Planned giving has a way of dividing nonprofit leaders. Some see it as essential to long-term sustainability. Others see it as something only large universities, hospital systems, or national organizations can realistically pursue.
So what happens when a founder and board president has stepped away in practice, but still controls the organization on paper?
Many small nonprofits find themselves in a familiar position: minimal staff, a supportive but cautious board, limited systems, and no established donor base. Grants haven’t materialized. Marketing budgets don’t exist. And every proposed investment feels risky. If this sounds familiar, you’re not behind. You’re in the earliest and most important phase of building fundraising infrastructure. When you’re starting from zero, the goal is not to launch sophisticated campaigns. The goal is to build a stable foundation. Here’s what that actually looks like.
In an era where digital platforms shape visibility, fundraising, and public narrative, many nonprofits have come to rely heavily on social media. It’s fast, accessible, and often effective. Until it isn’t. Recent events across the sector serve as a reminder of a critical truth nonprofit leaders cannot afford to ignore: social media is rented space, not owned infrastructure.
This post is written for board members navigating a difficult reality: when the board chair’s behavior is actively harming the organization.
Nonprofits play a critical role in a healthy democracy, but they must do so ethically, legally, and in alignment with their missions, especially given 501(c)(3) restrictions. Combating authoritarianism and fascism is not about partisan politics; it is about protecting democratic norms, human dignity, and community resilience.