Prototype — every organisation, score and review below is illustrative sample data, not a real assessment.
Public rubric · v0.9-draft
Every score on this platform is derived by AI from evidence an organisation submitted, then checked by a human editor before publication. Nothing is self-reported, and nothing publishes unreviewed.
Structured submission
Organisations complete one template built with Uganda-based clinical and public health experts. They may submit at whatever stage they are at.
AI extraction
A trusted model reads each response, derives a 0–10 score from the quality of evidence provided, and flags responses that are incomplete or cannot be verified against attached documents.
Editorial review
An editor sees the submitted evidence beside the AI score and rationale, can override any score with a written note, and either publishes or requests more information.
Publication and updates
The profile goes live with its rubric version recorded. Organisations update as they hit milestones; listing rewards progress rather than acting as a pass/fail gate.
Each metric is scored 0–10. A pillar score is the mean of its five metrics. The two pillars carry equal weight and are never combined into a single headline ranking.
How the organisation is rooted in the community it serves, and whether its work holds together as a credible theory of change.
1.Community voice & beneficiary feedback
How do the women and children served shape and critique the programme?
Evidence that raises this score: Feedback mechanism description, beneficiary survey results, documented programme changes made in response.
2.Local leadership & staff representation
Who leads, and how closely does the team reflect the community served?
Evidence that raises this score: Leadership and board composition, staff origin breakdown, local hiring policy.
3.Theory of change coherence
Do activities, outputs, and health outcomes connect logically and with evidence?
Evidence that raises this score: Theory of change document, outcome data over at least two periods, cited external evidence base.
4.Transparency & financial accountability
Can an outsider trace where money went and who checked?
Evidence that raises this score: Audited accounts, registration certificate, published annual report, named audit firm.
5.Adaptive capacity & learning culture
What has the organisation stopped, changed, or admitted was not working?
Evidence that raises this score: Learning reviews, documented pivots with rationale, failure or lessons-learned reporting.
What a donor's money reaches, who it reaches, and what funding history the organisation already carries.
6.Cost per impacted woman or child
What does one meaningful health outcome cost, and how was that figure derived?
Evidence that raises this score: Programme budget, reach numbers, unit-cost calculation method and assumptions.
7.Demographic focus & vulnerability specificity
How precisely is the served population defined, and how vulnerable is it?
Evidence that raises this score: Beneficiary demographic breakdown, targeting criteria, vulnerability indicators used.
8.Economic factor impacted
What economic burden on households does the work relieve?
Evidence that raises this score: Out-of-pocket cost avoided, income or productivity effects, catastrophic-expenditure data.
9.Number of previous donor relationships
How many funders have already reviewed and backed this work?
Evidence that raises this score: Named current and past funders, grant periods, reference contacts.
10.Types of previous donor support received
What kinds of support has the organisation absorbed and managed?
Evidence that raises this score: Grant agreements, restricted vs unrestricted split, in-kind and technical support records.
These metrics are a starting point. Through co-design, pilot validation with 20 organisations, and real-world testing they will be revisited, refined or replaced. Pattern analysis across pilot submissions will identify which indicators actually predict donor decisions, and internal-consistency testing (for example Cronbach's alpha) will check whether each pillar holds together as a composite. Every rubric change is published and version-controlled.
Clarity
How easily donors understand and interpret organisation profiles.
Decision efficiency
Time taken to move from discovery to a funding decision.
Choice patterns
Whether donors fund high-impact actors they would not otherwise have discovered.
Trust
Donor confidence in the credibility and sufficiency of the information.
Follow-through
Whether structured evidence turns stated intent into completed giving.
TumainiBridge charges listed organisations nothing — no membership, no featured placement, no premium profile, at any stage. The platform is sustained by voluntary donor contributions, philanthropic grants, and research data partnerships, so its incentives stay aligned with donor trust rather than with the organisations seeking donor attention.