By reporting on programs according to their natural timelines, nonprofits can provide donors with clearer, more accurate claims while avoiding unnecessary work.
When nonprofits report on their impact, we ask them to use the natural start and end dates of their programs—whether that’s a calendar year, a school year, or a fiscal year that fits their operations.
At first, this can feel uncomfortable for donors, who often want reports aligned to their own fiscal years. But forcing nonprofits to “harmonize” their data to each donor’s calendar creates serious costs—and at best, will produce the exact same result—but with significant risk of error (i.e., less accuracy).
The Cost of “Forced Harmonization”
Imagine a nonprofit that runs its housing program from January–December, but a donor’s fiscal year runs October–September. Forcing the nonprofit to report on the donor’s timeline creates three problems:
1. Wasteful Work
The nonprofit must prepare custom reports for each donor’s fiscal year. That’s extra hours in spreadsheets and reporting—time diverted from serving people.
2. Risk of Error
Splitting and restitching results across artificial dates increases the chance of mistakes: double counting, undercounting, or confusing gaps in the story.
3. Same Result, More Work
If a donor insists on using an artificial timeline (like October–September), the nonprofit has to:
-
Split the donation across two program years.
-
Calculate a proportional claim in each year.
-
Add those claims together to get the donor’s total impact.
All else equal, this split-and-recombine method produces the exact same claim the donor would have had under the nonprofit’s natural program year.
For example, if you donate $100K to a housing program that costs $1M to implement (i.e., 10% of the funding) and that program houses 100 people, your claim is always 10% of the impact—housing 10 people. Whether the gift falls neatly inside a January–December year, or gets chopped across two fiscal years, the bottom-line claim doesn’t change.
The only difference? The nonprofit has to do a lot more behind-the-scenes work to produce that claim. It doesn’t change the donor’s impact—it just increases the nonprofit’s reporting burden.
Our Approach: Keep It Simple, Protect Against Error
By sticking with a nonprofit’s existing program year:
-
One report works for everyone
Donors see their impact clearly, without requiring a custom cut. -
Accuracy is protected
Because the calculation is straightforward (i.e., a single claim calculation applied to a single social impact report), it avoids extra steps where mistakes can creep in.
But What If I Give at the End of the Year? (e.g., October)
A common question is: “If I give late in the year, but the program runs January–December, how can I claim credit for the whole year?”
Here’s how it works:
-
Programs aren’t prepaid in cash. If they haven’t yet raised the full cost, nonprofits operate “on credit”—through reserves, lines of credit, or unpaid staff time.
-
Your gift fills the gap. When you contribute, you’re directly underwriting that program’s total cost. Even if you came in late, your donation supports the full program, not just the months ahead.
-
That’s why we calculate proportionally. Your share of outcomes is based on your share of total program funding—not the month you happened to write the check.
Think of it like buying shares in a company. Whether you invest in January or October, your ownership percentage reflects the size of your investment relative to the total, not the date you bought in.
The Bottom Line
Impact is clearest when measured against the program as it naturally runs. By respecting nonprofits’ existing timelines:
-
Donors get an accurate, proportional claim on results.
-
Nonprofits avoid redundant reporting work.
-
Everyone gains more confidence in the numbers.
It’s simpler, fairer, and more accurate—for both funders and nonprofits.