Family Dynamics and Fundraising: Pitfalls to Avoid

Recently, I read a book review of Prince Harry’s bestselling memoir, Spare. The review recapped much of what the media is buzzing about, but one detail caught my attention — tussling with his brother, Prince William, over philanthropic turf.

Turf wars are common in families, but nonprofits can get caught in the crossfire when philanthropy is involved. The Windsors have hardly cornered the market on family acrimony, but their public and sad deterioration reminds us how fragile families can be. Throw money or fame into the mix, and families can get even more volatile.

As family wealth increases and new foundations crop up, it’s essential for grantees to remember that family dynamics can be a minefield, so best to tread carefully.

For example, in my own family, there were four siblings. When my parents died, the four siblings divided our existing family foundation (which originated with my grandparents foundation) into four independent “successor” foundations. Since then I have been extremely careful to maintain boundaries. I do not drift into the same organizations my siblings and their children support because I don’t want to encroach on their territory and risk ruffling feathers. I have heard and observed too many war stories from other families about such experiences.

So how should a fundraiser navigate philanthropic families? Here are some tips.

Treat people as individuals. Every family has its alliances and its own unique strife, so it’s wise to treat each family member as an individual, not as part of a unit. I cannot tell you how often a nonprofit has addressed my siblings and me in one lump email asking for money or a meeting. It may be a more efficient way to communicate, but it’s awkward to receive this kind of email, especially when some family members are very private, at odds, or simply not interested in the mission even though one relative is engaged. It is best to send communication to one person at a time.

Consider family dynamics when accepting big gifts. Ask long-time donors if they are comfortable with your organization seeking or accepting gifts from their relatives. For example, I have one friend who stewards a large successor family foundation and inherited plenty of family discord. He was a top-tier donor at one nonprofit, and when the nonprofit grew in status and importance, an estranged sibling decided to “compete” (his words) and give a large grant to the same organization. Despite knowledge of the rift and his status as one of the group’s first large donors, the nonprofit did not check in with my friend before accepting the relative’s gift. My friend, the initial donor, withdrew his support because he didn’t want to be associated with his sibling, whom he viewed as problematic. That may sound petty and drastic, but it’s a real family scenario.

Tread lightly when philanthropic couples divorce. In an ideal world, when two philanthropists divorce, they should decide on philanthropic boundaries or split up their foundations as part of their separation. But emotions often take over, even in the most sanguine donors. One nonprofit director told me she had to navigate such a situation. She preferred working with the wife but inherited the husband. Even though she was disappointed, out of respect she did not pursue a philanthropic relationship with his ex-wife. The lines were drawn, and she moved on.

When in doubt, tactfully ask the foundation administrator how the donors intend to manage or divide up their philanthropic relationships. However, do not be an inbox pest. Even if the divorce is amicable, diplomacy is paramount, as is patience.

Mixing board members and family members can be risky. Stick to one family member on the board at a time. I have heard of cousins at each other’s throats, dirty laundry being aired, politics getting hauled in, you name it. Placing several family members on a board is a tempting way to secure funds from a wealthy family, but this strategy may invite trouble down the line. Plus, this route does not support diversity, equity, or inclusion.

Appearances deceive. This is a simple one. Don’t assume that an extended family behaves how it looks in a wedding photo. And if you catch a whiff of turmoil, don’t dig for dirt, offer advice, or get involved. Move the conversation into neutral territory by returning to safer topics.

Almost all of this advice is common sense, but sometimes common sense gets overshadowed by the pursuit of connection and grants