Schedule a Conversation

Blueprint Audit

A website and accessibility audit built for Board scrutiny

A two to three week diagnostic for established charities and NGOs. I test your site by hand against WCAG 2.2 AA, assess the governance and credibility signals funders and regulators look for, and deliver a scored report and roadmap your Board can act on.

  • £2,500 fixed
  • 2–3 weeks
  • You own everything
  • No obligation to proceed
Schedule a conversation See what the audit covers ↓

Why the audit is paid

This is not the free discovery your agency offered

Most organisations are offered a discovery phase at no cost by the agency pitching the rebuild. It is a reasonable offer and it has one structural problem: the people running the diagnosis are the people who get paid if the diagnosis says rebuild.

I build websites too, so I will not pretend to be neutral in the abstract. What I will say is what the report has actually concluded: I have recommended against a full rebuild when the diagnostic did not support one, and the roadmap is yours to take elsewhere if you want it.

That is why the audit is a paid, standalone product rather than a sales stage. £2,500 buys a recommendation that is not underwritten by what I would prefer to build.

The problem you cannot quite name

You can feel something is wrong with the website. It is hard to say exactly what.

  • Your Board keeps asking whether the website is the right investment, and you cannot give a clear answer.
  • A funder looked at the site recently and you were not confident about what they found.
  • Every meaningful change needs a developer, and simple updates take weeks.
  • You know the accessibility is not right, but nobody has assessed the exposure.
  • Three people have three different views of what the website is for.
  • You have been quoted for a rebuild and you are not sure it solves the real problem.

Until the actual problem is diagnosed, a rebuild is a guess. Guessing with a £35,000 investment is expensive.

What I test, and how

Ten areas, scored, with the consequence named

Every area is scored red, amber or green and given a priority: immediate, three months, or maintain. No area is reported as a bare number. A score on its own tells you nothing you can act on — so every finding states what it means for your organisation specifically.

“Accessibility score is 54/100” is not a finding.

“Accessibility score is 54/100 — screen reader users, including donors and beneficiaries with visual impairments, cannot complete your donation flow” is a finding your Board can act on.

  1. 01

    Performance

    Lighthouse across representative templates, with Core Web Vitals measured against LCP under 2.5s, CLS under 0.1 and INP under 200ms.

  2. 02

    Accessibility

    Manual WCAG 2.2 AA testing across every unique page template and every key user journey. Keyboard traversal, keyboard-only completion of the donation flow, colour contrast measured against WebAIM thresholds, screen reader testing in NVDA and VoiceOver, focus trapping in modals, and reflow at 200% and 400% zoom. axe DevTools runs as a baseline and the results are triaged, not pasted in.

  3. 03

    Navigation and architecture

    Whether the structure follows stakeholder need or internal org chart, and whether your three priority audiences reach what they need in two to three clicks.

  4. 04

    Content accuracy and freshness

    Currency of programme, team and impact content, and anything that would concern an institutional funder or a journalist.

  5. 05

    Content governance documents

    Annual report, accounts, safeguarding, complaints and privacy: present, current, and findable.

  6. 06

    Integrations

    A live test donation, form submissions, email sign-up, and whether cookie consent is correctly blocking scripts before consent.

  7. 07

    Technical infrastructure

    HTTPS, robots.txt, sitemap, JSON-LD schema, analytics configuration and goal tracking.

  8. 08

    Credibility signals

    Registration number, registered address, named trustees, linked accounts, sourced impact data.

  9. 09

    Mobile experience

    Layout integrity, navigation, tap targets, and whether the donation flow completes on a phone.

  10. 10

    Brand consistency

    Whether the site is consistent with the scale and ambition the organisation claims.

Area 02 is the one most organisations arrive asking about. See exactly how the accessibility testing is done — the tools, the assistive technology, and what an automated scan cannot reach.

Plus the compliance checks specific to your jurisdiction

Which module applies depends on how you are constituted and where you operate.

