digArticles

Category: Leadership

  • COVID-19: What Nonprofits Need to Know About Coronavirus

    COVID-19: What Nonprofits Need to Know About Coronavirus


     

    Over the past few weeks, coverage of COVID-19 (coronavirus) has dominated the news cycle. While the world has responded with swift mobilization, it is difficult to plan for the effect an outbreak could have on your community. Thankfully, infectious disease experts in Maryland and around the globe have developed advice on how to prepare for an outbreak, both personally and in the workplace.

    Some of the advice provided by the Health Department for healthcare professionals is also relevant to all of us:

    • Encourage basic infection control practices such as hand hygiene, environmental cleaning, respiratory hygiene, and cough etiquette
    • Ensure non-punitive sick leave policies
    • Strong internal and external communication

    Up to date as of March 13, 2020

  • Is Your Executive Director A Farmer? (And that’s not a bad thing!)

    Is Your Executive Director A Farmer? (And that’s not a bad thing!)

    How is the CEO of a nonprofit like a farmer? Both must acquire and husband their resources to the benefit of the entire enterprise.

    The role of an Executive Director is to acquire and husband all the resources of an organization, so those resources can best serve the mission. These resources may be dollars, good will, facilities or, most importantly, the people who are making a difference.  

    This post is based on one I wrote almost 10 years ago. The realization still holds true. Most people looking into the nonprofit world from the outside don’t really understand the role of the Executive Director. Board members and senior staff may, but the clients, visitors, junior staff and general public are often in the dark.

    But what do you DO?

    When I headed a Hillel (a campus organization for university students), students and parents could see the Program Director in action; but more than one student wanted to know: what did I actually do? At Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research, people saw the work of the veterinarians and technicians; but what did I do? At a private day school, they could see the teachers and the principal; but as Executive Director, what did I do? Even now, as consultant to nonprofit organizations, I frequently meet donors and board members who misunderstand the role of the CEO. Some want the CEO to interfere in the daily operation of a program. Others want the CEO to kowtow to the donor or to the board. Still others don’t know why they need an ED at all.

    The ED’s Mission Statement

    If a job can have a mission statement, then the mission of an Executive Director is to acquire and husband all the resources of an organization, so those resources can best serve the organization’s mission.

    Like other good mission statements, this one is simple and can be phrased in one sentence. But this very simplicity holds a myriad of ramifications.

    First, define resources. Resources may be dollars, good will, facilities, leaders, or the important people who make the mission a success. An Executive Director recognizes that each of these must come together to make the organization work. Focus solely on dollars to the exclusion of the people, or focus only on the building to the exclusion of community relations, and your world is unbalanced. Ignoring one of the resources while focusing solely on another and you end up fighting fires.

    Acquire and Husband…

    What does it mean to acquire resources? It means building relationships with others who can provide the resources you need. Donor relations and foundation relationships are part of resource acquisition – to obtain funds or services or in-kind gifts. Developing job descriptions is part of resource acquisition – to hire the best people. Reviewing new facilities and engaging a good real estate broker is part of resource acquisition – to find the best location. Being visible and participating in community functions is part of resource acquisition – acquiring good will and able board members. Acquiring resources is a key part of the job of an Executive Director – it’s important to remember that it doesn’t just mean dollars.

    What about husbanding resources? According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of the verb ‘husband’ is to use, spend, or apply economically; to make the most of. Applied to the role of Executive Director, it means making wise decisions on how to use the resources at hand. Knowing when to spend more in order to achieve great things, and when to spend less in order to preserve assets. Creating a budget that balances the needs of the organization, and understanding the impact on the mission when cuts have to be made. It means knowing when to spend on air fare in order to meet with a major donor, and knowing when to expend good will in order to save the organization from mission creep.

    The Executive Director is the Board’s partner in driving and fulfilling the Mission and Vision of the organization. The CEO’s role is to acquire the resources necessary to fulfill the mission, and to use them wisely.

    What do you think?

