May 05, 2009
How Much Should Charity Board Members Be Required to Give?
Should nonprofit groups have formal contribution requirements for those who serve on their boards of directors? Or is the expectation of giving something that is simply understood?
Virginia Ikkanda-Suddith, a fund-raising consultant in Los Angeles, recently asked those questions, to members of the Chronicle‘s LinkedIn group.
The question prompted sharp disagreements among nonprofit officials and consultants about how charities should communicate giving requirements to their board members.
June Jimenez, director of development at the Asian American Justice Center in Washington, writes that her organization asks board members to either donate or raise $2,500 for the organization — an expectation that is spelled out in their job descriptions.
Peter Hansen, vice president of development at New Jersey Performing Arts Center, said the expectations should be spelled out differently, depending on the type of organization.
“In my experience with larger not-for-profits, stating a minimum gift level could suppress giving,” Mr. Hansen writes. “However, I have served on boards of smaller institutions where setting a minimum gift level was very important, especially in working with volunteers who did not have experience as directors.”
Policies can only go so far, though. Board members will contribute and raise money for organizations that they believe in strongly, writes Gail Perry, a consultant and author in Raleigh-Durham, N.C.
“I have found personally that board members will gladly and willingly give and get as hard as they can when they are engaged and excited about the organization’s work. When they are not engaged, they tend to find this policy offensive. They will give the minimum when they ‘have’ to,” Ms. Perry writes.
“Our job, of course, is to get them so fired-up that they are sitting on the edge of their seats ready to help out and give too. That’s a tall order.”
How does your organization handle personal donation and solicitation policies for its board? If you have served on a board, how have you felt about being asked to contribute and raise money? Click on the comments link below this post to share your thoughts.
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: What Approaches Work During a Recession?
Next: Can a $500,000 Arts Prize Spur Innovation?
When asked to serve on a board, I ask explicitly: what percentage of board members gave? (Anything less than 100% is unacceptable. If the board won’t give, why should anyone else?)
I ask what the minimum expected give-or-get from the board is, and if there isn’t one, I’m not interested unless the organization is so well-funded that NOBODY raises money.
If the board does not take an active leadership role and OWN the fundraising mission, my experience tells me that I’ll be frustrated on that board.
Money is the lifeblood of an organization, and those who accept the responsibility of leading must lead in fiduciary responsibility in order to help the organization succeed in fulfilling its service mission.
— Ruth Ann Harnisch May 5, 01:02 PM #
I agree that the board must lead in fiduciary responsibility. Problem is that often when they realize their stake in the organization’s liability they cannot get past the fiduciary function. The mission becomes a lower priority and sometimes completely overlooked.
— Lee Langshaw May 5, 01:35 PM #
I serve on several boards, smaller non-profits and have also been active in a number of smaller, growing, FOR profit organizations. I find the idea that cash contributions are THE defining characteristic of leadership and board membership distasteful. Board members should be expected to CONTRIBUTE, but that contribution could come in many ways…time spent working with the organization, advice, contacts, AND cash contributions probably, but not solely. I would chose my FOR-profit board members in a similar way…some are investors, but others bring other skills to the table and are important for entirely different reasons. Success for a non-profit, just as for a commercial venture, requires money, but it requires a lot MORE than money, and all those resources need to be corralled (and I do agree that whatever the expectations, they should be clearly set out in advance of the Board member joining).
— Don Schlosser May 5, 02:22 PM #
While Don’s point that Board members bring other resources to the table has validity, the reality is that many prospective major donors — and their foundations — will not even consider a gift to an organization that doesn’t have 100% Board support, and not at the minimum level. That support must be both conspicuous and appropriate to their perceived financial circumstances.
— Jeff Steele May 5, 02:48 PM #
I have been retited for just over one year, and am serving on the Board of one small local charity. My retirement income is not large. I give some money to the organization I serve, and also contribute a significant amount of hours fund raising and doing other administrative tasks.
We also try to have Boad members representative of all ethicities in our community, to assure that we meet the needs of the whole community. All are expected to contribute what they can, but some members are more affluent than others. Some members also make a rich, non-monetary contribution.
— David Caria May 5, 03:00 PM #
Not all board members make good fund raisers. As others have said, 100% participation is essential, but most organizations should not set a minimum gift amount. An amount appropriate for each person’s means – hopefully, a stretch gift – is expected. Those who can give more, should. When approaching new board candidates, it is critical to let them know then (and again during orientation once they have joined) what is expected. Having said all of that, your best results will always be realized in face-to-face asks – probably by the board chair and/or the Exec. Director. I think it’s fair to tell board members who have been under-giving what the average board gift is, though, in hope of raising their sights. As Don indicated above, there are other ways to give: we have a board member who is a professional photographer. In addition to his cash donation, he contributes his photography to our fund raising auctions.
