That post was a shout-out and a gift to my fellow trainers, facilitators, and group leaders. Like I said then: Steal these lines!

Here’s another round of insights, zingers, and stories specifically about boards, based on decades of facilitating board workshops, webinars, and planning retreats. If you engage with nonprofit boards as a consultant, coach, trainer, or facilitator, you might find these useful.

As before, I’m crediting those who shared these lines with me … when I can remember who they are. If you want to claim credit (why not?) or direct us to the originator, please use the comments section to set the record straight. It’s good to acknowledge the wisdom of others.

As noted in the last piece, I’ve workshopped this material in many ways and in front of many groups, testing different phrasing and timing. I encourage you to do the same.

Where board members come from

Nobody emerges from the womb as a board member. It’s not like the midwife says, “It’s a girl … and she’s a board member!” (With thanks to Kim Klein)

Why do we reach out to complete strangers and ask them to lead our organizations? Why aren’t we filling our boards with the donors, volunteers, clients, alumni, and allies who already understand and appreciate our work?

If you’re not consciously designing your board to include specific skills, qualities, and representation, then your default strategy is “I know a guy…” Random recruitment yields random results.

Desperation won’t work in your personal life, and it doesn’t work when recruiting board members. “Anyone who’ll say yes” is a pretty low bar.

Board expectations and operations

On the value of board job descriptions: You might be thinking: If we specify what we want, we’ll scare away potential board members who can’t fulfill our expectations. Well, if people can’t meet their obligations, would you rather find out before or after they’ve been voted onto the board?

A clear, concise board agreement is attractive. Prospective trustees review the document and say to themselves, “Wow, this group is organized. It’s impressive how they’ve thought through this stuff.” And they’re more likely to say yes.

The purpose of meetings (especially board meetings) is to make decisions. If your agenda doesn’t include any decisions – it’s just report after report after report – consider cancelling the meeting. There are so many other ways to share information.

To deal with random brainstorming, I propose the following policy: All suggestions must be followed by the phrase, “If my idea is approved, this is what I am personally willing to do to implement it.” Because it’s way too easy to dream up cool stuff for other people to do.

If your board spends a lot of time debating ideas that aren’t actionable because you don’t have the resources to take action, you may not be using your time wisely.

Boards and fundraising

The vast majority of nonprofit boards stink at fundraising. If your board struggles to raise money, you are not alone. In fact, that makes your group normal.

If you want your board to raise money, start by redefining the word fundraising. It’s not about money – it’s about relationships and how you treat people. Everyone can be an ambassador.

Why board members need to give: There’s karma in fundraising. How can you ask someone to do something that you’re unwilling to do yourself?

Succession planning

Upon joining a board, one of the first questions to ask yourself is, “What am I going to do today to replace myself?” (With thanks to Kim Klein)

Part of leading well is leaving well. (With thanks to Don Tebbe)

Broken boards

Somebody said to me, “All the important conversations at our board meetings happen out in the parking lot after the meeting is over.” This is the definition of dysfunction.

We’ve created a nonprofit governance model based on volunteers supervising professionals. (pause) And this is a good idea because…?

“I’d like to fire my board,” said the executive director, “but then who would I complain about?”

The post Steal these lines! Board edition appeared first on Train Your Board.

During our conversations, I learned that the employees who handle intake at their facility – greeting clients and connecting them with services – are warm and welcoming. This behavior essential, given their role. At the same time, their record-keeping and administrative skills are less than perfect, which creates bottlenecks and additional work for others.

Despite significant coaching and training, their productivity (using the traditional, cost-per-task definition of the word) hasn’t improved much. Nonetheless, they are highly valued (and in many ways, highly effective) staff members. The organization’s leadership is committed to keeping them in their current roles.

Hiring for culture rather than skills

Upon hearing this story, I asked a question. “Are you prioritizing organizational culture over specific job skills?”

“Absolutely,” said the executive director. “When people walk in the door, they’re greeted with warmth and respect – and their stress level goes down. That makes everything easier for everyone. If staff struggle with paperwork or their desks are cluttered, we can live with that.”

I’ll be honest: this blew my mind.

Most job announcements and job descriptions tend to focus on specific, tangible skills. To the degree that they mention organizational culture, the language sounds like this: “Must manage multiple tasks simultaneously” or “Must be comfortable in a fast-paced environment.”

Very few of these documents emphasize kindness, empathy, humility, or deep listening. Why?

