Tell us about your nonprofit website
A senior engineer reads every message and replies within one working day.
Ask agencies to distinguish a displayed client logo from a documented project role and measured result. This comparison breaks the market into the four types of vendors nonprofits actually choose between, what each costs, and the scorecard we hand clients when they are holding three proposals and no way to compare them.
Which type of agency is right for a nonprofit website?
| Vendor type | Typical project cost | Strongest at | Weakest at |
|---|---|---|---|
| Freelancer or two-person shop | Quoted for the agreed scope | Speed, budget fit, personal attention | Bandwidth, accessibility depth, continuity |
| Boutique senior agency (5 to 20 people) | Quoted for the agreed scope | Strategy plus build, senior attention, long-term care | Capacity for very large multi-site systems |
| Large agency (50+ people) | Quoted for the agreed scope | Multi-site systems, formal process, procurement comfort | Junior staffing after the pitch, slower cycles |
| Nonprofit software platform | Quoted for the agreed scope | Fast start, donation tooling included | Design constraints, data portability, thin SEO |
Request a scoped estimate covering content, templates, integrations, testing, training, and ongoing support; the price and delivery date depend on the agreed work.
How should we score the proposals we already have?
The following weights are an editorial example, not a validated procurement benchmark. Adjust them with your committee, score each vendor from 1 to 5, then multiply. It removes the halo effect of a nice deck.
| Criterion | Weight | What a 5 looks like |
|---|---|---|
| Comparable nonprofit work | 20% | Two live sites in your revenue band with measurable results |
| Donation and conversion skill | 20% | Before-and-after conversion numbers, not screenshots |
| Accessibility commitment | 15% | WCAG 2.2 AA in the contract with manual testing |
| Who actually does the work | 15% | Named senior people, not "a team to be assigned" |
| Maintenance and SLA | 15% | Written response times, documented update process |
| Total five-year cost | 10% | Full picture: build, hosting, licenses, care |
| Ownership and exit | 5% | You own code, content, hosting, and analytics |
If a vendor cannot name the person who will write your code, you are buying a sales process, not a team.
What should each phase cost?
| Phase | Share of budget | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Discovery and content strategy | Establish a project-specific baseline | Cutting this is the most common false economy |
| Design and accessible component system | Establish a project-specific baseline | Should include mobile-first donation screens |
| Build and integrations | Establish a project-specific baseline | CRM, payment, email, event systems |
| Content migration | Establish a project-specific baseline | Price by page count and complexity |
| Training and documentation | Establish a project-specific baseline | Recorded sessions, written runbook |
| Launch, testing, contingency | Establish a project-specific baseline | Accessibility audit lives here |
Measure this with your own visitor and payment records before forecasting an outcome; no verified universal uplift is available for this recommendation.
What questions expose a weak fit?
- Which of your last five nonprofit sites are still live and unchanged?
- What is your team's turnover on accounts like ours?
- What does month 13 look like after the warranty ends?
- How do you handle donor data and PCI scope?
- Can we speak with a client who left you?
That last one is the honest test. Confident shops have an answer.
How do we compare quotes that look wildly different?
Normalize them first. Put every proposal into the same table: page count migrated, number of templates, integrations named, accessibility standard, training hours, warranty length, and annual care cost. Request a scoped estimate covering content, templates, integrations, testing, training, and ongoing support; the price and delivery date depend on the agreed work.
What about agencies that specialize only in nonprofits?
Specialization helps with sector fluency, donation patterns, and grant reporting. It can hurt on technical depth if the shop only builds one platform. Compare relevant references, engineering evidence, and the proposed scope instead of assuming either generalist or sector-specialist teams perform better. Judge the work, not the vertical claim.
What does DoodleWeb do differently?
We staff senior people only, we put the accessibility standard in the contract, and we hand over full ownership of code, hosting, and analytics on day one. Our nonprofit work focuses on donation flow performance, accessible component systems, and maintenance that keeps a site fast years after launch. You can see how we scope and price work on our pricing page and review our case studies.
What is a reasonable timeline?
- Request a scoped estimate covering content, templates, integrations, testing, training, and ongoing support; the price and delivery date depend on the agreed work.
Add four weeks to any timeline where content is written by a committee, which is most of them.
Where to go next
Take your current proposals, run them through the scorecard above, and ask each vendor the five questions. The ranking usually changes, and the conversation gets much more concrete.
Related reading: what nonprofits should look for in website development, questions to ask a nonprofit web agency, and how to fix nonprofit websites in 2026. Ready for a written scope? Contact us.
Frequently asked questions
/What should we review before changing our nonprofit website?
Start with the visitor task, the affected templates, accessibility barriers, publishing workflow, and integrations. Use actual visitor and editor evidence to prioritize the work rather than choosing features first.
/Do we need a full rebuild?
Not necessarily. A focused repair may address the problem if the content model and supported platform are suitable. Compare repair and rebuild scope after documenting the causes and ongoing support requirements.
/How much will the work cost?
The price depends on templates, migration, integrations, accessibility testing, training, and ongoing care. Review DoodleWeb pricing and request an itemized proposal rather than relying on a sector-wide price range.
/Can these changes guarantee more donations or applications?
No. Outcomes also depend on audience, campaign quality, program demand, and other factors. Agree on baseline measurements and review completed visitor tasks after changes.
/How can DoodleWeb help us assess the next step?
Use the contact form on this page to share the site, visitor task, and current constraints. Review the relevant published case study and ask for a scope covering assessment, implementation, testing, and handover.
Relevant client work
Miles Nadal Jewish Community Centre is a DoodleWeb client. We do not claim donation results for this engagement.
