A small charity can hand five admin jobs to Claude: funder emails, trustee minutes, volunteer replies, event copy and first policy drafts. Give each its own Project with written instructions, four or five short reference files and a first prompt. The free plan allows up to five Projects, and a person still checks every output before it leaves.
The five Projects share one shape: a name that says the job, instructions that fix the rules, a few reference files that hold the facts, and a first prompt to copy. The files matter more than the instructions. Claude writes from what it is given, so a Project holding stale figures writes stale emails with complete confidence. None of the five needs beneficiary details, and none should have them.
What a Project holds, and what it costs
Anthropic's help pages describe a Project as a self-contained workspace with its own chat history and its own knowledge base, plus instructions that apply to every chat inside it. The steps are short. Open Projects from the left side or at claude.ai/projects, choose "+ New Project", and enter a name and description. Then choose "Set project instructions", paste your text and "Save instructions". Add files with the "+" in the knowledge area. One detail catches people out: Claude cannot see a Project's name and description, so every rule must live in the instructions.
On cost, the claude.com pricing page lists Projects as "up to 5" on the free plan, so these five jobs fit exactly. Pro is $20 a month, or $17 a month billed annually. Team is for 2 to 150 seats at $25 per Standard seat monthly or $20 annually, and it adds sharing with Can view and Can edit permissions. Anthropic's nonprofit page lists a Team rate of $8 per user per month for eligible organisations, verified through a third-party service. Treat all of this as context: check eligibility and the live prices, because they change.
Free accounts do not get the expanded capacity that paid plans use when project knowledge grows large, so on the free plan keep each file short. A one-page table of approved figures beats a 40-page annual report. For the wider picture of sharing a Project among colleagues, see Claude Projects as a shared team assistant.
Which Project to build first
Start with Project 3 or Project 1. Volunteer replies come up most often, so they save time soonest and give you the most practice at writing instructions. Funder emails carry the most value per message. Build minutes third, event copy when an event is planned, and policy drafts last, because they need your best files. My estimate for set-up is about 90 minutes per Project once the files exist: 30 to gather and trim them, 30 to write and save the instructions, and 30 to test. Five Projects is 7.5 hours, spread over a few weeks.
If the files do not exist yet, that is the real cost, and it is worth paying. A volunteer FAQ and an approved-figures table help people whether or not Claude ever reads them.
Project 1: funder emails that use only approved figures
This Project writes updates, thank-yous, extension requests and "we have changed the timetable" notes to funders. Its safety comes from one rule: the only numbers it may use are the ones in a file you control.
Files to upload. Four short ones: funder notes (one page per funder: what they funded, reporting dates, what needs their approval, how they like to be addressed); approved figures (one table with each number, its definition, its period and the date it was approved); a voice guide (plain words, how you refer to the people you support); and two redacted past emails, one good update and one good request.
You help a small charity write emails to funders.
Use only the figures in the approved-figures file, and put the period beside each one. If a figure is not there, write [NUMBER NEEDED] instead of estimating.
Use the funder-notes file for dates, rules and tone. Never promise a date, outcome or change that the notes do not contain. Mark any commitment [CONFIRM].
Never include names or details of people we support.
One request per email. Under 200 words. Offer two subject lines.
Finish with a three-line list: figures used, commitments made, things to check before sending.
British English, plain words, no jargon.First prompt. "Draft the quarterly update to [funder] for July to September. Cover meals served and volunteer hours, and tell them the Thursday session moves to Friday from 6 November because the hall is unavailable."
What comes back (illustrative).
Subject: Community kitchen: update to 30 September
Dear [first name], thank you again for supporting the community kitchen. Between July and September we served 284 meals (approved figures, 30 September), and volunteers gave [NUMBER NEEDED] hours. One change to flag: the Thursday session moves to Friday from 6 November because the hall is unavailable. The number of funded sessions does not change [CONFIRM: is this within the grant terms?]. I'd be glad to talk it through before our full report in [date from funder notes]. Kind regards, [your name]
Two things to fix before sending. The first draft said "over 300 meals" and the figures file says 284, so the instruction to quote only approved numbers has to be tightened, and the number corrected by hand. It also promised "a full report next week", which appears nowhere in the funder notes. The flags did their job: [NUMBER NEEDED] shows a missing file entry, and [CONFIRM] shows a commitment a person must approve. Check every figure against the file, every date against the notes, and send it yourself.
When the news is bad. The Project earns its keep on awkward updates too. Suppose the Friday session had a poor turnout. The prompt: "Draft a short update to [funder] saying we filled 38 of the 60 planned places this quarter (approved figures), that the hall change cost us regular attendees, and what we are doing about it." Illustratively, the draft opened with "We are pleased to report strong engagement", which a funder will see through. The instructions need one more line: "State shortfalls plainly in the first paragraph; do not open with praise or soften the number." Add it and run it again, and the draft opens with the figure, the reason and the plan. A plain update is easier for a funder to act on.
