Uncategorized

Policy vs. Paper Clips

Are Nonprofit Boards Capable Evaluating Themselves?

Are Nonprofit Boards Capable of Evaluating Themselves?

By: Eugene Fram       

A 2025 survey of business boards by PWC (Accounting/Consulting Firm) yielded the following results;

  • More than half (55%%) of board members think someone on their board should be replaced.
  • Most board members (78%) do not believe their boards’ asssessment process provides a complete picture of overall board performance.
  • A majority (51%) say their boards are insufficiently invested in the investment process.
  • About half (45%) seek addiktional education or training on key topics.*

Given that many of these business boards have the financial power to employ legal counsel or consultants to conduct a rigorous impartial evaluation, what can a nonprofit board, with limited financial resources, do to make sure that the board and its members are being fairly evaluated to drive change?

Ask The Tough Questions:  No matter what process is used in the evaluation, the board has to address some difficult common questions.  These include:

  • To what extent are board members overly compliant with the wishes of the board chair or CEO? Having been a veteran nonprofit board member or a consultant with dozens of others, I find there is a tendency for nonprofit board members to “go along to get along.” As a result, the board tends to be compliant with the wishes of the board chair, the CEO or an influential director. Rigorous/civil dissent is not part of meeting discussions.
  • Leadership selection discussions are rarely a priority. Often, through lack of interest or the organization’s formal culture, the board has little contact with staff members below the senior management level and little interest in assessing where future management strength can be developed.
  • I have yet to encounter a nonprofit board that is willing to discuss its effectiveness in terms of overall strengths or weaknesses. Critical tough questions are: Are all members contributing at a minimum “get or give” level?  Especially between meetings, how can board’s internal communications be improved? To what extent does the board become involved in micromanagement or perpetuate it long after the board has outgrown the startup stage?   For example, I observed one mature board make a decision about the timing of fundraising events and then spend the next hour brainstorming the types of events that might be developed—clearly a management responsibility to investigate.
  • The strategic strength of the board. Nonprofit board member backgrounds should be aligned with the emerging needs of the nonprofit.  Examples, if fund development is going to be a priority, a person with event planning experiences should be recruited. If the reserve fund return is not being maximized, a person with a financial background, not a CPA, is required.
  • The ineffective nonprofit director. It is the most vexing problem that boards face. This person’s behavior can range from one who monopolizes discussions to the person who attends meetings but never makes any financial or other types of contributions. Some boards claim that they can approach the problem by asking each director to assess the effectiveness of his/h colleagues, but in decades of nonprofit governance experiences, I have never encountered a board that has had this process in place.

Review Current Practices:  If the board has never been self-evaluated, to do a proper self evaluation, these steps are important:

  • Develop a questionnaire to be completed by all board members.  It should be carefully crafted to determine how the board as a group and each individual board member contributes to enhancing the organization’s mission.
  • The committee assigned to the project should seek the assistance of someone with professional evaluation competence to guide the work.  Hopefully he/s will accept the assignment on a pro bono basis. This also can be an interesting project for a small group of graduate students, guided by a knowledgeable professor.  Because of the confidential nature of the material, no more than three students should be involved.
  • Develop the processes for dissemination, confidentiality, collation of materials and organization of survey information. Again, engage a professional to assist with these efforts.

Traditionally, nonprofits use a simple questionnaire to evaluate the organization and the CEO. Their development processes vary widely, and their usefulness often can be questioned when not all board members take the time to thoughtfully respond to the survey or when it is developed by committee. However, board self-evaluation needs to be completed with professional assistance, and the results reported with diplomatic care to drive positive board change.

*https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/governance-insights-center/library/assets/pwc-2025-annual-corporate-directors-survey.pdf

A Nonprofit Board Has A Problem With A Recently Hired CEO – What To Do?

A Nonprofit Board Has A Problem With A Recently Hired CEO – What To Do?
By: Eugene Fram.         

With some possible variations, is the following scenario one that is frequently repeated elsewhere?

• The nonprofit board had engaged, Joe, an experienced ED.  The prior ED had been in place for 25 years, and was evidently unwilling to move to meet changing client needs. For example, the agency only offered counseling services five days a week, 9 am to 5pm, with hours extended to 8 pm on Thursday night. There were no client options for emergency calls during nights or during weekends.


