To bring to life the concepts and ideas discussed in the Future of Philanthropy series, we bring together experts in the field who can offer first-hand experience and important insights on these topics. This Q&A focuses on Board leadership in fundraising and governance—and how a rapidly changing world is placing new and different kinds of demands on Boards and philanthropy leaders.
Panelist: Martin Jacobs is Chair of the National Board of Directors at Thrive Scholars, a scholarship program aimed at helping high-achieving, under-resourced students from economically disadvantaged communities get into and graduate from top colleges, equipped to achieve their full career potential. He was a Board member at the Children’s Bureau of Southern California for 17 years and a Board member of the Crossroads School for Arts & Sciences for seven years. Professionally, Martin is an Equity Portfolio Manager at Capital Group. He has 35 years of investment industry experience and has been with Capital Group for 23 years. Earlier in his career at Capital, as an equity investment analyst, he covered U.S. industrials, machinery, and electrical equipment companies. Before joining Capital, Martin was an executive director and senior investment analyst at Brinson Partners, Inc. in Chicago and an industry analyst at Security Pacific Merchant Bank in New York. He was also a research analyst at the Wharton Center for Applied Research, Inc. Martin holds an MBA in finance from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and a bachelor’s degree in industrial and systems engineering from the University of Southern California.
Panelist: Anne Rasmussen serves as the System Vice President and Chief Philanthropy Officer at PeaceHealth and is a seasoned leader in organizational development and philanthropic strategy. She is responsible for overseeing the growth and development of eight foundations across three states with an annual fundraising goal of $40 million. For over 26 years, she has been dedicated to driving business growth and cultivating a culture of giving. One of her most remarkable achievements includes securing a transformative $50 million gift for the Stronger Together Campaign, marking a historic moment for PeaceHealth. Anne’s educational background includes a bachelor’s degree in organizational communication, political science, and public administration and a master’s in healthcare administration. She is also a certified fundraising executive and a fellow in charitable estate planning. Anne’s collaborative spirit connects senior leaders, healthcare providers, and board members to forge powerful and impactful partnerships.
Panelist: Naomi West is Chief Growth Officer at Figure Skating in Harlem, where she drives philanthropy, marketing, communications, and expansion work, including current efforts to build the world’s first combined education and skating facility. She was a competitive figure skater, has coached lessons, and knows how to drive a Zamboni. Prior to joining Figure Skating in Harlem, she served as Director of Philanthropy & Engagement at Historic Seattle, a nonprofit foundation and public development authority focused on the preservation, rehabilitation, and reuse of historic buildings for community benefit. There, she led a nationwide campaign to #SaveTheShowbox, driving strategy and execution of messaging, fundraising, and property acquisition efforts. Before moving to Seattle, Naomi served as Senior Development Officer at the Animal Medical Center in New York City, and previously served as a Development Officer for the Friedman Brain Institute at Mount Sinai Medical Center.
Moderator: Steven Wallace brings 28 years of philanthropy experience to his work in executive search and leadership consulting with ALG clients. His expertise covers a wide array of disciplines, including: fundraising; team building; donor relations, recognition and stewardship; board management; and the increasingly important field of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DE&I). Throughout his career, Steven has helped some of the nation’s most prestigious healthcare and higher education institutions expand their programs and achieve their philanthropic goals, including City of Hope, Providence Health & Services, University of Chicago, Columbia University, and California State University, Northridge. A frequent presenter at Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) in Donor Relations conferences, Steven received his bachelor’s degree in Mass Communications from the University of California, Berkeley and master’s degree in Public Administration from the University of San Francisco.
Steven: Thank you for contributing your voices and experience on this extremely important topic, which concerns not just the fundraising profession, but the future viability of the nonprofit sector. Boards are essential partners in the philanthropic mission, and that makes recruiting and managing high-performing Boards a core responsibility and skill set for executives at the CDO level. Let’s start with a quick overview of how you’ve seen the role of Boards evolve over the course of your work in the nonprofit sector. Anne, do you want to start us off?
Anne: Absolutely. The Boards that I support are primarily fundraising boards. So, they do not have any hospital or foundation operational decision-making. I would say about 80% of their role is helping to identify and introduce us to new potential donors. That’s particularly important in healthcare systems, where margins are running anywhere from a 3% to 5% EBITDA. That’s just keeping the lights on. That’s a new roof. But to actually grow and see innovation, we’re looking at needing 7% to 10% margins, and based on the current economy, that’s unlikely. So, philanthropy is increasingly expected to fill that gap and take us to the place where we’re growing and innovating.
