2303_NPQ Fall web

congregations, and community associations, as well past five years, but it rose steadily over the ten years as volunteering experiences with their family. before that. See “Monitoring the Future” study results 3. CPS supplements after 1989 are referred to as in Volunteering: Indicators on Children and Youth, “modern day” supplements to differentiate them Child Trends Data Bank, December 2015. from the earlier surveys, which were conducted on an 12. Eagan et al., The American Freshman. irregular basis and with no attempt at using standard 13. CIRCLE Staff, “The Youth Vote in 2012,” CIRCLE definitions or wording of questions. Fact Sheet, May 2013, Center for Information & 4. Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse Research on Civic Learning & Engagement, May 10, and Revival of American Community (New York: 2013. Simon and Schuster, 2000). 14. “College students’ commitment to activism, 5. “Voter Turnout in Presidential Elec- political and civic engagement reach all-time highs: tions: 1828–2012,” The American Presidency In study by UCLA’s Higher Education Research Insti- Project website, accessed August 12, 2016, www tute, highest percentage ever of incoming students .presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php. say they’d likely participate in protests,” UCLA News- 6. The decline in volunteer rates between 1974 and room, February 10, 2016, newsroom.ucla.edu/releases 1989 could be due to many factors, including (but /college-students-commitment-to-activism-political not limited to) changes in population demographics, -and-civic-engagement-reach-all-time-highs. national socioeconomic trends, and the increase in 15. Authors’ calculations are from 1989 and 2015 CPS demand for volunteers among nonprofit organiza- data. tions. For additional details about the 1974, 1989, and 16. Doug Oman, Carl E. Thoreson, and Kay “modern-day” CPS supplements, and how the data McMahon, “Volunteerism and Mortality among the were used for this analysis, please see the Method- Community-dwelling Elderly,” Journal of Health ological Note on Survey Comparisons sidebar at the Psychology 4, no. 3 (1999): 301–16; Marc A. Musick end of this article, or visit www.nationalservice.gov and John Wilson, “Volunteering and depression: the /pdf/06_1203_volunteer_growth_methodology.pdf for role of psychological and social resources in differ- more information. ent age groups,” Social Science & Medicine 56, no. 7. We follow the Bureau of Labor Statistics convention 2 (January 2003): 259–69; Judith A. Wheeler, Kevin of designating everyone ages 16 and older “adults,” M. Gorey, and Bernard Greenblatt, “The Beneficial because that’s when they can enter the workforce Effects of Volunteering for Older Volunteers and the without parental consent. People They Serve: A Meta-Analysis,” International 8. Brice S. McKeever, The Nonprofit Sector in Brief Journal of Aging and Human Development 47, no. 2015: Public Charities, Giving, and Volunteering, 1 (July 1998): 69–79; Richard G. Rogers, “The Effects (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, October 2015). of Family Composition, Health, and Social Support 9. Kimberly Spring, Robert T. Grimm, Jr., and Nathan Linkages on Mortality,” Journal of Health and Dietz, Community Service and Service-Learning in Social Behavior 37, no. 4 (December 1996): 326–38; America’s Schools (Washington, DC: Corporation for and Marc A. Musick, A. Regula Herzog, and James National and Community Service, Office of Research S. House, “Volunteering and Mortality Among Older and Policy Development, November 2008); and Robert Adults: Findings From a National Sample,” The Jour- T. Grimm, Jr. et al., Building Active Citizens: The Role nals of Gerontology 54B, no. 3 (1999): S173–S180. of Social Institutions in Teen Volunteering (Wash- 17. John Wilson, “Volunteering,” Annual Review of ington, DC: Corporation for National and Community Sociology 26 (2000): 215–40. Service, Office of Research and Policy Development, 18. Ibid. November 2005). 19. Authors’ calculations are from 2005 and 2015 CPS 10. Kevin Eagan et al., The American Freshman: data. National Norms Fall 2015 (Los Angeles: Cooperative Institutional Research Program at The Higher Educa- To comment on this article, write to us at feedback tion Research Institute, University of California, 2015). @npqmag.org. Order reprints from http:// store.nonprofit 11. The rate for eighth graders has declined over the quarterly.org, using code 230306. FALL 2016 • WWW.NPQMAG.ORG THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY 49

P Voices of Board Chairs: NONPROFIT LE ADER SHI A National Study on the Perspectives of Nonprofit Board Chairs by Judy Freiwirth, Mary Hiland, Michael Burns, Gayle Gifford, and Debra Beck While the research undertaken for this study was conducted to increase understanding of nonprofit board chairs vis-à-vis preparing for their role as chair and what they perceive their leadership roles to be in relationship to the board, the community, and the CEO, the authors’ findings provide important implications and recommendations for the sector. These include developing a well-planned practice of board chair preparation and succession planning, building leadership capacity for many potential board leaders, and moving from an individual model of leadership to shared leadership. Editors’ note: This article was adapted from a research report by the Alliance for Nonprofit Management, published on August 23, 2016. Visit allianceonline.org to access the full report. The research for this report was conducted by the Alliance for Nonprofit Management’s Governance Affinity Group. For information about the next phase of research, contact Judy Freiwirth at Judy@ NonprofitSA.com. here is relatively little research preparation is done by board chairs and preparation. More specifically, ques- that investigates the topic of how they see their role in relationship tions were directed to learn about the nonprofit board chair leader- to the board and other stakeholders. resources, tools, and/or activities per- Tship, but this role is pivotal in What we found was a pretty glaring ceived to be helpful to individuals in many organizations. It helps to struc- picture of neglect, in that this is an area preparing themselves to become a ture, uphold, and revise the container of organizational leadership succes- board chair; whether or not individuals for dialogue and disciplines for manag- sion that is often insufficiently thought prepared in any way ahead of assuming ing conversation, and to establish the through. What follows are our findings the chair position; and how individuals atmosphere for deliberation. This takes from a survey of 635 self-identified non- were selected to be chairs. a measure of sophistication as well as profit board chairs representing local, About half of the respondents self-awareness regarding the match regional, and national organizations in (51 percent) indicated that they did between one’s own personal leadership forty-two states, and the recommenda- nothing specific to prepare to become a characteristics and the needs of the tions to nonprofits we make in light of board chair. When provided with a range board, the organization, and the com- these findings. of specific ways they might have pre- munity served. But do nonprofits honor pared for the board chair role, only a little this leverage point with the attention it The Findings over half of the respondents (56 percent) deserves? Maybe not. Preparation for the Board Chair Role stated they followed some intentional So, as a group of practitioner A primary focus of this study was process. And when considering possible researchers, we decided to find out what to learn about nonprofit board chair preparatory steps, like first holding a • 50 THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY WWW.NPQMAG.ORG FALL 2016

different officer seat or chairing a board Table 1: Subject Matter Found Helpful to Board Chairs committee, only 48 percent of the respon- dents stated that they had held the role of BOARDS AND GOVERNANCE 77% vice-chair. Eighty percent of respondents thought that serving as a committee chair LEADERSHIP (NOT NECESSARILY SPECIFIC TO BOARDS) 69% NONPROFIT LE ADER SHIP was helpful experience for becoming a board chair, but did not indicate that it MANAGING MEETINGS 65% was an intentional route to board chair. Only 19 percent of respondents indicated NONPROFIT BOARD CHAIRS 61% that “becoming a chair was a natural pro- gression,” but the data didn’t reveal how TEAMS/GROUPS 56% that was interpreted by the respondents. Only 24 percent reported that they were recommended by their nominating com- mittee when asked how they came to be board chair. Table 2: Previously Held Officer or Leadership Position in Same Nonprofit Probing further, the research team COMMITTEE CHAIR 65% wanted to understand what people, resources, or experiences board chairs VICE-CHAIR 48% felt were helpful to them in preparing for their position. The board chair respon- SECRETARY/CLERK 22% dents frequently pointed to the prior board chair as having an influence on TREASURER 19% them. Seventy percent rated “observing the prior board chair” as helpful or very CHAIR-ELECT 18% helpful, and 50 percent found asking the outgoing chair for advice helpful or very PRIOR CHAIR 13% helpful. Fifty-eight percent also found asking the CEO for advice high on their list for helpfulness. Interestingly, con- sultants and coaches were reported as In the open-ended comments made for becoming a board chair was: “In the least likely to be found helpful and in response to the above questions, hindsight, what one resource, person, or also the least likely to be considered a board chairs referred most frequently to experience would you like to have had resource. different types of experiences—rather to help you prepare to be a board chair?” Chairs identified the Inter- than people or information—they found The most common themes that emerged net (42 percent), local workshops helpful in preparing to become board in response included: 1) mentoring; (37 percent), and books they had pur- chair. For instance, 82 percent of the 2) peer networking; 3) training; and chased (33 percent) when asked about board chairs found that serving on a 4) access to a specific resource on what sources of information were found committee, in their current or a previ- demand. helpful. It is interesting to note that only ous nonprofit, was a helpful preparatory Overall, the board chairs’ responses 11 percent of respondents described experience. indicated interest and a willingness to their local libraries as somewhat to very In fact, this was a much more learn. They tended to look to a colleague helpful. common experience for the responding such as a former board chair and/or the In their preparation, when given board chairs than any board officer role. CEO within their current organization choices of subject matter that board Fifty-two percent indicated that being a for advice, and were not aware of—or chairs found helpful, boards and gov- board chair in another nonprofit was a chose not to use—a variety of resources ernance rose to the top, as Table 1 helpful preparatory experience. external to their nonprofits that might be demonstrates. The final question about preparation helpful to their role as chair. FALL 2016 • WWW.NPQMAG.ORG THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY 51

