ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAABAC
1
Section 1: Self Assessment Sheet
2
3
4
This self-assessment spreadsheet has been designed to help your organisation assess your fundraising capacity across 6 key functional areas.
5
For each of these functional areas, there are 4 questions that guide the assessment process. Each question carries a weight based on its importance. You can use this tool to critically assess and provide a score based on your independent assessment.
6
7
Guidelines for completing the assessment:
8
Use a laptop while completing the sheet.
Score based on current practice, not intentions or future plans.
If views differ, briefly discuss and agree on a score that best reflects collective reality.
A score of 3 is valid- it often reflects a capacity that exists but is inconsistent.
Choose the score that feels closest to reality, even if not a perfect fit.
Avoid over-scoring to appear strong or under-scoring out of frustration.
The goal is clarity, not perfection.
9
10
Steps to complete the assessment:
11
1. Answer each question by selecting a score from the dropdown in the cell (1–5), reflecting your honest assessment of the capacity.
12
2. The total score for each capacity area is automatically calculated from the individual question scores and cannot be changed manually.
13
3. The final scores highlight overall strengths and areas of improvement within each capacity area
14
4. These total capacity scores will be used in the next section for refection
15
16
SNFundraising capacities WeightScore (1-5)Guidelines for score
17
AStrategy
18
1Our fundraising goals and priorities are clearly aligned with our organisation's strategy25%1-no alignment, 2- limited alignment , 3-partial alignment, 4-strong alignment, 5- full alignment
19
2Our fundraising plan and strategy is documented and shared internally with the relavent members25%1- not documented, 2- partially documented , 3- documented internally, 4- well documented & shared, 5-fully documented & actively used
20
3Our Fundraising strategy includes both annual and multi-year financial projections25%1- no projections, 2- immediate (<1 years), 3-short term (2-3 years) , 4- medium term (3-5 years), 5- long term (>5 years)
21
4Organisational leadership actively supports and participates in fundraising efforts25%1- no involvement, 2- minimal, 3- partial, 4- active, 5- fully strategic
22
Total Score 0
23
BFunder intelligence
24
1We track developments in the funding ecosystem to stay relevant in the ecosystem25%1- no tracking, 2- ad hoc tracking, 3- periodic, 4- systematic, 5- strategic foresight
25
2We proactively identify and reach out to new potential funders interested in food systems (bilateral/ individual/ foundations/ HNIs/ government/National & International grants, etc)25%1- no outreach, 2- occasional outreach, 3- targeted outreach, 4- regualr outreach, 5- targeted pipeline
26
3We actively explore funding channels and approaches to establish a relationship with new potential funders25%1- no exploration, 2- minimal, 3- planned but limited, 4- multiple channels, 5- diversified
27
4We build and maintain networks that help us access and connect with potential funders 25%1- no networking, 2- informal connections, 3- basic networking, 4- proactive, 5- strategic and leveraged
28
Total Score 0
29
CFinancial planning and tracking
30
1We have a clear and reliable budgeting process to estimate project and internal needs25%1- no budgeting process, 2- basic estimates, 3- partial budgeting, 4- comprehensive, 5- precise
31
2We regularly monitor and analyse our program operating costs to understand and manage them effectively25%1- no monitoring, 2- limited tracking, 3- routine tracking, 4- detailed tracking, 5-strategic tracking
32
3We have risk assessment and contingency plans in place to manage uncertainties in our fundraising 25%1- no risk plan, 2- minimal plan, 3- basic, 4- comprehensive, 5- adaptive risk plan
33
4Our financial reporting systems enable accurate and timely reporting to donors25%1- no formal reporting system, 2- inconsistent, 3- adequate, 4- reliable, 5- donot specific and complete
34
Total Score 0
35
DFundraising systems & tools
36
1We set clear fundraising targets (including overall and type of funders based targets) with defined timelines25%1- no targets, 2- general targets only, 3- partial targets, 4-defined targets, 5-comprehensive, and monitored targets
37
2We have tracking systems/ digital tools (e.g., CRM, spreadsheets,etc.) to monitor our Fundraising data- grants, proposals, approvals, membership fee, etc.25%1- no tracking system, 2- basic tools, 3- functional tracking, 4- consistent tracking, 5- comprehensive and real-time tracking
38
3We have repeatable, documented processes and templates for proposal and concept note development25%1- no documented process, 2- informal process, 3- partially documented, 4- standardized process, 5- optimized system
39
4We have internal systems or governance mechanisms to ensure transparency in fundraising decisions and fund allocation25%1- no governance system, 2- informal oversight, 3- basic governance, 4- clear governance, 5- transparent and accountable system
40
Total Score 0
41
EFunder engagement and communication
42
1We have simple, clear and compelling narratives to explain our work and impact in food systems to Funders25%1- no narrative, 2- unclear messaging, 3- basic narrative, 4- compelling narrative, 5- donor ready storytelling
43
2We consistently communicate with Funders through timely reports, updates, case studies and learning insights, especially in written English25%1- no communication, 2- irregular updates, 3- basic reporting, 4- consisitent comunication, 5- high quality communication
44
3We promote our work and projects in channels and avenues that reach our potential funders (like media, knowledge spaces, policy platfors, forums, events, etc.25%1- no promotion, 2- ad hoc promotion, 3- limited channels, 4- multi-channels, 5- targeted outreach
45
4We have strong, trusted relationships with our funders that allow for flexibility and adaptive decision-making in our work25%1- no trusted relationship, 2- weak, 3- reliable, 4- strong, 5- adaptive
46
Total Score 0
47
FHuman Resource and participatory approach
48
1Our team has the skills and capacity to develop strong concept notes and high-quality proposals tailored to diverse donor interests.25%1- no skills, 2- basic skills, 3- moderate skills, 4 strong skills, 5 expert capacity
49
2Roles and responsilibities of fundraising teams within and outside the organisation are specified (E.g. of teams- research, proposal writing, budgeting, donor engagement)25%1- not defined, 2- partially defined, mostly defined, 4- clearly defined, 5- highly specified
50
3Fundraising knowledge and learning are shared within the organisation rather than held by only one individual.25%1- no engagement, 2- minimal engagement, 3- moderate engagement, 4- active engagement, 5- proactive engagement
51
4We leverage member networks and relationships for fundraising25%1- no leverage, 2- minimal leverage, 3- moderate leverage, 4- active leverage, 5- full network leverage
52
Total Score 0
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100