Tracks to Success
The Role of the Board of Directors in Grantseeking: A Conversation Between Peers – Part 4
by Cynthia M. Adams and Alexandra Peters
Oversight and Continuing Support
Cindy: I think there are a number of other roles the board can take on in the area of grantseeking, including hosting site visits and helping to build a relationship with the grantmaker. I think of these roles as fairly common and understood, but is that is true, Alexandra?
Alexandra: For some organizations, it may be. But I think there are many who don’t make use of their boards in this way. Asking the board to host visits is such a great way for the board to use their leadership role to add credibility, and I’m surprised that it isn’t done more often. I suspect that staff are leery of it, possibly because they feel they have to “manage” the board during the site visits. But if board members want to be involved (and again, if none of them want to be, why are these people on your board?), staff has to trust that they’ll do a great job, just as the board has to trust that the staff will do a great job.
It’s an excellent learning experience for your board too. For those who want to host visits (it need only be a small number), the opportunity to take part will be an exciting way to be directly involved.
Cindy: Let me ask you another question. Where do ethics fit into grantseeking? I mean, board members generally discuss ethics as far as accepting money goes, but are there any specific discussions that board members should engage in when it comes to grantseeking?
Alexandra: Yes, absolutely. These discussions are fascinating debates and self examinations, and most often, as you suggest, they’re focused on whether or not the organization could in good conscience accept money from a funder. The staff who are actively pursuing funding need these parameters to be extremely clear. When they are creating the criteria for the Decision Matrix that you suggest using to define which grantmakers they should pursue, they need to be able to immediately rule out which grants would be counter to their organization’s values.
The first time to discuss this topic isn’t when applying for funds, and certainly not when funds are offered. It should be included in ongoing board (and even better, board and staff) discussions of what values and principles are held by the organization. How can an organization determine whether accepting money betrays their principles if they aren’t extremely clear on what those principles are? These discussions need to happen often because as the world progresses, boards replace members, and even the mission of the organization changes, so perspectives on what is held most important can shift.
First, as we talked about earlier, the board should be looking at their mission at least once a year from different angles and asking different questions. Second, since that mission, that reason for existence, drives the organization, then defining what principles and values are held most important should naturally follow. I’d use an Appreciative Inquiry method for getting back into the organization’s history, really probing what you hold dear, so that you can define the guiding principles for the organization. Then the board can go on to examine straightforward but provocative questions.
- Are there donors from whom we would not take money if it were offered?
- What we do if it turned out that a grant we received was from ill-gotten gains?
- What principles we hold would categorically stop us from seeking funds from an organization?
I’d make it a discussion that happens at least once each year, and ideally it should lead to the creation or re-examination of a gift-acceptance policy (now required by the IRS on form 990). And it’s not a burden - these forums are very inspiring for boards. This is an opportunity for the board to get into the heart of what’s most meaningful as well as a chance for every voice on the board to have impact.
Cindy: Then there’s the question that all boards wrestle with, which is, “To what degree would we be willing to change or adjust our programs in order to receive this funding?”
Alexandra: I’m surprised that boards aren’t constantly talking about this, since it’s a problem that grantwriters are always dealing with. I think that boards often don’t know the answer to this question, not because they’re not paying attention, but because proposals are written by staff, and typically the board doesn’t see the proposal. If the organization does get the grant, then programs may begin to bend to accommodate a different set of expectations. It’s often a subtle change, but anything that veers away from the mission may not only be more costly in the end, but also - well, hey! It’s not your mission! It’s not why you exist, or it’s not bringing about the changes that the board has agreed you want to make in the world.
So although I don’t want to add to the burden of grantseeking, I think an overview of any grant proposal - even just a few lines - should be something that is routinely discussed with the board development committee, or even the whole board. And any decision about whether accepting a grant would change the purpose or direction of programs should be directly discussed with the board. This is hard, I know, because grantwriting has so many deadlines, but it can also be useful to the staff to know that others will see the proposal. Use the board as a kind of “conscience”: if you’re not eager to have the board see it, it probably wasn’t a great idea to begin with.
Cindy: I think one critical role the board can play is making sure the grantmaker is achieving value for the money they have invested. I think honest assessment on the part of the board, and not just the typical “Oh, we’re doing a great job!” response can elicit a true partnership between the organization and the grantmaker.