Avoiding a false binary

To be clear: compassion and competence are – or at least should be – complementary values. One can (and often must) handle the logistics of one’s job while being empathetic and generous with others. Nonetheless, people are imperfect and organizations become overwhelmed. Things fall apart.

As the story above illustrates, sometimes we need to choose. If you had to prioritize among these values, where would you land?

At the peak of my business life, I was traveling across North America and working with about 50 organizations per year. While juggling all these client relationships, I had a modest epiphany (which, these days, I’m a little ashamed to admit): If I have to choose between competent jerks or nice, well-meaning, less-than-competent clients, give me the jerks.

Thankfully, I’ve seldom been confronted by that choice. Nonprofit-World is filled with an infinite number of kind, effective, skillful, powerful people.

However, as I’ve grown older, my epiphany is gradually flipping: If forced to choose, I would choose those who lead with kindness but may not have their act completely together.

When culture means something else

It’s worth noting that, for generations, “organizational culture” has also been used as an opportunity for exclusion and oppression.

Many people – often women and/or people of color – have been denied jobs or promotions because they were perceived as not fitting into the (white male) culture of their nonprofit or for-profit organization. Because culture is hard to measure, it’s a flexible tool for discrimination.

Indeed, an entire cadre of trainers, facilitators, consultants, and thought leaders have been working – for decades! – to help us make our workplaces more inclusive and less oppressive.

I believe that elevating compassion and empathy is one aspect of that work.

Yes, we’re talking about capitalism

As noted earlier, very few job descriptions emphasize kindness, empathy, humility, or deep listening. Here’s why: In a capitalist system like ours, productivity (again, using the economist’s definition) has the highest value. The goal is to generate more work product – goods, services, whatever – for lower cost and fewer hours of labor.

The assumptions behind this model are flawed in many ways, but I want to focus on one that creates a dilemma for nonprofits. How do you place a monetary value on dignity, respect, and human connection? What’s the economic value of long-term, mutually beneficial relationships?

Long live inefficiency!

Building and maintaining human connection can be highly “inefficient.”

When someone walks in the door and needs help – recovery services, housing, health care, food, childcare, legal services, eldercare, disaster response, etc. – how do you place a cash value on that initial conversation? How do you measure the efficiency of love?

With that question in mind, it’s encouraging to discover a nonprofit – frankly, one of many nonprofits – that prioritizes compassion without worrying too much about efficiency.

This is a subversive act. Let’s honor that.

The post Culture, compassion, efficiency, and the space in between appeared first on Train Your Board.

I am not clergy, so I was surprised by the invitation. The word devotional sounds religious, doesn’t it? As I’ve learned, the House casts a pretty wide net for inspiration. You don’t need to be ordained. For example, a local forester – who is also an author and spiritually thoughtful guy – made an impression with his three-minute devotional.

A peek behind the curtain

Photo: Vermont State House, Montpelier — via Wikimedia Commons.

The Vermont Statehouse is a somewhat informal place. Yes, people tend to wear suits and the usual parliamentary decorum applies, but regular Vermonters wander through the building (it’s literally called “the building”) and the halls are alive with informal conversations. I’ve visited many times as a citizen-lobbyist and always enjoy the experience.

I was escorted to the office of the Speaker of the House, given a quick orientation, then directed through a couple of black curtains, emerging behind the podium. I met the Speaker (she wields an actual gavel, which is bigger than you’d imagine), chatted with my representatives, and hung out with the legislative pages: eighth grade students in matching green jackets who keep the place running.

The Speaker called the session to order – bang the gavel! – and introduced me.

Here’s what I said. These remarks were intended for the legislators, but they’re relevant to many, many nonprofit organizations.

You won’t complete the work

Good morning. My name is Andy Robinson, I live in Plainfield and I’m the former board president of Beth Jacob Synagogue here in Montpelier.

Page from Pirkei Avot 2:16 in The Library of The Jewish Theological Seminary. Lisbon, late 15th century. MS 8235, Folio 174v.

I want to introduce you to a very old book of Jewish wisdom called the Pirkei Avot, which translates to Ethics of the Ancestors. Compiled nearly 2000 years ago, Pirkei Avot is a collection of aphorisms, sayings, and instructions from the ancient rabbis.

There’s a lot of good stuff in there, but I have a favorite. Rabbi Tarfon said, “You will not complete the work. Neither are you permitted to put it aside.”

What kind of work?