2 NONPROFIT LE ADER SHIP Perceptions of the Board Chair Role practitioner literature. Duties ranking regarding role. With this premise in mind, the highest included the following: A second focus of the survey was board the survey asked respondents to select • Keep the board’s focus on the chairs’ perceptions of their role, spe- the type of leader they perceived them- organization’s strategic direction: cifically in relationship to the board, the selves to be from a list of four options. A 64 percent. CEO, and the community. These relation- little over half of the respondents felt that • Ensure the board fulfills its gover- ships align with Yvonne Harrison and they were a “team builder who cultivates Vic Murray’s three sets of relationships nance responsibilities: 49 percent. within which board chairs execute their sibility,” and only about a quarter of the leadership role in nonprofits: the chair • Preside over and manage board meet- other leadership and delegates respon- ings: 42 percent. respondents reported that they “build in relation to the board; the chair in Respondents, however, expressed widespread consensus before action can relation to the CEO; and the chair their reluctance to choose three “top” be taken.” in relation to external stakeholders or the duties, as they viewed their role with the About 8 percent of respondents community. 1 described themselves as a “take-charge, board as both multifaceted and often situational. forge-ahead, and decisive, indepen- 1. Chair Role in Relation to the Board dent leader.” Three percent of respon- Primary Duties Leadership Model dents stated that the CEO or another Respondents were asked to identify To further understand the board chairs’ board member was actually leading the what they perceived to be their top understanding of their role, the survey board. Seven percent chose “other” as three duties as board chair in relation to also solicited perceptions about the a response, and a percentage of these the board. They selected the top three board chairs’ style of leadership. The respondents described themselves as a duties from a list of eleven commonly research team hypothesized that the style combination of the choices, depending accepted board chair duties found in the of leadership may affect perceptions on the situation. Table 3: Leadership Type Builds widespread consensus 25% before action can be taken Team builder who cultivates 56% other leadership and delegates responsibility 8% Take-charge, forge-ahead, decisive, independent leader 3% 7% CEO or other board member leading the board Combination of choices • 52 THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY WWW.NPQMAG.ORG FALL 2016

Perceptions Regarding Leadership Leadership Practice N Perceptions of the experience in leading An additional insight about the role of most responsible for developing board as chair also matter when attempting to the chair in relation to the board is pro- meeting agendas were nuances of the understand the chair-to-board relation- vided by understanding the process for above. For example, some common ship. The survey offered board chairs five constructing board meeting agendas. responses included: “the agenda is choices to describe their feelings about When the respondents were asked who created in the executive committee on leading the board. Chairs reported high was the most responsible for develop- which the CEO serves” or “the CEO degrees of feeling competent (87 percent), ing board meeting agendas, 42 percent draws up the agenda in collaboration The comments regarding who was ONPROFIT LE ADER SHIP supported (81 percent), and confident indicated that they developed agendas in with the board chair.” (84 percent). Seventy percent reported collaboration with their CEO, 16 percent sometimes feeling frustrated, and only indicated that the CEO developed the 34 percent sometimes felt isolated. (See agenda, and 15 percent developed it Table 4.) alone. See further details in Table 5. Table 4: Feelings about Leading the Board 100% Never Sometimes Most of the time or always 87% 84% 81% 80% 70% 60% 60% 40% 34% 21% 20% 17% 12% 14% 9% 6% 1% 2% 2% 0% Competent Supported Confident Frustrated Isolated Table 5: Most Responsible for Developing Board-Meeting Agendas 42% Board Chair in collaboration with the CEO 14% Board Chair in collaboration with Executive 16% Committee CEO 5% 15% 8% Board Chair in collaboration with Committee Chairs Board Chair Other FALL 2016 • WWW.NPQMAG.ORG THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY 53

NONPROFIT LE ADER SHIP 2. Chair Role in Relation to the CEO Specific Role in Relation to (30 percent) of the chairs selected the option “most of the time” or “always”; As stated earlier, a second perspective the CEO 77 percent identified themselves as for understanding the role of the chair Respondents also described what they can be gained from understanding the supervising their CEO at least some of perceived to be their role in relation- the time, with 46 percent of that group board chair’s relationship to that of the ship to the CEO. The survey offered a finding themselves in that role “most of CEO. Therefore, in the survey respon- list of normative practices from which dents were asked to describe the nature additional responses. of their relationship with the CEO and “not applicable” if they did not feel an the specific roles of each. to choose. Chairs were asked to select the time” or “always.” Table 6 provides As another reference point to under- option was an appropriate role for a board chair. The highest ranking roles stand the chair–CEO relationship, chairs Nature of the Board Chair–CEO were asked to describe their “power rela- Relationship in the board chairs’ relationship to tionship.” Sixty-three percent described When asked to describe what their rela- their CEO (cited as “most” or “all of the CEO and chair as equally strong, tionship with the CEO was built on, the time”) were: as a leadership partner with 19 percent stating that they had a respondents selected the following: (73 percent) and as the CEO’s sounding strong CEO and a weak board. Many of • Communication between meetings: board (58 percent). the comments on this question indicated 92 percent. A majority of chairs (81 percent) • Meeting obligations to one another: identified themselves as at least “some- some transitions in the relationship or 90 percent. times” serving as a consultant to the CEO that the chair was currently working to • Mutual trust: 88 percent. on operational issues; almost a third strengthen the relationship. Table 6: Board Chair Roles in Relation to the CEO 80% 80% Never Sometimes Most of the time or always N/A 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0 0 Leadership Sounding Confidante Supervisor Conduit for Advocate Consultant CEO mentor partner board for information for CEO to on operational and/or coach with CEO CEO to the board the board issues • 54 THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY WWW.NPQMAG.ORG FALL 2016

3. Board Chair’s Leadership Role in survey participants understood the N Relationship to Stakeholders and the meaning of “promoting involvement by role of the board chair is onerous and Community constituents with their organization.” that a coleadership or shared leadership The third relationship area explored Only 18 percent indicated that they fre- model might lead to more effective gov- was the role of the chair in relation to quently engaged in advocacy or inter- ernance, there has been little experimen- stakeholders and the community. Both acted with other boards, and 12 percent tation or research in this area. For this the nonprofit research and practitioner indicated that they “frequently” spoke to reason, the survey asked about cochair sectors have been increasingly inter- the media. Thirty percent of respondents and other shared leadership models. The within the sector that the solo leadership ONPROFIT LE ADER SHIP ested in encouraging boards to engage to indicated that they “frequently” met with responses revealed that only 6 percent a greater extent with external stakehold- current or potential donors, while a little of the chairs described themselves as ers and the communities they serve, as over half (55 percent) of the respondents cochairs. As a way to understand the well as to engage in advocacy and public reported that they “sometimes” met leadership culture in their organiza- policy. with current and potential donors. (See tions, the respondents were also asked Respondents reported that they were further details in Table 7.) to describe shared leadership models most engaged with the community by within their staff. Only 8 percent of the attending community events (49 percent 4. Coleadership among CEOs or Board respondents reported that their organi- “sometimes”; 42 percent “frequently”), Chairs zations had coexecutive leadership; the and promoting involvement of con- Most boards follow traditional practices highest percentages reporting this were stituents (39 percent “sometimes” and in which one board member, individually, from arts, culture, and humanities orga- 45 percent “frequently”). The findings, assumes the leadership role of the board nizations (15 percent) and environmental however, were unclear regarding how chair. While there is increasing discussion organizations (14 percent). Table 7: Board Chair Engagement with Stakeholders and the Community 60 60% Never Sometimes Frequently 50 50% 40 40% 30 30% 20 20% 10% 10 0 0 Engaging Meeting with Facilitating Speaking Promoting Attending in advocacy current/ conversations to the media involvement of community potential with other constituents with events on donors boards their behalf of organization the board FALL 2016 • WWW.NPQMAG.ORG THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY 55

