Get Rid of Your Give or Get Policy

In case you’re not familiar with them, Give or Get policies require individual board members to donate or solicit a minimum amount of money each year. It’s intended to be a one size fits all way to deal with board giving: Board members can write a check themselves, ask others for it or some combination therein. The idea is that you can engage board members who hate fund raising because they can write a check to cover the minimum gift and you can engage people who may not have disposable income because they can solicit others to cover their gift. It’s a win win, right? Wrong!

Give or Get policies get in the way of good governance. They get in the way of 100% board giving. They get in the way of your ability to steward your board members as donors, or thank them for their gift or ask for a larger gift. They get in the way of building a culture of philanthropy. They’re bad policies.

Any policy that is in conflict with your goal is a bad policy.

Give or Get policies allows for members to just “get” and not give at all, which precludes the possibility of reaching 100% board giving.

Most communities have an expectation of 100% Board giving. That means there is an expectation that every single member of the board of directors has personally financially supported their agency. It matters.

Foundation officers ask if there if 100% board giving at meetings to discuss grant submissions. Major donors ask at solicitation meetings. Sometimes there are forms agencies must complete that ask. The answer has to be yes.

If it’s no, you are inviting the question of why someone else would support an agency that its own leaders don’t support. That is a question you really don’t want to have to answer, because there is no good answer.

That’s not the only reason not to do it. Give or Get policies take what is intended to be a minimum gift and make it “the gift” thus minimizing the amount that could be raised and the potential investment of board members. Having such a policy leaves money on the table. It’s possible that every member of your board has the same capacity, but it’s unlikely.

Minimum gifts invariably become maximum gifts by anyone other than the Chair, and sometimes them too. Such policies also works as a disincentive for potential board members who can’t give at the minimum level and limit the gift amount for seated board members that can.

Finally, such policies eliminate the agency’s ability to steward their board members. Board members should each be asked by the appropriate person (defined as the person most likely to get a yes, which is often another board members but may be the executive or a volunteer) for a specific gift that is reflective of their capacity and level of engagement.

Board members should be treated like the donors they are. They should be thanked. They should be appreciated. They should be cultivated, solicited and stewarded. They are not one size fits all and shouldn’t be treated as such.

Some policies don’t stop there. I saw a board member contract the other day that included among its requirements that each board member is expected to “present a check to the agency without having to be asked.” I’m guessing that whoever wrote that policy doesn’t like to ask or be asked for money. I’m guessing that they’re also not satisfied with the amount they receive in contributed income.

Our board members should be our advocates, our ambassadors, our cheerleaders, our leaders, and – yes – our donors. Allow yours to fulfill all their roles and create a plan to ask each one individually for a significant (to them) gift that reflects their capacity and level of engagement. You, your community and your coffers will be glad you did!

What’s your experience with give or get policies? As always, I welcome your insight, feedback and experience. Please share your ideas or suggestions for blog topics and consider hitting the follow button to enter your email. A rising tide raises all boats.

Is this Chair Taken? Musical Chairs in the Development Department

There are more development positions open right now than I ever remember being open before. The field has always had a musical chairs component to it, yet it seems to be getting worse. Of course, when one thing shifts, other things shift, but it’s much more than that. Let’s talk about why that might be the case.

All too often, development staff are brought into to save an agency that is failing. By then, it’s too late. You can’t create a robust development department on a sinking ship. Development is based on relationships and relationship building takes time; time is a luxury that sinking ships rarely have.

The other reason it doesn’t work is that development directors, even the best ones, are not saviors. They cannot save an agency by themselves. If there is no culture of philanthropy and if there isn’t even really a culture of fund raising your development director is bailing water out of your sinking ship with a teaspoon. (Please click here to learn more about building a culture of philanthropy.)

As mentioned in The Role of the Nonprofit CEO “Resource development functions most effectively in a culture of servant leadership and philanthropy among the board and leadership team, as well as an agency-wide commitment.  A community cannot and will not invest in an agency without the investment of the board and staff.  Development staff cannot raise money without the support of the CEO. CEOs cannot raise money without the support of the board. Resource development is a group effort, with everyone giving, and everyone moving toward the goal of a sustainable organization.”