• Joe had been in place for about 6 months making some changes, evidently in an authoritarian manner. The board heard about the staff’s dissatisfaction with Joe’s management style, met with Joe and the staff together and decided to leave Joe in place. It was assumed that he and the staff were capable of healing the rift.
• However, three outside forces then came in to play. First, a trade union heard about the staff’s dissatisfaction and assigned a recruiter to enroll the professional staff as a chapter of the union to bargain for wages, benefits and working conditions. (The union already had a local governmentally supported human services unit as a member chapter.) Second, the agency was a very old one, and a group of community leaders, fearing this problem would cause the demise of the agency formed an unrequested advisory group called, “Friends of ABC.” Third, the United Way gave the agency 6 months to provide evidence that the problems were subsiding, or it was going to substantially reduce, the large portion of the agency’s budget it provided.
• Joe’s management style did not change. He was terminated with a six-month pay package in order to avoid a legal suit.
 A ED/CEO then was fortunately hired, who was well known in the community, was an experienced social worker, and had union negotiating experience.
• The professional staff decided to join the union.
• The new ED/CEO remained at the helm of the agency for 25 year, bringing innovation and change. However, the professional staff remained in a union chapter. Mistrust was hard to breach.

This is a case with which I was involved as a board member. Based on your nonprofit board experiences, to what extent have you noted a similar pattern?

• A nonprofit board misjudges the requirements for filling the chief executive position.
• Organizational discord becomes a problem.
• The board is slow in taking action, by trying to give the new ED time to resolve the problem.
• The board then terminates the chief executive for failing to meet objectives or because there is still substantial organizational discord.
• Groups in the community become involved in the organization’s internal problems.
• The ED/CEO is fired.
• A ED brings change, but there is still a feeling of mistrust that permeates the communications of the agency for decades.  The union continues to be the bargaining spokesperson for the professional staff, long after most staff members involved with the situation have retired  or taken other positions

Nonprofit Boardroom Elephants and the ‘Nice Guy’ Syndrome: A Complex Problem?

By: Eugene Fram   

At coffee a friend serving on a nonprofit board reported plans to resign from the board shortly. His complaints centered on the board’s unwillingness to take critical actions necessary to help the organization grow.

In another instance the board refused to sue a local contractor who did not perform as agreed. The “elephant” was that the board didn’t think that legally challenging a local person was appropriate, an issue raised by an influential board member. However, nobody informed the group that in being “nice guys,” they could become legally liable, if somebody became injured as a result of their inaction.

Over the years, I have observed many boards with elephants around that have caused significant problems to a nonprofit organization. Some include:

• Selecting a board chair on the basis of personal appearance and personality instead of managerial and organizational competence. Be certain to vet the experience and potential of candidates carefully. Beside working background (accounting, marketing, human resources, etc.), seek harder to define characteristics such as leadership, critical thinking ability, and position flexibility.

• Failure to delegate sufficient managerial responsibility to the CEO because the board has enjoyed micromanagement activities for decades. To make a change, make certain new board members recognize the problem, and they eventually are willing to take action to alleviate the problem. Example: One board refused to share its latest strategic plan with it newly appointed ED.

• Engaging a weak local CEO because the board wanted to avoid moving expenses. Be certain that local candidates are vetted as carefully as others and that costs of relocation are not the prime reason for their selection.

• Be certain that the board is not “rubber-stamping” proposals of a strong executive director/CEO. Where major failures occur, be certain that the board or outside counsel determines the causes by conducting a postmortem analysis.

* Retaining an ED who is only focusing on the status quo and “minding the store.” The internal accounting systems, human resources and results are all more than adequate. But they are far below what can be done for clients if current and/or potential resources were creatively employed.

* A substantial portion of the board is not reasonably familiar with fund accounting or able to recognize financial “red flags.” Example: One CFO kept delaying the submission of an accounting accounts aging report for over a year. He was carrying as substantial number of noncollectable accounts as an asset. It required the nonprofit to hire high-priced forensic accountants to straighten out the mess. The CEO & CFO were fired, but the board that was also to be blamed for being “nice guys,” and it remained in place. If the organization has gone bankrupt, I would guess that the secretary-of-state would have summarily removed part or all of the board, a reputation loss for all. The board has an obligation to assure stakeholders that the CFO’s knowledge is up to date and to make certain the CEO takes action on obvious “red flags”.

