Fiscal Sponsor Organizations

My gut reaction to this scenario is clear communication with the board member. First thank them for the referral and then explain that while it iis a worthy project it is not mission-aligned. Then make an effort to warm transfer the project to 2-3 other fiscal sponsors that may be a better fit.

Here is our declination email we send applicants that are not mission-aligned if helpful as well.

Dear {{ contact.firstname }},

We appreciate your interest in partnering with NOPI as your fiscal sponsor. We have carefully reviewed your program, and unfortunately, we have concluded that it is not aligned with our mission and priorities at this time.

While we recognize the value and importance of your project, we must remain focused on our organizational mission to ensure that we provide the highest level of support to our sponsored projects that align with our values and goals.

However, we would like to suggest that you visit the website fiscalsponsordirectory.org for a comprehensive list of other organizations that may align more closely with your project's goals and mission. This website provides a wide range of fiscal sponsors that may be able to provide the support that you are looking for.

We wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors and hope you find the support you need to achieve your goals.

That is a tough one…. I agree with Amanda that a warm transfer may go a long way. I also think it may be important to really challenge the idea that it is “subjective”

I know in my process there are a few things that feel “soft” and “subjective” like applicants not showing up to meetings, completing the application wrong, being rude, etc… BUT I can lean back on past experience to see that in the past “applicants who cant follow directions up front often don’t follow directions later on” (or what example fits). Essentially working to shift the decision from Subjective ‚Üí Objective based on past experience (if it exists).

For staff members who have done this for a long time their Gut is probably right… I know everytime I go against my Gut it has come back to kick us in the butt… so my guy my feel “subjective” but history would kinda prove its really pretty “objective”

I think I misread this question, haha. I agree with Josh… gut feelings at the start usually end up being factual down the road. While most programs are absolutely lovely, the few we’ve felt could be a problem ended up being a problem.

Thanks to you both. Really solid approaches.

I also think a lot of this has to do with the Board member’s personality and if they will be “offended” no matter what. There might not be a 100% effective way to handle these if the person is used to getting their way and you essentially have to tell them no (even if you refer the project to a sponsor where they are a better fit)…

I suggest they create more of a solid criteria list/strategic goal check list, and mission alignment they can point to in the future showing it’s not a fit, so that a rejection doesn’t appear subjective to anyone who is told they aren’t a good fit. Then point them to the San Francisco Fiscal Sponsor Directory or recommend a few good orgs that might be a better fit. I’ve also explained we don’t have capacity for the project before as well, when it was clear they needed more support than we were capable of providing at that time.

If it’s not the board chair making the request, that’s the first person I would go to and ask them to address the board member making the request. There’s little we do that is not subjective in some way. There’s a science to the practice to FS but there’s also a whole lot of art and hard-earned experience that goes into it as well. If the board member doesn’t understand this I would suggest that the board member find another board to be on.