Donors Ask Before They Give
A prospective donor asks an assistant which charities work on an issue in their region, and which are well run. That answer decides your shortlist place.
Free AI Visibility Report
See What AI Says About You
We analyze your search footprint and your visibility inside AI assistants, then show you the exact gaps.
Free — request yours with one short form.
A useful test before adopting anything: does this remove repetition from a task a person still owns? If yes it usually works. If it replaces the judgment, it usually does not.
One story becomes an appeal, a newsletter section, social posts and a web page. For a team of two or three this is the single largest time saving available, and it needs no specialist tool.
Narrowing a funder list and producing a structured first draft against published criteria. The evidence, the figures and the final judgment stay with your grant writer.
Evaluation reports, board papers, consultation responses and funder guidance. Always ask for the supporting quotes alongside the summary so it can be verified.
Assembling publicly available context on a foundation or major donor before a meeting. Public sources only, and verified before anything is acted on.
Most of the disappointment we see is not the technology failing. It is a tool bought before the problem was defined.
An AI fundraising platform layered onto messy donor data produces confident predictions from bad inputs. Fix the data hygiene first, or the tool will simply be wrong faster.
Propensity models need history to work. Below a few thousand donor records the output is mostly noise, and it is being sold to organizations well below that threshold.
Beneficiary details, health information, safeguarding notes and donor records need a tool with a proper data processing agreement and a documented lawful basis. A consumer chat interface is not that.
Fundraising works on specificity: this person, this place, this outcome. Unsupervised generation strips exactly that out, and donors notice before your team does.
Search the phrase and you will find dozens of tool roundups, most published by software vendors. Almost none address the change that affects your income directly: supporters now ask assistants which organizations to give to, and act on the answer.
A prospective donor asks an assistant which charities work on an issue in their region, and which are well run. That answer decides your shortlist place.
Closed programs, former locations, outdated mission language. Assistants answer from whatever is readable, not from what is current.
Within 30 days we guarantee major AI assistants can access your website and refer inquiries to your team, or we work for free until they can.
The common uses are drafting and repurposing communications, producing first drafts of grant narratives, summarizing long documents, and supporting prospect research. The pattern across all of them is that AI removes repetition from a task a person still owns and approves. Uses that remove the person tend to disappoint.
For most organizations under a handful of staff, a general assistant such as ChatGPT, Gemini or Claude covers the majority of the value, with no specialist purchase required. Fundraising-specific platforms make sense once your donor data is clean and large enough for the models to mean anything, which for propensity work usually means thousands of records rather than hundreds.
Not in a general chatbot. Donor records, beneficiary information and any special-category data require a tool with an appropriate data processing agreement and a documented lawful basis for the processing. For everyday drafting, anonymize or aggregate before pasting anything.
The risk is not using it, it is publishing unverified output. Two failure modes cause the damage: a fabricated statistic in an appeal, and communications that sound generic enough that supporters disengage. Both are prevented by human review, which is why the tool should never be the last step before publication.
What data may never be entered, who may use which tools, that all factual output is verified before publication, how AI use is disclosed to funders, and who decides when the rules are unclear. One page approved by trustees is usually sufficient, and having it makes funder disclosure questions straightforward.
No evidence supports that in this sector. What changes is the mix: less time producing first drafts and formatting, more time on relationships, judgment and verification. Organizations that cut the role and keep the tool generally end up with faster output that raises less.
Query the major assistants with the questions your supporters would ask and record the answers. This takes under an hour and most organizations find at least one material error. It is also the only way to establish a baseline before trying to improve it.
Major AI assistants can access your website and refer inquiries within 30 days, or we work for free until they can. The guarantee that sits behind every service on this site.
Read MoreThe practical companion to this page: what ChatGPT is genuinely good at, the guardrails your board will ask about, and what to write down first.
Read MoreGet found by donors, volunteers and funders searching for causes like yours.
Read MoreBook a call and we will run the queries live, show you what comes back, and tell you which of it is fixable and how quickly.