Page 1 of 2

Fundraising Ethics

How strong is your fundraising ethics 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: The organisation has formally adopted a named, recognised fundraising code of ethics and staff/volunteers are bound by it?

No recognised code adopted; organisation has no formal ethical standards document for fundraising

A code is nominally adopted but not embedded in practice; staff are unaware of its contents; no sign-off or training

A recognised code is formally adopted; all fundraising staff and volunteers receive onboarding guidance on its contents; the code is referenced in employment or volunteer agreements

A recognised code is adopted and embedded as a living document; annual refreshers conducted; code is referenced in fundraising communications to donors; leadership visibly champions the code

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation has a documented, accessible process through which donors, beneficiaries, or staff can raise concerns about potential ethical breaches, and there is a named route for escalation?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation has a documented, accessible process through which donors, beneficiaries, or staff can raise concerns about potential ethical breaches, and there is a named route for escalation?

No complaints mechanism; ethical concerns have no documented escalation route

A general organisational complaints process exists but is not specifically applied to fundraising ethics breaches

A fundraising-specific complaints process exists, is publicised to donors, and has a named responsible person; breaches are investigated and outcomes documented

Complaints process is integrated with the adopted code; outcomes are reviewed annually by the board; the organisation is affiliated with or accountable to a sector regulator or professional body

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation has a documented statement or policy affirming that both donor rights and beneficiary welfare are considered in ethical decision-making, not just donor interests or income maximisation alone?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation has a documented statement or policy affirming that both donor rights and beneficiary welfare are considered in ethical decision-making, not just donor interests or income maximisation alone?

No documented ethical stance beyond the regulatory code; ethical decisions default entirely to donor preferences or to income maximisation with no explicit beneficiary consideration

Leadership is aware of the tension between donor and beneficiary interests but has no documented guidance on how to balance them; decisions are made case by case without a stated principle

A documented policy or guiding principle affirms the rights-balancing approach; ethical decisions in gray areas explicitly require consideration of both donor harm and beneficiary impact; this is communicated to the fundraising team

The rights-balancing principle is embedded in fundraising strategy, campaign planning, and training; the organisation can articulate specific decisions where it chose to limit donor pressure because harm to donors outweighed benefit to beneficiaries, and vice versa; board-level review of this balance is documented

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation actively resists inappropriate donor dominance, where donors seek to direct mission, obtain undue benefits, or impose conditions incompatible with beneficiary welfare. Gift conditions are assessed against beneficiary interests, not just donor wishes?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation actively resists inappropriate donor dominance, where donors seek to direct mission, obtain undue benefits, or impose conditions incompatible with beneficiary welfare. Gift conditions are assessed against beneficiary interests, not just donor wishes?

No awareness of donor dominance risk; gift conditions accepted without assessment against mission or beneficiary welfare

Leadership is aware of donor dominance as a concept but has no formal process for evaluating gift conditions against beneficiary welfare

Gift conditions are routinely evaluated against mission and beneficiary welfare before acceptance; mission creep driven by donor preferences is explicitly identified as an ethical risk

Written policy on donor dominance; gift conditions trigger mandatory ethical review; cases where the organisation has declined or renegotiated conditions to protect beneficiaries are documented

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: A documented ethical decision-making process or framework exists for resolving gray areas not covered by the code of ethics?

No documented process; ethical dilemmas are resolved ad hoc or not at all; decisions are not recorded

An informal escalation route exists (e.g., 'ask the director') but there is no documented framework; decisions are not systematically recorded

A documented decision process exists, including who decides, an escalation route, and a step-by-step or criteria-based framework; the framework explicitly includes consideration of donor and beneficiary impacts

A documented multi-step framework is used and embedded through training; decisions on ethical gray areas are recorded with rationale; the framework is reviewed annually and updated where gaps are identified; board receives a periodic summary of ethical decisions made

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: A written gift acceptance and refusal policy exists with documented criteria and a decision route?

No written policy; gift acceptance decisions are made ad hoc without documented criteria

Some informal guidance exists (e.g., 'obvious conflicts must be flagged') but criteria are not written down and the decision route is not specified

A written policy exists covering tainted money, conflicts of interest, reputational risk, and unacceptable gift conditions; a named decision route is specified; the policy is known to all fundraising staff

A comprehensive written policy with tiered decision routes (by gift size and risk level), board-level review for borderline cases, and documented examples of past decisions; policy is reviewed and updated at least every two years

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The policy or process acknowledges that gift size is a material consideration in ethical decision-making, larger gifts may warrant different weighting of reputational risk versus benefit to beneficiaries?

