sales business developmentdonor stewardshipfundraisinggrant writingmajor gifts
Complete evaluation framework
What to assess and how to score it
Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Track record
35% weight
Ask for dollars raised by channel: major gifts closed, grant awards won, annual fund growth, event net revenue. Check retention rates and average gift size against stated goals.
Explains the market and buyer they sold to, not just the product
Distinguishes what they closed from what the team closed
Can describe a deal they lost and why
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No numbers; cannot describe what they actually sold or to whom.
2
Needs Improvement
Vague attainment; credit for team results is unclear.
3
Satisfactory
Real record with some numbers; attribution occasionally fuzzy.
4
Very Good
Clear numbers and ownership, including honest losses.
5
Excellent
Cites specific totals, renewal rates and donor counts by campaign, and names the largest gift they personally solicited and closed.
02
Evaluation factor
Method and qualification
25% weight
Probe their moves management discipline: prospect research tools (iWave, DonorSearch), qualification criteria, portfolio size, cultivation timelines, and how they log activity in Raiser's Edge or Salesforce NPSP.
Evidence to listen for
Has a repeatable approach to qualifying and progressing deals
Can walk a real deal from first contact to close
Handles objections with questions rather than scripts
Knows when to disqualify
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No method; pitches at everyone and hopes.
2
Needs Improvement
Weak qualification; deals stall with no diagnosis.
3
Satisfactory
Workable method; inconsistent on complex or long cycles.
4
Very Good
Clear repeatable method; disqualifies early and deliberately.
5
Excellent
Describes a structured portfolio with capacity and inclination screening, documented touchpoints, and a realistic ask timeline per donor segment.
03
Evaluation factor
Relationships and trust
25% weight
Test how they steward donors after the gift: impact reporting, restricted fund compliance, board and volunteer engagement, and recovering a lapsed or dissatisfied major donor.
Evidence to listen for
Has clients or talent who came back or referred them
Manages a difficult conversation without damaging the relationship
Represents the client's interest, not only the commission
Builds rapport across seniority levels
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Transactional; burns relationships for a close.
2
Needs Improvement
Builds rapport but does not sustain relationships.
3
Satisfactory
Solid relationships; less tested in conflict.
4
Very Good
Repeat business and referrals; handles conflict without damage.
5
Excellent
Gives named examples of multi-year donor relationships deepened through honoring restrictions, timely impact reports and personal stewardship, not just mailings.
04
Evaluation factor
Drive and resilience
15% weight
Look for how they handle a missed campaign target, cold solicitation rejection, or grant declination; ask about weekly ask volume and pipeline rebuilding after a bad quarter.
Evidence to listen for
Handles rejection and a bad quarter without unravelling
Self-directed on pipeline rather than waiting for leads
Coachable on feedback
Honest in how they represent the product and themselves
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Gives up easily; blames leads, product, or market.
2
Needs Improvement
Motivation depends on momentum; resistant to coaching.
3
Satisfactory
Steady; recovers from setbacks with support.
4
Very Good
Self-motivated, coachable, and steady through bad stretches.
5
Excellent
Treats declines as information, keeps consistent solicitation activity through slow periods, and shows a concrete recovery that hit revised targets.
Put this rubric to work
Score every candidate against the same standard
Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.