NONPROFIT LE ADER SHIP Descriptive Board Chair and CEO Information Three sets of questions were asked to gain demographic understanding about respondents and their organizations. The first set focused on gathering information about the respondents, and the second set focused on gaining some insights about the CEOs. The third set—focused on the demographics of the respondents’ organizations—is not included in this article. The Board Chairs What types of experiences did survey respondents bring to the board in Years Served Respondents were asked about years served in one of six common board their new leadership position? What types of nonprofits, in what organi- leadership positions: vice-chair, treasurer, secretary/clerk, chair (served zational life stages, were they called to govern? Several survey questions prior to current period), chair-elect, and committee chair. As the fol- offer details that help to answer those contextual questions. lowing table demonstrates, serving as committee chair was the most common. Tenure as Board Chair Length of service in their current board chair position ranged from “less Years Served in Leadership Position than one year” to “more than five years.” Survey participants selecting 1 Year or “more than five years” were asked to offer a more specific response; Board Position Less 2 Years 3 Years > 3 Years Never Vice-Chair 20% 18% 4% 6% 52% responses ranged from six to twenty-five years. As the following table Treasurer 5% 6% 4% 4% 81% shows, a majority (63 percent) had served as board chair for only two Secretary/Clerk 8% 8% 3% 3% 78% years or less. Prior Chair 4% 4% 1% 3% 87% Chair Tenure Chair-Elect 11% 4% 1% 2% 82% Number of Years of Service Responses Committee Chair 13% 20% 10% 21% 35% Less than 1 year 21% Other 8% 7% 2% 6% 77% 1 year 16% 2 years 26% Total Years of Board Service 3 years 16% Survey respondents were asked about their cumulative nonprofit gover- 4 years 7% nance experience—the total number of years served on any nonprofit 5 years 5% board. Respondents chose from one of six ranges, from “three or fewer More than 5 years 10% years” to “more than fifteen years.” Those choosing more than fifteen years were encouraged to offer a Time Served on the Current Board more specific number of years. The highest was sixty years. A correla- Respondents were asked how long they had served on the current board tion between the response here and the respondent’s age would be prior to accepting the chair position. Just over half (55 percent) had been expected. However, the survey did not include a question regarding on their boards three years or less before becoming board chair, and the latter. almost a sixth served on their board less than a year before becoming board chair. Cumulative Years of Board Service Total Number of Years Responses Chair Length of Board Service 3 or fewer years 7% Number of Years Served Responses 4–6 years 14% Less than 1 year 16% 7–9 years 15% 1–3 years 39% 10–12 years 16% 4–6 years 27% 13–15 years 18% 7–9 years 10% More than 15 years 30% 10–12 years 4% More than 12 years 3% Note: Responses for the “more than 12 years” category ranged from 13 to 25 years. • 56 THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY WWW.NPQMAG.ORG FALL 2016

Governance Practice Implications N and Recommendations deeper bench of leadership. effective board leadership, as well as a ONPROF understanding of nonprofit board chairs, to the full board, the CEO, and the organi- their preparation, and their perception zation’s community, so that there is shared about their roles, as a platform to inform agreement within the board. nonprofit and capacity-building prac- The data indicated a variety of percep- The Nonprofit CEOs tices. Although it was not the intent of tions among respondents of the board This research was conducted to increase 2. Clarify the role of the chair in relationship IT LE ADER SHIP The survey also included questions requesting this study to link board chair preparation chair’s role. With organizations of many general information about the presence of, and/or the understanding of board roles sizes and stages of development, and in and the circumstances surrounding, the chief to board or organizational effectiveness, response to differing community condi- executive officers within the respondents’ the findings provide important practice tions, boards will benefit from greater organizations. implications and recommendations for clarity and shared agreement on what the sector, described below. role their board chair should be playing, General Information about CEOs rather than letting each chair define that General CEO Information Yes No 1. Establish an intentional, well-developed role for him- or herself. This recommen- Nonprofit has a CEO 86% 14% practice of board chair preparation and dation is also based on the findings from CEO is a voting member 15% 85% succession planning. Harrison and Murray’s research. Once 3 of the board It was of concern that 51 percent of the Nonprofit has co-CEOs 7% 93% board chair respondents indicated that defined, it is important to communicate CEO is the founder 16% 84% they did nothing special to prepare for that role clearly among the board and being a board chair. Moreover, 16 percent staff. And of course, research data can Length of Time CEO in Current Position of board chairs reported that they had help inform those role definitions. Finally, board chair respondents were asked to only served on their board less than a 3. Provide training, mentoring, and coaching identify the length of time that their current year, and 56 percent reported that they opportunities specifically for board chairs. CEO—or last CEO, if the organization was in had only served on their board three The data demonstrate that a high per- leadership transition—had been in the posi- years or less before becoming chair, centage of board chairs in the study tion. The findings revealed a relatively even therefore providing very little time for do not engage in training, mentoring, distribution of tenure lengths for the CEO, from preparation for such a key leadership or coaching to help them adapt to their only one to two years to more than twelve years. role. While most respondents indicated new position or to increase their effec- some type of intentional consideration tiveness. But mentoring, training, and CEO Tenure when asked how they came to be board peer networking were identified as the Number of Years chair, an interesting theme emerged from primary resources they would like to CEO in Current Position Responses the qualitative responses: the movement have had to help them prepare. 1–2 years 27% of individuals into the board chair role Harrison and Murray’s study on 3–5 years 22% as a result of unexpected events. These perceived characteristics of effective 6–8 years 18% events included the unanticipated resig- versus ineffective chairs identified skills 9–12 years 12% nation of the chair, and the inability of and practices that can be learned either More than 12 years 22% candidates designated as next in line to through education, mentoring, or coach- 4 serve because of work, health, or family ing. Some of those include: 1) facilitation demands. Some chairs noted that their skills; 2) team development skills/how to progression into the role was based on build board cohesion; 3) collaboration simply being available, or willing to serve skills; 4) dealing with conflict; 5) how because others were unwilling. An inten- to build motivation; 6) developing a tional, well-planned practice of grooming working partnership with the CEO; and and selection, which includes leadership 7) how to provide vision and direction. development for new board chairs, may Capacity-building initiatives and consult- facilitate more successful transitions and ing assistance that facilitate one-to-one FALL 2016 • WWW.NPQMAG.ORG THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY 57