Which best describes your organisation on: The policy or process acknowledges that gift size is a material consideration in ethical decision-making, larger gifts may warrant different weighting of reputational risk versus benefit to beneficiaries?

No acknowledgement that gift size affects the ethical calculation; all gifts treated identically regardless of amount

Leadership informally weighs gift size in decisions but this is not documented in policy

Policy explicitly states that gift size is a material factor and tiered decision routes are applied based on gift value

Tiered thresholds are documented (e.g., gifts above a defined threshold trigger mandatory board review); the rationale for different tiers is explained in the policy

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation has documented content guidelines specifying how beneficiaries may and may not be portrayed in fundraising materials, and requires consent procedures for use of beneficiary images and stories?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation has documented content guidelines specifying how beneficiaries may and may not be portrayed in fundraising materials, and requires consent procedures for use of beneficiary images and stories?

No content guidelines; beneficiary images and stories are used without documented consent processes or ethical review

Informal norms exist but are not written down; consent is obtained inconsistently; no formal review of materials against dignity standards

Written content guidelines specify prohibited framing (e.g., dehumanising images, stereotyping language) and require documented consent for beneficiary stories and images; materials are reviewed against these guidelines before publication

Comprehensive beneficiary representation policy aligned with recognised standards (e.g., CONCORD Dóchas Code on Images and Messages, or equivalent); consent is meaningful and informed; beneficiaries are given agency to tell their own stories where possible; guidelines are reviewed regularly and integrated into supplier and agency contracts

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: Fundraising communications accurately portray the need being addressed and do not exaggerate the situation of beneficiaries for fundraising effect?

Fundraising communications routinely use exaggerated or misleading portrayals of need without internal review

Leadership intends to be accurate but there is no formal review process; exaggeration may occur without being caught

Communications are reviewed against an accuracy standard before publication; AFP/CIOF accuracy requirements are applied; review is documented

Accuracy review is an embedded step in the content production process with a named responsible reviewer; the organisation can demonstrate that materials meet or exceed code requirements for truth and accuracy

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation has documented procedures to identify and protect vulnerable donors, and to ensure fundraisers do not exploit emotional states, cognitive vulnerability, or financial difficulty to secure donations?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation has documented procedures to identify and protect vulnerable donors, and to ensure fundraisers do not exploit emotional states, cognitive vulnerability, or financial difficulty to secure donations?

No documented safeguards for vulnerable donors; all donors treated identically regardless of apparent vulnerability

Awareness of vulnerability risk but no documented procedures; individual fundraisers make their own judgments without guidance

Written procedures identify categories of vulnerable donors; fundraisers are trained to recognise and appropriately modify solicitations; there is a protocol for stopping or redirecting a solicitation when vulnerability is apparent

Comprehensive vulnerability policy aligned with code requirements (e.g., UK FR Code s1.2.1 or AFP equivalent); integrated into fundraiser training; monitored through call review or equivalent quality assurance; outcomes of interventions are documented

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation maintains donor data in accordance with applicable data protection law and ethical best practice, including donor opt-out rights and appropriate contact frequency limits?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation maintains donor data in accordance with applicable data protection law and ethical best practice, including donor opt-out rights and appropriate contact frequency limits?

No documented data management procedures; opt-out requests not reliably processed; data may be shared without donor knowledge

Basic data protection compliance in place but ethical best practice is not documented; contact frequency is not monitored; opt-outs are processed but not systematically tracked

Documented data management policy covering consent, opt-out processing, data sharing restrictions, and contact frequency limits; policy meets applicable legal requirements (GDPR/UK GDPR where relevant); donors can easily opt out of all contact

Data policy exceeds minimum legal requirements; donors are proactively offered granular consent choices; contact frequency is actively managed to prevent over-solicitation; periodic review of contact intensity against donor welfare standards; data sharing with third parties requires explicit opt-in

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: Fundraising communications and donor stewardship materials accurately reflect the organisation's mission, use of funds, and impact without exaggeration?

