Nonprofit boards combine community stewardship, organizational oversight, and resource development. BoardSource’s Leading with Intent studies show how boards are structured, how they work, who serves, and where leaders see strengths and gaps. The figures below come from different survey years and question-level bases, so each measurement period and scope is identified.
Contents
- Board size and leadership tenure
- Meetings, committees, and executive sessions
- Demographic representation
- Recruitment priorities and community connection
- Governance and strategic impact
- Fundraising and board contributions
Board size and leadership tenure
Board size varies, but the available national benchmarks cluster around a board that is large enough to provide varied expertise without becoming unwieldy. In the 2017 Leading with Intent study, the average nonprofit board had 15 members, while the median had 13 members, excluding vacant seats. The median is lower than the average, indicating that some larger boards raised the mean.
The earlier 2015 Leading with Intent study found that 80% of nonprofit boards had fewer than 20 members. Because the 2015 and 2017 figures come from separate study years, they should be read as historical benchmarks rather than as a measured trend.
Leadership tenure can also be substantial. In the 2023 survey, the median nonprofit board chair had served on the board for 6 years. The average board-chair tenure was 7.8 years, and the average time served specifically as board chair was 3.2 years. These figures distinguish experience on the board from time in the chair role.
Chief executives in the 2023 survey had a median tenure of 7 years and an average tenure of 9.2 years. The gap between the median and average suggests that some longer-serving executives lifted the average, though the participant profile is descriptive rather than a census of all U.S. public charities.
| Measure | Result | Measurement period |
|---|---|---|
| Average board size | 15 members | 2017 |
| Median board size | 13 members | 2017 |
| Boards with fewer than 20 members | 80% | 2015 |
| Median board-chair board tenure | 6 years | 2023 |
| Average time as board chair | 3.2 years | 2023 |
Sources: Leading with Intent 2017 National Index of Nonprofit Board Practices; Leading with Intent: BoardSource Index of Nonprofit Board Practices; Overview of LWI Participants.
Meetings, committees, and executive sessions
The 2021 Leading with Intent report measured both the frequency and time commitment of board work. Nonprofit boards held an average of 7.5 meetings during the prior 12 months and met for an average of 19.5 total hours during that period. Those figures describe scheduled board activity captured by the survey; they do not include an independently calculated estimate of preparation or informal work.
Attendance was generally reported in the upper ranges. Twenty-eight percent of boards said at least 90% of members regularly attended meetings. Another 56% reported regular attendance by 75% to 89% of members, while 15% reported regular attendance by 50% to 74% of members. These published categories are retained as reported and should not be combined into a single attendance average.
Executive sessions were common, although their frequency differed. Twenty-six percent of boards held an executive session at every meeting, and 66% held executive sessions periodically. Sixty-four percent held executive sessions both with and without the chief executive. These practices point to multiple formats for confidential discussion, rather than one uniform board routine.
Standing committees were another major part of the governance structure. Boards had an average of 4.1 standing committees in the 2021 report. Audit, finance, or combined audit-finance committees existed at 82.1% of surveyed nonprofits. Development or fundraising committees existed at 75.9%, governance or nominating committees at 70.5%, and executive committees at 61.4%.
The committee figures describe whether a committee existed, not how often it met or how effective it was. For community leadership organizations, that distinction matters: a committee roster shows formal structure, while participation and outcomes require separate assessment.
Source: Leading with Intent: BoardSource Index of Nonprofit Board Practices.
Demographic representation
Board composition provides one way to examine who participates in nonprofit governance. The 2021 diversity, equity, and inclusion report stated that its comparison data included boards surveyed in 2019; the figures below therefore refer to that older measurement within the 2021 report, not to a new 2021 census.
White members accounted for 78% of nonprofit board members. Black members accounted for 10%, Hispanic or Latino members for 5%, and Asian, Asian American, or Pacific Islander members for 4%. These categories are the labels and percentages published in the report; they should not be treated as a complete description of every identity or as mutually exhaustive demographic information beyond the report’s stated categories.
By gender, female members accounted for 53% of board members and male members for 47%. By age, 9% of nonprofit board members were younger than 35, 21% were ages 35 to 44, 26% were ages 45 to 54, 26% were ages 55 to 64, and 17% were 65 or older. Five percent of board members reported having a disability.
