Charitology

For the people doing the work · practice draft 0.1

One job.
A clearer next step.

Keep a donor promise, count costs or untangle a handover. Choose one practical job, inspect the proposed checklist and decide what your team wants to try.

Prepare a first-week planRead all six checklists

Start from the work you already do.

Follow the signals and channels around a task, the work they support, and the outcomes and feedback that could change a decision. A small practical job can reveal a larger coordination question. Relief, repair, prevention, structure and source describe mechanisms, not moral grades; every level may be needed.

These first-week sequences are untested editorial proposals, labeled as hypotheses. A completed checklist does not prove savings, fundraising success or charitable impact. Keep what works, question the assumptions and adapt the sequence to your team’s authority and capacity.

One job · page only

Make a plan you can inspect.

Choose one job, mark steps you have completed and review the exact text before downloading it. Use an owner role, not a person’s details. Nothing is saved between visits or sent to Charity OS.

Your starting point

Use roles and nonpersonal examples. Keep names, email addresses and private donor, staff or participant records out of the plan.

Blank means unknown. This date is your own review point, not a grant deadline, automatic reminder or evidence-based schedule.

Enable JavaScript to prepare a plan on this page.

Readable with or without JavaScript

Six proposed first-week checklists.

Editorial draft · hypothesis

Keep a donor follow-up promise

Which acknowledgment or update needs a clear owner?

  1. Choose one acknowledgment or update your team has actually promised. Keep recipient details in your existing authorized system.
  2. Check the message purpose, the donor’s preferences and who can approve the wording. Leave uncertain permission unresolved.
  3. Assign an owner role and a separate reviewer where needed. Distinguish preparing, sending, provider acceptance and observed delivery.
  4. Review whether the promise was kept and what the team should change. Keep unexpected replies and preferences in the proper private system.

Proposed output: A role-based follow-up checklist with a deliberate review point.

Questions for the next review
  • Was the intended promise kept?
  • What is observed, and what remains unknown?
  • Which handover or message should change next?

Read and use

Optional manual shared workspace: Communications · Projects and tasks

This plan prepares no message and sends no donor email. A reviewed template is not evidence of consent or delivery.

Editorial draft · hypothesis

Count the full cost of a fundraiser

What would one proposed appeal or event require?

  1. Choose one proposed activity and a consistent currency and observation period. Write down what decision the budget should inform.
  2. Separate funds actually received, refunds, cash costs and staff or volunteer time. Leave unknown inputs blank; use zero only for an observed or intended zero.
  3. Check whether time costs are already included in cash costs. Record attribution limits instead of treating money raised as charitable impact.
  4. Give the next decision an owner role and a review date if one is known. Decide what would make the team pause, revise or stop.

Proposed output: A cash-and-time budget with unknown values and one decision to review.

Questions for the next review
  • Which costs or refunds are still missing?
  • Did the activity support the mission and its commitments?
  • What would justify another attempt?

Read and use

Optional manual shared workspace: Giving and fundraising · Projects and tasks

A budget is a planning assumption. Revenue, a ratio or a completed checklist does not establish additional charitable benefit.

Editorial draft · hypothesis

Make one grant deadline visible

What needs to be checked before an application can progress?

  1. Choose one published grant opportunity and retain its official call or terms in your own authorized records.
  2. Check the issuer’s current eligibility, deadline, time zone, required documents and submission route. Mark missing or ambiguous conditions unknown.
  3. Separate the issuer’s deadline from the next internal review date. Assign an owner role for the next task and identify the required approval.
  4. Review the actual application version before any submission. Record submitted status only after separately checking a submission reference.

Proposed output: A draft opportunity checklist with the actual issuer deadline kept distinct from an internal review date.

Questions for the next review
  • Which eligibility or deadline condition needs confirmation?
  • Has the required person reviewed the actual version?
  • What evidence would establish submission?

Read and use

Optional manual shared workspace: Grant seeking · Projects and tasks

The planner does not find funding, decide eligibility, submit an application or create a calendar reminder. Your review date is not the funder’s deadline.

Editorial draft · hypothesis

Clarify a team or volunteer handover

Where does a recurring job lose its next owner?

  1. Choose one recurring job and describe its handover using roles and a fictional or nonpersonal example.
  2. Write what counts as ready for the next role, what information is needed and which permissions apply. Keep real staff and participant records in the proper private system.
  3. Identify who can accept, decline or return the task for clarification. Keep an unavailable owner or an unresolved dependency visible.
  4. Review one deliberately chosen example with the team. Ask what was duplicated, missing or difficult to understand before changing the process.

Proposed output: A role-based handover checklist that says what needs to happen next.

Questions for the next review
  • Did the next role know what was expected?
  • Could someone decline or raise a concern?
  • What should the next handover preserve or change?

Read and use

Optional manual shared workspace: Projects and tasks · Volunteers

This creates no task assignment, shift, booking, consent or notification. A volunteer place needs its own current confirmation.

Editorial draft · hypothesis

Connect evidence to a decision

What would help the team understand whether its work is helping?

  1. Choose one decision and describe the activity, intended outcome and people whose perspective could change it.
  2. Separate observed work, measured outcomes, assumptions and what would have happened otherwise. Mark missing measures or comparisons unknown.
  3. Propose an accessible way for people to disagree and identify the role that could respond. Decide what permissions any later evidence collection would need.
  4. Set a review question and a rule for revising the work. Record limitations and disappointing findings alongside favorable ones.

Proposed output: One evidence question, a feedback route and a decision that could change.

Questions for the next review
  • What is observed, rather than assumed?
  • Whose feedback could change the decision?
  • What evidence would make us revise the explanation?

Read and use

Optional manual shared workspace: Evaluation and learning · Projects and tasks

A worksheet is not an evaluation, a causal result or permission to collect personal data. Any later research or feedback activity needs its own appropriate review.

Editorial draft · hypothesis

Choose a resource around the job

What does the team need, and what will it take to maintain?

  1. Describe one job and its requirements: access, exports, maintenance, budget and who will use the resource.
  2. Compare a small set of options using their current official terms. Keep a source date and distinguish free software, discounts, credits and transaction fees.
  3. Check country and organization eligibility, renewal conditions, migration costs and what happens if an offer ends. Leave an unconfirmed condition unresolved.
  4. Try an appropriate fictional example before moving real records or committing money. Let the team decide whether to proceed, change the shortlist or stop.

Proposed output: A comparison note with costs, source dates and unconfirmed eligibility kept visible.

Questions for the next review
  • Does this still fit the job and the team’s capacity?
  • Which cost, condition or source needs a fresh check?
  • Can the team export and maintain its work?

Read and use

Optional manual shared workspace: Resources

A listing is not an endorsement, provider approval, guaranteed saving or enrollment. This planner does not apply, buy or copy a resource into Charity OS.

Bring the question back to the team.

Opening an OS module requires sign-in and organization choice. These links transfer no plan, create no record and send no message. You can use the checklist entirely on paper or in your own system.

For a private discussion, describe one process in general terms at hello@charitology.org. Begin without attachments, personal records or confidential figures. A conversation does not establish a service commitment or partnership.

Help shape the resources · Browse everything for charities · Read the Method