Many organisations now see staff using AI tools without agreed guidance, a wide choice of training with no clear basis for selecting it, and funder questionnaires that ask about AI governance. We assess where you stand, set the rules, train each department on its own work, and leave you the evidence a board, funder or auditor expects.
Mission-driven and international organisations of up to 500 staff: NGOs, foundations, UN agencies and public institutions, typically without an in-house AI function and with beneficiary, donor or personal data in their daily work. We speak first with the executive director or the data protection officer.
Individuals and organisation representatives are served through courses for fewer than ten participants, in person or online, priced per person. Private-sector work is taken on referral. We build no AI systems. Foundations funding a portfolio of grantees have their own page.
Every figure below links to the organisation that published it. Where we could not verify a number against its source, it is not on this site.
In a benchmark study of 346 nonprofits, 92% report using AI, 81% use it individually without shared workflows, and only 7% report major improvements in organisational capability. source
Surveying 215 foundations and 451 nonprofits in April 2025, the Center for Effective Philanthropy reports that almost two-thirds say none or just a few of their staff have a solid understanding of AI and its applications. source
Among UK charities, 76% now use AI tools, up from 61% a year earlier. Small charities name limited digital skills (48%) and lack of training (44%) as their biggest barriers to adopting them. source
Services can be bought singly or as a package. Fixed price and fixed scope, agreed before work begins. The method and the price for each are on the services page.
SituationThe board or a funder has asked where the organisation stands on AI, and no measured answer exists.
ResultA scored position across ten dimensions, an inventory of the tools in use and a ranked 90-day plan. You answer with a figure and a course of action.
How we get there, and the price →SituationStaff use AI on donor reports and proposals without agreed rules, or under a prohibition that has moved the use out of view.
ResultA policy the board approves and staff follow because it states what is permitted, with which data, on which tools. The funder's question has a documented answer.
How we get there, and the price →SituationStaff have completed general AI courses and still ask what is appropriate in their own role.
ResultEach department leaves with a working playbook built on its own tasks and documents, works within the rules, and you hold the attendance record.
How we get there, and the price →SituationSix months after training, the tools have changed, the champions have moved on and no one has re-measured.
ResultThe capability is maintained: monthly office hours, updated playbooks, coached champions and a re-score that shows the board what has moved.
How we get there, and the price →SituationThe same task is performed by hand each week, differently by each person, with results that depend on who performed it.
ResultThe repetitive part is configured once on the platform you already pay for, tested on your documents, cleared against your policy, and performed consistently.
How we get there, and the price →Delegation, Description, Discernment and Diligence: the AI Fluency framework published by Anthropic with Rick Dakan and Joseph Feller. The framework is public, so the method can be verified against it.
What to hand to AI, what to keep human, and who decides.
How to ask, with your organisation's context already in the request.
How to check an output before anyone relies on it.
What to log, what to disclose, and who owns the result.
They are the four axes of your assessment score, the four sections of every team's playbook, the four clause groups of your policy and the four modules of every session. The diagnosis, the training and the rules use one vocabulary, so a gap found in the assessment maps directly onto a clause and a lab.
Twenty-eight questions across the four competencies. You receive a score, a breakdown by competency, and a ranked list of what to address first. No call is needed and you keep the report. The extended assessment, sixty questions across ten dimensions, is also free.
A playbook for each department: five tasks to hand over, three never to, the prompt patterns that work on their files, the checks before anything leaves the building, and what has to be logged.
In person or online, built on the participants' own tasks, ending with a playbook for their work and an attendance record. In-person courses include accommodation and hospitality arrangements. Priced per person.
Only about 10% of foundations report supporting grantees on AI implementation, and almost two-thirds of foundations and nonprofits say none or just a few of their staff have a solid understanding of AI. source We run the assessment across a cohort, set the rules, train the teams, and give you one report on where the portfolio stands.
We sell no licences and take no partner commissions. If the free tier of a tool is enough for your team, we say so.
We work from the 4D AI Fluency framework and map the diagnostic to recognised standards. Both are public, so the method can be audited before you sign.
Each team leaves with a working reference built from its own tasks and cleared against your policy. Staff use it because it is theirs and it answers the question in front of them.
Donor reporting, beneficiary data, safeguarding, disclosure to funders, DPIA. The material is written for this sector from the first draft.
There is no pitch team and no handover to a junior after signature. How engagements run.
The assessment, the policy and the attendance record form the file a donor or a board asks to see. It is documentation, not certification, and we do not offer compliance or legal services. See how the alternatives compare.
Book it, or run the estimator first and bring the range with you.