Intentional succession plan ning— NONPROFIT LE ADER SHIP mentoring—or coaching for board chairs which includes identifying potential chair development could make a signifi- and for emerging governance focused cant positive impact. on such skills—would offer critical and leaders on the board at least a year in 6. Support the board chair leadership useful leadership development for board advance of their assuming the chair posi- function to improve both the chair’s and chairs. Additionally, peer-learning initia- tion—along with mentoring or other the board’s involvement in community tives for board chairs and prospective leadership training would provide new engagement and advocacy. chairs would provide useful forums for board chair learning and preparation. effective leadership. In addition, as sug- nonprofit sector that the board’s external A significant number of respondents board chairs with the support needed for Although it is increasingly accepted in the gested by the data, providing committee communicated that observing or getting chair experience, coupled with leader- advocacy and community engagement role is an important responsibility, the advice from prior board chairs or friends ship training, can be helpful in building a data indicate that board chairs do not who had been board chairs was helpful. larger pool of potential effective leaders. generally engage externally with the com- More questions than answers arise from The data suggest that in order to develop a munity, media, funders, other boards, or this finding. What is unknown is precisely deeper pool of potential leaders, not only stakeholders. The data also may suggest what benefits were being drawn from would board chairs benefit from men- that board chairs did not view commu- these observations and advice. What toring and training but also boards as a nity engagement as an important part of exactly were the board chairs learning whole and committee chairs in particular their role. from the previous board chairs? And, would benefit from regular board leader- In alignment with a 2015 BoardSource given that former chairs were identified ship development training and coaching. study, Leading With Intent, board chairs as important role models, what was the 5. Provide more accessible and research- indicated a generally low frequency of consequence when those chairs did not based resources for board chairs and capacity engagement with the community. Of 5 perform effectively? Does this method builders. particular note is the very low percent- of modeling just create repetitive cycles The data indicate that, in general, age of those who engaged in advocacy, with generations of ineffective chairs, respondents did not access the Internet, spoke to the media, and met with current thereby perpetuating poor leadership? workshops, or books or other written and potential donors on a frequent basis. These are significant questions for future resources that could help prepare them Only 18 percent of respondents indicated research. for their role as board chair. While the that they frequently engaged in advocacy 4. Build leadership capacity for many poten- data did not reveal why they were not or interacted with other boards; only tial board leaders, including committee chairs. accessing these resources, there may be 29 percent frequently met with current Responses indicated that the most fre- a number of reasons. Perhaps they were or potential donors; and only 12 percent quently held leadership position prior to overwhelmed with the enormous amount indicated that they frequently spoke to the becoming the board chair was that of a of online resources for boards, includ- media. The survey, however, did not delve committee chair—even more frequent ing articles, magazines, tools, blogs, and into the “why” behind these responses; than any other officer role. Moreover, other social media, all purporting to therefore, it is not clear from the data 82 percent of the respondents cited be based in so-called “best practices.” if the responses indicate that the board their experience as committee chair as Additionally, based on the research in chairs did not feel that these responsibili- important in helping them prepare for preparation for this study, while there is ties were part of their or the board’s role, serving in the board chair position. The indeed a plethora of prescriptive litera- or that they did not have the knowledge data suggest that more attention needs to ture, there are few resources that spe- and/or training to engage with their com- be given to preparing committee chairs cifically target board chairs or capacity munity, funders, and other stakeholders. for their leadership position, both as a builders who help support chairs—and Although a higher percentage of committee chair and as a route to the even fewer that are based on research or board chairs (45 percent) indicated that board chair position. The preparation evidence. Even if these resources were they frequently promoted involvement could include mentoring and skills-based available, it is uncertain whether board by constituents in their organizations, it training, such as how to design effective chairs would access them. Readily acces- remains unclear how this question was agendas, facilitate meetings, build con- sible, research-based practice tools and understood. Did the chairs understand sensus, and the like. resources specifically intended for board this to mean only engaging constituents 58 THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY WWW.NPQMAG.ORG FALL 2016 •

to participate in program activities? Did and experience beyond the single chair, boards of directors.” it mean engaging them in occasional thereby developing a wider pool of 4. Ibid. NONPRO focus groups or surveys? Or did it mean leaders for boards. engaging constituents in some level of There are different models of shared National Index of Nonprofit Board Prac- governance or organizational decision leadership that boards could consider tices (Washington, DC: BoardSource, 2015). making? Further research is needed to adopting, including: 1) cochairs who 6. Vias C. Nicolaides et al., “The shared leaders explore these questions. divide up the leadership responsibilities; of teams: A meta-analysis of proximal, distal, As advocacy and community engage- 2) multiple leaders within boards who and moderating relationships,” Leadership 5. BoardSource, Leading With Intent: A FIT LE ADER SHIP ment are important governance func- share different aspects of the leadership Quarterly 25, no. 5 (October 2014): 923–42. tions, board chairs can serve in an responsibilities; 3) expanding executive important leadership role promoting committees beyond officers in order to Judy FreiwirtH, PsyD, is chair of the Alli- the board’s external role in both advo- distribute coordinating responsibilities; ance Governance Affinity Group and prin- cacy and engaging the organization’s and 4) disbanding executive committees cipal of Nonprofit Solutions Associates. stakeholders. As part of their prepara- while distributing leadership among mul- Mary HilaNd, PhD, is president of Hiland tion recommended earlier in this report, tiple board members. Consulting. MicHael BurNs is a partner at board chairs would benefit from gaining BWB Solutions. Gayle GiFFord is president critical leadership skills in advocacy, • • • of Cause and Effect. deBra BecK, EdD, is an online instructor at the University of funder and donor cultivation, media These findings are intended to contribute Wyoming and Duquesne University. relations, and community engagement. to the limited body of research on board Capacity-building initiatives, which chairs and to a greater understanding To comment on this article, write to us at include coaching and mentoring, should of board leadership. We believe these [email protected]. Order reprints from incorporate these skills for both the findings and practice implications can http://store.nonprofitquarterly.org, using board chair and emerging leaders within encourage boards to place a greater code 230307. boards and their committees. emphasis on intentional board chair preparation and succession planning, as UPPER IOWA 7. Consider moving from a “heroic” UNIVERSITY individual model of leadership to shared well as strengthen board leadership. leadership. We hope that these findings will ASSUME YOUR NEW Normative practice for nonprofit boards encourage more research in the critical ROLE IN LEADERSHIP has been to have one primary leader, area of board leadership and expand the the chair, who generally holds much of possibility for shared leadership. Future the power and authority for leading the research in this area will help boards Classes board. Is the widely practiced individual and board chairs have greater access start model of leadership the most effective to research-based practices, ultimately every 8 one? Are the leadership responsibili- improving the effectiveness of nonprofit ONLINE weeks! ties for board chairs unrealistic for one governance. PROGRAM person to execute effectively? Or, would Notes a shared leadership structure provide a 1. Yvonne Harrison and Vic Murray, “Perspec- Master of Public Administration (MPA) more useful model for boards? Growing tives on the leadership of chairs of nonprofit Emphasis areas research in this area has demonstrated organization boards of directors: A grounded - Nonprofit Organizational Management the relationship between shared lead- theory mixed-method study,” Nonprofit Man- - Government Administration ership and a positive impact on team agement & Leadership 22, no. 4 (Summer - Health and Human Services performance outcomes that may have 2012): 411–37. - Emergency Management and Homeland Security implications for board functioning. 2. Mindy R. Wertheimer, The Board Chair - And more! 6 In addition to increased positive out- Handbook, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: Board- comes, another benefit of shared leader- Source, 2013). LEARN MORE TODAY! ship models is that they provide a more 3. Harrison and Murray, “Perspectives on the 800-553-4150 | [email protected] intentional way to build leadership skills leadership of chairs of nonprofit organization UIU.EDU/NONPROFIT2016 NonProfit Qtrly - 2.22 x 4.687 - Fall 2016 Issue.indd 1 9/8/2016 12:04:36 PM FALL 2016 • WWW.NPQMAG.ORG THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY 59

The Nonprofit Quarterly Digital Books Collection Gain access to the nonprofit resources you need with the swipe of a finger. Visit npqmag.org to purchase these and other digital books. Nonprofit Communications: Managing the Message in a 21st Century Environment Does everyone understand your organization’s mission and needs? This 71-page digital collection of writings from 13 experts discusses the theory and practice of modern nonprofit communications. Price: $39.00 Board with Care: Perspectives on Nonprofit Governance Existing systems are seldom built to fit each organization; instead, we often “borrow” governance structures and bylaws from other organizations. NPQ delves into these problematic practices. Price: $24.95 Strange Accounts: Understanding Nonprofit Finance This collection of articles selected from the Nonprofit= = Quarterly explores the strangeness of nonprofit finance and provides best-practice approaches so that the reader may become as skillful a strategist—as manager or board member—as he or she should. Price: $24.95 NPQ’s Reader on Executive Transitions This reader on nonprofit executive transitions includes almost a decade’s worth of well-researched and insightful articles on what can be a difficult and risky moment for many organizations. The sector has been blessed with a small but talented group of thinkers on this topic, and most of them are published here. Price: $24.95

