Funding sustainability assessment by program · free AI skill

Evaluates the funding sustainability of each program in a nonprofit portfolio — scoring revenue concentration risk, grant dependency, earned revenue potential, and funder alignment — then flags at-risk programs and…

Purpose

Produce a program-by-program funding sustainability assessment that scores each program on concentration risk, grant dependency, earned revenue potential, and funder alignment — surfacing which programs are one grant away from collapse and what diversification moves would stabilize them. Replaces gut-feel "which programs are safe?" conversations with a defensible, board-ready risk picture.

When to Use

Invoke this skill when the user asks to:

Assess which programs are financially at risk or overly dependent on a single funder
Evaluate whether a program could survive losing its largest grant
Build a revenue diversification plan across the program portfolio
Prepare a funding risk analysis for a board, finance committee, or strategic plan
Decide which programs to invest in, sunset, or restructure based on funding stability
Understand the organization's overall exposure to grant dependency

Inputs Required

Before starting, collect:

Program list: The programs to assess, with a one-line description of each
Revenue by program: Annual revenue per program, broken down by source (grants, individual giving, earned/fee revenue, government contracts, events, etc.)
Top funders per program: The 2–4 largest funders for each program and the dollar amount or % each represents
Grant renewal status: Which grants are multi-year vs. one-time, and known renewal timelines or at-risk relationships
Earned revenue context: Any fees, contracts, or sales the program generates or could plausibly generate
Mission/funder alignment notes: Any funders whose priorities are drifting from the program's work
Organizational context: Total budget size, reserve level, and any strategic priorities among programs

If revenue breakdowns are incomplete, assess what's provided and explicitly flag which programs need better data before a final judgment.

Instructions

Step 1: Build the Program Funding Profile

For each program, assemble a compact profile:

Total annual revenue and % of organizational budget
Revenue mix by source (% grants / % earned / % individual / % government / % other)
Largest single funder as a % of the program's revenue (the concentration ratio)
Number of distinct funding sources

This profile is the foundation for every score below. Present it as a table so patterns across programs are visible at a glance.

Step 2: Score Concentration Risk

Measure exposure to any single funder failing.

Low risk: No single source exceeds 25% of program revenue; 4+ meaningful sources
Moderate risk: Largest source is 25–50% of revenue; 3 meaningful sources
High risk: Largest source is 50–75% of revenue; 2 sources
Critical risk: Single source exceeds 75%, or program is effectively single-funder

Name the specific funder driving the risk and state the dollar exposure if that funder walks.

Step 3: Score Grant Dependency

Assess reliance on restricted, time-limited grant money.

Calculate % of program revenue from competitive/foundation grants (as opposed to recurring, unrestricted, or earned sources)
Flag whether grants are multi-year (more stable) or one-time (higher risk)
Identify any grant that, if not renewed, drops the program below break-even
Dependency levels: Low (<30% grant-funded), Moderate (30–60%), High (60–85%), Severe (>85%)
Note the renewal cliff: the calendar quarter when the largest at-risk grant expires

Step 4: Assess Earned Revenue Potential

Evaluate the program's capacity to generate self-sustaining income.

Current earned revenue as a % of program budget
Realistic earned-revenue pathways for this program type (fee-for-service, contracts, membership, licensing, sliding-scale fees, social enterprise)
Feasibility rating: High / Medium / Low / Not viable — with the constraint that limits it (mission fit, market demand, capacity, regulatory)
The single most promising earned-revenue move for this program

Step 5: Evaluate Funder Alignment

Assess whether current funders' priorities still match the program.

For each major funder: is their stated funding priority converging with, holding steady on, or drifting from this program's work?
Flag misaligned funders — those likely to reduce or exit within 1–2 cycles regardless of program performance
Note any strategic funders whose alignment is strong enough to deepen the relationship

Step 6: Assign a Composite Sustainability Rating

Roll the four dimensions into a single per-program rating:

Stable: Diversified sources, low grant dependency, some earned revenue, aligned funders
Watch: One meaningful vulnerability (usually concentration or grant dependency) but not imminent
At Risk: Two or more vulnerabilities, or a renewal cliff within 12 months
Critical: Single-funder dependency, severe grant reliance, or a major misaligned/exiting funder with no backfill

State the rating plainly and the one factor most responsible for it.

Step 7: Recommend Diversification Moves

For each program rated Watch, At Risk, or Critical, provide 2–4 specific, prioritized actions:

The diversification lever (new funder type, earned revenue launch, individual giving, government contract, funder mix rebalance)
Why this lever fits this specific program
A rough sequencing note (immediate / this fiscal year / next 12–24 months) Prioritize by how quickly the move reduces the program's most severe risk.

Step 8: Synthesize Portfolio-Level Findings

Close with the whole-portfolio view:

Which programs are the organization's funding anchors vs. its liabilities
Total organizational exposure to the single largest funder across all programs
The 3 highest-priority actions across the entire portfolio, ranked by risk reduction

Output Format

Structure: Program funding profile table → per-program assessment cards → portfolio synthesis
Length: 1,000–1,500 words (scales with program count)
Format: A summary table plus structured per-program sections; portfolio findings as ranked bullets
Sections: Funding Profile Table → Per-Program Assessments (each with the four scores, composite rating, and recommended moves) → Portfolio-Level Findings & Top 3 Priorities
Tone: Development strategist advising an ED — direct, financially literate, willing to name a program as at-risk without softening

Quality Checklist

Before delivering output, verify:

[ ] Every program received all four dimension scores plus a composite sustainability rating
[ ] Concentration risk names the specific funder and states the dollar exposure if lost
[ ] Grant dependency identifies the renewal cliff (which quarter the key grant expires)
[ ] Each Watch/At Risk/Critical program has 2–4 prioritized, program-specific diversification moves — not generic advice
[ ] The portfolio synthesis states total exposure to the single largest funder across all programs
[ ] Programs with insufficient data are explicitly flagged rather than scored on guesses

Notes

Concentration risk is the most common blind spot: a program can look healthy on total revenue while being one board-relationship away from collapse — always compute the single-funder exposure.
Earned revenue is often over-recommended for programs where it isn't mission-viable; rate feasibility honestly rather than defaulting to "add a fee."
Multi-year grants create a false sense of stability — the risk isn't this year, it's the renewal cliff, so surface it early enough to act.
When two programs share a major funder, that funder's exit is a portfolio-level event, not a single-program problem; make sure the synthesis catches cross-program concentration.

How to use this skill

This file is a Claude Code skill in Anthropic's standard format — markdown with YAML frontmatter at the top.

Installing in Claude Code:

~/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md — auto-loads in every session anywhere on your machine (recommended for skills you'll use across multiple projects)
<your-project>/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md — auto-loads only when working in that project (recommended for project-specific skills)

Restart Claude Code or open a new session to register.

Using in Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini, or other AI tools:

Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
Send your task or request as your next message — the AI will apply the skill where it fits

For Claude Code skill details: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/skills