Project 2: trustee minutes from rough notes
Minutes are a record of decisions, not a transcript. This Project turns shorthand notes, or a transcript from your meeting tool, into draft minutes in your house format. Claude is not a meeting recorder, so the input is always notes or a transcript you paste.
Files to upload. Your minutes template with its headings; the standing agenda; a list of roles (chair, treasurer, secretary) with no personal details; one or two approved past minutes for style; and a short glossary of your abbreviations.
You turn meeting notes into draft trustee minutes using the template file.
Structure: one section per agenda item, each with Discussion, Decision and Action. Keep each item under 80 words.
Record a decision only if the notes state one. If the notes are unclear, write [CHECK: was this agreed?].
Record declarations of interest only where the notes mention them.
Put actions in a table: action, owner (by role), deadline. If no deadline is noted, write [NO DATE].
Do not attribute opinions to named people on sensitive items.
Minutes are not a transcript. British English.First prompt. Paste the notes under "Notes:" with initials replaced by roles, for example: "Item 3 reserves policy: treasurer says 3 months fine, chair wants 6, agreed to look again in Jan, treasurer to bring options. Item 4 volunteer expenses: new rate agreed, treasurer to update form by 15 Nov."
3. Reserves policy. Discussion: the treasurer proposed holding three months of running costs in reserve; the chair asked whether six months would be safer. Decision: no change for now [CHECK: was a vote taken?]. Action: treasurer to bring costed options to the January meeting.
4. Volunteer expenses. Decision: the new rate was agreed. Action: treasurer to update the claim form by 15 November.
The commonest fault is promotion: the first draft wrote "the board agreed to move to six months", turning a discussion into a decision. Read each Decision line against your own notes, because it is the line that gets challenged later. Also check owners and dates, and that nothing sensitive crept in. The chair reads the draft before it circulates, and trustees approve it at the next meeting. If you plan to record meetings, read the tutorial on recording board meetings safely first, because consent and storage come before the Project.
A sensitive item. Some agenda items are better recorded briefly: a staffing matter, a complaint, a dispute with a supplier. Add a line to the instructions, "For items marked CONFIDENTIAL in the notes, record only the decision and the action, with no discussion", and test it. A note reading "CONFIDENTIAL item 6: staffing, agreed to extend the post for six months, chair to write" should produce one line: "6. Staffing (confidential). Decision: post extended for six months. Action: chair to write to the postholder." If the draft says who argued what, the line is not working. Keep the full notes outside Claude.
Project 3: replies to volunteer enquiries
Volunteer enquiries are repetitive and friendly, which makes them good for a Project, but they sometimes carry something that a template reply would mishandle. So this Project does two jobs: it drafts easy replies, and it flags the rest.
Files to upload. The volunteer handbook, role descriptions (including whether a role needs checks), an FAQ on expenses, hours and training, an escalation list showing who deals with what, and a "things we never promise" page: start dates, placements, outcomes.
You draft replies to people who want to volunteer with a small charity.
Answer only from the files. If the files do not answer something, say a coordinator will confirm.
Never promise a placement, a start date or an outcome. If a role needs checks or an induction, say a coordinator will explain them.
Ask at most two questions per reply.
If the message mentions safeguarding, someone's wellbeing, a complaint, a dispute, or anything not covered by the files, do not draft a full reply. Start with ESCALATE: and a short reason, then write a two-line holding reply.
Use the person's first name only. Warm, brief, plain words. British English.An easy enquiry: "I saw your poster. I'm free on Tuesday mornings and I'd like to help at the food bank. Do I need experience?" The reply should say no experience is needed for that team, that a coordinator will explain the short induction and any checks, and ask two things: how many mornings a month, and whether she would rather sort donations or serve. Illustratively, the first draft added "your first session can be next Tuesday". The files give no such date, so it comes out.
A hard enquiry: "I've been struggling lately and the group is the only thing getting me out of the house." The right output starts with ESCALATE: wellbeing, followed by a two-line holding reply saying someone will be in touch personally. A coordinator sees every ESCALATE item first, answers it by hand, and the draft is never sent as written. For the paperwork around new volunteers, see the volunteer onboarding checklist tutorial.
A batch after a poster drop. A recruitment push can bring a dozen enquiries in a day. Paste them one at a time, not together, so an escalated message never hides among easy ones, and read the ESCALATE items first. Twelve easy replies at four minutes each take under an hour; the same twelve written from scratch at ten minutes each take two. Anything flagged takes the coordinator's time whatever you do, which is the point.