A Youth Development Approach to Evaluation: Critical Participatory Action Research by Sarah Zeller-Berkman, Carolina Muñoz-Proto, and María Elena Torre PAR TICIPATORY AC TION RESE ARCH AND E VALUATION There is an ever-increasing emphasis on evaluation processes, but these may not necessarily be aligned with or integrated into an organization’s program goals. Here, the authors propose critical participatory action research and youth participatory evaluation as possible answers to that challenge for organizations focused on youth development programming. Editors’ note: This article was originally published in Afterschool Matters (no. 22, pp. 24–31), National Institute on Out-of-School Time, Wellesley Centers for Women, Wellesley College, in fall 2015. It has been lightly edited for this publication. cross the united states, youth youth participatory evaluation as pos- liberatory practice in order to interrupt development approaches are sible answers to this challenge. Expand- injustice and build community capacity. being tested in out-of-school ing the definition of evaluation to include Those who practice this youth develop- Atime (OST) programs as a strat- methodologies that value youth partici- ment–oriented approach bring to their egy to combat the growing opportunity pation can strengthen CBO’s capacity qualitative and quantitative research a gap between privileged and underprivi- to create responsive OST programs commitment to local knowledge and leged youth. Along with increased recog- that have meaningful impacts on young democratic practice. Those who are 6 1 nition of the value of youth development people’s lives. This article explores how affected by the topic under investiga- programming has come increased finan- five programs use critical participatory tion are essential partners in the research cial support. This investment, in turn, action research and youth participatory process. Young people conducting par- 2 brings increased pressure to continually evaluation to engage youth and improve ticipatory action research in partner- prove to funders that youth development program delivery. These trailblazing ship with adults engage in ongoing and programs affect student outcomes. The organizations illuminate the possibilities sometimes overlapping cycles of fact 3 increased emphasis on accountability and challenges of using approaches to finding, planning, action, and reflec- has sometimes forced community-based research and evaluation that reflect youth tion. Research teams attempt not only 7 organizations (CBOs) to maintain a development principles and practices. to understand the data but also to use myopic focus on outcomes that are it to alter the underlying causes of the easily measurable but not necessarily the Participatory Action Research problem at hand. most important. Underfunded nonprof- and Evaluation Approaches Youth participatory evaluation 4 its can feel overwhelmed by the intense The interdisciplinary and activist emerged in the late 1990s as an extension emphasis on producing evidence-based history of critical participatory action of the field of participatory evaluation. outcomes, especially if evaluation feels research stretches back to Kurt Lewin, Pioneers in the burgeoning field pushed like an add-on rather than being aligned Paulo Freire, Orlando Fals-Borda, and to involve young people as stakehold- with and integrated into program goals. Mohammad Anisur Rahman. The par- ers in program evaluations. The past 8 5 This article proposes critical participa- ticipatory approach braids critical decade has brought elaboration on how tory action research (critical PAR) and social science, self-determination, and youth participatory evaluation happens FALL 2016 • WWW.NPQMAG.ORG THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY 61

in youth development settings and the and theory to posit that children learn facilitating vibrant research camps and PAR TICIPATORY AC TION RESE ARCH AND E VALUATION benefits that occur when it does. Such through developmental experiences that large-scale youth research projects on 9 benefits include youth leadership; combine action and reflection, ideally in issues ranging from policing practices to 10 strong youth–adult partnerships; and, the context of caring, trusting relation- educational equity. It acts as a hub for 11 according to some, more valid and useful ships with adults. The cycles of action scholars of critical PAR and a training 14 research. 12 and reflection of participatory action institute for those looking to implement Involving youth in critical partici- research, undertaken in respectful part- participatory methods in their own con- patory action research and evaluation nership with adults, create ideal condi- texts. Our five case-study CBOs (we will 17 builds on young people’s strengths, tions for development. call them CBO 1 through 5) all followed expertise, and ability to create knowl- Knowledge production in partner- up on their learning at the institute by edge about the issues and programs that ship with young people operates at the incorporating participatory evaluation in affect their lives. Research is conducted intersection of youth development and their programs. with youth, not on them. Young people youth rights. This crossroads may feel Of the forty-five participants in the 15 are viewed as the experts on their own quite comfortable to youth-serving orga- 2012 CPAR Institute, seventeen were experiences. They are, in this view, com- nizations committed to the struggle for from CBOs or university–CBO partner- pletely capable of exploring youth issues equity on behalf of and in partnership ships. We invited those who worked in and programs—in fact, they are neces- with young people. However, though OST and who wanted to engage youth sary members of the research team. some innovators are engaging in par- in action research to participate in our This perspective is remarkably well ticipatory action research in and out of study. Eight staff members from five aligned with an assets-based youth school, the potential for engaging youth organizations agreed. The five CBOs development approach. The alignment in participatory evaluation in OST pro- varied in size, location, and program becomes even more evident in the part- grams is largely untapped. 16 focus, as summarized in Table 1. nerships formed when young people and We conducted semistructured inter- adults create research about young peo- Research Design views with the eight CBO staff members ple’s programs, communities, and experi- To uncover the benefits and challenges before they participated in the CPAR ences. Foundational research in the field of engaging youth in participatory Institute. During the staff members’ par- of youth development tells us that three evaluation approaches, we studied the ticipation, in June 2012, we conducted major factors in youth development set- experience of staff from five CBOs who ethnographic participant observations. tings foster resilience and enable youth to attended the five-day Critical Participa- Right after their participation, we facili- thrive: caring relationships, high expecta- tory Action Research Institute (CPAR tated a focus group with seven of the tions, and opportunities to contribute. Institute) hosted by the Public Science staff members, representing all five 13 A framework currently gaining traction Project in summer of 2012. The Public CBOs. We conducted follow-up inter- in the field has synthesized decades of Science Project has a fifteen-year history views three to four months after their research evidence, practice wisdom, of involving youth as researchers, participation, in fall 2012, reaching six Table 1. Characteristics of Case Study CBOs Description Location Population Served Staff and Partners Interviewed Large city in Low-income youth and Director of program evaluation and planning, CBO 1 Multiservice organization New York their families evaluation specialist, program analyst Small city in Local youth from diverse Executive director, university-based CBO 2 Arts education program Virginia backgrounds evaluation partner Small city in Immigrant youth and CBO 3 Neighborhood-based organization Program director Michigan their families Large city in CBO 4 Family education center Immigrant African youth Youth outreach coordinator Minnesota Multiservice youth development Midsize city in Low-income and Youth participatory action research CBO 5 organization Connecticut immigrant youth program coordinator • 62 THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY WWW.NPQMAG.ORG FALL 2016

staff members from four of the organiza- This intensive first experience with we created together, where their tions. Interviews and focus groups were participatory action research brought knowledge, questions, and opin- recorded and then transcribed. We ana- both challenges and benefits to the orga- ions were so valued. PAR TICIPATORY lyzed the data using a methodology based nization, as we will discuss below. By This interviewee believed that taking in grounded theory. a few months after participation in the 18 CPAR Institute, the other four organiza- research in the OST program built stu- Moving Participatory Evaluation tions in the study had carried out less dents’ confidence in the academic realm, from Theory to Practice intensive but equally innovative attempts as well. The study participants emphasized at incorporating the approach into their that they brought youth-centered and practice. Strategies they used with youth Adult–Youth Partnerships strength-based approaches with them included research camps, mapping In follow-up interviews, study partici- to the CPAR Institute, stressing the role exercises, interviews, surveys, critical pants described how engaging in partici- of sports, the arts, culture, families, conversations, and performances or pre- patory action research brought changes and civic engagement. However, only sentations of research findings by youth. in the dynamics between young people two of the five organizations had previ- and adults. Awareness of how adults and ously used participatory approaches to Benefits of Participatory Evaluation youth can share power led to more inten- teaching and learning, and only one had The follow-up interviews revealed four tionality about who took on the evalua- engaged in participatory research. In the benefits of engaging in research and tion tasks, both large and small—from part in critical participatory action AC TION RESE ARCH AND E VALUATION follow-up interviews a few months after evaluation processes aligned with the defining a project’s research questions their participation, all reported having principles of youth development: to summarizing the data gathered. A used participatory strategies in program • Increased youth engagement and staff member from CBO 1 described implementation, design, or evaluation. leadership; how this new awareness informed a One study participant had incor- • Deeper adult–youth partnerships; porated a full participatory action • Increase in participatory practices project in which a team of youth and adult researchers explored the meaning research project into her CBO’s youth across the organization; and of youth success: summer employment program. The • Improved quality of the research. project engaged a team of ten youth in We were very much focused on researching young people’s experiences Youth Engagement and Leadership always being mindful of our rela- of schooling. The participant, a youth Follow-up interviews revealed that even tionship with the participants, and outreach coordinator at CBO 4, outlined CBO staff who were already committed on the first day we began with a the process in her follow-up interview: to youth leadership were impressed by very broad question about what is the effects of critical participatory action research and who is a researcher. . . . We all worked together for We were very explicit about oppor- twenty-five hours a week for research. They saw co-construction of tunities for participation, always five weeks. We started off with a knowledge through research as an effec- looking for ways the young people research camp kind of curricu- tive way to build young people’s confi- could [participate] . . . or anything lum, combined with some curricu- dence. For example, the interviewee that we could do to get away from lum on anti-oppression, work on from CBO 5 said the following about the [the adults doing the] talking. . . . We sexism, racism, things like that. . . . approach: had one piece where we had identi- We did school mapping . . . with [It] is very effective at building fied five subthemes of success we some guided questions, and one leadership. My students—in par- wanted to zero in on, but we had a was, “Where do you feel least safe ticular several that had for a long list of twenty and we gave everyone or where do you feel most safe?” time, as far as I can tell, been five stars and they voted. . . . We [We] prepped [research camp par- labeled “unsuccessful” in the class- would have previously done show ticipants] a lot on interviews. They room and schools, and [were] at of hands, but we did it like that so also interviewed each other a lot various levels of marginalization in everyone would have a voice. to home in on what our first round school—really turned a corner. . . . of interview questions would be. [T]hey were able to feel success- Study respondents spoke about ful in this learning environment how engaging youth in participatory FALL 2016 • WWW.NPQMAG.ORG THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY 63

