Purpose
Produce a clear-eyed assessment of a nonprofit's funding health — how much revenue comes from each source, how reliable that revenue is, how well it aligns with mission, and where dangerous concentration lives — then deliver ranked diversification moves the leadership can act on. Turns a fuzzy sense of "we're too dependent on that one grant" into a documented, benchmarked, board-ready analysis.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when the user asks to:
- Analyze or assess their nonprofit's current revenue mix or funding health
- Diagnose over-reliance on a single funder, grant, or event
- Prepare a funding-health section for a board meeting or strategic plan
- Benchmark their revenue composition against similar organizations
- Build a revenue diversification strategy or roadmap
- Evaluate whether their funding is sustainable heading into next fiscal year
Inputs Required
Before starting, collect:
- Organization type & size: Program area (e.g., human services, arts, environment) and annual operating budget
- Revenue breakdown: Each source with dollar amount or % of total — individual giving, major gifts, foundation grants, government grants/contracts, corporate, earned/fees, events, membership, endowment draw, in-kind
- Largest funders: Top 3–5 sources by dollar amount, and what % of total budget each represents
- Restriction profile: Roughly what share of revenue is restricted vs. unrestricted
- Renewal outlook: Which major sources are multi-year vs. one-time, and any known at-risk or expiring commitments
- Time horizon: Number of years of revenue data available (single year vs. 3-year trend)
- Strategic priorities: What leadership most wants — stability, growth, or reduced dependence on a specific source
If restriction profile or renewal outlook is missing, note the assumption and proceed using conservative estimates.
Instructions
Step 1: Map and Categorize Every Revenue Stream
Build a normalized table of all revenue sources. For each stream capture:
- Amount and % of total budget
- Category type: Contributed (individual, major gift, foundation, government, corporate) vs. Earned (fees, contracts, events, membership) vs. Investment (endowment draw)
- Restriction status: Restricted / Unrestricted Reconcile the percentages to 100% before analyzing. If numbers don't total, flag the gap explicitly.
Step 2: Score Each Stream on Four Dimensions
Rate every stream on a 1–5 scale (5 = strongest) across:
- Size: Share of total budget
- Reliability: How predictable/renewable — multi-year committed (5) → one-time or event-dependent (1). Factor renewal outlook and volatility.
- Mission alignment: How well the funding advances core mission without mission drift — unrestricted flexible funding and program-aligned grants score high; funding requiring off-mission activity scores low
- Cost to raise: Efficiency of the source — recurring individual giving and multi-year grants are cheap to sustain; galas and one-off grants are expensive per dollar raised Present as a scoring table with a one-line rationale per stream.
Step 3: Diagnose Concentration Risk
Apply concentration tests and assign a risk rating (Low / Moderate / High / Critical) to each:
- Single-funder test: Any single source above 25% of budget = elevated risk; above 40% = Critical
- Category test: Any single category (e.g., government contracts) above 50% of budget = elevated risk
- Top-3 test: If top 3 sources exceed 60% of budget, flag donor concentration
- Restriction test: If unrestricted revenue is below 25% of budget, flag flexibility risk
- Renewal cliff test: Identify any expiring or non-renewing source worth more than 10% of budget as a near-term cliff For each triggered test, state the specific number, the threshold it breached, and the consequence if that source disappeared.
Step 4: Benchmark Against Sector Norms
Compare the mix to healthy composition ranges for the org's type and size. Use these reference ranges as anchors (adjust for program area):
- Individual giving: Healthy nonprofits typically draw 30–50% from individuals; strong unrestricted foundation
- Foundation grants: 10–30% — valuable but rarely renewable indefinitely
- Government: 0–40% — can be large but often restricted, reimbursement-based, and politically exposed
- Earned revenue: 0–40% depending on model — most reliable when mission-aligned
- Events: Best kept under 15% of budget given high cost-to-raise
- Endowment draw: Sustainable at roughly 4–5% of endowment value State where the organization sits above, within, or below each range and what that implies.
Step 5: Identify and Rank Diversification Opportunities
Generate 5–7 specific opportunities to reduce risk and strengthen the mix. Rank by expected impact and feasibility. For each:
- Opportunity: What to build or grow (e.g., launch a monthly recurring-giving program, pursue a second government contract, add earned-revenue fee-for-service line)
- Why it fits this org: Tied to their mission, existing assets, and current gaps
- Risk reduced: Which concentration test it addresses
- Effort & time-to-revenue: Low/Medium/High effort; near-term (<6 mo) / mid-term (6–18 mo) / long-term (18+ mo)
- Realistic target: A dollar or % goal for the next 12 months
Step 6: Build the 12-Month Action Plan
Sequence the top 3–4 opportunities into quarterly moves:
- Q1: Foundational / lowest-effort risk reduction
- Q2–Q3: Build the highest-impact new stream
- Q4: Measure, and shore up any renewal cliffs identified in Step 3 Include one leading metric to watch per quarter.
Output Format
- Structure: Revenue map table → four-dimension scoring table → concentration risk ratings → sector benchmark comparison → ranked diversification opportunities → 12-month action plan
- Length: 1,000–1,400 words
- Format: Tables for the revenue map, scoring, and risk ratings; ranked bullets for opportunities; quarterly list for the action plan
- Sections: Revenue Map → Stream Scoring → Concentration Risk → Sector Benchmark → Diversification Opportunities → 12-Month Action Plan → Bottom Line
- Tone: Development director advising a board — candid, numbers-forward, non-alarmist but willing to name a Critical risk plainly
Quality Checklist
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] Revenue percentages reconcile to 100% (or the gap is flagged explicitly)
- [ ] Every stream is scored on all four dimensions (Size, Reliability, Mission Alignment, Cost to Raise)
- [ ] Each concentration risk rating cites the specific number and threshold it breached
- [ ] Benchmark comparison states above / within / below for each relevant category
- [ ] Diversification opportunities are ranked and include a realistic 12-month target, not open-ended suggestions
- [ ] The action plan sequences moves by quarter with a leading metric for each
Notes
- The single most common finding is over-reliance on one grant or one annual event — name it directly and quantify the fallout if it vanished.
- Unrestricted revenue is the metric boards most often overlook; a well-funded org with 15% unrestricted revenue is more fragile than a smaller org with 40% unrestricted.
- Cost-to-raise matters as much as amount raised — a $200K gala netting $60K after expenses is a diversification liability, not an asset.
- If only single-year data is available, state that trend-based reliability scoring is limited and recommend gathering three years of data for the next analysis.
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