Nonprofit Board Crisis

Financial expertise on your nonprofit board #NonprofitBoards

I lean toward agreeing with the following assessment of both using a matrix analysis for figuring-out gaps on a board and installing accountants or the like on a board because they are accountants or the like.  Here's the piece from the Nonprofit Quarterly.

September 26, 2019; Journalist’s Resource

At NPQ, we don’t believe in skills matrixes for board recruitment—most of the time, they just don’t work. Accordingly, we were intrigued by this recent study of 89 Massachusetts charter schools over a 12-year period, which made some intriguing findings about how board makeup correlates to results. Our favorite finding, as relayed by Denise Marie-Ordway for Journalist’s Resource, is this:

Researchers…learned something about charter school boards that challenges assumptions about which kinds of board members will best help a charter school stay on track financially. While many Massachusetts charter schools have named financial experts such as accountants and investors to their governing boards, this study shows that the financial performance of charter schools with and without a financial expert on the board is about the same.

Right! Let’s can those assumptions about boards that have proven time and again to be a little silly. We were also interested in Marie-Ordway’s point about boards that have founders involved: Those schools tend to “borrow more heavily,” “manage…cash less efficiently, and see smaller increases in enrollment compared with charter schools that don’t have a founder on the board. But these schools do better in one critical area: Their students earn higher test scores.”

Unfortunately, the study’s authors looked at correlations to only three types of board members: school founders, financial experts, and donors. “Donors” are not necessarily individual donors, but representatives from supporting entities like a corporation, or even another nonprofit.

Gulosino and Ciamarra find that having someone on the board who represents a donor increases the school’s financial performance in multiple ways. For example, these charter schools have higher funding surpluses, manage their cash more efficiently, rely less on debt and raise more money. The researchers attribute this to “the donors’ strong monitoring incentives because of their financial stakes in the school.”

In any case, this study is far too discrete to take any generalized findings away except that boards are not made up of skill banks but of people with a variety of motivations and deployable assets. If you hear a simplistic approach to board development—as in a skills matrix—back up, take a deep breath, and think again, because those easy-peasy normative tools that follow simple logic often do not work well with actual people.—Ruth McCambridge

"Seismic Change" for Boards #NonprofitBoards

The National Association of Corporate Boards' latest report states that "boards, in close partnership with management, will require a greater speed of decision making, proactive behaviors, adaptability, and innovation.”  I pose that your board or at least the Governance Committee should take a glance at this report to consider what changes might be made.  The report emphasizes the role technology is playing in advancing the world and boards must be ready.  But equally important, the report stresses that the board who is reactive versus proactive, strategic versus tactical, will never see its organization thrive if not survive. There are five specific shifts that include increased board accountability and an understanding of what is risk are outlined below by Yahoo Finance. 

 

In the Face of Seismic Change, NACD Issues Blueprint for Board Leaders to Effectively Lead Their Boards Into the Future

 

GlobeNewswire•September 23, 2019

The Board Leader Has New Imperative to Make Their Board Fit for the Future

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD), the authority on boardroom practices representing more than 20,000 board members, today released the report of the 2019 NACD Blue Ribbon Commission initiative, Fit for the Future: An Urgent Imperative for Board Leadership. The report sounds a call to action for board leaders (independent chairs or lead directors) to meet the demands of a fundamentally different operating reality by reshaping how the board thinks, operates, and interacts with the business.

The report addresses major, fast-moving, economic, technological, and social trends and their long-term implications for board oversight, and recommends specific actions board leaders can take to renew the board’s human capital, adapt board structures and operations, and deliver incisive oversight on critical issues. The report also offers practical tools, examples, and case studies that board leaders can use to initiate change.

“As businesses are confronted with a multitude of unforeseen changes—from exponential technological change to demographic shifts to increasing geopolitical instability to growing social activism—board leaders will need to set in motion difficult changes to make their boards fit for the future,” notes Cari Dominguez, Commission cochair, former director of Calvert SAGE Fund, and current director of ManpowerGroup, Triple-S Management Corp., The Calvert Funds, and NACD. “This initiative offers a blueprint for making board leaders more effective in transforming their boards over the next few years by sharing new data insights, specific recommendations, and practical examples and tools.”