  • 5 Ways to Make Changes That Stick

    5 Ways to Make Changes That Stick

    As a Standards for Excellence Institute Licensed Consultant, I sometimes see organizations crumble when faced with change. Both internal and external factors force organizations to change their way of operating and fulfilling their missions. When external changes arise, (such as changes in grants, donors, or volunteers) nonprofit organization are left to cope with limited resources. Internally, nonprofit organizations also cope with changes in technology, staff, and funding. These changes are often more traumatic than we expect they will be. Unfortunately, significant changes can bring negative consequences to organizations that are not equipped to deal with transition.
    With Standards for Excellence Institute® resources, nonprofit organizations have measures in place to adapt to significant changes, making them more equipped to function effectively as times change.
    Make sure that your organization is ready to embrace change using these 5 tips:

    1. Make a compelling, supportive argument.

    Staff members are more likely to accept a change when they can see that it is essential to the development and function of the organization. With certain changes, especially those in technology and software, it’s difficult for staff members to grasp the importance of the change. Inspire your staff to embrace the change by showing them that you just can’t function without it!

    The Standards for Excellence® Code identifies specific benchmarks and measures that provide objective standards and best practices on how a nonprofit should operate.  According to the code, “the executive is responsible for the day-to-day management and operations of the organization. The executive should be committed to the mission of the organization and have the skills necessary to manage the paid and volunteer talent, and financial resources of the organization.”

    As an executive director you can combat resistance using data that proves changes are benefiting your organization in program reach and communication effectiveness, and with stories to show the positive impact the change is making in the community you serve. Putting a face to the change will compel staff, volunteers, and community members to embrace it.

    You can show that the change is doing more than benefiting your organization’s internal function. It is helping you to fulfill your mission and serve your community more effectively.

    2. Be a role model.

    In uncertain times, we look to leaders to guide us into the unknown. Establish which key staff members are driving the change, as they will become the leaders that model the transition. If there is a change in technology, those who master the new system first will become a resource for those still catching onto it.
    Ensure that executive directors and board members show interest in the change. If the leaders of the organization do not support the change, no one else will either! You can’t compel your staff to respect something without modeling that respect yourself.

    3. Provide massive support.

    Your staff will likely adjust to the change in a variety of ways. Provide an extensive support system so that your staff doesn’t feel abandoned in the transition. Often, more support is needed than we expect, so plan on providing more support than seems required. Provide helpful resources and emotional support to guide everyone along in the process. Holding the hands of your staff through a difficult process will help everyone to emerge more equipped, comfortable, and confident in the changes that were made.

    Not everyone can admit when they are uncertain or confused with new changes. Allow extra time for adjustment, giving everyone a chance to catch up!

    4. Acknowledge fears and doubts.

    In conjunction with your established support systems, assure your staff that it is OK to feel insecure about unfamiliar territory! Shifting roles, staff rearrangement, and the redistribution of resources may leave employees feeling disconnected to their work, or useless in their new roles. Employees are especially sensitive to shifting roles and changes in staff structure. Unfortunately, colleagues may not readily respond to others’ new roles and power structures.

    To combat these emotional consequences, pay attention to the existing social structure of your organization, and comfort team members when the norm is disrupted.

    5. Plan extensively for the change.

    Break larger goals into smaller, concrete steps. With this approach, when small goals are accomplished, we can celebrate mini-victories along the way! This boosts the mood of everyone involved and sheds a positive light on the transition process.

    Additionally, predict problems before they arise. Issues with technology (problems with new software or a lack of training with new systems) and resistance from your team are very common. By acknowledging that these problems may come up, you can competently attack issues as they arise.

    Finally, create your own definition of “done.” Track your organization’s progress towards the goal by remembering your original vision, resources used, and any milestones accomplished along the way. Then, when your team reaches the end goal, you can look back and feel accomplished about everything that was completed along the journey.
    Then, establish a marker that will signify the official ending of the change. Without a specific ending point to mark the completion of the change, we lose interest and feel as if the goal is not complete. Combat this anxiety and unrest over unmet goals by establishing a finite, terminal end goal. Now, all that is left to do is celebrate the successful transition!

