Citation

Material Information

Title:
Nonprofit Boards: Knowledge, Confidence, and Engagement Around the Provision of Resources
Creator:
Anna, Ronya
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of copyright holder or Creator or Publisher as appropriate]. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Running head: NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT Nonprofit Boards: Knowledge, Confidence, and Engagement Around the Provision of Resources Ronya Anna University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs Author Note Send correspondence to: This client based project is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Administration in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver Denver, Colo rado Spring 2019

PAGE 2

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT ii Capstone Project Disclosures This client based project was completed on behalf of the Art Center of Western Colorado and supervised by PUAD 5361 Capstone course instructor Pamela Medina Gutierrez , PhD, and second faculty reader John Ronquillo, PhD. This project does not necessarily reflect the views of the School of Public Affairs or the faculty readers. Raw data were not included in this document, rather relevant materials were provided directly to the client. Permissions to include this project in the Auraria Library Digital Repository are found as the final Appendix. Questions about this capstone project should be directed to the student author.

PAGE 3

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT iii Table of Contents Figures, Ta bles, and Appendices ................................ ................................ ................................ .... v Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... vi Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 1 Literature Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 4 Roles and Responsibilities ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 5 Board and Organizational Effectiveness ................................ ................................ ..................... 6 Knowledge and Confidence ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 6 Knowledge, Confidence, and Training ................................ ................................ ....................... 7 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 9 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 10 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 12 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 13 Discussion and Recommendations ................................ ................................ ............................... 18 Conclusi on ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 24 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 26 Appendices ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 30 Appendix 1: Pre Training Survey ................................ ................................ ............................. 30 Appendix 2: Post Training Survey ................................ ................................ ........................... 35 Appendix 3: Survey Results Compilation ................................ ................................ ................. 39 Appendix 4: Pre Survey Responses, AC Vision ................................ ................................ ....... 43 Appendix 5: Post Survey Responses Appreciation ................................ ................................ 45 Appendix 6: Post Survey Reponses Improvement ................................ ................................ 46

PAGE 4

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT iv Appendix 7: Training Curriculum ................................ ................................ ............................ 47 Appendix 8: Competencies ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 49

PAGE 5

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT v Figures , Tables, and Appendices Figures Figure 1 : Model to explain board member performance. From Brown, Hillman & Okun (2011). 8 Figure 2: Age and Previous Board Experience ................................ ................................ ............ 13 Figure 3: Planned Engagement in Provision of Resource Activities ................................ ........... 16 Figure 4: Worries about Fund Development ................................ ................................ ............... 16 Figure 5: Importance of the Art Center ................................ ................................ ........................ 17 Tables Table 1: Knowledge ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 14 Table 2: Confidence ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 15 Table 3: Session Usefulness & Requirement ................................ ................................ ............... 18 Appendices Appendix 1: Pre Training Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ . 30 Appendix 2: Post Training Survey ................................ ................................ ............................... 35 Appendix 3: Survey Results Compilation ................................ ................................ ..................... 39 Appendix 4: Pre Survey Responses, AC Vision ................................ ................................ ........... 43 Appendix 5: Post Survey Responses Appreciation ................................ ................................ .... 45 Appendix 6: Post Survey Reponses Improvement ................................ ................................ .... 46 Appendix 7: Training Curriculum ................................ ................................ ................................ 47 Appendix 8: Competencies ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 49

PAGE 6

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT vi Executive Summary This project was developed to assist The Art Center of Western Colorado and its Board of Trustees understand how t rustees can affect and engage in resource provision for the organization . Training on how roles, responsibilities, and engagement in provision of resource (fund development) duties was conducted for Art Center Trustees, and pre and post surveys were analyzed to determine relationships between knowledge, confidence, and enga gement in fund development activities and training participation. Effective organizations have effective boards (Herman & Renz, 2000) , and nonprofits rely on their boards of directors to provide oversight, strategic direction, and financial support (Hodge & Piccolo, 2011) . Within these duties lie a variety of roles and responsibilities that board members are expected to understand and participate in, including oversight , governance , and resource procurement . The Art C enter of Western Colorado , a small nonprofit arts organization in Grand Junction , Colorado, struggles to consistently develop and maintain adequate funding each year to ensure the long term health and vitality of the organization. Existing literature suggests that when board members better understand their roles and responsibilities around the pr ocurement of resources, their confidence in engaging in these activities may also increase. With this in mind, the research attempt ed to address a gap between intervention (training) and perceived knowledge and confidence of individual t rustees . It found that conducting training on t rustee roles, responsibilities, and engagement can improve the perceived knowledge and confidence of participating t rustees , which may ostensibly affect t rustee, b oard, and organizational performance. The research did not, ho wever, uncover clear relationships between those reported levels of knowledge and confidence and the number of engagement activities each t rustee committed to engage in .

