The donor sheet
Built by whoever was there first. Two people have edit access, one of them left, and the version in the shared drive is four months behind the one on a laptop.
For nonprofits and NGOs
One bed, instead of nine spreadsheets and one person's memory.
Small teams do not lose donors through carelessness. They lose them because the record of the relationship is scattered across tools that were each a reasonable choice at the time. Consolidation is the whole point of HOPEAQUE, and everything else follows from it.
- Best fit
- Teams of 2 to 40 handling their own fundraising
- Replaces
- Donor sheets, volunteer rosters, manual reconciliation
- Starts at
- The Community tier, up to 500 records
A small file, honestly read5 of your bed
Monthlyscore 79
Volunteerscore 64
Annualscore 47
Majorscore 92
Driftingscore 25
What you are working with now
Four artefacts every nonprofit team recognises.
None of these are mistakes. They are what happens when a growing organisation solves each problem the day it appears.
The volunteer roster
A separate sheet, a group chat for cancellations, and a paper sign-in book at the site. Hours get totalled in the last week of the financial year.
The gateway export
Downloaded monthly, matched to names by hand, and reconciled against receipts. Failed mandates look identical to donors who stopped caring.
The reporting scramble
Board meeting on Thursday, so someone spends Tuesday and Wednesday turning three of the above into one narrative that will be rebuilt from scratch next quarter.
What changes
Four consolidations, in the order they usually pay off.
01
One supporter record, both relationships
The person who gives on the twelfth and volunteers on Saturdays is one record, not two rows in two files. Whoever picks up the relationship next inherits the whole history.
- Duplicates surfaced for review rather than merged silently
- Failed payments distinguished from genuine lapses
- Consent recorded per channel with its source and date
02
A short, ranked list instead of a full file
You cannot personally steward four thousand supporters. You can call the six whose engagement fell this fortnight, if somebody tells you which six and why.
- Drifting supporters ranked by how recoverable the relationship is
- The triggering signal attached to every flag
- Suggested next step, with the promise nobody kept if there is one
03
Volunteer coordination that stops being a person
Shift matching, reminders and hours logging run against the same record as giving, so coordination stops depending on one person's availability on a Friday evening.
- Matching on skill, location and past reliability
- Hours logged against the programme automatically
- Certificates and annual filings generated from the same data
04
Reporting as a review, not a rebuild
Board packs, donor updates and grant interims are drafted from the giving and programme data your team already enters. You edit and approve rather than reconcile and retype.
- Donor tiers get appropriate depth automatically
- Figures stay linked to their source
- Gaps in programme data are stated, not filled in
Getting started
What the first month actually looks like.
No implementation consultant, no six-month project plan. This is a small-team product and the onboarding is built for a team that is also running programmes.
Week 1
Import and clean
Bring in your donor sheet and volunteer roster with column mapping. Duplicates and unmatched rows come back as a fixable list. Most teams finish this in an afternoon and spend a day reviewing merges.
Week 2
Connect the money
Import gateway or donation-platform history so gifts, fees and failed mandates attach to the right records. This is what makes the difference between a lapse and a bank failure visible.
Week 3
First scores, read with suspicion
Scores appear across the file. Read them against people you know well, and adjust the signal weights where your organisation's rhythm differs from the default. This step matters more than any other.
Week 4
First drifting list, first calls
Work the ranked list rather than the whole file. Log what you tried. The record of what worked is what makes the next month's suggestions better than this month's.
Where HOPEAQUE is the wrong choice
If your entire supporter base is under a hundred people and you know every one of them personally, a well-kept spreadsheet is genuinely better than any CRM, including this one. HOPEAQUE starts earning its place at roughly the point where you can no longer hold the file in your head, which for most organisations is somewhere between three and eight hundred supporters.
You do not need a bigger team to steward supporters properly. You need a shorter list.
Six names with a reason attached beats four thousand names with none.