Nonprofit Board Crisis

HappyOrNot: Informing Governance #NonprofitBoards

Strategic planning is the typical process used by a nonprofit board to fulfill its fiduciary duty by setting an organization's multi-year direction.  Core to strategic planning is data.  Directional decisions should reflect a board's understanding of its internal environment and external environment.  Typical methods employed toward informing decisions, and particularly about constituent needs, demographics and psychographics include surveys, focus groups, and, interviews in addition to constituent use data.  But, as a planning consultant, I recognize that gathering data is  not an inexpensive prospect.  And, equally important, direction is one thing while ensuring that whatever services are offered are done well and effectively.  

So what about helping the board and management and providers understand needs as well as levels of satisfaction and outcomes between strategic planning periods?  Governing Magazine offers the following advice which I would offer should inform management AND board discussions and decisions, again, beyond just strategic planning.

Here's some ideas:

• Use customer feedback to continually improve service, not as a punitive tool.

• Ask program managers what kind of customer-satisfaction data would be useful for them as management tools. They'll be motivated to use such data.

• Use more than one method. Surveys can be helpful if accompanied by individual or group interviews.

• Keep surveys very short (four or five questions, max, for most purposes), in order to increase the response rate. You can use longer surveys with certain customer groups that are motivated to complete them, such as those who have registered complaints.

• Publicize changes you've made that were the result of customer feedback. Doing so can increase your response rate.

• Pay attention to trend lines. If a new permitting system is developed, track customer satisfaction in the months before and after implementation.

And of particular note!

Surveys and focus groups certainly have their place, but so do simpler, automated customer-feedback tools. One that's gaining a lot of attention is the HappyOrNot system, which offers a simple way to get real-time feedback from large numbers of customers. HappyOrNot uses terminals with four "smiley face" buttons -- signifying very happy, somewhat happy, somewhat unhappy or very unhappy. Customers simply push the button that reflects their experience. The data are fed wirelessly to a web-based collection and reporting system. Responses are date- and time-stamped, allowing managers to monitor trends by time and location. People who would never fill out a 15-item questionnaire are willing to pause, touch one of the buttons and go on their way.

Thousands of businesses are using this system in countries around the world, and it's beginning to catch on in government, where a number of U.S. hospitals, airports, and passport and Social Security offices, along with some cities and counties, have installed HappyOrNot terminals. Riverside, Calif., has used the system since 2015, when its city council identified enhanced customer service as its top priority. There are HappyOrNot terminals at 11 city departments, as well as on the city's website (go to www.riversideca.gov and wait about 15 seconds for the smiley and frowny faces to appear). The city is also using HappyOrNot terminals to monitor employee morale, a creative way to keep a finger on the pulse of the workforce.

You can create your own version of the happy-face product. It works because it's easy to understand, takes just a few seconds to use, is available immediately after service is provided, and provides location and time-specific information about the feedback. When managers receive ongoing customer feedback data and dig beneath the numbers to learn what they mean, they can make much better decisions.

Nonprofit Board Oversight #NonprofitBoards

The Olympics Gymnastic sexual abuse story appears to be far from over with today's indictment of Larry Nassar's (the guy who did all the bad sex stuff to female athletes) boss who is not only accused of failing to provide oversight of Nassar (although that would, in my opinion be an understatement - he probably did provide some modicum of oversight and very well knew what was going on but failed to fire Nassar and report his behaviors - uh, which I believe is failure as a mandated reporter at minimum) but is also accused of also being a sexual predator.  Either way, the story continues and another castration (what I believe to be the appropriate punishment) winds their way through the legal justice system, I am confident that the failings go even higher - perhaps to the governing body.  Stay tuned.

Here's an AOL version of the story.

 

DETROIT, March 27 (Reuters) - A former Michigan State University dean, who supervised the doctor at the center of the USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal, was himself charged on Tuesday with criminal sexual conduct involving medical school students.

A medical student at the school had accused William Strampel, the 70-year-old former dean of its College of Osteopathic Medicine, of forcible sexual contact, prosecutors said in papers filed in state district court in East Lansing. Prosecutors said other students also accused Strampel of various incidents of sexual misconduct.

Strampel was dean from 2002 until the end of 2017 when he left for medical reasons. He supervised ex-USA Gymnastics physician Larry Nassar, who has been sentenced to prison for sexually abusing female gymnasts.

