the leadership challenge: moving towards a governance model for the washtenaw county literacy...

Gerald R. FordSchool of Public Policy

The Leadership ChallengeMoving towards a governance model for the

Washtenaw County Literacy Coalition

Background image source: "Book" by Steve Mishos<http://flickr.com/photos/flyzipper/342012313/>

This presentation is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution‐Share Alike 3.0 license. Please visit http://www.creativecommons.org for more information.

April 14, 2008Haley Gallagher & Virginia Knechtel

Erika Malinoski & Buzzy Nielsen


1 class: Public Policy 578 ‐ Applied Policy Seminar

2 instructors: Elisabeth Gerber & Bob Guenzel

3 groups: Emergency dispatch, government consolidation, & literacy governance

4 students: Haley, Virginia, Erika, & Buzzy


& General Findings

& Critical Qualities for Success

&Model I: Educational Outreach

&Model II: County Leadership

&Model III: Nonprofit Expansion& Variation: Suborganization

&Model IV: New Nonprofit

& Conclusions

Gerald R. FordSchool of Public Policy Graph source: Chapin Hall Center for Children (2000), p. 17

General findings about nonprofit

coalitions


Questionnaire respondents 15

Clients 200 to millions

Staff 0 to 1,400

Use volunteers? Yes, 75%

Budgets $60,000 to $190 million

Budget sources Taxes, fees, donations, grants, memberships, endowments, . . .

Efforts in other coalitions Significant


Priority ofliteracy coalition

72.7% ranked it as a medium priority

Are there barriersto involvement

72.7% said yes, citing time, money, and staffing

Hours/monthdevoted to coalition

Average: 2‐5


0

1

2

3

4

Resource is critical

Resource is helpful

We have enough

We could contribute

This is a strength

Respon

ses

Volunteers

Program evaluation

Literacy resources

Resources the task force needs and has the capacity to fill


Resources in which the task force has strong capacity

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Literacy strategies

Administrative Support

Referrals

Strategic planning

Personnel management

Technology

Fiscal services


Resources that the task force needs

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fundraising

Service expansion

Publicity

Marketing


The Good:& Strong support for a coalition effort on literacy

& Breadth of strengths among members

& New partnerships/opportunities already arising

& Agreement on an overall goalfor expanding referrals networks

&Willingness to invest time in a successful coalition


The Bad:& Different conceptions of mission

& Distrust from previous coalition attempts

& Need for leadership

& Concern for specific populations

& Overextended capacity & funding issues

& Different conceptions of organizational form


& Public awareness

& Political capital

& Sustainable funding

& A central hub for literacy services/information& Including satellite

services in neediest areas

& Education & Training& For network members

& For staff/volunteers

& Data collection

& Asset inventory


& Strong leadership

& Board of Directors

& Common and realistic mission

& Patience and willingness to reevaluate

&Willingness for members to contribute

& Ideally, a nonprofit structure


A strong LEADER must emerge.


Problems identified in previous coalitions


This literacy champion should:& Build relationships among organizations

& Connect varied goals to a common mission

& Lead strategic planning and the push for progress

& Hold organizations accountable for commitments

& Facilitate collaboration and referrals

& Emerge from the community

& Be a new full‐time, funded position


The task force must agree on a COMMON MISSION.


Organizations should be willing to CONTRIBUTE individual resources and time for communal progress.







Average: 2‐5






Average: 2‐5


Such contributions may include:& Funding for a coordinator position

&Willingness to funnel grant monies through a central organization

& Time investments for more meetings, joint services, etc.


Build on relationships formed in the task force

Typified by:& On‐the‐fly partnerships

structures(meetings, listserv, etc.)