* Inadequate vetting processes that take directors’ time, especially in relation to family and friends of current directors. Example: Accepting a single reference check, such as comments from the candidate’s spouse. This actually happened, and the nominations committee made light of the action.

What can be done about the elephant in the boardroom?

Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet to use, no pun intended! These types of circumstances seem to be in the DNA of volunteers who traditionally avoid any form of conflict, which will impinge upon their personal time or cause conflict with other board members. A cultural change is required to recruit board members who understand board member responsibilities, or are willing to learn about them on the job. This is an important interview question to pose to candidates because it highlights the importance of good governance as a contribution. I have seen a wide variety of volunteer board members, such as ministers and medical personnel, successfully meet the challenges related to this type of the board learning. Most importantly, never underestimate the power of culture when major changes are being considered.

In the meantime, don’t be afraid to ask naive questions which forces all to question assumptions, as in Why are we doing the particular project? Have we really thought it through and considered other possibilities?

Board members need to have passion for the organization’s mission. However, they also need to have the prudence to help the nonprofit board perform with professionalism.

21st Century Nonprofit Boards Need to be Proactive in Strategy Development

21st Century Nonprofit Boards Need to be Proactive in Strategy Development

By: Eugene Fram       

Most Boards do not excel at strategy planning. In fact, when the subject is included on a meeting agenda, it usually produces a general lack of enthusiasm. A McKinsey study * cited weakness in for-profit boards dealing with the topic. And in my opinion, similar deficits are endemic to nonprofit boards whose response to strategic proposals is often simply– “ to review and approve.”

What causes these vital governing bodies to be passive when the future of the organization is obviously at stake? First, most nonprofit boards meet between 8 and 12 times a year, for what averages to about 1.5 hours monthly. With an agenda crammed with compliance issues and staff reports, there is little time left for board members to dive deeply into a discussion of future transformative efforts on behalf of the organization. When a new strategic plan is developed (that may only occur once every 3-5 years, with a limited perspective), its implementation is not as rigorous as it should be—even in high performing boards.

According to the McKinsey study, only 21% of business board members claim to fully understand the firm’s total strategy. Because of their diverse backgrounds, the percentage of uninitiated nonprofit board members is probably similar or even higher!

Next, the study also reports: “…there is often a mismatch between the time horizons of board members and that of top management.” Since the median tenure for a nonprofit board member is between four and six years, it follows that management‘s experience with the mission environment exceeds the vast majority of board members. Since the outset of the 2009 recession, it becomes critical that a dialogue between board and management brings focus to economic priorities. When the economic environment remains more dynamic, it requires much more discussion.

Questions that board and management need to consider to overcome these issues.

• How well do board members understand the mission dynamics? In terms of nonprofit experience, management has a better understanding of the mission’s environment. As a result, management needs to be proactive in educating board members about the dynamics involved. This can take place at meetings, retreats or engaging outside experts to interact with board members. Where it is possible and appropriate, management should invite board members to join them at local or regional conferences.

• Has there been enough board-management debate before a specific strategy is discussed? “Board members should approach these discussions with an owner’s mind-set and with the goal of helping management to broaden its thinking by considering new, even unexpected, perspectives.” During these debates management should provide information on key external trends affecting the mission. It also needs to review: strengths and weaknesses of staff talent to achieve the mission, the abilities of the nonprofit to differentiate itself and to increase services to its clientele. All of this can keep the organization from perpetuating the status quo—providing small budget increments and keeping current clients satisfied, not seeking growth.

• Have the board and management discussed all strategic options and wrestled them to the ground? Nonprofit board members and their managers may not be used to having high-quality discussion like these. To provide bases for these types of conversations the board must view management as a set of peers with different responsibilities. “Creating a participative, collaborative dynamic while maintaining a healthy tension is critical.”

“Developing strategy has always been complex—and becomes more so with a board’s increased involvement, which introduces new voices and expertise to the debate and puts pressure on management teams and board members alike to find the best answers.”

* http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/tapping-the-strategic-potential-of-boards

Tightening the Oversight of Nonprofit Boards?

By: Eugene Fram 

Tightening the Oversight of Nonprofit Boards?

