It’s Easy to Take the First Step

Reflections on Exponent Philanthropy's "Great Funder-Nonprofit Relationships"

I spent all morning this past Wednesday (9/20) participating in a program presented by Exponent Philanthropy and the National Council on Nonprofits on “Great Funder-Nonprofit Relationships.”  An equal balance of nonprofits and funders – more than 70 people – participated in this last of four such programs held across the country.  Funded nationally by the Fund for Shared Insight, this local program was also supported by the Center for Nonprofit Advancement and the Washington Regional Association of Grantmakers.

Many nonprofits and funders approach the topic of grantee/grantmaker relationship building with fear, anxiety and trepidation.  Nonprofits are put off by the power dynamic.  Funders feel overwhelmed.  And yet we know that when organizations and grantmakers develop authentic, sustained relationships, the quality of those partnerships increases dramatically.  Both can to achieve much more when they work together and communicate on a regular basis.  But even with this knowledge, it remains hard to make such connections a reality.

Throughout the discussions on Wednesday, however, I was struck by how simple and easy it is to create and foster such relationships.  We heard presentations from several funders and nonprofits who were actively collaborating and working side-by-side to achieve great things.  And it didn’t take some policy change to make it happen. It didn’t require some rewrite of the operating documents.  All it took was someone reaching out and saying, “Let’s explore how we can help each other.”  It’s that basic.

Here are a few of things that stuck with me from the day’s discussions:

  • It’s essential to create connection opportunities outside of the actual grantmaking process.  Both nonprofits and funders agreed that communication and interaction should take place in contexts beyond the “application moment.”
  • Openness, transparency and honesty are central characteristics of any successful relationship, and it’s absolutely the case when nonprofits and funders work together. And while many of us are fearful of talking about the “messy” or the “failures,” when we get past that, it unlocks a whole new level of connection.
  • Very simple steps can get the ball rolling.  Nonprofits and funders were encouraged to list out the characteristics of an “ideal” relationship.  Such a list can be an easy way to start a conversation – “We thought about our relationships with our funders, and we’d love to share with you how well we match up.”

Exponent’s series on the nonprofit-funder relationship concludes with a webinar on November 9th.  Reflections, data and perspective from the various sessions – held on the East Coast as well as in California – will be summarized to guide discussions on the 9th.  Long term, I anticipate that resource tools and guides will emerge from this work.  I’m looking forward to the continued conversation, and to helping nonprofits and funders implement these exciting ideas.

Whether you’re the leader of a nonprofit organization, the head of a family foundation, or a program officer of a larger grantmaking foundation, the first step is easy.  Commit to relationship building and stronger communication.  Ultimately everyone is committed to similar objectives – solving the world’s problems, improving our communities, supporting people in need, etc.  Working even more closely together, think of all that we can accomplish!


If you, your organization, or your foundation are interested in learning more about or even implementing the lessons learned from this program, contact Marshall Ginn

Planning as Dynamic as the Times

Posted April 28, 2017 on the "Philanthropy Front and Center" blog hosted by the Washington DC Foundation Center.


"I think that for many of us, the dramatic changes in our nation’s political, economic, social and philanthropic landscapes have made us stop and think: Are we managing our organizations today using potentially outdated plans crafted years ago? Do we feel caught or restricted by strategies and objectives developed when our operating landscape might have been completely different? Is that the smartest way we can serve the communities or causes we support?

Dynamic times call for dynamic planning models. Rigid strategic plans created with three and five-year time horizons are not as useful as they were in the past. What is needed now is a new approach that focuses more on thoughtful planning rather than on the resulting plan itself. We must embrace a philosophy recognizing that decision making informed by constant learning is what leads to strategic action and lasting impact."

For the complete post, visit "Philanthropy Front and Center."

Marshall Ginn will present a free training seminar on strategic planning on Tuesday May 9th at the Foundation Center.  For more information, click on this link. 

Photograph by Marshall H. Ginn (c) 2014

Photograph by Marshall H. Ginn (c) 2014

It’s been a year, have you moved your organization “Beyond Fundraising?”

It’s been nearly a year since the Evelyn & Walter Haas Jr. Fund released “Beyond Fundraising: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?” by Cynthia Gibson.  Designed specifically as one of the follow-up responses to the “Underdeveloped” research report from 2013, this excellent and comprehensive report explores in useful detail how nonprofits have been attempting to address the important issues raised in the 2013 report. 

