“If a board member isn’t passionate enough to give, how can they share their passion for the mission with the wider community?”
“There should be a give or get.”
“If a board member won’t give, then they don’t understand their responsibility as a board member.”
Just Because Everyone Believes It…
In my employee giving survey, 91% of respondents believed that board members should be donors.
Makes sense: You shouldn’t just talk the talk. You also have to walk the walk. If board members are going to be opening doors to new donors, they themselves should be donors.
Board members have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the overall short and long-term health of the organization. They should have to donate to help those efforts.
Leadership plays a role in people’s attitudes towards nonprofit board giving. Where does giving start? At the top. If the board is giving, then others will give as well.
All of these are well known attitudes and beliefs in the nonprofit sector. You can read plenty of articles on board fundraising which reference mandatory or automatic nonprofit board giving. But after completing my survey, conducting tens of follow up interviews and giving it a lot of thought, I’ve changed my tune and I’d like you to reconsider your opinion on the issue as well.
Bottom line: board members do not HAVE TO be givers. They can be donors but it should not be mandatory.
Does Diversity Matter?
Many nonprofits are financially dependent on the yearly 4, 5 and 6-figure checks they receive from board members. During the interview process, prospective board members will be told how much they are expected to donate annually. If not a “give,” then a “get”: board members will have to fundraise from others to reach dollar amount “X.”
However, this ensures that only people of means are sitting on the board. Only high-wealth individuals “deserve” a seat around the decision table. That automatically excludes quite a large swath of talented people in your community who could help your organization move forward.
Exclusion means no diversity. Exclusion means publicly announcing that not everyone can participate in helping navigate the organization towards success. A board that is inclusive allows for a diverse set of backgrounds and opinions to be heard. If the makeup of your board is consistently people of means, are you really serving your community in the best way possible?
You are not. Board members should have the best interests of your organization’s mission at heart. They have to be willing to volunteer their time and energy to providing better services and programs for those you assist on a daily basis.
But that should not involve an automatic give. Why? Let me illustrate with two groups of people who absolutely should be on your Board but are quite often missing because they can’t write a large check.
1. Field Experts
One of the ways to differentiate your organization is to become a thought leader in your specific niche. Demonstrate your expertise of understanding the problem your constituents face and how your solution positively impacts them and the community at large. Establishing your knowledge of the subject matter helps shine a spotlight on your mission and work.
What if there was a well-known field expert who brought a certain stature and standing to your organization? Would you not invite them to join your board because of their inability to financially contribute a significant amount?
Donors want to do good. They want to know that your organization has the solutions to the problems they want to solve. A field expert onboard who helps direct your mission will make an impression on donors.
Not everything should come down to dollars but because it so often does, think about your bottom line differently: You “lose” the board member donation. You gain more potential donors in the community who view you as a leader and expert in your field.
Would you say no to that?
2. Your Service Recipients
I admit I hadn’t really considered this option until I read an excellent post by NPO digital communications specialist Kirsty Marrins. She’s absolutely right: The most effective way to deliver programs and services that move the needle would be to include those you’re serving in the decision-making process!
Quick question: How many organizations do you know that have a service recipient on their board? I’m willing to bet it’s nowhere near the norm it should be.
Those receiving services from your nonprofit are probably not people of means. If all board members have to be givers, you’re automatically removing beneficiaries from that group. Wouldn’t you (and they) be better served if they were in the room when decisions about them were being made?
To borrow the slogan of the disability community: Nothing about us without us.
Give-or-get is not an option for this group but it shouldn’t be the litmus test for board membership. Actively recruiting service recipients should be a norm, not an anomaly.
Time = Money When it Comes to Nonprofit Board Giving
It’s time to reconsider how we decide who should make decisions for our organizations. The expectation of a financial donation is an exclusionary practice. It points a finger at many, many talented individuals in your community and in essence says: “You’re not eligible.”
Or as nonprofit lawyer Jess Birken told me:
“A lot of times requiring financial commitment limits who can be on the board. Someone uniquely talented or with a different perspective may not be a major donor or have the ability to give. If giving is at “a level meaningful for you,” that’s fine. But I don’t like a black and white rule about required giving.”