What work is he talking about? Pretty much anything important, substantial, generational, or sacred. From the perspective of the legislature, here are a few examples:

• Creating affordable, equitable housing: “You will not complete the work, neither are you permitted to put it aside.”
• Ensuring that everyone has access to health care: “You will not complete the work, neither are you permitted to put it aside.”
• Protecting our communities from floods, droughts, and other climate disasters: “You will not complete the work, neither are you permitted to put it aside.

You can’t put it aside

You see how this goes. Indeed, I imagine that every day at the legislature feels a little like this: Chipping away at massive challenges. Understanding that the hard stuff won’t be solved in one session, or maybe ten sessions.

Nonetheless, you keep doing the work – because you’re not permitted to put it aside.

Photo: Marion S. Trikosko for U.S. News & World Report.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. famously declared that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I’m imaging a Jewish response: That’s true, but it doesn’t bend itself. We need to lean on that arc, throwing our weight into it, to ensure that it bends in the proper direction. This requires stamina and persistence; may you be blessed with both.

I’ll conclude with another quote from the Pirkei Avot: “On three things, the world continues to exist: On justice, truth, and peace.” May you seek justice, speak the truth, and create peace. Thanks for your work on behalf of Vermont.

If they ask, I’d do it again

If this content sounds familiar (shout out to long-time readers), I explored it in a previous post long ago. Apologies for repeating myself, but the message feels more timely than ever.

As someone who teaches workshops and leads retreats, my role requires me to facilitate for hours or even days at a time. This was a totally different format, which I appreciated: Say something meaningful in less than three minutes. Speak your truth, keep it brief, then be still. How great is that?

Maybe they’ll invite me back next year.

The post What I said to the Vermont Legislature appeared first on Train Your Board.

Note: This guest post is adapted from a new book,

When I’m asked why Inclusive Strategic Planning is valuable, I immediately go into the kitchen.

Let me explain.

SOS Meals on Wheels had a problem hiding in plain sight. Their industrial kitchen – the heart of an organization serving thousands of San Francisco Bay Area older adults – couldn’t keep up.

The layout capped daily meal production, forcing inefficient delivery schedules and limiting their reach. Staff knew it. Leadership suspected it. But no one had named it as the priority.

Then we gathered everyone into the same room.

When I facilitated their strategic planning process, executive director Charlie Deterline wanted more than a plan: he wanted alignment. For years, board conversations happened separately from staff conversations. Different rooms led to different priorities, with a fractured vision and less than ideal outcomes.

We went through the Inclusive Strategic Planning process with board members, staff, volunteers, donors, and partners all contributing.

That’s when the kitchen emerged. Not just from leadership or the board chair, but the collective input of people who understood the operation from every angle. The strategic plan they created together included the goal, “Increase meal production and volume to decrease delivery days.”

Goal accomplished!

A year later, I saw the announcement on social media: SOS Meals on Wheels had remodeled their kitchen – expanded refrigeration, increased freezer capacity, dramatically higher daily meal production. Goal accomplished.

Inclusive Strategic Planning surfaces what matters most, builds shared ownership of the solution, and creates momentum that outlasts the planning process itself.

What’s “the kitchen” for your organization? What’s the constraint everyone feels but no one has prioritized, or the solution that requires multiple perspectives to see clearly?

Why your organization can benefit from this model

Some time ago, Nancy (not her real name), an executive director from a medium-sized nonprofit, joined my strategic planning course at California State University East Bay.

At the end of the course, Nancy explained that she and her co-director had created their most recent strategic plan. They did this by sitting together in her office for a few days and writing out strategies and goals for the organization for the next few years.

As Nancy shared on the last day of class, “Having learned more about Inclusive Strategic Planning, I see how we were not inclusive. It was just the two of us. We did not ask others on staff or board to build the vision with us. We did not consult the larger community in any way. And now I see why a lot of team members do not understand and feel connected to the details of our current vision and goals.”

Top-down plans don’t work

I frequently hear how strategic plans created without the input and buy-in of the staff aren’t implemented, since the staff doesn’t understand where the plan came from. I’ve heard stories about how a new executive director “inherited” a strategic plan and – without understanding the rationale behind the priorities and goals – wasn’t interested in putting it into motion.

Designing plans that incorporate a plethora of perspectives strengthens many parts of an organization: morale, recruitment, finances, and overall investment in the work. For example, when fundraising goals are created in collaboration with the development team, then team members help to make sure that those goals are realistic and become invested in accomplishing them.