Gibson reviews the forces that are driving the increasingly widespread shift to a culture of philanthropy (such as changes in the nonprofit ecosystem and the increased competition for resources,) and she articulates four distinct core components that comprise such a culture.  They are 1) Shared Responsibility for Development, 2) Integration and Alignment with Mission, 3) A Focus on Fundraising as Engagement, and 4) Strong Donor Relationships.  “Beyond Fundraising” is an outstanding report, and I highly recommend that if you haven’t already done so, check it out, download it, and immediately share it with as many colleagues as you can.

Gibson also provides a series of highly useful tools and guidelines for how any organization can jumpstart an effort to establish a culture of philanthropy. She poses some highly thought-provoking questions that can be used to create a framework for discussing these critical issues.  Of those, two of my favorite are “How can we get the board to become champions of a culture of philanthropy,” and “Does everyone in the organization understand philanthropy’s role in advancing the organization’s mission and values and have opportunities to participate in development activities?”

The board’s role in creating the success conditions for a solid, sustainable fund development program is essential.  They must both drive and model the values, attitude and commitment inherent in a culture of philanthropy.  They play a critical role in serving as ambassadors for the organization in the community.  In fact, I have often used the concept of “ambassador” as an easy entry-point for board members to discuss and ultimately embrace solid development practices.  It is also essential that board members are provided with opportunities to learn about why and how philanthropy works.  I feel that we do our board members a disservice when we focus fundraising training solely on the solicitation, rather than on the broader concept of resource development and donor engagement.   They must be shown exactly how philanthropy makes the organization’s work possible in ways that both enable them to effectively communicate this to the community, as well as to make sound, information-based decisions that affect the resource development program itself.

See Supporting the Fundraising Program – a tool for enabling board members – and staff – to fulfill these special roles.

“Beyond Fundraising” concludes with a discussion of the need for consistent and widely held indicators that can enable organizations to assess their progress toward establishing a true culture of philanthropy.  Gibson acknowledged that many people she interviewed in preparing this report agreed that developing such indicators should be a top priority for the future.  She helped to kick such an effort off by sharing suggestions of a wide range of potential powerful indicators.  It is an excellent list and merits thoughtful review and consideration.  I will highlight a few that are my favorites:

Selected Indicators from Cynthia Gibson’s “Beyond Fundraising:"

  • Executive Director/CEO – The executive director’s expectation of development staff isn’t solely to raise more money, but to help build a better understanding of the role philanthropy plays in the organization.
  • Staff – All staff – from the top to the bottom and regardless of position – see themselves as ambassadors for the organization and its philanthropic goals; they value the role of philanthropy, talk about its impact and are involved in fund development.
  • Organization – There are many opportunities for staff, board, donors and others to learn and talk about philanthropy and its impact on the organization’s mission.
  • Development Staff – The development director reports directly to the CEO, is a peer on the executive team, and attends and presents at board meetings.
  • Board – The board is committed to and involved in fund development; they are ambassadors, not bystanders.
  • Donors – The number of new, retained and upgraded donors improves each year.
  • Internal Systems – The organization invests money in strengthening its development/fundraising infrastructure, including professional development, training and technology.

Are any of these in place at your organization?  If so, what factors have led to their successful adoption?  If not, what barriers are impeding progress?  These issues should be discussed at the staff and board level on a routine basis.  They are essential to an organization’s long-term viability.

If you are a funder, are you looking for these and other similar indicators when you assess a potential grantee?   Are you being sufficiently engaged by the nonprofits you support?  Have you communicated to these organizations your needs and expectations in ways that facilitate a true, thriving philanthropic partnership?

The communities and constituents served by nonprofits organizations are counting on the services, programs, advocacy and initiatives they undertake every day.  Organizations – large and small – owe to them to make every effort to ensure that their work is sustained and supported.  Only then can nonprofits feel the most confident that they are doing what they can to make a lasting impact.

It is never too late to start building a culture of philanthropy.

What Will Our 2017 Top 10 List Look Like?

Over the past few days my In Box has been filled with a variety of “2016 Top 10” lists from the leading publications addressing the nonprofit sector.  I took the time to review the lists from The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Nonprofit Quarterly and the Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR.)

And as I considered these lists, and the issues and topics they address, I am already thinking about the future.  A year from now, when we are looking back on 2017, what will our “Top 10” list look like?  What will have been the sector’s most notable accomplishments?  What issues will have occupied the minds of business leaders, donors, foundations, fundraisers and chief executives?  Will there have been missed opportunities, or will we surprise ourselves as a sector?

