Boards Are Ultimate Guardians of Nonprofits’ Missions
Varying viewpoints cloud truths on nonprofit accountability
We have addressed the issue of board accountability in several previous columns. In Issue 1–2010, we discussed a 2009 precedent-breaking lawsuit directed at a century-old mental health facility in Brooklyn, N.Y. (1) That column hopefully served as a wake-up call for people who may be serving on a board that has not served acceptably. The Brooklyn trustees had to pay a significant financial settlement due to their lack of diligence.
Another column on board accountability, from Issue 1–2012, was triggered by the failure of the Penn State University Board of Trustees and administration to hold its athletic department accountable for not adequately responding to allegations that a football coach was abusing children. (2) The negative consequences of this lack of oversight caused inexcusable human suffering, as well as destroyed the reputation and credibility of a major university.
There have been additional more recent examples. Weak governance at the Jane Addams Hull House Association was one factor in the closing of the iconic agency. Cooper Union, one of the last tuition-free colleges in the U.S., will begin charging tuition in fall 2014. The institution, which is operating with a $12 million annual deficit, is desperately trying to fix its budget crisis. (3) All of these examples demonstrate trustee neglect, if not abuse.
These examples indicate that organizations must be more mindful and accountable. But, there are different views about what accountability is and where it should come from. One view we find especially troubling is offered in a new book. Ken Stern, who served as the CEO of National Public Radio (NPR) for many years, recently published, With Charity for All: Why Charities Are Failing and a Better Way to Give. (4) It calls for greater accountability for nonprofit organizations. However, the book rarely, if ever, mentions the role and importance of boards in organizational accountability. Stern asserts that nonprofit organizations lack accountability because donors are
In this column, we will focus on three points that make this book less than beneficial to the nonprofit sector, and then give our own recommendations for improving accountability.
First, the book virtually overlooks the role and function of nonprofit, governance boards. We find this not only strange, but alarming. By law, boards are to be the guardians of their organizations’ missions. It is shocking to think that a book on accountability disregards the group that should be most accountable for an agency’s mission.
Second, early in the book, the author categorically states that nonprofits must realize that donors are their primary clients. Though donors certainly rank as very important stakeholders for any nonprofit organization, we disagree with the notion that they should be regarded as the primary clients. Missions should not be at the mercy of those who pay for a given service. It is our experience that failing social service programs financed through government grants or contracts are unsuccessful often because those who designed the programs lack the experiential understanding of the challenges faced by the beneficiaries of the programs. By this analogy, the policymakers are the funders or donors.
Thinking of donors as clients becomes increasingly problematic in that it requires someone to codify donors’ wishes to reach a consensus by which the agency must act. A worrying proposition to deal with this problem would be to give the power to only the big donors. Frankly, we find this a very dangerous platitude for setting policy.
Third, the book dedicates various chapters to poorly performing nonprofits. One chapter describes the stream of failures by many international humanitarian organizations that provide the poorest parts of the world with access to water through new wells. The author, Stern, criticizes these efforts because he believes the organizations placed too much focus on digging the hole in the ground, and not enough attention to the future maintenance of the wells. On one level, the criticism is justified to the extent that organizations raised expectations only to see neglect and failure. But, our criticism of the book’s analysis was its absolute focus of the provider agency putting in the well and being responsible for its future maintenance without ever bringing accountability and the local community and culture into the discussion. If there were failures, surely the author must have researched how important it is to have the clients involved in the planning and maintenance of the new equipment.
One can learn from what we consider a limited analysis of the weaknesses of charity organizations. For example, this book demonstrates that being involved in an important nonprofit organization, as the author of this book was at NPR, does not guarantee a real understanding of the altruistic sector and of its culture. The book’s attention to the donor as the entry point for change has some merit, but only if the donor has the ability to assess the real issues—which were not addressed in this book—namely how board directors view their role as the agents who are accountable for the how an organization’s mission is served.
But, hoping for trustee improvement may not be enough. A recent article, “Nonprofit Abuses Won’t Stop without Tougher Rules and Regulators,” by Pablo Eisenberg discusses additional approaches. (5) We agree with the solutions he proposes, and think that at least two oversight functions would help to hold nonprofit boards more accountable. Because there is no version of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the nonprofit sector, we suggest forming a similar body that would set broad standards for the functioning of nonprofit boards. The second oversight function is auditors. We recommend that auditors should be replaced regularly, and that all firms that perform nonprofit audits should be mandated reporters and abide by requirements to alert the public and the oversight body of board ineptitude and malfeasance.
What all directors must learn from this book is the need to recommit to being accountable and to showing the public who is actually responsible and accountable for organizational mission. Then, future authors will not so easily overlook nonprofit boards as the ultimate agent of accountability in charities.
1. The article, “Ensure Your Board Isn’t ‘Asleep at the Wheel’” is available online.
2. The article, “Greek Tragedy in Happy Valley” is available online.
3. The article, “College Ends Free Tuition, and an Era” by Ariel Kaminer, published by the New York Times April 23, 2013, is available online.
4. With Charity for All: Why Charities Are Failing and a Better Way to Give by Ken Stern was published by Doubleday in February 2013.
5. The article, “Nonprofit Abuses Won’t Stop without Tougher Rules and Regulators” by Pablo Eisenberg, published by the Huffington Post April 20, 2013, is available online.
Flip through the Pages Online
About the Authors
From left, Thomas J. Harvey, MSW, is director of the Master of Nonprofit Administration Program at the University of Notre Dame Mendoza College of Business.
John Tropman, Ph.D., is professor and associate dean for faculty affairs at the University of Michigan School of Social Work. He’s also an adjunct professor at the university’s Ross School of Business.
Harvey and Tropman are co-authors of Nonprofit Governance, a book published in 2009 that offers modern information and practical guidelines for directors and executives of nonprofit organizations of all sizes.