Project 4: event copy from one facts sheet
Event copy goes wrong when the facts drift between the invitation, the posts and the booking page. This Project makes one facts sheet the source of everything.
Files to upload. A blank event facts template (date, time, place, ticket price, number of places, booking link, access information, contact) filled in per event; your voice guide; your approved "about us" paragraph; and a page called "claims we may make", which holds the approved sentences about where money goes.
You write event copy for a small charity using only the event facts sheet.
Produce: one invitation email (under 120 words), three social posts (under 40 words each, at most three hashtags), one website paragraph (under 80 words) and a programme blurb.
Every item must include the access information.
Any statement about where money goes must be copied word for word from the claims-we-may-make file.
Add no urgency or scarcity that is not in the facts sheet.
British English.Take an illustrative spring quiz night with 80 places. The first draft of a social post said "every penny goes straight to the kitchen" and "selling fast". The claims file says "ticket income supports the kitchen's running costs", and nothing in the facts sheet says tickets are selling fast. Both phrases go. This is the typical failure for fundraising copy: the AI writes the more persuasive sentence, and it is the one you cannot back up. Check each claim against the file, the price against the booking page, and the access line against your venue. For appeal and social wording that keeps your voice, see the appeals and social posts tutorial.
The thank-you after the night. The same Project writes the follow-up. Add the result to the figures file, for example "quiz night income: $1,420, approved 12 May" (illustrative), and ask for a thank-you email and one post. The claims file tells it how to describe what the money supports, so the thank-you cannot promise more than the claims page allows. Always put the approval date beside the figure, because a total quoted before the last takings were banked is easy to get wrong, by hand or by AI.
Project 5: first drafts of policies
A policy draft saves the blank-page hour, and it carries the highest risk of a confident wrong sentence. The Project is therefore built to mark everything that needs a person.
Files to upload. Your current policies, one or two of them; a policy template with your headings (purpose, scope, definitions, responsibilities, procedure, review date); a glossary; a page naming the laws and regulator guidance you already follow, supplied by you; and your approval route (who drafts, who signs).
You draft first versions of internal policies for a small charity using the template file.
Plain English, under two pages.
Wherever a sentence implies a legal duty, write [CHECK: legal requirement].
Never cite a law, section, deadline or retention period unless it appears in the sources file.
Wherever a choice belongs to the trustees, write [DECISION: the options].
End with a list of questions for the trustees.
Do not claim the policy complies with any law.First prompt. "Draft a volunteer expenses policy for a charity with eight regular volunteers. Receipts are required over $10." In an illustrative run, the draft was sound in shape but added "in line with charity law" and "receipts must be kept for six years". Neither is in the sources file. Both became [CHECK] flags, because the retention period depends on your own record-keeping rules and legal advice. The [DECISION] flags turned up useful questions: a daily cap for travel, and who approves claims over $50. The draft then goes to trustees and, where it touches a legal duty, to a qualified adviser. See the small charity AI policy tutorial for how to take a policy through a board.
The same Project, a different job. Once a policy is approved, ask for a one-page volunteer summary: "Summarise the approved expenses policy in 150 words for volunteers, in plain words, with three examples of what can and cannot be claimed." The summary must stay inside the approved text, so the instruction barring new rules matters even more here. Compare it line by line with the policy, because a summary that quietly drops an exception is a policy change nobody approved.
Three traps every Project must pass before you trust it
Before a Project writes anything real, give it three traps: a fact that is missing, a promise it should refuse, and a personal detail it should not repeat. Adapt the wording to each Project:
| Project | Missing fact | Tempting promise | Personal detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Funder emails | "What was last year's volunteer count?" should give [NUMBER NEEDED] | "Tell the funder we will deliver 100 sessions by March" should give [CONFIRM] or a refusal | A beneficiary's story pasted in: asked to remove it |
| 2 Minutes | "Who voted against?" when the notes do not say should give [CHECK] | "Record that the budget was approved" with no such note should be refused | A confidential staffing discussion: decision and action only |
| 3 Volunteer replies | "When is the next induction?" not in the files: a coordinator will confirm | "Tell her she has the Tuesday role" should be refused | An applicant mentions their health: ESCALATE |
| 4 Event copy | "How many places are left?" not in the facts: it should say so | "Say tickets are almost sold out" should be refused | A guest's dietary or health needs: not repeated, passed to the organiser |
| 5 Policies | "What is the legal retention period?" should give [CHECK] | "State that the policy complies with the law" should be refused | A named person's case study: removed |
Keep the results in a note with the date. Whenever you edit the instructions or replace a file, run the traps again, because a change in one place can quietly undo a rule in another.
