Individual Board Member Self-Assessment Tool
OVERVIEW : The Nonprofit Board Self-Assessment Tool is designed to help nonprofit organizations assess their board's performance and identify priorities for board activities going forward. We believe this combination of performance assessment and priority-setting is the foundation of superior nonprofit board performance over time. The tool should be used with our framework for nonprofit board responsibilities, which describes in detail the key elements of effective nonprofit board governance. The output of the assessment is intended to focus discussion among board members around the governance activities that will result in the greatest benefit for the organization. The tool may be used by nonprofit managers and board members: • To identify the areas of board performance that are strongest and those that need improvement • To identify priority areas for the board to focus on over the next 1 or 2 years • To allow different views to emerge – the difference between responses given by two groups of board members or by the board and senior staff can be tracked and used to start a discussion Superior board performance across the full range of nonprofit institutions cannot be precisely defined. In order to provide better service to Veteran Impact Services as Board of Director’s members, each member is asked to fill out the seven following questions as part of a self-reflection. Additionally, each board member will receive a copy of this assessment, which will take a more in-depth look at the organization and board operations. The two assessments will be covering the following items. GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSORS The Nonprofit Board Self-Assessment Tool has three sections: 1. Performance of the board (or board committee) on its core responsibilities 2. Perceived importance of responsibilities for the next 1-2 years 3. Quality of enablers in place to support board effectiveness
Name
*
First Name
Last Name
Email
*
example@example.com
1. How do you prepare for and participate in board meetings and committee meetings?
*
2. How do you act as a good-will ambassador to the organization?
*
3. What do you find as most be the satisfying and rewarding experience from being on the board?
*
4. What is the talent and value you bring to the board?
*
5. How many hours a month are you donating to OCB (aside from the monthly board meeting)?
*
6. How are you actively helping set fundraising and donation goals for the organization?
*
7. Please list the three to five points on which you believe the board should focus its attention in the next year. Be as specific as possible in identifying these points.
*
On a scale of 1 being Poor and 4 Being Distinctive, please rate the following on The Performance of the board on its core responsibilities
Common understanding of the mission
*
1. Active and open disagreement about mission
2. Board members appear to share surface understanding of mission; disagreements may exist at deeper level although they have not been raised
3. Board members share common understanding of mission although it has not been stressed tested through discussion
4. All board members share a common understanding of the mission that has been stress tested through discussion
Common understanding of vision (i.e., what the organization aspires to become in 5 years)
*
1. Board members lack understanding of vision is as distinct from mission
2. Vision not formalized; board members’ understanding of vision not aligned with likely disagreement over what is achievable
3. Board members appear to have a common understanding of the vision; vision not documented and/or lacks concrete goals
4. All board members share common understanding of where organization wants to be in 5-10 years; vision is well documented with concrete goals
Use of mission and vision in policy/strategy decisions
*
1. Board members do not refer to mission and vision in their discussions on policy/strategy
2. Board members infrequently refer to mission and vision in discussions on policy/ strategy
3. Although not formalized, board members frequently refer to mission and vision in discussions on policy/strategy
4. All major policy/strategy discussions include explicit consideration of fit with mission and vision
Process for raising mission and vision issues
*
1. Board has no formal process to engage board in reviewing the mission and vision
2. Informal discussion within small groups on mission or vision; Issues of mission/vision rarely raised to board for broad discussion
3. Informal and active discussion within small groups with issues (e.g., relevance of mission) brought before the board on ad-hoc basis when there is enough momentum
4. Formalized process (e.g., board retreats) to foster active board member participation in examining mission-related issues
Process for strategic planning and quality of board participation
*
1. No formal process for strategic planning and little takes place
2. Formal process exists but used on ad-hoc basis; mainly staff driven with very little involvement by board members in developing the plan; board largely “rubber stamps” plan with limited discussion
