By: Roy P. Wheeler, Jr.

It is commonly accepted that a feasibility study is a critical first component of a successful capital campaign. It is also true that the ultimate value of a feasibility study is relative to the quality of the information gathered as part of that study. A typical study gathers information in several areas including: perceptions of the institution/organization; reaction to the project that the campaign will fund; names of potential leaders for the campaign; and, potential sources of financial support including the person/institution being interviewed. It is critical to understand the importance of qualifying the potential support of the person/organization being interviewed and the methods of determining that qualification.

As in most undertakings, the better the information you have going in, the better prepared you are and, eventually, the better the outcome. In beginning a capital campaign, it is vitally important that you make every effort to positively shape the factors that can be influenced in your favor. That is, you must construct a case that is relevant, compelling and urgent; you must recruit the most highly effective and influential leadership you can; you must design a detailed, well-conceived plan that adheres to proven fundraising methods and techniques; and, above all, you must have a qualified list of prospective donors.

When conducting a feasibility study interview, it is often best to begin with easy or “softball” questions relating to the person being interviewed and their perceptions of the institution. This allows time for both the interviewer and interviewee to become comfortable with the process and requires little in the way of personal probing. I like to end this section of the interview by giving a more detailed description of the resources (money) needed to complete the project and a table of gifts required to raise those resources. This seems, in most cases, to allow a smooth segue into talking about money—other people’s as well as their own.

A key component of qualifying a prospect’s responses depends upon reviewing with them a preliminary gift table. I explain the fundraising maxim that most of the money will be raised from a few gifts, demonstrated by the “top heavy” nature of the table. I make sure the interviewee understands how these pledges will affect the outcome of the campaign, and that they can be pledged over a number of years with flexible terms. Then I ask the person to study the gift table with the proposed goal in mind and tell me whether, in their opinion, the goal is feasible based on the number and level of gifts required to raise it. Their response is important, and should reflect an increasing awareness on their part of the level of giving necessary for a successful campaign. You have now significantly raised their awareness of what will be required to achieve the financial aims in this endeavor. Additionally, you have raised their sights on what may be required of them, personally.

After reviewing the table of gifts and noting their responses, I transition into asking them to identify other prospects capable of considering each of the top gift levels. This tends to remove some of the tension that has built as a result of closely examining the gifts needed (and, by association, their own potential giving). It also allows the conversation to shift to “OPM” or, Other People’s Money; a much less intrusive topic! As each name is mentioned, I encourage conversation about the person: What is their profession? Have you ever known them to make such a gift? What organizations do they support? Do you know them personally? And other questions designed to help me know more about potential sources of support at the various levels. I then ask if the interviewee knows any of those suggested as potential donors well enough to call them and ask them to participate in the feasibility study as well. This often will dramatically broaden the base of participants for the study, including people with whom the organization does not currently have a relationship.

After this, I focus on the person’s own willingness to support the proposed campaign. I do this because I have now significantly raised the interviewee’s sights on the number and level of gifts required to raise the funds needed, thus they tend to be more realistic in understanding the workload that may be expected of them during the campaign.

I usually begin this section by asking the person where the organization ranks among their giving priorities and whether they would support a campaign for the proposed project. This focuses the discussion back onto the person being interviewed and their personal priorities. If the interviewee declares that they would consider supporting this effort, I ask for their help in qualifying that support. It is not necessary for them to make a commitment at that time. Rather, I am simply asking them to suggest a level of giving that they might be comfortable considering once a campaign does commence. I make it clear that this is not a solicitation, but for use in predicting a level of support and determining the goal for the effort. If necessary, I will refer again to the gift table and/or to those prospects mentioned by the interviewee to refocus the person on the gift levels.

While it is rare for a person to identify themselves as a top (or the top) donor, it is possible to encourage an indication of support at a level higher than they might have previously considered. Why? Because they have given their opinions on the organization and the project, affirming their own faith in the organization. They also have a better understanding of the gifts required to make that project a reality. Once a person has indicated a gift level, I often refer back to the prospects we discussed earlier and ask if they would consider a bigger gift if we were successful in recruiting the top donors they suggested.

By examining the findings of the study and evaluating those findings in light of the organization’s needs and aims, you can construct a solid basis for beginning the campaign. Your case has been tested, leadership has been suggested, prospects have been identified at specific gift levels and the interviewees have indicated a willingness to give at a certain level. Thus, the organization can better identify and qualify potential sources of support at the highest levels for its project. They also have a pool of people that participated in the study and indicated their willingness to support the effort at specific levels. Further, they often have given us the conditions under which they may consider even more significant gifts! You now have a basis for determining a reasonable goal for the campaign and a starting point in seeking support.

It is at this point that, as fundraising counsel, we synthesize all of this information to develop a preliminary campaign plan. The plan includes an organizational chart (with suggestions as to the best candidates for each Leadership position), a budget, a tactical plan (complete with a timetable, action steps and goals for accountability) and our fundamental campaign operational philosophy. At this point, our client is poised to move forward, with a solid plan in hand.

Roy P. Wheeler, Jr. is executive vice president of Custom Development Solutions, Inc. (CDS). CDS has become one of North America's best and most sought after fundraising consulting firms specializing in the strategic planning and tactical execution of capital campaigns for non-profits throughout the United States and Canada. More information on CDS can be found on the web at www.cdsfunds.com. If you have a fundraising question for Roy, please call 800-761-3833 or send an email to rpw@cdsfunds.com.