Steven: And as a consequence, have you seen a higher emphasis on larger gifts and wealthier donors versus smaller donors and those in the middle?
Anne: I would definitely say so. A few years back, we started to read and experience firsthand that more than 90% of productivity is coming from about 3% of donors, with different statistics all in that range. We are definitely seeing that, and in the coming years, we’ll be taking a more proactive approach in searching out those transformational gifts and making sure that we have big projects with big visions that can support those large gifts.
Steven: Naomi and Martin, your Board work includes both governance and fundraising. Can you give us a quick overview of how you see that balance and then talk about whether you’ve seen a greater emphasis on fundraising and larger gifts within that mix?
Naomi: Figure Skating in Harlem has been around for almost 30 years, and we are 95% to 97% donor-funded, depending on the amount of government revenue we get in a year. We can’t raise a lot more money from the community we serve because we are intentionally structured to serve under-resourced kids and their families. So that means there’s no earned income stream for us, which heightens the importance of philanthropy. Because of that, our Board has always been most heavily focused on fundraising; without them and their connections, we simply would not be able to exist.
As for the focus on bigger gifts and wealthier donors, we were small when we were founded, and we grew from philanthropy. So, our Board is a critical connection to a lot of high-net-worth individuals, which is especially important when we’re talking about big projects like building our rink. And what I’ve experienced with Board referrals is that people like big wins. Seeing more zeros on a check makes them feel that it was a good return on their investment of time and social capital. They want things that are going to really move the needle to minimize the need to go back to their sources again and again. But to me, as a development person, sometimes a slightly smaller gift, if it’s more of a stretch or if the impact of it is really significant to the donor, feels better because that’s the true spirit of philanthropy.
Martin: To the issue of balance, I’d say that all good organizations, whether they’re private or nonprofits, are growth organizations. And for nonprofits, specifically, fundraising is the fuel that facilitates the growth. The governance structure is put in place so that the Board members are mission-aligned, that they adhere to the policies, that there’s no overreach between what we do as a Board and what’s in the domain of the CEO, which is the operational part.
As for the fundraising piece, Board members are partners in that effort and we play a very significant role there. For every nonprofit Board I’ve been on, fundraising has always been one of our biggest priorities. Whether it’s a higher priority today than in the past, my reflection would be that’s on a case-by-case basis, depending on where the organization is in its growth journey—that is, whether it’s in the middle of a capital campaign, or business as usual, or growth mode. So, depending on where we are on the growth journey, fundraising often becomes more important than it normally is.
On the trend toward big-ticket donations, I’ve found that the largest gifts, which can be in the seven- or eight-figure range, tend to come from outside of the Board from high-net-worth individuals, foundations, and corporations. But normally, somebody on the Board tends to play a pivotal role in bringing those individuals or institutions into the fundraising effort.
Steven: So, what kinds of skills does a Board need in addition to fundraising ability? And how do you ensure that you’re bringing on the right mix of voices, perspectives, and talents?
Martin: Well, that depends on the Board and the mission. When I was on the Board for a private school, we had to be very opportunistic about real estate opportunities. So, we had to have two or three really expert folks that had a real estate background; but generally, you always need skills in legal, finance, maybe accounting for your audit committee, and some type of managerial or leadership background because that’s very helpful for operational oversight and advice.
On the current Board of Thrive Scholars, it’s also helpful to have people with a human resources background because a lot of the work that we do is very HR-heavy. As Board chair, I look at how we’re balanced across factors like gender, ethnicity, what region of the country people live in, and particularly what industries we’re drawing from. Initially, we had a Board that was heavily concentrated in finance, but I wanted to see more people from healthcare, and certainly from technology, because those are growth areas of the economy and areas where a lot of our scholars want to work.
So, every organization will be a bit different, but from my perspective, Boards need a nice balance and diversification across industries, ethnicities, communities, and a lot of other things, while also ensuring you’ve got the specific skills needed to advance the mission.
Naomi: I think what Martin said about different skill sets balancing each other out is really important. Because of who’s interested in figure skating or what they assume because of our name, potential Board members and donors don’t necessarily hear ‘youth development.’ They hear ‘sport.’ So, we attract a lot of former figure skaters, and because the sport is historically white, those tend to be white women.
