ADVANCING GOOD GOVERNANCE · throughout the United States, this report begins by exploring why grantmakers invest in nonprofit governance. Those interviewed shared the conviction

AADDVVAANNCCIINNGG GGOOOODDGGOOVVEERRNNAANNCCEE

A Joint Project of

Produced with support from W.K. Kellogg Foundation

and Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund

By Kathy K. Hedge, Eva Nico, and Lindsay Fox

MARCH 2009

HHooww GGrraannttmmaakkeerrss IInnvveesstt iinn tthheeGGoovveerrnnaannccee ooff NNoonnpprrooffiitt OOrrggaanniizzaattiioonnss

AADDVVAANNCCIINNGG GGOOOODDGGOOVVEERRNNAANNCCEE

By Kathy K. Hedge, Eva Nico, and Lindsay Fox

© BoardSource and FSG Social Impact Advisors 2009 3

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

The Case for Investing in Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Grantmaker Investments to Strengthen Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Guidance for Determining Your Engagement in Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

The Case for Investing in Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Boards: A Critical Component of Nonprofit Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Leveraging the Grantmaker’s Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Grantmaker Investments to Strengthen Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Governance and the Grantee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Governance and the Grantee: Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Governance and the Grantee: Advantages and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Governance and the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Governance and the Community: Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Governance and the Community: Advantages and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Governance and the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Governance and the Field: Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Governance and the Field: Advantages and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Guidance for Determining Your Engagement in Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Framing Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

How do investments in governance align with our mission, values, and grantmaking style? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Who is our audience, and what does it need? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

What resources and capabilities can we leverage to improve governance? . . . . . . .29

Where to Begin? Advice from the Field on First Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Appendix 1: Interviewees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Appendix 2: Grantmaker Programs That Advance Nonprofit Governance . . . . . . . . . . .34

Appendix 3: Recommended Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Resources on Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Resources for Grantmakers on Capacity Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

TTABLE OF CONTENTSABLE OF CONTENTS

4 Advancing Good Governance

AuthorsKathy K. Hedge ([email protected]) Strategic Initiatives Advisor, BoardSource

Eva Nico ([email protected]) Director, FSG, San Francisco Office

Lindsay Fox ([email protected]) Consultant, FSG, San Francisco Office

AcknowledgmentsBoardSource and FSG Social Impact Advisors gratefully acknowledge the W.K. Kellogg Foundation andthe Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund for providing grant funding for this project.

We appreciate the insights and guidance of our Advisory Group members in helping to shape this paper:

Paul Connolly, TCC Group

Elizabeth H. Costas, The Frances L. and Edwin L. Cummings Memorial Fund

Kathleen P. Enright, Grantmakers for Effective Organizations

Marian A. Godfrey, The Pew Charitable Trusts

Teri A. Hansen, Gulf Coast Community Foundation of Venice

Kimberly S. Roberson, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation

William P. Ryan, Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations, Harvard University

Paul Shoemaker, Social Venture Partners International

Cheryl K. Taylor, Foellinger Foundation

Daria Teutonico (formerly), Forum of Regional Association of Grantmakers

Linda Wood, Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund

We also appreciate the consultants and experts who provided guidance along the way: Sandra Hughes,Rosalyn Allison-Jacobs, Marla Bobowick, Paula Morris, and our colleagues at BoardSource and FSGSocial Impact Advisors. We extend a special thanks to Jane Ellen Bleeg and the Philanthropic CapacityBuilding Resources (PCBR) database of the Human Interaction Research Institute for intervieweerecommendations and to Steven Lawrence of the Foundation Center for data support. Most important,we are indebted to the individuals from 54 grantmaking institutions who were interviewed for thisproject (see Appendix 1). Their generosity of time, experiences, and insights made this report possible.

About BoardSource and FSG Social Impact AdvisorsBoardSource and FSG Social Impact Advisors recognize the importance of robust boards and governancepractices in strengthening organizations and the potential for grantmakers to act as a force for change inthe nonprofit sector. We have partnered to bring together expertise in governance and expertise inphilanthropic strategy to document related work already underway and highlight opportunities forgrantmakers to augment these efforts.

BoardSource, the premier voice of nonprofit governance, is dedicated to advancing the public good bybuilding exceptional nonprofit boards and inspiring board service. Its highly acclaimed programs andservices mobilize boards so that organizations fulfill their missions, achieve their goals, increase theirimpact, and extend their influence. BoardSource, formerly the National Center for Nonprofit Boards, is a501(c)(3) organization.

FSG Social Impact Advisors is a nonprofit strategy consulting and research organization dedicated toincreasing the social impact of philanthropy and corporate social responsibility. The firm is known forinnovative ideas, rigorous research, and commitment to results that make a meaningful difference in theworld’s most urgent problems.

Download “Advancing Good Governance” at www.boardsource.org and at www.fsg-impact.org.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSACKNOWLEDGMENTS


FOREWORDFOREWORDAs grantmakers, we have been privileged to work with many wonderful nonprofitorganizations over the years. Time and again, we have seen grantees maintain programquality and strategic focus in the face of daunting odds. We have watched organizationsgrow their programs and start down new and different paths, all while holding true totheir core values and mission.

And, more often than not, when we look across the organizations we have worked withthat have achieved this kind of success, we see something they share. They have strongboards. Boards that are actively engaged in the work of their organizations. Boards thatexercise real leadership and shared ownership of the mission. And boards that step up atcrucial moments, such as an executive transition, to make absolutely certain that theirorganizations are positioning themselves for a successful future.

In these difficult economic times for nonprofits, getting people to pay attention to issuesof board governance can be a challenge – but it is of utmost importance. Resources arestretched at the same time that many nonprofits are facing escalating demand forservices. The challenges of maintaining programs, meeting payroll and finding newsources of funding are front and center for most of today’s nonprofit leaders.

But the reality is that nonprofits, as well as foundations, need strong and capable boardsto meet the challenges facing our sector today. Think about some of the questions thatmany nonprofit organizations are facing right now. Which of our programs areabsolutely essential to our mission, and which programs can we afford to cut back oreliminate? How can we change the way we work so we can get a bigger bang for ourlimited bucks? What can we do in this economic climate to maintain or even grow ourfunding base?

Looking beyond the current crisis, there are additional questions facing nonprofitorganizations and our entire sector – questions that demand the attention of engagedand thoughtful boards. How can we collaborate more effectively across organizations andacross sectors to develop lasting solutions to problems like poverty and inequality? Howcan we build a higher-performing nonprofit sector that makes the most of the talents andexperience of its people, regardless of age and race and other differences?

Good governance will be essential in answering all of these questions. Nonprofitexecutives can’t do it on their own. They need to work with their boards to find theright answers for their organizations, their communities and the causes they serve. Forevery organization, it will be a different conversation – but it is a conversation that everyorganization must have.

In its 2005 publication, The Source: Twelve Principles of Governance That Power ExceptionalBoards, BoardSource presents governance not as a “dry, obligatory exercise incompliance” but rather as a creative and collaborative process. Among the keys toexceptional board performance, according to The Source, is deep engagement by theboard in what matters most to advancing the mission of the organization.

We could not agree more, based on our own observations of the nonprofits we workwith. And, in the same way that nonprofits can improve their performance and resultsby making better governance a priority, so too can grantmaking institutions like ours.Grantmakers rely on strong nonprofits to achieve their philanthropic missions, andstrong nonprofits require strong boards.

This report is intended to provide grantmakers with ideas and inspiration for takingaction to help nonprofits strengthen their boards. As authors Kathy K. Hedge, Eva Nico


and Lindsay Fox observe, there is no one-size-fits-all approach that grantmakers canfollow to advance better governance. Rather, the authors offer questions and programexamples that will help every grantmaker figure out its own approach, and they surveythe field for advice on the first steps grantmakers can take.

Some things we do as grantmakers get more attention than others. They are easier toexplain in a press release, or in a short conversation with community members,colleagues and friends. Supporting good governance is not one of these things. This issilent and sometimes invisible work. But it is critically important to the future ofnonprofit organizations and the sector as a whole.

We hope this report helps your organization do its part to ensure that nonprofits havethe strong boards they need to stay viable and succeed.

Linda WoodSenior Program OfficerNonprofit Leadership and GovernanceEvelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund

Anne MosleVice President for ProgramsThe W.K. Kellogg Foundation


Over the past decade, an increasing number of nonprofit organizations and grantmakers haverecognized the need for, and have invested in, building the internal capacity of nonprofits tostrengthen their organizational effectiveness. Leadership capacity has received particularattention, but the board of directors — an important part of the leadership equation — hassometimes been overlooked. Fortunately, this is starting to change. Recognizing the oftenuntapped value of boards, nonprofits and grantmakers are seeking ways to fully leverage theassets that boards and board members bring to their organizations.

The purpose of this report is to advance thinking and stimulate action among grantmakers tostrengthen the governance of their grantees and nonprofits in their communities. Forgrantmakers already engaging around issues of good governance, this report provides new ideasto consider and suggestions for enhancing current activities. For grantmakers that are justbeginning to engage nonprofits on governance issues, this report presents the case for investingin governance and shares a variety of ways to advance those efforts.

The Case for Investing in GovernanceBased on interviews with individuals from 54 grantmaking institutions of various types and sizesthroughout the United States, this report begins by exploring why grantmakers invest innonprofit governance. Those interviewed shared the conviction that boards are essential forsetting strategy, supporting the chief executive, providing financial and programmatic oversight,and stewarding the investments that grantmakers and others make. These grantmakers notedthat not all boards are as effective as they can be and viewed their institutions’ support of theboard, along with the staff, as a fundamental investment to advance the mission of the grantee aswell as that of the grantmaker.

Grantmaker Investments to Strengthen GovernanceThere is no one-size-fits-all approach for grantmakers to follow to advance governance. Theinterviews revealed that grantmakers advance governance in three distinct, often complementary,contexts. The contexts are not mutually exclusive; in fact, many grantmakers work in two, andsometimes all three, contexts:

1. Governance and the Grantee. In this context, the target audience is the grantee, eitherindividual grantees or a cadre of grantees. By leveraging relationships with their grantees,grantmakers advance governance through conversations with chief executives and boardmembers, peer exchange and capacity-building opportunities, and setting milestones forperformance. These activities have the advantage of providing customized and sometimesintensive assistance to grantees, but grantmakers also noted that challenges can arise from thepower dynamics of the grantmaker/grantee relationship, resource constraints, and thecomplexity of capacity-building efforts. To address these obstacles, grantmakers havecultivated more open relationships with their grantees and focused on select audiences.

2. Governance and the Community. In this context, the target audience is a particulargeographic community of nonprofits.Leveraging their influence and leadership positions,grantmakers convene nonprofit leaders and connect them with experts and each other toshine a spotlight on good governance and tackle community-wide governance issues.Grantmakers noted that this community focus allows them to reach a larger audience andtackle pervasive governance issues (such as board diversity or a shortage of board members)that cannot be addressed exclusively in the grantee context. They also noted some obstacles,such as difficulty reaching board members, the time required to organize programs, andchallenges faced by nonprofits attempting to implement new ideas. Grantmakers haveaddressed these obstacles through creative marketing, collaborating with other organizations,and offering additional support to grantees.

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION


3. Governance and the Field. In this context, the target audience is the larger nonprofit sectoror particular segments of the sector. Grantmakers invest in the development of governanceresources and research, directly through their own research and development and/or indirectlythrough funding field-building organizations. When working in this larger context,grantmakers target particular governance issues, advance promising practices, and focus onthe particular needs of different types of nonprofits. Investments in field-building can beabstract, so grantmakers often seek ways to connect research projects to their grantees and tocull lessons learned from their work with grantees that can inform the larger field.

Guidance for Determining Your Engagement in GovernanceGrantmakers in the process of determining their own approach to strengthening nonprofitgovernance should consider three questions:

1. How do investments in governance align with our mission, values, and grantmaking style?2. Who is our audience, and what does it need?3. What resources and capabilities can we leverage to improve nonprofit governance?

The report concludes with advice from grantmakers about important first steps to take, includingstarting with your own board, listening closely to your target audience, and easing intogovernance work.

The voices of grantmakers are featured prominently throughout this report to provide a firsthandperspective of individuals and institutions with a track record of advancing governance. Fiveprofiles are included to illustrate in more detail how some grantmakers have developed andstructured their programs. Appendix 1 lists the grantmakers interviewed for this report;Appendix 2 contains a list of grantmaker programs throughout the country that advancegovernance. Lastly, because governance and grantmaking are part of a larger community ofpractice, we offer a list of additional resources on governance and capacity building in Appendix 3.