     

Clearly the purpose of a nonprofit board is to serve the constituency that establishes it-be it community, industry, governmental unit and the like. That said, the “how” to best deliver those services is often not so clear.

The fuzziness of boundaries and lack of defined authority call for an active nonprofit system of checks and balances. For a variety of reasons this can be difficult for nonprofits to achieve.  

The Executive Committee

An executive committee, for example, can overstep its authority by assuming powers beyond its scope of responsibility. I encountered this in one executive committee when the group developed a strategic plan in an interim period where there was no permanent ED. The board then refused to share it with the incoming executive.

In another instance, an executive committee took it upon itself to appoint members of the audit committee-including outsiders who were unknown to the majority on the board.

The executive team is a broad partnership of peers-board members, those appointed to the executive committee and the CEO. The executive committee is legally responsible to act for the board between meetings-the board must ratify its decisions. But unchecked, the executive committee can assume dictatorial powers whose conclusions must be rubber-stamped by the board.

Board Recruitment

A typical nonprofit board member is often recruited from a pool of friends, relatives and colleagues, and will serve, on a median average, for four to six years. This makes it difficult to achieve rigorous debate at meetings (why risk conflicts with board colleagues?). Board members also are not as eager to thoughtfully plan for change beyond the limits of their terms. Besides discussing day-today issues, the board needs to make sure that immediate gains do not hamper long-term sustainability. 

In general, nonprofit boards also need to seek board candidates with certain behavioral characteristics, such as persons who:

  •  are adept at critical thinking and high level strategy development,
  • have substantial experiences in an allied area to the mission,
  • have a depth of experiences with both for-profit/nonprofit boards and can act as models for those having their first board nonprofit board experience. 

Recruiting these types of candidates requires vetting that goes beyond reviewing what is normally listed on resumes.  With many nonprofit board members living time compressed lifestyles, will they have the time and motivations to do the additional vetting?

Micromanagement

The culture of micromanagement is frequently a remnant from the early startup years when board members may have performed operational duties. With some boards it becomes embedded in the culture and continues to allows the board to be involved in operational areas that should be delegated to management.  This can be a nonprofit challenge when the board enjoys the process and a weak ED likes the excuse, “the board told me to do it,” when a decision causes a problem.  Sometime the change has to wait until the ED leaves and/or the nonprofit acquires a group of  board members who can establish an organizational line between strategy development and operational tactics.

Is Your Nonprofit Forward Focused or a Prisoner of the Past?

g

By Eugene Fram                          

It’s no secret that some board members cruise through their term of board service with minimal involvement. McKinsey Company, a well-known consulting firm, has suggested five steps that can be used to counteract this passivity in for-profit boards. * With a few tweaks, McKinsey suggestions (in bold) are relevant to the nonprofit board environment where director engagement is often a challenge.

Engaging between meetings: Nonprofit boards traditionally meet monthly, bimonthly or quarterly. Unless the board is a national one, these meetings range from one to three hours, with the three hours being typical of quarterly meetings. The meeting agendas are usually packed, and they leave little time for individual directors to enhance discussions. ** In addition, a sense of anonymity develops among board members who do not know each other personally, a significant barrier to team building. I have encountered nonprofit boards where disconnect between board colleagues is simply a nod—or less– when passing each other.

Board cohesion based on interpersonal relationships has an important impact on the quality of board discussions. It allows a board member to more fully understand the perspectives and goals of his/her fellow board members or “where they’re coming from.” With this information at hand on both sides of a discussion, it increases the possibility of creating “win-win” impacts for the nonprofit.

Responsibility for promoting between-meeting engagements needs to rest with the board chair. As a staring point, the chair can sponsor a few informal Jefferson dinners. The topic should be a cause which can excite the invitees. It needs to be, a challenge to the directors. ***

Engage with strategy as it’s forming—do not just review & approve it: Traditionally most of what becomes an organization’s strategy will emanate from the management and staff. But the board must proactively help to form strategy or step in to fill gaps when the management refuses to do it.

In forming strategy the board has an obligation to make certain all viewpoints are heard. Staffs as well as management ideas need to be considered. In addition, the board may need to take direct actions when the organization fails to fulfill a mission obligation. Example. A counseling agency only offered services during normal business hours–9 am to 5pm, five days a week. Its board required management to offer services, 24/7 with an emergency line when the office was not open. The management, a creative group, found a way to do it, without increasing costs.