The latest charges extend beyond that scandal to the former dean's own dealings with female medical students. They move the case beyond Nassar, sweeping the university up in the "MeToo" movement that has leveled harassment and abuse allegations against dozens of powerful men in the media, business and politics.

The four criminal counts against Strampel include fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. The accusations also include failing to properly oversee Nassar, whose scandal has reverberated far beyond Michigan, sparking probes into why the U.S. Olympic Committee, USA Gymnastics and the university failed for years to investigate complaints.

A lawyer for Strampel did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A Michigan State representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Nonprofit Board vs. Entrepreneur? #NonprofitBoards

If a phenomenal individual pioneers and drives and idea, is the purpose of the nonprofit just about tax exemption versus community ownership and support?  This is the question I am driven to ask about CommonLit.  Michelle Brown, the organization's founder and innovator has developed, in a year, an organization that now has 22 employees and 1 million registered users AND deep financial support (at least for now).

So what's the lesson?  In the following Chronicle of Philanthropy article, it appears that the nonprofit Ms. Brown has been the "everything" key to success - you know, the founder/entrepreneur that has the idea and the motive and the approach that sold to philanthropy and moved forward. 

What the article does not even refer to is a board that may or may not have been present to support Ms. Brown's efforts.  The article does not refer to a board that will ensure that all goes forward successfully and is accountable for all that has happened.  The article does not refer to a board that, on behalf of the public, "owns" the nonprofit.  

I do not offer my observation as a slight to Ms. Brown but I am led to believe that Ms. Brown, the amazing entrepreneur may face a variety of future challenges without developing a board that truly owns the organization and can see to its long-range well being.  Isn't that what should happen?

How an Education Nonprofit Grew as Fast as Facebook

By Marc Gunther


Sixth-grade reading teacher Toni Rose uses CommonLit with her students.

Michelle Brown had a simple idea: Build a free online library of reading materials for teachers and students.

Turning the idea into a nonprofit called CommonLit was not nearly as simple. She had to raise money, hire software engineers, and secure the rights to readings that would appeal to kids with varying interests and reading levels. For a while, she took no salary and funded the organization with money from her wedding.

When Brown, a 31-year-old alumna of Teach for America, finally got CommonLit off the ground, it took off like a rocket — with a boost from Fast Forward, a San Francisco group that works to accelerate the growth of tech-focused organizations.

CommonLit attracted 1 million registered users in 11 months — about as long as it took Facebook to reach that milestone. The website now has about 3.8 million registered users, which includes about 206,000 teachers and 3.6 million students. It’s adding another 100,000 users weekly. More than a third of U.S. public high schools and middle schools use the platform.

"We’re in the highest growth period we’ve seen," Brown says.

From Itta Bena to Boston

Brown got the idea for CommonLit after experiencing first-hand the contrast between schools that have money, books, and technology and those that don’t. She taught seventh grade for two years at a public school in Itta Bena, Miss., a small and very poor town with few books and no reading curriculum. She then spent two years teaching at Roxbury Prep, a well-resourced, high-performing charter school in Boston.

"CommonLit was my attempt to build the tools that I wish I had when I was in the [Mississippi] classroom," she says.

She began to develop CommonLit while studying at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, which gave her a $5,000 grant to test the idea as part of her master’s thesis. She subsequently won a competition for a $50,000 award from Teach for America and was chosen to be incubated by Fast Forward.

"The value of Fast Forward was technical mentorship and unrestricted cash," she says. "That’s what an early-stage tech company needs."

Just Like 7th-Grade Teaching

Soon after, she obtained a $3.9 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education that let her hire her first full-time employees, build a robust website, and assemble a library with thousands of books and stories, including works by such celebrated writers as Nikki Giovanni, Zora Neale Hurston, and Joyce Carol Oates.

Today, Brown oversees 21 employees from CommonLit’s offices in Washington.

What’s harder: running a startup or maintaining order in a seventh-grade classroom?

"It’s pretty remarkable how many similarities there are," she says. "Staying organized. Predictable routines. Teaching is great preparation for this work."

Nonprofit Governance Model: Church #NonprofitBoards

In Chicago, a nonprofit drama of sorts has been playing out over the past week or so.  Well, the drama has actually been going-on for some four years but with a Chicago Tribune news story last week, the drama moved up to the forefront of church members' conversations and resulted in a public meeting on the topic. 

