ventolin 108 mcg que es minocin 100 mg strattera ohne rezept elavil 50 mg for sleep betnovate skin cream 20g synthroid recall 2015 kamagra 100mg oral jelly 5mg seroquel alternatives for sleep xenical preis plavix 75 mg preisvergleich digoxin 50 mcg alternative uses for lisinopril alternatives to proventil inhaler phexin 250 mg tablet use acts 20 amitriptyline 10mg i1 elavil 50 mg for sleep liv52 ds kaufen roxithromycin preis co lisinopril generika inderal kaufen online cardura 4 mg 20 tablet imitrex 100 mg dosing penegra 100 side effects imitrex dosage 100mg snovitra 20 nebenwirkungen compazine 10 mg oral tablet zanaflex 10 mg kamagra gold 100mg opinie strattera 100 mg side effects xenical preis maxalt 10 preis augmentin rezeptfrei kaufen tulasi 50 days centers baclofen 20 mg tab nizoral kaufen synthroid alternatives armour benzac 10 percent cymbalta 120 que es minocin 100 mg chloramphenicol kaufen apotheke xenical orlistat kaufen cardura 4 mg 20 tablet voltaren preisvergleich 120 plavix 75 mg preisvergleich nexium mups ohne rezept femara kaufen diclofenac alternatives parlodel 10 ciprofloxacin 500 dan urispas 200 crestor 20 mg preisvergleich adaalat 7th may 2015 natural alternative to coreg homeopathic alternative paxil motilium 10 flagyl 500 mg oral tablet dilantin 50 mg side effects hydrochlorothiazide 50 mg side effects cheap alternative to levitra parlodel 10 mg viagra preisvergleich flagyl 1000 mg bid prandina guru s3 preis methotrexate 10 mg and alcohol generika viramune chloramphenicol 250 phexin 500 mg used for probolan 50 que es diamox 250 mg dosage Boards Are People, Too - Collins Group
Skagit Valley Hospital

Boards Are People, Too



Boards don’t give money to the nonprofit organizations they govern. Individuals who serve on boards do.

Why the distinction?

Because it creates the correct paradigm for how development professionals should be approaching their board members for philanthropic support and measuring outcomes.

If I ruled the nonprofit universe, I would ban the term “board giving” from our lexicon when it refers to the total dollar support from the board from one year to the next.

Here’s the problem: Say collective board giving jumps from $90,000 to $110,000 in a given year. Success, right? But what if that jump is attributed to a new board member stepping up with a gift of $30,000 and the remaining board members, who last year collectively gave $90,000, deciding they are now off the hook and dial it down to a collective $80,000. Would you say that your board giving is moving in the right direction?

The reality is that the “board” is not a single-brained collective moving in some sort of unified philanthropic direction. They are individuals, each differently blessed with financial assets and each grappling with life challenges, such as aging parents, financial setbacks, divorce, kids in college, just like everyone else. And, as the illustration above shows, board composition is constantly shifting. This makes a strictly dollars raised criteria not very helpful in gauging whether you are maximizing the philanthropic potential from each of your board members.

What would be better tools for measuring board giving? How about these:

  • Each board member needs to give a gift annually. This tried-and-true measurement must be a stated criteria for any person asked to join a nonprofit board in the 21st century.
  • Each board member commits to including the organization in his/her will or through another planned giving vehicle. Achieving that goal is fairly pie-in-the-sky, but it is not unrealistic to set a goal of having a personal, intentional conversation with each board member about this way of giving.
  • Each board member commits to placing the organization within the top three of all the nonprofits they support. Again, this provides a great place to have that intentional conversation with each board member about where your nonprofit ranks on her or his priority list, and what it will take to move it up the ladder.

You’ll need to develop benchmarks accordingly. Let’s say currently only 75 percent of your board members give annually; 10 percent have a planned gift in place; and 25 percent have your organization in the top three of their philanthropic priorities.

A three-year benchmark might be 100 percent annual support; 20 percent with a planned gift and 35 percent in the top three. A five-year benchmark might be 100-30-50. An every-year benchmark is to commit to having a one-on-one, personal conversation with each board member about her or his philanthropic support.

These benchmarks (tailored and scaled to the size of your nonprofit and sophistication of your development program) can be pursued and realistically attained regardless of the relative wealth of your board members and regardless of the composition of the board at any point in time. It will also maximize giving for the board you have now, not the one you had last year or five years ago.

Stop looking at your board as a single entity. Start looking at the individuals who comprise your board, and begin approaching the task of “board giving” from this perspective.

In doing so, you will get the greatest support possible from your board as a collective and move much further toward your ultimate goal – creating a strong culture of philanthropy within all levels of your organization for generations to come.


Like this post? Why not share it?


About the Author

James Plourde

James Plourde CFRE

Vice President

James is always willing to ask the needed questions, helping his clients clarify their path and giving them the confidence to proceed.


Leave a Reply