The fact is that these “Top 10” lists for 2016 are already placing a daunting agenda in front of the sector.  Even without the challenges and changes anticipated to affect nonprofits and philanthropy because of the presidential election, there are numerous big issues that the sector needs to address right away.  These must be confronted head-on if we are to transform the sector in meaningful ways.  Three in particular come to mind:

Change the Conversation

Nonprofit organizations must adjust their fundraising and donor engagement tactics immediately.  Donors are tired of jargon, and they are increasingly thirsty for concrete examples of what their investments are making possible.  Both the Chronicle and SSIR’s lists prominently featured articles that focused on jargon, terminology and clarity of message.  John Hennessy, Stanford University’s outgoing president and driver of its $12 Billion campaign, says, “In the end, [donors] want to know what their gift is going to do.”  In fact, the more he shifted away from talking about the actual dollar goals, the more successful the campaign became.  He said, “Donors are smart, and they talk.”  It’s an excellent point, one that bears strong consideration.  How are we enabling donors to tell our story to their peers?

Organizations must transform the conversation they routinely have with donors, investors, government leaders and the wider public.  It places greater emphasis on the importance of good storytelling. Such an approach also means that nonprofits should adopt an even greater commitment to transparency and openness.  This new conversation must be focused on results, impact and social change, rather than budgets and data. It must connect the nonprofit, the cause and the donor in ways that are relevant, relatable and free of jargon and terms that do more to put off donors rather than draw them in.

Shift the Model

Social impact investing is here to stay. Nonprofit organizations must examine and shift their revenue structure and business models to make way for this type of capital. Paul Klein, CEO of Impakt (a B Corp that helps nonprofits and companies benefit from social change) in an SSIR article asserts that there is still work to be done before we see real results from these efforts.  Of the lessons he learned while creating a job-placement program for formerly homeless youth, was a realization that social organizations often lack the capacity to engage in this type of work.  They are limited in what they can accomplish.  Nonprofit leaders must be ready to operate in this new funding landscape.

Laura Callahan, founder of Upstart Co-lab, which targets impact investing on the “non-traditional audience” of artists and creative professionals was very clear in saying that nonprofits must be ready to embrace innovative approaches.  In the article profiling her work in the Chronicle, “A sector that cannot accept investment capital is going to really get left behind,” she says.  Grant making and investing are become increasingly blended and less distinct.   Nonprofits that cannot shift their thinking to incorporate an openness to new forms of capital will miss opportunities that could transform their work.

Challenge the Assumptions

Nonprofits and funders make a lot of assumptions, many of which are holding the sector back in significant ways.  Donors assume that high so-called overhead automatically means that an organization is being inefficient, and so much of their funding reflects that viewpoint, to the great frustration of nonprofit leaders.  The development profession still subconsciously assumes that most households are headed up by men who are the top earners, therefore everything from materials, phone scripts and databases continue to ignore the role of women as equal players in philanthropy.  Board members assume that elaborate fundraising galas are the only and best way to raise big dollars, and so they resist the seemingly risky idea of scrapping a venerable event that’s been in place for years.  Leaders across the sector assume that nonprofit staff will be satisfied with low wages for the good of the cause, and yet these same leaders look puzzled when employees burn out and abandon the sector.

These are not hypothetical situations created for an ethics quiz.  These are all actual issues that were explore in various articles in the Chronicle, SSIR and the Nonprofit Quarterly throughout 2016.  These assumptions are stumbling blocks to the nonprofit sector’s ability to truly transform both themselves as well as society at large.  What is needed now is bold leadership from funders, businesses, board members and staff.  The sector cannot be afraid of risky and challenging conversations.  It must confront these and many other conventions that shape decisions small and large.

Looking Forward to 2017’s Tough Tasks

The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s 2016 Year in Review highlighted the stories of several nonprofit leaders who were not afraid to take on some very tough tasks.  They tackled big challenges, and in doing so transformed their organizations, their causes and their communities.  When we look back at 2017, what will be the big challenges that we tackled as a sector?  So many in the sector are already mentally gearing up to confront potential changes as a new administration takes office.  We know that some big things are likely to happen in and to the nonprofit sector in 2017.  What accomplishments or achievements will make us most proud a year from now? There are so many that can be considered, but from my perspective, here are a few that I would like to see in a 2017 “Top 10” list:

Nonprofits made strides in changing the conversations with donors, partners and the public, with such efforts increasing the understanding of and appreciation for what this sector accomplishes on behalf society.  

Organizations used these revamped conversations to pave the way for new investments in their work.