The "topic" was the sexual-related allegations against the head pastor of a Mega-Church, Willow Creek.  Now, the Church has a nonprofit where the primary source of what reignited this turmoil appears to have risen with members of the association stating they did not believe the church elders (the "leadership") had adequately done their job.  Then the Chicago Tribune story and the need by elders to provide the church community an explanation if not defense of their actions and the continued presence of the lead pastor.  All of the details are much better provided in the Chicago Tribune article.  Suffice it to say, many folks will be satisfied and others will not and the conversation will likely not be fully put to rest until after the lead pastor's planned retirement in October.  Admittedly though, matters like this tend to leave long impressions.

But while we await for the dust to more or less settle, it is in my opinion worth considering the comparative difference between faith-structure (for this article, church) governance and nonprofit governance while acknowledging that churches are obviously nonprofits but with some different or should I say, a lot less accountability than nonprofits.  To begin, many churches do construct an oversight body above, perhaps in partnership with, the spiritual leader.  Most often this oversight "lay" body (elders in the case of Willow Creek) serves as a kitchen cabinet of sorts to the spiritual leader but more importantly adds value from a fiscal and physical plant management framework.  In some cases, depending on the spiritual leader, the lay body has authority over matters that are very much akin to those of a board.

At Willow Creek, the model appears very similar to what I have described with an added duty by the elder of ensuring that the best interests of the congregation are addressed.  Hence, if something about the lead pastor is awry, the elders will investigate and report out.  And, of course, except for whatever may be akin to by-laws, elders may or may not have authority to fire.  I don't know in the case of Willow Creek.  But, it does appear that if the congregation is not totally satisfied with the work of the elders, some type of action can be taken.

So, great governance?  In the Willow Creek situation, the elders presumably conducted an investigation and actually hired a lawyer, one who is philosophically in-sync with values, to investigation.  The conclusion, no problem.  Now let's tell the congregation because now of course, the congregation is asking because, well, they read about the situation in the paper.  Hm...from my perspective, I'm not thinking the check-and-balance system, one of the biggest benefits of nonprofit governance, is working.  Were I the congregation, revisiting this elder structure should be the next activity on my list of to-dos.

 

Nonprofit Board Blames Everyone Else #NonprofitBoards

According to the Washington Post, the Family Crisis Center of Prince George's County is anything but a model contractor having had decades of complaints for "substandard service and battered conditions".  According to the its 990, the shelter receives just over $1 million in government funds annually.  The board is comprised of six individuals including the executive.  The interim director says the shelter's problem is that all their money is allocated to personnel.  Again, according to its 990, the shelter employs 44 people with a cost of roughly $700K.  The balance is spent on operations and administrative stuff and it appears that the shelter owns its building.

So, while I acknowledge that maybe the government (state OR county) could come up with more money, always true.  This is one of the problems with dependency on government money - it is never enough to do "it" right.

However, I believe that what is really going on is failed governance.  This board has by intent or default and its dependence on government money,, failed to be a responsible owner. It has also not established even the lowest commitment of values to meet basic health and service standards.  I would pose it's time for a new board - one that is fully committed to providing the best services possible and one that is willing to do what it takes to achieve this goal.  

Here's the article.

Problems swarm at government-funded shelter for abused women

 

By Associated Press March 22 at 8:23 AM

UPPER MARLBORO, Md. — A government-funded safe house for abused women has been plagued with problems for decades and the government continues to rely on its nonprofit operator despite complaints about substandard service and battered conditions.

Marriage license fees collected by the county are required to go toward nonprofit Family Crisis Center of Prince George’s County. It received $385,000 in fees in addition to hundreds of thousands of dollars in county and state grants.

The shelter temporarily closed last year amid complaints of rash-inducing molds, mice, rotten food and other issues.

Interim director Michele Williams tells The Washington Post that most funding is allocated for personnel, rather than food or repairs, and she’s asking the state to change that. The state says it’s the county’s job to ensure the shelter is properly managed.

Nonprofit Continues to Do Harm #NonprofitBoards

Just when I thought I could rest my pen while thinking the Boy Scouts were edging to another level of enlightenment, they have proven me wrong.  Yes, the same organization that has stood against gays SAYS it supports persons with differing abilities but actions speak louder than words.  And even IF they make a concession, as they have with their stance on gays (local troops can decide how welcoming and accepting they want to be with their leadership and membership), they always appear to have to do so with some degree of public embarrassment.  