Cultivate talent: The nonprofit board has several responsibilities in regard to talent.   First, it must engage and then evaluate the CEO. This is a complex duty because the vast majority of the board members are not full-time employees and many have only tangential attachments to the organization’s mission field. Second, the board must overview the quality of the staff talent so that it is in line with budget constraints. Third, it must be aware of those within the staff who may be promotable to management. Finally it must be alert to succession opportunities internally and externally in the event the CEO were to leave abruptly. Succession planning for the CEO must also include considerations about the talents that will be needed beyond the current one.

Engage the field: Since nonprofit board members have full-time occupations outside the mission field, it’s important that they receive a flow of information about leading edge changes taking place outside the organization. However, CEOs sometime can operate a “mind the store” nonprofit, by looking at past successes without a visionary component. To help avoid this occurrence, specific directors might be assigned to become more deeply familiar with key projects in order to assess their progress.

Engaging on tough questions: A difficult task on a nonprofit board where politeness is an overriding value. Peers are friends and business associations and generally there are few potential penalties for “going along to get along.” In all my decades as a nonprofit board member, I have yet to see one board member ask that his/h dissenting vote be recorded in the minutes. A necessary action when he/she feels that the vote being passed by the majority may lead to harming the organization.

*http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/changing-the-nature-of-board-engagement

** In California, the Brown Act might prohibit such meetings. The Brown Act covered concerns over informal, undisclosed meetings held by local elected officials. City councils, county boards, and other local government bodies that were avoiding public scrutiny by holding secret “workshops and study” sessions.

***For details on the background and planning for Jefferson dinners see: http://jeffersondinner.org/jefferson-dinner/

Is Your Nonprofit Recruiting & Retaining by Using a Mission-Driven Approach?
Is Your Nonprofit Recruiting & Retaining by Using a Mission-Driven Approach?

By: Eugene Fram     

Recruiting and retaining able people for nonprofit careers has always been a challenge.  Salary levels have not been comparable to business organizations and some government posts. Many small and medium sized nonprofits have frontline personnel organizationally located only two levels below the Board of Directors.  Consequently, career paths can appear stymied.

The employment situation has changed for two population cohorts.  They are: some millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) and those in the Generation Z cohort (born between 1997 and 2012).

(more…)

For-Profit Boards Versus Nonprofit Boards: Similar Challenges?

   

By: Eugene Fram  

For-Profit Boards Versux Nonprofit Boards: Similar Challenges?                               

The wise person learns from his/h own experiences. The wiser person learns from the experiences of others. Chinese Proverb

The CEO Forum published an article covering the governance views of five business board members, known for their wisdom and vision.   Following are some of topics in the article that relate to nonprofit boards. *

Good governance is dependent upon well-curated boards. This means that nonprofit boards must look beyond the functional competencies (e.g. accounting, marketing, law, etc.) for candidates. Within these groupings, they need to seek candidates who have strategic outlooks, are comfortable with critical thinking and have documented leadership skills.   This requires recruiting and vetting efforts that go well beyond the friends, neighbors and colleagues who traditionally have been the sources for board positions. Also related is the issue of board succession, since that many will leave the board after a four to six year period. The current board(s) has an obligation to make rigorous recruiting and vetting become part of the nonprofit’s culture.

Assessing long-term sustainability. In the past, nonprofits have projected longevity because there will always be a need for the services or products they provide. This is no longer an assured proposition. Nonprofit day care centers now must compete with those that are for-profit. Improvements in medication have decreased the need for individual counseling and many new technologies can quickly solve problems that are embedded in the nonprofit’s mission.

Review governance best practices carefully! Know who is suggesting them and make certain they are appropriate for a specific organization. For example, some experts suggest that executive committees should be eliminated. However an executive committee that is responsible for a slim board committee structure can be effective in driving change and promoting better communications throughout the organization. **

Changing public accounting firms. Nonprofit accounting practice suggests changing public accounting firms about every five years. However one expert suggests, “It is important to ensure that judgment areas such as nonGAAP disclosures are well-defined, supporting calculations are well-documented and that the definitions and calculations are consistent across reporting periods.” At times of accounting firm change, nonprofit board members need to be able to add these issues to their question that they pose to management.

