Campaign readiness assessment

Work this assessment with your ED and, ideally, your board's development chair. Score each item honestly (the temptation is to grade up; resist it, because a flattering assessment buys a public stall). The output is not a grade but a diagnosis: which foundations are solid, which are gaps, and what specific work each gap requires before a campaign is wise. Score each item 0 (not true), 1 (partly true), or 2 (solidly true).

Part 1: A healthy annual program (the foundation)

• [ ] Donor retention is at or above [55–60%] and trending up,

not down: [0/1/2]

• [ ] The annual fund has grown or held for the last three

years: [0/1/2]

• [ ] We have a segmented, calendared annual program that ships

on schedule: [0/1/2]

• [ ] We have a base of monthly/sustaining donors: [0/1/2]
• [ ] Our thank-you and stewardship systems run reliably (48-hour

standard held): [0/1/2]

Part 1 subtotal: [__]/10

This part is weighted heaviest in your read: a campaign on a weak annual program is the most common way campaigns stall. A score below 6 here is a stop sign regardless of the other sections.

Part 2: A credible case and plan

• [ ] We can state, in one document, exactly what the campaign

would fund, why now, and what it costs: [0/1/2]

• [ ] The project is genuinely compelling to donors, not just

necessary to us (tested on a few candid donors, not just assumed): [0/1/2]

• [ ] We have a current, evidence-backed case for support: [0/1/2]
• [ ] The project's costs are realistically estimated, with

contingency: [0/1/2]

• [ ] Leadership and board agree on the priority (no competing

visions unresolved): [0/1/2]

Part 2 subtotal: [__]/10

Part 3: The leadership pyramid

• [ ] We can name plausible prospects for the top [10] gifts the

campaign would require: [0/1/2]

• [ ] We have existing relationships (not cold names) with those

prospects: [0/1/2]

• [ ] A credible campaign chair or co-chairs are identifiable and

plausibly willing: [0/1/2]

• [ ] Our board gives at or near 100%, meaningfully: [0/1/2]
• [ ] We have a working major-gifts practice now (moves pages,

not just intentions): [0/1/2]

Part 3 subtotal: [__]/10

A near-zero here means the honest answer is "not yet, and the work is pipeline-building": the most valuable diagnosis this worksheet can deliver, because it redirects years of effort correctly.

Part 4: The capacity to carry it

• [ ] Our database can track pledges, campaign gifts, and

reporting reliably: [0/1/2]

• [ ] We have (or can fund) the staff hours a campaign adds

without breaking the annual program: [0/1/2]

• [ ] Our finance and development functions reconcile cleanly:

[0/1/2]

• [ ] Our board understands and supports a campaign's demands on

them: [0/1/2]

• [ ] Leadership (ED, board chair) is stable and expects to

remain through the campaign period: [0/1/2]

Part 4 subtotal: [__]/10

Reading your score

Total: [__]/40. But read the parts before the total, because the foundations are not fungible: a 34 with a weak Part 1 is more dangerous than a 28 that is even across all four.

• 32–40, even across parts: strong readiness. Proceed to

feasibility with confidence; the study will refine the number, not rescue the organization.

• 24–31: real potential, real gaps. Do not launch yet. The

low-scoring items are your pre-campaign work plan (below); most organizations here are 12 to 24 months from ready, and that time is an investment, not a loss.

• Below 24, or any Part 1 below 6: not campaign-ready. This

is not failure; it is clarity. The work is foundational (retention, case, pipeline, capacity), and doing it will make the eventual campaign far stronger and possibly larger than a premature one would have been.

From gaps to plan

For every item scored 0 or 1, write the fix, the owner, and the timeframe:

• Gap: [ITEM] · Fix: [SPECIFIC WORK] · Owner: [NAME] · By: [DATE]

That list is the deliverable. An organization that assessed as un-ready and leaves with a dated, owned gap-closing plan has done something more valuable than launching: it has bought itself a campaign that will succeed instead of stall. Re-run this assessment when the gaps close, and when the parts are solid and even, the next lessons, the quiet-phase playbook and the consultant question, prepare you for the campaign you are now genuinely ready to run.

Evidence and adaptation note

This is a working tool, not a universal benchmark. Replace every bracketed field and example number with your organization's facts. Composite cases are labeled; their figures illustrate the method and should not be cited as sector results. Check legal, tax, privacy, employment, and accounting language against current guidance and your jurisdiction before adoption.

Primary references for review

Use these as verification starting points. The named reviewer still owns the final interpretation and must confirm that each source is current.

• Association of Fundraising Professionals, Fundraising Effectiveness Project reports: https://afpglobal.org/fepnews