Image CC pexels.com
It is pretty widely accepted that one of the key roles of a board member for a not-for-profit is to be part of the fundraising process. But are we placing too much emphasis on the board dollar in today’s climate of funding tensions?
Of course a director with deep pockets is always going to be welcome. But recent discussions at the Culture Business Conference in Sydney revealed not every arts organisation agrees that capacity to donate should be the key criteria for choosing a board.
Ilana Atlas, Chairman The Bell Shakespeare Company, is a believer in the US-derived phrase, “Give or Get off”.
‘At Bell Shakespeare the charter of the board is very clear. The expectation of the directors is not only to be involved in the strategic direction of the company but the financial security of the company and advocacy.’
‘Even the letter of invitation sent to a potential board member says quite clearly that the expectation of a director is to: 1. To donate – that they are a giver to the company; 2. Are prepared to open up their networks to assist the company; 3. Are involved in performances and other events and, 4. Are prepared to give their expertise and talent to the company,’ Atlas reported openly.
In contrast, Sandra Yates, Chair of the regionally based Australian Festival of Chamber Music, said the US motto has little currency here.
‘If you are going to chose board directors on the size of their wallets you are going to get a pretty crappy board.
‘The responsibilities of directors are largely the same for non-for-profit organisations as they are for for-profit organisations. You need a good mix of people with a range of skills,’ she continued.
‘The whole topic is a lot more nuanced than what we give it credit for.’
A good board is not all chiefs
The pressure to give as a board director can discourage valuable people from stepping up to those roles. Young innovators early in their careers or experienced arts managers who are not on large salaries may have networks or skills which compensate for their lack of cash.
Julian Knights, Chairman of Major Performing Arts Panel, made the point: ‘Those young people can be every bit as effective to that fundraising process and it doesn’t require them to write that $10,000 check but to bring their enthusiasm to that organisation – and that is invaluable.’
Bruce Meagher, Chair Griffin Theatre Company echoed the point with an example: ‘I recruited a young digital entrepreneur who gives a lot of time to the company in building out our digital strategy. He doesn’t have the networks that some of the other directors have but his expertise is vital.
‘So much of our box office is driven by social media and is replacing word of mouth so if you don’t have an effective social media engagement strategy then you don’t have a marketing strategy. That is something we are very focused on that the board has strengths in areas such as marketing and finance because the company cannot simply do those things itself.’
Meagher also said that they have artists on the Griffin board and would not expect them to give significant amounts, but their creative input is vital.
‘If you haven’t got a core group on your board who are willing to do something about fundraising, then you have a serious problem, but that is not to say all directors give in that way,’ he said.
It’s a job for professionals
One of the key challenged the panel identified was the lack of qualified personnel.
Yates said: ‘There are not enough development managers to service all the needs of all the arts companies. Key for all arts orgs is the development of development managers.’
She said that there is a dire need for skills development and if the government is going to encourage arts organisations to develop philanthropic partnership then it needs to provide professional skilling of the arts sector to be able to do that.
It was a point echoed by Atlas: ‘This (fund raising) is a profession. There needs to be appropriate development – it needs to be treated in that way and it needs to be remunerated in that way.’
Yates added: ‘If you go and try to chat up the company chairman’s wife and they have a development team themselves assessing these operations, they will put you back in your box very quickly. Well-intentioned board directors rabbiting around in areas where they do not have expertise can also do harm to fundraising, particularly with big corporates.’
Image CC pexels.com
Despite those warnings, these four board professionals all agree that it is the role of the board to ask.
‘It comes with the territory,’ says Meagher. ‘I don’t think you should underestimate how difficult it is.’
He said that it is easier to ask if you are a donor yourself. ‘I will give at the lower end of a few things so the casual observer will see it is obvious that I am involved and giving.’
Knight said of a recent trip to the United States to talk with arts companies on giving: ‘Every single company we met I asked them what proportion of their total giving came directly, or indirectly, from the board and from the very largest – the Metropolitan Opera down to the Lincoln Jazz Centre, which was a very small organisation, at least 30 or 40% of the total funding was actioned and occasioned by the board.’
Meagher added: ‘The short answer is you have just got to do it is what you sign up for on the board.’
Being effective in a tighter climate
Fundraising today is very nuanced. There is private giving, corporate giving, foundations and philanthropic support, in kind support; then there is the world of digital fundraising, crowd funding, crowd equity and the less-trod territory in Australia – bequests and planned giving.
Ben Strout, CEO Biennale of Sydney and chair of the panel, made the point: ‘Many of us in Sydney are feeling that philanthropy is growing but sponsorship is getting harder and harder to service.’
Meagher spoke from experience: ‘In the corporate world it is very difficult to justify internally arts sponsorship per se that is seen as purely philanthropic. Somehow you have to have something that is seen to hold brand affinity.
‘When I started in my job I was asked look at our company sponsorship portfolio to identify things that didn’t align with our brand – that didn’t meet any criteria. And if I couldn’t justify then I couldn’t keep giving money to that organisation.’
Knights added: The amount of contra and effort you have to put into servicing corporate requirements now is line-ball as to whether it is a net-net positive. Quite frankly, in terms of corporate governance, I don’t see that changing. I think it will only get more and more difficult for corporate directors.’
‘I think we have to target those corporate director, and their associates and their friends, in a personal sense, it will be more a productive strategy than trying to get more money from the corporates,’ he concluded.
Atlas, who was on the same US “fishing” trip as Knights, offered a solution that is gaining traction in the American model. ‘A number of corporates in the US are including in their executive packages an amount of money that their senior executives can use to give to not-for-profit organisations. That would be a great substitute to having to service corporate sponsorship.’
Tips from our Panel of Board experts
1. Practice due diligence in selecting your board – you want to find out why they want to be on this board and a good chair will be able to sense that flexibility and focus.
2. You board must understand that they are “servants of the art” – there are no personal agendas here.
3. Fundraising is a professional – there needs to be more up-skilling to face our future. It is a growth area and we are in short supply of development professionals within the arts sector.
4. Boards have a responsibility to give and should be seen as donating, but that can take many forms and should not be solely evaluated on deep pockets.
5. Servicing donors is not board deep. The organisation from ground roots to the board level need to create a family of giving to extend the life-cycle of giving for an oranisation.
Culture Business was presented by Agenda.
