Nonprofit Board Crisis

Nonprofits Customer Satisfaction

In an era when getting philanthropic support depends on demonstrating results, I believe it is equally important that nonprofits not lose sight of ensuring that the folks they serve actually value and are satisfied with both the services and the way in which they are delivered.  Satsifying a customer is once sure way to achieve desired results.

So, while out-and-about, I recently saw a really quick and efficient customer qualitative satisfaction survey I thought I would pass-on for those who rarely do such surveys and particularly for those whose customers are less likely to complete an on-line survey, come to a focus group or do anything but verbally express that which they dislike.

The instrument I saw had 7 "questions", basically one-word descriptions of the aspect to be evaluated.  For example "transportation".  And, like a good closed-end survey using a Likert Scale, instead of numbers or the words "like, like alot, didn't like" or something similar, this survey had 3 faces, one with a frown, one with no expression and one with a smile.

It's quick, simple, easy to complete and really gives a nonprofit's customer the opprotunity to express their feelings.

Nonproift Boards Just Keep Plugging On

When one considers just how many nonprofits there are, in say the US, just to set a limit, AND one considers how the majority of these are tiny (less than say 10 staff), the first question that really pops into my mind is to ask why?

The answer is generally simple although multi-layered.  One, it's pretty easy to set up a nonprofit -- get together a board (mostly just 3 people); write some articles and bylaws; get your tax-exempt status and voila....a nonprofit.

Now we know that many of these are pretty idle much of their lives.  But there are also quite a few who exist and operate with 2-5 staff for year after year.  And why?  Passion and a commitment by one or two or maybe three folks who are really "into" whatever the mission is AND able to get enough money to keep it going, day-after-day.

A forumla for success?  What's your thought and what's the difference in the world if all these little tiny guys didn't exist?

Nonprofit Board Fires Exec As Distraction

By now you've likely heard the story about Vivian Schiller -- you know, the now previous NPR Exec.  The NPR board fired her and according to NPR, because she had become a distraction. 

Now in reality, it wasn't Vivian herself that was the actual distraction but events, generated by her personnel, that were the distraction.  But, when a captain of a big and high profile ship appears to lose control of their ship, then they are the distraction. 

Nonprofit boards have one employee: the exec.  When "stuff" isn't going right, the one employee must be held accountable.  This is what the NPR Board has made clear.  Now the board must step-in and see if it can avoid being the next distraction and can clean-up enough to move forward AND think really hard about what kind of manager they next want.  Clearly, managing experience will matter.

Nonprofit Nuns Avoiding Taxes?

A religious order of Cistercian Nuns in Zaragoza Spain got their petty cash ripped off -- right out of their convent! Is nothing sacred you might ask?

Well, first you must know that the amount of cash taken was not so petty.  Depending on who you ask (the nuns or their lawyers), the stolen sum ranges from between 1.3 million euros to 344,000 euros.  Now even if you don't know the US dollar equivalence, we are not talking the kind of money usually contributed in the plate during a Sunday service.  So now you might ask: was this an inside job?  Who otherwise would think that a group of nuns would secret so much cash?

And the next question: how'd they get this much money?  Well, like all good folks, they work for a living.  The sisters have an antique book binding business.  And, one sister is a renowned artist.

So, is there more to the story?  Ah yes.  The Spanish Government wants the unrelated business tax that it now believes it is due, particularly given the nun's change in story about how much exactly was stolen. 

Me, I'm kind-of rooting for the government under one of those "render under Caeser" perspectives.

Nonprofit Board Pay Suspended

On the heels of yesterday's blog when I noted that a newly released NPTimes study identified that a large number of nonprofit board members are compensated for their time, the board of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts suspended its pay.  The reason: the issue of their pay was distracting the public from the business of the organization.  Good enough reason I guess if one agrees the board should have been paid in the first place.

And hey, if I've said it once I've said it a thousand times: what makes these Blue Crosses nonprofits in the first place?  Well, thanks to the controversy over the pay, this conversation will be had between the Blue and the MA AG about their being a charity.  If that's what it takes....

The Boston Globe has the story.

Nonprofit Foundation Board Members Paid

I understand that it's generally some pretty heavy hitter well-connected people who serve on grantmaking foundation boards.  However, what I knew a lot less was that some 65% of folks who serve on foundation boards are actually paid.  According to NPT: 

Among respondents who do compensate their board members, most (65 percent) provide all board members with fixed fees, such as annual, committee-based, or per-board-meeting fees. The median amount of compensation paid to the board as a whole is $50,750.

The median annual fee for board chairs is $18,000 ($10,000 for other board members), the median board meeting fee is $1,000, and the median committee meeting fee is $650. For other board members, the median annual fee is $10,000, and the median board meeting fee is $1,000.

I guess I kind-of believed that many if not most of the folks serving on foundations had wealth or were well paid corporate execs.  Maybe that's true or not given the following composition stats:

* Respondents indicated that the majority of board membership is male (nearly 62 percent).
* Approximately three-quarters of board members (74 percent) are over age 50, followed by 18 percent who are age 40 to 49. Family foundations reported the largest share of board members under age 40 (16 percent).
* A significant majority of board members are white (85 percent), with African-Americans making up 7 percent, Hispanics 4 percent, and Asian/Pacific Islanders 2 percent.
* Some 16 percent reported having at least one lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender board member while 29 percent reported having a written policy regarding board diversity.

Nonprofits Frowning; Not Smiling

Sad indeed is the news that the planned merger between the Smile Train and Operation Smile has been called-off leaving one big frown on the guy who started the process and stood to be a big winner but a lot of smiles on what appeared to be a lot of folks who had reasons (or so they thought) to object to the plans.

Ruth at the NPT has done a fine job of summarizing the NY Times report on the matter.  Among the many elements that went wrong, on what I believe would have been a make-sense event, there was one big rule violated -- separate the problem from the people (a core principle of negotiating highlighted in Getting to Yes and Getting Past No)! 

Nonprofit Does Good Messaging

As my brother-in law knows, I'm not a hunter.  After all, I'm a vegetarian, although given the broad range of "vegetarians" out there, I guess the two are not mutually exclusive, especially if you count fishing as a form of hunting.

Anyway, I am doing a final perusal of this month's Utne Reader and found an article titled The Buck Stops Here.  Like all Utne articles, this article comes from somewhere else: specifically, Governing Magazine, a periodical I read faithfully.

The Buck Stops Here sings, in a matter-of-fact manner, the praises of hunting.  Allow me to share. 

In most states, hunting is more than an annual tradition--it's the foundation of budgets to preserve wildlife and park lands.....In addition to buying hunting tags, licenses, and permits, hunters generate direct revenue for state fish and wildlife departments through taxes on guns, ammunition, and equipment.  I would add that they probably boost local economies as well and of course, they keep down populations of animals which, because of the explosion of the number of people, disrupt daily life.

Now you might ask: "What has this got to do with nonprofits?"  My answer, facts were supported in part by a nonprofit called Families Afield, a pro-hunting organization.  I would say that for my money, this nonprofit has succeeded in some excellent "product" placement putting their case in front of the general public.  The point?  A nonprofit that spends the energy and time being helpful to legislators and other public opinion folks, will see rewards for their own constituents.  Take me for example: from this article I have gained increased tolerance and even appreciation for hunters and all they do for their communities, economically at the least.

 

Nonprofits receive tainted money and are asked to give it back

I know I regularly reference the phrase that "the only thing wrong with tainted money is there 'taint enough of it" and I generally subscribe to this idea when so-called dirty money or "less morally" gotten money is given to a nonprofit.  Say for instance when a drug dealer says for some reason, "here's a grant" to a youth drug prevention program.

But apparently, in some circumstances, according to the latest issue of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, monies that were ill-gotten in the first place and passed-on can actually be claimed-back by the courts using what's called a claw-back edict.  This is apparently what's happening with some ponzi-scheme beneficiary nonprofits.  Now note though that I have held that the foundations that lost money from Madoff for instance, kind-of, in my opinion, got what they deserved when they failed to be prudent in their investing and maybe got greedy or at least blind to being the beneficiary of incredible results from their investment.

This claw-back effort certainly challenges the tainted money issue.  It suggests that it is not every instance that the only thing wrong with tainted money is that there 'taint enough of it.  It further suggests that just like the foundations which invested in ponzi schemes (knowingly or unknowingly), nonprofits maybe have to exercise added due-dilligence and prudence in accepting gifts from donors they haven't vetted.

Nonprofits Have Lots of Applicants to Choose From

A March 2 New York Times article describes the sudden dirth of applicants having been turned away from for-profits and scoping out nonprofits as an alternative.

The situation makes me wonder: can nonprofits really handle this good fortune?  Do they actually have all the HR resources they need to do a good screening a huge number of applicants not to mention training folks who have not been oriented to nonprofit culture and expectations? 

And what about an influx of those willing to serve as volunteers with the idea that a nonprofit provides skills and on-the-ground experience as a stepping-stone to future employment?  There was a time, and there still is for some really big nonprofits, when volunteers were a part of the human resources of a nonprofit.  But there has been a pretty sizable decline in volunteers pre-recession and so won't nonprofits have to do some re-learning as well as putting a resource in place to develop and manage volunteers?

Yes, the news is good and bad.  Nonprofit execs should examine their capacity for bringing in folks with limited experience.  There remain a lot of issues to resolve before just taking the leap.