A recent NACD survey showed that nearly 7 in 10 directors (69%) believe that exponential technological change will shift how boards govern their enterprises in the future. Eighty-one percent of directors expect much deeper board engagement on entirely new drivers of growth and risk. Seventy-six percent expect that board structures will need to become more dynamic. And 74 percent expect that directors will need to significantly increase their time commitment to fulfill their mandate.

“It is crystal clear that the seismic changes confronting business will require a new modus operandi for boards,” said Lester Lyles, Commission cochair, recently retired director of USAA, and current director of General Dynamics Corp., KBR Inc., Battelle Memorial Institute, and the NASA Advisory Council. “Their companies can no longer rely on historical growth strategies. And boards, in close partnership with management, will require a greater speed of decision making, proactive behaviors, adaptability, and innovation.”

The report of the 2019 NACD Blue Ribbon Commission initiative—led by a group of 30 experienced directors and leading governance professionals—outlines five governance shifts that board leaders should help orchestrate:

1. Deeper, more proactive board engagement with management on entirely new and fast-changing drivers of strategy and risk
2. A more strategic, forward-looking approach to board renewal through the lens of the shifting needs of the business
3. A more dynamic and flexible board operating model and structure
4. Increased internal and external transparency about the workings of the board
5. More rigorous accountability for board and individual-director performance

“The board leader plays a pivotal role in catalyzing the changes that are required for boards to lead in these unprecedented times,” said NACD CEO Peter Gleason. “This Blue Ribbon Commission initiative provides board leaders with a framework to keep their boards fit for purpose and relevant.”

The report of the 2019 NACD Blue Ribbon Commission initiative, Fit for the Future: An Urgent Imperative for Board Leadership, and the report’s comprehensive toolkit (available exclusively to NACD members) can be accessed http://www.nacdonline.org/fitforthefutureboards.

The report’s Commissioners comprise distinguished board directors, executives, and governance experts. In aggregate, they serve on the boards of 32 publicly traded companies, 21 privately held companies, and on the boards of 24 nonprofit organizations. The Commission includes 10 current and former CEOs.

Nonprofit Bad Press But Won't Surrender #NonprofitBoards

Over the years I have frequently criticized the Boy Scouts organization.  They have homophobic policies and have barely addressed this.  They have member leaders who have been pedaphiles: apologized but, have policies changed?  They have troops that get that are getting paramilitary training and view this as vocational education.  They have opened up to girls but are unclear about how the culture and policies should be adjusted and it is even less clear how they retrain the current leadership to adapt.  Now it's true I have met folks who are scout leaders who are indeed committed, faithful, culturally rich individuals but they are not THE organization.  All-in-all, this is an organization that just isn't who they once might have been and maybe it's time to either radically change from the top down or get out of the business.  That said, check-out today's Washington Post as evidence that all is not going well.

 

Nonprofit Board Members Must Heed the Call #NonprofitBoards

If you don't like the status quo: do something about it!  That's essentially the message from the National Council of Nonprofits in their report titled Nonprofit Impact Matters.  And really, board members don't need to rely on their staff to represent them when it comes to talking to those who make the rules that keep the status quo the status quo or worse, create an even more onerous status quo.  Change doesn't happen on its own!  Please heed the call.  This is the time for all good people to come to the aid of their nonprofits and constituents.

ARTICLE
SEPTEMBER 18, 2019

---

Charities Urged to Step Up Advocacy Efforts

By Michael Theis
Chronicle reporter

Only 3 percent of nonprofits reported lobbying activity last year, according to a new report that urges charities to step up their advocacy efforts in an era when government cuts are squeezing their finances.

The report from the National Council of Nonprofits, titled Nonprofit Impact Matters, calls on policy makers and nonprofit advocates to carefully consider the impact of government policy on charities, which are struggling to serve their constituents in an age of declining individual contributions and the threat of state and federal funding cuts for social programs.

"Common sense says that if 97 percent of nonprofits are passive, sitting quietly and politely on the sidelines, not standing for or speaking out for their missions, then nonprofits are ceding the playing field to others who will influence decisions by policy makers, potentially endangering nonprofits’ missions and the people and communities they serve," reads the report.

Charities are allowed to lobby, but they face significant restrictions, and many say the limits are unclear. However, Rick Cohen, chief operating officer at the National Council of Nonprofits, says the laws aren’t as difficult to navigate as many charities have been led to believe.  

