cause salience or context -- and therefore tests its own framing choices per-campaign rather than assuming a framing tactic will work because it worked in a published study or another organisation's campaign?
A
B
C
D
E

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation recognises that framing effects can be moderated by perceived cause salience or importance (e.g. a more altruism-connoted frame outperforming a lower-sacrifice-connoted frame specifically when perceived cause importance is high), and reviews its verbal framing choices (e.g. word choice in the ask itself) against the salience of the specific cause and campaign, rather than applying one verbal frame universally?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation recognises that framing effects can be moderated by perceived cause salience or importance (e.g. a more altruism-connoted frame outperforming a lower-sacrifice-connoted frame specifically when perceived cause importance is high), and reviews its verbal framing choices (e.g. word choice in the ask itself) against the salience of the specific cause and campaign, rather than applying one verbal frame universally?
A
B
C
D
E

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:

- Documentation or screenshots of a giving mechanism designed with an opt-out/default structure (recurring-gift form, payroll-giving enrollment, checkout add-on)
- Internal rationale or briefing notes explaining the choice of default structure
- Campaign materials showing a stated funding target/threshold and any documented reasoning for its level
- Any internal A/B test or comparison data on default vs non-default giving mechanisms
- Campaign plans or gift-solicitation timelines showing deliberate sequencing of high-status/high-profile prospects before general solicitation
- Donor segmentation documentation distinguishing visibility-responsive from privacy-preferring donor segments
- Any internal comparison data on giving patterns following a high-status gift announcement vs campaigns without one
- Examples of at least one visibility-designed giving/recognition mechanism (donor wall, shareable badge, wearable token, social-media receipt)
- Internal policy or discussion notes on managing the tension between visibility-dependent fundraising formats and donor privacy
- Any internal data comparing uptake or response across visible vs private recognition options
- Sample appeal materials showing single-victim vs grouped/statistical beneficiary framing choices
- Donor-choice or campaign-comparison interface designs (website donation-choice pages, comparative campaign materials)
- Internal guidance or house rules on combining identified stories with aggregate statistics
- Examples of multi-beneficiary appeals showing whether beneficiaries are framed as a coherent unit or an unrelated list
- Case-for-support materials or mission statements showing deliberate moral-foundations framing choices for different audience segments
- Documentation or internal guidance on messaging for responsibility-ambiguous or stigmatized causes
- Major-donor cultivation materials or conversation guides referencing moral-identity or legacy/guilt-related motivations
- Any internal testing or segmentation data on donor response to different moral-foundations framings
- Donor segmentation documentation showing consideration of emotional vs rational motivational types
- Internal notes or research on how contextual factors (timing, anonymity, asker status) are expected to affect donor processing mode
- Brand-tracking or appeal-testing data distinguishing organisation-specific attitude from appeal-specific attitude
- Examples of message design deliberately calibrated to a diagnosed cognitive route (evidence-forward vs emotion-forward) for a given segment or context
- Sample campaign materials showing loss-framed vs gain-framed messaging choices and the rationale for each
- Internal guidance on which emotional registers (positive-mood, guilt, shame) are used with which appeal frames
- Any internal A/B test results (including null results) on valence-framing effectiveness in the organisation's own campaigns
- Documentation showing verbal/word-choice framing decisions reviewed against cause salience or campaign context

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?

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

Where do you keep the relevant records?

Where do you keep the relevant records?
A
B
C
D
E

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.