Ethics & Compliance. Like business organizations, nonprofits are subject to significant lapses in ethics and compliance. One study of  nonprofit fraud found that it 46% involved multiple perpetrators.  ***  As shown in the recent Wells Fargo debacle, establishing the tone for rigorous applications of a standard needs to start with the board and flow through all management levels. In the current environment, audit committees have to be especially alert and take immediate actions when red flags arise in either the ethics and/or compliance areas.   In my opinion, a nonprofit audit committee that meets only once or twice a year is not doing the necessary job.

Strategy. The nonprofit board has an obligation to help management see “around the next corner.” This involves board members assessing coming trends and sparking civil and meaningful board and committee discussions.

Board member comfort zones. Like their business counterparts, few nonprofit board members are “comfortable testing how to rock the norms.” It is easier to acculturate new directors to the current norms, a process that is inward bound and self-defeating. But a start can be initiated with questions such as, “If we were to start a new nonprofit across the street, what would it look like and who of the present board and a staff members would we ask to join us?

*https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertreiss/2017/05/22/americas-five-governance-experts-share-perspective-on-boards/#2a2ee326659a   

**For documentation see: https://goo.gl/QEL8x3

***https://nonprofitquarterly.org/nonprofit-fraud-its-a-people-problem-so-combat-it-with-governance/P

\

Is Your Nonprofit Forward-Focused or a Prisoner of the Past?

Is Your Nonprofit Forward-Focused or a Prisoner of the Past?

By: Eugene Fram           

Governance arguably suffers most … when boards spend too much time looking in the rear view mirror and not enough scanning the road ahead. *

It has been my experience that nonprofits rarely address the possibilities and perils of “…the road ahead.” An endless stream of current and pressing issues can cause both Board and CEO to take a myopic view of their nonprofit responsibilities — either totally ignoring strategic issues or procrastinating a discussion of the subject. The results can be damaging to the organization. Here are some “prompts” that might guide nonprofit board members and CEOs as they attempt to provide leadership in this important but neglected area:

Balanced Agendas — Include and highlight strategic issues on every board meeting agenda (not just when a committee report is presented) until they are resolved with action plans, policy development or thoroughly discussed and removed. This constant emphasis on planning can go a long way towards achieving concrete actions on topics of future concern. A discussion of immediate issues juxtaposed with ongoing strategic concerns will provide a balanced meeting format that may possibly discourage board member’s attempts to micromanage, a very common tendency in nonprofit boards!

Short Term Focus — In a BoardSource report,  “…only 33 percent of nonprofits report that their board members are actively involved in advocating for their missions, and many organizations aren’t advocating at all.”** To inspire and challenge board leaders to actively serve as ambassadors.  The explanation for weak performance in this area is often attributed to the fact that the directors’ terms of service on the board are usually three to six years during which time people’s interest in the long-term future of the organization may be compromised. Some boards may be disproportionately represented by “millennials” whose participation comes with heavy time constraints. Problems of this type can be mitigated by seeking board members who are partially or fully retired. They are likely to be better equipped to focus on the important governance functions and the fundamentals in which the nonprofit operates. Boards need to look to look further out than anyone else in the organization… There are times when CEOs (those operationally concerned with strategy) are the last ones to see (environmental) changes coming.

Board Recruiting — Nonprofit recruiting can be a hit-or-miss process, often producing candidates who are readily available and familiar to the current board. Rarely will the committee seek out people who have strong track records as strategists and/or competent visionaries. This is a real challenge, but a forward focused board should make every effort to identify potential directors who have these types of experience and skills. The topic of recruitment is a challenging one and the process should have continual annual evaluation.

Can Nonprofit Boards Work Smarter Not Harder?
As noted earlier, nonprofit board people are often limited in the amount of time they can devote to board participation. Given these constraints, the board chair and CEO can choose from a range of options that will help orient directors to better understand the external landscape in which the organization operates. These initiatives can include visits to comparable facilities, opportunities to attend field related conferences or inviting experts in the same or similar organizations to interact with board members. The purpose is to infuse each member of the board with an informed view of the organization’s long-term future and prepare them to take the appropriate action. The CEO and board chair must address this question with a viable plan: What actually helps… (to develop) a board environment that encourages participation and allows board members to derive meaning, inspiration and satisfaction from their (board) work?