3. Process exists for developing strategic plan but does not specify the framework for strategic planning (e.g., main elements/issues that plan must address); mainly staff-driven; active discussion by the entire board before approving the strategic plan
4. Formal process for board involvement that specifies broad framework (timing and content) for strategic planning; joint board and staff ownership of strategic plan with some board members heavily involved; active discussion by the entire board supported by needed facts/materials before final approval
Quality of strategic plan
*
1. No formal plan; board members/staff would not describe key points of the strategy in the same way
2. Strategic plan exists but has major holes in one or more of: goals, situation analysis, options considered, expected outcomes, resource implications, responsibilities
3. All key strategic elements addressed in plan; clear linkage of programs to mission and vision; unresolved issues identified for further investigation
4. Robust plan covers all key strategic elements; agreed upon program outcomes are tightly linked to mission and vision and results inform subsequent decisions; clear plan for closing resource gaps if any
Agreement on distinction between board-level and management-level decisions
*
1. There is frequent disagreement between board/individual members and staff on appropriate level of board involvement in issues; CEO/staff feel “micromanaged” or “unsupported”; board feels disconnected
2. Debates, when they occur, usually involve the behaviors of one/a few members; board/staff feel surprises (need for rapid decisions or surprising decision outcomes) occur more frequently than necessary
3. Board and staff have high level understanding of distinction between board and management decisions; all parties believe current model generally works well, but a few notable surprises mark recent history
4. Board and staff have a shared understanding of relative roles (written or explicitly discussed); all parties feel their views are heard in the process; frequent interaction between CEO and Board Chair ensure “no surprises” environment
Select, evaluate and develop CEO
*
1. Board has no clear succession plan
2. Board has informal discussion with CEO on succession and on identifying candidates before need for a CEO transition arises
3. Board has explicit view on succession and works with CEO to identify internal candidates with leadership potential
4. Board has explicit view on succession and actively works with the CEO to identify internal candidates and provide development opportunities for the top 3-5 candidates to “round out” their skills
Evaluation and development process
*
1. Evaluations are subjective and occur on ad-hoc basis; most board members are unaware of process or feedback messages
2. Evaluations performed annually against pre-agreed criteria; board members have opportunity to provide input to process
3. Evaluations performed formally and at least annually against pre-agreed criteria; written feedback messages reinforced through CEO compensation
4. Evaluations performed at least annually against predefined criteria; evaluation includes 360-degree feedback and includes a self-assessment by the CEO. Written feedback includes skill development plan. CEO compensation decision reinforces view of performance
Ensure adequate financial resources; financial needs assessment
*
1. No clear understanding of gaps in resources needed
2. Board has some understanding of resources needed, mainly from discussions around budget
3. Board understands gaps in resources needed for coming year and feels “ownership” of need, given the potential impact on current programs
4. Board works with staff as a part of strategic planning process to develop a multiyear view of funding requirements and trade-offs embedded in different resource levels; board feels strong ownership for the targets
Individual donations to the organization
*
1. Individual board members’ financial support is inconsistent and routinely misses goals set for the board; board members are unclear on collective and individual expectations
2. Board members’ financial support varies by individual; Some board members give consistently; others could give/were expected to give more; expectations for support not well understood prior to joining board
3. Most board members donate consistently to the level they are expected to give; board meets but does not usually exceed “‘donation” goals
4. All board members financially support organization, which is a priority for each board member’s charitable giving; board consistently meets/ sometimes exceeds “donation” goals
Involvement in fundraising planning and execution
*
1. Board members’ role in raising funds is not commonly shared and involvement in fund-raising is isolated in a few directors
2. Board occasionally introduces staff to contacts for fund-raising but no systematic effort undertaken
3. Directors acknowledge fund-raising responsibility and work with staff to develop fund-raising plan and introduce staff to contacts with some frequency
4. Board and staff develop clear plan to meet fundraising targets; board introduces staff to potential donors and drives fundraising activities when necessary
Provide expertise and access for organizational needs
