AssignmentNP

Prospectus

A Study of Rural Nonprofit Board Governance

Doctor of Public Administration - Nonprofit Management and Leadership

Prospectus: A Study of Rural Nonprofit Board Governance:

Problem Statement

The US Department of Agriculture defined the terms ‘food insecurity’ as not having access to food based on the income-level of households, and ‘hunger’ as the physiological condition of an individual “that may result from food insecurity” (USDA, n.d.). The past chief executive of Providence Health Care Stevens County (PHCSC) and the PHCSC manager of its Community Benefit program, which serves the healthcare needs of Northeast Washington’s rural residents, noticed that many of their patients’ health problems stemmed from a lack of nutrition. In 2011 they funded the Northeast Washington Hunger Coalition (the Coalition), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization (NPO). In partnership with, and supported by PHCSC, the Coalition collaborates with three state-wide, one operational, and 12 community partners to address the issue of hunger in Northeast Washington by supporting and maintaining emergency food systems while tackling the underlying causes of that hunger (N.E.W. Hunger Coalition, n.d.).

The Coalition is a young, rural organization, and is in transition, the age in which nonprofit boards experience uncertainty and trepidation (BoardSource, 2010). Collaborating with 16 partners since its beginning, the Coalition has established its commitment to volunteers and donors in areas of Northeast Washington and built relationships of trust with community food banks and communities as a whole.  An analysis by Snavely and Tracy (2000) of the collaborative practices of rural nonprofit organizations explained that collaboration could enable “society to draw on the creative energies and human and financial resources of all sectors, bringing them together to benefit communities and the nation” (p. 146). As a young organization, it is vital that the Coalition’s 11-member board ensure it has a solid foundation based on best practices. A firm understanding of the most effective form of board communications and collaborations allows the organization to move forward with its mission, and to keep on track of doing what is right by the communities it serves (Locke, Spirduso, & Silverman, 2014).

Purpose Statement

The goal of this study is to examine the problem(s) experienced by the N.E.W. Hunger Coalition (the Coalition) governance board and create a plan for solving current problems using an adult learning framework. Leaders of the Coalition may find their most significant problem is their ability to effectively communicate and collaborate among themselves while facing challenges unique to rural areas that dictate how they can best serve their communities. The Coalition must address the unique characteristics of the rural landscape and the diverse makeup of its board before it can efficiently communicate and collaborate with stakeholders and the public (BoardSource. (2010). Members of the Coalition board include the director of a university extension office, executive directors of independent organizations, ministers of religious organizations, an ex-member of the military and youth advocate, and food bank managers. While all board members have expertise in their respective fields, ineffective communication and collaboration efforts can lead to confusion and inefficient decisions and strategic planning for moving forward to accomplish their mission to address the causes of hunger in their county-wide rural communities.

Significance

Exploring the perceptions, understandings, and capacities of a small, rural nonprofit governance board can reveal the inner dialogue about the unique issues of rural culture and how specific policies and practices can affect positively or hinder the organization’s success (Reitz, 2017). The discoveries can be used to add to the research on rural nonprofit board governance practices and to affect the policies and practices imposed on the small, rural nonprofit that lacks the resources available to nonprofits in more populated urban and metropolitan regions.

Background

While there is much scholarly literature on nonprofit organization board governance, there are gaps in scholarly literature dedicated to addressing nonprofit organization governance set in unique rural locations. The selected peer-reviewed articles address issues that may affect the governance practices of the Coalition:

1. Gose, B. (2011) presents a brief overview of changes in foundation priorities that affect nonprofit organizations.

2. Gunderson, S. (2011) discusses how required donations by foundations could support charitable organizations, but without a way to communicate about and capture those donations, rural communities miss their opportunities to acquire funding to build for the future.

3. Helmig, B., Ingerfurth, S., & Pinz, A. (2014) discuss how the economic view placed on for-profit companies does not transfer to success for nonprofit organizations.

4. Urquia-Grande, E., Perez-Estebanez, R., & Rautiainen, A. (2017) focus on the effectiveness and accountability of small nonprofit organizations in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

5. Vladislav, V., & Gabriela, V. (2015) present distinctions between demand and supply determinants in the Czech Republic related to nonprofit sustainability and three arguments applicable to European rural nonprofit organizations.

