Three Rooms: Donor, Team and BoardThree Rooms: Donor, Team and Board. Fundraising training teaches you to write it well. Nothing measures whether all three rooms were told the same thing.
Eight real situations from the space between a funder, a delivery team and a board. Each one written three times, once to each room. Your report shows how you adapt, and whether the decision underneath survived all three tellings.
The same decision, told three times, and the one place it goes wrong
Stewardship communication is what you say about one decision in three rooms: to the funder who paid for it, to the team who have to deliver it, and to the board who carry the risk. The skill is not saying it well. The skill is that the decision underneath is still the same decision in all three. That is the thing this measures, and it is measured by putting the same eight situations to you three times and comparing what you sent.
A grant year ending with a fifth of the money unspent. A donor who wants a photograph of somebody who has not agreed to it. A programme that has not moved the outcome it was funded to move. A partner who has not sent a safeguarding report in six weeks. A large gift from a source the people you serve complain about. A restricted gift being eyed to cover a salary. A second site the grant does not pay for. Every option is a line a capable professional could send, and the difference between them is degree. Not one of them depends on any country's charity law, tax regime or regulator, because the promise travels and the rulebook does not.
The scoring is a correlation rather than a distance, which means it is not a plainness contest. The keyed lines are deliberately not equally blunt across the three rooms: the board is written at 3.9 out of 4, the funder at 3.4, the delivery team at 2.5, because an institutional worry a team cannot act on buys anxiety rather than action. So a person who is uniformly blunt and a person who is uniformly gentle are both scored on their pattern, and a respondent whose lines never vary is told there is no pattern to match rather than quietly placed in the middle. Level is then reported separately, in both directions, in the instrument's own words: said it more plainly than the room needed, against left them to work it out. And every claim the report makes is numbered and answered at the foot of the page by the line you picked and the line that was keyed, side by side.
What you walk away with
How plainly you wrote to the funder, the team and the board, against how plainly each room needed it. With the table underneath, because a chart that does not survive a black and white print is decoration.
For each of the eight situations: what the funder was told, what the team was told, what the board was told, and whether those were the same decision. This is the finding nothing else on the market produces.
Your score is the shape of how you adapt, not how blunt you are in general. The level is reported separately with its own name and its own fix, because saying too much and saying too little are the same size of error here.
Every sentence the report writes about you is numbered and answered by two lines you can read side by side: the one you sent and the one that was keyed, with one sentence on the difference.
A case with a room left unanswered is counted as incomplete, never as agreement. An empty sitting comes back with nothing to report rather than with a perfect consistency score.
Inside your report
Illustrative sample - your report is generated from your own responses.
The keyed lines are not equally blunt across the three rooms, so the score is your pattern rather than your plainness.
Engagement has held up well across the two years. We will set out next year’s plan in the report.
This has not worked and we want to close it. Two years of your money has not moved the outcome.
Your line states less than the keyed one does for this reader, by 3 steps of plainness. It implied carry on where the keyed line implied end it.
Every claim in the report is numbered and answered here by two lines you can read side by side. Endnotes, never hover text, so the page prints complete.
Built for
- Fundraisers, grant managers, programme leads and communications staff who write to a funder, a team and a board in the same week
- Chief executives and heads of department in small and mid-sized organisations, where all three of those messages are written by the same person
- Funders, capacity-building programmes and sector training providers who want a measure of stewardship communication rather than another writing workshop
Find out whether your three rooms are being told the same thing
32 scored exercises - about 38 minutes - a full bespoke report with a three-room strip, a per-case decision table, and every claim answered by the line you actually sent.
₹899 (incl. GST) · assessment and full report, nothing further to pay
Frequently asked questions
What you say about the same decision in three different rooms - to the funder who paid for it, to the team who have to deliver it, and to the board who carry the risk - and whether the decision underneath survives all three tellings. It does not measure fundraising results, writing style, charm, sector knowledge, or how much money you have raised.
No. You never write anything. Each situation gives you four lines somebody could send to that room and asks which one you are most likely to send, so reading and typing speed stay out of it. The four lines are matched in length to within a few characters, and the keyed one is the longest in fewer than three cases in ten, which is close to what chance would give. The difficulty lives in the judgement, not in the vocabulary.