Where we found our path to ensuring diversity on the board, with people who represent the community we serve, is in people who are interested in the youth development mission and live in Harlem. They got to know us by seeing our work in their community and hearing from people who were part of that work. So, our Board at this point is extremely reflective of our community, and our current challenge is strategically adding people who can fill certain knowledge gaps for our staff on legal, financial, and big-picture strategic issues.
But I think the most important thing of all is genuine enthusiasm for the mission. We have a give-get of $25,000, and a lot of our Board member’s companies have been contributing that amount. We want those Board members to stay if they ever don’t work for that company. And we want them to personally want to give or get that amount, not because it’s the requirement, but because that’s how passionate they are about the work we’re doing and how much they understand the necessity of the funding to execute that work.
Anne: I might take a slightly different approach because I work exclusively with fundraising Boards. These are not Boards that focus on policy, hiring, or staff development. They really focus on introducing people to the organization, especially in a world where transformational gifts are a substantial contributor to carrying out the mission and growing our impact.
I think of our Boards as advocates. They’re influencers, especially in the realm of fundraising; and so they must be well-versed in healthcare, understanding the specific mission that they have been charged to carry forth, as well as be able to use that information to provide influence. I think the strongest thing a Board member can say to one of their peers is, ‘Join me in being part of philanthropy.’ That goes hand in hand with also being a donor, at likely the same level that you’re asking someone else for a gift.
I want to be clear—I’m not saying a Board should be comprised of only wealthy individuals. Maintaining balance and diversity across industry, geography, age, gender, and other factors is going to bring a richness to the Board that you wouldn’t otherwise have. So, you want all of those other voices. For a fundraising Board, I think you also have to define wealth. What is a wealthy board member? At PeaceHealth, a major gift is $25,000, so I do strive for my Board members to be able to give a major gift. That could be over the course of multiple years, but I do have an evolving expectation that they be able to come in at that major gift level.
Steven: Anne and Naomi, when I was in your seat, I sometimes encountered hesitation from some Board members to open their networks for fear of a quid pro quo—that is, that they’d be asked to make a similar donation to someone else’s cause. Have you encountered that?
Anne: What I say to my Board members is, ‘Introduce me, and I’ll do the asking.’ All I’m looking for is an open door, an introduction to be able to talk about the impact that philanthropy can make within our organization. So, for me, the Board member doesn’t have to ask, just open the door and introduce.
Naomi: I dealt with that exact situation over the last year. Because I don’t have that level of social capital personally and cannot write those checks myself, it requires me to adjust my lens to fully understand what that means to a Board member. So, I try to think of ways to get that Board member to connect with those people on a level that isn’t about a direct ask. I want that interaction to be more about cultivation.
It’s also very individualized. If you’re truly a philanthropist, even if there is a quid pro quo, it still benefits the organization you care about. So, it really comes down to who the Board member is, what their sensitivities are to reciprocity, and figuring out how to work with them in a way that works for them. And I do find the more connected the Board members are to the work, the less I hear that particular concern. At some level, I think it’s just anxiety talking, and you learn to help people work through their anxiety on a Board.
Martin: Both of those comments resonate with what I’ve experienced as a Board member. There’s not really a quid pro quo at work when the focus is on making an impact for causes that speak to people. So, my attitude has always been that I will present a potential donor with the story of what we’re trying to do either through a gala, or through a webcast, or through a one-on-one meeting, or whatever forum happens to work for different individuals. And then it’s up to the Advancement staff to follow up. All we can do is tell the story, and if it’s a compelling story and it resonates with what people care about, then hopefully they’ll make a financial contribution.
Steven: Anne, as a follow-up, since your Boards are focused almost exclusively on fundraising, what does a full scope of activities look like in working with Board members?
Anne: Well, first, I’d say that one of the biggest mistakes we can make sometimes is turning a large donor into a Board member just because they’re a large donor. Those two things don’t have to go hand in hand. Right now, many of our largest donors are not Board members. I think that the way to engage those large donors is to treat them as investors, and that requires impact reports, strategic communication on where the healthcare system is going, and treating them as the insiders, investors, and trusted advisors that they are. Regular and frequent communication, I think, is key.