How Inclusive Strategic Planning is different

Traditional strategic planning methods focus on the how and when – vision, mission, strategies, goals – but less about the who. With Inclusive Strategic planning, we hold deeply the idea that it matters who’s in the room as the plan is created.

Inclusion has been defined as an environment that offers affirmation, celebration, and appreciation of different approaches, styles, perspectives, and experiences, thus allowing all individuals to bring in their whole selves (and all their identities) and to demonstrate their strengths and capacity.

Inclusive Strategic Planning acknowledges that the lived experience of those in the room informs the plan. The design incorporates a wider swath of participants, including Deciders, Builders, and Sharers.

Traditional processes always incorporate Deciders, those who make final decisions, and often include Sharers, people who weigh in via interviews, focus groups, and surveys. The innovative aspect of this model is the Builders group, who co-create the plan, especially the parts that they will be implementing. This makes the process inclusive.

This isn’t easy, but it’s worth it

Working this way is not always easy. It challenges leaders to be open to information from different perspectives, which allows them to make better-informed decisions and co-create realistic, sustainable, energizing strategies and goals. It just takes more time.

However, in our volatile and uncertain era, open, transparent, and inclusive processes are needed more than ever. This approach models transparency and inclusivity, which benefits us all.

The post The value of inclusive strategic planning appeared first on Train Your Board.

After thirty years of consulting, facilitating, and training – and more than a decade of teaching others how to do these things – I’ve developed a library of insights, jokes, zingers, and unexpected ideas. Today’s post includes some of my favorites.

Like any storyteller, public speaker, or standup comic, I’ve workshopped this material dozens of times, testing different phrasing, inflections, and timing. (None of which you’ll experience by reading this.) You’ll need to do the same.

Feel free to adapt these words and make them your own. If you have your own favorites to share, please use the comments section below.

Training, facilitation, consulting

When setting up the room: I train for free. I get paid to move furniture.

On training design: When you’re leading a group, people remember 20% of what you say but 90% of what they do. So give them stuff to do!

The consultant should never work harder than the client. The teacher should never work harder than the students. The facilitator should never work harder than the group. (With thanks to Sharon Behar.)

The value of flip charts: The metaphor of PowerPoint: I, the trainer, have wisdom to share with you. Conversely, the metaphor of the flip chart: You, the participants, have wisdom to share that I will collect, record, and amplify. Therefore, flip charts can empower the group in a different way.

Avoiding imposter syndrome: An expert is anyone who knows five percent more than the other person.

The psychology of fundraising

Everyone believes that their cause has the hardest time raising money. Environmentalists are envious of arts groups, who are envious of social service organizations, who are envious of medical charities, who are envious of environmentalists. And everyone is jealous of the people who raise money for puppies and kittens.

Try this with a group: Raise your hand if you’ve ever made a charitable gift and felt good about it. (All the hands go up.) OK, here’s the million-dollar question: Why are we so uncomfortable asking people to do something that feels good when they do it? (Pause.) Short answer: We focus on how we feel as the asker. It might feel awkward. We might be rejected. However, if you want to be good at fundraising, here’s the first thing you need to learn: it’s not about you, it’s about the donor. How you feel is not the point. Asking is about the donor … and most of the time, the donor feels good.

Or try this: With the understanding that you probably don’t have enough money and you probably don’t have enough time, which is more precious to you: your time – raise your hand – or your money? For most of you, it’s time. Which leads to this interesting problem: We are shameless about asking for time – volunteer, volunteer, volunteer! – but we’re really hesitant to ask for money. We have this exactly backwards: We should be much more careful asking for time and WAY more assertive asking for money.

Fundraising is a volume business. If you ask enough people, eventually you raise all the money you need to raise. (With thanks to Kim Klein.)

The word you hear most often in fundraising is “no.” That’s how it works. In fact, if you’re not getting many “no’s”, you’re not asking enough people. This is one of the most underappreciated metrics in fundraising: How many people say no.

A story: I asked the group, “Why are you here? What do you want to learn?” A woman spoke up and said, “I’m trying to get over myself.” In other words, she was trying to get her ego out of the way so she could be of service to her organization. That’s the sweet spot.

The practice of fundraising

When people are new to fundraising, they ask the wrong question: “Who’s rich?” instead of “Who do we know?” They end up with a list of rich strangers that nobody knows. This isn’t a prospect list – it’s a fantasy list.

Statistics raise eyebrows but emotions raise money.

On donor meetings: The more the donor talks, the better it gets. The more you talk, the worse it gets.