Governance matters, and grantmakers can play an important role in helping boards understandand execute good governance. We hope that the stories and experiences included in this reportinspire you in your work with nonprofit organizations and their boards.


Today’s grantmakers and grantees operate in acontext that demands increased focus onaccountability — accountability for organizationalperformance and accountability for ethical andlegal conduct. Donors, customers and clients, andother stakeholders are pressuring nonprofitorganizations to pay closer attention to strategyand performance. Greater competition from othernonprofit and sometimes for-profit entities is alsopushing nonprofit organizations to become moreeffective in delivering programs and services.

At the same time, the regulatory environment hasbecome more complicated. In the wake ofcontinued nonprofit scandals, the Senate FinanceCommittee, Internal Revenue Service, and someattorneys general are scrutinizing board oversightpractices and increasing reporting requirementsfor nonprofit organizations.1 All of this has putgreater attention on boards, which sit in theunique position of being responsible formonitoring a nonprofit’s performance and,ultimately, being accountable for its actions.

Grantmakers are increasingly investing innonprofit capacity building. In 2006, funding forcapacity building topped $1 billion, representinga 126 percent increase over 2000.2 Boards are afundamental aspect of organizational capacity. AsKaren Whalen of the W.K. Kellogg Foundationobserved, “Board performance is an ongoingissue. We have to recognize that nonprofits needto do governance well on a continuous basis.Board development opportunities have to beprovided. It is rudimentary to building thesector.”

Boards: A Critical Component ofNonprofit LeadershipA strong and engaged board is critical iforganizations are to successfully address theincreased challenges and pressures they face. AsChuck Hamilton of The Clark Foundation said,“For us, it is really simple. Board governance is amajor determinant of organizational efficiencyand effectiveness and always has been.” Generallyspeaking, boards are designed to protect theorganization’s long-term viability, while chiefexecutives are charged with managing the day-to-

day operations. Together, they form the core of anonprofit leadership team.

Unfortunately, many boards are not as strong asthey can or should be. In The Urban Institute’sNonprofit Governance in the United States,significant percentages of nonprofits reported thattheir boards are not active or only somewhatactive in core board responsibilities, such assetting direction, fundraising, and financialplanning.3 In BoardSource’s Nonprofit GovernanceIndex 2007, chief executives gave only averagescores to board performance in critical areas suchas strategic planning, fundraising, and monitoringorganizational performance.4

Poor board performance takes its toll mostimmediately on chief executives. Daring to Lead2006 reported that only one in three executivessurveyed view their boards as an engagedleadership body, and executives who are unhappywith their boards are more than twice as likely tobe planning a near-term departure than thosewho have positive perceptions of their boards.5

Rick Moyers of the Eugene and Agnes E. MeyerFoundation and one of the authors of Daring toLead 2006 said, “The Meyer Foundation’sinvestments in governance are really key toexecutive director retention and development,more so than other types of capacity-buildinginvestments. Other projects are often successful,but they really aren’t transformative for theexecutive director in the same way that makingchanges on a board can be.”

Overlooking the importance of the board can berisky. As Ted Mitchell of NewSchools VentureFund explained, “Our founders, who were long-time venture capitalists, spent a lot of timebuilding organizations from the ground up andbelieved that unless you get the governance pieceright, you will have an organization that quicklyde-focuses. They’ve seen, in their work, thatstrong boards really help a management team stayfocused on its objectives, and weak boards dojust the opposite.”

Board effectiveness increases in importance whena nonprofit is facing major decisions, such asfinancial sustainability, strategic planning, and

THE CASE FOR INVESTING IN GOVERNANCETHE CASE FOR INVESTING IN GOVERNANCE

1 Senate Finance Committee Staff Discussion Draft at www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/testimony/2004test/062204stfdis.pdf and the IRS “Governance of Charitable Organizationsand Related Topics” at www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=178221,00.html.

2 The Foundation Center, 2008. Figures based on all grants of $10,000 or more awarded by a sample of over 1,000 of the largest U.S. foundations for income development, management development, faculty/staff development, or technical assistance.

3 See Ostrower, Francie, Nonprofit Governance in the United States: Findings on Performance and Accountability from the First National Representative Study, The Urban Institute Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, 2007, pp. 12-13, at www.urban.org/publications/411479.html.4 See Nonprofit Governance Index 2007, BoardSource, 2007, p. 4.5 See Bell, Jeanne, Richard Moyers, and Timothy Wolfred, Daring to Lead 2006: A National Study of Nonprofit Executive Leadership, CompassPoint Nonprofit Services, 2006,

pp.9-11, www.compasspoint.org/daringtolead2006.


executive transitions. Grantmakers often witnessthese moments, as Marian Godfrey of The PewCharitable Trusts explained, “One critical pointfor the board’s involvement is when anorganization decides to undertake a large capitalproject. It is not just about the board coming upwith the money. It is about whether boards havemade the right strategy call on when, how, andwhether the organization should engage in acapital project. Has the board asked the rightquestions about what the implications are for thestaff and organization?”

Leveraging the Grantmaker’s InvestmentGrantmakers are increasingly investing inorganizational infrastructure that goes beyondbricks and mortar to leadership and managementdevelopment. Boards are a foundational part ofthat picture. Cheryl Taylor of the FoellingerFoundation said that its board believes that “thebottom line in an organization is that, if theboard is not properly structured and does notunderstand its responsibilities, the organizationcannot do what it needs to do.”

Some grantmakers view their investment inleadership and governance as the most effectiveway to use limited grant dollars. KathleenEdwards of the Cedarmere Foundation said, “As asmall foundation, we decided we could get morebang for our buck by investing in governance andleadership capacity building rather than onprogram funding. Our board believes that keycapacity-building investments allow us to have agreater positive impact on nonprofit organizationsand the long-term benefits they provide to ourcommunity.”

Many grantmakers view their investment in boarddevelopment as a means for strengthening andreinforcing other organizational, programmatic,and infrastructure investments in their grantees.As Woody McCutchen of the Edna McConnellClark Foundation commented, “We look at boardengagement as a ‘risk mitigation strategy.’ We aremaking big bets over a long period of time andare cognizant that there is no such thing as aperfect business plan. Thus it is critical that wehave a relationship with the entity — the board— that has the responsibility to oversee theorganization and enable it to accomplish itsmission.”

Some grantmakers see the board as stewards oftheir investment. As Colleen Willoughby of theWashington Women’s Foundation explained, “Weengage with the board on the front end of aproject to make sure that the board is strongenough and engaged enough to, first, know aboutthe project and support it, and second, to followup through the life of the grant, looking out forour investment and the success of theorganization. We want to make sure that ourinvestment will have an impact, and to besuccessful, it has to have the attention of both thestaff and the board of directors.”


Grantmakers are pursuing a diversity of avenuesto promote good governance, ranging from one-on-one conversations with grantees and capacity-building grants and programs to speaking events,awards programs, and investments in governanceresearch and resources. The experiences of 54grantmakers interviewed for this projectdemonstrate a rich array of activities andinvestments that can be categorized by thecontext in which grantmakers work to advancegovernance, as shown in Exhibit 1:

Exhibit 1: Contexts for Investing inGovernance

• Governance and the Grantee: Leveragingtheir relationships with grantees, grantmakersadvance governance by having conversationswith chief executives and board members,offering peer exchange and capacity-buildingopportunities, and setting milestones forperformance.

• Governance and the Community: Leveragingtheir influence in a community, grantmakersconvene nonprofit leaders and connect themwith experts and each other to spotlight goodgovernance and tackle community-wide boardissues.

• Governance and the Field: Leveraging theirlearning from working with grantees,grantmakers support the development ofgovernance research and fund field-buildingorganizations.

While these three areas are distinct, they are notmutually exclusive. They are largelycomplementary and can reinforce each other.While a grantmaker may choose to work in only

one context, most grantmakers interviewed forthis project are working in two, if not all three,contexts simultaneously. The sections that followpresent highlights of some grantmaker programsthat advance governance; for a more completelist, based on the interviews, see Appendix 2.

GOVERNANCE AND THEGRANTEEMany of the interviewed grantmakers addressgovernance primarily through relationships withtheir grantees. They leverage these relationshipsto advance mutual learning and to promoteleadership capacity-building efforts. ChuckHamilton of The Clark Foundation explained,“Through our informal relationships withgrantees, we can have an impact on boards andmake sure that the importance of goodgovernance is widely accepted.”

In addition to providing organizational orprogram funding, some grantmakers are forgingdeep relationships with a select group of theirgrantees. These relationships provideopportunities for candid conversations, coaching,and targeted capacity-building assistance. LisaBottoms of The Cleveland Foundation said, “Withour strategic grantmaking, we play both anadvisory and capacity-building role with theboard and organization, because we know bothtypes of investments are needed to reach ourmutual goals.”

Governance and the Grantee: ExamplesGrantmakers can advance governance at variousstages of the grantmaking process, includingengaging in dialogue with grantees, involvingboard members in the grant, providing boardcapacity-building opportunities, and establishingmilestones for performance. The followingexamples focus specifically on governance issues;for more general resources on capacity building,see Appendix 3.

1. Engage in dialogue with grant seekers aboutgovernance and the board.

As part of a due diligence process, grantmakersoften ask a prospective grantee questions aboutthe board. Many of the interviewedgrantmakers, however, go beyond basicchecklist questions and engage board membersand/or the chief executive in more meaningfulconversations. “We use a pre-meetingquestionnaire that includes governance

GRANTMAKER INVESTMENTS TOGRANTMAKER INVESTMENTS TOSTRENGTHEN GOVERNANCESTRENGTHEN GOVERNANCE

Governanceand the Field

Governanceand the

Community

Governance andthe Grantee


questions as a starting point. Then, at the face-to-face meeting, we talk more in-depth aboutissues such as the board’s committee structure,fiscal oversight, and strategic planning,”explained Libby Costas of the Frances L. andEdwin L. Cummings Memorial Fund.

Conversations about governance usually startwith the chief executive, who is often the keychange agent for board development. One ofthe byproducts of these conversations is often aclearer picture and common understanding ofthe grantee’s governance issues. As JaneO’Connell of the Altman Foundation said, “Thequestions you ask can help the staff and boardzero in on what their needs really are. But, ithas to be a conversation. You can’t do it by achecklist.”

Some grantmakers have found added value inengaging with trustees directly. Gregg Behr ofthe Grable Foundation observed, “When youtalk with trustees, you get a sense of theirinvolvement not only in the vision and missionbut also in strategic thinking. You get a senseof whether a decision is wholly dependent onone executive or executive team, or if thewhole organization is committed to thedecision.”

In addition to talking with grantees one-on-one, some grantmakers convene cohorts ofgrantees to discuss governance issues withpeers and/or experts. For example, theIndependence Foundation sponsors peer-leddiscussion circles for its grantees ongovernance and other issues. The CedarmereFoundation convenes the chief executives ofsome of its grantees for informal, bimonthlypeer exchange meetings on a range of issues,including governance.

2. Fund capacity-building opportunities thataddress governance issues.

Grantmakers interviewed for this project agreethat it is helpful when conversations withgrantees about governance can be followed byboard capacity-building support and/orfunding. This enables the grantee to addressthe issues identified. Said Marian Godfrey ofThe Pew Charitable Trusts, “We learned thatjust giving organizations feedback about wherewe saw weaknesses was not enough unless wegave them the resources to change.”

Grantmakers offer capacity-building support tograntees in many different ways. “Along withadvice, we sometimes suggest that a grantseekersubmit a capacity-building grant proposal to us inresponse to needs that surface during a meeting,”explained Libby Costas of the Cummings Fund.“For example, we had a grantee that approachedus for a lead gift for an endowment campaign.During the discussion, it was determined that theboard had not planned sufficiently to undertakethis major campaign or thought through itspotential impact on the organization’s generalfundraising efforts. In the course of the meeting,we let them know that if their board wasinterested in engaging in a strategic planningprocess, we would consider funding thatcapacity-building activity.”

