What Is a Board Culture of Philanthropy?

Your development director has left again, and the board is asking why fundraising never seems to stabilise. In many organisations the honest answer sits in the boardroom. Fundraising is discussed as a revenue line on the finance report, and the people with the widest networks have never been asked to open a single one of them.

This guide is for executive directors, board chairs and development leads at small and mid-sized nonprofits and charities. It explains what a culture of philanthropy means for a board, what it does not mean, and how to build one over a year of ordinary meetings.

What does a culture of philanthropy mean for a board?

The phrase became widely used after UnderDeveloped, a national study by CompassPoint and the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, published in January 2013. The study found high turnover and long vacancies in development director roles. It linked that instability to a lack of basic fundraising systems and inadequate attention to fundraising among key board and staff leaders.

The researchers gave survey respondents a working definition, which remains one of the clearest available. In an organisation with a culture of philanthropy, most people across all positions act as ambassadors and build relationships. Everyone promotes philanthropy and can explain the case for giving. Fund development is treated as a mission-aligned programme, not a back-office function. Systems are in place to support donors.

And the executive director is committed to fundraising and personally involved in it.

In our experience, a board culture of philanthropy has four visible signs.

Trustees see fundraising as part of governing the organisation. Every trustee contributes in a way that fits them. Donor relationships are discussed as often as budgets. And the development lead is treated as a partner to the board, rather than the only person responsible for income.

BoardSource describes successful fundraising organisations as built on a partnership between the board, the executive and the fundraising staff. That partnership is the practical test. If income targets are approved without anyone on the board agreeing to help reach them, the partnership exists only on paper.

What did the UnderDeveloped study find?

The full report is organised around three challenges and closes with ten calls to action. All figures below come from that report.

1. The revolving door

Where the development director post was vacant, executive directors reported a median vacancy of six months, and 46% reported vacancies longer than that (UnderDeveloped report). In organisations with budgets of $1 million or less, the median rose to 12 months. Sixteen percent of executives with a vacant post said it had been open for two years or more (UnderDeveloped report).

Half of development directors (50%) expected to leave their current job within two years, and 22% had already given notice or were actively considering leaving. Forty percent said they were unsure whether they would stay in fundraising for their whole career (UnderDeveloped report).

2. Help wanted

More than half of executives (53%) said their most recent hiring process attracted too few qualified candidates. A quarter (25%) said their previous development director was fired, most often for poor fundraising performance, poor performance generally, or a poor fit with the organisation's culture (UnderDeveloped report).

Smaller organisations struggled most to compete for experienced staff. Average development director salaries ranged from about $49,000 in organisations under $1 million to about $100,000 in those over $10 million. Lower pay was associated with lower skill levels in securing gifts (UnderDeveloped report).

3. It is about more than one person

This is the section that matters most for boards. The researchers compared the full sample with a group they called high performers. These were organisations where individual giving made up 25% or more of the budget and the fundraising programme was rated "very effective" (UnderDeveloped report).

Two findings deserve attention in any boardroom.

Executives and development directors saw the same organisation differently: 43% of development directors rated their fundraising as "not at all" or only "somewhat" effective, compared with 17% of executives. And nearly one third of development directors said they had been given unrealistic performance goals (UnderDeveloped report).

The vicious cycle

The report's central argument is that these problems feed each other. Weak conditions for fundraising lead development directors to leave early. Each departure breaks donor relationships and stops the organisation building the systems and culture it needs. That makes the next hire harder to attract and keep.

In the authors' words, the right hire alone will never break the cycle, but the right person inside an organisation with a culture of philanthropy can.

The calls to action that apply to boards

Of the ten recommendations, four speak directly to trustees.

The other six recommendations are aimed at the wider sector, funders and development directors themselves, such as treating a development director vacancy with the same care as an executive transition.

How the study was done, and what that means for you

CompassPoint and the Haas, Jr. Fund developed two online surveys with a national advisory committee, one for executive directors and one for the most senior fundraising staff member. Only organisations with a senior development post on their structure, filled or vacant, were included.

The surveys were distributed through 23 partner organisations by email, social media and websites from May to July 2012 (UnderDeveloped report).

The sample was 2,722 responses: 1,852 from senior development staff and 870 from executive directors. The team also ran 11 focus groups with 53 executive directors, development staff and board members in the San Francisco Bay Area, Greater Washington DC, St. Louis and Nashville. The quotes in the report come from those groups (UnderDeveloped report).

Read the figures with three limits in mind. First, it was a sample of convenience, so the authors note that very small organisations are underrepresented, as are hospitals, universities and large national organisations. Second, every organisation surveyed already employed or planned to employ a development director.

So it does not describe charities run entirely by an executive and volunteers. Third, the data are from the United States in 2012. Canadian and UK charities will recognise the patterns, but the specific percentages should not be quoted as local benchmarks (UnderDeveloped report).

Finally, the findings are associations, not proof of cause. High performers were more likely to have a plan and an engaged board, but the survey cannot show that adding a plan makes an organisation a high performer. What it does show clearly is that a development director cannot succeed alone, which is why the board's part in this matters.

What a culture of philanthropy is not

Use this diagram with the Trustee Fundraising Role Guide (guide).