Fundraising boils down to two jobs: The asker and the decider. The asker asks for the gift. The decider says, “Yes, I choose to give” or “No thanks, I choose not to give.” Do not confuse these two jobs! Do not decide for others by NOT asking them. When you decide for others – “He doesn’t have any money, she has other priorities,” etc. – you are literally disempowering them.

Do you want job security? Do you want more power? Learn how to raise money. You will always have a job, because there’s always a shortage of fundraisers. Furthermore, people who raise money tend to have more power.

Strategic planning

Nonprofits are really good at admiring the problem, which is not the same as solving the problem. (With thanks to Lori Bellingham.)

If you have a plan and circumstances change, then you’re working with a revised plan. Otherwise, you’re working with revised instinct. (With thanks to Terry Miller.)

Want more? You’ll enjoy this: Trainer Funny: How to Add Humor to Your Next Workshop.

The post Steal these lines! appeared first on Train Your Board.

The details were pretty gruesome. To cover one employee and their partner, monthly premiums had jumped – I am not making this up – from $977 per month in 2025 (already way too high) to $2693 per month in 2026. For the same coverage!

This is untenable for any employer, not to mention a tiny organization. Donors have been stepping up, but that’s not a long-term solution.

As I was reflecting on this unfortunate situation, I thought about multiple threats to the well-being of nonprofits – and why we need to advocate for ourselves and our peers. A few examples:

The hidden, inequitable health care subsidy

Many nonprofits – especially larger, more established groups – offer some sort of health insurance. Others do not, citing high costs … because, as we’ve just discussed, these costs can be extreme.

In a country where most health coverage is connected to employment, this creates all sorts of equity issues within the nonprofit workplace. If you’re covered through your partner, spouse, or parent’s policy, then it’s easier to work for an organization that doesn’t offer insurance.

For decades, we’ve benefited from this hidden subsidy. Those households with a relative amount of privilege, in the form of reliable health insurance, are subsidizing many organizations. Potential staff members who need insurance – often people with less privilege – end up seeking jobs outside the sector.

Yes, your organization can and should raise enough money to fully compensate your staff. However, what we really need is a national health care program that uncouples coverage from employment. With this issue, as with many others, nonprofit advocacy could make a real difference.

Nonprofits doing the work of government

Compared to the United States, most developed countries have a much more robust system of government services: health care, childcare, social housing, family leave, eldercare, etc.

In our country, we’ve outsourced much of this responsibility to nonprofits. As Jennifer Hutchins shared in a recent post, If the Nonprofit Model is Broken, Who Benefits?, “Let’s remember that other sectors – specifically corporations and government – assign certain kinds of work to charitable nonprofits they don’t want to deal with: the complex, difficult, generational, unprofitable, and inherently messy stuff. For better or worse, that’s our niche.”

Here’s the “worse” part: When government funding is slashed, as we’ve recently experienced, the wheels start to come off. As Hutchins writes, “Nonprofits of all sizes and missions … continue to respond to increasing demands with fewer and fewer resources.”

If we want a just society, we need a fairer, more comprehensive system of taxation that underwrites the public good. Nonprofits can and must advocate for better tax policy and the appropriate role of government in creating and supporting public welfare.

Is your 501(c)(3) status secure?

A year ago, many of us were talking about a proposed federal law: H.R. 9495, known informally as the “Nonprofit Killer” bill. Among other provisions, according to Nonprofit Vote,

“H.R. 9495 would empower the Treasury Secretary, and by extension, the President, to unilaterally designate a nonprofit as a ‘terrorist-supporting organization’ and strip … their 501(c)(3) tax status. The bill outlines no evidentiary standard that must be followed in making this determination; it does not require the disclosure of any evidence, allowing for the use of ‘classified information’ that cannot be reviewed by the nonprofit being accused or challenged in court.”

Author Kelsea-Marie Pym adds, “The loss of tax-exempt status alone is enough to shutter many nonprofits … But the harms run deeper than that, with the stigma and reputational damage that designation as a ‘terrorist-supporting’ organization could have on donors, community members, and other stakeholders.”

Not surprisingly, this bill generated huge pushback from the nonprofit community. After passing (!) the House of Representatives, the Senate never took up the bill and it “died in chamber.”

Thanks to solid organizing, we won that round. Given the current political landscape, don’t be surprised if some version of this bill is reintroduced. If that moment comes, it’s all-hands-on-deck … again.

Nonprofits: Claim your power!