Alexandra: It’s a great idea to see the grantmaker as an investor from the board point of view. I think the insistence on seeing personal fundraising as the board’s “core responsibility” as I’ve seen it phrased many times recently (a role I’ve never seen in any board’s by-laws!) tends to overshadow the breadth of responsibility the board really has, which is not personal. It’s the responsibility they take as a group to be accountable for the actions of their organization.
Cindy: Would you elaborate on this a bit more, Alexandra? I mean, the idea that the board’s core responsibility is overseeing, not underwriting, is really intriguing.
Alexandra: I like to think of the “board’s eye view”: the board flying above the organization, getting the big picture, and seeing what’s coming ahead. This is what oversight is. It’s not focused on details or minutiae. It’s the long view, the one that takes in everything in the landscape. It’s keeping an eye on what’s going on, noticing change, and using peripheral vision to see what’s happening all around. (Even if an organization is all volunteer with the board running everything, they have to be able to step back and take an overall perspective.)
In the past couple of decades the idea that the board’s job is to underwrite the financial needs of the organization has become so prevalent that it has almost eclipsed the real role of the governing boards - that oversight, the big view ahead. Underwriting involves individual actions of the board focusing low on immediate needs. It’s very different from oversight. It has little to do with what the board really needs to be focusing on.
And it is undermining, because it has just become harder and harder to create active, focused, dedicated boards when they are under pressure all the time to give money and raise money. It’s also more challenging for the staff to relate to the board as real people when they can only see the board as donors. And it’s very difficult to let go of problematic or nonparticipating board members when they are major donors.
Cindy: But shouldn’t nonprofits look first to their board for funding, or at least assistance with fundraising?
Alexandra: Sure. And to their staff. And their donors. And their volunteers. And their constituents. Everyone should be doing advocacy and spreading the word about this great organization. Why should the board be held to a different standard and set of expectations from the rest of the organization? Why not expect the same level of interest from everyone? Isn’t everyone working towards the same goal?
The expectation that the board will solve the organization’s problems by producing money from the air is a form of magical thinking: “The board will swoop down from above and hand us the money.” That’s unhealthy. And anyway, it doesn’t work, as statistics show.
Cindy: It is pretty common to hear a lot of grumbling about board members either not giving enough, or not participating in fundraising as much as they should. Some organizations can sing the praises of their board in this area, but you don’t hear it very often.
Alexandra: Yes, sometimes an individual board member will step in and write a check that solves a lot of problems. And often there are one or two board members who keep programs going. But that’s not why the board is there. The board, the entire board, is there to stand in for the community, to watch over the organization and make sure everything is going well, to keep the big picture in focus, and to emphasize moving towards the future. This is the board that funders will want to know you have in place, the board that is keeping the vision firmly in view.
Cynthia M. Adams
Cynthia M. Adams has been a fundraiser for over 35 years. Working directly for nonprofits and as a fundraising consultant, Ms. Adams specializes in building bridges between funders and grantseekers. She strongly believes that successful grantseeking requires a thorough understanding of the funders and sound knowledge of the playing field. Her life's work has been to level that playing field, creating an opportunity for all nonprofit organizations to access the wealth of grant opportunities throughout the world.
Alexandra Peters
Alexandra Peters joined her first board 30 years ago and has been fascinated with how nonprofits work ever since. She has served on 13 boards of many sizes and budgets, and has chaired 5 of those. She holds a masters in Developmental Psychology from Columbia University, and has never stopped studying nonprofit governance and leadership. She is a passionate advocate for the meaningful work of nonprofit service, and her real life experience as a board member has given her hands-on expertise in all parts of the nonprofit process.
Other articles in this series:
Main Page
Part 1 – Board Myths... and Misconceptions
Part 2 – The Accepted and Expected
Part 3 – Introducing the Unexpected
Part 4 – Oversight and Continuing Support
Part 5 – Boards and Dashboards
Part 6 – The Time Continuum Cycles, Calendars, Matrices
This article was edited by Julie Kaufman. If you have any questions, comments, suggestions, useful tips, or are interested in writing a series for us, please email our Research team, or call our toll-free number: 877-784-7268.