November 8, 2010 | Read Time: 3 minutes
An earlier post, Desperately Seeking Innovation, referred in passing to Francie Ostrower’s groundbreaking paper, Nonprofit Governance in the United States: Findings on Performance and Accountability from the First National Representative Study.
Published in 2007, when Ms. Ostrower was a researcher at the Urban Institute’s Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, the paper reported the results of a survey of more than 5,000 nonprofit organizations. It was the first–and so far the only–large-scale national study of nonprofit boards based on a stratified random sample of nonprofits.
The survey results were so illuminating (and at times depressing) that I’m surprised it hasn’t received more attention. Among the most significant findings:
- Seventy percent of respondents reported that it was difficult to find board members, and 20 percent said it was very difficult.
- In nine of the 11 areas of board responsibility covered in the survey, a majority of respondents said their boards were inactive or only somewhat active. Areas with especially low levels of activity included evaluating the executive director, fund raising, and monitoring the board’s own performance.
- Most respondents said their boards were doing a good or excellent job in all areas except fund raising. But there was no area in which a majority of respondents rated their boards as excellent. Most respondents rated their boards as only fair or poor in many areas, including fund raising (more than half), monitoring the board’s performance (more than half), and educating the public about the organization and its mission.
- Selecting new board members who are friends or acquaintances of current board members had a negative impact on performance in every board role except fund raising, where it had no impact.
- Having the executive director serve as a voting member of the board had a negative association with the board’s level of activity in financial oversight, setting policy, community relations, and influencing public policy, and had no positive associations.
For a nonprofit-governance wonk like me, coming across Ms. Ostrower’s 25-page paper was similar to what an archaeologist might feel upon walking into the untouched tomb of an Egyptian pharaoh. There were shiny treasures everywhere, and intriguing shadowy passageways that might lead to somewhere even more interesting.
It also left me craving more, and wondering why more ambitious research isn’t taking place. The performance problems of nonprofit boards are now fairly well documented, but fundamental questions still need answering.
Is there really a connection between board performance and organizational effectiveness? Can it be documented? Do board members themselves have the same thoughts about board effectiveness and performance as executive directors? Why is board recruitment such a problem, and could we learn anything from organizations that believe they’re doing it successfully?
This doesn’t mean that all our burning questions about nonprofit boards can be answered by surveying stratified random samples. But a remarkable amount of information has been produced–some of it quite prescriptive–about how boards should do their jobs and what practices are effective. And it’s not based on much evidence.
Shouldn’t we try to change that?
