It's hard for me to accept that, even today, many nonprofit organizations still haven't gotten the message. I get more mail, more telephone calls and more requests for speeches on this topic than any other.
According to a report cited in a recent issue of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, nonprofit groups say that fund raising is a board's chief weakness.
The report on 1,200 interviews of nonprofit leaders throughout the country was conducted by the respected National Center for Nonprofit Boards in Washington.
Could there possibly be anyone out there, anyone, who hasn't heard the message?
If you are a member of a nonprofit board, you have several responsibilities, which I've covered from time to time in this column. But at the top of the list is ensuring the financial stability of the corporation.
The survey indicated that only 60 percent of board members made a personal contribution to the organizations they help govern, an appalling and completely unacceptable figure.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why, in today's competitive environment, anyone would agree to serve on a board without personally contributing to the organization.
People interested in an organization, but who cannot contribute both time and money, belong on an advisory group, not on the governing board.
Ensuring the financial stability of a charity speaks to several tasks. First is approving a budget for the organization. If you are a board member, you first study the financial needs of the organization through one or more of the board's committees, usually led by the finance committee.
The role of the finance committee is to help the executive director develop a realistic annual budget, examine the effects financial and budgetary trends might have on the organization, develop a revenue/expense plan that is synchronized with the long-range plans for the organization, supervise and approve the annual audit, and otherwise provide financial advice to the executive director and the board.
Sandy Baklor, a local trainer for the United Jewish Appeal, is fond of saying that when board members approve a budget, they sometimes forget that the first line item on the budget is revenue. By approving a budget, the board also is committing to bringing in the revenues reflected in that budget. That role involves several tasks.
First, every board member must be certain that expenses are in line with programs and should question any expenditure that is not related to the mission.
Next, the board must regularly check how estimated revenues and expenses compare with actual.
But by far the most important task is to have in place a plan for bringing in revenues from as diverse a set of sources as possible. One of those sources, and some fund-raising experts argue the most important source, is board giving. I wholeheartedly agree.
If the board itself doesn't reflect a passion for the cause, who do they expect will reflect it? How can a board bless a sizable fund-raising request to a private foundation when only half the board members have personally given in the past year?
In fact, I can't recall a single foundation or corporate giving program I've consulted to in the past 20 years that doesn't ask a nonprofit that question when faced with even a moderate request for a gift.
Finally getting the message, nonprofit boards themselves are setting a standard that requires a minimum gift.
Overall, about one-third of the nonprofits surveyed by the Center for Nonprofit Boards required board members to make a personal donation. However, 60 percent of arts and cultural groups surveyed required such gifts.
Blunt as this may sound, there is simply no room on nonprofit boards of directors today for people who do not have enough passion about the cause to regularly contribute to its mission.
Les Picker is a philanthropy consultant. Write to him at The Brokerage, 34 Market Place, Suite 331, Baltimore 21202; (410) 783-5100.