3 Winners

Why aren’t more nonprofits developing young professional boards? It is a win for the organization, a win for the young professionals and a win for whatever staff member who is given the responsibility to manage this group. What’s not to love?

With all due respect to Michael Harrington, there is a most definite graying of American nonprofit board tables, and this puts missions are at risk. Rather than being a sign of, it is simply a statement of fact to which every nonprofit board should be paying attention. But to be honest, when I point this out (nicely, I assure you), most boards dismiss the problem that underlies the gray heads as unimportant or not problematic.

It is both important and problematic if boards are not paying attention to the demographics of their composition. And not just along age lines. It is thorny if boards aren’t paying attention to shifting demographics of the communities they serve and responding accordingly. The US Census 2012 population estimate puts Hispanics at 17% of the adult US population, 13% African American and 5% Asian. That same data set finds that only 26% of the population is over 55, yet most boards are lucky if they have a quarter of their members under 55!

One of the most basic rules of board development is that a board should be reflective of the constituency it serves. Another basic tenet of board development is building in board succession—for membership and leadership—and not just by adding numbers to the table, but by being extremely conscious of what those numbers you are adding represent and bring to the board table.

Without that younger element present on a board, much is put at risk: future leadership, future stewards, future donors, future existence. To the extent that people give to people they know, younger people know more younger people than we grayheads. Younger people reach into different segments of society than we grayheads. Younger people all too frequently have different ways of thinking about things, and doing them, which, all too frequently, is what boards run by grayheads desperately need.

The only possible downside—and the pushback I religiously get when I advocate for adding younger members—and I say possible because it depends upon how you view this—is that many young people cannot make the annual give expectation if and only if a board has set that give expectation at a level beyond the means of someone starting her/his career, starting his/her family, still paying off college loans, etc. But if an organization understands the true reason for the requirement of board giving, as an act of support, belief, responsibility, etc., and not as an act to support the organizational budget, then size does not matter and then there is no downside to adding younger members.

I also get pushback on the time commitment: building careers and families doesn’t leave room for the time needed to do board work. When this “we don’t want to change excuse” comes out of the mouths of the very grayheads not devoting the necessary time, it is laughable. But sufficient time and money is not the luxury of one age group over another; it is how one choses to use the time and money s/he has available that matters, and not the age of the “owner”.

Having said all of this, I freely admit that there are some youngin’s who, for a number of reasons, can’t or don’t want to be on a governing board, yet they still, again for a variety of reasons, want to participate. This is where a “young professionals board” (YPB) makes sense and may just be the answer to lots of worries and challenges. Such a board does not have the responsibilities of a governing board and can be structured however an organization wishes.

Composed of “young professionals,” generally defined as those between college graduate and 35 or 40, these boards may/may not gather for formal meetings, do hold events—be they fundraising events or networking events for the young professionals themselves and for introducing other young professionals to the organization or whatever, may/ may not attend a meeting two over the course of a year of the governing board, may/may not be charged with bringing other young professionals to the fundraising events of the organizations, etc. The responsibilities are whatever an organization wants them to be, understanding that the primary purpose is to bring young professionals—the future leaders of, and donors to, the organization into the fold as early as possible. It is another “army” for the organization. And for the young professionals it is a great opportunity to give back, hone skills, network with other young professionals and the experienced leaders on the governing board, and build resumes.

But as with any auxiliary board that a nonprofit has, it must be managed. So, bring in the third win: a young(ish) staff member gets to develop and/or hone her/his leadership, management, communication, organizing, etc. skills by being responsible for the YPB. What a great, essentially free, professional development opportunity for a staff member who is an up-and-comer.

Win, win, win. The board gets to invest in its future and the future of the organization; young professionals get to contribute to their communities while simultaneously helping themselves, and the organization gets to engage in professional development while concurrently investing in its future.