    Rob Levit is a Standards for Excellence® Licensed Consultant.

  • The Board’s Mission (should they choose to accept it): Empower Their Nonprofit CEO

    The Board’s Mission (should they choose to accept it): Empower Their Nonprofit CEO

       nonprofit_consultant The following post Nonprofit CEO blog post was written by Standards for Excellence Licensed Consultant David Kubacki and is part of our “Ten Years of Advancing Excellence” blog series, celebrating ten years of the Standards for Excellence Licensed Consultant program. David, the principal of ViaDel Consulting Group, has provided organizational consulting services to several nonprofits with a focus on working with boards and committees on strategic planning and program assessment and improvement. Currently, he provides consulting services in partnership with the Delaware Alliance for Nonprofit Advancement (DANA), a Standards for Excellence Replication Partner. Mr. Kubacki currently serves as the President of the Wilmington West Rotary Club, as well as the Assistant Governor – Area 10 for Rotary District 7630. He is also the Vice President of the Board of the Delaware Symphony Orchestra. David Kubaki became a Standards for Excellence Licensed Consultant in 2015.  

    As a Standards for Excellence Licensed Consultant, I incorporate many aspects of the Code into all of my consulting engagements – from teambuilding to strategic planning. As a “recovering” nonprofit CEO, I often find that those engagements focus on the importance of the relationship between the nonprofit board and the CEO. This most important of relationships must focus on mutual trust and respect, and more concretely, clear goals, a board-driven strategic plan, and annual reviews.

     

    The Board Has One Employee

    The nonprofit CEO is the center of the organization – of course, as the leader that oversees day-to-day operations…but when the organization is operating effectively the CEO is the funnel that manages so much information that flows from the board and donors through to the staff and clients/service recipients – and vice versa. This is where things can get “iffy.” The nonprofit board “should appoint the chief executive, set the executive’s compensation, and annually evaluate the executive’s performance.” Once the board fulfills that duty, their relationship with the CEO should be one of trust – a trust that empowers him/her to run the organization. However, you often hear stories of boards who micromanage or send mixed messages about how much power the CEO is free to exercise. Sometimes semantics even gets in the way. It doesn’t matter if your “top dog” is called the CEO, President, Executive Director, Managing Director, or even Supreme Leader. What matters is that the board give the CEO the due authority and trust to run the organization. By no means does that mean that the board shouldn’t be involved with the staff or clients or even reviewing policies and offering opinions. However, when a board member (or the board as a whole) actively participates, they should do so with clear boundaries that empower the CEO to steer the ship in the right direction.

    A Musical Interlude: The “Maestro” Analogy

    I happen to be the Vice President of the Board of the Delaware Symphony Orchestra (DSO). I also happen to have contributed my consulting services to lead the board and other constituent groups through SWOT analyses that informed a board-driven strategic plan. Finally, the orchestra’s season-opening concert happens to have occurred just as I was writing this blog. They played Mahler’s 5th Symphony. The music was amazing. It was probably amazing when it premiered in 1902 and it’s still amazing today. Think of the symphony as the strategic plan. It was probably commissioned by one of the organizations by which he was employed – think of them, along with Mahler, as the board. Who is the nonprofit CEO in this analogy? It’s Maestro David Amado – the Music Director of the DSO (or, conductor, if you will). 114 years later it is his job to wield this “board-driven strategic plan” (created by Mahler and the commissioning body)– he’s looking at the score (the plan) and implementing it “note for note”. The Maestro, or nonprofit CEO, turns this plan into a melodic reality without forcing anyone to do anything. Waving his arms he inspires the orchestra (the nonprofit staff, volunteers, etc.) to act in perfect harmony to create an astonishing performance of Mahler’s 5th Symphony, the strategic plan. If only a board, a nonprofit CEO, and the organization as a whole could implement a strategic plan in such a way – inspiring everyone to do their part to lead the nonprofit organization to accomplish its mission unfettered by the politics and egos that often interfere.

