For fundraising commitments already made
See what your fundraising commitment rests on.
You have a goal and a deadline. People are counting on both.
Evident Method is being developed to test whether your fundraising portfolio can support that commitment. If there's a gap, it looks for changes that could close it in time, with reasons you can check.
You decide what happens next.
Shown on synthetic data. A working demonstration uses one fictional campaign. Use on real portfolios is Not yet tested.
When your decision depends on the answer
You may be leading the campaign. Approving the plan. Advising the team. Lending against pledges. Making a lead gift.
Each role carries a different decision. Each needs a clear basis for it.
Evident Method is exploring where this approach would help. Your experience can help test that fit.
Not yet tested
The total is only part of the answer.
Timing. A gift may arrive after the deadline.
Staff time. Two asks may need the same person's hours.
Reliance on large gifts. One gift may carry more of the commitment than you're prepared to count on.
These limits belong beside the dollars.
Four answers. Each with its reasons.
| Answer | What it means | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Yes. | The portfolio supports the commitment under the stated limits. In the example, this is the plan after the changes. | Shown on synthetic data |
| Not yet. | A set of changes would close the gap if each happens in time. | Shown on synthetic data |
| No. | No combination of the options considered closes the gap under those limits. | Shown on synthetic data |
| Not enough to say. | An unresolved fact could change the answer. The intended response names what needs to be learned. | Designed, not yet built |
Change the time available.
See the answer change.
The campaign needs another $1.2 million by Dec. 31. Its portfolio supports $875,000 under the stated limits. Four changes could close the $325,000 gap.
This fictional example represents available staff effort in units. The four changes require 32 of the 42 units available. Adjust the available effort to see what happens.
Adjust from 28 to 42 units. All other limits stay the same.
Changes need 32 units. 42 available.
Commitment remaining: $1,200,000
Not yet. Four changes would close the gap.
They use 32 of the 42 units available. Move one existing conversation forward by Sept. 22. Start three new asks by Sept. 22, Oct. 2 and Oct. 17.
Options considered: moving an existing gift forward and starting a new ask.
Synthetic data from one fictional campaign. Performance on real portfolios is Not yet tested.
Where the work stands
Shown on synthetic data
One fictional campaign demonstrates the gap, four changes that close it, and their last useful dates. It also demonstrates a scoped “no” when staff time falls to 31 units. The resulting plan can be checked against each stated rule.
Designed, not yet built
The answer for unresolved facts. Recording where each fact came from and what was known at the time. Testing changes to the commitment's scope.
Not yet tested
Real portfolios. Comparison with experienced teams' current practice. Time saved. Someone other than Amanda running the method alone. Willingness to pay.
A person behind the work
“I’ve worked in fundraising since 2010, including 15 years with mid-level and major donors. I'm developing Evident Method because the judgment behind a commitment deserves to be seen and checked.”
Amanda Beyer, CAP®, CFRE Founder
Start with a decision you know.
Bring a past fundraising commitment to a conversation with Amanda. One that went well is useful too.
Talk through what was known, how the judgment was made and who relied on it. You can also walk through the fictional example.
No donor records are needed for the conversation.