Our sector has credibility, moral authority, boots-on-the-ground expertise, and more economic power than we realize. Nationally, nonprofits provide about 10% of employment;  in my home state of Vermont, it’s 20%. (You can find national and regional nonprofit employment data here.)

Collectively, we have the economic and political muscle to advocate for ourselves, our neighbors, and our democracy. Let’s use it.

If you’re interested in learning more about permissible advocacy for nonprofits, two great resources are Bolder Advocacy, a program of Alliance for Justice, and National Council of Nonprofits.

The post Three threats to nonprofits – and why advocacy matters appeared first on Train Your Board.

Note: This post is from Train Your Board partner Bob Osborne. Thanks, Bob!

Joining a nonprofit board can be exciting … and a little overwhelming. New trustees are stepping into a world of unfamiliar people, names, expectations, jargon, responsibilities, and organizational culture.

Do you want to set them up for success? Give them a mentor – or, as some boards prefer to say, a board buddy. The buddy system helps new members:

• Feel welcome and connected to the team.
• Understand how the board works and what’s expected of them.
• Learn about the organization, its programs, and the people it serves.
• Discover how they can contribute most meaningfully.

How does this work?

The relationship doesn’t need to be complicated.

A buddy might meet the new board member for coffee before their first meeting, introduce them to others, check in afterward to answer questions, and join them for a site visit or fundraising event.

These periodic check-ins build confidence, deepen engagement, and turn a new recruit into a true ambassador for the mission. Ideally, your organization has a year-long orientation program to support your “buddy pairs” of continuing and new board members.

Translating board culture and relationships

As with any group, what happens around the board table reflects the complexity of human relationships and power dynamics. Who speaks first and who holds back? Which opinions carry more weight? Who works to build consensus? Who prefers to delay decision-making … and why?

Sadly, your bylaws or board agreements don’t really address the interpersonal aspects of board service. As a new member, your mentor/buddy can help you unpack the subtext of what’s being said … and not said.

Andy shared an instructive story with me. A client once told him, “When our board meets, all the important conversations happen out in the parking lot after the meeting is over.” This is the dictionary definition of dysfunction.

Now imagine that you’re a new board member trying to navigate this messiness. Rather than figuring it out on your own, you can rely on your board buddy to provide necessary context and answer your questions.

Matchmaker, matchmaker

When pairing new board members with continuing members, consider the following criteria:

• Time availability and responsiveness.
• Personalities.
• Listening skills (you want mentors who listen deeply and don’t make speeches).
• Any inherent power dynamics around gender, race, or social class.

Don’t overthink this; you’re not matching life partners, roommates, or best friends. An imperfect match is better than asking new board members to figure it out on their own.

Even better, the process demonstrates intentionality and commitment: “We want you to succeed on our board. Here’s a relationship to support your success.”

Don’t sweat the language

Whether you call it a mentor, sponsor, or buddy system, the goal is the same. Help every new trustee feel like they belong – and watch your board thrive.

The post Welcoming new board members: Why a “Board Buddy” makes all the difference appeared first on Train Your Board.

Most of what we call fundraising takes place before or after you receive the donation: prospecting, cultivation, recognition, donor engagement, and so on. You can do all those things supremely well and still miss an essential step: sooner or later, you have to ask for the money.

This exercise is designed to increase everyone’s comfort by providing specific language, then giving you and your colleagues a chance to practice until you find the words that work best for you.

Setting up the exercise

Time required. 20 minutes.

Audience. Anyone who plans to conduct meetings with donors.

Setting. A quiet room large enough for people to pair up, talk, and hear each other.

Materials. Photocopy the sample “ask language” below and the sample gift charts.

Ask people to pair up, preferably with someone they don’t know too well. Explain that the purpose of this exercise is to try out different ways of asking for a contribution. You’ll find several options below you can share by handing out copies of this exercise. Encourage them to start with these scripts, as needed, and then personalize the language until they are comfortable.

Please note that some scripts include a dollar amount while others leave the amount to the donor. Encourage your colleagues to try some of each. Use this exercise to increase everyone’s comfort by asking for larger gifts. Given the time required to schedule and conduct donor meetings, we strongly recommend asks of at least $500 or $40 per month.

Different ways to ask for the gift

Try as many of these scripts as you like until you find your own language.

• “Is there an amount you’d feel comfortable pledging today?”