     

    The Power of Relationship

    If you don’t mind I’m going to jump from one analogy to another – I have always liked this analogy: 

    Mission = North 

    Board = Compass 

    Strategic Plan = Flight Plan 

    Executive = Pilot 

    Staff (and Volunteers) = Crew 

    This is simply another way to envision the mutual trust and respect that must exist between a board and the nonprofit CEO so that they can lead the organization effectively. The pilot needs the compass, just as the executive needs the board. But like the compass and pilot, the board should inform and direct, and the executive should react, adjust, and lead.

     

    Nonprofit CEO & BOARD Best Practices

    In closing, I offer a few best practices:

    1. For the CEO: SET ANNUAL GOALS – Present these goals to the board at your first board meeting of the new fiscal year. Make them official and pretty – “President’s Goals: 2016-2017” – Keep them brief – bulleted – more is less – keep it to one page. If you can, tie the goals back to your job description. (you do have a job description, right?)

    1. For the BOARD: CREATE A DYNAMIC, BOARD-DRIVEN STRATEGIC PLAN – This is essential! The nonprofit CEO will be busy enough putting out fires and dealing with the day-to-day operations of the organization. There is no room for deciding the ultimate direction and vision of the organization on his/her plate. The strategic plan should come from the governing body, not a single person. Create this plan, and you will empower your nonprofit CEO!

    1. For the CEO: DEMAND TO BE REVIEWED – Often boards will opt to skip this important task when things are going well – and, let’s face it, if you’re running the place I’m sure they’re going better than ever. However, it is to your advantage to have a consistent, regular record of all those good times – well, just cause – but also in case things take a turn for the worse. Call it a review, an evaluation, and assessment – but make sure it happens!

    1. For the BOARD: DEMAND TO BE REVIEWED – Often boards will opt to skip this important task when things are going well – and, let’s face it, you’re part of the strongest board the organization has ever seen and I’m sure things are going better than ever. Sound familiar: reviewing yourselves will be valuable to both you and the CEO. You might discover why certain board members are disengaged, and the CEO might be able to help you fix the problem!

  • NANOE: New Guidelines for Tomorrow’s Nonprofit – A Review

    NANOE: New Guidelines for Tomorrow’s Nonprofit – A Review

    This NANOE review originally appeared on Maryland Nonprofits blog. Read the original post at www.marylandnonprofits.org. 

    Nonprofit leaders who haven’t found the time to make their way through the 111-page nonprofit manifesto released by the National Association of Nonprofit Organizations & Executives (NANOE) will be forgiven. No worries, I am here for you. I present to you a high-level overview and a short review.

    There has been some puzzlement and a lot of questions about emails that started showing up in the inboxes of thousands of nonprofit leaders across the country in July 2016, nominating them to be part of a Board of Governors whose sole task is to review and ratify a new set of guidelines for nonprofit practices. The full text of the Guidelines can be downloaded and reviewed here.

    For the past several decades, there has been general concurrence among nonprofit leaders on best practice standards, including Maryland Nonprofits and the Standards for Excellence Institute (where I serve as the Director of Accreditation and Education), the BBB Wise Giving Alliance, the Principles and Practices for Nonprofit Excellence (Minnesota Council of Nonprofits), the Principles for Good Governance and Ethical Practice (Independent Sector), the Council of Foundation’s National Standards for U.S. Community Foundations, BoardSource, and other industry specific accrediting bodies such as the Council on Accreditation and CARF. For example, generally accepted best practices call for boards to be diverse and represent the communities they serve, to be all-volunteer, and to be responsible for financial and program oversight, and for setting the direction and policy for the organization. While there is some level of competition among standards-setters, there is general agreement about what the best practices are, with different approaches to measuring and articulating them.1

    We believe that best practices call for boards to be more engaged, not less. Boards should be more diverse, not less. Boards should represent their communities as a whole, not just the elite…

     

    Enter NANOE with a new set of guidelines for the nonprofit sector, designed, at least in part, to address the chronic under-resourcing of nonprofit organizations. Our assessment is that these guidelines are a mix of old news, ill-supported propositions, or suggestions downright contrary to best practices that could carry significant risks. They are written in an unwieldy, repetitive fashion that may make them impractical for use by nonprofit leaders and consultants that NANOE intends to certify, and also lack credible sourcing. I’ve provided an overview below that outlines the Guidelines based on three categories.

