As a sector, we have come to some consensus on “good governance” and the things boards should do to effectively govern nonprofits. We have identified the board’s basic roles and developed metrics to gauge organizational success. What we DON’T know is whether and why these practices actually result in improved organizational health and long-term sustainability. Until now. Analyzing the data from its Core Capacity Assessment Tool — an organizational diagnostic that has been taken by more than 4,000 nonprofits (representing more than 19,000 individual who took the CCAT) — TCC Group has identified the ways in which strong board performance correlates with overall organizational strength. Through our analysis of data from organizations with strong board leadership scores, we have determined what these boards do that result in stronger leadership and adaptive capacities. The combination of this research and TCC’s consulting experience with hundreds of nonprofit organizations enables it to offer practical ideas aimed at strengthening board performance.

1. 1
Why Boards Matter:
The Relationship Between Strong Boards and
Organizational Success
© TCC Group, 2015
Julie Simpson
Director of Nonprofit Strategy
and Capacity Building
TCC Group
Charles Gasper
Senior Consultant
TCC Group
Anne Wallestad
President & CEO
BoardSource

2. 2
Quick Question
Is there a relationship between Board
effectiveness and organizational
effectiveness?
Why do we think there is a relationship?

3. 3
How do we find out (with data) if
there is a relationship?
We used the Core Capacity Assessment
Tool (CCAT)
• Database includes: 5,202 administrations
between 2004 and 2015
• We used: Sample of 855 organizations

4. 4
What is the CCAT?
4 Core Capacities

5. 5
What is the CCAT?
Lifecycle Stages • Core Program Development
• Infrastructure Development
• Impact Expansion

6. 6
How we use the CCAT
Strategy
 Assess the
capacities
necessary to
achieve
strategic goals
Capacity
Building
 Identification of
organizational
needs of both
individual
nonprofits and
cohorts
Evaluation
 Capacity to
support efforts
 Impact of
capacity
building efforts

7. 7
Our Question: Do Board capacities
influence organizational capacities?
Our Method:
Step 1:
Correlations
Step 2:
Develop
Hypotheses
Step 3:
Test the
Hypotheses
Step 4:
Results
Step 5:
Confirm with
Qualitative
Research
Step 6:
Rationalizing
our Results

8. 8
6 Measures to Define
Board Capacity
Outside
Engagement
Internal
Engagement
Strategic
Planning
Board
Relationship
Governance
Board
Vision

9. 9
Step 1: Correlations
Adaptive
Overall
Leadership
Overall
Management
Overall
Technical
Overall
Organizational
Culture Overall
Outside
Engagement
.792**
.783**
.644**
.665**
.532**
Internal
Engagement
.845** .754** .741** .901** .559**
Strategic Planning .791** .618**
.557**
.458**
.485**
Board Relationship .535**
.789** .606**
.432**
.605**
Governance .612**
.782** .628**
.510**
.523**
Board Vision .555**
.780** .565**
.422**
.541**
Do the 6 Board capacities correlate with the 4 core organizational
capacities?
6MeasuresofaBoard
4 Core Capacities of an Organization (+ Culture)
** significant at p<.001 level

10. 10
Defining a “Board Score” and a
“Good Board”
Good Boards:
 Learn from their programs
 Adapt to changes
 Have tools to make
effective decisions
 Have strong internal
leadership
Sub-Capacity
Correlation with
Overall Board
Measure
Programmatic Learning .700**
Internal Leadership .743**
Organizational Learning .804**
Decision-making Tools .775**
Outside
Engagement
Internal
Engagement
Strategic
Planning
Board
Relationship
Governance
Board Vision
Board Score:
Outside Engagement
Internal Engagement
Strategic Planning
Board Relationship
Governance
BoardVision
Board Score
** significant at p<.001 level

11. 11
Step 2: Develop Hypotheses
http://xkcd.com/892/

12. 12
Part 1: Find organizations that have
administered the CCAT more than once
Part 2: Calculate “change” scores
Part 3: Regression analysis
Step 3:Test the Hypotheses
Sample = 855
Most
recent
score
First
score
Change
score

13. 13
Wait –There’s More!
What Boards currently do
vs.
What Boards may do
Two Emergent Views of Boards…
…so we ran the analysis two ways

14. 14
Defining 2 Ways to Slice the Data
Narrow
 Only analyze CCAT questions
that directly pertain to
Board responsibilities
 Good predictive ability
Broad
 Analyze CCAT questions that
pertain to both the Board
and staff (i.e., potential
Board responsibilities)
 Incredibly high predictive
ability

15. 15
Reminder...
6 Measures to Define Board Capacity
Outside
Engagement
Internal
Engagement
Strategic
Planning
Board
Relationship
Governance
Board
Vision

16. 16
NarrowView of a Board’s Role
Adaptive
Overall
Leadership
Overall
Management
Overall
Technical
Overall
Organizational
Culture
Outside Engagement
Internal Engagement 3 3
Strategic Planning 1 2 2 2 2
Board Relationship 2 1 1 1
Governance 1
Board Vision
R .734 .680 .528 .439 .527
R2 .539 .463 .277 .468 .278
6MeasuresofaBoard
4 Core Capacities of an Organization (+ Culture)

17. 17
BroadView of Board’s Role
6MeasuresofaBoard
4 Core Capacities of an Organization (+ Culture)
Adaptive
Overall
Leadership
Overall
Management
Overall
Technical
Overall
Organizational
Culture
Outside Engagement 3 2 2 1
Internal Engagement 1 4 1 1 2
Strategic Planning 3 3 3
Board Relationship 3 2 4 4
Governance 1 5
Board Vision 2 5
R .782 .718 .720 .691 .576
R2 .611 .514 .517 .476 .330

18. 18
Step 4: Results
Narrow
 Most powerful Board
capacities
 Board relationship
 Strategic planning
Broad
 Most powerful Board
capacities
 Internal engagement
 Outside engagement
Outside
Engagement
Internal
Engagement
Strategic
Planning
Board
Relationship
Governance
Board Vision
Outside
Engagement
Internal
Engagement
Strategic
Planning
Board
Relationship
Governance
Board Vision
vs.

19. 19
Step 5: Confirm with
Qualitative Research
Interviews with sample
organizations
 P.F. Bresee Foundation
Seth Eklund, Executive Director
 Bike Bakersfield
Jason Cater, Executive Director
Image: blogs.msdn.com

20. 20
Step 6: Rationalizing our Results
Phase II
of Board Priorities
Phase I
of
Board
Priorities
Priority #1: Strategic
Planning & Board
Relationships with Staff
Priority #2: Board
Engagement Internally and
Outside the Organization

21. 21
So…What Next?
How do you move these levers?
Board Capacity What are We
Talking About?
How Can You Cultivate It?
Board
Relationship
Accountability
Mutual Respect
Trust
Transparency
Invest in Chair/CEO
Partnership
Regular Assessment
(Board & CEO)
Build Social Fabric
Strategic
Planning
Clarity of Vision
& Purpose
Agreement on
Priorities
Full Board Engagement in
Visioning & Planning
Regular Reflection on
Progress & What’s Changed

22. 22
Questions?

23. 23
Contact Us
© TCC Group, 2015
Julie Simpson
jsimpson@tccgrp.com
Charles Gasper
cgasper@tccgrp.com
Anne Wallestad
anne.wallestad@BoardSource.org