Part of why there may be so many positions open is because we may finally be paying the price of not giving recommendations. It is very hard to be on either side of a call for a reference with an agency that has a policy of not giving them. Like every other field, there are more than a few development directors who are not particularly good, and some that are really bad. I have seen development staff that are all glitz no substance; they talk a good game but can’t follow through, close the deal or raise the money. I have seen some that steal lists, or steal money, take advantage of unwilling or unsuspecting donors and some who flat out lie. If we can’t give references for fear of being sued, then we are allowing in another agency what is unacceptable in our own.

There are also quite a few Execs who hire for one thing when they need another. Grant writing, event planning and individual giving are different skills sets, as are marketing, advertising and sales. Grant writing requires knowledge of the program and the grantor’s expectations coupled with excellent writing skills and the ability to follow directions. Event planning is all about the goal and the details. Individual giving is about engagement, impact and relationships. All are dependent on reputation. Most people are good at one, sometimes two. Not very many people are good at all three. For the execs out there: which one did you need? Is that the one you hired?

Development is one of the few positions in the nonprofit field where metrics are really easy to measure. Is there more money? Is there enough money to cover the cost of the staff member plus? Or is there not?

Now, it’s possible that the way you are counting the “more money” may not necessarily be fair. Does your development team do all the back office and foundational work? Who makes the ask? To whose goal does that gift get credited?

Accountability is what separates the wheat from the chaff. What are the metrics for your development team members? What are you measuring and is that the right thing?

I always counted any new contributed income that could even remotely be attributed to the development department toward their goals. Even if I made the ask, they were the ones that made that ask possible. The development team did the leg work. They gave me list of who to call and notes on what to say. They wrote the letters. They entered the data. They reminded me what the donor cared about, the name of their partners and kids and at what level they had previously gifted. I remembered a lot on my own, but team confirmed (or corrected) what I thought I knew. They did the heavy lifting.

My board, volunteers, the development director or I ate the lunches, built the relationships and closed the deals. The development team made us look good, and I credited them for all new money that came into our coffers. The director assigned metrics based on the roles her team members were fulfilling. She held them accountable, I held her accountable and the board held me accountable. Of course, we each held each other and our selves accountable as well.

Some organizations only count the money that specific fund raisers raise, and I’m sure that makes sense for their agency. For mine, whether I made the ask, my DD made the ask or a board member made the ask – other than an ‘atta boy, a high five and a happy dance for the “asker” – the development department got the credit toward their goal and their goal got rolled up under my goals. We weren’t working at cross purposes. We were aligned and are goals were as well. Are yours?

There is also one more wrinkle: This year, for the first time in many years, there is money available for capital projects. That hasn’t happened since 2008, when many foundations stopped funding capital projects in an effort to shore up agency operations during a time of rampant fear, when money that had previously been available began disappearing across the board and across funding streams. New money and new possibilities creates new needs for organizations and new opportunities for fund raisers. That’s good. That’s progress. Or it could be…

The tenure of development directors is short. From what I’ve seen, it’s usually a two year run. I’ve read some studies that suggest it’s even shorter. Two years is long enough to learn the agency and know its donors and begin to get some traction. That’s about it. It’s not enough time to raise significant money. It’s not enough time to get the job done. It’s certainly not enough time to thrive.

There’s a lot of movement in the development field and while there are some positives, at the end of the day it ends up being a detriment to us all. We, as nonprofit leaders, need to make sure we are hiring the right people in the right roles to help us move our agency forward. We also need to create the right culture and enough opportunities for growth and professional development for them to stay. Turnover has a cost, financial and otherwise. It’s also a distraction, and we have work to do.

Why do you think there are so many jobs open? What can we do about it? As always, I welcome your insight, feedback and experience. Please share your ideas or suggestions for blog topics and consider hitting the follow button to enter your email. A rising tide raises all boats.