UK charity

  • Charity Commission number displayed sitewide
  • Registered address and named trustees
  • Accounts linked, Fundraising Regulator registration
  • Gift Aid information on donation pages
  • ICO registration
  • Safeguarding and complaints procedures accessible
  • Modern slavery statement where turnover exceeds £36M

International NGO

  • Registration in country of incorporation
  • Governance structure and audited accounts
  • Safeguarding, anti-fraud and corruption policy
  • IATI reporting where applicable
  • Multilingual coverage
  • Accountability framework references such as CHS Alliance or Sphere

US 501(c)(3)

  • EIN and status statement
  • Form 990 or Candid profile
  • Board listing
  • Non-discrimination statement
  • Donor privacy
  • State solicitation registration

Accessibility exposure is assessed against the Equality Act 2010, and against the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility Regulations 2018 where your organisation delivers public functions. If you trade into the EU, the European Accessibility Act and EN 301 549 apply.

This is an assessment of technical conformance, not legal advice.

How it runs

Weeks 1–2

Discovery and diagnosis

You complete a short intake questionnaire in advance, so we do not spend the call on basics. Then one focused 90-minute stakeholder call with the people who know the site best: who owns decisions, what your team can and cannot do today, and what success looks like for each audience. Recorded and shared with you.

Alongside that, I run the full technical and governance audit. Thirteen pages are fetched and analysed automatically — homepage, about, trustees, contact, donate, programmes, impact, governance, privacy, accessibility statement, news, robots.txt and sitemap. A page that does not exist is itself a finding. Manual testing then runs across every unique template and every key journey.

Week 3

Recommendations

The report is written and presented. It covers the institutional problem and why it is urgent now; platform and architecture recommendations with the trade-offs named; who owns which pages and how your team publishes without technical dependency; a sequenced roadmap with phasing options if budget requires staging; and an investment breakdown showing what implementation costs and what drives that cost.

I then present the findings to your leadership team in a 90-minute session with Q&A.

What you receive

Yours entirely, whoever implements it.

  • The written report — typically 15–25 pages, and longer where the site is larger or there is more to report
  • A scored ten-area assessment with priorities: immediate, three months, maintain
  • Manual WCAG 2.2 AA findings with specific pages, severities and remediation steps
  • Jurisdiction-specific compliance gaps, with the institutional risk named plainly
  • A stakeholder map showing who your site is accountable to and where it currently fails them
  • An implementation roadmap with phased investment options
  • The recorded stakeholder call and a 90-minute findings presentation to your leadership
  • All supporting documentation

It is yours entirely. Implement it internally, brief another provider with it, or continue with me.

What I need from you

Roughly four hours of your organisation's time.

  • 90 minutes from you and up to three colleagues for the stakeholder call
  • Roughly 20 minutes to complete the intake questionnaire
  • Read-only CMS access, or a walkthrough if access cannot be granted
  • Google Analytics and Search Console access, if available
  • A test donation of a small amount, which I reimburse
  • 90 minutes from your leadership team for the findings presentation

If stakeholder access is limited, that does not prevent the audit. It clarifies where assumptions sit, and the report says so.

What you will know at the end

Not a vague list of problems — clear answers your Board can act on.

  1. 01

    What is failing, and why

    Every issue traced to its root cause, not its symptom.

  2. 02

    What it costs to fix, and in what order

    A prioritised sequence, so budget goes to what matters first.

  3. 03

    What your Board needs to approve it

    The evidence and framing that get the work signed off.

  4. 04

    Whether you need a rebuild at all

    If targeted fixes solve it, the report says so.

Who this is for

The Blueprint Audit is built for established charities and NGOs where:

  • You are planning meaningful investment in the website and want to be certain you are building the right thing
  • Multiple stakeholders hold different, sometimes competing, views of what the site should do
  • The organisation is in transition — leadership change, merger, funding growth, strategic pivot
  • The current site was built without governance oversight and it shows
  • Previous fixes failed because they addressed symptoms rather than structure
  • You are operating under scrutiny from funders, regulators, media or the public

It is not for you if

Your site is small and simple, or your budget for the whole project is under £10,000. Say so on a call and I will tell you honestly — a lighter technical review is often the right answer, and I would rather say that than sell you this.

Eric Phung, website governance specialist, Socialectric.

Who is doing the audit

You work with one person, the whole way through.

I am Eric Phung. I have built more than 100 websites over seven years, and I work exclusively with nonprofits — currently WHO Foundation, Do Good Daniels Family Foundation and Territorio de Zaguates. I am based in Manchester. No account managers, no handover, no team rotation.

How your data is handled I ask for the lowest level of access that does the job, use it only for the audit, and prompt you to revoke it on delivery. Audit materials are held for 12 months in case you need them back, then deleted. Socialectric is registered with the Information Commissioner's Office.