Nonprofits built a true capacity to manage the funding of the future, engaging boards, staff, funders, businesses and community leaders in bold collaborative efforts that are exploring new approaches to many of society’s critical problems.

Nonprofit leaders took risks, and addressed assumptions and biases in ways that created wide ranging opportunities, facilitated creativity, included diverse participants, and expanded possibilities. 

Organizations made thoughtful, smart moves to transform funding, hiring, engagement, and planning strategies and practices that benefited the entire sector.

The list could go on, but this should get us started.  What would be on your list?

Here's to a successful and productive 2017 for the nonprofit sector!  Happy New Year.


The links for the various Top 10 and Best of 2016 lists:







Fundraising Lessons from Philanthropy Lessons

I’ve always said that nonprofits could learn a lot about good fundraising just by reading some of the advice and guidance that’s being given to funders.  Whether it’s Charity Navigator’s “Tips for Donors” or “Giving Guidance and Tips” from the Wise Giving Alliance, there are plenty of excellent roadmaps showing donors how to give, how to choose a nonprofit partner, and how to spot organizations that are doing well, as well as those who are not making much of an impact.

Each of these tips and guiding principles can be easily turned around and shaped into sound advice for nonprofit leaders.  For example, when the Wise Giving Alliance tells donors to “resist being pressured,” nonprofits should take note of this advice and make sure that appeals – whether by phone or in person – respect the prospect’s right (and need) to make a thoughtful decision.  Or when Charity Navigator advises donors to “start a dialogue” regarding programmatic results, nonprofits should be prepared, and have on hand compelling (and understandable) information describing the impact their initiatives are having on the issue or cause they address.

I mentioned Exponent Philanthropy in my previous post.  They are currently in the midst of their annual conference in Chicago, and I’ve been getting daily highlights of the conference’s proceedings.  In today’s email, I was pointed toward their Philanthropy Lessons website.  Supported by the Fund for Shared Insight and released in partnership with The Chronicle, Philanthropy Lessons features real stories of giving in action from funders and grantees from all across the country.  The lessons are shared both as short videos as well as blog posts.

The videos contain fantastic advice that, while intended for donors and funders, provide extremely useful insight for nonprofit leaders.  A few things stood out as I listened:

  • Funders are being told to “get out of the office” and see their grantees in person. (Fundraisers are being told the same thing all the time!)  Reach out to your donors and invite them over to come and see you!
  • Many donors interviewed in the video spoke passionately about the “experiential” nature of interactions they have with nonprofits and the community being served.  Funders are looking for that authentic experience, not the perfect performance.  (So it’s alright if the kids are making lots of noise or the clinic is bit chaotic.  That’s your reality.)
  • While funders might enjoy site visits, some were clear that overly structured site visits, where the executive director pulls out a very formal agenda, are a bit of a turn-off.  So that well-rehearsed “dog and pony show” might not be the best approach.
  • Empathy goes a long way in any relationship, and relationship building is a critical component of both sides of the philanthropic equation.  Funders need to remind themselves that it’s hard for a nonprofit when funding has to be scaled back or eliminated for various reasons.  But nonprofits must realize that these are hard decisions for the funders too.  They don’t want turn away from a favorite nonprofit partner, but sometimes they have to make tough decisions, just like nonprofits do.

These are just a few of the insights I gained in reading through the posts and watching the videos.   I am sure more will come as I check out the remaining videos. 

Take a look at these and other advice being given to donors.  Think about how your nonprofit can help its current and potential donors to have the best possible experience.  Talk openly about the type of relationship you want to build with each other. Demonstrate that you are ready to (and are eager to) engage with them as an active partner.   As one of the funders said, “When they let us in, then the work begins.”  Share your visions for how each of you can have an impact on your community, issue or cause.   



Investing in Nonprofit Leaders - Modeling Behavior for Funders

Exponent Philanthropy (the national organization for foundations with few or no staff, philanthropic families and individual donors) recently released an updated version of their informational piece on “Investing in Nonprofit Leaders.”  It lays out the case for why and how grantmakers should make an effort to provide nonprofit grantees with resources to foster and strengthen this critical component of nonprofit management.  It recommends ways to adjust grantmaking practices, and suggests specific funding and support opportunities that can help individual leaders as well as broadly foster leadership throughout an organization. 