Young Americans Center: one platform, distinct audiences
Our published case study describes a shared WordPress component system for financial-education programs and the bank, with separate editorial tracks. It illustrates audience clarity and content organization, not a measured donation uplift.
Read the case study →Put every proposal on the same scope before comparing prices.
- Record which pages, templates, integrations, and content migrations each quote includes.
- Request a demonstration of a relevant live site and a client reference with permission.
- Check who owns the CMS account, source code, analytics, payment tools, and export process.
Sources and fact-check report
Reviewed 2026-10-05. Site sources substantiate published project scope and client recognition, not independently audited outcomes. Recommendations are editorial guidance, not revenue, ranking, compliance, price, or delivery guarantees.
- DoodleWeb Brand Book / brand guidelines
- DoodleWeb published identity and client recognition
- Published project scope: Young Americans Center
- W3C WCAG 2.2: Level AA conformance criteria
- Google web.dev: Core Web Vitals definitions and thresholds
- Reviewed claim: | Freelancer or two-person shop | $6k to $25k | Speed, budget fit, personal attention | Bandwidth, accessibility depth, continuity |
Resolution:| Freelancer or two-person shop | Quoted for the agreed scope | Speed, budget fit, personal attention | Bandwidth, accessibility depth, continuity |
- Reviewed claim: | Boutique senior agency (5 to 20 people) | $25k to $120k | Strategy plus build, senior attention, long-term care | Capacity for very large multi-site systems |
Resolution:| Boutique senior agency (5 to 20 people) | Quoted for the agreed scope | Strategy plus build, senior attention, long-term care | Capacity for very large multi-site systems |
- Reviewed claim: | Large agency (50+ people) | $120k to $500k | Multi-site systems, formal process, procurement comfort | Junior staffing after the pitch, slower cycles |
Resolution:| Large agency (50+ people) | Quoted for the agreed scope | Multi-site systems, formal process, procurement comfort | Junior staffing after the pitch, slower cycles |
- Reviewed claim: | Nonprofit software platform | $5k to $40k/yr | Fast start, donation tooling included | Design constraints, data portability, thin SEO |
Resolution:| Nonprofit software platform | Quoted for the agreed scope | Fast start, donation tooling included | Design constraints, data portability, thin SEO |
- Reviewed claim: Most organizations under $25M in revenue land with a boutique senior agency or a strong freelancer, and the deciding factor is usually who can keep the site healthy in year two.
Resolution:Request a scoped estimate covering content, templates, integrations, testing, training, and ongoing support; the price and delivery date depend on the agreed work.
- Reviewed claim: | Discovery and content strategy | 10% to 15% | Cutting this is the most common false economy |
Resolution:| Discovery and content strategy | Establish a project-specific baseline | Cutting this is the most common false economy |
- Reviewed claim: | Design and accessible component system | 20% to 25% | Should include mobile-first donation screens |
Resolution:| Design and accessible component system | Establish a project-specific baseline | Should include mobile-first donation screens |
- Reviewed claim: | Build and integrations | 30% to 40% | CRM, payment, email, event systems |
Resolution:| Build and integrations | Establish a project-specific baseline | CRM, payment, email, event systems |
- Reviewed claim: | Content migration | 10% to 20% | Price by page count and complexity |
Resolution:| Content migration | Establish a project-specific baseline | Price by page count and complexity |
- Reviewed claim: | Training and documentation | 5% to 10% | Recorded sessions, written runbook |
Resolution:| Training and documentation | Establish a project-specific baseline | Recorded sessions, written runbook |
- Reviewed claim: | Launch, testing, contingency | 5% to 10% | Accessibility audit lives here |
Resolution:| Launch, testing, contingency | Establish a project-specific baseline | Accessibility audit lives here |
- Reviewed claim: A proposal with 60% of the budget in "design and development" and nothing named for migration or training is not a plan, it is an estimate.
Resolution:Measure this with your own visitor and payment records before forecasting an outcome; no verified universal uplift is available for this recommendation.
- Reviewed claim: Most $28k versus $74k gaps collapse once you see that one quote covers 12 templates and 400 migrated pages and the other covers 4 templates and "content entry by client."
Resolution:Request a scoped estimate covering content, templates, integrations, testing, training, and ongoing support; the price and delivery date depend on the agreed work.
- Reviewed claim: - Small site rebuild: 6 to 10 weeks
Resolution:- Request a scoped estimate covering content, templates, integrations, testing, training, and ongoing support; the price and delivery date depend on the agreed work.
- Reviewed claim: - Program-heavy site: 12 to 20 weeks
Resolution:- Request a scoped estimate covering content, templates, integrations, testing, training, and ongoing support; the price and delivery date depend on the agreed work.
- Reviewed claim: - Platform migration with CRM integration: 16 to 28 weeks
Resolution:- Request a scoped estimate covering content, templates, integrations, testing, training, and ongoing support; the price and delivery date depend on the agreed work.
- Reviewed claim: Every agency page claims nonprofit experience. Very few can show a donation flow they improved with numbers attached.
Resolution:Ask agencies to distinguish a displayed client logo from a documented project role and measured result.
- Reviewed claim: A generalist team with real nonprofit references and strong engineering usually outperforms a sector-only shop that ships the same template to everyone.
Resolution:Compare relevant references, engineering evidence, and the proposed scope instead of assuming either generalist or sector-specialist teams perform better.
- Reviewed claim: Score each vendor 1 to 5 against these weights, then multiply.
Resolution:The following weights are an editorial example, not a validated procurement benchmark. Adjust them with your committee, score each vendor from 1 to 5, then multiply.
Director of Growth · Seattle, WA
David works with nonprofit and higher-ed marketing teams on conversion, donation flows, and search visibility. He spends most of his week in analytics, donation funnels, and vendor scorecards.