Other grantmakers offer formal governancecapacity-building programs. In some cases,grantmakers offer a capacity-building programwith funding guidelines to which grantees apply.Others offer structured capacity-buildingprograms designed for a cohort of select grantees.Often these formal programs address a number ofcapacity-building issues, as the followingexamples show:

• The Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund’s FlexibleLeadership Awards Program helps granteesstrengthen their leadership at the board, chiefexecutive, and senior team level to further theirorganizations’ missions and strategies. (SeeProgram Profile 1, page 13.)

• The James Irvine Foundation’s Fund forLeadership Advancement provides capacity-building support to chief executives to enhancetheir leadership competencies and to moveforward on a vision for the organization. Inalmost all cases, the executives are dealing withgovernance issues and strengthening therelationship with, and involvement of, theirboards.

• The Pew Charitable Trusts operate twocomplementary programs that strengthenorganizational performance. The PhiladelphiaCultural Leadership Program (PCLP) rewardscultural organizations that meet high standardsof management, governance, andprogrammatic performance by providing themwith multiyear, unrestricted grant funding. ThePhiladelphia Cultural Management Initiativeprovides capacity-building grants to help arts


FOUNDATION DESCRIPTIONThe Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund is a private family foundation established in San Franciscoin 1953. In 2007, the Fund had assets of $621 million and awarded $31 million in grants tosupport organizations primarily in San Francisco and Alameda counties addressing immigrantrights and integration, gay and lesbian rights, education opportunity, leadership, and communityinitiatives.

PROGRAM: Flexible Leadership Awards

As the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund reflected on its nearly 50 years of grantmaking, itdecided that it wanted to do more to support the leadership of its grantees, and, in 2005, invited14 of its grantees to participate in a pilot Flexible Leadership Awards (FLA) program.

The Haas, Jr. Fund took grantee feedback into account when it designed the program. “Granteestold us that they needed flexible support and help with specific issues at their place of work,”explained Linda Wood, who oversees the Haas, Jr. Fund’s Nonprofit Leadership and Governanceprogram, “so we built in flexibility by letting grantees determine how to use the leadershipdevelopment funds within their own organizational context.”

Working with a consultant provided by the Fund, each grantee developed a strategy tostrengthen its leadership, drawing from a menu of activities that includes board development,fundraising and communications, leadership institutes, planning, executive and/or board chaircoaching, and senior team development. In addition to receiving general support from the Haas,Jr. Fund, each organization receives four consecutive grants in the range of $50,000 to $100,000to implement its plan over five years.

Board development has been a high priority for the grantees and for the Haas, Jr. Fund. “Many ofour trustees and staff members serve on boards and know firsthand the board’s critical role, so itwas important that we included boards as part of the leadership equation,” said Wood. “Weencourage board leaders to ask themselves, ‘What role will we need to play to accomplish theorganization’s strategies over the next three to five years, and what type of leadershipdevelopment do we need to fulfill those roles?’ ”

A number of grantees are using their awards to research alternative models and restructure theirboard’s composition and role. For example, one community-based organization has transformedits board from a small, founder-led group of professionals into a community leadership bodywith two-thirds of its members drawn from its neighborhoods and one-third from a small cadreof professionals. The executive director reports increased community ownership, moremeaningful accountability, and board discussions about the organization’s mission that are moresubstantive and valuable to him than ever before.

The FLA program also convenes grantees to explore different leadership models together. Forexample, inspired in part by presentations at their FLA convenings by Bill Ryan, co-author ofGovernance as Leadership, many grantees are building consistent time into their board meetings todiscuss strategy and to review progress against goals. The program has also fostered strongerrelationships and more candid conversations between the Haas, Jr. Fund and these grantees,enabling the Haas, Jr. Fund to provide assistance in more targeted and productive ways.

PROGRAM PROFILE 1

The Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. FundInvesting in Leadership Teams


groups — both PCLP and non-PCLPparticipants — become strongerorganizationally.

A few grantmakers offer capacity-building effortsspecifically focused on governance:

• The Altman Foundation, The ClarkFoundation, and the Tiger Foundation teamedtogether in 2004 to develop Actualizing GoodGovernance for overlapping grantees in NewYork. The program included workshops andone-on-one assistance from local managementsupport organizations and consultants thataddressed governance needs identified throughboard self-assessments.

• The Charles Stewart Mott Foundationlaunched the Building Nonprofit LeadershipInitiative in 2008 in Flint and Genesee County,Michigan, as a complement to the BESTProject,6 a multi-funder, organizationalcapacity-building initiative in Flint. TheBuilding Nonprofit Leadership Initiative seeksto enhance the capacity of local leaders in theirservice on nonprofit boards.

Kimberly Roberson of the Charles Stewart MottFoundation explained the rationale behindlaunching the board initiative: “Many of theoriginal organizations in the BEST Project haveexperienced executive transition, and some of theearly gains have been lost because the boardswere not strong enough to manage the transitionwell.” Roberson noted that board developmentwas part of the BEST Project from the start, butthat the Building Nonprofit Leadership Initiativewas created because “we felt that the board pieceis a lynchpin for the whole organization and thatit needed to be lifted out as a separate criteria andconcern.”

3. Establish milestones for performance.

Some grantmakers work with grantees toestablish specific goals and metrics aroundboard and organizational performance. This ismore common among grantmakers that followa strategic grantmaking or venturephilanthropy model, which often incorporatesdeep and direct board engagement. “We makemultiyear grants of a substantial amount, andwe have metrics around organizationalperformance,” explained Woody McCutchen ofthe Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. “Whenwe make a grant to an organization, we are notmaking a grant to the CEO or to a particular

program, we are making a grant to the legalentity, and the board is ultimately responsiblefor that entity’s work. So to truly partner withour grantee, we have an obligation to be fullyengaged with its board.”

Grantmakers that establish milestones often alsoprovide grantees with funds and direct assistanceto build the organization’s capacity to meet themilestones. For example, the Robin HoodFoundation develops annual contracts thatinclude performance goals for the organizationand the board. As Amy Houston explained, “Welook for opportunities to inject resources that willdrive the organization’s ultimate programmaticperformance. For example, if a goal around theboard is to add a new board member, we canprovide assistance through our board recruitingservice.”

Governance and the Grantee:Advantages and ChallengesThe activities described above are the mosttargeted approach to strengthening thegovernance of grantees or a subset of grantees,and grantmakers cite advantages to this directengagement.

ADVANTAGESAddresses specific and changing needs ofgrantees. The one-to-one and often long-termnature of the relationship between thegrantmaker and grantee produces ongoinginteractions that can address continuing andevolving needs of boards, chief executives, andorganizations.

Provides funds to grantees to addressgovernance needs. Capacity-building grants andprograms provide grantees with funding orassistance to address their governance needs.

Increases likelihood of board action.Grantmakers say that engaging granteesindividually — through conversation, capacity-building grants, and setting milestones —motivates grantees to take action.

While direct engagement with grantees hasconsiderable advantages, the grantmakers whowere interviewed also identified some limitations,as well as strategies for overcoming thesechallenges. (See pages 15 and 16.)

6 Launched in 2001, The BEST Project of Genesee County is a comprehensive capacity-building initiative developed by the Flint Funders Collaborative, which includes theMott Foundation.


CHALLENGES RESPONSES

Defusing the power dynamics ofthe grantmaker/granteerelationship. Grantmakersinterviewed were acutely awarethat communication with granteesmay be obscured by the inherentpower that funders wield. Putsimply, grantees may not beforthcoming because they fearthat revealing weaknesses couldcompromise funding. “We try tomake grantmakers aware thatthere is a power inequity thatdoesn’t always allow for honestcommunications between themand their grantees,” said Bill Kingof the Minnesota Council onFoundations.

• Start slowly when cultivating the relationship. In order to have anopen exchange between a grantmaker and a grantee, a realrelationship has to emerge. Katherine Peck of the Gill Foundationadvised, “Make sure you build the relationship first. If you are goingto get this engaged, there is an obligation on the part of the funder toestablish a trusting relationship — to truly do it in the spirit ofhelping and building capacity.”

• Create an environment for candid conversations. Grantmakersobserved that they have more productive conversations when they askopen-ended questions in a nonthreatening way. See “ConstructiveConversations with Grantseekers” on pages 17-18 for tips on how tofacilitate these discussions.

• Provide access to a neutral third-party advisor. An outsideconsultant can serve as a firewall that maintains confidentiality andencourages more honest assessment of grantee needs. Nearly allgrantmakers interviewed noted that, within their capacity-buildingprograms, they do not direct grantees to hire specific consultants nordo the consultants hired by the grantee have a reporting relationshipwith the grantmaker.

Marshalling adequate time andknowledge for grantee needs.In-depth conversations aboutgovernance issues often require alevel of familiarity with thegrantee’s board and organization.Addressing nuancedorganizational developmentchallenges can require specializedknowledge. Time and expertiselimitations can make this dialogueimpractical to execute with agrantmaker’s entire granteepopulation or even a majority ofgrantees.

• Focus on select grantees and/or key issues. Some grantmakerspursue more time-intensive conversations about governance issueswith a subset of grantees, such as those in a particular mission area orthose that match strategic priorities. Other grantmakers choose a fewboard practices of particular importance to their institution (such asboard diversity or executive succession planning) and focus theirconversations accordingly.

• Convene several grantees to discuss governance issues. Hosting alearning discussion does not require the grantmaker to be a boardexpert. “I think just convening the peer exchange is an invaluable rolethat grantmakers can play,” explained Kathleen Edwards of theCedarmere Foundation. “It doesn’t require a lot of prior knowledgeabout governance and leadership. We receive very positive feedbackfrom the participants, and it’s a fascinating way for me to get to knowthe organizations and their leaders and to learn what their issues are.”

Addressing obstacles that limitthe success of capacity-buildingprograms. Grantmakers note thatthe success of capacity-buildingprograms depends on complexfactors, such as organizationalreadiness and the scope andquality of the intervention.

• Provide funds for assessments upfront. Some grantees are clearabout their capacity-building needs, but others may not be fullycognizant of the underlying issues. Providing funds for a preliminaryassessment, in addition to the capacity-building intervention, canhelp. “It is worth paying for an outside consultant to do anassessment,” explained Kathleen Cerveny of The ClevelandFoundation. “It reveals areas for improvement and helps the funderunderstand what resources are required.”

Continued on page 16

Governance and the Grantee Challenges and Responses



Continued from page 15 • Screen for readiness. Several grantmakers note that it is important toensure that grantees have sufficient stability to be able to benefit froma capacity-building investment. In addition, the organization has to beready and willing to tackle complex and sometimes difficult issues.Stephanie McAuliffe of The David and Lucile Packard Foundationnoted, “People are all so busy. It is hard to make time for this kind ofwork in the best of circumstances, so the organization has tocompletely own the capacity-building work in order to carry it outwell.”

• Provide assistance at lower levels of intensity for smallerorganizations. Some grantmakers found that they need to scale theirassistance to grantees’ capacity. For example, the IndependenceFoundation employs a program officer with a background innonprofit management to respond to technical assistance requests. AsSusan Sherman explained, “The value-added of our on-staff advisor isthat she can address the needs of smaller organizations that aren’tready for big interventions but that need help where they need it,when they need it, in a nimble fashion.” Other foundations offergrants for modest governance efforts. As Gail Kong of the AsianPacific Fund observed, “It can be helpful to provide funding tocommunity-based groups to address smaller but more achievablegoals, like how to recruit good board members. I’ve found thatproviding resources on discrete tasks that they can succeed at is thebest way to begin changing behavior.”

• Offer structured, sustained capacity-building initiatives tocohorts of grantees. Organizational change takes time, and somegrantmakers have found that longer-term efforts lead to greaterimpact. The Irvine Foundation has undertaken multiyear, capacity-building initiatives with cohorts of grantees. These initiatives includeassessments, peer exchange, and interventions by intermediarygroups. “These initiatives are much more systematic,” explained MartyCampbell. “They give us more opportunities to weigh in regarding thelevel of resources that are allocated, the level of attention given to anissue, and the quality of resources provided.”

Governance and the Grantee Challenges and Responses


CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH GRANTSEEKERSConversations with grantees are complicated, and they are grounded in the relationship between thegrantmaker and the grantee. As Bill King of the Minnesota Council on Foundations reflected, “Grantmakersthat are really adept at having these conversations are direct and honest and have worked with grantees overlong periods of time. A level of trust, honesty, and consistency exists.” When asked about their strategies andtactics for having productive conversations on governance issues, grantmakers stressed that it is more artthan science and shared the following insights:

1. Don’t be prescriptive.Grantmakers interviewed realized that they often have limited information about grantees and that onesize does not fit all boards. The first rule is “Do no harm.” As Bruce Karmazin of the Lumpkin FamilyFoundation noted, “If we say something that we don’t mean to be taken too seriously, a grantee may,nevertheless, take it so. Later, we may find that the organization followed through on what we said, even ifthat wasn’t our intention.”