From my perspective, one of the most critical elements of this primer’s guidance focuses on the interaction between grantees and their funders.  “Building trust,” “beginning the conversation,” and “talking about red flags” form a framework for honest discussions, which the author asserts can lead to a funder’s ability to clearly understand a nonprofit’s needs when it comes to leadership development.  On paper, it looks like sound guidance and an easy roadmap toward a solution, but we know that it is still a real challenge for nonprofits and funders to have such frank exchanges.  I don’t want to suggest that this is always the case, but too often it is the reality of the dynamic between grantmakers and grantees.

Perhaps one way to open the door to such conversations is for your nonprofit’s own board to “model” the behavior it might like to see from its funders when it comes to leadership development.  If even in small ways, I think there are steps any board can make which can demonstrate a commitment to leadership within their own nonprofit.  Here are some examples:

Supporting Individual Leaders – The Exponent primer suggest ways that funders can support individual leaders through such moves as sabbaticals or coaching, or by funding staff retreats and other team-building exercises.  Your board can make some moves of its own in this area.  When it comes to budget planning time, make sure you invest in your staff.  Even a modest professional development budget, or a few dollars set aside for the Executive Director to use for personal coaching or support can go a long way toward demonstrating your commitment to strong leadership.

Networking and Training in the Community – Funders often can have a broad, sweeping impact when they fund or create training and networking opportunities that are available to the entire community.  Peer networking and learning is critical to strengthening the sector and skills building.  On your own board, you should encourage efforts by staff to engage in the wider community.  You should recognize, not discourage, staff who are active in networks, organizations and forums that can promote your nonprofit and advance your cause.

Cultivating the Next Generation of Leaders - We all know that building and strengthening the pipeline of future leaders is essential. Funders are being encouraged from all angles to address this head on.  But what can a board do right now?  Your board can make immediate moves to support that next generation, many of which cost little to no financial resources.  For example, consider establishing a position on your board for a young leader, which can provide an opportunity for someone to learn about board service.   (Make sure to provide that person with appropriate mentoring!)  You can encourage senior staff to provide skills building to junior staff through job shadowing or “lunch and learn” gatherings, anything that promotes the sharing of expertise and experience.

With these small moves, I believe a nonprofit can position itself well to start that frank, honest conversation with its funders.  Even if you’re struggling to fully realize some of the steps suggested above, you can clearly demonstrate a commitment to leadership development at your nonprofit. You will promote leadership development as a true organizational value.  You will model the behavior you hope to see from your funders. You will be doing your part even while engaging funders to do theirs.

Explore these ideas.  Take some initial steps.  Demonstrate your commitment.  Then turn to your funders and say, “We’ve started this, now we need you to join us.  We can all agree that strong leadership is essential to our fulfilling our mission.  We need your help to take it to the next level.”




Excellence is no mystery, but some like it that way

I LEARN A LOT FROM PODCASTS, and a recent episode of NPR’s “Hidden Brain” illustrated something about human behavior that I believe is relevant to nonprofit management.

The podcast’s host, Shankar Vedantam, was interviewing psychologist and researcher Angela Duckworth.  Their topic was “grit.”  Duckworth is known for her writing on “grit” and its power to affect behavior and performance.  In this podcast, Duckworth was highlighting her research on kids who were able to be successful in spelling bees.  In her research she identified that efforts to establish a “deliberate practice” were essential elements of success for these kids.

With my attention already drawn in, she then made reference to a late 1980s research paper by former competitive swimmer David Chambliss called “The Mundanity of Excellence.”  Now she really had my attention!

Excellence is a topic of great interest to me.  For years, I have been associated with the Washington, DC region’s top award for management excellence, and I have watched excellence in nonprofit management evolve along with the sector.  However, an exact formula for management excellence continues to be somewhat elusive, despite a desire for one to exist.   There is a push to find a clear intersection of sustained competency, thoughtful deployment of best practices and the occasional development of innovative tactics that neatly defines excellence.

And while many search for a distinct set of factors that lead to excellence, I am discovering that the reality is actually not nearly as complex and perhaps not as exciting.  And Chambliss’ research, along with some of Angela Duckworth’s commentary, has provided a useful way of describing the basic truth about excellence.

Different, Not More

Most people think if they just do more of the same thing, they will get better results; organizations are no different.  (“Let’s have weekly meetings, not monthly.” Or “Let’s send out twice as many solicitations as we used to.”)  It doesn’t work, just like the simple fact of swimming more laps does not automatically lead to a Gold Medal.  Instead, organizations must fundamentally rethink the way they approach their management practices.  They must transform how they operate, interact with clients, work with employees, engage their donors or communicate their message.  As Chambliss puts it, it requires a level of “qualitative differentiation.”