PAGE 7

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT vii Recommendations for the Art Center include providing t rustees with intentional and ; refining and delivering ongoing training for existing and future t rustees around fund development ; creating and delivering training materials to cover other areas of responsibility such as governance and fina nce ; and amending bylaws to mandate participation in on boarding/training for new t rustees. Future research could investigate the financial health of the Art Center over time to determine whether or not the organization benefitted directly or tangentially from these or later interventions.

PAGE 8

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 1 Introduction The Art Center of Western Colorado is a nonprofit arts organization that provides a robust array of arts education, programs, and exhibitions to the community . L ocated in Grand Junction, Colorado, it has an annual budget of approximately $500,000, a staff of six employe es, and a board of 14 t rustee members. Founded in 1953, its mission as a community arts understanding of the visual arts and related arts through studio art instruction , educational programs for children and adults, exhibitions, and the acquisition, care, and display of a ("About The Art Cente r," 2019) . As t he largest arts organization in the region, the Art Center is a hub of arts activity and education in a relatively remote part of the Rocky Mountain region. A vibrant arts and culture scene can be critical to the health of rural communities (Anwar Mchenry, 2009) . In fact, the National Endowment for the Arts report, Rural Arts, Design, & Innovation in America: Research Findings from the Rural Establishmen t Innovation Survey (2017) found that two thirds of rural businesses believe having local arts organizations is important for attracting employees . Locally, a 2017 study on the economic impact of the arts in Grand Junction reported that the nonprofit arts and culture sector of Grand Junction is a $17.3 million industry that supports 512 fu ll time equivalent jobs and generates nearly $1.4 million in state and local government revenue s ( The economic impact of nonprofit arts & cultural organizations & their audiences in the city of Grand Junction, Colorado , 2017) . While the arts have a robust impact on the region, reliable r esources for arts organizations remain elusive. The Art Center (AC) is seen locally as a valuable regional asset, and benefits from a strong board of trustees who understand the critical impact the arts have on the community.

PAGE 9

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 2 Despite its dedicated trustee leadership and po sitive community impact, the AC struggles to consistently develop and maintain adequate annual operational funding , and has difficulty cultivating new f und ing sources to ensure the long term health and vitality of the organization . A review of annual reven ues revealed that income levels have remained flat for more than a decade , though the review did not consider the overall ( and notably bleaker) impact of inflation , or the costs of deferred maintenance on the . R ecently , the AC hired a development director to create and implement both short and long term revenue cultivation and procurement strategies , and to develop a more sophisticated framework for revenue growth . H owever, more can be done to enhance fiscal p osition to ensure it realizes its mission well into the future . Because e ffective organizations have effective boards (Herman & Renz, 2000) , o ne such tactic to increase revenues may be Board catalyst of fund development for the organization . However , b oard members may not entirely understand the full scope of their roles and responsibilities in this area . W hile b oard s have duties of loyalty, care, and obedience to uphold while serving as trustees of nonprofit organization s (Brody, 2006) , we also know that nonprofits rely on those boards to provide oversight, strategic direction, and financial support (Hodge & Piccolo, 2011) . Within th o se duties and expectations lie a variety of roles and responsibilities that individual board member s are expected to understand and participate in, including those related fund development (procurement of resources) , because nonprofits must raise money to realize their missions . A review of the e xisting literature suggests that when board members better understand their roles and responsibilities around the procurement of resources, their confidence in engaging in these activities can also increase.