*
1. Board plays no role providing access or influence for organizational needs
2. Board provides access and influence sporadically but many needs not addressed, or support is seen to be of little value to the organization
3.Board provides access to most needed individuals and institutions; access and influence seen as of moderate value to institution
4. Board proactively reaches out to goals and is frequently very influential in achieving them
Board understanding of expertise needed for organizational objectives, e.g., financial, strategic, subject matter expertise
*
1. Topic of expertise not specifically discussed or seen as source of board assistance to organization
2. Board understanding of needs for expertise based on periodic requests from CEO, needs largely determined on reactive basis to need of the moment
3. Board understands needs based on strategic planning discussions with CEO/staff
4. Needs for expertise based on strategic view of organizational objectives; needs identified in detail to allow meaningful roles to be identified for individual directors
Ability of board to provide expertise
*
1. Board does not see providing expertise as a vital role and rarely offers assistance
2. CEO reaches out to individuals for assistance; help generally seen as of modest value to organization; some gaps in available expertise versus needs
3. Board members volunteer/ access expertise and can cover most typical needs; skills seen as valuable to organization
4. Board expertise addresses most needs and is seen as source of distinctive value to organization
Board understanding of reputation objectives and of the role the board can play in building/enhancing reputation
*
1. Topic of building reputation not a priority and not specifically discussed/seen as a board role
2. Reputation objectives understood in vague terms with little differentiation of the message between target communities
3.Board understands key goals and differences between target communities; plan for board activity is largely undeveloped
4. Needs for reputation building based on strategic view of organizational objectives; needs identified in detail to allow meaningful roles to be identified for individual directors
Board effectiveness in enhancing reputation of organization in the relevant communities
*
1. Board plays almost no role in helping build/enhance the reputation of the organization in relevant community
2. Individual board members participate when invited to community events; effectiveness of board activity unclear
3. Gaps exist vis-à-vis some key constituencies; board member effectiveness as reputation builders varies greatly
4. Board members proactively reach out in community to build awareness and excitement about the organization; board members seen to be very effective ambassadors for organization
Oversee financial performance, ensure risk management
Board role in financial planning
*
1. 1-year budgets prepared with little input from board
2. Board actively reviews annual financial plan; investment objectives generally understood, but not clearly communicated to fund managers
3. Board reviews and approves 3- to 5-year financial plan; written investment policy guides actions of fund managers
4. Board’s active involvement in preparing/reviewing multi-year financial plan results in robust discussion of resource allocation, funding plans, and investment objectives in context of strategic goals
Ongoing monitoring of financial and investment performance
*
1. Sporadic or infrequent review of results vs. budget with little opportunity for timely intervention; few board members feel they understand financial reports
2. Board monitors financial statements at set intervals (monthly or quarterly); open issues requiring more investigation or “surprise results” are common occurrences
3. Board monitors financial results regularly; staff can answer most questions and responds in timely and thoughtful manner to more complex inquiries; discussion not as “forward- looking” as some board members would like
4. Board monitors financial statements regularly; key performance indicators routinely reported to whole board; well-prepared staff can explain variances and discuss potential corrective actions; “no surprises” because of trust-based communication with staff
Fiduciary and other regulatory compliance
*
1. No independent audit of financial results or processes; Limited understanding of the compliance required to regulatory bodies
2. Independent audit performed and results discussed between board and auditor; little board involvement with compliance to other regulatory bodies
3. Independent audit performed; results discussed with the board; board reviews reports to/from key regulatory bodies
4. Board ensures timely, independent audit of results and internal processes; board understands compliance required to regulatory bodies; feedback from auditors/regulators forms basis of recovery plan monitored by board
Oversee financial performance, ensure risk management - Board role in risk management
*
1. No clear understanding or discussion of risks/ exposures facing organization
2. Some discussion of key risks and mitigation strategies (insurance), but effort is largely ad hoc or in response to an event and does not cover all major exposure categories
