Board Give-or-Get Policy: How to Set, Implement, and Enforce Board Fundraising Expectations

A board give-or-get policy is the structural mechanism that turns the abstract idea of “the board supports fundraising” into a specific, measurable commitment from each board member. Most mid-sized nonprofits have a vague expectation that board members will support the organization financially; far fewer have a written policy that defines what that means.

This guide covers what a give-or-get policy is, how to set the amount, how to structure flexibility, how to enforce accountability, and how to introduce or update a policy without alienating the board you have.

What a Give-or-Get Policy Is

A board give-or-get policy is a written expectation that each board member contribute a specific dollar amount to the organization annually. The contribution can be:

• Give: a personal gift from the board member
• Get: funds raised by the board member from others (donations, sponsorships, ticket sales, gifts from family or business)
• A combination: part personal gift, part raised

The policy specifies the amount, the timing (typically aligned with the fiscal year), the flexibility between giving and getting, and any provisions for hardship or special circumstances. Most policies require 100% board participation in personal giving — every board member makes some personal gift, with the additional give-or-get amount layered on top.

The intent is twofold. First, ensure the board has financial skin in the game — donors and funders look at board giving as a credibility signal, and 100% board giving is the standard most institutional funders expect. Second, ensure the board contributes to fundraising results, not just oversight.

Why Write the Policy Down

Unwritten expectations are the default state at most mid-sized nonprofits. Board orientation materials mention that board members are expected to support the organization. Board recruitment conversations include a mention of fundraising responsibility. Whether any specific amount is expected, what counts toward that amount, and what happens if a board member does not contribute is left unstated.

The result is what unwritten expectations always produce: variable behavior across board members, uneven accountability, and a fundraising culture that depends on individual conscience rather than shared commitment. Some board members make significant gifts; some make token gifts; some make no gifts; and the organization has no clear basis for asking anyone to do more.

A written policy:

• Removes ambiguity about expectations
• Creates a basis for accountability conversations
• Signals to board candidates during recruitment what they are agreeing to
• Provides a clear data point for funders and major donors who ask about board giving
• Makes board fundraising a governance matter rather than an interpersonal one

How to Set the Amount

The amount is the most consequential decision in the policy and the one most often set without rigor.

The wrong frame: “What do other nonprofits set?” Comparable amounts at peer organizations are useful as a sanity check but not as a target. The other nonprofit’s board may have different capacity, different culture, and different expectations.

The right frame: “What amount represents meaningful commitment from our board’s members?” The amount should be:

• Meaningful enough that meeting it requires intentionality, not background generosity
• Achievable for the typical board member, with the flexibility provisions handling hardship cases
• Aligned with the board’s overall capacity — affluent boards should set higher amounts; less affluent boards should set lower amounts but still meaningful relative to capacity
• Justified by the organization’s needs — if board fundraising is a meaningful share of revenue, the amount should reflect that

Common ranges at U.S. mid-sized nonprofits:

• $1,000–$2,500 at boards with mixed capacity
• $2,500–$5,000 at boards with moderate-to-high capacity
• $5,000–$10,000 at boards with significant capacity (significant individual donors, business owners, professional services partners)
• $10,000+ at boards composed primarily of major donors or in capital campaign environments

The amount can vary by role. Board chair and committee chairs may have higher expectations. Founding board members or volunteer-heavy boards may have lower expectations.

The amount should be reviewed every two to three years. Boards drift in capacity as membership changes, and policies set five years ago may no longer reflect current capacity.

Structuring Flexibility

The give-or-get structure provides flexibility that pure give-only or get-only policies do not.

Give-only policies require every board member to personally contribute the full amount. The structure works at affluent boards where personal giving capacity matches the policy amount. It limits who can serve on less affluent boards or boards with diverse capacity.

Get-only policies require every board member to raise the amount from others. The structure works at boards where every member can fundraise effectively. It excludes board members with significant giving capacity but limited solicitation skill or willingness.

Give-or-get policies allow either path or a combination. The structure accommodates the diversity of fundraising capabilities on most boards and is the most common structure at mid-sized nonprofits.

A typical give-or-get structure:

• Each board member contributes $X annually
• The contribution can be made as a personal gift, raised from others, or a combination
• A minimum personal gift component (often $500 or $1,000) ensures every board member has personal financial commitment
• The remainder can be filled through raised funds — donations from family, friends, or networks; sponsorships; ticket sales credited to the board member; or specific solicited gifts

The minimum personal gift component matters. Without it, board members can fully meet the policy through external solicitation, which means the 100% personal giving signal — important to funders — may not be achieved.

What Counts Toward the Get Component

The policy should specify what counts toward the “get” portion:

• New gifts from individuals the board member solicits or refers
• Sponsorships secured by the board member
• Ticket sales for fundraising events credited to the board member
• Gifts from spouse, partner, or immediate family if structured separately from the board member’s personal gift
• Gifts from a business the board member owns or controls

What typically does not count:

• Gifts the donor would have made anyway, simply credited to the board member
• Gifts from a foundation the board member sits on (these are the foundation’s gifts, not the board member’s)
• In-kind contributions valued speculatively

Documenting these rules upfront prevents disputes at year-end about whether a particular gift counts.