• “As you know, I have three goals for this meeting. I wanted to give you an update on our work, and we’ve done that. I wanted to learn more about your interests and concerns, and I thank you for sharing that with me. And, as you know, this is a fundraising visit – I’m here to ask for your financial support. We were hoping you would consider a gift of $____. What do you say?”

• “As a board member, this organization is one of my top three charitable commitments. I believe you feel as strongly about this work as I do, so I hope you’ll consider making it one of your top three.”

• “We are looking for a group of people like you who understand the importance of our work and are willing to give as much as they can. Would you be able to pledge $____?”

• “We’re setting our budget for the coming year, and it will help us if we know how much we can expect from our supporters. Would you consider $____? It would mean a great deal to us all.”

• [Handing donor the gift chart] “Here’s our fundraising plan, showing a range of giving options. When we fill in the chart, we reach our goal. Please take a look and choose the amount that’s right for you.”

• “For this campaign, our family gave the biggest contribution we’ve ever given—and it felt good. What amount would feel good to you?”

• “I thought about how much I would feel comfortable giving, and then I decided to stretch myself a little. We’re hoping for a ‘stretch gift’ from you. Would you consider a gift of $___?”

• [Handing donor the gift chart] “To be honest, I have no idea how much to ask you for.  I don’t want to insult you by asking for too much or too little. Please take a look at the chart and give me some guidance. How much should I ask for?”

Facilitating the exercise

Once everyone is in pairs, the partners go back and forth, trying out different phases and sentences and giving each other feedback on what works and how to improve the language.

When the exercise is complete, debrief it by asking the full group some combination of these questions:

• What were your favorite phrases? Why?

• When you were playing the prospect – the one being asked for the gift – what language or approach worked best for you? Why?

• Is it important to get the language right? Why or why not?

Training tip

If you’ve already created a gift chart for your own campaign, use that. It will help your solicitors better understand the structure of your fundraising effort.

The post Closing the gift: A fundraising exercise appeared first on Train Your Board.

Note: This guest post is adapted from

A common belief among new fundraisers is that they don’t know anyone they can ask to support their cause. This is based on the misconception that a person must have a lot of money (whatever that means!) to be asked.

Fundraising CBAs

The following criteria will help you realize that you do know people you can ask. Using these criteria will help you find people most likely to say yes.

Here are three things to look for in creating your list of people to ask. We call these the Fundraising CBAs (Contact, Belief, and Ability).

C is for Contact: Who do you know?

Most successful fundraising requires you to tap into networks of potential supporters you already know. You will have a much greater chance of getting a “yes” from someone you know than from a stranger. An exception is the person who’s already donated to your group and therefore knows the group, if not you personally.

In creating your list, the first step is to consider a range of categories, including friends, family, neighbors, colleagues, and more. Keep in mind that you likely won’t ask all of them because you’ll want to look at other criteria for whether they could be potential supporters. However, your list will increase substantially if you take the time to consider all the people you know.

B is for Belief: Caring about your cause

The people you ask should care (even a little) about your cause. Even if someone is a very generous donor to many groups, the likelihood of them giving to your cause is greater if they already care about your issue.

For example, the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, which led to a devastating increase in restrictions on abortion in many states, was followed by a surge in both activism and donations to the hundreds of abortion funds around the country that provide funding and travel support for those needing abortions.

Your key takeaway: Identify people you know who already care about your issue and prioritize them in your (one-on-one) solicitations.   

A is for Ability: Who gives away money?

Studies have shown that seven out of ten Americans give away money. This includes people of all class and race backgrounds, all ages, genders, and sexual orientations.

At least some of the people you know (probably 70 percent of them) already support causes they care about. Moreover, most of the people who give donate to several different organizations and/or crowdfunding campaigns to support individuals in need.

People like to give

The most important thing to keep in mind is that people actually like to give money to things they care deeply about. People want to be involved in their communities and in making a positive difference in the world. Making a financial donation is sometimes the easiest way participate.

When people don’t have time to volunteer, one way to be involved is by giving money. And those who do volunteer are generally more willing to give financially as well, since their level of commitment to the organization is already higher than someone who is not yet involved.

How much should I ask for?

People’s capacity to give will vary greatly. There is no absolute formula to determine how much to ask for.

If they have donated to your group before, you can ask them to give that amount again or consider increasing their gift. If not, make your best guess and ask for that, or suggest a range. An example of such an approach: “My goal is to raise $5,000 over the next 6 weeks. I hope you’ll consider a donation of $50 – $100 towards the goal. Of course, donations of any size are greatly appreciated”.

