A board member sat forward in his chair.

“I could fundraise for that,” he said eagerly.

A minute ago, a month ago, nobody on this board “knew anybody they could approach” for anything more than an event ticket.

Now, they were all asking for materials to take to their friends.

It’s the power of mission – the why of fundraising.

When you get it right – matching money to mission – the pull is irresistible.

We’re always so tied up in what we need.

Makes sense – we have the day-to-day grind of running a nonprofit, paying the bills.

We forget that’s not why people get excited by our work. They don’t care that the computers need replacing so the employees can be productive in helping single mothers get the benefits to help them lift their families out of poverty.

They care about kids getting a fair shake.

Mission.

The beauty is, our board members are both inside and outside. They can help us craft a case that meets our needs and reaches out to hook a donor in with the power of our mission.

They can listen to our insider talk, with an outsider’s ear.

But we have to be able to let them. Not to protest: “What do you mean that doesn’t sound exciting? It’s key to what we do!”

We have to ask our board members: “Can you sell this?”

“Will it fly?”

And swallow hard and humbly at the answer…and then come back again with a recasting and reshaping, till we get it right.

As nonprofits, we’re dependent on the compassion of strangers. On the support of those who don’t really get it…in all its intricate detail; but who care, at their core, about the values we stand for.

Our board members can be the bridge to those individuals, if we let them. If we give them a package they can sell.

Especially when the plan itself hasn't been clearly laid out, overtly stated, reached through consensus.

In cases like those, the fighting is only marginally about the dollars. It's about control, direction, priorities, and vision.

And sometimes, competing visions.

How much should we be increasing the line for social workers? Housing advocates? Marketing materials? Clerical support?

Those may seem like apples and oranges, but each carries within it a core sense of what's most important.

And in an era of shrunken resources, push will come to shove, without a master plan.

 We often see nonprofits pie-charting their income streams. In fact, in fundraising planning, that’s often the first instruction. Where are your dollars coming from – so much from private foundations, so much from government contracts, etc.

But what about pie-charting expense categories? Not just line items like rent or IT maintenance, but functional distinctions like afterschool programming or college readiness prep?

Or outreach, staff development, upkeep of the physical plant... where you spend your dollars is about so much more than simply the dollars themselves.

Who are you? What are your institutional priorities? What are your financial shackles, your historical inheritance, your core values?

And are they reflected, truly reflected, in how you allocate your resources?

We talk a lot in this space about how to raise the money you need. But how to spend it is just as vital a set of decisions for your organizational soul.

But isn’t that what fundraising really is – not term-paper-writing, or www.research, but people following?

Connecting the dots – this person knows that person who might put us together with this other individual who’s known to care about the issues we address.

I am reminded of this because it is high event season – time for meeting-and-greeting, evening after evening. Time for connecting, and asking your friends to introduce you to their friends (and colleagues) – all so you can open the door to someone who might care about your work.

And fund it…

This doesn’t happen by accident. Take the gala “assignment list.” It’s a list of the folks you hope to engage with, that you draft based on the likely attendance the day before. Sometimes these people come late (and sometimes they don’t show at all); but sometimes they come right when they’re supposed to and end up talking to the person by the punch bowl cause they didn’t know anyone else in the room.

You have to find them.

Not as hard as it used to be, in this day and age of Google images. But still a little awkward: “Are you Suzy Jones? I’ve heard so much about you!” when you hadn’t been in a position to hear much of anything at all.

And then – after that opening salvo – what do you say?

You ask questions. About their kids, their connection to the Bronx, their education – anything that ties their own experiences with the mission of the organization and gets them talking.

When you’ve been people-stalking and you meet up with the object of your quest, your job is not to seal the deal.

Your job is to open the door – a crack.

To start a conversation that can be continued…another time.

They both deal with money, goes the reasoning. Why not have the group that’s responsible for monitoring how the money goes out, oversee raising the money we need coming in?

Especially on a small board, where you don’t want so many committees that each one only has two people on it, this temptation to lump together “like” functions, is very real.

But they’re not really like.

And when that happens, one of them always, always loses.

Sometimes it’s the finance function. The committee dives deep into fundraising activities and getting board member lists – and passes a projected budget on to the board almost directly from the staff, without much mediation or parsing.

But that can backfire for a million reasons, not the least the fact that board members don’t really know where the money’s going, and don’t own the numbers they’re trying to manage and raise.

In the other direction (which Cause Effective sees more commonly as we’re brought in to focus a wandering board’s attention on fundraising), there’s a finance/fundraising committee that picks apart a projected budget with a fine-tooth comb, but sticks a number in to the fundraising line based on need – what’s the gap – rather than a careful analysis of what’s possible and waiting out there to be plucked.

Finance committees can be small. 2-3 people can meet, even by telephone, quarterly to monitor projection-to-actuals, along with an extra meeting or two at budget-drafting time.

Fundraising committees should be large. You want as many people as possible (including non-board committee members!) to put their brains to work imagining ways to raise resources from a variety of sources.

Sure, these committees should talk to each other – maybe even meet together at budget time, to vet numbers for realism, boldness, and “fit” with the needs of the program.

But the bottom line is, you need both. Focused like a laser on their primary charge – monitoring fiscal health, encouraging income generation.

That’s the attitude many board members bring to fundraising. It’s hard, no-one will respond…it just won’t work.

As consultants, we can help strategize, give hints and tips, even get people to role play.

But if, in their heart-of-hearts, board members don’t believe it’s gonna work, that dour cloud will hang over all their attempts – and, in fact, ensure that their experiences confirm their suspicion: that fundraising’s no fun, and they’re no good at it.

How to counter this hidden defeatism?

One way is a peer-to-peer testimonial. “I had doubts, but I gave it a whirl and it worked for me – and here’s how.”

I did an Oprah-style interview the other day – of a board member, in front of the rest of the board. (Of course I prepped him so he wasn’t horribly put on the spot.)

“Tell me, Eduardo, what happened when you tried to sell tables last year for the benefit?” I posed.

And we were off and running with: who he chose to approach and why…what he thought they’d need in order to say yes…what happened when at least half of them said no (you move on, he noted)…and overall how the experience made him feel.

The board hung on every word – here was someone admitting to doubts, even acknowledging failure – he wasn’t a superstar. And yet he’d given it the old college try, and made a go of it.

The unspoken message – You can, too.

After the 10-minute “interview,” board members got to work making lists of folks they’d approach, knowing now that they might not all say yes. And that that was part of the process.

And – that if Eduardo could do it, they’d better darned well get on the stick.

Go team!