3. Board annually reviews financial and other risks as well as mitigation policies, but surprises regarding exposure or gaps in coverage do occur
4. Board annually reviews potential sources of risk and mitigation plans; surprises or gaps in coverage are few
Monitor performance and ensure accountability
Board involvement in developing performance metrics
*
1. Performance against mission is discussed infrequently with no predetermined goals
2. Discussion of strategy leads to setting programmatic goals for year. Most goals focus on activity levels (e.g., meals served)
3. Board works with staff to set goals for 1- to 3-year period; metrics include activity levels and some efficiency or effectiveness measures
4. Board works with staff to set outcome based metrics and goals as well as activity/efficiency metrics; targets set for 1 to 3 year period. Performance of comparable institutions is used to inform targets
Process for monitoring performance
*
1. No formal process for monitoring program performance exists
2. Infrequent discussion of performance and no feedback to the strategic planning or CEO evaluation
3. Routine discussion of performance against programmatic objectives but no clear feedback mechanism into strategic planning or CEO evaluation
4. Board routinely monitors and discusses the performance of program/organization and uses results to inform the strategic plan, resource allocation, and evaluation of the CEO
Board understanding of accountability
*
1. Board does not view itself accountable to any stakeholders
2. Limited discussion of accountability. Divergent views regarding key stakeholders
3. Board discussion of accountability occurs in unstructured format results in consensus; discussion not turned into action, e.g., stakeholders communications
4. Board identifies primary stakeholders and ensures that performance results are communicated effectively to the stakeholders
Process for obtaining and using feedback from stakeholders
*
1. Board has no process to obtain feedback from mechanism stakeholders
2. Feedback from stakeholders is limited to presentations by staff or “highlights”/ presentations/ interactions with service recipients at board meetings; not all stakeholders represented.
3. Board does receive positive and negative feedback from stakeholders but feedback is anecdotal; board discusses feedback with CEO/staff and agrees on areas of improvement
4. Board has formal process in place (e.g., stakeholder committee) to obtain feedback from stakeholders without filters by the staff; board ensures that the results from the stakeholder feedback are used to inform strategy and resource allocation
Goal setting for the board as a follow-on to strategic planning
*
1. No specific goals exist for the board
2. Board translates strategic plan into goals in an ad-hoc manner and does not assign responsibilities to board committees
3. Board translates strategic plan into goals only in certain categories like fundraising
4. Board translates the strategic plan for the organization into a set of concrete goals for the board and board committees, including timelines and required staff support
Evaluation of board performance against goals
*
1. No evaluation is conducted by the board on its performance against the goals
2. Board informally evaluates its performance on major objectives
3. Board formally evaluates its performance on major goals but no feedback mechanism exists to improve board functioning
4. Board evaluates its performance against the goals and uses the lessons learned to develop plans to improve board effectiveness
Developing a plan for improving board performance over time
*
1. Board discussion of its own performance is very limited and largely unstructured
2. Informal process for evaluating board performance is largely CEO/chair driven and plan for improvement is not widely known by directors
3. Board organizes to review performance every several years; board leadership generally seen to have a plan for improving performance
4. Formal process (e.g., annual self assessment) results in a clear plan for improvement; board collectively owns the topic of improving its value to the organization
Understanding of board composition needed to meet organizational goals
*
1. There is little discussion of desired board member skills/attributes; as a result board composition seems to be a legacy of random conversations/initiatives
2. Needs discussed are largely about how we can get more large donors. Significant gaps exist in skills needed by board
3. The process of identifying board needs is not as strong as it could be, but for the most part few gaps exist
4. Systematic process for identifying needed board skills driven by strategic plan; gaps are understood and agreed to by the entire board; most new board members seem to “fit our needs well”
Process and criteria for recruitment
*
1. Recruitment process is ad hoc; Board is largely reactive to the suggestions of a few board members/
2. Formal process exists to identify and cultivate potential members Candidate pool is generally seen as more narrow and a sense exists that other boards in area attract a stronger pool of directors and CEO.
