Transforming data chaos into clarity: a strategic framework for smarter DAF fundraising rooted in high quality DAF giving data.
Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs) have gone from niche financial instruments to mainstream giving vehicles—transforming how individuals support causes they care about. Yet, despite their explosive growth and unmatched potential, one critical area continues to hold nonprofits back: DAF data hygiene.
Adam Rosenscruggs, the data scientist behind this year’s DAF Fundraising Report joined a recent Chariot Webinar with Mitch Stein for a DAF data workshop that is a must-watch for any gift processor, database admin, development operations lead or diligent fundraiser in general.
Watch The Recording
Get The Slides
This recap includes:
- Recap of the DAF Fundraising Report’s key findings
- The strategic value of high quality DAF data
- Common challenges to tracking DAF data
- Ideal DAF data framework
- The 6 most common errors in DAF data
- 8 tests and best practices to implement
Recap of the DAF Fundraising Report’s key findings
Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs) have rapidly transitioned from niche financial tools to mainstream giving mechanisms, fundamentally reshaping philanthropy. Yet, despite their meteoric rise, one critical piece of infrastructure continues to lag behind:data hygiene.
In the 2025DAF Fundraising Report — an analysis of $12B in contributions across 100M+ transactions — a clear message emerged: the opportunity with DAF fundraising is tremendous, but DAF data challenges are preventing nonprofits from making the most of DAF giving’s potential.
"DAFs are remaking the landscape of philanthropy. If you're not tracking them correctly, you're missing the full picture of your organization’s growth," said Mitch Stein, Head of Strategy at Chariot.
This article distills this opportunity into an actionable blueprint. If your nonprofit gets DAF gifts, this is your field guide to fixing your data—and unlocking your donors’ potential.
DAFs aren’t just a tool for the major donors and major gifts. They are now a fastest-growing giving channel across all donor segments and gift types. Key findings from the 2025 report include:
- 69% of DAF gifts were under $1,000
- DAF donors had 13 percentage points higher retention than non-DAF donors
- +30% was the median year-over-year growth in DAF revenue (compared to -1% for non-DAF revenue)
“DAFs are no longer just a major donor strategy,” said Adam Rosenscruggs, founder of Gambit Analytics. “From memberships to events to annual giving—DAFs are being used everywhere.”
The strategic value of high quality DAF data
Many nonprofits struggle to take a proactive approach to DAF fundraising because they can’t track outcomes effectively. This exposes organizations to three major problems:
1. Legal & Audit Risk
Every organization’s audit includes a public support test, to determine that giving isn’t too concentrated with a single donor. But if you’re not putting the hard credit on the DAF and ensuring no duplicate records of DAF Provider names, you aren’t accurately representing the support from that one single legal entity (e.g. Fidelity Charitable). This was easy to overlook when DAFs were a small portion of revenue, but now they’re 12% on average and growing 30% per year!
2. Poor Donor Stewardship
"An all-too-common complaint from DAF donors is that they give a gift and never hear back," said Mitch. "Better data is the first step to fixing that."
These donors tend to give more and retain longer. Without clear records, you can’t follow up properly—or upgrade them effectively.
3. Uninformed Strategy
Adam explained it plainly: “You can’t answer simple questions like ‘Which campaign generated the most DAF gifts?’ or ‘How much are we raising through DAFpay?’ without clean data. And if you can’t answer these questions, you can’t act on them.”
Common challenges to tracking DAF data
1. Limited Gift Information
DAF gifts often arrive without contact details—sometimes only listing a fund name. Presenting roadblocks to effective data entry and stewardship.
2. No Business Rules for DAF gift coding
Most nonprofits lack written policies on how to process DAF gifts. As a result, staff often lump DAFs in with other complex gifts like QCDs or payroll deductions, neglect to record the fundholder details along with the DAF provider name, etc. - especially when new people join, or people leave the team.
3. Manual Entry
With no source codes or automation, DAF gifts are often entered by hand—inviting human error and inconsistencies.
4. CRM Limitations
Many systems weren’t built to accommodate DAF-specific fields (like soft-soft credits, fund names, date initiated, etc.). Without customization, tracking falls apart.
5. Siloed Ownership
DAFs may be handled by finance, major gifts, or marketing—varying by org. Without shared ownership, mistakes multiply.
The Ideal DAF Data Framework
To cure your DAF data, start with an understanding of what “great” looks like. Must have fields include:
Field
Description
DAF? (Y/N)
Clear flag that this is a DAF gift—not a QCD, employee matching, or crowdfunding.
Hard Credit
Given to the DAF provider (e.g., Fidelity Charitable)
Soft Credit
Given to the fundholder/donor (with name, email, etc., when available)
Fund Name
Stored in both hard and soft records, if possible
Date Initiated
When the donor requested the gift—not the receipt date
Anonymous? (Y/N)
Only flagged if entirely anonymous—not just missing some data
DAFpay? (Y/N)
Track if the gift came via the DAFpay button
Tags
Capture campaign/membership/event details for analysis
The 6 Most Common DAF Data Errors
From reviewing data across 30+ organizations, six core errors kept showing up:
1. Commingling Gift Types
Gifts from platforms like Benevity, Network for Good, and United Way are often misclassified as DAFs. But unless they originate from an individual’s DAF account, they don’t count.
2. Mixing Hard & Soft Credit
"Hard credit goes to the DAF provider. Soft credit goes to the fundholder," Adam emphasized. "If you mix that up, you’re essentially erasing the donor from your system."
3. Duplicate Provider Names
Your CRM might have "Fidelity Charitable", "Fidelity Ch.", and "Fid. Charitable Trust" as separate records. That makes it impossible to report accurate totals—or pass audits.
4. False Anonymous Flags
Just because a gift lacks a name doesn’t mean it’s anonymous. "If a fund name is present, it’s not truly anonymous,” said Mitch. “Store what you can, update when you learn more.”
5. Improper Gift Dates
DAF gifts are often coded by the date received—but the gift initiation date matters most for campaign tracking and year-end reporting.
6. Tax Receipts Sent in Error
DAF donors shouldn’t get tax receipts. If your system doesn’t distinguish them, it could trigger receipts automatically—leading to compliance risks.
If you can't stop tax receipts from being sent for DAF gifts, you should add language to your tax receipts that clearly explain that the tax receipt itself should be disregarded in the case of gifts from Donor Advised Funds.
8 Tests and Best Practices to Implement
You don’t need a full complex audit to find your weak spots. Try these 8 suggestions to reveal some of the biggest issues in your data and avoid gaps going forward:
1. Test: What % of DAF gifts are under $18?
The largest DAF providers (like Fidelity, Schwab) have a $50 minimum. Some newer providers go as low as $18 (like Daffy). Gifts below $18 are likely crowdfunding or employee matchesmisclassified as DAFs.
2. Test: How many unique DAF providers do you have?
There are only ~1,150 DAFs in the U.S. If your CRM has more than a few hundred, you're likely duplicating or mislabeling providers.
Tip: Check out Chariot’s DAF Provider Directory for a full list and naming convention.
3. Test: Do any DAF donors make 12+ gifts per year?
That’s a red flag. It likely means you’re either soft-crediting the provider or not filtering anonymous gifts correctly.
4. Test: What % of DAF gifts are logged in January?
If it’s over 6%, you're probably using the receipt date instead of the donor’s initiation date. That skews the timing of gifts and makes it difficult to connect to certain campaigns, efforts, events, etc.
5. Test: What % of DAF gifts are marked anonymous?
More than 5% suggests some poor labeling. Limited data does not equal anonymity.
“These are diagnostic tools,” Adam said. “They help you identify patterns—then you can work backward to fix them.”
Once your data is clean, keep it that way with a few smart systems:
6. Run Biweekly Gift Review Meetings
Fundraisers and gift processors should meet regularly to reconcile gaps. Often times a fundraiser was waiting on a specific gift, or can interpret the source based on gift size, fund name, etc.
7. Research Every New DAF Gift
Even small gifts may signal larger DAF accounts so it’s always worth double clicking when you get a gift from a new DAF donor. "A $100 DAF gift may come from someone with $1 million in their account," said Mitch. "It’s one of the strongest wealth signals you can get."
8. Create a “Red Flag” Word List
Maintain a shared list of terms that often indicate false DAF classifications—like “LLC”, “Inc.”, “household” “Benevity”, “Network for Good”, and “PayPal”.
Download our Red Flag List here to start your own!
Preparing for the 2026 DAF Fundraising Report
Any organization that’s focused on raising more from DAFs should prioritize participating in next year’s report because you’ll get:
- Personalized feedback and guidance from DAF Data experts.
- Visibility to major DAF providers that all read the report.
- Ability to measure your performance against the only DAF fundraising benchmarks
Expectations:
- 5 years of giving history (2021–2025)
- Data that adheres to the best practices in this guide
- Recommended: At least $500K in contributions and $100k in DAF revenue in 2025.
To join, fill out the interest form today!
Final Word: Don’t Let Data Debt Compound
“Cleaning DAF data is like fixing your CRM’s duplicate records,” Adam said. “Do it regularly, and it’s manageable. Let it sit, and it snowballs into a nightmare.”
DAF donors are generous, loyal, and growing. But without clear data practices, you won’t know who they are, what they care about, or how to retain them. Now is the time to adopt these principles—because tomorrow’s fundraising success depends on today’s data discipline.