“There are long-held myths out there that nonprofits can't lobby,” he says. “Those get spread a lot of times even by attorneys and accountants who serve on nonprofit boards.”

The report notes that most of the nation’s 1.3 million charities operate on shoestring budgets. Only 8 percent reported expenses of more than $1 million, and only 3 percent reported expenses of more than $5 million, according to 2016 IRS data.

Meanwhile, 55 percent of nonprofits either reported no expenses or had gross receipts of less than $50,000 a year; 88 percent spend less than $500,000 in annual operating costs.

Other data from the report:

• 49 percent of charity revenue is earned through private fees for service.
• 31.8 percent comes from government grants and contracts.
• Private donations make up a relatively small chunk of charity revenue, only 14 percent. The largest part of that comes from individual gifts, which account for 8.7 percent of nonprofit revenue. Foundation grants account for only 2.9 percent, bequests for 1.5 percent, and corporate contributions less than 1 percent.

Michael Theis writes about data and accountability for the Chronicle, conducting surveys and reporting on fundraising, giving, salaries, taxes, and more. He recently surveyed pay packages at charities and found wide disparities in base salaries and bonuses among nonprofit causes. Email Michael or follow him on Twitter.

Note: This article has been updated with comments from Rick Cohen of the National Council of Nonprofits, and a paragraph about nonprofit lobbying restrictions has been clarified.

Nonprofit Board Competencies #NonprofitBoards

Ok, so the following story is not singular to nonprofit boards but it does offer some fodder for nonprofit board governance committees to chew on as they consider their recruitment plans.  The story: Dr. Oz is being seated on the board of a bio-tech company.  The question: what does he bring to the table?

I think the article's author does a good job digging-in to what are the general responsibilities of boards, criteria for recruitment, and an analyses of Dr. Oz's place in this world.  I believe all nonprofit boards have insights to gain from what otherwise might be written-off as just entertainment gossip.

TV personality Dr. Oz is now on the board of a biotech company

By KATE SHERIDAN @sheridan_kate

SEPTEMBER 17, 2019

Dr. Mehmet OzDAVID MCNEW/GETTY IMAGES

One biotech company’s newest director has a very familiar face. Dr. Mehmet Oz will be joining the board of directors of PanTheryx, a Colorado-based nutraceutical and biologics company, the company recently announced.

Oz, the host of “The Dr. Oz Show,” commands a huge following. He has also drawn sharp criticism for his embrace of alternative medicine and for his “disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine,” as 10 physicians wrote in a 2015 letter to the dean of medicine at Columbia University, where Oz is a faculty member.

It’s unclear whether Oz has served on the board of a biotech company previously. He served on the American Association for Thoracic Surgery’s board and the board of nonprofit HealthCorps; he is also named as a co-founder of several health companies, including SleepScore Labs and Sharecare.

 

Representatives for Oz and PanTheryx said they were not available for comment. 

Related: 

Traditionally, directors make sure the company they serve is generally staying on the right side of the market and the right side of the law. Boards are also responsible for some nitty-gritty aspects of corporate governance, like overseeing external auditors and determining compensation packages. 

Is a surgeon turned Emmy-winning daytime television talk show host really qualified to do that? 

“For a company in biotech and health care, it would make sense,” said Robert Pozen, who teaches two courses on corporate governance at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management. “You wouldn’t want him to be on General Motors’.”

In a statement, the company said it expects Oz to advise it on “expanding its impact” and will bring his “decades of medical, nutrition, wellness, and communications expertise to the PanTheryx board.” 

Two kinds of people wind up as directors, said Pozen, who has served on Medtronic’s board and is the former president of Fidelity Investments. “You want what people think of as domain experts — so if it’s a biotech company, you want someone who knows something about biotech or health care,” he said. “And you want people who have the more technical knowledge about governance and compensation.”

Chances are that Oz is intended to sit in the former category, not the latter. PanTheryx is a nutraceutical company with one “medical food” product on the market. That product, DiaResQ, is made in part with the milk that cows produce shortly after they give birth. Sometimes called bovine colostrum, that milk can be used to treat diarrhea in human children, too.