Chambliss refers to the concepts of “technique, discipline and attitude” as central to creating this different quality of work.  This is the “deliberate practice” to which Duckworth refers. It’s a key process that leads to great achievements.  Others use the term “mindfulness” to associate the intentional attention that can be focused on every aspect of an organization’s life. And these mindful, qualitatively different practices will lead organizations to the next level.

Talent as the Barrier to Excellence

When we look at a champion, we immediately think, “Wow, they have something that I certainly don’t have.”  Our typical first response is to associate that winner’s excellence with what some call “talent.”  And with that one word, we ignore all of those small moves, deliberate practices and occasions of mindfulness that got that winner to that very place.  Chambliss focuses a great deal of attention on the concept of “talent” in his paper, decrying how this concept fails as an appropriate explanation for athletic success. 

“Talent,” Chambliss claims, provides us with a reason not to compete. When we see that other person, group, organization exhibiting excellence, it becomes easy for us to say, “That’s not us; they have talent.  They’re special; we can’t compete with that, and we shouldn’t try.”  In the Hidden Brain podcast, Vedantam and Duckworth talked about how audiences in fact relish the opportunity to witness a winning performance.  We enjoy sitting back and marveling at such effortless magic.  They revel in the spectacle while forgetting, or perhaps ignoring, the hours of careful preparation that got that performer to the stage.

Organizations can get lulled into the same passive admiration.  They look at winning organizations and say, “They’ve got something we don’t have – an amazing board, a huge capacity building grant, a really great cause to promote, etc. – and we will never get there.”  But throughout my work with the management award, I continually stress that all organizations can compete here.  Good management is good management.  All organizations, regardless of size, should put aside this concept of “talent” and explore all of the small ways through which these winning organizations got themselves to that place.

The Boring Truth

We want excellence to be a magic formula that enables us to plug in x, y and z ingredients and take our work to the next level.  Or in other cases, we simply ascribe excellence to a quality and characteristic that we don’t possess and remain content to marvel at a distance.  I don’t think either gets us to where we want to be.

No one suggests that achieving excellence is not hard work.  Champion swimmers do in fact spend plenty of time in the pool taking lap after lap before we ever see them at a meet.  Organizations do not transform themselves over night either.  A great deal goes into making an organization excellent.

But excellence is mundane.  The truth is that excellence is nothing more than a thoughtful, intentional focus on a whole stack of small, qualitative adjustments.  It is not luck.  It is not “talent.” But rather it is the convergence of a host of actions and attitude driven toward a common goal. For swimmers that goal could be competing in the state championships or winning an Olympic Gold Medal.   In the nonprofit sector, that goal is the impact our organizations seek to have on our community, issue or clients; the impact seen through changed lives and improved situations. 

Striving for excellence is pretty boring by itself.  Excellence that underpins a singular vision for what needs to be accomplished is pretty exciting.

Excellence may be mundane, but changing the world sure isn’t.


Citation for research paper: 

Chambliss, Daniel F. "The Mundanity of Excellence: An Ethnographic Report on Stratification and Olympic Swimmers." Sociological Theory 7, no. 1 (1989): 70-86.



The Board "Get" - Is it really working for you?

I have a potentially challenging idea for you to consider!  And believe it or not, it was something I hadn’t thought of before!   It’s yet another complicating factor that affects board-secured giving.

The whole topic of board "give/get" policies is complex to be sure.  But chance conversation recently gave me a some insight that I think is useful.

I was having drinks with an executive director here in the Washington area earlier this week and the topic came up of board member giving and board member “gets.”  He raised a great question:  After how many years does a board member-secured gift stop being a “get?”  He cited an example from his own organization where a board member broad a donor in, which was great, but from that point on the relationship really evolved into one between that donor and the organization - not the board member.  Left up to the board member, this donor would have likely been asked to simply renew their $1,000 gift annually.  Instead, the ED was able to engage that donor, with significant 5-figure contributions being the result.

If board members do nothing but simply make their own gift and then secure the same group of donors each year (and thereby consider their work done) an organization’s ability to build its donor base is significantly limited.

I know some boards for whom the “get” requirement specifies that each board member must secure $xx of NEW money each year.  Their previously secured donors, while critically important to the overall bottom line AND with whom they should play an ongoing stewardship role, do NOT count toward their annual “get” total.

Think about that.  How would your organization’s donor base expand if board members were required each year to achieve a percentage of their board-secured gifts with new donors?

Food for thought. (Actually I think it was a beer!)