Second, change is more likely when grantees take ownership of governance challenges and solutions. JohnLock of Charter School Growth Fund explained, “If we found [a grantee’s governance] to be inadequate,we would spend a lot of time coaching the organization through the process of analyzing its own board.We would not actually tell staff or board members, ‘Our initial assessment is that we think your board isweak’ because we want them to want to pursue this area. We’re trying to not be directive. We want themto pursue something because they think it is important, not because they think that we think it’simportant.”

2. Ask open-ended questions.Conversations with grantees are most productive when open-ended questions are asked in a non-judgmental way for the purpose of mutual learning. The tone and tenor of the first conversation sets thestage for the entire relationship. Frances Phillips of the Walter and Elise Haas Fund shared her approach;“I find that people want to tell you their stories, so a good way to start off a conversation is to ask peoplehow it was that they got involved on their board. You can learn a lot from that question, and they arepretty comfortable in telling you that.”

To ease into conversations about the board, grantmakers often start by soliciting personal perspectives.Kathleen Cerveny of The Cleveland Foundation explained, “In the early stages of the conversation, I ask agrantee to help me understand the nature of its board and how it is involved with the organization —what committees it has, how it functions — and I ask the grantee’s opinion on this. I give the organizationthe opportunity to really lay out for me how its board is functioning.”

Organizations and their boards are much more likely to hear and use constructive critique if it iscommunicated along with an authentic listening and learning stance on the part of grantmakers. AsMarian Godfrey of The Pew Charitable Trusts shared, “We can test their ideas, and they can test our ideas.We have to be in a position where we can hear feedback too. Sometimes, they will tell us we’ve got itwrong. We need to respond and adjust to the board’s reactions to our thoughts as well.”

3. Have the conversation in a broader context.Boards do not function in isolation, so conversations about governance can be more productive when thetopic comes up organically. Grantmakers can help put governance in perspective and grantees at ease byframing board performance in the context of organizational development and lifecycles. Frances Phillips ofthe Walter and Elise Haas Fund explained how an initial conversation set the stage for a more openexchange: “When I learned that a long-time executive director was leaving, I called the board chair andtalked to him about typical challenges associated with generational shifts in organizations and the board’svision for the organization. Later, things did not work out with the new executive director, and the board


came back to me to discuss the situation. I think it did so because I took the initiative to establish theconversation with them early on and to introduce the topic that this is a tough transition for manyorganizations of your age. That set the stage for honest conversation later on.”

4. Move beyond checklist-type questions.Many conversations about governance begin — on the application or during an interview — with a seriesof due diligence questions about board structures and practices. But, deeper conversations offer anopportunity to discuss the importance of good governance and what it means for the grantee. Somegrantmakers probe around the following more nuanced aspects of board work:

Board Composition• “Ford believes that boards and staff should be diverse, and pretty fiercely engages grantees on this. But

the questions are really in the spirit of the particular organization and its particular context. We don’tuse a template. We start the conversation with ‘How are you viewing the issue of diversity for yourboard and organization? How are you trying to make progress? What are your challenges?’” ~ Alta Starr,Ford Foundation

• “I want to know that there is a core of board members for whom this is one of the most importantorganizations that they care about in the community. I hate to see a list of board members who are on15 other boards.” ~ Kathleen Cerveny, The Cleveland Foundation

Board/Chief Executive Relationship• “One key question we ask, as an indicator of governance issues, is whether the board reviews the

performance of the chief executive.” ~ Marian Godfrey, The Pew Charitable Trusts• “We look at the dynamics between staff and board, and especially at whether the board is asking the

questions that need to be asked. Does the CEO work for the board or does the board work for theCEO?” ~ Woody McCutchen, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation

Strategic Thinking• “To the board member and CEO we ask, ‘What keeps you awake at night? What do you see as the

biggest risk to the organization?’” ~ Marion DeForest, Washington Women’s Foundation• “I ask both [the executive director and the board chair], ‘What are the two to three most important

strategic issues for the organization?’ And I listen to who answers that question…and if the executivedirector and board chair agree with each other.” ~ Rick Moyers, Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Foundation

Financial Health• “In meetings with the staff and board, we were discussing their plan to redo the urban garden in front of

the museum and to build a parking garage below it. We asked the trustees about the opportunity cost ofinvesting in this versus investing in other exhibits, and why this was considered to be a more importantinvestment than others.” ~ Gregg Behr, Grable Foundation

• “One of the questions we have asked consistently over the last few years is the percentage of boardgiving. It turns out that just the question does a lot. They want to know what the ‘right’ answer is, andthere isn’t a right answer. But they take the question back to their board and think about it.” ~ JaneO’Connell, Altman Foundation

Recommended ResourcesCulick, Liza, Kristen Godard, and Natasha Terk, The Due Diligence Tool for Use in Pre-Grant Assessment,Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, 2004.

Good Governance Guide, Governance Matters, 2005, www.governancematters.org.


GOVERNANCE AND THECOMMUNITYMany of the grantmakers interviewed work in alarger context than the individual grantee, that ofthe community. They leverage their influence andleadership within a specific geographic region toshine a spotlight on good governance and raisethe level of board performance.

Governance and the Community:ExamplesGrantmakers that work on governance in thecommunity context offer a variety of activitiesand programs that bring together nonprofitleaders and/or governance experts. Some of thesegrantmakers define their mission as serving anentire geographic community and thus seek toaddress governance with all nonprofits in thearea. Other grantmakers focus on certain subsetsof nonprofits (such as health care or the arts)within a particular region, but they open theirgovernance programs more widely becausecertain issues (such as a shortage of boardmembers) are endemic to the community. Thefollowing are examples of activities and programsbeing offered by grantmakers working ongovernance in the community context:

1. High-profile conferences and eventsHigh-profile events promote fresh thinking,highlight good governance practices, andmotivate local nonprofit leaders to tacklegovernance issues. For example, the GrandVictoria Foundation brings together nonprofitleaders in the region at biennial conferences onstrategic organizational issues — DynamicGovernance was held in 2004; DynamicLeadership in 2006. The Alcoa Foundationsponsored the symposium, Reaching NewHeights in Nonprofit Governance, whichattracted more than 150 nonprofit leaders fromthe Pittsburgh area in 2008.

2. Ongoing training and peer learningprogramsProviding ongoing training and peer learningopportunities around governance issues buildsskills and support networks for local nonprofitstaff and board members. For example, TheCommunity Foundation of Greater Des Moinesoffers BoardLaunch to enhance the leadershipskills of local board members. The CommunityFoundation of Sarasota County sponsors theBoard Leaders Council, a peer learning circlefor board members.

3. Comprehensive board-building initiativesIntensive community-wide initiatives delivermultiple layers of assistance to strengthenboard performance. They often include largeforums as well as one-on-one assistance,providing an infusion of new ideas andcustomized support to help nonprofitsimplement what they have learned. Thefollowing are examples of grantmaker-drivenboard-building initiatives:

• In 2004, the Gulf Coast CommunityFoundation of Venice in Florida createdBuilding Better Boards, a comprehensive,ongoing program. (see Program Profile 2,page 20.)

• The Ventura County Community Foundationin California launched Building BoardLeadership in 2006, a comprehensivestrategic initiative to strengthen leadershippractices and governance structures in thelocal nonprofit sector.

• Through its Nonprofit Support Program, theHartford Foundation for Public Giving offersa board leadership program, an executivetransition program, capacity-building grants,and executive workshops that addressgovernance issues, among other topics.

4. Special initiatives to address targetedgovernance issuesSome grantmakers launch special initiatives totackle governance trends and developmentsaffecting their communities. These programsoften address issues of immediate relevance:

• Compliance: In 2004, in response toheightened public focus on accountabilityand transparency, the New HampshireCharitable Foundation partnered with thestate attorney general’s office to form theExcellence in Nonprofit GovernanceCommittee, comprising nonprofit leadersfrom throughout the state (see ProgramProfile 3, page 21).

• Diversity: Noting that many boards do notreflect the diversity of the constituencies thatthey serve, some grantmakers pursueprograms to tap into underrepresentedpopulations in their communities for boardservice. Akeshia Singleton of The RapidesFoundation explained, “Our program wasoriginally designed to address the significantlack of young membership on boards in ourcommunity. There was almost a glass ceiling


FOUNDATION DESCRIPTIONThe Gulf Coast Community Foundation of Venice (GCCFV) was founded in 1995 with $86million from the proceeds of the sale of the nonprofit Venice Hospital. Today, it is Florida’slargest community foundation. In 2007, GCCFV had assets over $250 million and awarded morethan $78 million in grants to support five program areas: arts and culture, health and humanservices, education, civic affairs, and the environment.

PROGRAM Building Better BoardsIn 2003, the GCCFV sought ways to build capacity among local nonprofits. They conducted acommunity-wide survey of nonprofit organizations, in which governance was identified as thebiggest challenge. Because the GCCFV’s board had been working with a consultant to strengthenits own governance structure and practices, the survey findings had particular resonance forGCCFV. As President and CEO Teri Hansen explained, the Foundation “set out to create a long-term, systemic change initiative that would benefit the nonprofits in our community bystrengthening governance. Our board members were excited to fund it because they knew howhelpful board development was for them.” In 2004, GCCFV launched the Building Better Boardsprogram with two phases:

Phase 1 Board Self-Assessment

GCCFV offered a confidential, online board self-assessment tool to all nonprofits in thecommunity. Each organization that took the board assessment received its results and a narrativesummary of the findings. From 2004 to 2007, 1,100 board members from 79 organizationsparticipated in Phase 1.

Phase 2 Board Training

From 2004 to 2007, 34 Phase 1 organizations were selected to receive intensive and customizedboard development services over a two-year period that included consulting, peer learning,resources, and a two-day governance institute for chief executives and board chairs.

As part of Building Better Boards, GCCFV provided local consultants the opportunity to buildtheir governance expertise by participating in three BoardSource Practitioner Programs. Inexchange for complimentary registration to the programs (underwritten by GCCFV), localconsultants provided their services free of charge to Phase 2 participants.

Continuing Education

While the first two phases of Building Better Boards concluded in 2007, GCCFV offered severalprograms in 2008 to provide continuing education to past participants, including a reprisal ofthe governance institute and chief executive leadership development training. GCCFV also nowoperates a Good Governance Fund through which it makes governance grants. In December2008, GCCFV relaunched the online board self-assessment component of the program, makingit available for a three-month period to all nonprofits in the community for a nominal fee. TheFoundation sees the continuing activities as important because, as Hansen explained, “we wantto make sure that the culture change continues.”

PROGRAM PROFILE 2

The Gulf Coast Community Foundation of VeniceA Multifaceted Community-Oriented Approach


for young professionals to become involvedin that level of leadership within thecommunity, and our program was created toaddress that.”

• Board Recruitment: Some grantmakers addressthe need for more, and better qualified,board members by supporting board-matching programs (see Program Profile 4,pages 22 and 23). Others, such as theFoellinger Foundation, tackle this problemby elevating the status of board service in thecommunity (see Program Profile 5, page 24).

Grantmakers play different roles in bringing theseprograms to their communities. Some takecomplete charge of developing and coordinatingprograms. Others work with managementsupport organizations or other intermediarygroups to co-convene a program. Still othersserve primarily as underwriters, withmanagement support organizations taking thelead to coordinate these programs.

FOUNDATION DESCRIPTIONEstablished in 1962, the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation is one of the country’s oldestand largest community foundations. In 2007, it had assets of nearly $490 million and awardedmore than $33 million in grants, loans, and program initiatives.

EXCELLENCE IN NONPROFIT GOVERNANCE COMMITTEEIn 2004, as national leaders debated the issue of increasing regulatory oversight of nonprofits,the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation partnered with the New Hampshire AttorneyGeneral’s office to lead a statewide effort to strengthen the governance of nonprofits and publicconfidence in them. The partnership resulted in the formation of the Excellence in NonprofitGovernance Committee, comprised of nonprofit leaders, regulators, and legislators in NewHampshire who were charged with developing a set of recommendations that were then testedwith community leaders in six areas across the state. Ellen Koenig, the Foundation’s director ofregions, explained that the program set out “to ensure that nonprofits and their boardsunderstand their roles and responsibilities but also to assure regulators and legislators that thereis an effort in place to provide nonprofits and their boards with information regarding their legaland other responsibilities.”