    1. This is not news: Guidelines in this category are statements about good practices in the nonprofit sector that we can all agree with.  For example, NANOE suggests that relationship building is critical.

    2. Not enough info: Guidelines in this category may have some merit, but the detail contained in this text is not sufficient to fully vet them or, it is unclear whether a nonprofit would have the means or authority to implement these practices. For example, NANOE offers that donors should be a nonprofit’s primary customers.

    3. Cause for concern: These practices directly contradict best practice and/or there is no practicable way to implement these practices sector-wide. For example, NANOE suggests that boards should have only four members and that board members be paid for their service.

     

     

    This is Not News

    If you’ve been around in the sector long enough, you have definitely run across a board of directors (or two, or ten…) that is running at less that optimum effectiveness. We’ve seen instances in which the board has too much authority and control, and we’ve seen instances in which the CEO has too much authority and control. This relationship is key to nonprofit success, but we often see it go wrong. Other statements used as the basis for the new Guidelines are not altogether wrong. Anyone who works in and with the nonprofit sector knows that relationships are key, that strong CEOs are needed, that nonprofits must work to diversify their sources of funding, and that the surest way to success is to commit some level of resources to building organizational capacity. Donors should be cultivated and engaged; programs should be evaluated for outcomes. We should be speaking out on behalf of the sector to lobby governments and funders to provide funding for indirect costs like infrastructure and administrative or fundraising overhead. These are basic points on which we can all agree. (NANOE Guidelines 1, 3, 9, 10, and 11, and parts of Guidelines 5 and 7).

     

     

    Not Enough Info

    Though we sometimes argue over what to call our sector, we have strong opinions about our purpose. We are here to make the world a better place through our efforts. We have always thought of our core mission and our primary customer as the people or causes to which we direct our resources. NANOE’s Guideline 4 recommends that we rethink this paradigm by adding donors and for-profit businesses as additional primary customers. I had to read very closely to find that the authors suggest them as an addition, rather than as a replacement for our mission. On page 56, the suggestion is that we rewrite our missions as such:

    “Faith & Hope Food Bank provides donors, business partners, advocates & volunteers the organization they require to care for our community’s hurting, hungry & homeless.” , p. 56, Guidelines

    I’m still thinking through the implications of this and weighing the pros and cons – as we all should consider what the result of this might be. I’d love to hear your thoughts, Tweet us @s4excel. One thought that immediately comes to mind is that it would fly in the face of the community empowerment movement whereby those being served play a stronger role in the governance and strategy of nonprofits that are active in their communities. (For some great examples of this, see the Building Movement Project.) Other guidelines I include in this category are things that nonprofits have little or no control over. Although there is a nugget of good thought here, these are not necessarily “guidelines” that nonprofits can implement. However, a nonprofit may be able to advocate for these ideas with their partners if it fits with their own mission and structure.

    • NANOE suggests that there should be directives to funders and for-profit partners to be actively engaged in decision-making at the organizations they fund. (NANOE Guideline 5) On one hand, this would give more power to the already powerful, but on the other hand, perhaps it could lead to more resources. This guideline is not fleshed out enough to get sense of the depth and breadth of engagement the authors suggest.

    • NANOE also offers directives to university faculty to exchange services with nonprofits: namely, assistance in securing large grants in return for using their clients as research. (NANOE Guideline 6). The faculty that I know already have a tough enough time raising funds for their research; it’s hard to imagine this truly scaling up. Not only that, but I’d like a whole lot more information about the research standards and funding rules that would accompany such a proposition.

    Finally, in this category, I would add NANOE Guideline 9. (Build more social enterprises and consider whether your organization would be better off as a for-profit or benefit/L3C corporation.) I’ve seen very successful social enterprises, and I have seen social enterprises that have fizzled out within a few years. The same can be said of other resource development opportunities – fundraising from individuals, funds from foundations, government contracts, and fundraising from events. Social enterprise is no panacea, and it should be entered into with the same caution that any leader undertakes any significant change in strategic direction.