Ask for different amounts

We do not recommend that you ask everyone for the same amount: for example, $20. Experience teaches us that, for any given fundraising effort, people give differently based on:

• What they feel they can afford.
• How motivated they are by the asker or the cause.

If you ask everyone for $20, those who can afford more – and are willing to give much more – are likely to give only what you asked for. And those who can only afford $10 will be less likely to give at all.

Your takeaways

As you consider who (and how) to ask, remember the following:

1. Focus on CBA: Contact, Belief, Ability.
2. Customize your ask amounts.
3. You already know more donors that you realize!

The post Who can I ask for a donation? appeared first on Train Your Board.

Oddly, we all had the same job title: Director of Development.

I was reminded of this conversation while reading George Orwell’s 1984. In this classic dystopian novel, Orwell describes the construction of newspeak: a language created, in the service of thought control, to obscure meaning.

Which made me wonder: Why does fundraising include so much imprecise or unhelpful language? What are we hiding or avoiding?

Without ascribing any Orwellian intentions (!) to my fellow fundraisers, consider the following examples.

What do we call ourselves? What do we call our work?

After 45 years in this field, I have yet to see a business card with the job title Fundraiser.

You know the alternatives: Director of Development, Advancement, Stewardship, Institutional Giving, Annual Giving, Planned Giving, etc. Development Coordinator. Membership Manager. Grant Writer. Major Gifts Officer. (What … like a police officer? An army officer?)

Yes, these different job titles presume different responsibilities. For example, writing grant proposals isn’t the same as soliciting major donors – unless, of course, you’re preparing proposals for those donors.

Let’s stipulate that fundraising is an actual profession with ethical standards and best practices … and that’s a positive thing. However, in our desire to carve fundraising responsibilities into ever more specific categories, how much jargon and confusion have we created?

Paraphrasing author Joan Flanagan, all the wisdom about fundraising can be summed up in ten words: “Ask them, thank them, ask ‘em again, thank ‘em again.”

Which makes me wonder: Have we over-complicated this? In doing so, are we making fundraising less transparent and accessible to community members, partners, and donors? As we professionalize the profession, are we making it harder for volunteers (amateurs) to participate?

I’m all for keeping things simple, including our language. We need more generalists for whom the title Fundraiser is accurate, self-evident, and comprehensive – a title one can wear with pride, as I do.

And perhaps we need fewer titles.

How we talk about fundraising

Decades ago, Kim Klein taught me the ways in which typical fundraising language is deeply inappropriate. For example,

• Hitting people up for money.
• Targeting donors.
• “Bring in the big guns – they’ll raise the money.”
• “Let’s go shake him down for a gift.”

Even the word campaign – as in fundraising and capital campaigns – comes from the military.

Unfortunately, much of our fundraising language is about force and violence. No wonder people feel uncomfortable doing it!

And don’t get me started on the idea that fundraising is a form of begging…

Clearly, we need better metaphors. Here’s a simple one: fundraising is an offer. You make the offer with an open heart and clear intention: “We’re doing excellent work. Would you consider a donation to support our efforts? With your help, we’ll be stronger and more effective.”

Asking for money

Because money is a taboo subject for many people, fundraisers have invented all sorts of ways of asking without using the word money or its cousin fundraising. For example,

• “We would love your support.” Not bad, but support could mean so many things. Substituting financial support solves this problem.
• “Please participate in our year-end campaign.” OK – by doing what?
• “Would you consider an investment in our programs?” As we all know, the typical meaning of investment implies a financial return: investing money to earn more money. When used in a charitable context, such as raising funds for a nonprofit, investment is more ambiguous or misleading than it needs to be.

Having facilitated hundreds of fundraising workshops, I’ve seen all the ways people get paralyzed by the language of asking. They want a script: Say these magic words – in the proper order, with the proper inflection – and the money will miraculously appear.

From my perspective, this search for the magic formula has nothing to do with donors and is all about the comfort of the askers. In their discomfort – and perhaps their fear of failure – they refuse to ask, plainly and directly, for what they want.

Here’s what they’re missing: successful fundraising is mostly about listening. The late, great Jerry Panas talked about “listening the gift.” When the fundraiser says to the donor, “Tell me more” – and leans in, listening deeply – that’s as close to magic as we can get.

Clear and simple

If you take anything from this post, let it be this:

Jargon sucks. Clarity succeeds. Keep your language as simple as possible.

The post Plain-speak for fundraisers appeared first on Train Your Board.