The most expensive moment in a capital campaign is the one where the board votes to commission a feasibility study before the organization is ready to act on its findings. A study commissioned prematurely costs $40,000 to $100,000 and produces a recommendation to delay — which is useful information, but information the organization could have gathered from this audit for free.
The questions below are the diagnostic we work through with boards before recommending they engage in feasibility. Mark each item honestly. The unchecked items are the readiness plan. The total count tells you whether a feasibility study is the right next step or whether 6 to 18 months of preparation come first.
What’s inside
- The board has to lead the campaign — not approve it.
- The case must answer a question donors are already asking.
- The math does not work without the top tier.
- Operational infrastructure has to absorb a campaign without breaking.
- The ED and chair carry the campaign in public.
- Timing has to favor the campaign.
The full 21-item audit — every item, with the notes that explain why it matters, plus the scoring guidance — is in the PDF. Use Save as PDF above to download it.
The board has to lead the campaign — not approve it.
Board has formally approved the project at scale
Not in concept — at a specific dollar range. A board that has approved "a campaign" without agreeing to the dollar amount has not approved a campaign. The vote should reference the working goal range.
Board members are prepared to make stretch gifts
A campaign in which board members are not in the top tier of giving will struggle. The board sets the floor that everyone else benchmarks against. Have individual conversations before the public phase, not after.
A campaign-capable board chair or campaign chair is in place
This is a different skill set than general board leadership. The chair has to be willing to solicit peer gifts, attend cabinet meetings, and represent the campaign publicly. Identify the person before you commission a feasibility study.
Board has discussed and accepted the time commitment
A 3-year campaign asks for 3 years of meaningful board engagement. Boards that have not internalized this in advance disengage in year two — typically the hardest year.
The case must answer a question donors are already asking.
The project addresses a specific, documented need
Not "we need a larger facility" — the documented evidence that the current facility constrains a specific outcome. Capacity counts. Waitlists count. Lost programming counts. Aspirations do not.
The case for support has been drafted and tested internally
A two-page case for support, in plain language, that the development director, ED, and board chair all sign off on. If three people cannot agree on what the campaign is for, 30 prospects will not either.
The financial model behind the project is realistic and externally reviewed
Construction costs, operating costs post-construction, depreciation, and ongoing funding for the new programs the project enables. Boards routinely underestimate the post-project operating burden. Get this reviewed by someone outside the organization.
The project would matter to a stranger
If the case requires deep institutional context to be compelling, it will not survive contact with a new donor. The case should resonate with someone who has never been to your facility.
The math does not work without the top tier.
You have identified 20 to 30 principal-gift prospects with documented capacity
Documented means wealth-screened with confirmed capacity, not anecdotal. These are the prospects who will give 60 to 80 percent of the goal. If you cannot name them, the campaign is not ready for a feasibility study.
Cultivation history exists for each principal prospect
Most have given before. Most have visited the organization. Most have a relationship with someone on the board or staff. A list of names without cultivation history is a wishlist, not a pipeline.
A working gift range chart maps the goal to the prospects
The classic structure: top gift at 10 to 20 percent of goal, top 10 gifts at 50 percent of goal, top tier of 20 to 30 gifts at 60 to 80 percent of goal. If your pipeline does not support that distribution, the goal is wrong — or the cultivation work needs more time.
Mid-level donor pipeline exists below the principal tier
A campaign that depends entirely on the top 20 donors carries enormous concentration risk. The middle of the pyramid — donors at $10,000 to $50,000 — provides resilience when a principal prospect declines or scales back.
Operational infrastructure has to absorb a campaign without breaking.
CRM is current, accurate, and queryable
Gift histories complete, soft credits assigned, relationship notes documented. Campaigns expose data quality problems within the first 90 days. Fix this before the quiet phase begins.
Gift processing and acknowledgment can handle multi-year pledges
Pledge tracking, payment scheduling, partial-pay reminders, and IRS-compliant acknowledgments for restricted multi-year commitments. If this is a manual spreadsheet, plan to systematize before launch.
Financial reporting can separate campaign revenue from operating revenue
Restricted-fund accounting for the campaign in a way that satisfies your audit and your donors. A campaign whose financials co-mingle with operating funds creates donor stewardship problems and audit findings.
Development staff has bandwidth — or augmentation is planned
A campaign of any size requires more development time than running the annual fund. If staffing is already at capacity, plan for a dedicated campaign role, a consulting partner, or both. Underfunded campaign staffing is the most common operational failure.
The ED and chair carry the campaign in public.
The ED is committed to spending 30 to 50 percent of their time on the campaign
In the quiet phase, this is the floor. A campaign that the ED treats as one of fifteen priorities does not raise principal gifts. Top donors give to people, and the ED is the person.
The ED and board chair are aligned on goal, timeline, and approach
Public disagreement between leadership during a campaign — or even subtle private disagreement — is visible to donors and corrosive to confidence. Resolve before, not during.
A campaign cabinet has been sketched (not yet recruited)
A 6-to-12-person volunteer cabinet of peer solicitors. The feasibility study will surface the right names; you should have a working draft going in so the study can test it.
Timing has to favor the campaign.
No major leadership transitions are anticipated during the campaign arc
ED, board chair, board treasurer, development director. A transition in any of these roles mid-campaign creates real fundraising risk. If a transition is likely, plan around it.
No competing campaigns in the region or sector are likely
A campaign launched simultaneously with a peer organization in the same region or donor pool will struggle. Map the landscape before committing to a timeline.
What your count tells you.
Twenty-one items total. Count how many your organization can confirm today — not in concept, but in observable evidence. Then read the guidance for your tier.
19+ items confirmed — Campaign-ready
You are positioned to benefit from a feasibility study. The study will calibrate goal and timing; it will not surface foundational gaps. This is the position you want to be in before commissioning one.
14–18 items confirmed — Pre-feasibility work required
Identify the gaps from the unchecked items and build a 6-to-12-month readiness plan. A feasibility study in this state will recommend delay — which is useful, but expensive to find out this way.
13 or fewer items confirmed — Not campaign-ready
A capital campaign is not the right next step. The right next step is a development audit or strategic planning engagement to identify which foundational issues to address first.
A feasibility study is not the start of a campaign. Readiness is.
Boards that commission a feasibility study from a position of strength get a calibration tool: the study refines goal, timing, and cabinet composition. Boards that commission one from a position of weakness get a list of things they already suspected — at a price.
The work between this audit and a feasibility study is where most of the campaign actually gets won or lost. Use the unchecked items as the plan.