Conceptual Framework

Adult Learning theory is the conceptual framework for the study. The level of formal education and training can predict the effectiveness of rural nonprofit boards in Stevens County, Washington. The desire to remain independent and self-sustaining contributes to the board members’ motivation to become more effective. Based on board members’ personal experiences and skills, using a conceptual framework of adult learning can improve relevant issues of board member collaboration and communication among themselves and with stakeholders and the communities being served.

Central Research Question

The three research questions for study are:

1. How do the board members of the rural N.E.W. Hunger Coalition perceive their communication and collaboration skills?

2. Based on the perceptions of board members, what is the appropriate training content related to board member communication and collaboration?

3. Based on the perceptions of board members, how can board training sessions be structured (i.e. scheduling, workshop sessions, retreat, hours of training) to address communication and collaboration development?

Nature of Study

The nature of this study is to investigate the collaborative challenges the Coalition’s diverse board faces that relate to its rural environment. Surveys and interviews will be used to collect qualitative data from board members about their relationships, perspectives, and practices to be evaluated for accomplishing the organization’s goals of becoming self-sustaining and eliminate hunger in Stevens County, WA.

Possible Types and Sources of Data

The use of a qualitative case study research method is appropriate for gathering data for this study on the phenomenon of collaboration in a small, rural nonprofit organization (NPO) (Bromley, 1986). Framed by the researcher’s experiential knowledge as a member of small rural nonprofit organizations, a resident of the community served, and a nonprofit scholar-practitioner, the study explores the perspectives, understandings, and experiences of the rural N.E.W. Hunger Coalition’s governance board members as they work to address county-wide hunger issues.

The design of this study is to record and transcribe interview conversations and analyze participant responses to interview questions to understand individual board member perspectives, and how they relate to nonprofit governance best practices. The issues to be investigated include collaborative policies and practices for the Coalition board functions. The assumptions in qualitative research are that the sampling size is small and is not random, and that inductive reasoning is used to evaluate study outcome results.

Plan to Analyze Data

Reviewing the data from transcribed interviews will reveal trending themes or patterns in board member perspectives. The first step in analysis consists of browsing through the transcripts of all Coalition board members and taking note of first impressions, then re-reading individual transcripts to determine relevant information. The next step is uploading transcribed interviews and notes on observations into NVivo software which will be used to code and identify themes or patterns (Yakut Cayir & Saritas, 2017). The coded qualitative data will then be analyzed to determine how the relevant data are connected. From the coded data, a written summary of the results, without interpretation or bias, will be used to describe the themes and their connection to one another. Interpretation of the results will end with a written discussion and ending remarks. The results from the small sampling size (15 individuals) are not intended for generalization purposes.

Envisioned timeline for completion

The anticipated completion of the PAS is July 2019. Prioritizing PAS tasks begins with reviewing all requirements to get an overview of what is needed and creating a visual aid of the project timeline displaying the dates for timely completion of each task. While the following PAS Envisioned Timeline provides scheduling guidelines, it must remain flexible (green highlights indicate required approvals).

Setting up files folders, both electronic and paper, before beginning the project which helps keep project material and thoughts organized and reduces unnecessary stop-and-search interruptions. Also, keeping a journal of ideas for possible related topics for inclusion into the study, if appropriate, may lead to future research on rural nonprofit organization governance issues. Furthermore, beginning and updating a reference bibliography will reduce the need for hunting to find particular reference information within file folders. Using an electronic calendar (easily altered) will help schedule regular phone conversations times with supervisory committee advisors and setting a weekly schedule with no less than six dedicated hours daily for working on the PAS will help maintain the work pace needed to complete the PAS as envisioned. It is important to stay in contact with family, and the support they give, by scheduling family activities around the project schedule.

Beginning public literature research before writing PAS and continuing throughout the project will keep the PAS updated with new literature. Scheduling time to proofread, edit, and read PAS drafts out loud helps to adhere to APA standards and to better understand changes suggested by the supervisory committee advisors.

References

BoardSource. (2010). The Handbook of Nonprofit Governance, (pp. 15-30, 211-232). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Bromley, D. B. (1986). The case-study method in psychology and related disciplines. John Wiley & Sons.

Gose, B. (2011). Bad Economy Takes a Toll on Rural Nonprofits. Chronicle Of Philanthropy, (17).

Gunderson, S. (2011). How Nonprofits Can Capture Rural America's Giving. Chronicle Of Philanthropy, 23(12), 9.

Helmig, B., Ingerfurth, S., & Pinz, A. (2014). Success and failure of nonprofit organizations: Theoretical foundations, empirical evidence, and future research. Voluntas: international journal of voluntary and nonprofit organizations, 25(6), 1509-1538.