evaluation enabled them not only to that was seeping into his CBO’s culture. first, including designing what PAR TICIPATORY AC TION RESE ARCH AND E VALUATION relinquish control but also to collaborate The evaluation director of CBO 1 the research questions have to with young people and engage them as reported that having integrated youth be. I learned that really early on both teachers and learners. Some par- into critical participatory action research . . . when we interviewed youth to ticipants, including the program director was affecting work with the staff: hire them and we created our ques- of CBO 3, said that the CPAR Institute We introduced icebreakers into tions about school. . . . And they all enhanced their commitment to viewing program meetings, just to chill talked about favoritism. And that, young people as assets: “[CPAR] for me people out. And then we realized to me, was a great lesson, because has . . . enhanced my belief [that youth] that the icebreakers we were using if I had designed the interview are a source of amazing information were really about establishing questions about youth experience, and that, when we listen, we find out so common ground, so that we would, [I] never would have asked about much.” for instance, have a meeting with favoritism. For program directors, working as full the afterschool staff, and the partners with youth and their communi- icebreaker was, “Tell us about Challenges of Participatory Evaluation ties involved questioning their traditional your first involvement with after- In addition to benefits, the follow-up approach to building “clear boundaries” school.” . . . So we all kind of estab- interviews revealed challenges in involv- between staff and community members. lished our stake and that we were ing youth in participatory action research As a respondent from CBO 1 put it, a all stakeholders in afterschool pro- and evaluation. A major challenge is participatory approach can clash with grams with a lot of commitment to that these approaches take time. One the traditional notion that “staff [must] them and perspective. [W]e really CBO staff member articulated a common have very clear boundaries, so they are have developed this process in issue: feeling torn between being realistic not friends, they don’t fraternize.” In these meetings about power rela- about the workload and being committed the focus group, several staff members tions and establishing common to a participatory approach: agreed that boundaries can serve as ground and common purpose. I am very happy with the way [the a means of demonstrating “who is in project] turned out, but it was also charge” in a youth program. However, Organizations that incorporate a par- a reality check because it took a lot they also agreed that boundaries helped ticipatory frame into youth-centered and of our time. And I am here thinking staff members feel safe working with strengths-based approaches may experi- I would not want to do this again youth and their communities. Organi- ence benefits across the entire organiza- until next summer because I have zations that incorporate participatory tion, not just with the youth. so many other projects on my plate. evaluation may need to reflect on ways to balance the necessity for healthy bound- Quality of the Research The youth outreach coordinator from aries with the benefits of open communi- A fourth benefit the CBO respondents CBO 4 echoed this sentiment, explaining cation and mutual trust. noted was that the quality of their that the budget and design of her program research improved. CBO staff were com- did not allow for the level of youth par- Participatory Approaches mitted to participatory practices not only ticipation that would have produced across the Organization out of idealism but also because these high-quality data. The five weeks allot- A third theme in the interviews was that practices better equipped them to carry ted for research did not allow the youth participatory approaches offered ben- out valid research. One respondent men- to take part in designing data collection efits not just for the OST program and tioned that collaboration with youth on instruments, conducting the research, its youth and staff but also for the entire an evaluation survey brought up issues and analyzing the data. This staff member CBO. Even when the task at hand was “that would have never come to mind” struggled with how much she and the not research, respondents said, they had for the adult staff members. The program other facilitators should structure the become more comfortable with letting coordinator from CBO 5 put it this way: work ahead of time and how much to young people take the lead. Participa- A PAR approach has definitely leave open for the adult–youth team to tory practices and sharing leadership taught me that people who are shape together. She compromised by with young people were described by one “the subjects” of the research starting the process with a well-defined participant as a “PAR-esque” approach topic for the project and with structured need to be in the room from the • 64 THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY WWW.NPQMAG.ORG FALL 2016

$19.95 We've got back issues Issues COMPLETE your collection of the Nonprofit Quarterly and gain a critical reference guide to nonprofit m anagement. To get your back issues today, visit www.nonprofitquarterly.org

workshops that helped the research team Interviewees explained that the help the entire situation of having PAR TICIPATORY AC TION RESE ARCH AND E VALUATION come alive. Once the team had agreed on transition from providing a one-off par- to do so much more evaluation a subtopic and method for the projects, ticipatory project or class to making these days. she provided scaffolding and assistance participatory evaluation a permanent Participant B: I think I am very to help the youth complete their goals in fixture in the organization was difficult. used to the scientific method the available time. Surprisingly, the interviews revealed approach where you go in with a A second challenge was lack of institu- hopefulness about the coexistence of hypothesis. So doing research this tionalization of participatory approaches outcomes-driven evaluation and critical way is kind of foreign to me. PAR to program design and evaluation. The participatory action research. Respon- has made it clear—it is a much executive director of CBO 2 explained: dents felt that their CBOs and funders more valid form. I always thought might be more open than they had I definitely feel reluctant [about] thought to participatory program design so, but until you really see it and our kids having to fill out tons of and evaluation. really learn about it, it is kind of tests like rats in a maze and [about foreign. putting] them through pre- and Evaluation Aligned with Participant A: [The CPAR Insti- post-tests. Honestly, we run on Program Goals tute] has helped me to see that an extremely skinny budget, and The New York–based multiservice orga- [evaluation] can be a very empow- we don’t have the administra- nization whose evaluation staff attended ering tool versus a very overpower- tive capacity to administer pre- the CPAR Institute saw its evaluation ing or dominating, exploitative tool. and post-tests or evaluate them culture positively affected by the inclu- or administer the data. . . . Not sion of youth perspectives. One benefit to say we don’t want to demon- reported by this organization’s study par- This dialogue envisions a scenario in strate the impact of our program ticipants was that program staff took a which afterschool program evaluation to people, but I am just concerned more active role in the design of evalu- not only accounts for outcomes such that funders and foundations are ation strategies, rather than viewing as credits gained but also creates space going over the top in creating really the evaluation staff as the sole experts. for youth action research projects that unrealistic requirements [for orga- As a result, the evaluation process was influence people and programs. In this nizations] such as ours, which will enriched by expertise of staff who knew youth development approach to evalu- be at risk of going out of business ation and research, study participants the day-to-day operation of the programs because of these requirements. And and who had direct contact with youth. saw a tool that could both build young I think CPAR can perhaps provide A conversation among focus group people’s talents and reveal insights to tools that are more user-friendly participants echoed the idea that using enable program improvement. and friendly to the population and Our study suggests that, in order to critical participatory action research that are not viewed punitively. experience these benefits, CBOs need to shifted the culture of evaluation in their provide institutional support for partici- organizations: Clearly, this interviewee understands patory approaches to design and evalua- the importance of evaluations that dem- Participant A: It certainly pro- tion. Staff also need to identify the spaces onstrate program impact. At the same vided a whole new avenue for in the organization and its programs time, the comments reflect a feeling how we can make [the evaluation] where such approaches will be a good fit. shared by other interviewees that certain process more friendly to the par- Staff from both of the sites that had fin- approaches to evaluation have negative ticipants and align ourselves more ished action research projects at the time connotations for CBO staff. This execu- with them in ways that engage of the follow-up interview (CBOs 1 and 2) tive director articulates the possibility them and . . . bring them into a said that their executive directors were that youth critical action research can process that demonstrates to them open to and supported participatory eval- contribute to evaluation that is “more the additional talents they have to uation. A staffer from CBO 1 described user-friendly” and that, rather than pun- help provide insight into why or how one program in the organization was ishing CBOs through funding cuts, can why not the program is working open to participatory research, while promote a culture of accountability and and improve it. . . . I think [PAR is] another was rigidly bound to a different constant improvement. a much improved way of trying to approach to evaluation: • 66 THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY WWW.NPQMAG.ORG FALL 2016