Strengths:& Low‐risk

& Easy

& Slight improvement from status quo

Weaknesses:& Low impact

& Lost funding opportunities

& Large populations of needy people remain unserved


Center literacy coordination efforts through a higher education institution

Typified by:& Creating a new position (possibly faculty‐level)

within a college or university

& Significant student volunteer involvement

& Partnerships with local nonprofits and agencies


& Executive Director is MSU professor

& 12‐15 member Board of Directors

& Incentives for students & faculty participating in coalition‐sponsored activities

&Multiple partnerships with public and private entities, including with a national literacy effort

& Diversified funding sources

Capitol Area Literacy Coalition


Strengths:& Credibility &

brand of colleges and universities

& Stable funding and administration

& Access to student volunteers

Weaknesses:& Could be

perceived as overly academic

& University guidelines may generate conflicts

& Poor mission fit


Create a leadership position within the County

Typified by:& Placement within a County department

& County acting as a central point of access, funding, and referrals for clients, funders, and nonprofits

& A 501(c)(3) continuing to act as fiduciary agent


& Established as a "Local Management Board," with board members from the County, nonprofits, and businesses

& Created a position within the department of Health & Human Services

& Key component: ChildLink, a referral & triage services provided by the County & multiple nonprofit partners


Strengths:& Stable funding

& Strong administrative capacity

&Multiple service locations throughout county

Weaknesses:& Poor mission fit

& Financial difficulties

& County may be ineligible for certain types of external funding


An existing nonprofit leads the coalition

Typified by:& Nonprofit acting as spokesperson for the

coalition

& Shared fundraising efforts, with the nonprofit acting as fiduciary agent

& Nonprofit leader coordinating meetings and the provision of services to prevent duplication


& A pre‐existing nonprofit, Washtenaw Housing Alliance, leads the coalition

& Includes Operations Committee with representatives from member organizations

& Different work groups tasked with addressing different areas of need for the coalition

& Central website, organization, and location foster dissemination of information and funding


Strengths:& Strong mission

identification

& Uses existing capacity (with new funding infusions)

& Strong “branding”

Weaknesses:& Heavy burden on

one organization

& Few nonprofits have the capacity

&Mission drift

& Organizational authority/trust


Create a suborganizationwithin an existing nonprofit

Typified by:& Ensure a set of services receives attention

without drawing resources from core activities

& Varying degrees of autonomy possible

&May or may not use existing non‐profit's brand


Strengths:& Separates

coalition functions

& Close coordination between new and existing nonprofit

& Capitalizes on existing brand

Weaknesses:& Complicates

decision‐making

& Difficulty finding leadership

& Time‐consuming creation process


Create a new umbrella nonprofit, which serve the same functions as an expanded organization would do


&Membership‐based organization

& Includes Board of Directors, Advisory Roundtable (represents larger literacy community), and Adult Learners Network

& Opts for strong Board decision‐making, rather than a strong executive director


Strengths:& Executive director

fulfills needed administrative functions

& Does not unduly burden current nonprofit

Weaknesses:& Difficult to find

leadership

& Less credibility

& Time‐consuming creation process

& Creates additional bureaucracy


MODEL III: Variation

Create a suborganizationwithin an existing nonprofit


Existing nonprofit

Existing nonprofit's programs & services

Coalitionsuborganization

Executive committee

Coalition director

Workgroups

Data, research, & evaluation

Fundraising etc.


Strengths:& Community/coalition support

& Can capitalize on strengths of other models

& Strong mission fit

&Washtenaw County's particularly strong nonprofit sector

& Provides the smoothest transition


Key considerations:& Nonprofits will need to broaden mission

& The County should continue its strong support of the coalition

& Further capacity for centralized space, volunteers, etc. will be needed

& Coalition members will need to demonstrate sustained commitment by contributing time and other resources


We see strong commitmentto the success of this coalition

We believe the coalition has or canacquire the resources it needs for success

With the leadership, strong mission commitment,and willingness to contribute to the commongood, we believe this coalition WILL succeed.


This presentation is available online athttp://www.slideshare.net/remnil/literacy‐governance

the leadership challenge: moving towards a governance model for the washtenaw county literacy...

Economy & Finance