A board pack you can rebuild in January and still get the same numbers.

What goes wrong today

The board pack is a quarterly research project

Someone pulls a payment export, a campaign export and a supporter export, then reconciles them by hand into slides. The work takes days, and nobody else can rebuild the same numbers if a trustee asks a follow-up question next month.

A total raised, but no read on what produces it

You see the headline figure for the year, but not whether it rests on a handful of large one-off gifts or a broad base of recurring donors. Those two situations call for different decisions, and the total alone does not tell them apart.

No forward view of committed income

Recurring giving is the closest thing you have to predictable income, yet most reporting only shows what already arrived. By the time a decline in recurring giving shows up in a backward-looking total, the quarter it affected has already passed.

Deciding where to invest next year’s effort without evidence

Choosing which appeal, channel or campaign to invest in next often comes down to who argues most persuasively in the planning meeting, because the attribution data that would settle it sits in three different tools and was never reconciled.

What connects, and on whose authorization

Each source below is read only after your organization configures and authorizes it.

Built-in fundraising analytics

Operational and fundraising dashboards read directly from the reconciled transaction and supporter record, so a board figure comes from a query, not from hours of hand assembly.

Campaign & source attribution

Campaign and source data travels with each gift into the transaction record, which turns "what worked" from a recollection into a comparison you can act on.

Stripe

Recurring payment events, active, failed, cancelled, arrive as they happen, which is what makes a forward view of committed income possible, not just a backward total.

CSV & spreadsheet imports

Prior years brought in through import sit in the same record as current activity, so a year-on-year comparison is a read of one dataset, not a reconciliation exercise of its own.

Power BI Limited

For a board that already reviews finances in Power BI, the same reconciled figures report there too, as an optional addition alongside the built-in analytics. Optional, on top of the reporting that is already built in. Licensed separately.

The operating loop for this work

1. Connect

   Your processors, website, forms and import sources feed the same record leadership analytics reads from. Nothing separate needs assembling for reporting.

2. Unify and reconcile

   Gifts, refunds and recurring events resolve into one transaction and supporter record. Operational teams and leadership reporting both draw from that single source.

3. Analyze

   Built-in analytics surface recurring funding health, campaign and source attribution, and year-on-year movement without a separate export step.

4. Decide

   Attribution shows which campaigns and sources actually produced results, which turns next year’s allocation into a decision made from evidence, not opinion.

5. Report and reproduce

   Because the figures are read, not assembled, the same question asked again later produces the same answer. That is what lets a board pack survive a follow-up question.

A forward view, not just a total raised

A total raised describes the past. It says nothing about whether next quarter’s income is secure or exposed, because a large one-off gift and a broad base of small recurring donors can produce the same headline number while carrying completely different levels of risk.

Recurring payment events, active, failed, cancelled, resumed, are ingested as they happen. Donativus presents recurring giving as a current state, not a historical sum: how much committed monthly income exists right now, how much of it is at risk from recently failed payments, and how that compares with the same point last year. That is the forward view a board actually needs, when the question is not what did we raise but what can we count on.

This reads from data your own processors and forms already produce. It does not depend on a separate reporting exercise run alongside the fundraising operation.

Deciding where next year’s effort goes

Planning meetings default to opinion when the evidence for what actually worked is scattered across a mail tool, an analytics property and a payout report that nobody has reconciled against each other. The appeal that felt successful and the appeal that was actually most efficient are not always the same appeal.

Because campaign and source attribution is carried through to the transaction record at the point of ingestion, results can be read by campaign, not only by total. That turns the allocation question, which channel, which appeal, which audience deserves more of next year’s effort, into something the data answers directly, rather than something decided by whoever remembers the spring appeal most favourably.

Reading across entities without losing the detail

A board overseeing more than one legal entity usually wants two things that are hard to get at once: a single consolidated figure for the group, and confidence that the figure was not produced by quietly merging separate organizations’ records together.

Where you run several entities, each keeps its own tenant-scoped workspace and its own reconciled record. Consolidated reporting reads across those workspaces for roles granted group-level access, rather than pooling the underlying data. A trustee can see the group total and still ask, credibly, whether each entity’s figures stayed separate. The answer is yes, by construction.

A board pack that survives a follow-up question

The test of a good board pack is not whether the numbers look right in the meeting. It is whether the same question, asked again in three months by someone who was not in the room, produces the same figure. A pack assembled by hand from disconnected exports usually fails that test quietly, because the method that produced it was never written down.

Because leadership analytics read from the same reconciled record the fundraising and finance functions already work from, the underlying figures do not depend on who compiled them or which spreadsheet formula was used that quarter. Power BI stays available as an optional, separately licensed addition for a board that already works in it, but it sits on top of the same reconciled data, not in place of it.

What changes

A reproducible board pack

Figures are read from one reconciled record, so the same question asked again later gives the same answer.

A forward view of committed income

Recurring funding health shows what is at risk now, not only what was raised in the past.

Allocation backed by attribution

Campaign and source data shows what actually produced results, so you know where next year’s effort should go.

Group figures without losing entity boundaries

Consolidated reporting reads across entity workspaces without merging their underlying records.

How it fits with what you run

• Donativus does not initiate payments, issue refunds or move money. Reported figures reflect data ingested and reconciled from your own processors.
• Consolidated reporting reads across separate entity workspaces. It does not merge supporters, transactions or configuration into a shared pool.
• Built-in analytics cover operational and fundraising reporting. Power BI is an optional addition, licensed separately, for boards that already work in it.
• Every source feeding leadership analytics ingests only after you configure and authorize it. There is no passive collection behind the reported figures.