3. Formal recruitment process with clear criteria in place; Board seems to surface a strong list of potential candidates, but converts on a smaller percentage than it would like
4. Formal process with clear evaluative criteria in place; whole board reaches out to potential members from a wide range sources; recruitment process is continuous and with multiyear horizon; new members are seen as great additions to the board
Diversity on the board
*
1. Diversity not a topic of conversation and no material representation of potentially useful sources of diversity
2. Board’s view of diversity not tailored to the needs of the organization and board has not achieved the desired composition
3. Board understands the types of diversity needed, has a plan to achieve the desired diversity and is on its way to fulfilling it
4. Board understands types of diversity needed for organization and the value of diversity; current diversity on the board adequately reflects the diversity needed
Term Limits
*
1. No clear policy on term limits exists
2. Term limits policy exists, but the board tends to reappoint current members until term limits are reached
3. Although term limits works for the most part, exceptions exist, tilting to either the need for new members or the desire to retain a few exceptional long-standing members. Exiting directors are frequently “lost” to the organization
4. Term limits effectively balance: Need for new members/skills, Retention of valuable directors, Mechanisms are in place for ensuring continued involvement of high performing retiring board members
Process for deciding who leads and for how long
*
1. No clear process exists for selecting the leadership and/or most members do not know the selection process
2. Process exists for selecting/transitioning board and committee leadership; Some confusion within board about process or election criteria or leadership tenures
3. Process exists for selecting leadership at board and committee levels although leadership criteria not articulated. Expected duration of leadership positions not articulated
4. Clear, well-understood, and accepted process is in place to select and transition board and committee leadership. Board leadership decisions seen to strengthen performance of institution
Succession planning and development of board leaders
*
1. No process (formal or informal) in place to cultivate next generation of board leaders
2. Next generation of leaders has yet to be identified by current leaders. Succession decisions result in need for much learning on the job
3. Future leaders are identified and given opportunities to lead. Most transitions are seen as appropriate and timely
4. Process in place to identify and develop board leaders; committee assignments rotated to give board members experience and opportunity to lead; board seen to have a rich set of future leaders
Quality of leadership relationship with CEO/ key staff
*
1. Leadership working relationship with the CEO is strained
2. Board chair has a good relationship with CEO though relationships with staff are under-developed; committee leaders do not interact with CEO or staff very often or effectively
3. The board chair has an effective relationship with the CEO and key staff although at the committee level, the quality of relationship varies
4. Board leadership has an effective working relationship with the CEO and key staff
Effectiveness of board leadership
*
1. Current board leadership is largely ineffective given the needs of the organization
2. Current effectiveness of board leadership group (chair, committee chairs) is mixed, due to varying degrees of skill and enthusiasm
3. For the most part, board leadership is effective with a few exceptions
4. Current board leadership has the necessary skills, enthusiasm, energy, and time to provide leadership to the board
Effective meeting processes
*
1. Meetings often start late and run long; Majority of time spend on presentations to board without sufficient time for board debate and discussion
2. Meetings start and end on time although structure of agenda revolves around CEO/staff ‘show and tell’; Significant board debate on issues not expected or desired
3. Significant amount of agenda is CEO/staff ‘show and tell’; Board has some time to debate but discussion is often cut short due to time constraints. Some members do not contribute, although they could
4. Meetings start and end on time and time is managed to ensure board discussion on all important topics; minimal ‘show and tell’ by the CEO/staff; most time dedicated to board discussion and debate on important issues. Board members feel involved and their contributions valued
Fun and Passion
*
1. Board views meetings as a chore; board members do not socialize before or after the meetings
2. Board meetings are for the most part work driven and lack opportunities for camaraderie building and connecting to the mission; Members don’t mind having to miss a meeting now and then
3. Board meetings are for the most part productive and fun; some attempts are made to include activities to build camaraderie and connect board members with the mission; attendance is typically high
4.Board interactions are productive and enjoyable; good mixture of work and fun activities including effective efforts to connect board members to the mission (e.g., site visits); board members hate to miss meetings
Please add any other key information you would like included in the assessment:
Submit
Should be Empty: