Page 1 of 2

Fundraising and Society

How strong is your fundraising and society 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: Solicitation scripts (phone, online, mail) include a reference to what a comparable prior donor gave?

No social information used in any solicitation channel

Some solicitations mention other donors' giving, but amounts are chosen informally (e.g., the biggest gift, a round number)

Reference amounts are calculated from gift distribution data (90th-95th percentile) and embedded in scripts across primary channels

90th-95th percentile anchors used, gender/category-matched where possible, tested across channels, with year-over-year uplift tracked

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The NGO tracks whether social information treatments increase not just immediate gift size but renewal rates and second-year revenue?

No tracking of donor behavior after the initial gift

Renewal rates tracked but not linked to social information treatment

Donors who received social information are tagged and their renewal behavior compared to a control group

Multi-year cohort tracking demonstrates that social information does not crowd out future giving; data used to refine anchor amounts

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: Appeal design reflects awareness that public contexts activate normative influence and private contexts activate informational influence?

All appeals use the same approach regardless of channel or visibility

Informal awareness that galas produce larger gifts due to peer pressure, but no deliberate design difference

Public-channel appeals deliberately leverage visibility and social recognition; private-channel appeals use descriptive norms (what others give)

Documented design rationale per channel mapping influence type; A/B tested to confirm differential effectiveness

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The NGO uses descriptive norms (what others actually give) rather than injunctive norms (telling people they should give) in its solicitations?

Appeals rely on guilt or 'you should give' language (injunctive norms)

Some appeals share what others do, but inconsistently mixed with 'should' language

Descriptive norms consistently used across channels; injunctive language avoided

Descriptive norms segmented by donor category (e.g., 'donors like you typically give X'); normative pressure reserved for public/visible contexts only

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: Solicitation process includes a step where donors are prompted to think about how many family/friends share their interest in the cause?

No mention of donor's social network during solicitation

Occasional 'tell a friend' prompts on donation confirmation pages

Systematic network-priming questions embedded in solicitation flow (phone scripts, online forms) before the ask

Network size is captured per donor, used to segment solicitations, and donors with above-average networks receive tailored prompts to reflect on that

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: Network-expansion efforts prioritize family and friend connections over acquaintance or colleague connections?

No distinction made between types of social connections

General 'refer a friend' campaigns without targeting close relationships

Specific campaigns target family and friend referrals; messaging distinguishes close ties from acquaintances

Tracked referral data shows family/friend channel outperforms acquaintance channel; program iterated based on this data

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The NGO has surveyed donors to capture self-identity and supporter-identity words?

No donor identity data collected; communications use generic language

Informal understanding of donor identity from conversations or focus groups

Structured survey asking donors for 5 self-identity and 5 supporter-identity words; results analyzed for frequency and distinctiveness

Survey conducted at scale (1000+ responses), results segmented by giving level, identity words integrated into communications and A/B tested

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: Fundraising communications use identity words drawn from donor survey data, not generic adjectives?

Communications use no identity language or generic superlatives

Some identity-adjacent language used, but not derived from donor data

Identity words from survey integrated into appeals; different words for self vs. supporter conditions

Tested self vs. supporter word conditions; revenue uplift measured; words refreshed periodically via new surveys

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: Identity-related content is placed immediately before the ask in solicitation materials?

No identity priming; appeals go straight to the need/ask

Some identity language in appeals but placed randomly, not strategically before the ask

Identity priming systematically placed before the donation decision point; tested placement vs. random

Multiple identity types tested for different donor segments; placement optimized through controlled experiments

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The NGO can articulate which of the three identity traditions (social-category, group-attraction, organizational) it primarily activates and why?

No awareness of different identity types; 'we just ask people to give'

Informal sense that donors identify with the organization but no structured approach

Documented understanding of which identity type(s) dominate among donor segments; communications tailored accordingly

All three identity traditions mapped to donor segments; cultivation journeys designed to deepen identification over time

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: Social information (exemplar donors) is matched to the target donor's social category where data allows?

No category matching; same exemplar used for all donors

Occasional matching (e.g., by geography) but not systematic

Systematic matching on at least one category (gender, age cohort, giving level) with data to support it

Multi-category matching (gender + giving level + interest area); 34%+ uplift benchmark tracked against Shang/Croson finding

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: Communications emphasize what makes the donor group distinctive from other groups, fostering stronger identification?

No mention of group distinctiveness; generic 'join us' messaging

Some messaging about shared values but no contrast with out-groups

Clear articulation of what makes this donor community distinctive; in-group values emphasized

In-group/out-group mapping documented; distinctiveness messaging tested; donor identification levels measured

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The NGO can articulate whether its donor base is primarily individualist or collectivist in orientation and how this shapes appeal design?

No awareness of cultural framing; all appeals use the same tone regardless of audience

Informal awareness that 'different cultures give differently' but no systematic adaptation

Documented cultural profile of donor base; appeal framing explicitly adapted (e.g., individual enablement vs. collective responsibility)

Multiple cultural segments identified; appeal variants tested per segment; beneficiary framing (victim-of-society vs. individual-needing-enablement) matched to cultural orientation

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: When adopting fundraising tactics from US/UK sources, the NGO assesses whether the cultural assumptions underlying those tactics hold for its own donor base?

Which best describes your organisation on: When adopting fundraising tactics from US/UK sources, the NGO assesses whether the cultural assumptions underlying those tactics hold for its own donor base?

Tactics adopted wholesale from international best-practice guides without cultural review

Some informal discussion of cultural fit but no structured assessment

Structured review process for imported tactics; cultural assumptions documented and tested where possible

Local pilot testing of imported tactics before full rollout; results compared to original context; adaptations documented

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:

• Solicitation scripts (phone, online, direct mail) showing social information language
• Gift distribution analysis showing how reference amounts are selected
• Cohort data comparing renewal rates for social-information vs. control donors
• Appeal copy from at least two channels (one public, one private) showing different influence approaches
• Style guide or creative brief documenting norm-type selection per channel
• Phone scripts or online flows showing network-priming questions
• Referral program design documents distinguishing relationship types
• Referral conversion data by relationship type (family/friend vs. acquaintance)
• Donor identity survey instrument and results
• Appeal copy showing integration of identity words
• A/B test results comparing identity-word conditions to control
• Appeal copy with identity priming annotated relative to the ask
• Donor segmentation showing identity types per segment
• Cultivation plan showing how identification is deepened over time
• Solicitation templates showing category-matched exemplars
• Messaging framework articulating group distinctiveness
• A/B test data on matched vs. unmatched social information
• Cultural profile or segmentation of donor base
• Appeal variants showing cultural adaptation
• Pilot test results for imported tactics in local context

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

Fundraising and Society

Which best describes your organisation on: Solicitation scripts (phone, online, mail) include a reference to what a comparable prior donor gave?

Which best describes your organisation on: The NGO tracks whether social information treatments increase not just immediate gift size but renewal rates and second-year revenue?

Which best describes your organisation on: Appeal design reflects awareness that public contexts activate normative influence and private contexts activate informational influence?

Which best describes your organisation on: The NGO uses descriptive norms (what others actually give) rather than injunctive norms (telling people they should give) in its solicitations?

Which best describes your organisation on: Solicitation process includes a step where donors are prompted to think about how many family/friends share their interest in the cause?

Which best describes your organisation on: Network-expansion efforts prioritize family and friend connections over acquaintance or colleague connections?

Which best describes your organisation on: The NGO has surveyed donors to capture self-identity and supporter-identity words?

Which best describes your organisation on: Fundraising communications use identity words drawn from donor survey data, not generic adjectives?

Which best describes your organisation on: Identity-related content is placed immediately before the ask in solicitation materials?

Which best describes your organisation on: The NGO can articulate which of the three identity traditions (social-category, group-attraction, organizational) it primarily activates and why?

Which best describes your organisation on: Social information (exemplar donors) is matched to the target donor's social category where data allows?

Which best describes your organisation on: Communications emphasize what makes the donor group distinctive from other groups, fostering stronger identification?

Which best describes your organisation on: The NGO can articulate whether its donor base is primarily individualist or collectivist in orientation and how this shapes appeal design?

Which best describes your organisation on: When adopting fundraising tactics from US/UK sources, the NGO assesses whether the cultural assumptions underlying those tactics hold for its own donor base?

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.