As for a full scope of fundraising activities with Board members, the first one is helping us to identify potential new donors and opening up the door to introduce us. Second is cultivation, whether that’s inviting someone to take a tour of the hospital or hosting a small salon event at their home. It’s important to have those peer-to-peer venues for Board members and their networks. Third is solicitation, even just being part of proposal development, the strategy, determining the gift amount; I find many Board members enjoy that part of it. And fourth, there is stewardship; I find many board members really thrive in the area of stewardship, whether that’s a beautiful handwritten thank you note or hosting a luncheon in gratitude. Board members can have a role within all four of those areas, but they need to pick at least one, and my hope would be they’ll excel at it.
Steven: Martin, as a Board member, how does that resonate with you? Especially the part about offering other opportunities to get involved beyond Board membership—because some large donors don’t actually want that.
Martin: There are a couple of paths there. First is the use of advisory Boards, which are helpful when you’ve got somebody who’s been on the Board and their term is up or just no longer has the time—or a donor who doesn’t want to serve on the Board but they’re a significant contributor that wants to remain involved, somehow. In a couple of the nonprofit Boards I’ve served on, we established an advisory Board and invited these people to some type of special event once a year, where they get a full rundown of everything that’s going on. They continue to act as a resource to either the chair or the CEO if they have a valuable skill set or perspective.
But we do also have Board members who can’t give at the expected give-get level. Yet, they bring a specific skill set or perspective. For example, at Thrive Scholars, we have young scholars who have graduated out of the program and are early in their careers, and we usually bring one or two of those folks onto the Board and expect them to be involved and provide some perspective from their own experience.
We have a gentleman who is the head of college counseling at an elite, private boarding school. We also have a woman who ran her own marketing firm and brought
a unique skill set. So, we created a few exemptions because we recognize that there are certain skill sets and knowledge that we’d like to have, and we understand these folks can’t give at the same level as other Board members.
Steven: Anne and Naomi, it sounds like Martin is a very proactive and involved Board chair. From your point of view, how important is the Board chair to your work, especially on the fundraising front?
Naomi: We have the best Board chair right now, and for several years, she’s been saying this will be her last year. One of these years, it will be; and it’s going to be a big loss for us because she is so invested. In a small nonprofit, you can’t overstate the importance of having a Board chair who is really dedicated and tenacious. She’s incredibly busy but always prioritizes her service to Figure Skating in Harlem. That helps with her availability in terms of making asks, doing follow-ups, taking calls, and knowing what’s going on in the organization. If we had a Board chair who couldn’t invest as much time and energy, more would fall on our founder’s shoulders as well as mine. So, we maximize the impact of our Board chair and make of it what we can while we have her; ultimately, what we need from a Board chair is someone who cares and can inspire other Board members to stay on top of their responsibilities; beyond that, everything else is additive.
Anne: A Board chair can make or break you, to be very honest. It can propel you or it can really hold you back because the chair is both the voice of the Board and the primary voice that communicates to the Board. As a chief philanthropy officer, your role is to support the Board president and to help provide guidance and strategy, but I want the Board to hear his or her voice when asking for accountability or sharing big news; it’s very important to have peer-to-peer messaging throughout the whole process.
A Board chair who’s mediocre, won’t be driven, or doesn’t have that fire and passion for running a Board will likely lack specific and ambitious goals for their term as chairperson. And it’s not that they will be holding the Board back; they won’t be propelling the Board forward.
Steven: Martin, does that resonate with you as an experienced Board chair?
Martin: Yes, it’s good practice to have regular contact with the CEO. I have a standing call every two weeks, and then, if need be, we can talk in between as well. At the same time, I work with our HR DEI Committee to evaluate the performance of the CEO relative to metrics and goals because the Board is really the boss of the CEO—that’s a very important function. As for working directly with the CEO, that’s a partnership. We jointly put together the Board agenda. We work together on a range of projects. I inform the CEO about Board activities, like recruitment. I have to stay very close to what’s happening inside the organization because it’s my responsibility to keep the Board informed of all of those important developments as well. So, there’s a lot there, and when that relationship works well, it’s great. It’s symbiotic. When it’s not working, then the Board chair has to have the hard conversations and make the tough decisions. And I’ve been there, too.
Steven: We’re coming to the end of our time, and I want to get in some important questions on Board management. The first one is on term limits… Do you believe they’re important and do you have them?
Anne: I’ve worked with Boards that do and Boards that don’t have term limits, and I would say I’m more of a fan of term limits. Most of our Boards work on a three-year, three-term cycle; members have an opportunity to serve for nine years. We do have some Board members who then take a year off and come back after that; I’ve seen the pros and cons of that as well.