The result was an action plan that produced and widely distributed two important resources:

1. The New Hampshire Nonprofit Checklist(www.thecorporatefund.org/_pdf/nonprofit-checklist-08.pdf), which outlines all legalrequirements for New Hampshire nonprofits in one comprehensive document.

2. The Guidebook for New Hampshire Charitable Nonprofit Organizations(http://doj.nh.gov/publications/guidebook.html) on board responsibilities and conflict-of-interest guidelines. The New Hampshire Charitable Foundation and Fidelity Investmentsunderwrite the printing of the Guidebook (10,000 to date). “People are clamoring for the book,and they don’t just want one, they want 20 — one for each board member,” said Koenig.

In addition to these resources, the plan resulted in a statewide series of legal workshops fornonprofits conducted by the attorney general’s office and the New Hampshire Center forNonprofits and a best practices program hosted by the New Hampshire Center for Nonprofits toprovide resources and success stories to nonprofit organizations.

PROGRAM PROFILE 3

New Hampshire Charitable FoundationBuilding Trust and Accountability Statewide


Many nonprofits struggle to identify and attract individuals to serve on their boards. Some grantmakers have responded to this need by offering board-matching services. Differentgrantmakers have different assets — corporate grantmakers have employees, venturephilanthropists have networks of donors, and community foundations are well-positioned toserve in a convening role with other civic groups.

The following examples illustrate different types of board-matching programs. While mostgrantmakers feel that these programs significantly benefit nonprofits and individual boardmembers, they also recognize that a poor match is a risk. Grantmakers employ various strategiesto mitigate against this — from providing preparatory training to candidates and increasing thetime spent ascertaining and matching interests to giving nonprofits and board candidates plentyof space and time to get to know each other.

1. Locally focused foundations sponsor community-wide board-matching programs.Some grantmakers sponsor board-matching programs in response to requests for assistancemade by local nonprofits and to connect untapped populations in their communities withboard leadership opportunities. In 2004, The Rapides Foundation, a health care conversionfoundation founded in 1994 to serve Central Louisiana, launched the board recruitment andplacement program, Board Builders. Initially, the program was intended to attract youngprofessionals to serve on nonprofit boards, but it has evolved to also include recent retireesand other untapped groups in the community.

Annually, Board Builders enrolls 15 to 20 individuals who are interested in nonprofit boardservice in a four-month training program. At the same time, the Foundation meets withnonprofits seeking board members to ensure their readiness to support new board members.To allow these nonprofits and the board candidates to get to know one another, the nonprofitsparticipate in some of the board training sessions. The training culminates in a matchingsession at which the interested nonprofits and the board candidates explore potential fits.

Since 2004, The Rapides Foundation has placed 69 board members, and participant ratingshave been high. The program has also led to more board development, said Akeshia Singleton,program officer. “Most of the program’s graduates tend to rise into a leadership position on theboards, and they often come back to us for support to strengthen their board performance.”

2. Corporations help place their employees on nonprofit boards.Some corporate grantmakers place their employees on nonprofit boards by either workingdirectly with nonprofits or through management support groups. In addition to benefitingnonprofits, corporate grantmakers note that board placement programs create relationshipslocally and nationally for the company, strengthen the company’s community presence, andprovide professional development opportunities for employees.

PROGRAM PROFILE 4

Grantmakers and Board Matching


Since 2006, Capital One, a financial services company based in McLean, Virginia, has placedmore than 100 executives on nonprofit boards across the country through its Executive BoardLeadership Program. The company places most of its employees on the boards of granteeorganizations. After discussions with both the nonprofit and the corporate executive, CapitalOne community relations staff introduce the two parties to let them determine if there is agood fit. Capital One provides customized training programs to prepare employees for boardservice, which also creates an internal network of employees who can mentor and supporteach other.

Carolyn Berkowitz, vice president of community affairs, credits the 90 percent success rate inboard placements to this hands-on, strategic approach: “One of the key factors for us isaligning our board placements with our philanthropic grantmaking. We know the quality oforganizations on whose boards we are placing employees. Our company’s philanthropy isaligned with those organizations, and the employees whom we place share those interests.Everyone has better relationships when they are aligned.”

3. High-engagement grantmakers use their networks to identify board members for grantees.Several grantmakers, such as venture philanthropists, giving circles, and other funds that poolresources, view their internal network of donors as an important asset and a source of newboard members.

The Robin Hood Foundation of New York City is a charitable organization that pools fundsfrom donors to provide long-term funding and management assistance to grantees. As part ofits support, it offers a board recruiting service. Its long-term relationships with grantees and itssizable base of individual and corporate donors give Robin Hood knowledge about grantees’cultures and needs and a network of board candidates. Said Sunny Smith Longbons, manager,board recruitment, “Our targeted, high-touch approach yields long-term, fruitful partnershipsbetween our candidates and the grantee organizations they join. When a placement doesn'twork out, grantees see it as an exception rather than the rule.”

The Foundation screens grantees and board candidates and makes recommendations forpotential matches but leaves the vetting process to the organization and the individual. Afterthe placement is complete, the Foundation offers a board orientation session to candidates andgovernance workshops to grantees.

The Robin Hood Foundation makes more than 60 placements annually. Of the Foundation’s240 grantees in 2008, about 90 were looking for one to two board members. Said AmyHouston, director of management assistance, “This program is one of the most extraordinarilysuccessful aspects of our management assistance program. The conversation is not about‘Robin Hood has their people on our board and we don’t like it.’ The conversation is ‘Please,can we have another and another.’


FOUNDATION DESCRIPTIONLocated in Fort Wayne, Indiana, the Foellinger Foundation is a private family foundationestablished in 1958 by Helene R. Foellinger and her mother, Esther A. Foellinger. TheFoundation focuses its grantmaking in Allen County and primarily makes grants in earlychildhood, youth, and family development. In 2007, the Foundation had $179 million in assetsand approved $7.5 million in grants.

PROGRAM Carl D. Rolfsen Stewardship AwardThe Foellinger Foundation rewards good governance and, in the process, promotes it throughoutthe community. As publisher of The News-Sentinel, Helene Foellinger valued accountability andtransparency. Building on this journalistic spirit, the Foellinger Foundation launched the Carl D.Rolfsen Stewardship Award to acknowledge outstanding board members and inspire excellencein nonprofit governance. Cheryl Taylor, president, explained, “If we think that the board’sunderstanding of its governance role is critical, then we have to highlight it. That is somethingthat the Foellinger Foundation can do.”

A hallmark of the Rolfsen Stewardship Award program is its emphasis on recognizing all of thenominated board members, which it does through a media campaign that includes public serviceannouncements on local radio and television stations and full-page advertisements in localbusiness publications. “It is an opportunity for us to lift up all of these board members and theirorganizations,” explained Taylor.

At the culminating luncheon event, the Foundation announces the award recipient, whoseorganization receives a $10,000 operating grant and $7,500 for board training. The Foundationviews the program as a way to both honor board membership and promote good governance. AsTaylor pointed out, “We believe that the way to encourage other people to be good boardmembers is to elevate their peers.”

PROGRAM PROFILE 5

Foellinger FoundationRaising the Profile and Practices of Boards

Governance and the Community:Advantages and ChallengesBy addressing governance issues in the context ofthe community, rather than solely at the granteelevel, grantmakers are able to extend theirinfluence. Grantmakers interviewed for this projectidentified advantages related to their ability toconvene and connect nonprofit leaders.

ADVANTAGESProvides leadership on a community-wideissue. Grantmakers occupy a unique position thatallows them to convene grantees, local nonprofits,experts, and other civic leaders. As Hugh Ralstonof the Ventura County Community Foundationexplained, “There is a big benefit of being a

convener with a large name and presence in thecommunity…we can gather executive directorstogether to discuss governance issues.” Throughprograms with broad outreach, grantmakers canreach many nonprofits in the local community orregion efficiently with a consistent message aboutthe importance of good governance.

Leverages the knowledge of experts and peers.By connecting nonprofits to governance expertsand experienced peers, grantmakers takeadvantage of the expertise of others to providenonprofits with knowledge and motivation toaddress governance issues. This can be especiallyhelpful to grantmakers who do not have adequatetime or experience to engage in more meaningfulgovernance conversations themselves.



Attracting board leaders. Aprogram’s impact can be limitedby the audience in attendance.Barb Young of the Porter CountyCommunity Foundation said,“The biggest benefit is when youstructure the workshops so thatboard members do, in fact,attend. Nonprofit staffs, by andlarge, already know a lot of this;it’s the board members who needto learn and become engaged.”

• Structure programs to spur attendance. Getting volunteer boardmembers to participate is essential to successful communityprograms, and creative fee structures offer one way to do that. Forexample, the Porter County Community Foundation offers a financialincentive. Says Young, “We charge a fee for workshops, but if anorganization brings four or more board members, we’ll waive the feefor everyone from the organization.”

• Convey a sense of respect and prestige around board service.Several grantmakers note that governance programs should honor thecommitment and strengths of board members. For example, theWilliam G. Selby and Marie Selby Foundation, in collaboration withThe Community Foundation of Sarasota County and BoardSource,developed an invitation-only program for board/staff teams to workcollectively with a governance expert and discuss governancechallenges and opportunities with peer organizations. Debra Jacobs ofthe Selby Foundation said, “Board members are often some of themost important people in the community. It’s important to framethese programs in a way that honors what they bring to the table.”

Organizing programs with alimited staff. Conferences, specialevents, and even workshopsrequire significant time to plan,coordinate, market, and evaluate.Some grantmakers note thechallenge of marshalling adequatestaffing to present high-qualityprograms.

• Collaborate with other grantmakers and intermediaryorganizations. For example, in 2006, the Foundation For TheCarolinas’ Center for Nonprofits partnered with the Executive ServiceCorps in the Charlotte region to sponsor the Building Better Boardsprogram, which was funded by the Foundation For The Carolinas,the John S. & James L. Knight Foundation, and the Z. SmithReynolds Foundation.

Initiating change from singleevents. By their very nature,workshops, speakers, andconferences are short-term innature. While they canpromulgate important ideas,putting that knowledge intopractice takes time and resources,which can be scarce for nonprofitleaders.

• Offer additional assistance for nonprofits at different readinesslevels. Capacity-building grants can provide a needed stimulus fornonprofits that are ready to change but lack resources. For example,the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving offers workshopscombined with customized consulting assistance. The workshopsprovide key concepts while the consulting support helps agenciesapply what they have learned.

Governance and the Community Challenges and Responses

Offers a nonthreatening learning environment.Educational programs promote learning in a non-threatening environment for nonprofits. For somenonprofit leaders, discussing governance issueswith an outside expert and peers is morecomfortable than with a program officer.

While programs aimed at the community offersome notable advantages, they can also becomplicated, especially for grantmakers withlimited resources. Grantmakers interviewedidentified some of the challenges of holdingcommunity-wide governance programs and offeredseveral solutions to address them (see below).


GOVERNANCE AND THE FIELDGrantmakers address governance in the field byinvesting in the development of governance tools,resources, and research (the field of governance)and by investing in organizations that developthose resources (field-building organizations).Through their work with nonprofits, grantmakerssee the need for — and are investing in —research and resources that target particulargovernance issues, advance promising practices,and respond to needs of different types ofnonprofits. “Through the proposals that cross ourdesk, the conversations that we have with otherorganizations, and our work within the sectoritself, we have an ability to see patterns andemerging needs,” explained Karen Whalen of theKellogg Foundation. “Our voice and willingnessto highlight what we see is important. TheKellogg Foundation’s support of infrastructureinvestment in new tools and our investment inbuilding capacity are linked in that way.”

Governance and the Field: ExamplesGrantmakers advance the field of governancedirectly through their own involvement inresearch and development efforts and indirectlyby funding field-building organizations. Severalexamples of investments with a governance focusare included below; for additional resources, seeAppendix 3.

