Chronicle of Philanthropy Features Our Approach to AI

How can a small nonprofit team use artificial intelligence to work more efficiently without giving up the human expertise and judgment that matter most?

That’s a question Georgia Appleseed has been exploring for the past several years. Our experience was recently featured in the Chronicle of Philanthropy article, “How Small Fundraising Teams Can Produce Outsize Results,” which looks at how smaller nonprofits are finding ways to make the most of limited staff time and resources.

At Georgia Appleseed, AI has become one tool that helps our small team do more with the time we have. The Chronicle highlighted how we are using it in grant writing, donor engagement, and internal operations.

But our approach isn’t simply to ask an AI tool to do the work for us.

Starting With What We Know

One way we use AI is by giving it the information and examples it needs to understand Georgia Appleseed.

For grant writing, for example, we have built a workspace using our own past grant applications, reports, research, and other organizational materials. Rather than starting with a blank page, we can use those materials to help generate a first draft that reflects our programs, priorities, and voice.

Our staff then review, revise, fact-check, and ultimately take responsibility for the finished product.

Executive Director Michael Waller described the relationship this way in the Chronicle: think of AI as a smart junior colleague who is new to the organization. It can be extremely helpful, but our staff are the experts.

That distinction matters.

Using AI Carefully

Georgia Appleseed’s work involves children, families, legal matters, and other information that must be handled carefully. Our use of AI has developed alongside clear limits on what information should — and should not — be shared with these tools.

Confidential information about the children and families we serve does not go into public AI tools such as ChatGPT or Claude. And regardless of the task, staff are responsible for critically reviewing AI-generated work rather than assuming that an answer is correct simply because it sounds convincing.

AI can get things wrong. Human judgment isn’t an optional final step in the process; it’s essential to how we use the technology.

Making More Room for the Work That Matters

For a small organization, the potential value of AI isn’t about replacing people. It’s about making better use of their time.

A first draft that takes less time to produce leaves more time for improving the substance. Streamlining an administrative task creates more time for solving a difficult problem. And making routine work more efficient can leave more room for the relationships—with clients, community partners, donors, and one another—that technology can’t replace.

That’s particularly important for small nonprofits. As the Chronicle notes, 70 percent of the nation’s 1.9 million nonprofits have 10 or fewer employees. For organizations operating at that scale, deciding how staff spend their limited hours can have an outsized impact.

We’re still learning. AI tools are changing rapidly, and so are the questions about how nonprofits can use them responsibly. But our experience so far has reinforced a principle that isn’t particularly new: technology is most useful when it supports people’s expertise rather than trying to substitute for it.

We were glad to share some of what we’ve learned with the Chronicle of Philanthropy and to be included alongside other small nonprofits finding creative ways to make limited resources go further.

[Read “How Small Fundraising Teams Can Produce Outsize Results” in the Chronicle of Philanthropy.]
Subscription may be required.