Define the "Why" and "What" of your giving strategy.
Primary Social Goal (e.g., Clean Water Access, Literacy, Medical Research):
Target Financial Impact Goal ($):
Geographic Focus:
Local
National
International
Success Metric (How do you define success? e.g., "Lives saved" or "Trees planted"):
Use the table below to track your current contributions and calculate the Direct Impact Value (DIV).
Organisation | Amount ($) | Reported Overhead (%) | Direct Impact Value (DIV) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Example: Red Cross | $1,000.00 | 10 | $900.00 | |
$0.00 | ||||
$0.00 | ||||
$0.00 | ||||
$0.00 | ||||
$0.00 | ||||
$0.00 | ||||
$0.00 | ||||
$0.00 | ||||
$0.00 |
Evaluate the overall health and "bang for your buck" of your philanthropy.
Total Collective Impact:
Weighted Efficiency Score:
Note: This shows the average cents-on-the-dollar that actually reaches your cause.
Funding Gap:
Note: This tells you how much more "impact" you need to generate to hit your social goal.
Numbers don't tell the whole story. Use this section for the "Human" element.
Transparency Rating: (1–5) How accessible is the organization’s financial data?
Sustainability Factor: Is this a one-time fix or does it build long-term infrastructure?
Community Feedback: Are the beneficiaries involved in the decision-making process?
Innovation Level: Is the organization using new methods to solve old problems?
Plan your next moves based on the data above.
Low-Efficiency Redirection: Are there organizations with overhead >25% that should be reconsidered?
Matching Opportunities: Are there upcoming corporate matches or "giving days" to double the DIV?
Next Milestone: What is the specific target for the next 6–12 months?
Notes / Observations:
Form Template Insights
Please remove this form template insights section before publishing.
This section serves as the qualitative anchor for the entire document. It establishes the baseline parameters of the philanthropic mission, identifying the specific social issues being addressed and the financial benchmarks intended for the year. It provides a non-financial context against which the data in later sections is measured.
The table utilizes a net-value calculation model to differentiate between gross contributions and actual program funding.
This section synthesizes individual data points into a holistic portfolio view.
This section introduces subjective and operational criteria that cannot be captured by mathematical formulas. It focuses on organizational health, ethics, and long-term viability. By including transparency and sustainability ratings, the form provides a multi-dimensional view of an organization beyond its financial efficiency.
The final section is designed for data-driven reflection. It provides space to document discrepancies found in the efficiency scores and plan for upcoming calendar events (like matching grants). It serves as a concluding log for observations made during the assessment process, ensuring that the form remains a living record rather than a static spreadsheet.