     

     

    Cause for Concern

    I’ve saved NANOE Guideline 2 for last. In my opinion, this is the crux of the suggestions that have the most capacity to do harm to our sector. Guideline 2 calls for repurposing the relationships between the CEO and boards of directors (and with donors and for-profit organizations, which I addressed above). There are two directives in this section which bring the greatest cause for concern. 

    The first directive is to restructure the board. NANOE suggest that we disband every board and reconvene it to include only four board members – an “enterprise development” specialist, a mission specialist, a CPA, and a lawyer. (Someone show me the queue where entrepreneurs, lawyers, and CPAs are waiting in line to serve on my board!) It is also suggested that most monitoring and planning activities, including regular financial and program oversight, should be stripped from the board. Fundraising is also dropped from the list of board responsibilities. 

    The NANOE Guidelines suggest that boards are to be used primarily in an advisory function, with a strong focus on ethics, legal compliance, and managing the CEO. In return, all board members are to receive compensation for their service. In a surprise addition, all board meeting minutes, including those not already subject to sunshine laws, are to be public documents. 

    The second directive is to give more authority to the CEO. NANOE suggests that the CEO act as the Chair of the board, set board agendas, and vote on board matters. Further, NANOE suggests that the CEO should have full authority to act on all organization matters and that the CEO is solely responsible for building relationships with stakeholders. 

    When it comes to organizational monitoring and oversight, the NANOE guidelines suggest that all nonprofits should be subject to an annual audit by an independent CPA. This replaces regular financial monitoring by the CEO and board. Additionally, all nonprofits should contract with outside bodies to complete program/organizational audits. This replaces regular program oversight by the CEO and board. 

    We believe that best practices call for boards to be more engaged, not less. Boards should be more diverse, not less. Boards should represent their communities as a whole, not just the elite, who, according to these guidelines, are to be provided an avenue to do good AND to do good for themselves AND to have an important seat at the decision making table. Further disconnecting nonprofits from the communities they serve will not lead to greater success. 

    Additionally, paying board members creates a self-serving interest on the part of the board member, and thus decreases their independence and objectivity. How will a paid board, essentially selected by the CEO, effectively and impartially provide the oversight to assure that basic governance standards of the IRS, and public service missions, be met?  How would this group impartially review CEO performance and compensation? Granting the CEO authority to set agendas and vote on board matters could lead to a situation where these small, professional, and elite boards simply rubber stamp everything the CEO suggests. This has the potential to lead to a dangerously unbalanced relationship. 

    Suggesting the CEO hand over responsibility to manage the organization and the board hand over their oversight duties –  to paid contractors – is not the solution that the nonprofit sector needs. Small nonprofits do not have the resources to meet this guideline, and nonprofits who could afford it should think carefully before passing these key responsibilities to outsiders. 

    Furthermore, the idea of having outside organizational consultants conduct regular audits to replace reporting is not practical and not good practice. A high quality organizational assessment can cost tens-of-thousands of dollars and is time consuming, with a time lag between assessment date and report-delivery. It is a good tool for periodic, strategic reviews by the board and CEO, but it is exceedingly expensive and could lack consistency, accuracy and timeliness for regular reporting that the board and CEO need to govern and manage the organization. One observer called these guidelines the “consultant full employment act!” We would rather see those resources going into the mission and infrastructure of the organization – and the individuals/community served. 

    The case for this NANOE’s Guideline 2, at least in this document, appears be built on anecdotal evidence from very large nonprofits. (Small nonprofits, which make up 2/3 of the nonprofit sector in this country, would be costed-out by many of these guidelines…perhaps NANOE is suggesting that these groups should scale up or give up?!) While we share the frustration that leads the initial argument (many board/CEO relationships are not working), we cannot sign-on to the solution suggested here.