It is not a rule that every trustee must make cold asks. Many capable trustees will never be comfortable asking a stranger for money, and forcing them usually produces avoidance. There are many other ways to contribute: thanking donors, hosting, opening a door, telling the story of the work, or reviewing whether the fundraising plan is realistic.

It is also not a minimum "give or get" figure written into the board handbook and quietly ignored. A personal gift from every trustee matters, because it lets your organisation say the board backs its own case. The amount should be meaningful to each person, and the policy should be discussed openly when trustees join.

Why the board decides whether fundraising holds

The development director reports to the executive director, but the board sets the targets, approves the budget and shapes how fundraising is talked about. When trustees treat donors only as a source of income, staff feel that pressure without the support to meet it. When trustees value donor relationships, the development lead has allies in the room.

In the UK, the Charity Commission's guidance Charity fundraising: a guide to trustee duties (CC20) sets out what trustees are responsible for when their charity raises money. This includes fundraising carried out by trustees and connected people. US boards will find similar expectations in the National Council of Nonprofits' overview of board roles, which says stewardship of a nonprofit does involve fundraising. Check the duties that apply in your jurisdiction with a qualified adviser (UnderDeveloped report).

Oversight and participation are both part of the job. A board that only scrutinises fundraising reports has done half of it.

Give every trustee a role that fits

Use this diagram with the Trustee Fundraising Role Guide (guide).

Ask each trustee which of these roles they will take on for the coming year. One role done reliably is worth more than four promised and left undone.

Thanker: calls or writes to a set number of donors after a gift, using a short brief from the development team.

Connector: introduces the organisation to people, businesses or funders in their own network, with staff preparing the follow-up.

Host: opens their home, workplace or community space for a small gathering of supporters or prospects.

Storyteller: speaks about the work at their place of worship, professional body or community event, using approved messages.

Asker: joins staff on major gift conversations once they have been briefed and the donor has been qualified.

Reviewer: sits on a fundraising or development committee that checks the plan, the assumptions and the results.

Record each choice in the board's annual work plan with a name and a date. The Trustee Fundraising Role Guide sets out all six roles as a printable handout, with the duties trustees carry in Canada, the US and the UK. If you need a structure for the major gift conversations, the Major Gift Playbook sets out qualification, cultivation and follow-up steps.

Build it into every board meeting

Use this diagram with the Trustee Fundraising Role Guide (guide).

Culture shows up in the agenda. Put a standing fundraising item near the start of each meeting, not after the finance report when time has run out. Keep it short and specific.

Open with one donor story: a thank-you letter, a first gift, a renewal or a conversation a trustee had. Then review the board's own commitments: who thanked donors, who made introductions, what is overdue. Close with one decision or request for the next period.

The Board Meeting Fundraising Agenda Template gives you the agenda wording and a commitments tracker. The Board Fundraising Self-Assessment shows where your board stands before you start. All three are in the resources for boards and trustees.

Share income figures in the same format each time, so trustees can see retention as well as total revenue. A board that sees only the total can miss a shrinking donor base, a pattern we cover in why dollars are up while donor numbers fall.

Recruit and onboard for it

Set expectations before someone joins. Describe the personal gift policy, the role options and the time the board spends on fundraising in your recruitment conversations and trustee role description. People who know in advance are far more likely to follow through than people surprised in their first meeting.

During onboarding, pair new trustees with the development lead for an hour. Walk through the donor base, the current plan and one live relationship they could help with. Ask the chair to check in after their first three months on the role they chose.

For faith-based organisations, connect the board's role to the giving traditions your donors already practise. A trustee who understands why supporters give Zakat or Sadaqah in Ramadan can speak about the work with far more credibility. Our Islamic Giving Campaign Playbook covers that calendar.

Put this into practice

Start with these tasks over the next board cycle. The roles and timings are suggested working arrangements, not benchmarks.

1. Name the current state

Suggested owner: Board chair and executive director. Ask each trustee three questions privately: whether they gave this year, what fundraising role they currently play, and what would make them more willing to help. Summarise the answers without names and share them at the next meeting.

2. Agree individual roles

Suggested owner: Development lead. Present the six role options and ask every trustee to choose one for the year. Add each choice, owner and date to the board work plan, and prepare the short briefs staff will provide.

3. Add the standing agenda item

Suggested owner: Board chair. Place a ten-minute fundraising item early on the agenda, with one donor story, a check on board commitments and one decision.

Check progress: At each quarterly meeting, compare agreed board activity with what happened. Ask what got in the way and adjust the role or the support rather than repeating the same request.

Your homework

Fundraising stabilises when the board stops treating income generation as an isolated staff task and begins sharing responsibility for donor relationships. Trustees do not all need to ask for money, but every member must commit to a defined role that suits their strengths, whether that means thanking donors, hosting supporters, or opening doors.

Placing fundraising early on every board agenda ensures financial oversight is matched by steady, visible participation. This ongoing partnership between trustees and fundraising staff transforms board governance from passive scrutiny into active stewardship.

Before you move on to anything else, complete these three tasks:

1. Circulate the three diagnostic questions regarding personal giving, current activity, and barriers to every trustee this week to compile an anonymised one-page baseline document.

2. Present the six role options to trustees and draft an updated annual work plan listing one agreed fundraising role beside each member's name by next Friday.

3. Amend your standard board agenda document by Friday to introduce a ten-minute standing fundraising discussion near the start that features one donor story and a review of trustee actions.