Talent: The Key to Nonprofit Success — A nonprofit board has one hiring decision to make: the engagement of the CEO. But it also has a significant responsibility to overview long-term talent development in the staff and management. The board of a family service agency needs to assure that its counselors are up to date on current modalities of counseling. A recreational organization must be operating in the context of accepted fitness practices. Annual talent reviews need to be scheduled with CEOs and the appropriate staff. In addition, individual board members, with the concurrence of the CEO, may want to have occasional professional contact with key people below the senior management.

Make strategy part of the board’s DNA — (Many nonprofit) … CEOs present their strategic vision once a year, the directors discuss and tweak it at a single board meeting (or a short retreat), and the plan is then adopted. The board’s input is minimal and there’s not enough in-depth information to underpin proper consideration of the alternatives.

An educated nonprofit board will have the depth of understanding to be alert to the future needs and problems of its organization. Typically there is usually an unanticipated “fork” in the road ahead. Status quo, “minding the store,” participation by rote are all too easy mindsets that will only hobble the progress of an organization. Board chairs and CEOs are key actors in turning an existing board environment into one that is focused on moving forward.

*Christian Casa and Christian Caspar (2014) “Building a forward-looking board,” McKinsey Quarterly, February. Note: Quotations from this article are presented in italics.

**https://boardsource.org/research-critical-issues/

 

Do Nonprofit Boards Face Cyber Security Risk?
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is id-100325196.jpg

Do Nonprofit Boards Face Cyber Security Risk?

By: Eugene Fram     

Solarwinds and Target and others may seem far afield from the concerns of nonprofit directors, except for the giants in the area, like AARP. However, think about this hypothetical scenario.

A group of high school students hacked into the computer system of a local nonprofit offering mental health services and gain access to records of clients, perhaps even placing some of the records of other teenagers on the internet.  Considering the recent introductions of new AI tools, the power of immature teenagers and adults to initiate Cyber Security (CS) problems seems unlimited.  

What due care obligations did the board need to forestall the above situation? A move to recruit directors with special expertise in information technology or cyber security would be nonproductive. A nonprofit director has broader responsibilities such as the overview of management, approval of budgets, fostering management and staff growth etc. Similarly, when social media became a prominent issue a few years ago, boards debated the advisability of seeking directors with that specific kind of background. Today, a consultant with management is likely to provide guidance to directors on these issues.

After listening to a group of cyber security experts discuss for-profit challenges in this area, I have the following suggestions on how nonprofit boards might respond to similar types of challenges.

1. Carefully “wall off” all confidential information – Have management be certain that private information such as health records, are encrypted and separated from operating data that may be considered public in a nonprofit environment.
2. Review D&O and other liability policies – Determine whether or not the D&O policy protects directors and managers from CS intrusions. (It likely does not, but I understand that some carriers may offer some protection along with smaller policies.) It is clear that most general liability policies do not protect the organization against CS.
3. Board Encouragement – Devote some meeting time, perhaps 10 minutes, to a discussion of the CS topics so that management and staff are aware of the board’s concerns on the subject and will take action when necessary. Appropriate due care actions like frequent password changes should become routine. Some checklists are available online, suggesting questions directors might pose to raise awareness on the topic and avoid potential CS breaches.
4. Can third party payer help? – Many nonprofits deal with third party payers with sophisticated CS systems and may offer the nonprofit some advice or assistance.
5. Education and training of employers – Many CS crimes have been successful because employees have violated or forget to effectively protect their working accounts and information. Proper education and training can help reduce these types of lapses.
6. Finance & Audit Committees – Recent data indicate that only 20% of nonprofits have a CS vulnerability assessment in place and only about the same proportion have a plan  in place should a CS breach take place . *  Due care responsibilities seem to be missing among a large portion of nonprofits.

If a nonprofit, like the one described, is attacked, not only will records be compromised, but also the reputation of the agency will be destroyed, probably along with the nonprofit organization itself. SolarWinds and Target may be able to survive such an attack, but the typical nonprofit may not.

*https://communityit.com/nonprofit-cybersecurity/