Dear Nonprofit Boards: Giving Isn’t Optional, and Diversity Isn’t an Excuse

What I Wish Every Board Understood About Giving (And Why “Give What You Can” Just Doesn’t Cut It)

By the time your organization is five years old, your board needs to pivot — from operations to strategy.

If this shift doesn’t happen early, the operations mindset will calcify, and undoing it later becomes incredibly difficult. Around this same time in the organizational life cycle, the board also needs to have a frank conversation with itself: What attributes do we need going forward? A scrappy startup can get by with generalists and founders’ friends. But a maturing organization needs a board that sees itself as a strategic partner to staff — and an active partner in fundraising.

Board giving fell out of vogue in recent years, and in some ways, rightfully so. Many boards had become homogenous groups of friends of friends — rich in resources but poor in diversity of thought and experience. Some of those boards raised big dollars. Most just produced groupthink.

In response, the pendulum swung hard the other way. Under pressure from social media and large private foundations, organizations dropped board giving minimums, watered them down, or made them optional altogether. And just like that — boom: diversity.

A maturing organization needs a board that sees itself as a strategic partner to staff (via the CEO) — and an active partner in fundraising.

But here’s the problem. If someone cannot make a meaningful financial commitment, they may also lack the time or capacity to serve effectively. That’s not a judgment — it’s a realistic understanding of what board service demands.

I’m not a fan of vague language like “give what you can.” It’s too open to interpretation and can lead to wildly uneven levels of engagement. At the same time, I also push back on the idea that we should avoid setting giving expectations in the name of diversity. That oversimplifies a complex issue and often results in box-checking, not genuine representation.

I encourage my clients to set expectations that are clear and flexible. Phrases like “a personally significant gift” or “make this one of your top three philanthropic priorities” are a good start. But clearer numbers are better, especially if you want to cultivate a culture of ownership and accountability.

I push back on the idea that we should avoid setting giving expectations in the name of diversity. That oversimplifies a complex issue and often results in box-checking, not genuine representation.

A strong benchmark is for the board to collectively contribute at least 10% of the annual operating budget. That 10% figure comes from the corporate world: any shareholder owning more than 10% of a company’s equity must disclose it publicly. Because at 10%, you’re no longer just someone who owns shares in that particular company. At 10%, you have legitimate power over the company itself — regardless of whether or not you have a seat or seats on the corporate board. (All public company board members, regardless of their individual ownership percentage, must disclose their holdings in the company.)

That same logic should apply to board members of nonprofits. Boards should feel like owners, not simply advisors.

So if you’re running a $1.5 million organization, your board should be giving at least $150,000 annually. At $100 million, that number should be $10 million. That might sound lofty, but here’s how you make it achievable and inclusive:

One-third of the board should be made up of senior leaders — board chair, committee chairs, and members with significant capacity. This group should be collectively responsible for two-thirds of the board giving goal.

The remaining two-thirds of the board should be made up of emerging leaders, younger professionals, or those earlier in their giving journeys. This group is collectively responsible for one-third of the goal.

In the hypothetical example of a nonprofit with a $1.5 million operating budget, in a 30-person board, the board giving minimum for the 10 senior leaders would be $10,000 per person, while the minimum for the 20 emerging leaders would be $2,500 each.

That balance makes it harder for any one person to drive decisions through personal largesse — and increases the likelihood of building a board that reflects broader perspectives, not just the networks of existing members.

What I really appreciate about this framework is that it places those with the deepest pockets in the minority, while still sustaining a strong overall board giving goal. That balance makes it harder for any one person — or group — to drive decisions purely through personal largesse.

This structure ensures everyone has skin in the game, without assuming everyone has the same means. It respects diversity of background and maintains high expectations without patronizing anyone by setting the bar artificially low.

Because at the end of the day, board members are fiduciaries. That means putting the organization’s health and mission above all else and making a personally meaningful investment in its success.