But the company, which has raised $170 million over the last 12 years, has also begun exploring more traditional drugs, too. Its scientists are currently running preclinical studies for drugs intended to treat C. difficile infections, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and the diarrhea that some chemotherapy patients experience. 

Oz won’t be the only notable name on the company’s board. Dr. Rajiv Shah, the president of the Rockefeller Foundation, joined the board in April. Tom Bumol, the executive director of the Allen Institute for Immunology — one of several research organizations founded by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen — also joined that month.

About the Author

Kate Sheridan

General Assignment Reporter

Kate is a general assignment reporter.

[email protected]

@sheridan_kate

Tags

Chief Financial Officers #NonprofitBoards

Admittedly, about 1/3 of the nonprofits with whom I work have a CFO (Chief Financial Officer).  Another 1/3 have a finance person who serves principally as an accountant, purchasing agent, payroll person and billing agent.  The final 1/3 might have a bookkeeper.  Yes, all could use a CFO but, well, the money is just not there - there's not enough indirect funds to afford such a position.  Not that this shouldn't be a priority but let's be real - between state contracts and funders, indirect monies just aren't found.

That said, the position of CFO could be most useful.  From an article titled "six traits of highly regarded CFO's we learn:

Once known as elite accountants, today’s chief financial officers know numbers aren’t enough. For their organizations to succeed, CFOs must do far more than deliver on-time and accurate financial reporting. As their roles have expanded, they are corporate leaders in their own right, charting a course toward the future.

“The old-school skills of accounting and compliance won’t cut it in the modern world. A CFO needs to be a well-rounded business leader, which encompasses technological mastery, strategic thinking and team-building,” says Jack McCullough, founder and president of CFO Leadership Council near Boston.

Mark Thresher, executive vice president and CFO at Nationwide, agrees. “It’s about much more than financial statement. The CFO has to be a key adviser to the CEO and the board about the business in general. You need an understanding of how decisions are made about buying and selling, the products (services) we offer, where we are headed and why.”

And when recruiting a CFO, here's some essential skills/traits:

1. Strategic thinking

Deloitte addresses the issue in a series of articles aimed at executives, saying It’s imperative that CFOs ask the right questions about where the company is currently positioned; what prevents or could prevent it from achieving its potential; and then framing strategies accordingly.

2. Risk and resilience

Risk comes in many shapes and sizes, from an organization’s investment portfolio to its use of third-party vendors. 

Today’s CFOs need a thorough grounding in business and predictive analytics, as well as training in IT and human resources, Renaud says.

 Risk is a framework for many decisions, such as how much capital to put behind its businesses and how to invest its assets, he says.

3. ‘Walking the floor’ and beyond

CFOs must understand operations and strategy from all perspectives. To be of most value, they should work with every functional group in the business, including sales, marketing, operations and production, Martyn says.

4. Team-building and EQ

A CFO should be a strong leader, coach and mentor, and have the ability to listen, Martyn says. “EQ (emotional intelligence) is a real plus, and you can’t always teach that. It’s an ability to interact with people so they trust and confide in you. The better ones have an innate ability to do that, much like a doctor’s bedside manner.”

5. Time out (really?)

6. Integrity

“CFOS are the ethical leaders of their organizations, not only in terms of their own behavior but in terms of creating a culture where ethics count,” McCullough says. “As CFO, you set the example for the entire organization.”

Thresher says, “My role is to protect the honesty and integrity of the company.”

Laurie Allen is a freelance writer for Columbus CEO.

Common Sense Governance #NonprofitBoards

Following a couple of news stories regarding financial theft by nonprofit execs, the Capitol Gazette editorial board offered the following advice to small nonprofit boards:

But boards of directors must take steps to ensure the people in charge of day-to-day management of a nonprofit group are properly shepherding finances. These common steps are frequently recommended by accountants and financial crime experts to prevent theft and fraud:

Set internal policies and control over finances. This could be as simple as having two people responsible for approval of expenses and generating monthly or quarterly financial reports to the boards that include bank and credit card statements.

Assigning different financial roles to different people over time. If different volunteers or employees come up with different numbers for expenses or account balances consistently, it’s a warning sign that something may be amiss.

Use accounting software designed for nonprofits. It will provide easier oversight and guidance on finance and spending as well as provide a host of other benefits.

