Note: This guest post is from Renee Rubin Ross. A longer version is available at Community-Centric Fundraising. Thanks, Renee!

Long ago, I worked as staff alongside a terrible board.

The staff was thoughtful and strategic. We were deeply knowledgeable and connected to the community.

But the board? Serving on this board was a symbol of power. They were (mostly) nice people who (mostly) meant well…except when they didn’t.

At least one board member made comments about community partners that went completely against our organization’s values. The board frequently ignored or reversed staff suggestions in ways that dismissed our strategic planning and wasted a lot of time.

Because they were powerful, no one was willing to name the truth.

Is it ALL boards?

No – not all boards are that bad! 

I am a current and former board member myself. My firm works with many delightful, thoughtful, justice-oriented board members who care deeply about the nonprofits they serve. Many are investing significant resources – time, money, networks, brain power – to support and strengthen their organizations and communities.

However, those of us who engage with nonprofit boards understand that many don’t work. Furthermore, the stresses that nonprofits experience — racial injustice, inequity, workplace burnout, economic uncertainty – have increased, making the board’s work even more difficult. 

With my colleagues Christal Cherry and Andy Robinson, we are researching alternative models. We’ve joined the chorus of Vu Le, Hildy Gottlieb, and many others who are exploring new approaches.

Training isn’t enough

There is a myth that more training will help boards to become better.

Training can be useful. If you accept board responsibilities, you need to know what’s involved and expected.

However, my “terrible board” members had served on many boards. Training would have been irrelevant, because the board had too much power relative to the staff and the community served. The problem was structural and cultural. 

How can we do this better?

I recently connected with Lauren Johnson, executive director of the grantmaker SVP Portland (SVP) to discuss their evolving governance model. Here’s what I learned. 

1) Why change? A genuine desire to be anti-racist and share power. Despite successful growth of grantee organizations, Johnson explains, “community-level outcomes were getting worse.”  

Based on strategic planning research, the organization chose to shift from investing in multiple issues to focusing on one community-level goal: all children can access quality preschool. In developing their plan, they came to understand that systemic racism created disparities in early learning. This served as a catalyst to center diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) while expanding their strategies to include advocacy and systems change.

2) Instead of talking about boards, think about governance – the process of making decisions and guiding the vision of the organization’s work. 

The Reimagining Governance Project describes governance as “a framework of responsibilities, requirements, and accountabilities within which organizations operate, including regulatory, audit, and reporting requirements, and relationships with key stakeholders.”

In other words, What needs to happen? Who can do this work?

Through a listening tour, SVP Portland learned that their community partners – including nonprofit executive directors – were interested in sharing their input but did not want the heavier commitment of board service. 

Consequently, SVP Portland spent a year conducting research and building a new model. Their purpose was to decentralize decision-making and shift power. Ultimately, they created a “minimum functioning board” with fewer members that retain only the responsibilities required by law. The other responsibilities are distributed to those closest to the work – staff and/or standing committees.

SVP also set up “dynamic teams” or ad hoc work groups to address short-term, critical questions. The first dynamic team explored SVP’s advocacy role. It was composed primarily of BIPOC community leaders (who were compensated for their time), plus staff and volunteers. Rather than advising the board, this team was fully empowered to make decisions for the organization.

3) Participation matters. As organizations shift towards better governance, those closest to the problems should be leading the change process.

SVP’s process was informed by a diverse team. They sought input from BIPOC leaders about opportunities for sharing power and how they want to engage. The organization responded with changes in structure, policies, and actions. 

As facilitators, we aspire to lead in the same way. Perspectives informed by lived experience must be at the front of the room, in power, in all conversations.

4) Shifting structure is not enough. I learned about a prominent nonprofit that added many staff to the board. Almost half the board are now staff members.

I was intrigued. This sounds like a model to equalize power between board and staff. However, final decisions are made exclusively by the executive director, not the board. Guess who has the ultimate power?

Minus a difficult conversation (or three) about power sharing, their change in structure is insufficient to shift power.

Yes, this stuff is challenging!

You might be thinking, “Our board doesn’t work. How can we take it apart and put it back together in a better way?” 

It can be done – because your peers are doing it. If you need support, reach out.