  • Webflow Certified Partner

Evidence

What the diagnostic found, and what changed after it.

Territorio de Zaguates

The diagnostic identified cross-border fundraising friction and operational dependency on IT staff for content updates. Implementation created multi-currency donation infrastructure and freed sanctuary operations from web management.

WHO Foundation

The diagnostic identified navigation consuming 30% of the viewport, accessibility gaps creating institutional compliance exposure, and absent governance infrastructure during Guardian media scrutiny. Implementation tripled organic traffic, closed the accessibility gaps, and gave the communications team editorial independence.

Do Good Daniels Foundation

The diagnostic identified Wix platform limitations preventing donation infrastructure from scaling, and a content governance breakdown. Migration enabled integrated Donorbox and Stripe processing and team independence. Retained for three further projects.

Even when our brief was to 'lift and shift,' Eric found ways to enhance our donor experience and improve our SEO, all within budget.
WHO Foundation Head of Communications

What happens after

The audit stands alone. Most organisations continue anyway.

Most organisations continue, because the diagnostic creates context that is expensive to recreate with someone new — but there is no obligation, and the roadmap works without me.

£30,000 a year

Monthly Partnership

The build is the first phase of a rolling arrangement at £2,500 a month: Figma design, Webflow development on the Lumos framework, WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility, and the SEO and AEO structure that lets search engines and answer engines cite your site. The relationship continues as the site evolves. Cancel anytime.

Scoped and quoted

Implementation

A fixed-scope rebuild delivered as a defined project on a fixed timeline and price, typically 16–20 weeks and milestone-billed. Usually for a tender or grant. Scoped from your roadmap.

Both build to the same standard.

Questions from NGO decision-makers

Schedule a conversation

£2,500, fixed. There is no obligation to proceed to anything else. You own the report and can take it to any provider.

Two to three weeks from the stakeholder call to the findings presentation.

WCAG 2.2 AA. Most procurement policies and EN 301 549 still cite 2.1 AA. WCAG 2.2 is backwards compatible, so a site that meets it meets 2.1 as well — you are not choosing between them. Testing is manual across every unique page template and every key user journey: keyboard traversal, screen reader testing in NVDA and VoiceOver, contrast measurement, and reflow at 200% and 400% zoom. axe DevTools provides an automated baseline that is then triaged by hand. Exposure is assessed against the Equality Act 2010, and against the Public Sector Bodies Accessibility Regulations 2018 where your organisation delivers public functions.

Every unique page template, plus every key user journey. Pages repeat templates, so a site with 400 pages may have twelve — testing representative instances of each template covers the whole estate. Journeys are tested end to end regardless of how many templates they cross.

Automated tools detect between 13% and 57% of accessibility issues depending on how you count — the low figure by WCAG success criteria, the high figure by raw issue count. Neither includes the failures that require human judgement: whether alt text is meaningful, whether keyboard order is logical, whether a screen reader user can complete a donation. A free scan tells you that you have 47 violations. It does not tell you which of them stops a donor giving.

You can. Skipping diagnosis is how projects end up with scope creep, stakeholder misalignment and a rebuild that solves the wrong problem. The audit costs 7% of a £35,000 rebuild and tells you whether the other 93% is aimed correctly.

That accelerates it. I review what you have, identify the gaps, and concentrate where the value is.

Then it says so. If targeted remediation gets you what you need for a fraction of the cost, that is the recommendation. I have recommended against full rebuilds when the diagnostic did not support one.

The report is written for that. It contains governance rationale, risk assessment, and implementation options with investment ranges — the information trustees need to make a decision. Many organisations use it to secure Board endorsement for the implementation budget.

Yes. The deliverable is yours, designed to be useful regardless of who implements it. No lock-in.

No. The audit is platform-neutral and assesses whatever you are on. If you continue into implementation, that work is Webflow — but the audit does not assume it, and the recommendation is not conditional on it.

Everything. Report, stakeholder map, accessibility findings, roadmap, recording and supporting documentation.

The next step

Ready to stop guessing?

A 30-minute conversation is enough to establish whether the Blueprint Audit is the right starting point. I will tell you if it is not.

Schedule a conversation Or email me directly — hello@socialectric.com
Hands typing on a MacBook that displays the Blueprint Audit report.