Now, like the folks who have been denied service because of their race or color or gender, I do always wonder why I would want to receive services or participate in a group that doesn't want me.  That said, I acknowledge that the denial is just plain wrong and should be fixed despite the likely-hood that wiping away inherent prejudice is just not simply accomplished without possibly, reprogramming the brain.  So joining the boy scouts is not on my bucket list nor will it be for me but exclusion is exclusion and in the case of the Washington Post story about a lad with a goal to be an Eagle Scout who was not accommodated by the Scouts in Utah, the simple fact is that that should not have happened.  So, kudos to the parents of this lad and those who are offering their support.  

And Boy Scouts board - when will you evolve to be a universally accepting organization.  Doesn't your creed (values) demand this? Perhaps this is just a misunderstanding between the lay leadership and the paid leadership?  If that's the case, it's nothing a good policy discussion can't solve.

Here's the Washington Post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/21/boy-scouts-discriminated-against-utah-teenager-with-down-syndrome-lawsuit-says/?elq=ea9a30a9a9e04782be147b8bd02b4006&elqCampaignId=8167&elqTrackId=278d2af91dad4189a00263172441689a&elqaid=18259&elqat=1&utm_term=.8e4d4a2112e5 

Nonprofit Values and the 1st Amendment versus Public Intent #NonprofitBoards

 

The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech to every citizen.  When constituted (clever, huh), there were businesses but these businesses, as I understand, were treated as individuals the way they, corporations in particular, are today.  And there were certainly not nonprofit organizations although there was "charity" mostly through churches.

"So what" you might ask?  Well, there is in a number of US states, as pointed out by Rev. Pavone, regulations that require anti-abortion (pro-life) centers to offer some direction about where abortions may be obtained.  Rev. Pavone maintains that such a mandate violates the rights to free speech.  Rev. Pavone does not address the point that the nonprofits he is concerned about are granted tax exemptions for pursuing missions that those who are giving the tax exemption may have a philosophical difference with the Centers.  In this case I would offer that this tax-free allowance authority comes with the authority to establish terms and particularly when those who allow the authority feel that the nonprofit does harm when not, in this case, providing information about abortion options.  

All of this can become very convoluted for me and obviously, like with the right to bear arms, it can be challenging to apply principles that were created in another period of history.  But another question in addition to the free-speech rights arises.  If a group of folks with a passion organize around a specific Theory of Change, should they abide by the rules being applied to them?  In other words, how will mission be accomplished if core values and beliefs totally clash with rules being imposed?   

These two basic questions: does freedom of speech apply when there is a so-claimed right not to refer to abortion options against the public's preferred will otherwise and, how can mission be pursued when the public rules counter core values and Theory of Change?

There is no simple answer although I lean toward stating that the public has the right to declare terms when it is giving away tax exemptions.  And, yes, I can see this applying to many instances which would in-turn require much more scrutiny in the allocation of tax exemptions by the public sectors - local, state and federal.

Here's the Washington Post editorial that started me on this rumination.

 

 

Nonprofit Board Rejects Whistleblower in Defense of Rock Star Founder #NonprofitBoards

 

One of the so-called "rock stars" in the nonprofit social enterprise world has been accused of a number of "crimes" to her nonprofit, donors, employees, and those who are meant to benefit from her work.  Catherine Hoke is the founder and CEO of Defy Ventures.  She is responsible for having created an institution that is national and expansive in scope.  Defy is touted by Ms. Hokes as having established an effective approach to "reforming" offenders who now run businesses.  Defy itself also runs businesses include a predominantly on-line business development training program.

The former President (I presume, hired to take care of operations), not long after beginning his work at Defy, became a whistleblower saying that all, in terms of programs and results, was not what it seemed to be.  Additionally, Ms. Hoke was presented by the President as sexual assault, harassment and also pocketing funds that were intended to support a client's work but the client was not accepted in the program.  

These are all very serious accusations for which the President was fired by the board - a board I'm recognizing based on Hoke interviews and videos, was recruited by Ms. Hoke.  But as you can see, the President was fired for insubordination and his accusations were dismissed as not being evidence-based.  I'm not thinking it's all that simple.