Create an annual operating budget. By setting realistic projections of expenses, nonprofit leadership and board members can spot problems early.

The board must be completely independent of the leadership of a nonprofit. That means no one on the board is married to the executive director or has a financial relationship.

The victims of thefts or misappropriation of funds from small nonprofits are first and foremost the people who benefit from the programs. That is who the board of directors is protecting.

Those who run these groups and provide oversight have to take their responsibility seriously.

Board Diversity is Network not Pipeline Issue #NonprofitBoards

In a Valdosta Valley interview about board diversity, New York Stock Exchange Betty Liu, NYSE Executive Vice Chairman and chief experience officer at Intercontinental Exchange offered her experience about diversifying boards (for and non-profit).  Her major point to me: "diversifying a board is not a pipeline issue, it's a network issue."  Basically, the folks sitting on a board know tend to know folks who look like them - that's their circle.  Broaden the circle, you broaden the pool.  An additional point from Ms. Liu: understand what are the needed skills, perspective and experience not currently on the board.  At the same time I think I would offer that this is not an either or but both when speaking of pipeline and network.  Re the pipeline, a nonprofit board has a variety of means to identify prospective board members once their networking is expanded.  Advisory Committees, recruiting for standing committees and task forces, and recruiting volunteers and staff connections can be sources for the pipeline.

Note, Ms. Liu's advice is well stated but she is certainly not the only individual speaking this message.  But of course, hearing a message doesn't just happen once.  From the AP via the Valdosta Daily Times, here's excerpts from her interview.

 

Q: What are the biggest challenges when it comes to achieving board diversity?

A: The biggest obstacle is the network. Some of the CEOs I talked to said, "if I'm having a hard time finding a candidate, it's not so much that there aren't candidates out there, it's that my network's not big enough." When I heard things like that, I felt, "let's expand that network." Board diversity is not a pipeline issue, it's a network issue.

Q: What are your thoughts on best practices for recruiting diverse candidates?

A: CEOs and boards are expanding their definition of what makes a good board member. Because if they look at just title, a former CEO or a CEO, then that pool is naturally very narrow. There are many women and minorities who are very capable that might not have that title. Go beyond title. What's the skillset, what's the type of person that you need on that board?

Q: Did the candidates at the June session have prior board experience?

A: Some of them did, but most of them didn't. Because what tends to happen is that the same people get invited on boards, so what we need to do is expand that network to people who have never been on a board. We had people who were entrepreneurs, who were CEOs themselves, we had people who were running multibillion-dollar businesses within large corporations, and then we had people who were in the nonprofit space.

Q: What is your advice to first-time candidates seeking to get on a board?

A: First, raise your hand, and be intentional about telling people that you are interested in a board position. The second thing is the skills that got you to where you are sometimes may not be the skills that make you a good board member. Some board members, when they come on, they think they are managing the company, they think they are managing the CEO. That's not really your role. So just learn from other board members. Try to find other board members and make them mentors.

Nonprofit versus For-profit #NonprofitBoards

Karen Kahn in HealthLeaders Media via the Nonprofit Quarterly offers the following description of the difference between for-profit and nonprofit hospitals management and governance:

• Nonprofit hospitals are community-oriented institutions, driven by mission rather than shareholder returns.
• For-profit hospitals must balance community service with shareholder returns; operational efficiencies drive decision making.
• Nonprofit hospitals tend to plan for continued viability over the long-term; for-profit hospitals concerned with quarterly returns make short-term decisions that may not align with the needs of the communities they serve.

Note in particular, bullet one, is essentially about governance - a board that sits in proxy for the community - or at least that's the way it was designed.  And, this distinction applies not just to hospitals but to nonprofits in general.  I acknowledge however that, given the three-legged stool paradigm about the role of nonprofits as filling the void between public demand (public financing) and business (driven by profits and demand), not all nonprofits would be sustainable if they were for-profits.  But putting that reality to the side momentarily, it is true that it is the boards of nonprofits that are called upon to safeguard for the public the tax-exempt mission/public good of the nonprofit.  For-profit boards have an interest in their shareholders first and foremost.  

