by Susan Detwiler | Sep 11, 2019 | fundraising, governance, nonprofit, sustainability
WHY IT’S IMPORTANT: Five CEOs of Wealthy Foundations Pledge to Do More to Help Charities Pay Overhead
This article in The Chronicle of Philanthropy is a long read, but hugely important to every nonprofit organization that relies on grant funding for at least part of its revenue.
It’s notable when five of the wealthiest foundations revisit their granting processes and decide that they’ve been underfunding the support (they call it ˜overhead‘) that makes it possible for nonprofits to deliver their missions. It prompted them to examine different ways they might change their granting structures to allow more flexibility in the operations and investments in infrastructure of their grantees.
No Reserves!
The foundations are: Open Society Foundations, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Ford Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and David & Lucile Packard Foundation. After engaging Bridgespan to research the effects of their giving on a subset of their grantees, they learned that 42% of the nonprofits had less than 3-months of operating revenue on hand. While the foundations have agreed that their funding processes need to change, each will make their own adjustments based on their own priorities, and as they experiment with their own grantees.
As my colleague Justin Pollock, has pointed out, restricted funding is not inherently a problem if it actually covers the true costs of a program. But when a nonprofit ACCEPTS restricted funding that only covers PART of a program’s costs, by default they are saying ‘we will restrict our own dollars’ to go towards completing the program’s budget.
These efforts by major foundations to look at their own practices are a welcome sign that change may come.
It may mean more unrestricted funding or it may mean restricted funding that truly covers costs. But it will take time for any change to spread. Wherever you are located, don’t expect immediate change. I doubt that any local foundation landscape will change rapidly. While smaller organizations can often be more nimble than larger ones, larger foundations have the staff and funds to research new methods and their implications. On the other hand, you may find that a handful of your local foundations may read about this research and be energized to make their own changes.
Definitely something to watch. And you may want to forward this article to your friendly funders, as well.
This series of Why it’s Important is meant to keep you abreast of news, research and articles that provoke thought about how we govern and manage nonprofits.
If this article has started some conversations, or even caused some deep thinking about funding, please let me know.
And watch for more curated articles. If you see an article you think everyone should read, please send it on. Or if you want to talk about facilitation or planning for your organization, I’d love to have that conversation.
More eyes “ more articles “ more wisdom!
– Susan Detwiler
by Susan Detwiler | Jun 25, 2019 | inclusion, nonprofit
Why is this article important? It has some interesting points to make about the difference between tokenism and really embracing diversity on a board.
The majority of people on nonprofit boards, acknowledge that board diversity is important. But even as research shows the intention to improve board diversity, the 2017 report, Leading with Intent, shows that boards are no more diverse than they were two years ago.* Meanwhile, as boards continue to talk about diversifying, the definition of what constitutes diversity has evolved.
From tokenism to inclusion
Society has moved from tokenism to ensuring that people of diverse age, gender, ethnicity, orientation and background not only fill important roles with their skills and talents, but are also valued for the diversity that they bring.
The perspective of this article from Harvard Business Review, When and Why Diversity Improves Your Board’s Performance, is that of a for-profit corporation. But there are valuable lessons for nonprofit boards that want to both encourage diversity and take advantage of that diversity. To quote the authors:
Diversity doesn’t matter as much on boards where members’ perspectives are not regularly elicited or valued. To make diverse boards more effective, boards need to have a more egalitarian culture ” one that elevates different voices, integrates contrasting insights, and welcomes conversations about diversity.
What might that mean for your Governance or Nominating Committee? More pointedly, what might that mean for how your board approaches ambitious or controversial decisions? How might having different voices around the table change not only the decisions that you make, but how you make those decisions?
If this article has started some conversations, or even caused some deep thinking about governance and recruitment, please let me know.
And watch for more curated articles. If you see an article you think everyone should read, please send it on. Or if you want to talk about facilitation, governance or planning for your organization, I’d love to have that conversation.
More eyes “ more articles “ more wisdom!
– Susan Detwiler
*Leading With Intent 2017 National Index of Nonprofit Board Practices.
by Susan Detwiler | May 6, 2019 | governance, inclusion, leadership
The title Black Women are Coming for Equity in Non-Profit Quarterly drew me in. As I read it, I kept hearing in my head, This is important. This is important for traditional nonprofit boards to read. Articulating why it’s important is a little harder than recognizing the importance.
I suspect that many older board members – like me – will have experienced in one way or another the civil rights movement, or the times when gay rights was front page fodder, or perhaps the introduction of the Equal Rights Amendment.
Are these memories of the past coloring how we understand and react to the current movements that honor the lived experience of those who differ from us?