Hardship and Special Circumstances

Every policy should have provisions for hardship and special circumstances. Without them, the policy becomes either rigid (alienating board members in genuine difficulty) or unevenly enforced (inviting disputes about fairness).

Common provisions:

• Board chair or executive committee can adjust the amount for individual members in documented hardship
• New board members in their first year may have a reduced expectation
• Board members on leave (medical, family) may have the expectation suspended for the leave period
• Lifetime members or emeritus board members may have different expectations or none at all

The provisions should be specific. “Hardship” without definition becomes a back door for any board member who does not want to contribute. Documented hardship — communicated to the board chair, with a specific accommodation — preserves the integrity of the policy while accommodating real circumstances.

Communicating the Policy During Recruitment

The policy should be a recruitment conversation, not a post-recruitment surprise. The board candidate should:

• Receive the policy in writing during the recruitment process
• Have the policy explained verbally during a recruitment conversation
• Acknowledge in writing (typically as part of board agreement signing) that they have read and accept the policy

Some candidates will self-select out. That is the policy working. Board members who would later become accountability problems are better identified during recruitment than two years into a term.

The recruitment conversation should be direct: “Our board has a give-or-get policy of $X annually. Here is what counts. Are you in a position to make this commitment?” Indirect conversations — implying that fundraising is “expected” without specifying what — produce the unevenness the policy is supposed to fix.

Enforcing Accountability

The policy is only as effective as the accountability behind it. Most policies fail not because they are poorly designed but because no one is willing to enforce them.

The accountability mechanics:

Quarterly tracking. The development director or development committee tracks each board member’s progress against the commitment, with quarterly visibility for the committee.

Mid-year check-in. A conversation between the board chair (or development committee chair) and each board member who is off pace — not punitive, but specific. “You committed to $5,000 this year and I see $1,000 so far. How are we doing? What can we do to support you?”

Year-end accountability. A direct conversation about gaps. Most gaps close in the final quarter when board members are reminded of the commitment and given specific opportunities to meet it.

Persistent non-participation. If a board member persistently does not meet the commitment despite clear expectations and reasonable accommodation, the board chair needs to address it. The conversation may end with the board member meeting the commitment, with renegotiated expectations, or with the board member choosing not to renew their term. All three outcomes are acceptable. The unacceptable outcome is letting the gap persist without conversation.

The development committee is structurally positioned to support this work. The development committee guide covers the committee’s accountability role in detail.

Reporting Board Giving

Aggregate board giving should be reported regularly:

• 100% personal giving status (or current participation rate)
• Aggregate board contribution against the collective give-or-get target
• Trend across years

The reporting cadence is typically quarterly to the full board (with detail to the development committee) and annually in summary form for funders, donors, and other external audiences.

Individual giving amounts should not be public. Aggregate participation and totals are. The privacy of individual giving is preserved while the collective commitment is visible.

The donor retention reporting for boards guide covers what board reporting on fundraising should include; board giving is part of that broader reporting set.

Introducing or Updating a Policy

Introducing a policy where none existed, or updating an outdated policy, is the harder version of this work. The board you have was not recruited under the new policy and may resist it as a change in expectations.

The introduction sequence:

• The development committee (or executive committee) drafts the policy with input from the board chair and ED
• The draft is shared with the full board for input, not just for approval
• The policy is discussed in board meeting with time for substantive conversation
• Implementation includes a transition period — typically the policy takes effect at the start of the next fiscal year, giving board members time to plan
• The policy applies to all board members at the next renewal point, not retroactively

The conversation will surface board members who are uncomfortable with the new expectations. Some will adjust. Some will choose not to renew their terms. Both outcomes are acceptable; the goal is a board aligned with the organization’s fundraising expectations, not a board that includes everyone regardless of fit.

What Funders Look For

Major institutional funders and major individual donors look at board giving as a credibility signal. Common questions:

• Is there 100% board giving?
• What is the board’s collective annual contribution?
• Does the organization have a written board giving policy?
• How does the board’s giving compare to the organization’s revenue?

A nonprofit that can answer “yes” to 100% giving, name a specific aggregate board contribution, and produce a written policy has answered three credibility questions clearly. A nonprofit that has to explain that 60% of board members give without specifying amounts has signaled an undisciplined fundraising culture.

The major gift cultivation guide covers the major donor relationship; the board giving question is one of the substantive questions that comes up in those conversations.

The System Difference

Tracking board giving across personal contributions, raised gifts, sponsorships, and event ticket credits is operationally complicated on fragmented systems. The board member whose total includes a $1,000 personal gift, $2,000 in solicited contributions credited to her, and $1,500 in event tickets she sold needs all three categories tracked and aggregated. Spreadsheets accumulate errors; the development director ends up rebuilding the totals manually each quarter.

A unified donor management system that tracks soft credit, attribution, and board member-specific reporting makes this routine. The grant compliance checklist lead magnet covers the broader operational scope; the board giving tracking is one specific use case where unified systems pay back consistently.

A board give-or-get policy is one of the highest-leverage governance investments a mid-sized nonprofit can make. The policy itself takes one meeting to draft. The accountability culture takes years to build. The organization that builds it well has a board that contributes meaningfully to fundraising results across years, rather than a board that nominally exists in the org chart while the development team carries the entire fundraising burden.