How Are Feasibility Study Interviews Conducted? What the Data Shows

Feasibility studies are a foundational step in the capital campaign process. Before launching a campaign, nonprofit leaders want to understand how their top stakeholders view the organization, how compelling the proposed vision is, and at what level donors are likely to support the effort.

Most organizations agree that feasibility studies matter. There is less agreement about who should conduct the interviews.

Who Should Conduct a Capital Campaign Feasibility Study?

In our Capital Campaign Benchmark Study, now in its third year, we asked nonprofits a simple question:

If you conducted a feasibility study, who did the interviews?

The 2026 responses were revealing:

• The Traditional Model:  Just a consultant — 38%
• The Hybrid Model:  Both consultant and nonprofit staff together — 31%
• The Guided Model:  Just nonprofit staff and/or board members with consultant support on the side — 31%

For many years, consultant led interviews have been the dominant model. Nonprofits often heard that feasibility study interviews could only be handled by an external consultant.

The data now shows a shift. Over the three years we have conducted this study, instances of nonprofits choosing staff-led interviews have increased steadily. The field now shows an almost even split across three models.

A Consistent Finding

Yet even as interview models evolve, one thing remains consistent: experienced consultant involvement is still critical to a successful feasibility study.

Capital campaign consultants have guided dozens, and often hundreds, of campaigns across many organizations. That experience helps them know which questions to ask, what signals to look for in donor feedback, and how to structure a study so the results are meaningful.

Consultants also understand how to synthesize qualitative conversations into clear findings and recommendations for campaign strategy. Without that perspective, organizations can easily misread donor signals or miss important patterns in the data.

Whether consultants conduct the interviews themselves, attend interviews with staff or support staff behind the scenes, their expertise in designing the study and interpreting the results remains one of the most valuable elements of the feasibility process.

This raises an important question: which approach works best? What’s the best role for a consultant in a feasibility study?

Let’s dive into each model, their advantages and challenges, in order to help you make the most informed decision.

The Traditional Model: Consultant Led Interviews

In the traditional approach, a capital campaign consultant manages the entire feasibility study process. The consultant designs the study, conducts (confidential) donor interviews, analyzes the results, and presents recommendations to the board.

During these interviews, the consultant shares early campaign plans and gathers feedback from donors. Many studies promise anonymity so donors feel comfortable sharing candid opinions.

Misconceptions About the Traditional Model

This approach has been widely used for decades, but carries with it a few misconceptions:

• A consultant’s perceived neutrality is seen as necessary for donors to feel comfortable sharing candid feedback.
• Consultants bring experience and expertise that nonprofit staff do not have.
• Staff can stay focused on daily operations while the consultant manages the study.

While advocates of this model are quick to defend its efficacy, there are tangible drawbacks for the nonprofit; specifically around the issue of transparency.

Consultants are often viewed as neutral third parties who can encourage candid feedback. However, the confidentiality of consultant-led interviews can limit an organization’s ability to act on what it learns. Because interviews are confidential, nonprofit leaders often do not know which donors shared specific feedback. When donors raise concerns or ask questions, no one at the organization can follow up directly.

Consultants also bring valuable campaign experience, but when they conduct every conversation, nonprofit leaders miss the opportunity to hear donor perspectives firsthand. Instead, leaders receive a summary report and recommendations rather than participating in the discussions themselves.

Finally, while having a consultant manage the study may allow staff to remain focused on daily operations, it can also mean missing one of the most valuable opportunities in the early campaign process: meaningful conversations with key supporters. When consultants conduct every interview, nonprofit leaders lose the chance to engage directly with their most important donors and begin strengthening the relationships that will ultimately drive the campaign forward.

The Hybrid Model: Staff and Consultant Together

About 31% of organizations reported using a hybrid approach where nonprofit staff and a consultant conduct interviews together. At first glance, this model may appear to overcome the inherent challenges in the traditional consultant-led feasibility model.

However, this assumption overlooks an important dynamic.

Limitations of the Hybrid Model

When a consultant joins the meeting alongside the organization’s leadership, it can unintentionally send a message that nonprofit leaders need outside experts in the room to relate with their own supporters. For many donors, this can feel unnecessary and may subtly undermine the direct relationship between donor and organization.

The presence of both a consultant and a nonprofit leader can also create confusion about roles. A donor meeting with both the Executive Director and a consultant they have never met may wonder: who is actually leading this conversation? And for whom is my feedback actually intended?

Rather than strengthening the conversation, this dynamic can make interactions feel needlessly awkward.

For these reasons, many organizations find that the hybrid model serves more as a source of reassurance than as a productive strategy for donor engagement.

The Guided Model: Staff Led Interviews with Consultant Support on the Side

The third model of feasibility study involves nonprofit leaders conducting the interviews while working closely with a consultant behind the scenes.

At Capital Campaign Pro, we refer to this approach as the Guided Feasibility Study.

Capital Campaign Consultants Play a Key Role

The consultant still plays a key role. The difference lies in who conducts the conversations with donors. In this model, a consultant helps the organization:

• Develop the strategy
• Outline the campaign plan
• Draft a strong case for support
• Select interview participants
• Create the discussion guide and questions
• Train nonprofit leaders to conduct interviews
• Debrief interviews and collect data
• Analyze results and develop recommendations
• Present findings to the board

But, critically, nonprofit leaders lead the conversations with their donors.

Nonprofit Leaders Take the Lead

These conversations allow leaders to strengthen relationships with major donors, discuss the campaign vision directly with stakeholders, and address questions during the conversation.

Leaders also gain direct insight into donor perspectives rather than relying only on a summarized report.

It should be noted that this model requires nonprofit leaders to invest time in conducting the interviews. Scheduling conversations, preparing for them, and debriefing afterward all require attention from senior staff and board members. It can be a lot to manage!

Putting in the Work

But, nonprofits should be eyes-wide-open about the fact that feasibility studies, and capital campaigns are a lot of work (no matter what model you choose). The question then becomes: which tasks are most worthy of our attention. We think speaking directly to donors should rise to the top.

A common warning from traditional campaign consultants is that donors may hesitate to share honest feedback with nonprofit leaders. Our experience shows this couldn’t be farther from the truth. After supporting more than one hundred Guided Feasibility Studies, donors regularly share candid feedback with nonprofit leaders. In fact, many donors prefer speaking directly with the leadership team about the organization’s future.

These conversations give nonprofit leaders valuable insight while strengthening relationships with donors.

What the Capital Campaign Data Suggests

The results from the 2026 Capital Campaign Benchmark Report show a clear shift in the field.

It’s now twice as likely that nonprofit leaders will participate in feasibility study conversations than having a consultant conduct them independently.

Many nonprofits have started to rethink the role of feasibility studies. These interviews gather data about donor support. They also create opportunities for meaningful conversations between nonprofit leaders and their supporters.

When nonprofit leaders participate in the interviews, they gain insight that extends beyond what appears in a written report. Donors also gain confidence when they see leadership actively listening and engaging in the campaign planning process.

As nonprofits continue exploring different approaches, feasibility studies are becoming more than a research step. They also serve as an early-stage relationship building process that strengthens the campaign before it begins.