Locke, L. F., Spirduso, W. W., Silverman, S. J. (2014). Preparation of proposals for qualitative research: Different assumptions. Proposals That Work: A Guide for Planning Dissertations and Grant Proposals (6th ed., pp. 91-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

N.E.W. Hunger Coalition (n.d.). Creating a community without hunger. Retrieved from http://newhungercoalition.org/about/

Reitz, M. (2017). Leading Questions: Dialogue in organizations: Developing relational leadership. Leadership, 13(4), 516-522.

Snavely, K., & Tracy, M. B. (2000). Collaboration Among Rural Nonprofit Organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11(2), 145.

Urquia-Grande, E., Perez-Estebanez, R., & Rautiainen, A. (2017). The effectiveness of rural versus urban nonprofit organisations in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Third World Quarterly, 38(9), 2129-2142.

USDA (n.d.). Definitions of food security. Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/definitions-of-food-security/

Vladislav, V., & Gabriela, V. (2015). Sustainability of Rural Nonprofit Organizations: Czech Republic and Beyond. Sustainability, Vol 7, Iss 8, Pp 9890-9906 (2015), (8), 9890. doi:10.3390/su7089890

Yakut Cayir, M., & Saritas, M. T. (2017). Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis: A Descriptive Content Analysis (2011 - 2016). Necatibey Faculty Of Education Electronic Journal Of Science & Mathematics Education, 11(2), 518-544.

_1585820067.pdf

PAS - N.E.W. Hunger Coalition Envisioned Timeline Angela-Janine Crawford A00720815 Project Start:

Display Month: 1

Week 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

START END

Submit Prospectus/Establish Supervisory Committee/Approval by Prog. Director

Register for PAS

Register with MyDR after Supervisory Committee confirmed

Consult with Suppervisory Committee (to be scheduled)

Task 1 - Set Up Organization System 6/1/18 6/1/18

Task 2 - Create Reference Bibliography 6/2/18 6/14/18

Task 3 - Begin writing Proposal 6/2/18

Task 3 - Create Post-Interview Survey 6/14/18 6/17/18

Task 4 - Draft Board Interview Questions 6/23/18 6/23/18

Task 1 - Draft Sections 1&2 of PAS 6/23/18 7/14/18

Task 2 - Draft of IRB Application 7/7/18 7/14/18

Task 3 - Submit 1&2 to Committee Chair for approval 7/14/18 8/21/18

Task 4 - Submit PAS to Tuurnit for compliance review 8/22/18 9/21/18

Task 5 - Submit PAS to IRB App for approval 9/7/18 10/7/18

Task 6 - Upload PAS to TaskStream w/Turnitin & Checklist10/14/18 11/7/18

Task 7 - Submit PAS to TaskStream for committe URR review11/7/18 1/14/19

Task 8 - Revisions to PAS and URR review 1/14/19 4/7/19

Task 9 - Schedule Oral Presentation (teleconference) 4/1/19 5/1/19

Task 10 - Communittee Approval & Upload to TaskStream 5/1/19 5/7/19

Task 11- Approval & begin work on IRB App. 5/7/19 5/21/19

Task 12 - Submit PAS for Final CAO Approval 5/14/19 6/14/19

Task 1 - Schedule/hold/transcribe interviews with Board members9/7/18 10/21/18

Task 2 - Review Survey Results 9/14/18 9/21/18

Task 1 - Upload interview transcripts and notes to NVivo 9/14/18 10/7/18

Task 2 - Analyze theme and patterns 10/1/18 10/7/18

Task 1 - Draft Strategic Plan 10/1/18 10/21/18

Task 2 - Draft Workshop Agenda 10/7/18 10/21/18

Task 1 - To be determined 0/0/00 0/0/00

Task 1 - To be determined 0/0/00 0/0/00

Notes: Timeline is flexible; Holidays have not been included.

Break BreakBreak

Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19

Phase 2 - Draft of Proposal and IRB App to Committee Chair

Phase 3 - N.E.W. Board Survey & Interviews

Phase 4 - NVivo

Phase 6 - Workshop

Break

Phase 5 - Coalition Strategic Plan & Workshop

CAO approval on doctoral study - Projected Graduation July 2019

Phase 7 - Outcome Evaluation (summative) Section 3 & Abstract

Phase 1 - Preparation

TASK

Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18

Fri, 6/1/2018

Jun-18 Jul-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Jan-19