— Keith May 5, 03:20 PM #
I do believe it’s important to have 100% board support for fundraising purposes, but also think that setting a minimum gift – especially of $2500+ – sends the wrong message. Every board member brings different gifts to the table, whether they be monetary or experience or sheer enthusiasm.
— Pamela Grow May 5, 03:20 PM #
I have been a professional fundraiser for 20 plus years and believe strongly that if you are not willing to give your time, talent, and treasury, don’t bother. If you cannot get your board to give, you are not going to get many others to give. I have worked for organizations where the board requirement is $100K which means give or get that amount personally. I have worked for boards where it is not stated and those that give tend to feel that they have been taken advantage of when they give and others don’t. It really is up to the senior leadership to make the expectation explicit when soliciting new board members.
— sonasez May 5, 03:32 PM #
I find the tone of some of the comments posted thus far somewhat disturbing. What a curious perspective, in my opinion, to equate leadership with financial wealth. What does it mean to display leadership in “fiduciary responsibility”? If a Board member is passionate about and fully involved with an organization’s mission and gives 10% of his/her fixed income to that organization resulting in a gift of – say $3,000 – does that display less leadership than a gift of $100,000 that might only represent a fraction of one percent of a very wealthy Board member’s income? I perceive a potentially dangerous mindset here that’s equating Board leadership with wealth. Is Board membership to be the exclusive purview of the rich? Is this the kind of message a sector focused on social justice should be emanating to the public? Too many nonprofit Boards are already an elitist enterprise, let’s not encourage anymore. Instead, let us encourage Boards with socio-economic diversity, as well as ethnic and gender diversity with a genuine passion for the mission.
— Benton Carson May 5, 03:44 PM #
I served on the board of a small, grassroots organization for two years that had a 100% giving rate. We asked board members to give something that was “significant” to them, which resulted in annual no-fuss contributions of between $100 and $30,000. Furthermore, all board members were reqired to participate in making phone calls twice a year during our phone campaigns. In fact, ALL campaign calls were made by board members, and none by staff. In the end, the dollar amounts that people brought in varied from person to person due to their income and the connections they might have with wealthy friends, but there was a sense of solidarity from everyone giving equally of their time and effort.
— bveronica May 5, 03:51 PM #
I serve on the board of a very small membership oriented nonprofit. If there were a minimum financial requirement anywhere near the $2500 amount in order to serve on the board I would not qualify and I personally do not feel there should be any such requirement. People have a lot more to contribute to organizations in which they believe other than money. I, for instance, give a lot of time, skills and other such “in-kind” giving that is not financially related. Our nominating committee diversifies the board based on needed skills. It is not often that “deep pockets” are part of the decision- though association with others that have “deep pockets” has been considered as an incentive.
— Tracy May 5, 04:02 PM #
As the director of fund raising for a national academic non-profit that doesn’t have a history of fund raising but that currently asks board members for at least a $1,000 contribution annually, I am frustrated by the fact that not all of our board members have yet agreed to give. And I am even more frustrated by the fact that the organization’s leadership does not make philanthropy a key part of the conversation when searching for new board members.
I am also on a number of boards. I always ask what giving is expected before I agree to serve, and I always expect that there will be a suggested dollar range. In fact, I prefer it. “Give what you can” is too ambiguous and often hides an unvoiced agenda.
I agree with the preceding posters regarding the 100% figure. The actual dollar level is important, but you can fudge that by quoting board giving in the aggregate. The percent of giving is what it is, and if it isn’t complete, potential donors are right to interpret anything less than 100% as a sign that there is something wrong with the organization, either in its board recruitment or in the dedication of the board to its mission.
Board members should be expected to participate with time, talent, and treasure – think of the board as a tripod that supports the organization. Two out of three aren’t enough to allow the organization to stand.
— Wilfred Toboggan May 5, 04:14 PM #
I believe that a part of my responsibility as a board member is to contribute what I can, which right now is not a lot, but it does show that I am helping to my ability. I also give my time, but in our society the act of contributing money signifies more than the cash value of the gift. It shows that I am a supporter of the organization
I’ve written grants where what percent of board contributes was a question. I’ve also been asked in meetings with funders what percent of the board contributes.
Board members should be told that there will be a financial requirement when they are recruited. If the mission of the organization is important to the board members, they should be willing to help with financial support. If I were a foundation or large contributor, I would ask how many board members contribute before deciding on making a gift.
— annetta May 5, 05:23 PM #
Being on the board of a nonprofit speaks to a larger than average personal commitment to the organization’s mission. It should have special importance to all board members and that includes financial responsibility. Many organizations have “steering committees” which consist of people who hold special leadership responsibilities but not necessarily a financial one – and they don’t have a vote either. If you don’t understand that it takes money to support a nonprofit’s mission then get off the board (you can still give your time, energy, etc.)because if you don’t think the mission is worthy of your money, why would anyone else? Board membership is a privilege and the cost should be clear along with all the other requirements such as time, knowledge, etc. when someone is invited to join.
