what responsibility should governing bodies (boards, trustees etc) have for fundraising?
/ 08 April 2010 - 06:32 pm
/
7 Comments
Hi Margaret
I'm wondering whether responsibility for fundraising should be an executive or a governance job. What do you think?
TF
Comments
I’m really interested in this question on lots of levels. Someone once called the history of philanthropy “the social history of the moral imagination” . Now, there’s a very interesting study: what ways does the leadership of our arts and cultural organizations reflect this? But I digress. Lets explore the levels of our daily concerns, how to get the butter on the bread, so to speak.
Firstly, an agreement on definitions. When sometimes we hear the word “fundraising” we simply narrow it down to the question of who is going to actually ask for money. Yes, somebody actually will do that. Hoorah!
But is it me? Arrrgghhh. Now? But. But. But. (But I don’t really know this person. But…what am I asking for? But, is it really the right moment? ). Etc, etc.
Lets approach those “Buts” for what they might genuinely be, concerns that the right ingredients – the case, the need, the goals, the leadership, the good timing, brand etc- aren’t in place. Fundraising is a process with the potential to reach quite different places. What it isn’t is just about asking for the money. Which makes the question of responsibility a little more complex.
Once you start seeing fundraising as a cool set of tools, a process and a frame of mind, those ‘buts’ will just start to dissolve. Though asking for the money is a critical part, that moment comes easier once you’ve done the groundwork that, as the great Hank Rosso once said, allows you to “set yourself aside and let the case walk in.”
To start somewhere, lets start thinking about how to put the right ingredients in place. If you are asking who is responsible for putting that preparation in place (I’ll imagine we are talking about an effective governance and management structure and set of inter-relationships) I’d venture it’s the job of the executive.
But if it’s the low-down on who should ask for the money, I’m going to reserve my position. Lets see if there are some text cases out there.
The board of an arts organisation is likely to include members who either are philanthropists in their own right or have already built strong relationships with existing (and potential) philanthropists. As a result I would argue that it would be unwise not to utilise their knowledge and contacts - it's a fact that it's easier to ask (and persaude) someone to give up their cash if you've already done so yourself! - but I do believe that responsibility for fundraising should lie with the organisation's senior management.
However, the board should be prepared to work with (and under the direction of) the senior management to get the best results.
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm not sure I agree completely with your premise Jooles - many of the people on boards are there because they want the organisation to have good governance and continue. They don't necessarily have the skills/experience of philanthropy. Your position may be true of the older-bigger-more-established arts board, but not newer or feistier ones.
I agree that board and management should work together on fundraising.
I think, Margaret, that you are saying that unless the management are strong and the organisation is in good shape (aspirations, finances, art), asking for money is a waste of time as people want to give when they know the money will be looked after.
How do you coax management to do this (rather than be stuck in the day to day)? And recalcitrant board members to ring their mates?
19 April 2010 - 16:06 PM
I agree that it really depends on the make up of a board and of the staffing. Fundraising too often falls through the space between the two. There can be unrealistic expectations placed on both and sometimes a key factor is that many boards in an arts context are voluntary and members already overly committed in terms of what time they have. This is often under-appreciated by staff who would rather not be out fundraising.
This is where your comment on how much fundraisers should be paid is interesting Margaret. The weakness here is that like a bountyhunter the fundraiser isn't part of the fabric of the organisation, and that passion of raising funding from a perspective of being one of the do-ers is hard to beat I would imagine?
The unrealistic expectations placed on fundraising is an important issue, though there’s a lot that both sensible governance and good management practice can do to mitigate this risk.
But wiggling out on the question of the Board’s moral leadership on fundraising, because they are ‘volunteers’ and time-poor’?. Recognising that Board are voluntary and wonderful, I still believe they have this moral responsibility. Legal responsibilities for Boards are basically the same, everywhere, that is, to be responsible for protecting and nurturing organisational values and assets. But Board members also have this community position, which gives them a power and uniqueness and reach when it comes to fundraising, a point Jooles has made. Which brings me to the second point Fiend raises, that being committed to the fundraising team, doesn’t mean that everyone has the same capacity to do it.
So, recognise that its ‘different strokes for different folks ‘ and try opening the “recalcitrant” team-member’s eyes (as you so charmingly put it) to all the ways in which they can contribute. The different roles they can have. How they can be stewards of the fundraising mission, making sure it stays on the agenda. Or donors, money being a hugely powerful symbolic gesture. Or how they can be the askers or the finders of prospective donors. Or advocates or champions (visible attendees!) or team builders that make sure everyone understand the value of the fundraising campaign. Build confidence by getting a good match between each member’s skills and confidence and knowledge and setting them on the first ‘small step’. It will often mean that Board members, who afterall as volunteers are powerful ambassadors of your cause, become even more influential. Because they've learnt to put antiquated notions of fundraising (such as begging or dobbing in your mates) aside and learnt to " let the cause walk in".
Mark, as a quick aside, I can imagine my distinguished collegues in professional fundraising would want the misconception of themselves as bountyhunters cleared. They are bound after all to a professional code of ethics and practices to protect the philanthropic tendency and to ensure that the money goes to the place philanthropy intends it to. Which means, for the record, that they are precluded from taking fees on the basis of any commission on ‘heads’. And just as the lawyer doesn’t need to do the crime to prosecute it, the fundraiser is usually capable of understanding cause and effect and recommending action. Passion is great, but professionalism is good too.
Lets have a little more discussion on the “how to coax management to do this [fundraising stuff ] question. It’s a ‘bigger than me’ question but here goes. Please note that its taken me several days to get here - that is a long moment of empathy, isn’t it?
Mark is right about trying to internalize the fundraising capacity, if you can. But where are the barriers? Time? Because we are all time-poor, aren’t we? When there are So Many Jobs To Do, it is easiest to stay on the track of what we know we do well and what is familiar. Skills? Is this what I’m trained for and if its not, will they hear me when I say I want to learn something different? Can I transfer skills? How do I justify a shift in resources? What outcomes will fundraising have? How are they different from what I already do? How does that matter? And.. will I be sticking my neck out? How easy will it be to take others with me in the new community of interest that philanthropy will represent. And so on.
Well. There’s some worries. Nobody can force a shift in thinking about the world that philanthropy represents. But, good stuff will happen! Here’s some truths (carrots) about philanthropy:
It will mean:
New Dollars = new resources
New People = New community engagement
Better Infrastructure=New ways to make our organizations work better. Together.
And (here’s my internal Pollyannna on this post, at last)
It will bring surprising and delightful outcomes.
Just thought those of you following this thread might be interested in this conversation, running over at State of the Art, an Arts Journal weblog at the moment.
The provocative thought is that Board structure in the States is now overwhelmed by its philanthropic functions, Board members require too much ‘caring for’ (distracting from core mission) and the typical Board for arts organisations needs ‘re-modeling.” Arguments to and fro – some for enforced change, others suggesting that its about leadership and communication and how you recruit and induce new members. In the light of our different history here, I’d be interested in the views we hold. Do we definitely get out there and recruit as many prospect givers as we possibly can on to our boards or not?