The project in the Bronx received Unleashing a Virtuous Cycle finding is promising, funders and leaders lots of support from the highest The youth programs featured in this PAR T levels here. This was included in a article highlight the power and potential that participatory approaches are not only packet to one of our major funders of using research and evaluation designs permitted but also valued. Programs need this morning, and they were very that are aligned with positive youth additional funding to support the time and happy with our organization for development. These sites have found that effort it takes to carry out participatory promoting youth voice. . . . On the involving youth in critical PAR can create evaluation driven by deep youth–adult other hand, we have a lot of pres- valid data to drive programs while pro- partnerships. Similarly, capacity-building sures going on right now with moting practices that youth and adults support is necessary if our field is to shift our child welfare program and find “user-friendly” and “empowering.” the current culture of evaluation to one evidence-based models. Participatory approaches offer CBOs better aligned with youth development CBO 2, the other site that had com- a way to develop research about youth principles and practices. pleted a youth action research project programs that is driven by the youth and Increasing funding and building at the time of the follow-up interview, communities most affected. capacity for youth participation in also reported that the work was “pretty While it is not without challenges, par- action research will help to institution- well received” in the city’s youth affairs ticipatory action research offers benefits, alize evaluation approaches aligned agency. This staff member stated that including increased youth engagement with youth development. Capitalizing the project “brought a louder voice back and leadership, deeper adult–youth part- on these approaches could prove to be a still need to let youth program staff know ICIPATORY AC TION RESE ARCH AND E VALUATION to [the] youth affairs [agency] about the nerships, an increase in participatory win-win scenario for funders and youth necessity of having more youth involve- practices across the organization, and programs that are striving to maximize ment at every layer of the organization, greater validity in the research instru- their impact, shrink the pervasive oppor- having more youth involved in plan- ments and analyses used for evaluation. tunity gap, and increase youth engage- ning [the]programs.” This respondent These benefits reinforce conditions that ment every step of the way. expressed some frustration that grant enable young people to thrive: partner- applications reinforce top-down hier- ships with adults characterized by caring Notes archies in youth–adult relationships by, and trusting relationships, high expec- 1. Margo Gardner, Jodie L. Roth, and Jeanne for example, not allowing applicants tations, and multiple opportunities for Brooks-Gunn, “Can After-School Programs to identify young people simply as both generations to contribute to cycles Help Level the Playing Field for Disadvan- “co-researchers.” However, this respon- of reflection and action. The study thus taged Youth?” Equity Matters: Research dent said, “The foundation we are apply- suggests that using an evaluation frame- Review 4 (October 2009). ing to thinks differently about, and is work that is aligned with the principles of 2. Heather Clapp Padgette, Finding open in their perspective on, hierarchies youth development unleashes a virtuous Funding: A Guide to Federal Sources in youth–adult collaborations.” cycle: the evaluative process supports the for Out-of-School Time and Community The CBO program and evaluation very outcomes youth development pro- School Initiatives, rev. ed. (Washington, staff in our study saw critical PAR as grams are designed to achieve. Though DC: The Finance Project, 2003); and Sarah a useful and valid tool. In a funder our findings hint at the existence of this Zeller-Berkman, “Critical development? climate that emphasizes evaluation, virtuous cycle, its process and its impli- Using a critical theory lens to examine the the alignment of participatory research cations for program design, implementa- current role of evaluation in the youth devel- with an assets-based approach seems tion, and evaluation must be revealed by opment field,” New Directions for Evalu- to be attractive to executive directors further research. ation 2010, no. 127 (Autumn 2010): 35–44. and evaluation staff who are looking To unleash this virtuous cycle more 3. Zeller-Berkman, “Critical development?” to produce useful and valid data while often, funders need to make an explicit 4. Dana Fusco, Anne Lawrence, Susan also developing capacities among staff commitment to a youth development Matloff-Nieves, and Esteban Ramos, “The members and youth. Unlike evaluation approach to research and evaluation. Accordion Effect: Is Quality in Afterschool processes that are perceived as add-ons Our interviewees said that their funders Getting the Squeeze?” Journal of Youth or resource drains, youth participatory and administrators expressed interest Development 8, no. 2 (2013): 4–14. action research adds value by aligning in and support for youth involvement 5. Kurt Lewin, “Action Research and Minor- with and expanding on program goals. in research and evaluation. Though this ity Problems,” Journal of Social Issues 2, FALL 2016 • WWW.NPQMAG.ORG THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY 67

no. 4 (November 1946): 34–46; Paulo Freire, evaluator’s reflections,” Journal of Com- Cammarota (New York: Routledge, 2006): PAR TICIPATORY AC TION RESE ARCH AND E VALUATION Pedagogy of the Oppressed, trans. Myra munity Psychology 33, no. 1 (January 2005): 37–57. Bergman Ramos (New York: Continuum, 75–85. 17. María Elena Torre et al., “Critical Participa- 1970); Orlando Fals-Borda, “Investigating 11. Innovation Center for Community and tory Action Research as Public Science”; and reality in order to transform it: The Colom- Youth Development, Reflect and Improve: A Zeller-Berkman, “Lineages: A Past, Present, bian experience,” Dialectical Anthropology Tool Kit for Engaging Youth and Adults as and Future of Participatory Action Research.” 4, no. 1 (March 1979): 33–55; and Mohammad Partners in Program Evaluation (Takoma 18. Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin, Anisur Rahman and Orlando Fals-Borda, Park, MD: Innovation Center for Community “Grounded Theory Methodology: An Over- “A Self-Review of PAR,” in Action and and Youth Development, 2005). view,” in The SAGE Handbook of Qualita- Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with 12. Matthew Calvert, Shepherd Zeldin, and tive Research, ed. Norman K. Denzin and Participatory-Action Research, ed. Orlando Amy Weisenbach, “Youth Involvement for Yvonna S. Lincoln (Thousand Oaks, CA: Fals-Borda and Mohammad Anisur Rahman Community, Organizational and Youth SAGE, 1994): 273–85. (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, Development: Directions for Research, saraH Zeller-BerKMaN, PhD, is director 1991): 24–34. Evaluation, and Practice” (Takoma Park, of the Intergenerational Change Initiative 6. Orlando Fals-Borda, “Participatory Action MD: Human Development and Family at the Public Science Project and coordina- Research in Colombia: Some Personal Feel- Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison tor of Youth Studies Initiatives at the John ings,” in Participatory Action Research: and the Innovation Center for Community F. Kennedy, Jr., Institute for Worker Edu- International Contexts and Consequences, and Youth Development/Tides Center, cation. Zeller-Berkman has spent the last ed. Robin McTaggart (Albany: State Uni- 2002); Silvia Golombek, ed., What Works fifteen years as a practitioner, researcher, versity of New York Press, 1997): 107–12; in Youth Participation: Case Studies from evaluator, and capacity builder in youth María Elena Torre et al., “Critical Participa- Around the World (Baltimore: International and community development. She has tory Action Research as Public Science,” Youth Foundation, 2002); and Sabo Flores, authored many publications and serves on in APA Handbook of Research Methods in Youth Participatory Evaluation. several boards. caroliNa MuñoZ-Proto, Psychology, Volume 2: Research Designs: 13. Bonnie Benard, Fostering Resiliency PhD, is assistant professor at Pontificia Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsycho- in Kids: Protective Factors in the Family, Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, where logical, and Biological, ed. Harris Cooper School, and Community, Western Center she teaches community and applied social et al. (Washington, DC: American Psycho- for Drug-Free Schools and Communities, psychology. Her interests involve youth logical Association, 2012): 171–84; and 1991. and social justice, political action, and Sarah Zeller-Berkman, “Lineages: A Past, 14. Jenny Nagaoka et al., with David W. peace building. She has written about par- Present, and Future of Participatory Action Johnson et al., Foundations for Young Adult ticipatory action research and youth with Research,” in The Oxford Handbook of Qual- Success: A Developmental Framework incarcerated parents. She is affiliated with itative Research, ed. Patricia Leavy (New (Chicago: University of Chicago Consortium the Public Science Project for Participa- York: Oxford University Press, 2014): 518–32. on School Research, June 2015). tory Action Research and Design. Maria 7. Lewin, “Action Research and Minority 15. Sabo, “A Vygotskian Perspective on eleNa torre, PhD, is founding director Problems.” Youth Participatory Evaluation.” of the Public Science Project and a faculty 8. Barry Checkoway and Katie Richards- 16. Caitlin Cahill, “Defying gravity? Raising member in critical psychology at the Grad- Schuster, “Youth Participation in Community consciousness through collective research,” uate Center of the City University of New Evaluation Research,” American Journal Children’s Geographies 2, no. 2 (2004): York. Torre has engaged in critical par- for Evaluation 24, no. 1 (March 2003): 273–86; Revolutionizing Education: Youth ticipatory action research nationally and 21–33; Kim Sabo, “A Vygotskian Perspec- Participatory Action Research in Motion, internationally with schools, prisons, and tive on Youth Participatory Evaluation,” Julio Cammarota and Michelle Fine, eds. community-based organizations for over New Directions in Evaluation 98 (Summer (New York: Routledge, 2008); and Ben Kir- fifteen years. She is the author of numer- 2003): 13–24. shner, “Apprenticeship Learning in Youth ous publications. 9. Kim Sabo Flores, Youth Participatory Activism,” in Beyond Resistance! Youth Evaluation: Strategies for Engaging Young Activism and Community Change: New To comment on this article, write to us at People (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008). Democratic Possibilities for Practice and [email protected]. Order reprints from 10. Linda Camino, “Pitfalls and promising Policy for America’s Youth, ed. Shawn http://store.nonprofitquarterly.org, using practices of youth–adult partnerships: An Ginwright, Pedro Noguera, and Julio code 230308. • 68 THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY WWW.NPQMAG.ORG FALL 2016

