Assessment · Free

Organizational Capacity Assessment

Reflect on 30 everyday practices across six domains, individually or with your team.

About 11 min · no sign-upUsed 12 times

This 30-item core is a conversation starter about how your organization works. The time estimate covers choosing answers; gathering evidence and discussing results can take longer. It has not been psychometrically validated and does not certify maturity, legal compliance or donor readiness.

Use familiar examples, including simple oral agreements, paper records and a host organization's support. Formal policies or digital systems alone do not earn a higher rating. Choose independently before a team discussion.

Reference period: the past 12 months, or since the organization began if newer. For annual activities use the most recent relevant cycle. These are practical prompts, not a scientifically validated reference period.

For each item choose the closest observable anchor, based on examples you know. 1 means absent, 2 occasional, 3 agreed but partial, 4 routine use, and 5 reviewed and improved. 3 is not a neutral or 'don't know' answer.

Choose Don't know when you lack visibility. Choose Not applicable only when the function genuinely does not apply; discuss why with your team. A missing practice is 1, not N/A. Every item needs a choice to finish; drafts may remain incomplete. No names, incidents or sensitive records are requested.

Governance and leadership

An oversight group reviews the organization's work at agreed intervals.

Think of a board, steering group, members or a host's committee; recall a review and its follow-up.

1 · No oversight review takes place.2 · Reviews happen only when someone asks.3 · Review intervals are agreed, but some reviews are missed.4 · Reviews happen as agreed; decisions and follow-up can be recalled or retrieved.5 · The group reviews how well oversight works and improves follow-up.Not applicableDon't know

People know which decisions they may make and which need another person's review.

Recall a recent spending or programme decision; a small collective can agree roles orally.

1 · Decision authority is unclear.2 · Authority depends on whoever is present.3 · Authority is agreed but not understood by everyone.4 · People routinely use the agreed authority and review route.5 · Decision examples are reviewed and unclear authority is corrected.Not applicableDon't know

Agreed rules guide important organizational decisions.

Consider a recent decision and the rule used; a short checklist or oral agreement can count.

1 · There are no agreed decision rules.2 · Individuals use their own rules.3 · Rules are agreed but used inconsistently.4 · Recent important decisions follow the agreed rules.5 · Decision reviews lead to clearer or better rules.Not applicableDon't know

Decisions about new work are checked against the organization's purpose.

Recall a request accepted, changed or declined because of your purpose; no formal mission document is required.

1 · Purpose is not considered when choosing work.2 · A leader sometimes checks the fit with purpose.3 · Checking purpose is agreed but sometimes skipped.4 · New work is routinely checked against the shared purpose.5 · The team reviews these choices and improves how it checks fit.Not applicableDon't know

Personal interests are disclosed before decisions they could influence.

Think of buying from a relative or selecting a connected person; do not enter names or allegations.

1 · Interests are not disclosed.2 · People disclose only if challenged.3 · Disclosure is agreed but not consistently used.4 · Relevant interests are disclosed before decisions using an agreed route.5 · The team reviews disclosure practice and addresses gaps.Not applicableDon't know

Essential leadership tasks can continue if a key person is unavailable.

Consider a named backup, handover notes or an agreed host arrangement, rather than a formal succession policy.

1 · Essential tasks stop without the key person.2 · A replacement is improvised when needed.3 · Backup responsibilities are agreed but the handover is incomplete.4 · Backups can explain and carry out the essential tasks.5 · A handover or practice exercise is reviewed and gaps corrected.Not applicableDon't know

Strategy and planning

Team members can explain the current priorities and their contribution.

Think of a team discussion or a simple accessible plan, not the length of a strategy document.

1 · Current priorities are unclear.2 · Priorities are known mainly to a leader.3 · Priorities are shared, but some people cannot explain their part.4 · Team members routinely explain the priorities and their part.5 · The team checks understanding and clarifies priorities when needed.Not applicableDon't know

The current work plan is usable for coordinating activities.

Look for what, who, when and needed resources; a weekly or seasonal plan can fit a small team.

1 · There is no shared current work plan.2 · Activities are arranged as needs arise.3 · A plan exists, but responsibilities, timing or resources are unclear.4 · A usable plan guides routine coordination of activities.5 · The team reviews plan use and improves it from experience.Not applicableDon't know

Changes affecting the work are reviewed when updating plans.

Recall a change in community needs, safety, access or resources and how the plan responded.