— Lorri Greif, CFRE May 5, 05:26 PM #
All board members should contribute some money but it should be up to them whether it’s a $1 or $100,000. I’ve been involved with non-profits for over 30 years and during that time I’ve given as little as $50 and as much as $10,000 depending on my financial status at the time. When I was contributing $50 I was a student and didn’t have much money but had lots of energy which I generously gave toward the mission of the organization. Now, I have more money and less energy so I give more to recruit younger board members who have the energy to go forth and find new donors. The common bond we all share is the passion for the mission.
— Renee May 6, 09:42 AM #
In board giving, the goal should be to set clear expectations and be realistic about the range of wealth/outreach potential and opportunity potential when framing the board. If a fundraising board is critical to the sustainability of the organization, then fundraisers and key networkers should be the goal when doing board outreach.
— Delba Riddick May 6, 02:24 PM #
Many years ago I adopted as a basic model for board giving a principle I learned from John Carroll University in Cleveland, Ohio: as a member of our board, we expect that after the church [i.e. your religious community], the university [i.e. our organization] will be among your top three charitable commitments.
I have found this to be a very sound model for a least four reasons: 1) It encourages diversity of all kinds on a board—social, economic, ethnic, etc.; 2) It makes no apologies for 100 percent participation in board giving; 3) It honors the reality that financial contributions aren’t the only aspect of leadership; 4) It recognizes that being generous truly means different amounts of money to different people. In board workshops with all kinds of nonprofits, I have experienced nearly universal acceptance of this concept.
— Bob Fogal May 6, 09:06 PM #
Great discussion.
Completely agree with #14 Lori who says “because if you don’t think the mission is worthy of your money, why would anyone else?”
In fact we have now moved this out to staff. Those closest to the organization need to make a philanthropic commitment that tells the world “Our work is important and worthy of investment”.
To be considered a philanthropic gift it should come voluntarily without pressure, therefore the amount isn’t important. Stating an amount could prevent larger gifts or create a culture of “bought my way on, get to vote – what else to do you expect!”
The point about a diverse board with broad skill sets and networks is also key. $10 from someone who can find or raise $10 million or help in other areas is extremely valuable.
In order to create the philanthropic culture fundraising staff need to better support the board to help them understand what their gift means on a much deeper level than the budget.
It is the act of giving – not the amount that is important.
Yes absolutely all board members and staff should donate. Five dollars per month or $150K per year. All gifts should be recognized for the spirit in which they are given. Deep belief in the mission of the organization. Once this happens the culture that is created will speak for itself and other donors will want to be a part of you work.
Kimberley
www.kimberleymackenzie.blogspot.com
— Kimberley MacKenzie May 6, 10:26 PM #
I have been a nonprofit ED for 25 years. I would venture to say, that in the organizations I’ve led over that time, our boards have been 100% givers for the past 17 of those 25 years. Our boards have never set a minimum limit, our philosophy being “Its’ not WHAT you give, it’s THAT you give.” My personal value system is that board members do not all have the same economic resources; $2500 to one might be a drop in the bucket, to another, 25% of their annual income. For new board members, I DO give them a suggested level, especially when they ask!
— Phyllis Haynes May 7, 11:36 AM #
I sit on the boards of both for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and I feel totaly out of touch with most of the comments posted above.
In a very real sense sitting on the board of a corporation is and should be viewed as a job —and by the way a hard job if you do it right. It should be about assuming the responsibility of governance not about the often lucrative compensation of sitting on a for-profit board or the “honor” of sitting on a charitable board.
I get paid for sitting on the board of for-profit companies and I assume the responsibility pro bono for not-for-profits. I committ my time and judgement to both. I give money to the-not-for profit and I do not give money to the for-profit. That is coincident with my sitting on the board hopefully it is not the reason for me sitting on the board.
The suggestion from so many postings above that my suitability for a non-profit board is premised on my ability to give a few thousand dollars a year is elitist, counter to good governance, insulting to those who have chosen professions which provide more care than cash, silly and offensive. The day that any of the corporations I help govern —whether profitable or not —ask me to pay them for the privilege (or in the case of the for profit the continued largesse) is the day I either leave the board or take on a deep effort to get it back on an appropriate track. Many of the postings above are from generous and well meaning philanthropists. Please think about what it means for those very competent people who cannnot afford to be generous. Sadly some of the postings are from self serving consultants and underperforming fundraisers.I expect to hear from you but please first have a conversation with yourself.— john h schaetzl May 12, 04:29 PM #