1. Support field-building organizations thatdevelop governance resources and research.Some grantmakers invest in field-buildingorganizations that undertake governanceresearch and develop resources for and aboutboards:

• In October 2004, Independent Sectorconvened The Panel on the Nonprofit Sectorto prepare recommendations for Congressregarding the oversight and governance ofcharitable organizations. The Panel alsoprovided guidance to nonprofits ongovernance issues with the release ofPrinciples for Good Governance and EthicalPractice, which was funded by the FordFoundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation,and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.

• BoardStar, a program supported by theNonprofit Management Fund in Milwaukee,Wisconsin, develops governance resources— such as podcasts that are availableworldwide — and offers services to meet theneeds of local nonprofits.

• The W.K. Kellogg Foundation, AtlanticPhilanthropies, and The David and LucilePackard Foundation provided funding toBoardSource and Harvard University toresearch alternative approaches to nonprofitgovernance. The study culminated in thepublication of Governance as Leadership,which examines three modes of governancethat together enable board members toengage in more meaningful andconsequential work for their organizations.

2. Engage directly in governance-relatedresearch and resource development.Some grantmakers are directly involved ingovernance-related research, curriculumdevelopment, and program design. Thisinvolvement is often based on needs identifiedthrough the grantmakers’ work with grantees.The following examples show howgrantmakers have contributed their intellectual,as well as financial, capital to the largernonprofit field:

• Drawing on their firsthand experience, the Grantmakers Committee of New York —based Governance Matters developed the Good Governance Guide(www.governancematters.org), an online tool to help grantmakers pursueconstructive conversations with grantees and, in turn, promote good governance.

• To advance understanding of the factors thatcontribute to the success or failure ofnonprofit executives, including theirrelationship with their boards, the MeyerFoundation co-authored Daring to Lead 2006with CompassPoint Nonprofit Services, inaddition to providing financial support forthe project.

• Recognizing the need for advanced boardtraining among its own grantees as well asother nonprofits, Social Venture Partners inSeattle, Washington, collaborated with theUnited Way of King County, the Arts Fund,and the University of Washington to createAdvanced Board Leadership, a four-sessioncourse to teach high-level competencies toboard members.

Governance and the Field: Advantages andChallengesChanges in society and the nonprofit sector willcontinue to drive the need for new and differentapproaches to governance. Grantmakers that


CHALLENGES SOLUTIONS

Connecting field-buildingefforts to specific grantees orcommunity nonprofits. Aninvestment in the field ofgovernance can feel removed froma grantmaker’s core mission, itsgrantees, and/or its community.

• Connect grantees with governance resources and field-buildingorganizations. Gregg Behr of the Grable Foundation views his role,in part, as a connector between the foundation’s grantees and theorganizations that can assist them: “We ask questions that encourageour grantees to get involved with other intermediary groups, and weprovide funding to those intermediary groups so that they canprovide resources and assistance to our grantees and othernonprofits.”

• Identify research and development opportunities that relate toparticular segments of the nonprofit sector. By focusing on thosenonprofits that are most closely aligned with their mission,grantmakers can satisfy their own priorities and contribute to thefield. For example, when the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fundwanted to better understand the governance needs of its grantees sothat it could improve its capacity-building efforts, it provided supportto the Urban Institute for a research paper, Boards of MidsizeNonprofits: Their Needs and Challenges.

• Look for opportunities to work in two contexts. Because somefield-building organizations engage both in developing governanceresources and in providing governance capacity-building servicesdirectly to nonprofits, grantmakers often view their support of theseorganizations as serving the community and building the field. “Irecognize that when the Haas, Jr. Fund makes a grant toCompassPoint, the investment goes beyond the benefit that our localgrantees that use CompassPoint services receive,” explained LindaWood of the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund. “It’s an investment inthe field that benefits all local nonprofits, and, because of the toolsand research that CompassPoint develops, also benefits nonprofitsnationally.”

Governance and the Field Challenges and Solutions

support the development and dissemination ofresearch and resources contribute to a broad-basedstrategy for advancing good governance, whichconveys both advantages and challenges

ADVANTAGESDevelops resources on best practices. Thequality of governance training and assistancedepends upon the quality of the concepts,frameworks, and tools available. Manygrantmakers view an investment in governanceresearch and resources as critical to developing theknowledge that they and others need.

Extends the impact of an investment ingovernance throughout the country. Somegrantmakers view investments in governanceresources and tools as a leveraged way to have animpact on a large number of nonprofits. AsKimberly Roberson of the Mott Foundation said,“We invest in BoardSource because we believe thathigh-quality tools and training need to be availableto the broader sector.”

Still, governance field building can feel abstractand developing the internal case for supporting aninvestment in resources and research can bedifficult. Grantmakers interviewed identified thechallenge and solutions below.


This paper presents an ambitious array ofpossibilities for engaging in governance, andgrantmakers need to decide how best to deploytheir resources. Those interviewed for this papershared their insights, which informed thefollowing three framing questions and practicalsuggestions for those interested in taking the nextsteps towards strengthening nonprofitgovernance.

Framing QuestionsGovernance work should complement thegrantmaker’s mission and grantmaking style,address audience and community needs, and takeinto account the capabilities and capacity of thegrantmaker as well as other potential partners. Inmaking thoughtful choices about how to invest ingovernance, grantmakers should consider thefollowing three questions:

1. How do investments in governance align withour mission, values, and grantmaking style?

2. Who is our audience, and what does it need?

3. What resources and capabilities can weleverage to improve nonprofit governance?

These three questions serve as a checkpoint forgrantmakers as they frame their approach tostrengthening governance among grantees andcommunity nonprofits.

1. How do investments in governance align with our mission, values, andgrantmaking style?Grantmakers interviewed see a clearconnection between mission, grantees, andgood governance. “There needs to be anexploration of the importance of governance tothe success of your grantees, and therefore tothe success of your own foundation’s mission,”explained Chuck Hamilton of The ClarkFoundation. “Then you can look at what worksand doesn’t work and how you can be helpful.”

Second, investments in governance — be itthrough the due diligence process,programmatic initiatives, staff development,and grants themselves — should be clearlyaligned with the grantmaker’s values andgrantmaking style. Marty Campbell of theIrvine Foundation said, “My advice is thatfoundations should start by first understandinghow investments in governance and leadershipfit within their own goals and interests. Thenthey can identify what role they can play.”

Grantmakers play different roles within theircommunities, which influences how theyaddress governance issues. For example,community and other local foundations thatposition themselves around leadership maysponsor high-profile programs to spotlightgood governance. Grantmakers that prefer tomaintain a lower profile in their communitymay choose to advance governance by makingcapacity-building grants and supportingmanagement support organizations.

Grantmakers’ relationships with grantees alsoinform how they incorporate governance intotheir work. Some grantmakers maintaindistance between themselves and theirgrantees’ governance, choosing to providecapacity-building support through community-wide conferences or support for governance-related resources and research. Othergrantmakers have deeper relationships withgrantees and therefore more opportunities toengage in various levels of conversation andsupport around governance. For example,grantmakers that follow a venture philanthropyor strategic grantmaking model tend to havehigh levels of engagement with the chiefexecutive and board. Says Eleanor Rutland ofVenture Philanthropy Partners, “We invest inleaders, and we believe the leadership is notjust the CEO but also the board of directors.So we engage the board at multiple levelsthroughout the course of the relationship withthe organization.”

2. Who is our audience, and what does it need?Grantmakers can choose to advancegovernance with different audiences — someor all grantees, nonprofits in the localcommunity, or the sector as a whole. Thechoice of audience often guides the range of grantmaker investments, as outlined inExhibit 2.

The nature of the audience also needs to bepaired with the needs of the audience. Forexample, at the individual level, a grantee maybe experiencing a significant transition, such asadding new service sites, launching a capitalcampaign, or searching for a new chiefexecutive, which may benefit from a capacity-building grant to strengthen boardinvolvement. Or, at the community level, ascandal in a local organization may promptcalls for education on issues of boardaccountability and transparency.

GUIDANCE FOR DETERMINING YOURGUIDANCE FOR DETERMINING YOURENGAGEMENT IN GOVERNANCEENGAGEMENT IN GOVERNANCE


Even if a grantmaker generally targets certaingrantees, some needs warrant broader andsometimes multiple investments. For example,nonprofit leaders frequently cite difficulty inidentifying and attracting qualified boardmembers. A grantmaker may address this needby honoring board service, funding a board-matching program, and making grants toindividual organizations.

3. What resources and capabilities can weleverage to improve governance?Before investing in governance, grantmakersneed to take stock of internal and externalresources. Internally, grantmakers should assesstheir own capabilities and capacities becausegovernance activities can take considerabletime and effort. Offering structured capacity-building initiatives, taking a lead role ineducational programs, and having in-depthconversations with grantees require significantcapacity in terms of staff time, knowledge, andfinancial investment. Grantmakers can,however, advance governance in numerousways that are less resource-intensive, such ascollaborating with others to offer programs,convening grantees for peer exchange, andsupporting field-building efforts. Furthermore,some grantmakers may be able to incorporate agovernance component into existing activities.

Grantmakers may choose to invest time indeveloping staff capacity around governanceand capacity-building issues, but this is not aprerequisite for getting started. Somegrantmakers note that the programs andconvenings that they offer provide important

learning opportunities for themselves as well asfor nonprofit leaders.

Grantmakers should also scan the externalenvironment when investing in governance. Tomitigate the risk of duplicating efforts and toidentify potential partnerships, they shouldconsider who else in the community isworking on the same or related issues. AsDebra Jacobs of the Selby Foundationsuggested, “You have to ask, ‘Who else is doingwhat in the community?’ You have to talk togroups beyond foundations, such asinstitutions of higher learning.”

Where to Begin? Advice from the Fieldon First StepsGrantmakers interviewed for this project sharedadvice for those who may be new to the practiceof investing in governance. A common set ofthemes emerged for taking the first steps:

1. Begin with your own board. A grantmakerengaging on governance issues should considerits own governance practices before engagingon this issue with others. In short, grantmakersshould be prepared to walk the governancetalk. “It was hugely important that our boardhad been through the board developmentprocess itself,” said Teri Hansen of the GulfCoast Community Foundation of Venice. “Idon’t see how someone could think it is a goodidea for others to engage in board developmentif you haven’t gone through it yourself. Itwould be like working for Ford and driving aChevrolet.”

GOVERNANCE ANDGRANTEES

• Engage in dialogue with grantees about governance• Create opportunities for grantee peer exchange on governance

issues• Provide capacity-building grants and programs• Establish milestones for board performance

GOVERNANCE ANDCOMMUNITY

• Sponsor forums and conferences featuring governance experts• Provide ongoing training and peer learning programs• Establish comprehensive board building initiatives• Undertake initiatives to address targeted governance issues

GOVERNANCE AND THE FIELD

• Develop resources and conduct research• Invest in field-building organizations that conduct research

and develop resources

Exhibit 2: Summary of Activities to Strengthen Governance


Grantmakers interviewed found benefit inhaving similar experiences and commonchallenges with grantees. Aubrey Patterson ofthe Hutchinson Community Foundationexplained, “When we were addressinggovernance issues with nonprofits in ourcommunity, we were able to say that our board was working on the same struggles. It improved our relationship with thesenonprofits — they saw us as a partner, not just a funder.”

2. Listen to your audience. Many grantmakersinterviewed stressed the importance oflistening to the community before embarkingon a full-scale program. Gauging needs andinterests can happen through formal surveys ormore informally through conversations withgrantees. “It is important to understand what isgoing on with the organizations you workwith. All of our technical assistance efforts aredriven by what grantees tell us they needversus what we think they should have,” saidAmy Barger of the Tiger Foundation.

Given their mission, community foundationsare often well-positioned to evaluate broadercommunity needs on a regular basis. As MeganMeyer of the Toledo Community Foundationexplained, “We hosted a series of workshopswith executive directors to see what theythought the need was. We may do it biennially.It’s been very helpful to keep us in touch withthe needs of the community and to get buy-infor our programs.”

3. Start small and build up your experience.For those new to working on governanceissues, it takes time to develop comfort andproficiency. Many of the activities featured inthis report lend themselves to starting small.“When I talk to other funders, I suggest thatthey start small — start with a few questions

for grant seekers, invite a board member tocome to a meeting — some simple things toget them comfortable with the process. Make ita win-win learning experience for the nonprofitand its board member, as well as for thegrantmaker,” suggested Libby Costas of theCummings Fund.