     

     

    Conclusion

    If you’ve paid your $100 to be on the Board of Governors to review and ratify this document, we suggest that you carefully read these guidelines and make your own decisions about the veracity of their claims and conclusions. There are solutions out there, offered by the many standard-setting bodies mentioned above. Our own Standards for Excellence accreditation program has been supported by independent academic research. There is no shortcut to success – organizational capacity building, strong relationships, resource strategies, and board service are HARD WORK, and there’s no getting around it. Maryland Nonprofits and the Standards for Excellence Institute are here to help you with that hard work!

    1 One exception to this consensus on best practices has been Charity Navigator and its highly popular website for donors to see ratings on charities based largely on the percentage they spend on overhead. We disagreed with the Charity Navigator rating approach because exceedingly low overhead undermines an organization’s ability to have sound management systems to ensure full ethics and accountability. The Charity Navigator star seems to be fading a bit as they finally signed on to a letter a couple of years ago stating overhead is not the most important thing, impact is, but they, like everyone else, have failed to find an easy way to measure a nonprofit’s impact.

    Maryland Nonprofits and the Standards for Excellence Institute’s President & CEO, Heather Iliff, reached out to NANOE’s leadership to inform them of our intent to publish this post and invite a response. Read NANOE’s response here. 

     

     

    NANOE Guidelines Summary

    Key: “Not news” in blue. “More info needed” in purple. “Cause for concern” in red.

    1. Relationship building is critical: egalitarian, networked, engaged, reciprocal, and trusting relationships are the keys to success.

    2. Re-Purpose Relationships between CEO, board, donors, and for-profit businesses

      • Restructure the board: Four board members only, to be used as “counsel” to the CEO (not as community members/owners of organization assets) – enterprise development specialist, mission specialist, CPA, and a lawyer. Strip most monitoring and planning activities, including regular financial and program oversight. Boards are not involved in fundraising. Emphasis on ethics, legal compliance, managing the CEO, and holding the CEO accountable for strategy and outcomes. All board meeting minutes are public. Board members are paid “at least” an honorarium.

      • Give more authority to the CEO (do NOT call them an Executive Director): They serve as Chair of the board set board agendas, and vote on board matters. CEO is granted full authority to act on all organization matters. CEOs should be freed to concentrate on building relationships, fundraising, and building the capacity of the organization, while program managers have broader authority andresponsibility over their program areas and strong development support is provided through a development office.

        • All nonprofits should be subject to an annual audit by an independent CPA (not the CPA on the board). This replaces regular financial monitoring by the board.

        • All nonprofits should contract with outside bodies (not named?) to complete program/organizational audits. This replaces regular program oversight by the board.

        • Donors and for-profit businesses are seen to be primary customers (See below, Guideline 4).

    3. Strong CEOs build and maintain effective organizational and operational capacity, including strong external relations and strong human capital practices.

    4. Re-define the mission statement to include two primary customers – donors and for-profit partners AND the community served. Rewrite mission statements such as, “Organization X provides a means for donors, advocates, volunteers to support a specific cause.”

    5. For funders and for-profit partners: Be partners with nonprofit CEOs to build high performing organizations. CEO should spend considerable amount of time on building networks and partnerships and bringing funders into organizational decision-making processes. 

    6. Diversify fundraising sources, including social enterprise and capital investments. Also, apply for governments to fund indirect costs and partner with university faculty to grow revenue (faculty has access to clients and data for research, faculty assists in securing large dollar grants). (See also guidelines 7 and 9 below).

    7. Raise capital for capacity building and grow and sustain change through the use of capital investments. Grow strategically based on a strong business plan. Report investment income separately from other revenue sources.

    8. Identify and communicate infrastructure costs as necessary to accomplish mission. This guideline is about changing the public and donor perception of overhead.

    9. Build social enterprises and consider re-incorporating (for instance, as a B-corp or L3C). (See Guideline 6 above).

    10. CEO leads all fundraising efforts and is an effective fundraiser. Cultivation and stewardship of donors is a key function of the CEO (see Guideline 2 above). CEO may engage consultants, but must maintain accountability.

    11. Engage in evaluation of the organization, its outcomes, and the effect of growing capacity on service delivery.