Time, commitment, and passion can all equal money. The short and long-term overall health of the organization shouldn’t just be in the hands of a few high-wealth individuals. As Jess told me, a nonprofit has no owner. It belongs to the community — it’s an asset of the community that it serves.
All nonprofits should reflect the makeup of the community that owns them. Starting from the very top.
Special offer for Bloomerang readers, subscribers and customers: If your organization needs to boost its current email performance or wants to start using email to engage supporters, check out Ephraim’s Email Marketing Kickstart offer! He’ll help you upgrade and strengthen your email fundraising and marketing efforts. Improve content, design, calls-to-action, welcome emails and more. Offer good till August 16, 2021.
Ephraim Gopin
Latest posts by Ephraim Gopin (see all)
- Three Fundraising Pros Give Their Advice On What You Should Do After You Get Laid Off - July 16, 2021
- Fundraisers: Don’t Look In Other People’s Wallets - March 11, 2021
- Nonprofit Board Giving: It’s Not A Slam Dunk - March 4, 2021
Let’s distinguish minimum board gift requirements from the concept of everyone on the board making a gift. If the board giving requirement is: make our organization one of your top three giving priorities, then only in rare cases will it be exclusionary… and exceptions can be made.
In fact, board minimums often suppress total board giving in that some board members who could give significantly larger gifts stay closer to the minimum than they might have ordinarily.
I believe donors and funders have every right to expect that board members step up when it comes to giving. Time and expertise are part of what a board member is “giving”… but there is also a place where the rubber needs to meet the road when it comes to board service.
Hi Diane!
Thanks for posting your thoughts on this issue- appreciated!
Yes, leaders have to lead. If Board members are going to open doors, they themselves should be givers. I totally get that perspective.
However, that implies that people with no means to give cannot serve on a Board. For example, people who are homeless may not have a dollar to give so they could never give even the minimum amount. They are excluded. And that could apply to a lot of people.
For comparison, in the UK there is ZERO expectation that Board members would also be givers. So it can be done a different way.
I’m not calling for Board members to stop giving. But I’d like for NPOs to consider the possibility of opening up the Board to more people. That way, even those who can’t donate money can give their time and expertise.
I find your article of some interest; however, after 40 years of being in the “fundraising business”, I disagree with your premise. I strongly believe that if a member of a board does not make a gift then there are other ways that person can serve….just not as a board member. With the current organization with whom I am associated, we ask all board members to make a gift of any amount. One caveat might be what Dorothy Chandler, wife of the owner of the LA Times, and head of the Music Center in LA for many years said, “My board members either get, give or sweat a lot.” Foundations always ask what % of your board gives. and their philosophy is that if the core leadership of your organization doesn’t make a financial contribution then why should we? In the end, however, it all depends on what “kind” of organization you are and your mission. If you are an organization serving the homeless in your community, yes I might say that someone who is homeless could be a good example……but come on, everyone I believe can afford even a dollar……..I served on a board many years ago when I absolutely couldn’t afford to give much money but I GAVE what I could. I also believe that board members should not know, other than perhaps the chair of the board, what each board member is giving. But everyone must give of time, talent, and treasure. Just my thoughts. (Jim Bennett, Monterey CA)
I do admire your perspective on inclusion and diversity. Being a board member is more than just ties to giving
Thanks Davis- agreed!
Hi Jim-
40 years??? WOW! Amazing!
I completely understand what you are saying and yes, it is possible to assume that everyone can give something, even a dollar. However, there are cases where the person simply cannot give anything and that automatically in many cases prevents them from joining the Board.
In much broader terms, I think there is a prevailing attitude in the sector that Board members should be givers- large givers. That certainly means that a very high percent of the population cannot join a Board. That is where my piece above is aimed: That kind of thinking has to change. So as you mentioned from your own case, if someone can only give what they can but have other talents to offer, they absolutely should be offered a seat on the Board. However, oftentimes that is not the case.
As a sector, I think that attitude prevents many good NPOs from becoming great.
In terms of foundations giving, I covered that in a different Bloomerang post. I believe that maybe it’s time to change foundation thinking about Board giving as well 🙂