What I like about that is the constant influx of new ideas, new voices, and new circles of friends expanding our network. Without term limits, there’s no refreshing or expanding of the giving network. So, I believe strongly that there needs to be new Board members coming on the board on a regular basis. Nine years is a long time. Most of our Board members do serve nine years, which preserves institutional knowledge because there’s always a bit of carryover. So, I don’t worry as much about the loss of institutional knowledge as I do about the introduction of new potential donors and how that could become stagnant with a Board that has no term limits.
Martin: I’m a strong believer in term limits. I feel like they serve an important purpose because they give people the opportunity to reflect on whether they want to be on the Board. It also allows the Governance Committee and the rest of the Board to decide whether or not that Board member needs to move forward. What’s the right term? I think three-year terms are good because your first year, depending on the organization, is spent learning what the organization does. By year two, hopefully, you’re impacting the Board in a more meaningful way from a strategic and financial standpoint. If there’s a renewal term, that gives each Board member six years. I was on a Board with two three-year terms followed by a mandatory year off, and that worked well. I have been on Boards without term limits, and you can see the atrophy with folks who probably wanted to leave the Board but might have felt reluctant. Having term limits forces a conversation that should be happening anyway.
Naomi: Our bylaws do specify term limits, and I think it’s good to have fresh blood, new ideas, and new social networks connecting to your organization and mission; but Board turnover can come with loss as well. As a fundraising person who is relationship-oriented, when someone’s done on the Board, keeping that relationship alive at the same level can be challenging. There are also Board members who are truly excellent that you never want to lose. Just as with politics, term limits are good for many, but you wish they didn’t exist for some. A lot of donors are giving because of whom they’re connected to; when you lose Board members, you don’t know whether their contacts will stop giving or what doors that Board member could have opened if they’d had more time. So, I do like the idea of taking a one-year break. You get a gap year to decide if you want to come back or if the Board wants you back. It becomes a point of renewal… renewal of commitment, energy, and purpose.
Martin: I think Naomi raises an important point. Term limits are a point of renewal rather than expiration. That’s how they work best because when you want to keep somebody on the Board, having an automatic expiration, I don’t think, is a good policy.
Steven: What does the communications program look like and what channels do you use with your Boards?
Naomi: Our meetings are quarterly, typically on Zoom, with about 75% attendance. We mostly cover organizational updates, such as our annual ice show or this year’s Disney+ docuseries premiere that we hosted. We also cover expectations and results for fundraising. But regular communications are handled predominantly by email, and if we need a quick answer to something, then it’s a text or a call. In the future, we need to consider alternative channels, like video, because we have a lot of positive news to share, but I don’t always feel like the Board is as enthused by our communications as I would like them to be. So, we need better ways of engaging the group in totality around stewardship and telling them what their money and effort are accomplishing.
Martin: We keep the Board informed on a lot of different fronts. We have four meetings a year, but two of those four are in-person meetings, and one is held at one of our summer academies—we also invite advisory Board members to this meeting. We have regional Boards as well, and we invite all those folks to that one Board meeting. This Board meeting tends to be more educational in scope. It’s almost a full day, and we spend time with our scholars. We actually start every Board meeting, whether virtual or in-person, with something we call ‘mission moments,’ where we bring in scholars from our program, and they talk about their story, and why it’s making an impact in their life.
The CEO also checks in with each Board member, usually several times a year. And as Board chair, I check in with every Board member at least once a year. We have a mentorship program for new Board members, where they’re paired with an existing Board member to get them up to speed. And finally, our new advancement director is going to have regular meetings with each of our Board members, along with our head of personal giving, to talk about their own giving and expanding their networks to help bring other folks into the fold.
Anne: I’d like to pick up on the stewardship point that Naomi raised because your Board members can be some of your most important donors, as well as your direct connection to other key donors. So, Board members need to be stewarded from both a Board perspective as well as a donor perspective. Now, outside of formal Board meetings and connections, what that looks like will depend on the preferred communication style and approach of each Board member; but from the stewardship perspective, Board members should be treated as insiders.
That means they receive any communications that might go out to a large audience of executives and key stakeholders. Boards are key stakeholders; so, they should know important news before they read it in the newspaper. That’s critical to supporting their role as ambassadors. If a Board member is at the grocery store and they get asked about a program closure or long wait times in the emergency department or to see primary care, I want them to have answers to all those hard questions—I want them to feel confident in their own ability to represent the organization.