 

Prison reformer who runs nonprofit that aims to give ex-cons a 'second chance' is accused of sexual assault, harassment and ripping off her investors

• Catherine Hoke runs Defy Ventures which turns ex-cons into entrepreneurs
• But former employees say its leader ran an abusive work environment
• Hoke is accused of misleading benefactors, and possibly ripping off clients 

By Dailymail.com Reporter

PUBLISHED: 17:16 EDT, 16 March 2018 | UPDATED: 17:39 EDT, 16 March 2018

 

The founder of a nonprofit company which aims to give ex-cons a second chance in the business world is facing accusations that could see her own career ending in tatters.  

Catherine Hoke founded Defy Ventures, a charity that is dedicated to helping former prisoners make a new start and begin their own businesses.  

However she now faces some disturbing allegations of her own with a number of former employees saying she fostered an abusive work environment, misled benefactors, and may even have ripped off clients.  

Catherine Hoke runs Defy Ventures which turns ex-cons into entrepreneurs but she is now facing some serious allegations of her own including one of sexual harassment  

Hoke saw setting up Defy as her own second chance after she was discovered to have had sexual relations with four Texas prisoners on a different program she was running

Several big names have donated grants to Defy including Google, the Koch brothers and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg. 

But according to The Daily Beast such names may now be regretting being associated with the charity after Defy fired its president, Roger Gordon, when he blew the whistle on allegations of sexual harassment by Hoke and fraudulent statistics exaggerating the program's successes.

Hoke describes Defy as 'a second chance for people with criminal histories by offering classes for current and formerly incarcerated people.' The program operates in 15 prisons and also teaches classes online. 

The firm is also something of a redemption for Hoke also after she made some transgressions of her own.  

Hoke was running a business skills-training program for Texas prisoners in 2004, but five years later she was banned after she was discovered to have had sexual relations with four program graduates. 

 

 

The nonprofit, Defy Ventures, claims it is dedicated to helping former prisoners make a new start and begin their own businesses

She started anew by founding Defy in 2010, making a fresh start for herself in New York.    

Three months ago, the company brought on Roger Gordon as its new president who had chaired a nonprofit that employed more than 100 formerly incarcerated people, but just weeks into the job Gordon began to have concerns about Hoke's conduct and suggested she may have made up numbers about the success of the program.

One complaint surrounding Hoke was over a complaint brought by a female former employee who said Hoke 'reached her hand up the employee's skirt twice at a company party.' 

'The employee signed a nondisclosure agreement prohibiting her from disclosing the incident or the existence of the NDA to anyone except the CEO, her husband or the COO.'

 

One allegation against Defy is that lineups where prisoners and investors meets are more or less staged to generate donations and are repeated several times over for different groups

'Two employees who witnessed the assault were forced to relinquish their personal mobile phones and passwords.' 

On another occasion, a former Defy client, Kenneth Maxwell, sued Hoke in 2015 alleging he was forced out of the program over his 'refusal to consummate a personal and sexual relationship' with her. The lawsuit was later dismissed.

Another female employee told The Daily Beast Hoke sexually harassed her during a business trip in 2014 forcing her to share a bed. 

'When we checked in to the Vertigo Hotel, the reserved room only had one king-size bed, which Catherine and I both occupied despite my repeated suggestions that I sleep on a cot,' the female former employee wrote.

The former Defy staffer allegedly quoted Hoke telling her 'she 'doesn't usually like blondes, but that I am really hot.' She also wrote that Hoke said she and her husband 'would try to 'gross each other out' by imagining a former employee masturbating, and that Hoke was sad she had to share a room on the trip 'because she wasn't able to bring her toys along.'

 

There are questions over just how successful the ex-cons are at setting up their own business with the company facing accusations that it has misled investors by inflating the numbers

The allegations were all noted in a letter written by Gordon and seen by the Daily Beast.

Gordon also alleges that the company pocketed money from prospective students who never made it onto the program.

'There have been allegations that Defy has collected application fees from students without intending to admit them and that winners of in-prison business plan competitions do not receive the cash prizes they are promised,' he wrote in his letter. 'Instead, they have been asked to reimburse Defy for program costs and to sign over the money.'

It's believed Defy's fees are around $1,200 to take the largely online course. 

Gordon said that he also felt uncomfortable at it stated figures that only 5 percent of the 5,500 students that has been through its courses re-offend,  

'There is no way to arrive at this figure through any consistent and doctrinally sound methodology,' Gordon alleged in his letter to the board. 'Rather, it appears to be arrived at by selectively including program participants and by broadly defining success. More specifically, only the relatively few participants who complete the entire program are checked for recidivism and even then data is selectively omitted.'