1 · Plans ignore changes affecting the work.2 · Plans change only after a problem becomes urgent.3 · Change reviews are agreed but sometimes missed.4 · Relevant changes are routinely reviewed in planning decisions.5 · The team reviews earlier adaptations and improves its response.Not applicableDon't know

The team plans for foreseeable resource gaps.

Consider how long funds, volunteer time or host support can cover commitments; one donor alone does not imply a low rating.

1 · Resource gaps are not considered.2 · Gaps are addressed only when support runs out.3 · Likely gaps are known, but response plans are partial.4 · Resource outlook and responses to gaps guide commitments.5 · Earlier resource plans are reviewed and assumptions improved.Not applicableDon't know

Financial management

Income and spending are reviewed against the budget.

Recall a review of important differences; a simple cashbook and agreed budget can count.

1 · There is no budget comparison.2 · Comparisons happen only when requested.3 · Budget reviews are agreed but some periods are missed.4 · Regular reviews follow up important budget differences.5 · The team uses review findings to improve budgeting.Not applicableDon't know

Payments receive a check independent of the person making them.

A second volunteer, trusted committee member or host reviewer can provide a proportionate check; think of a recent payment.

1 · Payments have no independent check.2 · A second person checks only occasionally.3 · An independent check is agreed but sometimes skipped.4 · Payments routinely receive the agreed independent check.5 · Payment checks are reviewed and weaknesses corrected.Not applicableDon't know

Money records are reconciled with cash, bank or mobile-money balances.

Consider the last applicable reconciliation and unexplained differences, including a host's records when hosted.

1 · Records are not reconciled with balances.2 · Balances are checked only when a problem arises.3 · Reconciliation is agreed but incomplete or irregular.4 · Records are routinely reconciled and differences followed up.5 · Reconciliation findings are used to improve record keeping.Not applicableDon't know

Financial assurance matches the organization's size, risks and obligations.

Consider an independent review or a required audit; an annual external audit is not required for every group.

1 · Assurance needs are not considered.2 · A financial review happens only under pressure.3 · A suitable review is agreed but not fully carried out.4 · The agreed proportionate review or required audit is completed.5 · Findings are followed up and assurance needs reviewed.Not applicableDon't know

People and work safety

People are selected for roles using agreed fair criteria.

Consider staff and volunteers; informal recruitment can still use clear fair criteria.

1 · Selection has no agreed criteria.2 · Criteria depend on the person recruiting.3 · Fair criteria are agreed but applied inconsistently.4 · Recent selections follow the agreed fair criteria.5 · Selection experience is reviewed and fairness improved.Not applicableDon't know

Staff and volunteers understand their current responsibilities.

Consider accurate current role notes or a shared oral agreement; a formal job description is not essential.

1 · Responsibilities are unclear.2 · People learn their roles only as tasks arise.3 · Roles are agreed but some responsibilities remain unclear.4 · People can explain their current responsibilities.5 · Role understanding is checked and responsibilities updated when needed.Not applicableDon't know

People can raise workplace concerns through a safe, fair route.

Consider a route outside the immediate supervisor when needed; do not enter personal complaints.

1 · There is no safe route for workplace concerns.2 · People rely on a personal contact to raise concerns.3 · A route is agreed but not clear or accessible to everyone.4 · People know and can use the agreed safe, fair route.5 · The route's safety and fairness are reviewed and improved.Not applicableDon't know

People receive the guidance and feedback needed for their responsibilities.

Recall a check-in, induction or practical coaching; a training budget alone is not evidence.

1 · People receive no guidance or feedback.2 · Support is offered only when a problem occurs.3 · Support is agreed but reaches people inconsistently.4 · People routinely receive practical guidance and feedback.5 · People's feedback is used to improve support.Not applicableDon't know

People know what to do if their work becomes unsafe.

Consider a stop-work, check-in or help route appropriate to the context; do not enter locations or incidents.

1 · People do not know how to respond to unsafe work.2 · Safety responses depend on an individual's judgment.3 · A response is agreed but not understood by everyone.4 · People can explain and use the agreed safety response.5 · A safe practice exercise or review improves the response.Not applicableDon't know

Programmes, learning and accountability

Programme plans explain the change the activities are intended to support.

A simple spoken or drawn explanation can count; a formal logframe is not required.