That means giving them more information than you give other donors because they’re your ambassadors in the community. Toward that end, it’s important that philanthropy be at the table when it comes to communications planning. Because if we’re effective in communicating with our Board members, then they have the right talking points. It’s very powerful when a Board member can call a major donor and share, from a peer perspective, news about the healthcare system. It’s a powerful way to bring the philanthropy effort full circle.
Steven: One final question, because this series is called The Future of Philanthropy, what changes might you anticipate around the role of Boards in nonprofit work, particularly around fundraising?
Anne: Two things come to mind. First, I think there’s a lack of trust not only in healthcare systems but also in government, corporations, and even in each other. Yet, trust is so important to how our industry operates, as well as our ability to grow our philanthropic programs in support of the healthcare mission. Fixing that requires open and transparent communication. Board members and donors aren’t asking for perfection, but they are asking for the truth and transparency in how healthcare institutions operate.
Second, from a structural standpoint, we need to make sure Board members are there for the right reasons. Especially in healthcare, Boards are typically some of the more prestigious positions in the community and raise large sums of money. But Board members need to be there for the work and the impact, not just the prestige of holding a high-profile position in the community. It can’t be merely a bullet point in a personal biography.
Again, communication plays a key role here in keeping a focus on the work and the impact. There’s nothing worse than spending Board meetings on reporting and then sending people on their way. There’s no value. I’ve even found that personally, as a Board member, if I’m just talked at, I feel I can read all that in a report. Find other ways of relaying basic information and reporting to the Board so that when it comes time to meet, you can put me to work. Let me share with you my knowledge because you brought me on this Board for a reason. Let me, as a Board member, share my talents, resources, and information.
Naomi: We talk about this at our organization, not just because of the realities of the world, but figure skating is a sport that builds resilience into your bones. The first time you physically hit the ice, you learn that you either get back up or you give up. And so, resilience is a core value we lean into when things are difficult.
I think that resilience drives innovation because just getting back up isn’t enough. You have to keep trying, and if the way you’re trying isn’t working, then try another way. So, I think that’s where philanthropy is going as a whole, in terms of the career path: trying everything and seeing what sticks because the world has changed so much technologically, and how we interact virtually since COVID, and now the uncertainty around where the money is going to come from. We’re all innovating and learning on the fly.
We all understand why we are being forced to adapt and build resilience and try to develop new approaches and ways of managing uncertainty—and Boards need to play a big role in helping us do that.
Martin: As a Board member and a donor, I expect that nonprofits will need to play an even bigger role in society in the future because government has already been playing a lesser and lesser role. I saw that firsthand when I was on the Board of the Children’s Bureau, which is a child welfare organization. Part of its budget came from government, which was a very fickle source of funding for us, and increasingly, we realized we just needed to raise more money from private sources. Now, we’re seeing a lot of different important social programs defunded, and I think that’s only going to continue.
So, given that backdrop, what kind of organizations will do well? To me, it will be organizations that are results-oriented, can provide metrics based on outcomes, and take a more business-minded approach to achieving mission impact. That’s the messaging that tends to resonate with a lot of these big-dollar donors, and my guess is we’re just going to see more of that in the future.
But to do that, nonprofits will be relying more on the private sector to bring that mentality and skill set to Boards to complement the skills of people who are grounded in the nonprofit space. We all have to take ownership of these responsibilities as individuals, and more importantly, individuals who have benefited from the prosperity of the economic climate have a responsibility to give back and make a difference.
Steven: Well, thank you all for this amazing discussion. Boards are essential partners in the work we do as fundraisers. As the work of nonprofits becomes evermore essential and potentially challenging, I’m sure these insights will be helpful and empowering to our colleagues and peers. Thanks again for your valuable contribution.
SPRING BREAK! We’ll be taking a short break and will be back on May 15 with the final segments of Future of Philanthropy. We’ll be covering the CDO/CEO relationship in a changing world, as well as deep-dives into specific nonprofit sectors: arts & culture, healthcare, and higher education. We’ll also be looking at the unique challenges of smaller nonprofits, before we offer some final thoughts on what the future holds for the fundraising profession. It promises to be an exciting summer and fall. We’ll see you back here soon.
Our newsletter subscribers receive additional content each month, in the form of top takeaways: action items and practical guidance for adapting to key trends and leveraging them in fundraising programs. In addition, newsletter subscribers receive job postings, industry insights, and firm news. To sign up, fill out the form at the bottom of this page.