While grantmakers new to this arena shouldnot expect large-scale impact based on one-offprograms, free-standing workshops canprovide nonprofit leaders with valuableinformation about key issues. As AnnemarieRiemer of the Hartford Foundation for PublicGiving observed, “When we started offeringworkshops, they were in the form of brown-bag lunches for executive directors, and ourspeakers were local nonprofit executives andconsultants. Information was shared, andexecutive directors had the opportunity to gettogether with peers.”

To be more effective, grantmakers interviewedoften invested in professional development. Theybuilt their own governance knowledge throughprofessional networks, training programs, andboard service. Said Anne Lawrence of the RobertBowne Foundation, “I do feel that a lot ofprogram officers — it was true in my case —don’t have a lot of knowledge and experiencewith boards. My main purpose in joiningGovernance Matters is to learn more aboutgovernance so that I can offer more to mygrantees.” Some foundation program officersattend training events, such as BoardSource’sPractitioner Programs. A few grantmakers activelyencourage program officers to serve on boards.“There is no better training than to be on aboard,” said Chuck Hamilton of The ClarkFoundation.


Good governance — carried out by a strong chief executive in partnership withan engaged and strategic-thinking board — is the backbone of a healthy andproductive nonprofit organization. Like any infrastructure, boards and chiefexecutives require ongoing investment to make sure that their skills are honed,relationships are nurtured, and new challenges are overcome. Grantmakers havean important role to play. They can raise awareness of good governance andprovide resources to address board development, which benefit nonprofitorganizations and ultimately their clients, constituencies, and communities.

Grantmakers have many tools at their disposal to advance governance.Grantmakers can choose to address governance in the context of individualgrantees, to raise community standards for board performance, or to contributeknowledge to the field of nonprofit leadership. They can choose to invest ingovernance on their own or in collaboration with other funders, intermediaryorganizations, and even grantees themselves.

In whatever context they work, grantmakers need to be careful and thoughtfulwhen engaging grantees and community nonprofits on issues of governance. Butnot to act at all is a missed opportunity. As Kimberly Roberson of the MottFoundation said, “Our view as grantmakers isn’t better or smarter than that ofour grantees or other nonprofits, but we do have a different vantage point. If wedon’t bring that perspective to bear, then we’re cheating everybody.” Greaterinvolvement by grantmakers in fostering strong governance benefits not justgrantees and grantmakers — it benefits the communities that depend on theprograms and services provided by the nonprofit sector.

CONCLUSIONCONCLUSION


Altman Foundation: Jane B. O’Connell,President

Asian Pacific Fund: Gail M. Kong, ExecutiveDirector and President

Capital One: Carolyn S. Berkowitz, VicePresident, Community Affairs & President,Captial One Foundation and Emily Talley,Senior Director, Community Affairs

Cedarmere Foundation: Kathleen Edwards,President

Charles Stewart Mott Foundation: Kimberly S.Roberson, Program Officer and NickDeychakiwsky, Program Officer

Charter School Growth Fund: John Lock,Dreamweaver, CEO and President

The Clark Foundation: Charles H. Hamilton,Executive Director

The Cleveland Foundation: Kathleen Cerveny,Program Director for Arts and Culture and LisaL. Bottoms, Program Director for HumanServices and Child and Youth Development

The Community Foundation of Greater DesMoines: Kristi Knous, Vice President, DonorRelations and Community Investment and DanRaedeker, Community Investment Associate

Community Foundation of Sarasota County:Christie Lewis, Vice President of NonprofitCapacity Building (formerly)

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation:Stephanie McAuliffe, Director, OrganizationalEffectiveness and Direct Grantmaking

Edna McConnell Clark Foundation: WoodrowC. McCutchen, Portfolio Manager and AbigailDiner, Senior Associate, Special Projects

Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Foundation:Richard L. Moyers, Director of Programs

Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund: Linda Wood,Senior Program Officer, Nonprofit Leadershipand Governance

Foellinger Foundation: Cheryl K. Taylor,President

The Forbes Funds: Diana Bucco, President

Ford Foundation: Alta Starr, Program Officer,Governance and Civil Society

The Frances L. and Edwin L. CummingsMemorial Fund: Elizabeth H. Costas, Executive Director

Freddie Mac Corporation: Mike Schwartz,Director, Corporate Giving and EmployeeInvolvement

Gill Foundation: Katherine Peck, Vice President,National Programs

Goldman, Sachs & Co.: Marlo Tablante,Associate, Office of Corporate Engagement andNicolette Rabadi, Project Manager, Office ofCorporate Engagement

Grable Foundation: Gregg Behr, ExecutiveDirector

Grand Rapids Community Foundation: MarciaL. Rapp, Vice President, Programs

Grand Victoria Foundation: Toya Randall,Director of Elgin Programs

Gulf Coast Community Foundation of Venice:Teri A. Hansen, President/CEO and KirstenFulkerson, Program Officer

Hartford Foundation for Public Giving:Annemarie H. Riemer, Director, NonprofitSupport Program

Hutchison Community Foundation: AubreyAbbott Patterson, President and ExecutiveDirector and Kate Van Canfort, CommunityInvestment Officer

IBM: Ann W. Cramer, Director North America,IBM Corporate Citizenship and CorporateAffairs

Impact Austin: Rebecca Powers, President

Independence Foundation: Susan Sherman,President and CEO

James Irvine Foundation: Martha S. Campbell,Vice President for Programs

APPENDIX 1APPENDIX 1INTERINTERVIEWEESVIEWEES


Kansas Health Foundation: Steve Coen,President and CEO, Jeff Usher, Program Officer,and Carolyn Williams, Program Officer

Lumpkin Family Foundation: Bruce Karmazin,Executive Director

Minnesota Council on Foundations: Bill King,President

New Hampshire Charitable Foundation: EllenKoenig, Director of Regions

NewSchools Venture Fund: Ted Mitchell, CEO

Nonprofit Management Fund: PatriciaWyzbinski, Fund Advisor

The Pew Charitable Trusts: Marian A. Godfrey,Senior Director, Culture Initiatives

Porter County Community Foundation: BarbaraA. Young, President

The Rapides Foundation: Akeshia Singleton,Program Officer and Patricia Starling,Community Engagement Coordinator,Community Development Works

Retirement Research Foundation: MarilynHennessy, President

Robert Bowne Foundation: Anne H. Lawrence,Program Officer

Robin Hood Foundation: Amy Houston,Director, Management Assistance and SunnySmith Longbons, Manager, Board Recruitment

Sarkeys Foundation: Ann M. Way, SeniorProgram Officer

Social Venture Partners International: PaulShoemaker, Founding President and ExecutiveDirector of Social Venture Partners Seattle

Sunflower Foundation: Billie Hall, President andCEO

Tiger Foundation: Amy Barger, Senior ProgramOfficer

Toledo Community Foundation: Megan Meyer,Director, Center for Nonprofit Resources

Ventura County Community Foundation: HughJ. Ralston, President and CEO and Dena C.Jenson, Vice President and Director, ResourceCenter for Nonprofit Management

Venture Philanthropy Partners: Eleanor L.Rutland, Chief Operating Officer

W.K. Kellogg Foundation: Karen Whalen,Program Director

Walter and Elise Haas Fund: Frances N.Phillips, Senior Program Officer, The Arts andDirector of the Creative Work Fund

Washington Women’s Foundation: Colleen S.Willoughby, Founding President and MarionDeForest, Deputy Director

William G. Selby and Marie Selby Foundation:Debra M. Jacobs, President and CEO


APPENDIX 2APPENDIX 2GRANTMAKER PROGRAMS THAGRANTMAKER PROGRAMS THAT T

ADVADVANCE NONPROFIT GOVERNANCEANCE NONPROFIT GOVERNANCE

Grantmaker2007Total

Assets

ProgramName Program Description Geographic

Focus Contact Information

AlcoaFoundation

$542million

ReachingNewHeights inNonprofitGovernance

A one-day conference for localnonprofit leaders to exploreissues such as board fundraising,board diversity, and boarddeliberations.

GreaterPittsburghArea, PA

Scott Hudson,Manager, Global Initiativesand Program Developmentwww.alcoa.com

AltmanFoundation

$211million(2008)

ActualizingGoodGovernance

A multifaceted initiative thatprovides select grantees withboard self-assessments, training,and tailored consulting services.Offered jointly by the Altman,Tiger, and Clark Foundations tooverlapping grantees.

New York,NY

Jane O’Connell, Presidentwww.altmanfoundation.org

Capital One N/A ExecutiveBoardLeadershipProgram

A board-matching program thattrains and places Capital Oneexecutives on select nonprofitboards. See page 23 of this reportfor a profile of this program.

National Carolyn Berkowitz, Vice President, Community Affairs703-720-2367www.capitalone.com

CharlesStewart MottFoundation

$2.7billion

BuildingNonprofitLeadershipInitiative

A multifaceted initiative for localnonprofits that includes boardself-assessments, training andconsulting services, and peerlearning sessions.

Flint andGeneseeCounty, MI

Kimberly Roberson,Program Officer810-238-5651www.mott.org

The ClarkFoundation

$581million


See listing in this table underAltman Foundation.

New York,NY

Charles Hamilton,Executive Director212-977-6900

TheCleveland

Foundation

$2.2billion

ProjectAccess

A multifaceted initiative for localfaith-based organizations thatoffers organizationalassessments, trainings,networking opportunities, andcoaching.

GreaterClevelandArea, OH

Lisa Bottoms, Program Director forHuman Services and Childand Youth Development216-861-3810www.clevelandfoundation.org

TheCommunityFoundationof Greater

Des Moines

$145million(2008)

BoardLaunchworkshops

A series of workshops forcommunity nonprofit boardmembers and executives thatprovide technical and leadershiptraining to improve boardmember skills.

Greater DesMoinesArea, IA

Dan Raedeker, Community InvestmentAssociate515-244-0340www.desmoinesfoundation.org

These tables feature an overview of programs offered by grantmakers to grantees and/or communitynonprofits. Many programs focus specifically on governance; others provide a range of capacity-buildingsupport of which governance is a component.


Grantmaker2007Total

Assets



CommunityFoundation

of SantaCruz County

$45.7million

BoardMatch

WorkshopsforNonprofits

A board-matching program thattrains and places individuals onlocal nonprofit boards.Prospective board membersattend three trainings prior toplacement.

An annual series of workshopsfor community nonprofit leadersthat includes topics on boardgovernance.

Santa CruzCounty, CA

Luis Chabolla,Communications andEducation Officer831-477-0800www.cfscc.org

CommunityFoundationof Sarasota

County

$159million

Board Bank

BoardLeadersCouncil

An online board-matchingprogram that connects localindividuals with nonprofitcommittee and board positions.Also offers trainings on boardservice.

A monthly forum for local boardmembers to network and sharelearning and insights.

SarasotaCounty, FL

Judith Bell, Vice President of NonprofitResources, NonprofitResource Center941-556-7102www.cfsarasota.org

The Davidand Lucille

PackardFoundation

$6.6billion

OrganizationalEffectivenessGrants

A grants program that providesexisting grantees with fundingfor a variety of organizationalcapacity-building effortsincluding governance and boarddevelopment.

National Stephanie McAuliffe,Director, OrganizationalEffectiveness and DirectedGrantmaking650-948-7658www.packard.org

Eugene andAgnes E.Meyer

Foundation

$225.5million

ManagementAssistanceProgram

A grants program that providesexisting grantees with fundingfor a variety of organizationalcapacity-building effortsincluding governance and boarddevelopment.

GreaterWashington,DC

Richard Moyers, Director of Programs202-483-8294www.meyerfoundation.org

Evelyn andWalter Haas,

Jr. Fund

$621million

FlexibleLeadershipAwards

A multifaceted initiative thatprovides select grantees withfunds to strengthen theirleadership at the board,executive, and senior teamlevels. See page 13 of this reportfor a profile of this program.

Bay Area,CA

Linda Wood, Senior Program Officer,Nonprofit Leadership and Governance415-856-1400www.haasjr.org


Grantmaker2007Total

Assets



FoellingerFoundation

$179million

Ernest E.WilliamsLectureSeries

Carl D.RolfsenStewardshipAward

A lecture series on managementand governance issues with acapacity-building grantopportunity related to thelecture topic. Lectures are opento all local nonprofits; grants tocurrent grantees only.