1 · Intended change is unclear.2 · An individual can explain the intention, but it is not shared.3 · The intention is shared but links to activities are partly unclear.4 · Plans clearly explain how activities support the intended change.5 · Experience is used to review and improve that explanation.Not applicableDon't know

Progress information is used in programme decisions.

Recall a decision informed by observations, a simple tracker or community feedback, not just a report produced.

1 · Progress information is not considered in decisions.2 · Information is used only when someone requests it.3 · Review is agreed but use in decisions is inconsistent.4 · Routine decisions use reviewed progress information.5 · The team reviews whether the information is useful and improves it.Not applicableDon't know

Affected people know an accessible, safe way to give feedback or complain.

Consider language, disability, literacy and retaliation concerns; a feedback box alone does not show people can use it.

1 · There is no known safe feedback route.2 · Feedback relies on personal connections.3 · A route is agreed but some affected people cannot access it.4 · Affected people know and can use accessible, safe routes.5 · Access and safety are reviewed with affected people and improved.Not applicableDon't know

Lessons from experience influence future programme decisions.

Recall a brief reflection and a later change; an external evaluation is not essential.

1 · Lessons are not considered in later decisions.2 · Learning depends on individual memory.3 · Reflection is agreed but lessons are used inconsistently.4 · Recent decisions show the use of shared lessons.5 · The team reviews whether changes helped and refines its learning.Not applicableDon't know

Affected people influence programme priorities before they are decided.

Recall whose views changed a choice; attendance at a meeting alone is not influence.

1 · Priorities are decided without affected people's views.2 · Views are sought only occasionally.3 · Consultation is agreed but influence on choices is unclear.4 · Recent priorities show how affected people's views influenced choices.5 · People help review participation and improve their influence.Not applicableDon't know

Barriers that exclude people from programme activities are addressed.

Think of language, timing, disability or cost; do not record people's identities.

1 · Exclusion barriers are not considered.2 · Barriers are addressed only after a request.3 · Barriers are identified but action is incomplete.4 · Routine planning addresses identified access barriers.5 · People's experience is used to review and improve access.Not applicableDon't know

Feedback and complaints receive appropriate follow-up.

Consider an agreed response or a safe referral route; do not enter cases or complainants' details.

1 · There is no follow-up process.2 · Follow-up depends on an individual's initiative.3 · Follow-up is agreed but responsibilities or responses are incomplete.4 · Feedback routinely follows the agreed response or safe referral process.5 · Follow-up quality is reviewed without exposing cases and improved.Not applicableDon't know

Systems and responsibilities

The team tracks obligations that apply to its work.

Consider relevant agreements, legal duties and deadlines, including host responsibilities; legal registration is context, not an automatic capacity score.

1 · Applicable obligations are not identified.2 · Obligations are checked only when a deadline or problem arises.3 · Obligations are known but tracking responsibilities are partial.4 · Responsibilities and deadlines for applicable obligations are routinely tracked.5 · The team reviews changes in obligations and improves tracking.Not applicableDon't know

Staff and volunteers know a safe route to report harm, exploitation or abuse.

Safeguarding means preventing and responding to harm caused through your work; consider confidential reporting and safe referral, never incident details.

1 · There is no known safe reporting route.2 · Reporting relies on finding a trusted individual.3 · A route is agreed but not understood or accessible to everyone.4 · People can explain and use the agreed safe reporting route.5 · A safe scenario exercise or review leads to reporting improvements.Not applicableDon't know

Access to personal or sensitive information is limited to people who need it for an agreed purpose.

Consider paper files, phones and shared accounts; do not upload records, passwords or personal data.

1 · Access is unrestricted or not considered.2 · Individuals restrict access using their own judgment.3 · Access rules are agreed but some files or accounts remain open.4 · Access routinely follows agreed purpose and need-to-know rules.5 · Access is reviewed after role changes and weaknesses corrected.Not applicableDon't know

Essential information can be retrieved after a disruption.

Consider a safe paper copy or offline backup and a recovery check; digital tools are not mandatory.

1 · Essential information would be lost after a disruption.2 · Copies depend on individual effort and may be outdated.3 · Recovery arrangements are agreed but incomplete or unchecked.4 · Current essential information is safely copied and can be retrieved.5 · A safe recovery check is reviewed and gaps corrected.Not applicableDon't know

0/30 answeredAnswer all questions to continue.

Take it further with EMPO Academy

The CSO Leader's Compass