Originally published in the February 2012 issue of Board & Administrator, available electronically to current subscribers at publication.

Executive Director Kelly Rosenleaf (Missoula, Mt.) said that while the transition to a board that actively fundraises is still in progress, she’s learned some valuable lessons about the board and her organization.

After an organizational assessment one year ago that was followed by a strategic planning process, two areas stood out as needing attention, Rosenleaf said. “These were marketing and fund diversification, which are interrelated,” she said.

The assessment consultant pointed out that the organization’s office, marketing materials, and even the mission statement seemed more like those of a government agency than a nonprofit charitable corporation, Rosenleaf said.

That finding was supported by planning work with stakeholders. “During the strategic planning process when we held interviews with stakeholders, they didn’t even realize we were a charitable organization,” she said.

“Our clients thought we were a branch of government,” Rosenleaf said.

The vast majority of the organization’s funding is from government grants, Rosenleaf said. “Obviously, diversified funding and a clearer presentation of our cause and organization were needed,” she said.

“All of this information from people outside the organization was invaluable in motivating our board to make a change and increase commitment to raising money,” Rosenleaf said.

Changes included:

• All board members must make a personal contribution to the organization. “No exceptions to this rule,” said Rosenleaf. “We ask that they make what is a meaningful contribution for them and that our organization be among their top three charitable gifts.” The board now has a 100% giving rate for the past three years, she said.
• The organization hired an experienced development director. The organization lacked this development skill set on staff, Rosenleaf said. “It’s an investment of our resources, but one we felt was needed to succeed,” she said.
• Targeted board recruitment. “We recruited two new board members specifically because of their robust networks and let them know we expected them to fundraise,” Rosenleaf said. “We also told them we wanted them to help connect us to their networks for fundraising.”
• Training in fundraising for board members. This has been necessary, because the switch to a fundraising board resulted in some board members leaving, Rosenleaf said. “It’s also been more difficult to recruit board members since we have clearly stated our fundraising expectations,” she said.
• Board commitment to fundraising activities. For the first direct mail fundraising appeal in the organization’s 42-year history, many but not all board members shared names for the mailing, Rosenleaf said. “We are also now in the middle of our first major donor campaign, which has required more training and support for board members,” she said.
• Different roles for board members. “Not all board members will be ‘askers,’” Rosenleaf said. One board member is not comfortable calling on her professional network for money, she said. “But she has helped in other ways,” Rosenleaf said. “She serves as a trustee for a foundation, and let us know of the foundation’s priorities and encouraged us to apply for funding from this new source. “She has also helped us determine how to deal with complicated tax assets related to donations,” Rosenleaf said.

While the board has experienced modest success with its fundraising efforts, there is a long way to go, Rosenleaf said. “We’ve not made as many contacts as we hoped and haven’t come close to our modest goal,” she said. “Perhaps we need to offer the board more coaching and support, or maybe it’s just a process to get this fully rolling and a part of our culture.”