Fundraising materials contain material inaccuracies, exaggerated impact claims, or misleading fund-use descriptions that are not corrected

Leadership intends to be accurate but there is no formal review process; errors or exaggerations may not be caught before publication or persist in older materials

A documented accuracy review is applied to all fundraising communications and impact claims before publication; materials are tested against AFP/CIOF accuracy standards; corrections are made promptly when errors are identified

Accuracy review is embedded as a step in the content production and stewardship reporting process; impact claims are based on documented evidence; third-party or independent verification is used for major claims; the organisation proactively discloses limitations of its impact evidence

Not applicable / not sure

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation provides donors and the public with accurate, accessible information about how donations are used, including the proportion spent on fundraising and administration versus programmatic activity?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation provides donors and the public with accurate, accessible information about how donations are used, including the proportion spent on fundraising and administration versus programmatic activity?

No public information on fund use or overhead; donors cannot determine how their gifts are used

Annual report or financial statements are publicly available but overhead breakdown is not clearly communicated in fundraising materials or donor-facing channels

Fundraising materials and the organisation's website include clear, honest information on how donations are used and what proportion covers overhead; this information is consistent with audited accounts

Proactive, plain-language disclosure of fund use and overhead in all major fundraising communications; overhead costs are contextualised (explaining why overhead enables impact); the organisation actively supports public trust by communicating its overhead approach rather than hiding or minimising it

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:

• Copy of the adopted code of ethics or a written statement of which recognised code the organisation subscribes to
• Staff/volunteer onboarding materials covering the code
• Documented complaints or grievance procedure applicable to fundraising ethics
• Documented ethical policy, guiding principles, or fundraising strategy referencing rights-balancing or equivalent dual-stakeholder approach
• Examples or case documentation of rights-balancing decisions
• Policy or procedure for evaluating gift conditions against mission and beneficiary welfare
• Documented ethical decision-making process or framework (internal policy, procedure, or guidance document)
• Evidence that the framework has been used on at least one real case (decision log or equivalent)
• Training materials or onboarding documentation covering the ethical decision process
• Written gift acceptance and refusal policy document
• Evidence that the policy has been applied (decision log, board minutes referencing a gift acceptance decision)
• Evidence that all fundraising staff are aware of the policy (training records, onboarding documentation)
• Written beneficiary representation or image policy / content guidelines
• Documented consent procedures for use of beneficiary stories and images
• Evidence of pre-publication review against dignity and accuracy standards
• Staff or agency briefing documents on ethical representation of beneficiaries
• Vulnerable donor policy or safeguarding procedure applicable to fundraising
• Fundraiser training materials covering donor pressure and vulnerability
• Written data management policy (privacy policy, data protection policy, or equivalent)
• Evidence of contact frequency management (mailing policies, suppression procedures)
• Sample fundraising communications showing fund-use and impact descriptions
• Annual report or equivalent document with audited financial breakdown
• Donor stewardship report or thank-you communication showing fund-use information
• Evidence of any corrections or retractions of inaccurate claims
• Written accuracy review process or content approval workflow

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 Ethics

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation has formally adopted a named, recognised fundraising code of ethics and staff/volunteers are bound by it?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation has a documented, accessible process through which donors, beneficiaries, or staff can raise concerns about potential ethical breaches, and there is a named route for escalation?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation has a documented statement or policy affirming that both donor rights and beneficiary welfare are considered in ethical decision-making, not just donor interests or income maximisation alone?

Which best describes your organisation on: A documented ethical decision-making process or framework exists for resolving gray areas not covered by the code of ethics?

Which best describes your organisation on: A written gift acceptance and refusal policy exists with documented criteria and a decision route?

Which best describes your organisation on: The policy or process acknowledges that gift size is a material consideration in ethical decision-making, larger gifts may warrant different weighting of reputational risk versus benefit to beneficiaries?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation has documented content guidelines specifying how beneficiaries may and may not be portrayed in fundraising materials, and requires consent procedures for use of beneficiary images and stories?

Which best describes your organisation on: Fundraising communications accurately portray the need being addressed and do not exaggerate the situation of beneficiaries for fundraising effect?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation has documented procedures to identify and protect vulnerable donors, and to ensure fundraisers do not exploit emotional states, cognitive vulnerability, or financial difficulty to secure donations?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation maintains donor data in accordance with applicable data protection law and ethical best practice, including donor opt-out rights and appropriate contact frequency limits?

Which best describes your organisation on: Fundraising communications and donor stewardship materials accurately reflect the organisation's mission, use of funds, and impact without exaggeration?

Which best describes your organisation on: The organisation provides donors and the public with accurate, accessible information about how donations are used, including the proportion spent on fundraising and administration versus programmatic activity?

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.