Want to begin a fund raising campaign? The first step an organization should take is to engage an outside consulting firm to conduct a campaign feasibility study. Right? Not necessarily. As a consultant, I have learned from experience that feasibility studies are not all they’re cracked up to be.

I am going to discuss three things with you. First, what the campaign feasibility study is supposed to accomplish. Second, what usually happens. And finally, an alternative to conducting a feasibility study prior to beginning a fund raising campaign.

What a Campaign Feasibility Study is Supposed to Do

The purpose of a campaign feasibility study is to do a pre-campaign evaluation. It is like an advance scouting party. Typically a fundraising consultant is hired to conduct a number of interviews (approximately 40) with key supporters to test the level and depth of support for a campaign. In addition, the consultant may conduct several focus groups, and may even mail out a survey to supporters. Specifically, the feasibility study is intended to accomplish the following:

1. Test the “Vision” for the Campaign. Will key supporters buy in to the need for the campaign? Will they agree that the purposes for which the dollars are being raised are important in carrying out the organization’s charitable mission?

2. Test Potential Financial Support. Key financial backers are asked if they would “consider” a leadership gift to the campaign.

3. Identify Volunteer Leadership for the Campaign. Interviewees are asked if they would help out invarious campaign roles including committee involvement and leadership roles.

4. Assess the Internal Readiness of the Organization for a Campaign. Is there sufficient fund raising staff and support staff for a campaign? How big is the organization’s donor base? Does the organization have quality fund raising software in place and is it being used competently? Are other internal components in place for a successful campaign?

First, the consultant comes in to conduct the interviews and does other data collection. The non-profit’s staff supports the consultant by identifying those who should participate in the study and by setting up the interviews. The consultant conducts the interviews, analyzes the data, and then comes back with campaign recommendations, which include a campaign goal.

This process seems sound, right? The four purposes for the study, as described above, are important. Obtaining feedback on the campaign vision, testing potential financial support, identifying volunteer leadership, and assessing internal readiness are vital steps to take before embarking on a campaign. In fact, non-profits that proceed with a campaign without addressing these issues – do so at a considerable risk.
The question then is this: How well does the conventional study process really work? What are the usual results? Let’s look at that now.

What Really Happens

Generally, the consultant obtains valuable feedback from the interviews. He or she analyzes the data and usually makes sound recommendations as part of the study’s final report. But sound recommendations alone do not make a successful study. Other results can be disappointing. More often than not, the non-profit’s staff is unhappy with a good number of the final recommendations and, therefore, does not act on them. Frequently, the Board will discount both the study and the recommendations. Often, those who were interviewed feel that they have wasted their time. What has happened to leave everyone feeling so dissatisfied? I propose the following reasons.

1. An Objective Study Never takes Place. The studies are conducted by consulting firms interested in securing a consulting contract for the campaign itself. The study is viewed by the consulting firm as their “foot in the door” for a long term consulting contract. Therefore, the consultant has a stake in the study’s outcome. This bias is real and makes a big difference in how the results are received. As one volunteer put it, “Have you ever heard of a study resulting in a recommendation not to proceed with a campaign?” The answer to that question is “very rarely.” This built-in bias results in a skepticism that pervades the entire process. The volunteers interviewed often feel that their concerns about the campaign are ignored. Those who sit on the non-profit’s Board discount the study recommendations as being part of a “sales pitch”.

2. The Study Design is Flawed. The design of the study contains flaws that mar the results. In the beginning, the nonprofit staff “hands off” the questions surrounding the campaign to the “expert” consultant and then waits for him or her to come back with the correct answers. The consultant conducts the interviews, hears the feedback, and makes the recommendations. Thus, the non-profit staff has a passive role in the study process. This approach results in the following:
As the consultant gathers the data and receives feedback, his or her perspective naturally changes. The non-profit staff’s perspective remains the same because they are not participating in the data collection. This divergence of views is a time bomb waiting to go off when the recommendations emerge. Therefore, the consultant forms the recommendations from a perspective the non-profit does not share. When the final recommendations are submitted, the staff is totally unprepared. The result of this divergence of perspectives is that most of the recommendations are usually ignored or rejected as unrealistic or too complex by the client staff.
Because the client did not participate in the data collection, little of the valuable information that is gathered in the study is actually transferred to the client staff. Most of the data and knowledge stays with the consultant when the proper place for it is with the staff who can put the information to good use.

