Board Chairs and Board Leaders Mary Hiland, nonprofit leadership expert, interviews Mike Burns to discuss national research on board chairs and board leadership.
Inspired Nonprofit Leadership Mary Hiland, nonprofit leadership expert, interviews Mike Burns to explore nonprofit board stages of development. Mike offers that recognition of board stages helps establish achievable expectations.
"Effectively Raising Capital: The Board Chair & Executive Director Relationship" Mike Burns and Kevin McQueen, partners at BWB Solutions, and special guest Carla Weil, the Chief Strategy Officer from Capital for Change, the largest full-service CDFI in Connecticut, share their experiences effectively identifying funding sources and raising capital to strengthen an organization and provide more impact in low-income communities. Carla Mannings of Partners for the Common Good and CapNexus moderated the panel.
Share power to strengthen your board. Are your board leaders struggling to balance power among themselves? Are they not understanding their roles outside of the boardroom? If you answered yes to any of these, listen to Ep. 58 of our podcast as we host Mike Burns and Judy Freiwirth. Mike and Judy share their expertise, which is based on their Nonprofit Alliance study Voices of Board Chairs.
Making a Lasting Difference I've been struggling to finish "Making a Lasting Difference" by Graeme Reekie since first I received this book about 6 months ago from Wren and Greyhound. The press is British but I thought the subject would be universal for nonprofits.
Alas and sadly, this is a slow, tedious read filled with platitudes and almost helpful considerations nonprofit managers might want to consider when thinking about how to financially sustain their organizations.
I have generally posited that a nonprofit has 4 "pillars" that comprise its DNA: program, management and operations, governance and sustainability. M. Graeme offers five: involvement ((having community support); Income generation; Innovation ("how to nourish and encourage incremental innovation); Improvement (systems and structures); and impact measurement. So he and I don't operate from the same lens but his is certainly one perspective.
Making a Lasting Difference is constructed in four parts, 20 chapters and 211 pages. The possibly most innovative content is in Part 2, Chapter 2 where paradoxes, principles and practices of sustainability are presented. The paradoxes:
a. Change - only by changing can organizations be sustainability, sustainability does not mean sustained, and, the lesson is that an org. must learn, adapt and evolve purposefully. Here the author poses that an org has to have its act together to achieve sustainability
b. Octopus - organizations need to reach out in new directions to grow but growing in too many directions pulls them out of shape; diversified income does not mean reduced risk; and, an org must focus on core organisational purpose and structure. Here the author says that mission drift will not make you sustainable.
c. Yes/No the things that an organisation needs to survive can also kill it. Saying yes to everything is fatal; sustainability is about more than just money. Capacity and quality matter. Understand when, how and what to say no to. I would offer this is the "stay in your lane" paradox.
d. Efficiency - Efficiency preserves resources but can impair development. Organisations cannot evolve, adapt or respond without spare capacity. And orgs should balance strategy and scrutiny. They should invest in capacity building.
To all of this I just want to say: uh, ok and thanks for the amazing insight. No, not really! I would not invest in this book. You can better spend your time reading the Federal Register looking for grant opportunities (good luck given the current environment) or going through the Foundation Center directory or building an endowment from rich people who loved you (yes, this really is the key to sustainability). Making a lasting difference may be a good idea when thinking about long-term impact from what your nonprofit does - reading this book will not.
Board member recruitment is never an easy task. But let's say your nonprofit is successful in identifying a candidate, is the criteria for selection singularly a set of skills, knowledge, expertise and lens that make the candidate the "right" fit? I would propose there to be one more element: passion for mission. And how to measure or determine passion? While action (lots of experience or knowledge about the mission is an indicator of passion, I pose that the candidate's understanding of the organization's theory of change would be a clear indicator of fit.
Theory of Change answers three questions: what is the issue, concern or interest that calls for action; what is the solution or action around this issue; and what is the desired result? If a prospective candidate's answers or perspective to these 3 questions is consistent with the board's, fit is highly likely. If the candidate does not have any perspective consistent with the board's own collective declaration of responses to these questions, then the candidate, in my opinion, is likely not a good fit. As an indicator, an individual's understanding of and willing to engage around the theory of change will assure the rest of the board that a future partner has been identified.
