Post on 29-Nov-2014
description
1
Policy Governance ® Reviewed
Suzanne Benoit, LCSW
Benoit Consulting Services
® Policy Governance is. “Policy Governance” is the registered service mark of John Carver. The authoritative website for the Policy Governance® model is: www.carvergovernance.com.
2
The opinions and suggestions contained in this presentation are those of the author, Suzanne V. Benoit, LCSW, SPHR, alone, based upon her research and experience. They are not developed or sanctioned by the Carver organization though Carver’s trade mark is clearly noted.
3
Participants will learn about:
The “Carver ® Model” What those who use it, think of it Implementation options Benefits Critique
4
Presentation outline Why interest in this model today? Common board problems The concept explained Implementation options Potential benefits of this model Critique of the model Why not full implementation? Survey results – implementations Increase the chance of success
5
Why interest in this model today?
New IRS 990 requirements - - key policies and other requirements promoting nonprofit accountability, the public trust
Nonprofit funding shortages lead to interest in accountability & outcomes
Nonprofit failures on the rise Those who fully implement Carver ®,
like it and some won’t work without it
6
Common board operation problems
Frustration with board decision-making process Uncertainty, inconsistency of board role Debilitating discussions that lead to nowhere or
philosophical differences among board members Lack of the right information or too much of the
wrong information Preoccupation with minute/operation details Board members directing staff Poor ED (exec dir) performance, at best and
unethical/questionable activities, at worst Insular attitude – no accountability for public trust
7
The concept explained - background
Intellectual construct for organizing and delegating nonprofit board responsibilities
It is not a management model When was it developed?
– Originally designed for publically traded for profit business
– 1990 first article by Carver on the application of the model to nonprofits and governmental groups
A number of nonprofits tried it early on– many had difficulty
Renewed interest more recently since ethical scandals and nonprofit financial woes
8
The concept explained
Built on four basic principles1. Accountability for public trust2. Clean, clear delegation of authority3. Strict boundary maintenance
between Board and staff4. Efficiency – Board member time and
organizational oversight
9
List of model concepts
1. Clear organizational purpose - ENDS2. Org. accountability to “owners” – the
community (like stockholders)3. Board delegates its authority to ED, only4. Identify the MEANS the ED is not allowed
to use5. Clear standards for org. success6. Clear standards for ED performance
success7. Clear standards for board operation . . .
10
1. Ends “Policy”
Desired end results of org services Relate to the elements covered by the
organization mission Individual goal statements What organization is striving to improve Includes enough detail to allow board to
monitor achievement Like outcomes but broader/strategic
11
2. Accountability to “owners”
The nonprofit Board is accountable to community/owners to ensure that the organization achieves its social purpose or end results
Owners includes clients but much more:– Members in membership orgs– Community at large– Tax payers and vulnerable populations– Those with any interest in the mission
12
3. Delegates authority to ED
Board defines ED accountabilities ED accomplishes these accountabilities
through paid staff ED supervises the staff and evaluates
their performance ED reports on relevant metrics to show
the board that policies are followed Board does not delegate or assign tasks
to staff, nor do they evaluate them
13
4. MEANs the ED may not use
Board defines organization goals Board defines ED accountabilities Board defines the MEANs the ED may
not use called executive limitations– Unethical, illegal, unlawful, inappropriate,
disrespectful, discriminatory All other MEANs are fair game for the
ED to use in achieving org goals
14
5. Clear standards for org success
How you know if the ENDs are achieved?
How achievement is measured What information the ED must
produce (the minimal needed) for the board to assess his or her achievement
15
6. Clear standards for ED perf.
How you know if the ED’s accountabilities are achieved
How the achievement is measured What information the ED must
produce (the minimal needed) for the board at what intervals to assess the achievement
16
7. Clear standards for Bd operation Board speaks with one voice – the full board Board sets policy, not operations Board spends time discussing ENDS and not
MEANS – Nested sets Board reviews various measurement reports
(metrics) and ED reports that allow it to see that operations are going well, according to policies and standards, and achieving social results
Board delegates info gathering and research to committees -- committees recommend action to the full board
Board recruits new members that represent the community, and orients them
Board self-evaluates annually
17
Implementation options Bylaws can be guided by governance principles Define organizational purpose – ENDS Develop written policies where needed – some are
required by IRS Develop Executive limitations document – MEANS
he/she may not use Develop Board and ED job descriptions Develop ED performance standards and process –
annually Administer a Board self-evaluation survey and
report/improv Refresh Board meeting structure and content Conduct a training for board members in the Carver ®
model Identifying potential bd members thru “profiling” Orient new bd members in organization and duties
18
Potential benefits of this model Dovetails nicely with:
– Focus on outcomes– COA and other accreditation groups– Ten responsibilities of nonprofit boards– New IRS standards and policy
requirements Attractive to high performing ED’s Attractive to high performing, savvy board
members Maximizes everyone’s time Ensures that the social purpose is achieved
19
Potential benefits, cont.
Minimizes confusion and inconsistencies Attractive to potential funders – clarity
and accountability Some feel use of the model is predictive
of organizational success Clarifies disagreement – address it, can’t
sweep it under the rug Provides a common language across
nonprofit boards
20
Critique of the model Some feel it is functional only for larger
organizations Goes against human nature – board
members gravitate to details! Too much pressure on the executive
director Can lead to board disconnect from
operation Not always possible to separate ENDS from
MEANS Requires sophisticated/professional board
members Requires board members who like
accountability
21
Why not full implementation? Complex structure – most board members
know a little bit, full training can be expensive Resources - many nonprofits don’t have the will
or resources for full implementation Not many nonprofit consultants are trained Takes much, up-front work to set the
framework Takes discipline – goes against human nature Requires tough discussions with errant ED and
ineffective or disrupting board members
22
Past BCS Survey results
Small number of Maine and NH nonprofits
40 surveys 17 returned Representing 15 separate
organizations
23
Major findings
Most popular concepts used1. Committees research and
recommend2. Clear annual evaluation of ED
performance3. Clear sense of community as org.
owners4. Clear delegation exclusively through
ED
24
Major findings
Least used concepts 1. Board self-eval annually with goals
for improvement2. Clear standards for board operation3. Board discusses ENDs not MEANs4. We have an ENDs policy
25
Major findings
67% (10)of respondents had heard of “Carver” policy governance ®
Only 27% (4) indicated confidence with their understanding of it
20% (3) had fully implemented the “Carver ® Model”
26
Major findings
The greater the number of concepts used, the more likely respondents were to be satisfied with them
53.33% (8 of 15) were satisfied with the concepts they had implemented overall
27
To increase the chance of success Board chair who understands and
supports 100% - feels it will be helpful Board members who are open to the
concepts Both board and staff are comfortable
thinking strategically Both board and staff have a good
understanding of the model Both board and staff understand the
difference between policy setting and operation matters
28
For more information . . .
Questions? For more information or
customized board training, contact me at:– svbenoit@maine.rr.com– 207-632-1050
Visit me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/benoitconsulting