A Graphic Re-Visioning of Nonprofit Overhead NONPROFIT OVERHE AD by Curtis Klotz We need a new way to communicate to potential funders and supporters what is vital to high-performing organizations vis-à-vis costs and infrastructure—and a way to do that is by rethinking our old terms and images in order to be able to visualize things differently. For instance, investment in key infrastructure has for far too long been viewed as taking a slice out of the pie of our programs, and it is time to “re-vision” it as core mission support. Editors’ note: This article was pub- It’s Time to Retire This Pie Chart lished in its original form by Nonprof- When nonprofits are viewed this way, no its Assistance Fund, on August 2, 2016. matter how hard we try to think differ- It was republished online by NPQ on ently, we imagine important infrastruc- August 16, 2016. ture of our organization as taking a slice out of the pie—as diminishing the “real” ost nonprofit leaders agree work of our mission. that we need a new way to Strategic financial functions, good communicate about the governance, and the development of key Mtrue costs of our programs funding partnerships are vital to strong and the vital importance of strong orga- organizations. We need a new way to nizational infrastructure. But we have communicate this truth. not yet developed a simple, consistent message when sharing our view with A Tired Old View of Our Organizations potential supporters and investors. We Fundraising are stuck with old terms and old images. Admin Programs How we visualize our understand- ing of nonprofit structure and programs shapes the overhead debate. It’s time to get graphic about our new ideas—to deploy fresh images to help educate the public, our funders, and ourselves. FALL 2016 • WWW.NPQMAG.ORG THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY 69

NONPROFIT OVERHE AD We Need a New Image Direct Expenses - Program Specic Rather than thinking of our investment in key infrastructure as diminishing our programs, it should be seen as valuable Direct Expenses - Shared by Programs Core Mission Support. Core Mission Support functions are necessary, vital, and integral: Core Mission Support • Strong, strategic finance and Core Mission Support - Finance, HR, Board Fundraising and Partners accounting; • Progressive human resources practices; • Capable, responsive board gover- nance; and • Talented and engaged development staff. Program 1 Whole Organizations and Direct Expenses - Program Specific True Program Costs Direct Expenses - Shared by Programs Each of our programs is built around, is supported by, and shares responsibility for Core Mission Support. Core Mission Support - Finance, HR, Board Core Mission Support All of the resources we need to accomplish our programs are the True Program 3 Fundraising and Partners Program Costs, which include four Program 2 types of expenses: • Direct Expenses: Program-Specific; • Direct Expenses: Shared by Programs; • Core Mission Support: Finance, HR, and Board; and • Core Mission Support: Fundraising and Partners. Program 1 Direct Expenses - Program Specific Underfunded Programs Direct Expenses - Shared by Programs Create a Gap at the Core Some programs are only partially funded Core Mission Support - Finance, HR, Board Core Mission Support by contributions or by earned revenue. When a program is only partially Program 3 Fundraising and Partners funded, the expenses not covered include Program 2 a proportionate share of the Core Mission Support. This creates a Gap in funding for the finance, human resources, gover- nance, and fundraising infrastructures that support the entire organization. • 70 THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY WWW.NPQMAG.ORG FALL 2016

Line-Item Funding Creates Program 1 a Gap at the Core NONPROF Direct Expenses - Program Specific the direct expenses of a program. Direct Expenses - Shared by Programs When funders support only direct expenses, they deny funding for Core Mission Support. This leaves a Gap at Core Mission Support Core Mission Support - Finance, HR, Board Some funders limit their support to only IT OVERHE AD the core of our organization. Not only is Fundraising and Partners one program affected but also the health Program 3 Program 2 of the entire organization is at risk. Invest in the Core to Grow the Mission The growth and effectiveness of our mission work depend on having a solid Core at the center of our organizations. Investing in our infrastructure is savvy, prudent, and absolutely necessary. Programs Programs Core Mission Support Core Mission Support FALL 2016 • WWW.NPQMAG.ORG THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY 71

NONPROFIT OVERHE AD NPQ’s EDUCATIONAL E-BOOK SERIES Go Visual with Our New Thinking Once we have a new way of understand- ing and communicating about the Core This is a handbook all nonprofit practitioners should have in Mission Support needed by our organiza- their toolkit. Whether you are a manager or hope to be, this tions, it is our job to share our thinking e-book contains strategies, case studies, and resources you with others. Our funders, supporters, and can apply to your everyday work challenges. partners in accomplishing our mission Download your copy for just $29.25— investors all want us to succeed. They are work. But, like us, they may need help originally $39.00: a 25% savings reimagining the role strong infrastruc- ture plays in amplifying program effec- To download, visit www.store.nonprofitquarterly.org tiveness. By providing a simple visual guide, we can help transform the way we talk about, picture, and ultimately fund Strategic the Core Mission Support that is at the Management center of all great nonprofits. and Leadership curtis KlotZ oversees the finances and operations of Nonprofits Assistance Fund An Educational E-Book Series (NAF), a certified Community Development Financial Institution in Minneapolis. In his current role, he also provides financial man- agement advice and support to a variety of nonprofits, is a frequent presenter at confer- ences and workshops on nonprofit finance topics, and is a regular contributor to NAF’s blog Balancing the Mission Checkbook. To comment on this article, write to us at [email protected]. Order reprints from http://store.nonprofitquarterly.org, using code 230309. Some articles in this e-book are . . . • Who “Owns” Your Nonprofit? • Exploring the Puzzle of Board Design: What's Your Type? • Marrying Mission with Strategic Planning & Evaluation • The Rising of the States in Nonprofit Oversight • Are We “Walmartizing” the Social Sector? • Reframing Governance • Measuring Fundraising Performance vs. Fundraiser Performance • 72 THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY WWW.NPQMAG.ORG FALL 2016



BEYOND build your best future “StratusLIVE software has put us on the path to make better, faster decisions about our donor acquisition and retention efforts...” - Caroline Itoh, Senior Director of Supporter Operations, The National Wildlife Federation Relationship Management Business Intelligence Analytical Marketing Online Fundraising Social Engagement Cloud-Based Soware for Nonprofits Microsoft CRM Platform 757.273.8219 | [email protected]