01 / DIGNITYRespect people’s agency.
People are not illustrations of a donor’s generosity. Seek meaningful consent for stories, photographs and data. Do not make public gratitude a condition of support. Ask how people can decline, challenge a decision or raise a concern without losing their voice.
Participation also requires practical access: language, timing, transport, technology and compensation for expertise can affect whose view is heard. An invitation alone is not evidence that a decision was inclusive.
Ask: Who can say no, and what happens when they do?
02 / COMMUNITY VOICEListen before setting the answer.
Begin with the priorities of the people closest to the issue and the organisations already working on it. Discover what has been tried, where the constraints lie and what useful support would look like. The problem you first notice may not be the one a community would choose to address.
Be explicit about which decisions are open to influence and which constraints are fixed. Share what you heard and explain what changed as a result. Consultation that never affects a decision risks becoming a performance.
Ask: Whose knowledge could change this plan?
03 / PURPOSEChoose a contribution with a reason.
Define the change you hope to support, the people or place it concerns and why your contribution is appropriate. Consider existing provision and what would happen without your involvement. Additionality is a question about the difference your support might make, not a claim that nobody else is helping.
Money is one resource among many. Time, networks, space, skills and patient attention can matter. Equally, an unwanted offer can create work. Ask whether the proposed contribution is genuinely useful and what the recipient would need to accept it.
Ask: What becomes possible that would otherwise be harder?
04 / TRUSTMake the relationship work.
Be clear about what you can offer, the time horizon and any restrictions. Meet commitments and communicate changes early. Where appropriate, flexible support can help an organisation respond to real needs rather than continually reshape its work around separate donor preferences.
Longer-term relationships can create room to plan and learn, but continuity should not become dependence without a conversation about sustainability or exit. Respect the recipient’s expertise while keeping proportionate accountability. Trust and clear expectations can support one another.
Ask: Are our conditions helping the work or making it harder?
05 / PROPORTIONALITYCheck carefully, without needless burden.
Understand who is receiving support, how they operate and whether the proposed activity fits their purpose and capabilities. Verify identity and payment details independently. Use official registers where relevant, but do not treat registration as proof that every proposed project is suitable or effective.
The depth of review should reflect the scale, context and risks of the contribution. Avoid asking a small organisation for elaborate reporting that will not inform a decision. Reuse suitable existing information and explain why additional information is needed.
Ask: What do we need to know, and what will we do with it?
06 / STEWARDSHIPTake responsibility for the consequences.
Resources come with choices about power, privacy and risk. Declare conflicts of interest and distinguish personal preferences from public benefit. Consider safeguarding, accessibility, environmental effects and unintended harm appropriate to the activity. Seek specialist advice where the situation requires it.
When using AI to support research or administration, check its sources, protect personal information and retain human responsibility for consequential decisions. Do not turn an automated score into an unquestioned judgement about a person or community.
Ask: Who might bear a cost we have not counted?
07 / LEARNINGNotice what changes—and what does not.
Agree useful evidence before asking for a report. Combine practical measures with the perspectives of people affected. Keep the difference between activity, outcomes and longer-term impact clear, and acknowledge other influences on the result.
Make it possible to discuss failure, adaptation and unintended effects. A reporting system that rewards only good news will often produce good-news reports. Share the lesson in a way that protects privacy and does not unfairly transfer blame to the recipient.
Ask: What evidence would make us reconsider?
08 / ACCOUNTABILITYMake decisions explainable.
Explain your priorities, decision process and practical limits. Provide a way to ask questions or raise concerns, and be honest about what you cannot offer. Publish information that is useful to the people affected while keeping confidential and personal information protected.
Review the relationship as well as the project. Did the process respect time? Was the balance of power acknowledged? Did the reporting improve decisions? Responsible giving remains open to scrutiny, including scrutiny of the giver.
Ask: Could we explain this choice to the people living with it?