Cyndi Suarez’ example of Senator Bernie Sanders’ speech and his interaction with the participants at the She the People presidential forum can be a learning tool. How are our experiences of the past coloring our understanding of the present? Are we leaning too heavily on our memories and assuming we know the present? Do we understand the difference between equal rights and equity?
If this article has started some conversations, or even caused some deep thinking about how we govern our nonprofits and prepare for the future, please let me know.
And watch for more curated articles. If you see an article you think everyone should read, please send it on. Or if you want to talk about facilitation, governance or planning for your organization, I’d love to have that conversation.
More eyes “ more articles “ more wisdom!
Susan Detwiler
by Susan Detwiler | Apr 25, 2019 | governance, leadership, nonprofit
I’m not writing any more blog posts! At least not for a while. But that doesn’t mean you won’t hear from me.
Building and nurturing relationships is at the heart of how I work with nonprofit boards and executives. A blog post cannot recreate the one-on-one conversations that develop into trusted working relationships.
But in my work I read many great articles that convey important food for thought for nonprofit organizations. Some are written directly for board chairs. Others focus on the for-profit world and carry lessons for nonprofit executives.
So instead of writing my own posts, I will curate the articles I read and give you my take on why they are intriguing, or important, or how to use them.
I hope you enjoy this new format. Here’s the first one.
WHY IT’S IMPORTANT: Lessons Learned as Board Chair
Rick Moyers recently stepped down as chair of the board of BoardSource, As you can imagine, he had a lot riding on his time there. In this article, he offers three important lessons he learned during his time as chair. While only one explicitly talks about building one-on-one relationships, the other two have at their heart the need to recognize that you are always dealing with people. Always. And understanding that everything you do affects people is a great life lesson “ whether as a formal leader or someone in the middle of the pack making routine decisions.
I hope you appreciate Moyers’ words as much as I do: Lessons Learned as Board Chair
Watch for more curated articles from me. If you find one you think everyone should read, please send it on. Or if you want to talk about facilitation or planning for your organization, I’d love to have that conversation.
More eyes “ more articles “ more wisdom!
Susan Detwiler
by Susan Detwiler | Oct 10, 2018 | governance, nonprofit, professional development
Professional Development is for Staff, Not Boards.
NOT!
Imagine you have an ailment that takes you to the doctor. On the wall is her diploma from 20 years ago. Ah! you think. She has a lot of experience. Hmm, I wonder if she’s kept up with the latest thinking in caring for my ailment. In 20 years, there have been ag lot of medical advances.
Keeping up in your field is important.
Companies invest in training and development for their managers and staff. Bar associations require Continuing Legal Education credits; American Medical Association requires Continuing Medical Education; school systems require Continuing Education credits for teachers.
With so many examples of professions requiring continuing education, why do board members say they don’t need to keep up with trends in board service?
I already know what I’m doing!
They give a lot of reasons:
- Hubris “ I don’t need any training. I’ve been on boards for 20 years, and I already know what I need to know.
- Cost “ Why are we spending money on our board when our programs need the money?
- Disdain “ I’ve been through board training so many times, and it’s never been useful.
- Time “ We have to spend our time taking care of business; we don’t have time to waste on training.
- Assumption “ I’d like to get some training, but I don’t think anyone else on the board would.
Underlying all of these is a basic misunderstanding. They believe board service is simple, static, and hasn’t changed in 20 years; there’s nothing new to learn. Even if there is something new, it’s not going to make a difference.
Actually, the field of board service is changing.
The fields of sociology, organizational dynamics and neuroscience have upended some longstanding ˜best practices’ and received wisdom. Organizations that put the new ideas into practice are more successful than those that do not.
Last year, I gave a series of seminars around board relations and governance. As I set the curriculum for this year’s cohort of attendees, I’ve been spending almost as much time updating the materials as I did creating it in the first place. Articles from Nonprofit Quarterly; BoardSource; Standards for Excellence; Harvard Business Review and more have supplied fodder for high level discussion around governance and building a board into a team. In many cases, the new research have been a complete surprise; in others, they’ve demonstrated nuance where absolutes have reigned.
The bottom line is that these discoveries have made board service richer, more robust, more enjoyable, and, perhaps most importantly, more effective.
Boards with contemporary training spend less time on the past and more time focused on the future. Boards built into teams spend less time infighting, and more time figuring out how to better deliver their mission. Boards with good relationships amongst members have rich discussions around substantive issues. Boards that have developed an inclusive mentality have the advantage of diverse viewpoints and experiences around the table, with all the creativity that inspires.
All of these have been the result of continuous professional board education.
And their organizations are stronger for it.
Get in touch for a conversation about board education and how facilitating professional board development can make your work easier. Or sign-up here for more ideas about managing boards and planning.
Recent Comments