AI Tools Evaluation Scorecard for Nonprofits

How to Use This Scorecard

AI tools are proliferating faster than nonprofits can evaluate them. A new tool gets featured in a sector newsletter, a board member asks why you’re not using it, and suddenly you’re in a vendor demo without a clear framework for what “good” looks like.

This scorecard gives you that framework. It covers four use cases — grant writing assistance, donor communication, data analysis, and administrative automation — with specific scoring criteria for each. Use it to evaluate one tool at a time, or to compare multiple tools side by side.

How to score: Each criterion is scored 1–5.

• 1 = Does not meet this criterion
• 2 = Partially meets; significant gaps
• 3 = Meets the criterion adequately
• 4 = Meets well; minor gaps
• 5 = Exceeds expectations; strong fit

Weights: Not all criteria are equal. For nonprofits handling donor data and grant funds, data privacy and security criteria should be weighted more heavily than any feature criterion. The scorecard notes which criteria are weighted.

---

Use Case 1: Grant Writing Assistance

Scoring Criteria

Criterion 1: Ability to incorporate organizational context Can the tool learn (or be prompted with) your organization’s theory of change, current programs, past grant language, and budget details — and produce output that reflects your specific work rather than generic nonprofit language?

Score	Description
1	Generic outputs; no way to customize with organizational context
2	Can accept some context but outputs remain largely generic
3	Accepts detailed prompts; outputs reflect context with supervision
4	Retains organizational context across sessions or via document upload
5	Learns organizational voice and context; minimal supervision required

Criterion 2: Quality of narrative output for a foundation grant Does the output require significant editing to be submission-ready, or does it produce usable first drafts?

Score	Description
1	Output is generic and unusable; significant rewrite required
2	Output is a useful starting point but requires major revision
3	Output is 50–70% usable; requires moderate editing
4	Output is 70–85% usable with targeted editing
5	Output is 85%+ usable; primary editing is voice and specificity

Criterion 3: Budget narrative assistance Can the tool help draft budget justification language for specific line items?

Score	Description
1	No budget assistance capability
2	Generic budget language only
3	Useful budget language with specific cost details provided
4	Produces line-item justifications that match proposal narrative
5	Integrates budget data to produce coherent budget narrative

Criterion 4: Compliance with funder requirements Can the tool format output to specific page limits, word counts, or funder-specified section structures?

Score	Description
1	No length/format controls
2	Rough length control only
3	Reliably produces output within specified length constraints
4	Adapts to funder-specific section headers and requirements
5	Can reference funder guidelines directly and structure output accordingly

Criterion 5: Avoiding hallucinated statistics Does the tool produce fabricated statistics, citations, or organizational claims that would be embarrassing or disqualifying in a grant submission?

Score	Description
1	Regularly produces specific claims without basis; not safe for grant work
2	Occasionally produces unsupported claims; requires careful review
3	Generally avoids unsupported claims when prompted appropriately
4	Rarely produces unsupported claims; easy to verify output
5	Consistently signals uncertainty; never fabricates specific claims

Grant Writing Assistance Total: __ / 25

---