So, I like Karen Kahn's simplified differentiation while at the same time wondering and seeing that nonprofits hospitals have not all been faithful to the public good and here's where the questions arise both for hospitals and the remainder of the nonprofit sector.  There is much work to be done in ensuring that nonprofit boards recognize their role in this model and are fully focused on ensuring achievement of mission, efficiencies, and long-term viability.

 

Powerless Board? #NonprofitBoards

An expose on an organization that does the marketing for dairy farmers indicates a board that has grossly failed to exert itself in terms of setting and measuring outcomes as well as approving budgets that from the outside, appear to be overly generous in payment to management.  I am not really able to speak to how outrageous the pay and benefits are but that the board has not exerted its own authority is clear.  And yes, the end result is indeed sad for the dairy farmers and were I a board member, I'd be making waves be it internally or externally (i.e. time to organize those who are paying the freight).

Here's the story from the Pulitzer Center via the Milwaukee Sentinel

A Nonprofit That's Supposed to Promote Dairy Pays Its Leaders Millions — While the Farmers Who Fund It Are Going out of Business

September 09, 2019 | Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

BY 

CARY SPIVAK

 

 Donate

Pete Hardin, editor and publisher of the dairy trade publication The Milkweed at his home in Brooklyn, Wisconsin. Image by Mark Hoffman. United States, 2019. 

As the number of dairy farms nationwide has plummeted by nearly 20,000 over the past decade, there's one corner of the industry doing just fine:

The top executives at Dairy Management Inc., who are paid from farmers' milk checks. 

The Illinois-based nonprofit is charged with promoting milk, cheese and other products — spending nearly $160 million a year collected through federally-mandated payments from dairy farmers.

In 2017, a year in which 503 dairy farms closed in Wisconsin and 1,600 were shuttered nationwide, IRS records show 10 executives at the organization were paid more than $8 million — an average of more than $800,000 each.

Pay for Thomas Gallagher, the group's CEO, has topped $1 million three times from 2013 to 2017, the most recent year for which data is available, a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel investigation into spending by the group found. His compensation included access to first-class travel and money to cover part of his taxes.

Former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack, the group's executive vice president, was paid $800,557 in 2017. 

Some officials and board members have taken trips to the Super Bowl. Top executives can receive "health club benefits under the executive flexible benefits account," according to documents filed by Dairy Management with the IRS.

One affiliated group, GenYouth, has its headquarters on Madison Avenue in New York City and even hosted a 2017 fundraiser on a retired aircraft carrier, the USS Intrepid, docked on the Hudson River.

Dairy Management officials say the event was paid for through corporate sponsorships and table sales, but the spending and salaries have riled farmers — including some former board members — who are struggling week-to-week to balance their own checkbooks. 

"I would often leave the meetings and weep on my way home," said Sarah Lloyd, a Sauk County dairy farmer who served on the Dairy Management board from 2013-2016.

"These high-priced marketing people sitting in fancy offices in suburban Chicago were driving up to the meetings in luxury foreign SUVs," Lloyd said. "They were using my money and (other) farmers' money when farmers' kids are on free and reduced lunch.

"The contrast was just maddening."

Dairy Management is funded by one of nearly two dozen federally-mandated agriculture checkoff programs covering everything from avocado and Christmas tree farmers to cattle ranchers and pork producers. The idea is that by banding together, farmers — including many small, family-run operations — will get more for their marketing buck.

The system is overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the amount paid by farmers is set by Congress. 

Dairy farms contribute an outsized amount to the checkoff programs, according to USDA records. A Journal Sentinel analysis of those records shows the program carries a heavier burden for dairy farmers than producers of pork and beef.

Last year, the programs collected a combined $895 million to promote the various commodities. Of that, more than $420 million — 47% — came from dairy producers. 

Dairy farmers are required to pay in 15 cents per hundred pounds of milk sold. Ten cents goes to state and regional marketing programs, such as the Dairy Farmers of Wisconsin. A nickel goes to national programs, such as Dairy Management.

The checkoff payments from dairy, pork and beef producers are each calculated differently. When the three are compared on a per-$100 basis, individual dairy farmers wind up paying a larger share of their revenue than their peers in the pork and cattle industries.

At current prices, dairy producers pay 80 cents per-$100 sold into the checkoff program. That's twice what pork producers pay (40 cents per-$100) and more than 10 times what beef producers pay (roughly 7 cents per-$100 sold)