Perceptions of community representation also differed by role. Thirty-eight percent of chief executives said their nonprofit board represented the community served, compared with 29% of board chairs. These are respondent views, not an external evaluation of representation, and the difference may reflect the perspectives associated with each leadership role.
Source: Leading with Intent: Reviewing the State of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on Nonprofit Boards.
Recruitment priorities and community connection
Board recruitment commonly balances mission commitment, practical skills, relationships, and representation. In the 2021 report, passion for the mission was a high or medium recruitment priority for 98% of nonprofit boards. Desired skills or professional occupation was a high or medium priority for 90%, while reputation or networks within the community reached 88%.
Knowledge of the communities served was a high or medium priority for 78% of boards. Membership within the community served was a priority for 64%. The difference between these two measures is useful: organizations may value knowledge of a community without requiring that every recruit be a member of it.
Resource development was also part of recruitment criteria. Access to a network of potential donors was a high or medium priority for 71% of boards, and ability to contribute financially was a priority for 63%. Demographic characteristics were a priority for 70%.
Recruitment did not appear easy for every organization. Thirty-two percent of chief executives reported difficulty finding people to serve on their nonprofit board. Among board chairs, 53% reported that difficulty. As with the community-representation figures, these results reflect responses from different leadership groups and should not be interpreted as a single organization-level rate.
Taken together, the figures describe a broad recruitment brief: boards seek people who care about the mission, bring useful capabilities, connect to the community, and can help with resources. They also show why recruitment can be demanding when a board wants to satisfy several priorities at once.
Source: Leading with Intent: BoardSource Index of Nonprofit Board Practices.
Governance and strategic impact
Strategic planning was common in the 2021 report. Seventy-eight percent of chief executives said their nonprofit had a formal strategic plan or framework. This measure indicates the presence of a plan or framework; it does not establish how recently it was updated or how consistently it guided decisions.
Chief executives and board chairs gave different ratings of board impact on defining strategic priorities. Thirty-five percent of chief executives rated that impact as very positive, while 52% of board chairs gave the same rating. Forty-one percent of chief executives rated the impact as somewhat positive. Eight percent of chief executives rated it somewhat or very negative.
The contrast between the 35% very-positive chief-executive rating and the 52% very-positive board-chair rating is a difference in reported perspective, not a direct measure of board performance. Still, it highlights the value of discussing how the board and chief executive understand their respective roles in setting priorities.
Source: Leading with Intent: BoardSource Index of Nonprofit Board Practices.
Fundraising and board contributions
Fundraising was central to the organizations represented in the 2021 report. A total of 94.4% of chief executives said their nonprofit raised funds to fully or partially support its work. The following contribution figures apply only among fundraising nonprofits, so they should not be generalized to every surveyed organization.
Among fundraising nonprofits, 18.6% required board members to make a personal contribution with a specified minimum or exact amount. A larger share, 67.8%, required a personal contribution without specifying a minimum or exact amount. Another 13.7% did not require board members to make a personal contribution.
Among fundraising nonprofits that specified a minimum or exact amount, the mean required board-member contribution was $2,803.18. This is a mean among the organizations in that narrower group, not a typical contribution for every nonprofit board member and not an estimate of total board giving.
| Fundraising practice | Share of fundraising nonprofits |
|---|---|
| Required a specified minimum or exact contribution | 18.6% |
| Required a contribution without a specified amount | 67.8% |
| Did not require a personal contribution | 13.7% |
| Mean required contribution where a minimum or exact amount was specified | $2,803.18 |
These results place financial expectations alongside other forms of board service. The same 2021 report found that 71% of boards treated access to a potential-donor network as a high or medium recruitment priority, while 63% treated ability to contribute financially that way. The two measures are related but distinct: one concerns networks, and the other concerns personal financial capacity.
Source: Leading with Intent: BoardSource Index of Nonprofit Board Practices.
How to read these nonprofit board statistics
BoardSource’s 2021 reports are survey-based and use different question-level bases. Their percentages are retained as published and are not a census of every U.S. nonprofit board. The 2021 DEI report includes board comparison data surveyed in 2019, and the 2023 participant profile covers 543 distinct U.S. public charities as descriptive context for that survey population.
Comparisons across years also require care. The 2015 and 2017 board-size figures, the 2021 operating measures, the older board-composition data reported in 2021, and the 2023 tenure profile answer different questions in different samples. Used with those limitations in view, the statistics provide a practical national reference for community leaders assessing board structure, participation, representation, strategy, and resource development.