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