Show supporters what changed, and what remains unfinished

The question behind the update

Current research provides a reason to take explanation seriously. BBB Give.org released its 2026 Donor Trust Report on May 5, based on a December 2025 online survey of more than 1,500 U.S. adults. In the report, 67.7% rated trusting a charity as essential before donating, while 18.3% reported high trust in charities. These are different survey questions, not a measured conversion funnel.

The same report identifies charity websites as an influential information source among respondents who seek information before giving. Its findings describe self-reported attitudes and behavior. They do not establish that a particular reporting format creates trust or causes someone to give. For a communications brief, the useful question is what a person should be able to understand when they arrive at the website.

Choose one question for each update. Did a program reach the people it intended to reach? Did participants complete the activity? Is there evidence of a change afterward? What prevented delivery? Each demands different information. A page that tries to answer all of them equally can leave the reader unsure which finding matters.

Give each number a job

Before writing a headline, create a short evidence note for the program team to check. Record what was counted, the period, who was included, who was missing and where the information came from. Specify whether the number describes an activity delivered, a result observed or an interpretation. This is a proposed production discipline: the note remains behind the scenes, while its important qualifications stay visible in the published account.

Consider a hypothetical community arts program. It runs 12 workshops, registers 90 people and sees 62 attend at least once. A later optional survey receives 24 replies; 18 respondents say they continued making art at home. Every number in this example is illustrative. The workshops describe delivery, attendance describes participation, and the survey describes what a responding subset reports.

A defensible update would report 18 of 24 respondents, alongside the 62 attendees and the response limitation. It would not say that three quarters of all participants developed a lasting practice. Nor would it claim the program caused the reported behavior. Those conclusions require evidence this example does not provide. The communications task is to preserve the difference even when a shorter headline sounds stronger.

Put the period and denominator near the number, not in a remote footnote. If the definition changes between updates, explain the change before presenting a trend. A rise in registrations after widening eligibility is not directly comparable with the previous count.

Build a readable progress note

NPC’s guidance on impact reporting recommends explaining results honestly, including what did not work and how the organization intends to improve. It also emphasizes making the evidence behind claims available and avoiding exaggerated attribution. Those principles can inform a shorter supporter update; they do not prescribe one universal communication format.

An editorial option is a compact progress note with three passages. Open with the change readers should understand. Follow with the evidence and its most important qualification. End with the decision the organization is making as a result. Add a descriptive link to fuller information for readers who want to inspect the method or context.

For the illustrative arts program, the first passage might explain that evening workshops attracted attendance but repeat participation remained uneven. The second would present the relevant attendance records and state what they cannot explain. The third could announce a small test of a different start time, prompted by participant feedback. Until that test runs, describe it as a planned response rather than a solved problem.

Keep the full note on a stable, readable web page. An email can introduce the finding and link to it; an event host can discuss the same finding. Give each format the same reporting period and wording for the central claim. This reduces the chance that a cautious finding becomes a confident promise as it moves between channels.

Leave room for people without demanding a success story

A person’s account can explain what a program feels like, but it should not be asked to stand in for everyone. Introduce an individual story as one perspective. Avoid selecting details that turn a participant into a symbol of helplessness before the organization intervened. Let the account include agency, mixed feelings and the contribution of people outside the program.

As an editorial practice, explain the intended audience and uses before requesting a story or photograph. Offer a meaningful option to decline. Check the final context with the contributor where feasible, including captions and translations. Agree on a contact for later concerns. These are recommendations for respectful communication, not legal advice or a substitute for the organization’s own safeguarding requirements.

NPC also warns that changing a name may not be enough to prevent identification. A specific neighborhood, role and unusual life event can identify someone in combination. Where a story cannot be shared appropriately, describe the program or use an explicitly labeled illustration. Do not fabricate a quote or present an AI-generated person as a real participant.

Give participation a purpose

A progress update does not always need a donation request. It might invite a question for the program lead, offer a brief explanation of the work or identify a concrete volunteer role with requirements. Select a next step that follows from the information just shared. If there is no useful action, allow the update to end after answering its question.

For an illustrative supporter briefing, distribute the progress note beforehand and reserve time for questions about the evidence and the next decision. Give the moderator permission to say an answer is not yet known. Log unanswered questions and publish a short response afterward where appropriate. Keep participants’ personal information out of that record.

Avoid creating a privileged version of the facts for a small group while the public page remains vague. Different audiences may need different levels of detail, but the central claim should remain consistent. Recognition preferences can vary too: offer supporters a choice about being named rather than treating public visibility as a universal reward.

Make the account maintainable

Assign ownership at the claim level. A program colleague verifies delivery and results; a communications colleague checks whether the wording matches the evidence; a designated owner keeps the page current. Set the next review around when meaningful information will become available. Monthly publication is not useful if the underlying observation takes a year.

External profiles need the same care. Candid’s Platinum Seal instructions ask organizations to share goals, strategies and metrics, including at least one recent impact metric, and describe the information as self-reported. A profile can help make an account findable. The editorial responsibility is still to explain what each metric does and does not show.

Maintain a small register of public claims: wording, reporting period, source, owner and next review date. When a number is corrected, update the main page and any prominently linked summary, with a visible correction where the change affects interpretation. Avoid quietly replacing a figure in a way that makes an old campaign appear to have used information unavailable at the time.

Test whether the explanation works

Before sending the next note widely, ask a few readers unfamiliar with the program to explain what changed, what remains uncertain and what happens next. Treat this as a diagnostic exercise, not a representative survey. If they repeat the activity count as proof of a lasting outcome, revise the hierarchy and language.

After publication, look at the questions that arrive and the work required to answer them. Resource visits can indicate interest; they cannot establish understanding or trust. If the team also tracks continued participation, report it separately and avoid crediting the update for changes that may have other explanations.

For the next edition, replace one promotional paragraph with a finding that can be checked. Name one unresolved issue and the next opportunity to learn about it. A supporter should be able to leave the page with a clearer picture of the work, including the part that remains to be done.