Gordon also wrote how Defy attempts to court donors by taking them on prison visits.

A well polished routine exists whereby the company brings supporters along to meet students who are incarcerated students. 

Hoke then calls out the students using personal information such as “step to the line if your first arrest was before the age of 10.'

The whole ploy appears to work well with investors however what Gordon felt  uncomfortable with was the fact the same exercise would be repeated three different times for three different sets of donors in a carefully choreographed set, while still attempting to create the illusion of spontaneity.

 

Defy fired its president, Roger Gordon, in January after blowing the whistle on allegations of sexual harassment by Hoke and fraudulent statistics exaggerating the program's successes

Other employees told The Daily Beast that the figures misleadingly included people who had enrolled in classes but not necessarily taken classes.

Gordon also alleged that many of the endeavors Defy claims to have helped launch never went much further than a student registering a business name with the state.

After taking his concerns to the board he was suspended and told to hand over all the notes he had taken while on the job. 

Defy then fired Gordon citing his outreach to donors and employees.

Gordon was terminated for 'communicating with donors and supporters of the organization in a manner that the Board believed was damaging to Defy and inconsistent with Mr. Gordon's fiduciary obligations' against the board's orders, Defy said in a statement. 

The firm also commented on Gordon's allegations: 'We feel compelled to say that Mr. Gordon's allegations do not appear to be supported by other members of the organization or by other evidence available to the investigators.'

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5511183/Prison-reformer-runs-nonprofit-accused-sexual-assault.html#ixzz5A0XJqJCs 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

 

Nonprofit Boards: No CEO Succession Plans! #NonprofitBoards

 

We can't say we haven't been warned.  Albeit, the warnings have not always been on-target.  About 10 maybe 15 years ago all the big nonprofit research folks had done the math and figured out that the time was coming for a major turnover in nonprofit CEOs.  CEOs weren't going to get fired for misbehaving or not meeting goals.  They were going to retire, en mas.  So the economy changed and CEOs stayed put: they couldn't afford to go.  Well, that era has ended (not the economy) but the time has come and aging is now really moving CEOs off.  But, according to a new study The study, commissioned by the Concord Leadership Group and supported by Bloomerang, Boardable, and DonorSearch.  The study asked more than 1,140 nonprofit leaders about their leadership style and results., nonprofit boards are still not taking CEO departure seriously. 

 

The findings: less than 25% have succession plans.  I don't know that they don't have emergency succession plans but they don't have the long-range plans and the consequence is not great for both the board, staff and agency while "67% of nonporfit leaders say they plan to leave their position in the next five years, according to a new study".

 

According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy   

the study backs up other recent research on turnover and succession, including a 2016 report from Concord Leadership, which found a high percentage of nonprofits don’t have strategic goals or succession plans, imperiling their chances of long-term survival.

A separate 2014 report found that more than two-thirds of groups do not have a formal succession plan for senior leaders, and only 14 percent reported a goal to form one.

The new study also concluded that nonprofits have "an unfortunate emphasis on conferences and seminars," and Sargeant said they should focus more on rigorous, tailored training programs specific to the needs of the staff.

Sargeant suggests boards should be supportive of leaders’ personal interests and value leaders’ time and not let them get bogged down by administrative duties that could be handled by another employee at a lower cost.

The study analyzed four leadership styles: servant leadership, transformational leadership, charismatic leadership, and transactional leadership. It found servant leadership, in which a leader focuses on the needs of the employees, to be the most popular, with over 53 percent of the responses.

Servant leadership "may help drive a culture of philanthropy in a nonprofit organization, thereby facilitating fundraising and income generation." Transformational leaders are idealists, charismatic leaders focus on persuasion, and transactional leaders focus on fulfilling the obligations of a contract, which typically means setting goals and monitoring the outcome.

Pitman said he’s concerned leaders may spend too much time planning and not enough time tracking and following through on goals.

"How can you know if you’re making progress if you’re not measuring it?" Pitman said.

Positive Signs

On the bright side, Pitman noted that the study results suggest nonprofit staffs hunger for leadership training, mentoring, and coaching.

Pitman and Sargeant suggest that board members, leaders, and emerging leaders should seize the desire for training and better leadership and have the sometimes awkward conversation about succession for the sake of good governance.