No. Every situation is written around the relationship and the promise rather than the rulebook: what was agreed when the money arrived, who has to act on the sentence, and who finds out last. No statute, regulator, tax term, named funder or named organisation appears anywhere, so it reads the same in any country and it does not go out of date when a rulebook changes.
No, and that is designed in. Your score is the correlation between how plainly you wrote across the twenty four messages and how plainly each room needed it, so it measures your pattern rather than your level. The keyed lines are not equally blunt: the board averages 3.9 out of 4, the funder 3.4 and the delivery team 2.5. Anyone who always picks the bluntest line, or always the gentlest, produces a flat pattern, and the report says there is no pattern to match rather than printing a zero that would read as a finding.
Rs 899 in India including GST, or US$8.99 elsewhere, one time, for one full sitting and report. The honest comparison is that there is nothing quite like it: fundraising and stewardship training is sold as membership-body courses and conference workshops, priced per seat and per day, and it teaches rather than measures. Nothing on the market scores an individual's stewardship communication, and no course tells you whether your funder, your team and your board were given the same decision. Organisations can use AssessAll credits at 30 credits per person.
Each one takes a single capability, puts you inside the situations where it is actually tested, and scores your choices against published evidence — with a report designed for that capability alone, not a template. They span hiring, compliance, education, operations and personal skill.
Browse the catalogue →Methodology: Measures what a person says about one decision in three different rooms, through original situational and self-report items keyed to published constructs. Construct statement: It measures what a person says about the same decision in three different rooms - to the funder who paid for it, to the team who have to deliver it, and to the board who carry the risk - and whether the decision underneath survives all three tellings. It does not measure fundraising results, writing style, charm, sector knowledge, or how much money a person has raised. Declared response instruction: behavioural tendency throughout - every stem asks which line the respondent is most likely to send, never which line is correct, because instructed-knowledge framing is the more fakeable of the two and this instrument is trying to observe a habit rather than test a rule. Item format: eight decision cases, each written three times, once as a message to the funder who paid for the work, once to the team who have to deliver it and once to the board who carry the risk, giving twenty four four-option message items in which every option is a line a capable professional could send; plus eight balanced-keyed self-check statements about the respondent's own stewardship habits, half of them worded so that agreeing is not the flattering answer. Every option carries how plainly it states the actual position, on a four-point directness label, and the decision it implies, as proceed, pause or stop; the alignment of the three rooms of a case is carried by those labels and by the case and room tags rather than by option order, so it survives the option shuffling every sitting applies. Scoring is profile-match correlation: the respondent's twenty four directness picks are correlated against the keyed directness for the same items, so the score is the shape of how they adapt rather than how plainly they write in general, and a respondent whose picks carry no variation is reported as expressing no profile rather than placed at a centroid. Level is reported separately in both directions, said it more plainly than the room needed against left them to work it out, with the absolute figure deciding the verdict. Decision consistency across the three rooms of each case is reported as a first-class finding, because high adaptation with low consistency is the specific failure this format exists to detect. The graded judgment composite is chance-corrected against authored per-option base rates, because a graded partial-credit percentage sits near half by construction. Construct areas drawn on: audience design and recipient design in message production, where a speaker builds a message around the knowledge and stake of the person receiving it; accountability research distinguishing upward, downward and inward accountability in voluntary organisations, and the finding that upward accountability to funders crowds out the other two; principal-agent and information-asymmetry accounts of grant relationships; work on impression management and organisational facades, and the gap between espoused and enacted decisions; the mum effect, the reluctance to transmit unfavourable news, and its cost to early correction; psychological safety and voice as the condition under which bad news travels upward; escalation of commitment, which is what keeps a programme that has not worked alive into a third year; research on donor trust and the effect of candid negative disclosure on giving; consent and dignity in the representation of beneficiaries, treated as a relationship question rather than a legal one; restricted-fund stewardship as a promise made at the point of gift rather than an accounting category; charity governance research on the information trustees actually receive and the difference between assurance and reporting; and implementation research on scope growth in funded programmes. No item depends on any country's charity law, tax regime, regulator, named funder or named organisation. All items are original works, no trademarked instrument or branded methodology is named or reproduced, and no affiliation with any source is claimed. AssessAll original design.