An awards program for localnonprofits that recognizesoutstanding board members. Seepage 24 of this report for aprofile of this program.

AllenCounty, IN

Cheryl Taylor, President260-422-2900www.foellinger.org

The ForbesFunds

$6.7million(2006)

ManagementAssistanceGrants

A grants program that provideseligible nonprofits with fundingfor a variety of organizationalcapacity-building effortsincluding governance and boarddevelopment.

AlleghenyCounty, PA

Diana Bucco, President412-394-4271www.forbesfunds.org

Freddie MacCorporation

N/A NonprofitBoardLeadershipProgram

A board-matching program thattrains and places Freddie Macexecutives and senior employeeson select local nonprofit boards.

GreaterWashington,DC

Mike Schwartz, Director, Corporate Givingand Employee Involvement703-918-8888www.freddiemac.com

FoundationFor The

Carolinas

$803million

BuildingBetterBoards

Center forNonprofits

A multifaceted initiative forcommunity nonprofits that offersboard self-assessments, training,and consulting. Also supportedby the John S. & James L.Knight Foundation and the Z.Smith Reynolds Foundation.

A management support programthat includes training andprofessional development forcommunity nonprofit leaders ontopics such as board fiduciaryresponsibilities and the board’srole in fundraising.

North andSouthCarolina

Johanna Anderson,Assistant Vice President ofClient Services 704-973-4500www.fftc.org


Grantmaker2007Total

Assets



GrandRapids

CommunityFoundation

$239million(2008)

NonprofitTechnicalAssistanceFund

A collaborative grants programfunded by several localgrantmakers that providescommunity nonprofits withfunding for a variety of capacity-building efforts includinggovernance and boarddevelopment.

KentCounty, MI

Marcia Rapp, Vice President, Programswww.grfoundation.org

GrandVictoria

Foundation

$137million

DynamicConferenceseries

A biennial conference fornonprofit leaders that addressesstrategic organizational issuesincluding governance andleadership.

Illinois Toya Randall, Director of Elgin Programs847-289-8575www.grandvictoriafdn.org

Gulf CoastCommunityFoundationof Venice

$260.4million

BuildingBetterBoards

A multi-faceted initiative forcommunity nonprofits that offersboard self-assessments, training,and consulting. See page 20 ofthis report for a profile of thisprogram.

GreaterVenice Area,FL

Kirstin Fulkerson, Program Officer941-486-4600www.gulfcoastcf.org

HartfordFoundationfor Public

Giving

$798million

NonprofitSupportProgram

A management support andgrants program that includesboard leadership workshops, anexecutive transition program,and capacity-building grants.

GreaterHartfordArea, CT

Annemarie Riemer,Director, NonprofitSupport Program860-548-1888www.hfpg.org

IBM N/A IBM OnDemandCommunity

An online resource that providesIBM employees with onlinetools, training, and informationthat facilitates their volunteerefforts, including resources fornonprofit board service.

Global Ann Cramer, Director North America,IBM Corporate Citizenshipand Corporate Affairs404-238-6660www.ibm.com

James IrvineFoundation

$1.9billion

Flex Fund A flexible funding mechanismthat provides select granteeswith funds to address discreteorganizational developmentneeds or opportunities that mayarise during the course of aprogram grant.

California Martha Campbell, Vice President forPrograms415-777-2244www.irvine.org


Grantmaker2007Total

Assets



James IrvineFoundation(continued)

$1.9billion

Fund forLeadershipAdvancement

Multiyearcapacitybuildinginitiatives

A grants program that providestailored support to executivesand/or senior staff of existinggrantees. Support is provided forexecutive coaching, executiveseminars, visits to peerinstitutions, and consulting.

Multiyear initiatives with selectorganizations that improve thefinancial sustainability,management, governance andgrowth capacities throughgrants, technical assistance,assessment, and peer learning.

California Martha Campbell, Vice President forPrograms415-777-2244www.irvine.org

LumpkinFamily

Foundation

$49.5million

NonprofitExcellenceProgram

A management support andgrants program that includesgovernance-related trainings,peer networking sessions, andcapacity-building grants.

CentralIllinois

Bruce Karmazin,Executive Director217-235-3361www.lumpkinfoundation.org

NewHampshireCharitable

Foundation

$489.6million

Excellencein NonprofitGovernanceCommittee

TheCorporateFund

A statewide committee thatdeveloped a program tostrengthen board accountability.See page 21 of this report for aprofile of this program.

A management support andgrants program that offers onlineboard self-assessment tools, aconsultant resource bank, andcapacity-building grants.

NewHampshire

Ellen Koenig, Director of Regions andSenior Program Officer,Lakes Region603-225-6641www.nhcf.org

NonprofitManagement

Fund

N/A ManagementAssistanceGrants

BoardStar

A grants program that providescommunity nonprofits withfunding for a variety of capacity-building efforts includinggovernance and boarddevelopment.

A board-focused technicalassistance program forcommunity nonprofits thatoffers workshops, consulting,podcasts, board-matchingservices, and research.

GreaterMilwaukeeArea, WI

Patricia Wyzbinski, Fund Advisor414-271-4869www.nonprofitmanagementfund.org


Grantmaker2007Total

Assets



The PewCharitable

Trusts

$338.3million

PhiladelphiaCulturalLeadershipProgram

PhiladelphiaCulturalManagementInitiative

A grants program that providesgeneral support for culturalorganizations that demonstratehigh standards of programmatic,fiscal, and managementperformance.

A complement to thePhiladelphia CulturalLeadership Program (PCLP), thiscapacity-building grantsprogram helps culturalorganizations attain andmaintain the high standards ofthe PCLP.

GreaterPhiladelphiaArea, PA

Marian Godfrey, Senior Director, Culture Initiatives215-575-9050www.pewtrusts.org

The RapidesFoundation

$237million(2006)

BoardBuilders

BoardWorks

A board-matching program thattrains and places individuals onnonprofit boards in the region.See page 22 of this report for aprofile of this program.

A workshop series for nonprofitboard and staff memberscovering a range of governancetopics.

CentralLouisiana

Akeshia Singleton,Program Officer318-443-3394www.rapidesfoundation.org

RetirementResearch

Foundation

$172.6million

OrganizationalCapacityBuildingProgram

A grants program that provideseligible nonprofits with fundingand independent coaches toaddress a variety oforganizational capacity-buildingefforts.

GreaterChicagoArea, IL

Irene Frye, Executive Director773-714-8080www.rrf.org

SarkeysFoundation

$110.9million

ToolboxSeries

SouthwestRegionalLeadershipForum

A workshop series for nonprofitboard and staff memberscovering a range of topics.

A biennial conference fornonprofit board and staffmembers that brings in nationaland local experts to discuss keygovernance and managementissues.

Oklahoma Ann Way, Senior Program Officer405-364-3703www.sarkeys.org

TigerFoundation

$61million(2007)


See listing in this table underAltman Foundation.

New York,NY

Amy Barger, Senior Program Officer212-984-2565www.tigerfoundation.org


Grantmaker2007Total

Assets



ToledoCommunityFoundation

$150million

Center forNonprofitResources

A management support andgrants program for nonprofitsthat includes governance-relatedworkshops and capacity-building grants for boarddevelopment.

GreaterToledoRegion, OH

Megan Meyer, Director, ProgrammingCenter for NonprofitResources419-241-5049www.toledocf.org

VenturaCounty

CommunityFoundation

$111.4million

BuildingBoardLeadership

A multifaceted initiative for localnonprofit board and staffmembers that offers seminars,board member peer roundtables,and resources.

VenturaCounty, CA

Dena Jenson, Vice President andDirector, Center forNonprofit Leadership805-988-0196, ext. 128www.vccf.org

W.K. KelloggFoundation

$8.4billion

KelloggAction Lab

A multifaceted initiative forexisting grantees that providesaccess to capacity-buildinggrants and funds to attendconvenings and purchaseresources.

National Karen Whalen, Program Director269-968-1611www.kelloggactionlab.org

William G.Selby and

Marie SelbyFoundation

$78.8million

TakingGoodBoards toGreaterHeights

A half-day seminar for boardchair/chief executive teams fromselect local nonprofits to discussand address emerginggovernance issues. A joint effort with the CommunityFoundation of Sarasota County.

GreaterSarasotaArea, FL

Debra Jacobs, President and CEO941-957-0442www.selbyfdn.org

© BoardSource and FSG Social Impact Advisors 2009 41© BoardSource and FSG Social Impact Advisors 2009 41

Resources on Governance2007 Grant Thornton LLP National BoardGovernance Survey for Not-for-ProfitOrganizations, Grant Thorton,www.grantthornton.com/staticfiles/GTCom/files/Industries/NotForProfit/07_BG_Survey.pdf.

Bell, Jeanne, Richard Moyers, and TimothyWolfred, Daring to Lead 2006: A National Study ofNonprofit Executive Leadership, CompassPointNonprofit Services, 2006.

Chait, Richard P., William P. Ryan, and BarbaraE. Taylor, Governance as Leadership: Reframingthe Work of Nonprofit Boards, John Wiley andSons and BoardSource, 2004.

Ingram, Richard, Ten Basic Responsibilities ofNonprofit Boards, Second Edition, BoardSource,2009.

Klausner, Michael and Jonathan Small, “Failingto Govern? The Disconnect between Theory andReality in Nonprofit Boards, and How to Fix It,”Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring 2005.

Korngold, Alice, Leveraging Good Will:Strengthening Nonprofits by Engaging Businesses,Jossey-Bass, 2005.

Nonprofit Governance Index 2007, BoardSource,2007.

Ostrower, Francie, Boards of Midsize Nonprofits:Their Needs and Challenges, The Urban InstituteCenter on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, May 2008.

Ostrower, Francie, Nonprofit Governance in theUnited States: Findings on Performance andAccountability from the First NationalRepresentative Study, The Urban Institute Centeron Nonprofits and Philanthropy, 2007.

Panel on the Nonprofit Sector, Principles forGood Governance and Ethical Practice: A Guide forCharities and Foundations, Independent Sector,October 2007.

Ruvinsky, Jessica, “Building a Better Board,”Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring 2005.

The Source: Twelve Principles of Governance ThatPower Exceptional Boards, BoardSource, 2005.

The Standards for Excellence: An Ethics andAccountability Code for the Nonprofit Sector,Maryland Association of NonprofitOrganizations, 1998 to 2007.

Tierney, Thomas J., The Nonprofit Sector’sLeadership Deficit, The Bridgespan Group, March 2006.

Resources for Grantmakers onCapacity Building Backer, Thomas E., Alan N. Miller, and JaneEllen Bleeg, Donor Perspectives on NonprofitCapacity Building, Human Interaction ResearchInstitute, 2004.

Connolly, Paul, Deeper Capacity Building forGreater Impact: Designing a Long-term Initiative toStrengthen a Set of Nonprofit Organizations, TCCGroup, 2007.

Connolly, Paul and Carol Lukas, StrengtheningNonprofit Performance: A Funder’s Guide toCapacity Building, Amherst H. WilderFoundation and Grantmakers for EffectiveOrganizations, 2002.

Connolly, Paul and Peter York, Building theCapacity of Capacity Builders: A Study ofManagement Support and Field BuildingOrganizations in the Nonprofit Sector, TCC Group,2003.

Enright, Kathleen, P., Investing in LeadershipVolume 2: Inspiration and Ideas from Philanthropy’sLatest Frontier, Grantmakers for EffectiveOrganizations, February 2006.

Grantmakers for Effective Organizations: Kibbe,Barbara D., Kathleen P. Enright, Janine E. Lee,Alexa Cortes Culwell, Lisa Sobrato Sonsini,Sterling K. Speirn, and Melinda T. Tuan, FundingEffectiveness: Lessons in Building NonprofitCapacity, Jossey-Bass (A Wiley Imprint), 2004.

Hubbard, Betsy, Investing in Leadership Volume 1:A Grantmaker’s Framework for UnderstandingNonprofit Leadership Development, Grantmakersfor Effective Organizations, June 2005.

Szanton, Peter L., Toward More Effective Use ofIntermediaries, Foundation Center, 2003.

APPENDIX 3APPENDIX 3RECOMMENDED RESOURCESRECOMMENDED RESOURCES

Documents

ADVANCING GOOD GOVERNANCE · throughout the United States, this report begins by exploring why grantmakers invest in nonprofit governance. Those interviewed shared the conviction