The donation has to finish
Every unnecessary field and every unexpected redirect loses a share of donors who had already decided. Fewest steps, mobile first, and no moment where somebody wonders whether the gift went through.
Bay Area nonprofits are asked to look like the tech companies around them on a fraction of the budget and a tenth of the staff.
Nonprofit website design in San Francisco costs $3,500 to $22,000 depending on the size of the organisation. The decisions that matter are a donation flow with nothing unnecessary in it, program pages written for the people the programs serve, and a build a very small team can maintain without a developer.
Every unnecessary field and every unexpected redirect loses a share of donors who had already decided. Fewest steps, mobile first, and no moment where somebody wonders whether the gift went through.
A monthly donor is worth several times a single gift and most nonprofit sites bury the option inside the form. It belongs at the point of decision, presented as the normal choice rather than an upsell.
You serve people and you raise money from people. Program pages should read for someone who needs the service; impact and accountability content should read for a funder. Neither should have to read past the other.
Bay Area giving skews toward donors who want metrics, methodology and evidence. Publishing outcomes with real numbers and honest caveats does more here than narrative alone, and it is what larger gifts are decided on.
Foundations check the site before the meeting. Governance, financials, leadership and program detail in readable form rather than only inside an annual report PDF nobody opens.
Someone with three other jobs will run this. Genuinely editable, cheap to host, no dependency that breaks quietly while everyone is busy with the actual work.
| Project | Range (USD) | Timeline | What you get |
|---|---|---|---|
| Small organisation | $3,500 to $8,000 | 3 to 5 weeks | Home, about, programs, donate flow, events, accessible build |
| Mid-size, multi-program | $8,000 to $22,000 | 6 to 11 weeks | Above plus program sections, impact content, volunteer and partner areas |
| Large organisation | $22,000 to $45,000 | 11 to 20 weeks | Multi-audience structure, CRM integration, advocacy tools, reporting |
| Donation flow work only | $1,500 to $4,500 | 1 to 3 weeks | Flow rebuild, recurring giving, processor integration, testing |
| Care plan | $200 to $1,000 per month | Ongoing | Updates, monitoring, campaign support, accessibility checks |
We quote nonprofits the same way we quote everyone: a range, in writing, with what moves it. Where the budget genuinely will not stretch we will say which parts can wait a year.
| Ask them | A good answer sounds like | Walk away if |
|---|---|---|
| What does this actually cost? | A range, and what moves it, before a call | You must book a call to learn the ballpark |
| Who owns the code and design files? | You do, unconditionally, in the contract | Ownership depends on staying on a retainer |
| Can I see Core Web Vitals on three live sites? | URLs, and an honest word about the slowest | They show you portfolio shots |
| Who maintains it after launch? | A named arrangement and response time | Not discussed until it breaks |
An agency that will not put these in writing has answered the question anyway.
| Problem | What it costs |
|---|---|
| Unnecessary fields in the donation flow | Donors who had decided and still did not finish |
| Recurring giving hidden in the form | The most valuable relationship never offered |
| Impact claimed without numbers | Tech sector funders who wanted evidence |
| Program pages written only for funders | The people the program exists for cannot use it |
| Governance and financials only in a PDF | Foundations that check before the meeting |
| A site nobody internally can edit | Content ageing while everyone does the actual work |
A small organisation runs $3,500 to $8,000. A mid-size organisation with several programs runs $8,000 to $22,000. Large organisations with CRM integration run $22,000 to $45,000.
We quote the same way for everyone: a range in writing with what moves it. Where a budget genuinely will not stretch we will tell you which parts to build now and which can wait without harm.
Removing everything that is not needed. Fewest fields, mobile first, recurring giving offered at the point of decision, honest handling of processing fees, and a confirmation that leaves no doubt the gift went through.
Metrics, methodology and evidence more than narrative. Outcomes with real numbers and honest caveats about what they do and do not show. Larger gifts here are frequently decided on the quality of that content.
With separate routes from the homepage rather than one narrative. Program pages read for someone who needs the service; impact and accountability content read for a funder. Neither audience should have to wade through the other.
Usually. Which system you run determines whether it is straightforward or a project of its own, so name it early rather than at the end of scoping.
Built in rather than added. For an organisation serving a community, an inaccessible site excludes some of the people it exists for, which matters more than the compliance argument.
That is a requirement rather than a feature. Someone with three other responsibilities will run this site, so programs, events, news and impact numbers all have to be editable without a developer.
Send us what you are trying to fix and we will tell you what it takes, what it costs, and whether we are the right people for it. If we are not, we will say so.