3. The Number of Studies Being Conducted Results in Decreased Effectiveness. Finally, because of the great number of fund raising campaigns being launched today, the interviewees (often the financial “heavy weights” of a community) are being subjected to a multiplicity of interviews, often by the same consultants. It is not unusual for a foundation representative to be interviewed twenty or thirty times a year, often by the same two or three local fund raising consultants asking the exact same questions. This has resulted in a jaded view of the study process by those who are needed to financially support the pending campaigns. Today, major funders increasingly view the studies as a waste of their time and refuse to be interviewed.
The bottom line is that the conventional feasibility study is no longer an effective tool to conduct a pre-campaign assessment. Yet proper evaluation before embarking on a campaign is critical. This leads us to our next point: is there a better way to do these evaluations?

An Alternative to the Conventional Campaign Feasibility Study

I suggest an alternative approach to the conventional feasibility study that includes four simple steps. They are as follows:

Step #1: Have the Staff Conduct Informal Interviews with Key Supporters. Instead of a large formal study, let the consultant and the staff conduct a smaller informal study. Both the staff and the consultant work together to assemble questions for the interviews and identify those to be interviewed. Instead of 40 interviews, aim for interviews with 20 key supporters. The interviews which are done by the staff and the consultant center around the following five areas:

1. Feedback from the interviewee on the “vision” for the campaign.
2. Discussion on the “challenges” and the “possibilities” for the campaign.
3. Will the interviewee consider a current gift to the campaign? If so, at what level?
4. Will the interviewee consider a planned gift to the campaign? If so, at what level?
5. Will the interviewee participate in a volunteer capacity? (Serve in a leadership role, on a committee, etc.)

In this model, the staff sits in on the interviews so the information gathered is going directly to those who can use it – the organization’s staff. Their perspective changes as they hear the information first hand from the interviewees. In addition, those interviewed are able to give feedback directly to the staff of the organization, instead of seeing the same consultant over and over again. The consultant uses his or her campaign expertise to help the staff analyze the feedback and decide on next steps.

Step #2: Initiate a Temporary Planning Committee. After the informal interviews are completed, the next step is to initiate a temporary campaign Planning Committee. Some Board members along with top prospects for both leadership positions and financial support are invited to participate in this temporary committee. (They are more likely to participate if you limit it to three or four meetings). You need their help to:

1. Flesh out the “vision” for the campaign 
2. Help identify campaign leadership

This committee helps sharpen the vision for the campaign. You will obtain important feedback on how to position the campaign and what will “sell.” They will also identify campaign leadership. Some of those participating will themselves be potential leaders. In any case, the committee will review names and the organization will end up with a good list of leadership candidates.

Step #3: Conduct Early Prospect Rating Sessions.  Simultaneously with the Planning Committee meetings, the staff, using the consultant’s expertise, conducts early prospect rating sessions to identify major gift prospects and assign them to gift levels needed for a successful campaign.

These rating sessions provide a valuable review of potential financial support from the non-profit’s constituency. This review will make possible a reasonable judgment call on a campaign goal.

Step #4: Review Internal Readiness to Begin a Campaign. Initially, the consultant will review internal planning documents and fund raising records. Most important, he or she will work directly with the staff during the evaluation process and therefore observe first hand, the quality of the staff, the strength of the donor base, the software being utilized, etc. The consultant and the staff can then make an informed decision on the internal readiness for the campaign.

This Alternative Results in an Effective Evaluation

This approach effectively addresses the issues of pre-campaign evaluation. This model accomplishes the following four goals:

1. Tests the “Vision” for the Campaign. The informal interviews and the Planning Committee provide feedback to clarify the campaign vision.

2. Tests Potential for Financial Support for the Campaign. The informal interviews, the participation of top prospects in the Planning Committee, and the rating sessions all will help test this important issue.

3. Identifies Volunteer Leadership. The informal interviews and the Planning Committee provide feedback on potential leadership.

4. Assesses the Internal Readiness of the Organization to Begin a Campaign. By working directly with the staff during the evaluation process, the consultant assesses the various aspects (staff, donor base, software, etc.) that affect readiness to begin a campaign.

Conclusion

The conventional feasibility study is a flawed vehicle for conducting a pre-campaign fund raising evaluation. Even though these flaws increasingly hamper fund raising campaigns, the conventional studies are still being conducted for lack of a better approach. It is time for the fund raising community to adopt viable alternatives to the conventional feasibility study. The model set forth in this article offers such an alternative. This model provides for a more effective evaluation and will result in a healthier climate for fund raising campaigns. When this occurs, the true beneficiary will be philanthropy and all it does for our communities.

Notes
1 R.H. Schaffer, High Impact Consulting (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1997), pp. 22-23.
2 Ibid., p. 24