From WMUR (although I first caught this as part of a John Oliver expose on Special Districts (did you know more money is spent by Special Districts than the Russians spend on their military?).
Just how many boards can a full-time employee serve on at any one time? And, how many days a year does board service demand? And, when is serving on a board a conflict of interest for an employee?
These are some of the questions the University of California has tried to answer in its policy on when senior managers can serve on boards, nonprofit and for-profit. And more critical at this moment, these are the questions in play that will affect the future of one of the University's senior managers (a Chancellor) who is serving on two for-profit boards (in addition to service on non-profit boards). For the University the big questions: did they get it "right" when making the policy and has the person in question followed that policy?
I don't have the answers to the University's questions but I did find it very interesting that an academic who studies academics on boards thinks board service only requires 10 days a year of service. I had actually thought that a lot less time was spent but I suppose if one adds-in a tiny bit of prep and travel to-and-from a meeting and maybe a little time after and maybe a committee conversation, sure, 10 days a year is possible, particularly in service on a for-profit board. But whatever, board service for most nonprofits requires a minimum investment. And, maybe this is one of the reasons non-profit execs complain so much - so much investment on their part for so little return?
If you are interested learning more about what's going on in UofC, here's a link.
"She was their landlord and she raised the rent," he said. "There's nothing illegal about that." This is the attorney's response for his client facing federal prosecution for stealing or misappropriating federal dollars. Not illegal? Not a violation of the fiduciary duty of care (self-dealing and conflict of interest)? I beg to strongly differ that, the list of harm the accused has done against her health center is lengthy and for sure, illegal in my opinion. But let's also recognize that the thefts or redirecting of grant funds is not her only violation. Stacking the board with cronies who would effectively sign-off on misappropriations is a serious violation not to mention that shouldn't her cronies also be indicted?
If a core principal of a nonprofit is "to do no harm", the core principal of governance should be leveled at an even higher bar where the "owners" not only do no harm but do everything in their might to ensure success. Illegal and beyond is what happened at this institution. I can only hope that the federal prosecutors are successful in demonstrating both intent and result and that this trial might be held-up to demonstrate to all who serve on nonprofit boards what is their duty and responsibility.
Facing federal charges for allegedly bilking a nonprofit clinic out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, Renee Tartaglione - a member of one of the city's best-known political families - showed no sign Thursday that she was worried.
In federal court for a brief arraignment hearing, Tartaglione, 60, pleaded not guilty to 53 counts including conspiracy and fraud.
"I'm feeling good. I'm feeling confident," she said as she left the Market Street courthouse afterward with her husband, Democratic ward leader Carlos Matos.
Both have weathered past run-ins with controversy. Her forced smile seemed to say that this, too, her family would survive.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20160226_Renee_Tartaglione_pleads_not_guilty_to_federal_fraud_charges.html#Pvmvj28DD2XegFwH.99"We've reviewed the indictment microscopically," he said. "From what we've been able to initially determine, the allegations are tissue-thin."
Federal authorities believe they have pinned Tartaglione - daughter of former elections chief Margaret Tartaglione and sister of State Sen. Christine M. Tartaglione (D., Phila.) - at the heart of an elaborate fraud.
For years, she served as board president of the Juniata Community Mental Health Clinic, which held city contracts to provide mental-health and substance-abuse services to Medicaid recipients.
In an indictment unsealed last month, prosecutors alleged she treated the nonprofit as a personal slush fund, siphoning off its government funding to line her pockets at the expense of low-income patients.
Between 2007 and 2012, Tartaglione bought up buildings the nonprofit used in the poverty-stricken Fairhill neighborhood of North Philadelphia and allegedly raised the monthly rents nearly 1,500
According to the indictment, the Juniata clinic was paying $4,800 a month before Tartaglione took over. By 2012, prosecutors say, its monthly rent had shot to $75,000.