"The real value of the planning process is it helps organizations to think about the future in a structured way," Sargeant said. "And it’s the process itself that adds value to an organization, not just the plan they come up with."

So come-on nonprofit boards: get your act together.  Board fiduciary duty of care and the prudence standard really demand that boards step-up and get this job of succession planning done.  And you know what: it's not that hard!

Nonprofit Board Performance Measurement #NonprofitBoards

I was looking forward to learning more from the following MultiBriefs news piece.  The topic: How to measure the board's performance.  But wait, what is described in this piece is not How to Measure Performance as much as what it is that a board should measure.  Interestingly I would offer that the indicators and categories offered for informing a board about what it should measure are helpful and if these aren't currently part of a board's "dashboard" they should be considered.  Maybe not all precisely as described but these are good starting point indicators of success in terms of what could or should be the focus of a board.  And, it is likely these would what be the focus of strategic planning goals and strategies so all falls well in-line.

But about the topic: how to measure the board's performance?  Not much here.  A governance committee is the perfect vehicle for a board to determine what are the expectations of a board and what are the indicators or dashboard that should be used to measure its own results or job performance.  Such indicators might include: strategies or plans completed; fiduciary matters settled or resolved; performance appraisals that redirect or support staffing.  Some of this may sound more like outputs versus outcomes but thus begins the conversation.  No, board performance assessment is not an easy task but it does matter.  

Please share any insights on the performance indicators your board has developed.

 

How to measure the board’s performance

 

Robert C. Harris

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

 

 

"If you can't measure it, you can't improve it," said Peter Drucker, author and management consultant. The concept applies to associations, too.

Volunteer leaders on the board may not think of the association as a business. They probably know the importance of key performance indicators (KPIs) in successful organizations but don't give them much thought in a nonprofit.

"Nonprofit organizations have to be as data-driven as any for-profit company. Members want to belong to well-run organizations that meet their needs, provide adequate services and a sufficient return on their investment. You must know where you are currently to grow your organization," said Wil Riley, RCE, CAE and CEO at the Charleston Trident Association of Realtors.

Nearly everything in an association can be measured. Directors and staff should discuss and agree on what they want to monitor and then identify the KPIs.

For instance, an organization with a political action committee will want to monitor the percentage of the membership that contributes. Another measure is the amount of the average contribution and how much is given each election cycle.

Metrics can be transformed into a dashboard, a visual depiction of the information. Use a gauge, pie chart or thermometer to communicate the data so directors can easily compare results from meeting to meeting.

"I don't just want to improve it, I want to measure it long-term so we are able to identify areas of concern or question through the dashboards and then determine the 'why' there is a change," offered Kim Brown Pokorny, MS, MBA, executive director at the Wisconsin Veterinary Medical Association.

What should the board monitor?

In an audience of elected presidents, I asked, "What should the board monitor?" Ideally, a board will identify eight to 12 areas they want to monitor. With consistent KPIs, it is easier to identify gaps, trends and successes. Here are the leaders' replies:

Strategic plan — How many goals make up the plan? Are metrics aligned with the work in the plan? What year of a multiyear plan is being worked and when is the update due?

Membership — What percentage of total possible members belongs? How many members and what’s the growth trend? What’s the renewal rate?

Programs and services — What percentage of members use specific programs? Are programs self-sufficient? What metrics are used to measure program success before abandoning benefits?

Advocacy — What percentage of member dues is spent on direct lobbying expenses? How many touch points are there between the association and lawmakers? Are their significant "wins" to report to members?

Finances — What are the income and expense trends? Is the ratio of savings to budget sufficient? Compare the ratio of dues to nondues income.

Internet — Are analytics used and search engine optimization in effect? How many visitors to the website and what information do they retrieve? Are the association's social media pages active with an increased number of likes and friends?

Events — Is attendance as expected or declining? What's the ROI? Was excess revenue generated as well as the purpose effectively carried out?

Political action — Is percentage of members contributing increase? Compare prior year income and contributions. How much is the average member payment?

Satisfaction — What’s the strategy for gauging member satisfaction? What is the trend? How frequently is surveying undertaken?

Outcomes — The most important measurement may be outcomes. Do board meetings end with results? At year end is their proof that the mission was advanced and goals achieved?

Nearly every aspect of an association should be monitored. From diversity to board effectiveness performance measures should be identified. Thanks to the local presidents and ascending leaders at the Georgia Realtors Leadership Academy for their suggestions.