Nonprofit Partnerships
Effective structures, a commitment to honor them, and mutual support for self-development can help nonprofit organizations cultivate productive partnerships. Members/clients can be partners with each other and with staff. Staff can be partners with each other, with members/clients, and with the governing board. Governing board members can be partners with each other and with staff.
In these ways, housing programs, community centers, activist organizations, faith communities, rehab centers, schools, and other nonprofits with a regular membership/client base can nurture self- and community empowerment — and serve as models for holistic and systemic transformation rooted in democratic hierarchies.
Our society encourages everyone to climb social ladders and look down on and dominate those below — or submit to those above — rather than respect each other’s essential equality. For this reason, intentional personal and social commitments to cultivate partnerships are valuable. One way to achieve this goal is for nonprofits to adopt a policy such as: “We encourage our board, staff, and members/clients to support each other in their efforts to 1) undo or control our society’s highly competitive, divisive conditioning, and; 2) develop a deep respect for each other’s basic humanity.”
Numerous efforts suggest that the action proposals presented here are realistic. Karen Armstrong convened global religious leaders to craft the Charter for Compassion. Sara M. Evans and Harry C. Boyte have nurtured “free spaces.” Philip Woods has advanced “holistic democracy.” Elizabeth Anderson has articulated a non-paternalistic understanding of “democratic equality.” John Carver has garnered support for his democratic model of “policy governance.” Twin Cities Immigrant Community Roundtable demonstrated how respectful dialog can lead to productive action. Numerous struggles for racial and social justice have made progress with their push for human rights. Effective participatory budget-setting processes have been documented, as reported by Larry Walker:
My company did this with a local Church. All the active congregation members were invited to discuss the overall budget for the year.
Church staff provided the raw input and framework that guided the discussions.
Each budget component was discussed and questions from all were answered.
Alternative ideas were expressed and explored to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Results expected from each budget piece were presented, making it possible to trade funding amounts from one area to another.
The enthusiasm was so great, a number of church members indicated they would increase their donations because they could now see the benefits to come from the way their money would be used.
For more than 50 years, the author of this essay, a self-taught community organizer, has experimented with these and related ideas. The proposals presented here draw on all of this thinking.
In nonprofit programs, power dynamics between staff and members/clients are problematic. Even when everyone seeks to empower members/clients by maximizing their voice in how the program operates, the staff is accountable to a board of directors and must stay within prescribed parameters defined by grants and operating budgets. This reality makes it impractical to always do what the members/clients want. Moreover, members/clients may not always be realistic and without assistance, they may lack access to certain needed decision-making tools such as a sound system. And they may not have the experience or skills needed to make democratic decisions.
The approach presented here is based on the following assumptions. Funders support these principles (and ideally make multi-year grants rather than requiring programs to meet annual measurable objectives, which undermines productivity). Governing boards adopt policies based on these principles and delegate to staff the authority to implement them. The staff forms democratic implementation teams that collaborate with members/clients democratically. Members/clients collaborate with each other, have input into decisions made by individuals immediately above them in the hierarchy, and as feasible have a voice in the selection of those individuals.
The staff also says to all of their regular members/clients/members: We want to know what you think about how we should deliver our services. If you let us know as individuals or as informal groups we’ll consider what you say. However, we’ll give much greater consideration to your input if you, with our neutral assistance as needed, choose to organize a democratic community that’s open to all members/clients, discuss issues openly in an orderly manner, and make deliberate decisions. (We also encourage you to organize your own, independent activities and will support those if needed, as feasible).
If and when you want our assistance, we’ll provide it to the best of our ability. You may, for example, want our staff to secure a location and a sound system for your meetings. You may also want us to take and reproduce minutes that record major decisions, and perhaps reproduce and distribute proposed agendas. We may also help with translation services.
For us to give the greatest weight to your input, you’ll need to operate deliberately, democratically, and in an orderly manner with methods such as the following. All clients/members are invited to participate. Members/clients elect the leadership with secret ballots. Members speak only when recognized. Agendas and major proposed actions are circulated in writing in advance of meetings, with the understanding that last-minute and minor issues can still be discussed.
To make the decision-making more fair and rational, you may also choose to use some or all of the following methods. Pro and con arguments are alternated. Members who haven’t spoken or have spoken less are recognized before those who’ve spoken more. To end the discussion, a member can “call the question” and if there are no objections, the members vote. If there are objections, a member can “move the question” and the members vote on whether to end the discussion and vote. To minimize the risk of divisive splits, a two-thirds or three-fourths supermajority can be required for decisions.
Each meeting can start by stating key principles that govern the conduct of the meeting, such as the principles that guided the Immigrant Roundtable:
Respectful, succinct expression and attentive listening.
Focusing on items beneficial to the entire community vs. self-interest.
Optimizing points of interest rather than arguing about whom to blame.
Teamwork rather than adversarial interaction.
Emphasis on action and inclusive solutions based on good communication.
Pursuing and proposing proactive solutions.
As envisioned here, with methods such as these, nonprofit organizations can nurture democratic hierarchies rooted in partnerships — partnerships that lead to greater empowerment and more democracy in daily life.
+++++
NOTE: This Systemopedia.org essay was prompted by Harry C. Boyte’s draft “Beyond the Vending Machine: Citizen professionals as agents and architects of a productive democracy” on Academia.edu for which he solicited feedback. My comments there led to the “Dialog with Harry C. Boyte.” Boyte proposes “creating free spaces, centers of popular power and public life” where paid staff are "on tap not on top." He’s worked on establishing such centers for decades. He argues that “politically savvy” staff can help “sustain free spaces” and use “their authority to open spaces where people … develop agency.” The latest draft of this essay will be posted here.
--Wade Lee Hudson