All the while, authorities allege, she stacked the clinic's board with cronies and yes-men, and was issuing Juniata checks to employees for services they never provided with the understanding they would cash them and return the money to her.
Tartaglione's tenure at the clinic's helm came at a tumultuous time for her family. She became board president in 2007, the same year her husband was sentenced to a three-year stint in federal prison for bribing three Atlantic City councilmen.
Three years later, Tartaglione was forced to resign as her mother's chief elections deputy, for breaking rules barring politicking by city employees. The allegation that drove her out was that she was managing Matos' Democratic 19th Ward in Kensington while he was behind bars.
After his release, Matos also had a role at the Juniata clinic, though he has not been charged in his wife's federal case. He worked as a counselor even as he received mental-health treatment there while on federal probation.
DiStefano, however, said Thursday that he didn't see much illegal in anything the government had alleged.
"She was their landlord and she raised the rent," he said. "There's nothing illegal about that."
Each nonprofit has one body that has all the fiduciary responsibility (duty of care, loyalty and obedience) and is the place where the "buck" stops. But other responsibilities can be shared. Boards have proven to be more effective when engaging with their constituencies to inform, in particular, strategic decisions and even the policies that inform the strategic decisions. But how exactly should this engagement of a constituency be implemented that the constituency feels and sees that its voice and participation matters?
The following article describes one community foundation's effort in this regard. I for one do not totally agree with all the solution. In particular: the name. The foundation has decided to rename what it once called "community advisory committees" and now title them "community boards". So what's in a name you might ask? In the case of a nonprofit naming any body but the governing body a "board", I pose, everything. And the everything I want to cite is that, as I have repeatedly seen and been asked to help fix, once a body that is additional to the governing body is given the title "board" it expects the authority of being a board and most often, wanders into the many waters that are the fiduciary responsibility of the governing board. Undoing this situation is never easy. A cautionary tale to be sure.
So here's the Herald (South Carolina) story about the Springs Close Foundation. Read and consider.
Springs Close Foundation creates three community boards
Springs Close Foundation streamlines grants process
FORT MILL
In an effort to make its grant making more responsive to the communities it serves, The Springs Close Foundation Board of Directors has created three new Community Boards of Directors: one each in Chester, Lancaster and York counties.
The Community Boards replace the Foundation’s Community Advisory Committees and will oversee annual grant making within each of the counties.
“Our Community Advisory Committees have been invaluable in helping our board understand the needs of the counties we serve and the nonprofit organizations that are hard at work meeting those needs,” said chairwoman Anne Springs Close. “The Foundation’s Community Advisory Committee structure allowed us to build the relationships and understanding of the community that has led to this next, very important step in our evolution.”
Community Boards of Directors will include five to seven members and will assume responsibility for annual grant making in the counties they serve.
Residents who have agreed to serve inaugural 3-year terms on the Community Boards are:
Chester County Community Board of Directors: Mitch Foster, chair, Mary Funderburk, Susan Kovas, Richard Miller and Bill Nixon.
Lancaster County Community Board of Directors: Chad Catledge, chair, Bruce Brumfield, Doug Barfield, Otis Lathan and Fred Witherspoon.
York County Community Board of Directors: Annette Chinchilla, chair, Butch Cowart, Nikki Godrey-Hill, Martha Kinard, David Macaulay, Kevin Patton and Dora Perry.
Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/news/business/article64274597.html#storylink=cpy
Too many of our community organizations are tearing themselves apart. Some of the internal disputes have become unfortunate newspaper headlines or coffee-shop gossip because seething factions have lost all perspective. It’s painful to hear about once-selfless community volunteers displaying selfish, self-justifying, game-playing behaviour.
It needs to stop – especially in a struggling region.
From time to time, I get calls or e-mails from people on non-profit boards asking me to interpret their by-laws because the chair won’t call a meeting, there’s a dispute over an executive member, a faction claims all decisions are invalid, there’s a disagreement over a pet project, or even … people can’t agree on who is the legitimately elected board!
If it has reached the point of parsing a society’s by-laws to find a legal hammer, then it might be too late, unless people can step back and cooler heads can prevail.
I occasionally hear quips about “Cape Breton Rules of Order,” but it’s probably not worse in Cape Breton than elsewhere. I’ve seen Cape Breton organizations that could be national models of good governance. It can seem worse here, though. Because we’re an island with only two degrees of separation, organizational disputes sometimes become drama here.
A few years ago, I spent time in the archives of the Anglican Church of Canada. I was researching long-time, no-nonsense Mississauga mayor Hazel McCallion for a book project. From 1947 to 1949, McCallion, who only recently retired from politics and just turned 95, was the national president of the Anglican Young People’s Association of Canada. In her correspondence as AYPA president, she reflected on travelling to Cape Breton, where she tried to cool a dispute in a local branch. Members were emotional, entrenched, and had lost sight of why they signed up. The young McCallion was beside herself.
I could just as well have been reading a recent edition of the Cape Breton Post (or an e-mailed request for advice) about … well, more than one current organization.
I think we need a local first-aid service – a small network of sympathetic, thoughtful, experienced third parties, who can spend a morning or an evening with an ailing board – ideally before the condition becomes chronic.
There is no magic formula. But there are three principles, or lenses, that can guide the first responders and ultimately all the participants: respect, rhythm, resilience.
Respect. This means a commitment, in advance, by all to resolve problems through mediation and by going back to first principles. It means a commitment to maturely help underperforming chairs and members, sometimes discretely. It means the humility to acknowledge that we are all learners and we all make mistakes. It means listening, not always talking.
But it also means putting in place structures that ensure decorum and the right of all members to be heard – though not to overwhelm a discussion, not to talk whenever they want, or overrule everything by themselves. Those who make it a habit to shout at others or lob personal insults, or who send rude and harassing emails, should seriously consider taking a time-out from community work. They are scaring potential volunteers away.
Rhythm. Some process and some paper are good. Some formality is appropriate, too. Do we have a scheduled monthly meeting time? Do we have an annual general meeting with clear financial statements? Do we have an outward-looking nominating committee to help new blood find its way to our board? Do we make major decisions by debate and minuted motion, while not trying to micro-manage everything? Do we have a written agenda? Does our chair keep things moving along (gently)?Resilience. This is a more organic thing. It’s about whether the organization can outlive its current leaders. It begs questions like: Are we starting to build an endowment or reserve fund? Do we have occasional retreats to take stock of what we are doing as an organization and why? Do we have a culture of welcoming others and taking new ideas seriously? Are we trying to identify up-and-coming leaders and mentor them? Are we getting basic training on how to run meetings?
Not every organization can turn to a “national president” to resolve differences. Nor should it have to. Let’s help each other find dignity, decorum and meaning in our service to others.
Tom Urbaniak, CBU political scientist, is the author of Action, Accommodation, Accountability: Rules of Order for Canadian Organizations. He can be reached attom_urbaniak@cbu.ca.
Effectively filling the void between the for-profit and public sectors requires that a nonprofit board understand market needs, address these needs, and do so efficiently: just like the for-profit and public sectors (well, hopefully better than the public sectors).
I am reminded of this necessary truth, that effective nonprofits must be efficient great businesses, because of a Wall Street Journal commentary that essentially poses that one of Planned Parenthood's faults is that it unfairly competes in the marketplace. While the author indicates that demand for abortions has gone down, Planned Parenthood has built "mega-clinics" that have resulted in smaller clinics closing. I'm not totally connecting the commentary's dots here but am indeed reminded that the gap Planned Parenthood fills, like nonprofits everywhere, is one that the for-profit sector has said there isn't enough of a demand to be in the same space while the public sector says it doesn't have the demand to spend its resources to do the same service. So in the women's health arena, Planned Parenthood has demonstrated both how to provide what is wanted and do so responsively. Were Planned Parenthood a for-profit, all would be celebrating the institution as an effective business. Problem?
Here's the commentary. Your thoughts are welcome.
Abortion Has a Market Problem
Clinics are under pressure from declining abortion rates and big Planned Parenthood expansions.
CHUCK DONOVAN
The U.S. Supreme Court heard a case Wednesday that could determine the fate of many health regulations on abortion facilities. Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt originated in Texas, where the legislature passed a law in 2013 that, among other things, required abortion clinics to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers and required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals to handle any complications that might arise.
Challengers to the law contend that these standards—which have yet to take full effect—are unnecessary and draconian and that they have already forced some clinics to close and will, if upheld, force the closure of many more.
No one questions that the number of abortion facilities in Texas has dropped in recent years. But what if these closures have to do with changes in the abortion “market” itself? A brief filed in the case by the organization I head, the Charlotte Lozier Institute, and Citizen Link and Students for Life of America, makes exactly this argument.
It contends that facility closures are happening almost everywhere and that the reasons include an increasingly pro-life public and the willingness of more women to carry an unexpected pregnancy to term. Also cited are Planned Parenthood’s new business model of building mega-clinics that compete with smaller clinics, and changes in the financing of non-abortion services wrought by the Affordable Care Act.
Some history is in order. The abortion industry grew rapidly from the Roe v. Wadedecision in 1973 until the 1980s. The number of abortion facilities, including hospitals willing to perform abortions, grew to more than 2,400 by 1978. According to the Guttmacher Institute, in 1981 the U.S. abortion rate reached nearly 30 per 1,000 women of childbearing age, where it remained for several years. Three decades ago, however, the annual number of abortions began a steady decline until today, when the abortion rate has dropped back close to its level in 1973.
Experts disagree on which trends led to this decline. Some argue that improved contraceptive usage is the cause, while others point to factors like less sexual activity among teenagers and more support for single mothers.
What does seem clear is that with decreasing demand the abortion industry has behaved like many others, flattening out and then declining, as large providers grew and smaller ones got squeezed out. One interesting factor on the demand side is the response of women to an unexpected pregnancy. The Guttmacher Institute, a research body allied with pro-choice views, has reported that the percentage of women experiencing such pregnancies who opt for abortion had declined from 54% in 1994 to 40% in 2008—during a period before the burst of restrictive state legislation like that in Texas.
As a Reuters news analysis recently pointed out, the Affordable Care Act has also provided private insurance to many women who formerly received services at an abortion facility. They can now go to providers within their insurance network. As a result, the analysis claimed, Planned Parenthood lost 6% of its patients in 2014 after the Affordable Care Act went into full effect. According to Planned Parenthood’s most-recent annual report, its client count dropped another 6% in 2015.
Clinic closures are happening in “blue” states as well as “red “ones. The Abortion Care Network, a Washington, D.C.-based association of independent abortion clinics, estimates that for every three closures in a conservative red state there have been two in liberal, or abortion-permissive, blue states.
In another example of adverse conditions for many clinics, America’s largest abortion network, Planned Parenthood, has been steadily eating up market share. In 1993 fewer than 10% of U.S. abortions were done in Planned Parenthood facilities. By 2011 Planned Parenthood’s total market share had increased to 32%. This expansion can easily be attributed to the building of mega-clinics. In Houston in 2010, Planned Parenthood built the largest administrative and medical abortion facility in the nation, stating that it sought to reach 30,000 more clients annually.
This is merely one of 21 mega-clinics—typically able to see more than 17,000 patients a year, versus 5,000 in an average clinic—Planned Parenthood has opened or planned nationally since 2004. Three of these were in Texas, including two that opened after the passage of the 2013 bill that is the subject of litigation. This increased capacity affects the competition no less than when a Lowe’s or Home Depot moves into an area and the local hardware store closes, or when locally run stores are unable to compete with national box-store giants like Wal-Mart.
The co-founder of a clinic that closed in Washington state in 2010 said, “We would not be closing today if Planned Parenthood had not started providing abortion services in the same town.” A June 23, 2008, article in The Wall Street Journal quoted clinic operatorAmy Hagstrom Miller saying “This is not the Planned Parenthood we all grew up with . . . they now have more of a business approach, much more aggressive.” Ms. Hagstrom Miller, whose network of Whole Women’s Health clinics is now the plaintiff in the case against Texas that the Supreme Court will hear this week, told the Journal back then that Planned Parenthood “put local independent businesses in a tough situation.”
The market forces in the abortion industry, including Planned Parenthood’s expansions, are akin to the consolidations occurring in multiple industries, including health-care generally. Government funding allocations and limits are affecting U.S. health care across the board, and abortion in states that do fund the procedure may be just one more example.
In sum, the number of abortion facilities in Texas has gone down over time—but the state’s experience is not unique. The real news more than four decades after Roe v. Wadeis that abortion is on the decline almost everywhere, with no signs of its becoming an accepted part of regular medical care.
Mr. Donovan is the president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the education and research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List. The List is a nonprofit organization that supports pro-life politicians.
I think it's quite common for many folks to assume that it's the Exec or CEO at a nonprofit who calls the shots. But what happens when the board, a nonprofit's legal owner, calls the shots?
In the case of the Clearwater, Pete Seeger's nonprofit environmental organization, the CEO stepped down citing his own disagreement with the direction the board had decided to take. The board decided that renovating their ship, the source of mission, was more critical than spending money on their annual music festival. While both "vehicles" serve as a source of mission, the ship is critical to mission and must be maintained. The CEO, as the following USA Today article describes, had a different take on what should be a priority. Kudos to the board though for a) making a decision and b) accepting the consequences. On the other hand, once the board set the path around the sloop, isn't the how this would be paid for the job of the CEO? Might deciding that the concert is a no-go be micromanaging and in-turn, usurping the authority of the CEO?
Decision to cancel annual Croton Point fest, focus on repairs to flagship sloop, caused division in Hudson River group
The director of the Hudson River environmental group Clearwater has resigned in the midst of an internal rift over last week's decision to cancel the group's long-running annual music festival at Croton Point Park.
Peter Gross of South Salem, who served as Clearwater's executive director since 2014, said in a statement released by the group Wednesday that he was stepping down over "significant differences between his and the organization's vision to the path to building a stronger future for Clearwater, and dealing with the organization's longstanding financial and structural challenges."
The announcement comes a week after the board of directors of the Beacon-based environmental group voted to cancel the 2016 Great Hudson River Revival so it could devote limited financial resources to restoring it's flagship, the sloop Clearwater.
The boat, a replica of the sloops that sailed the Hudson River in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, is undergoing $850,000 in needed renovations.
In an announcement last week, the Clearwater board said that, due to cash shortages, it had to choose between the sloop and the annual festival, which has been held since 1979. It has been held at the Westchester County-owned Croton park every year since 1999.
The sloop was launched in 1969 by legendary folk singer Pete Seeger, who founded the group on a mission to raise awareness of the plight of the Hudson River, which had been plagued by decades of pollution from waterfront manufacturing plants.
But Anne Osborn, president of the Clearwater board of directors, said Wednesday that there was still disagreement within the group after the decision was made to focus on repairs to the sloop. Gross and others, she said, felt Clearwater could repair the boat, yet still host the festival.
“I think it’s what it says: Significant differences between his and the organization’s vision of the path to a stronger future," Osborn said. "One vision, his vision, is we can have a festival and use that income stream. The other was it is way too risky. Focus on floating the boat. So we did.”
Osborn said about 75 percent of the repairs to the flagship sloop are being reimbursed by the state. But she said it was uncertain if the reimbursements would come in time to stage the two-day summer festival.
The group says the event has averaged about $162,000 a year in net income over the past six years, but only $31,000 last year.
Clearwater officials said they plan to move forward with the 2017 festival, and that a series of local music shows will replace the larger event throughout the year. Those events will help raise money for the group. For instance, a show in Ulster County last weekend raised $12,000, Osborn said.
“I think it’s hard to be an effective leader when your troops are marching in the other direction," she said. "(Gross) would’ve loved in his heart of hearts to have put the festival on. He would’ve liked to have done both, and perhaps the income stream from early tickets sales would’ve been really helpful in getting the boat restored. But the folks who do the festival felt differently.”