Names, files and a fifteen-minute monthly refresh
Name the Projects with a number and the job, such as "1 Funder emails", and keep the master copies of every file in your own storage, with the date in the file name. When a file changes, replace the upload instead of adding a second version. Once a month, spend fifteen minutes on four checks: the approved-figures file is dated this quarter, the funder notes reflect any new terms, the volunteer FAQ matches the current handbook, and the claims page still matches what you say publicly.
The failure the refresh prevents is easy to picture. A funder email quotes the previous quarter's meals because nobody replaced the figures file, and the programme lead spots it only because the number looks low. The fixes are cheap: a "period" column in the file, an instruction that states the period beside every figure, and the monthly check.
What never goes into any of the five
Keep out the names and circumstances of the people you support, health and safeguarding details, donors' bank details, and volunteers' application forms. Each Project works without them: the funder email needs counts, the minutes need decisions, the volunteer replies need the handbook. On consumer plans, Anthropic's privacy centre says chats may be used for model improvement if you allow it in Privacy Settings, so check that setting on any personal account. The donor data rules tutorial lists what to keep out of any AI tool, and the same logic applies here. Details of Projects and sharing are on Anthropic's help page, and eligibility for the nonprofit rate is on its nonprofit page.
Checking that the Projects earn their keep
Time one real task before and after, then count how often it happens. These are illustrative timings for a small charity:
| Project | Minutes before | Minutes now | Times a month | Saved a month |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Funder emails | 45 | 20 | 4 | 100 |
| 2 Trustee minutes | 120 | 50 | 1 | 70 |
| 3 Volunteer replies | 10 | 4 | 20 | 120 |
| 4 Event copy | 150 | 60 | 1 | 90 |
| 5 Policy drafts | 180 | 90 | one a quarter | 30 |
That totals 410 minutes, about seven hours a month. Treat it as a method, not a promise: your own timings will differ, and the "minutes now" column must include your checking, or the sum flatters the tool. The second measure is the edit rate. Each month, take three outputs from each Project and mark what you changed. If the same correction keeps appearing, it belongs in the instructions or the files, not in your head. If a Project's outputs need heavy rewriting every time, stop using it until the files are better.
Questions charities ask before setting up Claude Projects
Can we share these Projects with trustees on the free plan?
No. Anthropic's help pages say project sharing is a Team and Enterprise feature, with Can view and Can edit permissions. On the free plan each Project belongs to one person, so the person who runs it copies approved outputs to colleagues. A small shared Team plan is the next step if several people need the same Project.
What if a funder does not allow AI in reports?
Read the funder's terms and ask if they are unclear, because rules differ. Where AI use is allowed, some funders ask you to say so. Keep the final voice and every figure human-checked, and never present AI wording as a person's testimony. The tutorial on grant writing and funders covers the questions to ask.
Which Claude plan does a small charity need?
Start on the free plan, which allows up to five Projects, one for each job here. Paid plans add expanded project capacity when your files grow, and Team adds sharing. Anthropic lists a nonprofit Team rate on its nonprofit page, subject to verification, so check eligibility and the live price before paying.
Does Claude learn from what we put in a Project?
On consumer plans, Anthropic's privacy centre says chats may be used for model improvement only if you allow it in Privacy Settings, among a few other cases such as safety review. Team and Enterprise are commercial products with their own terms. Check the setting, and keep beneficiary and donor details out whatever the plan.
Further reads
- AI Governance for Charities: A Trustee Risk Register to Copy — A trustee risk register you can copy.
- Charity Complaints Policy Template: Draft One With AI and Check It — A worked policy draft to test Project 5 on.
- ChatGPT Prompts for Nonprofit Organisations: 10 for Admin and Donors — Ten ChatGPT admin and donor prompts, if you use it too.
- Can You Use AI for Grant Writing Without Funders Rejecting It? — Whether funders accept AI-assisted grant writing.
- AI Tool Discounts for Charities and Non-Profits: What to Claim — Which AI tool discounts a charity can claim.
- OpenAI for Nonprofits: Who Qualifies and What to Check First — An independent checklist for a small charity: OpenAI's nonprofit offer, Goodstack verification, plan limits, donor-data rules and the alternatives.
- Museum Accreditation Checklist: Policies and Evidence With AI — Copy your scheme's requirements into an evidence tracker, let AI find the policy gaps, and keep trustees as the approvers.
- AI Tools and AI Development: The Complete 2026 Guide — the AI hub, including every tutorial in the AI-for-business series.
Sources: Claude help centre (What are projects; creating and managing projects); claude.com pricing and nonprofit pages; Anthropic privacy centre (model training). Checked 28 October 2026.