PAGE 10

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 3 While the overall relationship between boards and organization al performance appear s to be important, the underlying reasons for or connection to those strong relationships are less clear. At the Art Center, a recent influx of new trustees in 2018 ( many of whom are new to the area ) only emphasize d the need for innovative strategies to engage and inform all tr ustees about their duties and responsibilities toward the organization . A copy of the trustee manual ( which includ es the bylaws) is faithfully distributed to all board members , though no training is provided to equip trustees with a more comprehensive understanding of their roles and responsibilities , including around fund development . Further, there is no training on how trustees can engage in fund development activities for the organization. Given the financial challenges , the neophyte status o f many trustees, and the lack of any formal training to inform and guide new trustees, the t rustees and staff welcomed ideas for interventions to increase board participation in fund procurement activities. After several discussions over the course of a couple of months, the t rustees and staff determined that a project to educate trustees about fund development would be worth pursuing . Specifically, the trustees agreed to participate in learning sessions on board roles, r esponsibilities, and engagement , and how these principles affect t rustee knowledge and confidence around the overall provision of resources (fund development) , including resource provision activities . The ensuing research attempt s to address a gap between what is known about specific intervention s and the levels of perceived knowledge and confidence of individual board members . This paper reviews the literature on the roles and responsibilities of nonprofit boards (particularly around fund development), boards and organizational effec tiveness, and board knowledge, confidence, and training as they relate to board performance. The methodology

PAGE 11

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 4 section describes the data collection and analysis process for the study, using pre and post surveys. Results are followed by discussion and rec ommendations. Research Questions 1. How do learning sessions on board roles, responsibilities, and engagement around fund development affect perceived knowledge about provision of resource duties for the Art Center? 2. How do learning sessions on board roles, responsibilities, and engagement around fund development affect confidence in their abilities to engage in provision of resource activities for the Art Center? 3. How does the level of perceived knowledge aro und board roles, responsibilities, and engagement around fund development affect future plans to engage in new provision of resource activities for the Art Center? 4. How does the level of confidence around board roles, responsibilities, and engagem ent around fund development affect future plans to engage in new provision of resource activities for the Art Center? Literature Review A review of the literature revealed several themes around nonprofit boards and the provision of resources. F irst, d efining and understanding board member r oles and responsibilities regarding the provision of resources can influence the success of organizations. Next, organizational success can be linked to individual and collective board capabilities related to resource provision and monitoring . Further, knowledge and confidence may impact key functions of board members, particularly around fund development. Finally, the impact of training on board member confidence and knowledge is explored. The reviewed lit erature

PAGE 12

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 5 reveals a gap in understanding how training (or what type of training) may actually impact board knowledge, confidence, and board performance as they pertain to the provision of resources for nonprofit organizations . Roles and Re sponsibilities Several studies indicate that fundraising is one of the most important activities , or roles, of a nonprofit board (W. Brown, 2005; Cornforth, 2001; Green & Griesinger, 1996; Hodge & Piccolo, 2011) . In fact, r esource dependency theory posits that boards are a specific and particular type of resource for organizations (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978) . Rather than acting as agents of the organization, resource dependency theory suggests an integrated perspective whereby boards provide direct links to resources while providing legitimacy, advice, and introductions to other organizations; in other words, board members act a s resource catalysts to help organizations acquire financial resources (Hillman & Dalziel, 2003) . In the l iterature, the specific importance of board member roles and responsibilities around fund devel opment and resource procurement is well defined . Because nonprofits must secure short term (or operational) stability and act to sustain or expand their activities (Bowman, 2011) , n onprofit boards must influence fundraising activities in important ways , including the use of strategic management practices to oversee provision of re source activities (Betzler & Gmür, 2012) . Because o duties cente rs around giving , members with written expectations around personal philanthropic contributions to the organization (Herman & Renz, 2000) . Further , if an organization is considered to be resource poor, Miller Millesen suggests that a board will be even more engaged in fund development activities to facilitate access to necessary resources (2003) . Thus, boards have integral roles to play regarding fund development activities and

PAGE 13

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 6 management , and the literature supports the idea that educati on or training may better equip board membe rs on their roles and responsibilities, particularly around fund development. Board and Organizational Effectiveness R esearch on board and organization effectiveness finds substantial linkages between organizational and board performance, including and spe cifically regarding resource development (W. Brown, 2005; Cornforth, 2001; Green & Griesinger, 1996) . In addition, t he abilities of individual board members can significantly impact the overall performance of the entire board (W. A. Brown, 2007; Preston & Brown, 2004) . Other research supports investment enhancing the skills and practices that help boards to more effe ctively meet their (Herman & Renz, 2000) . However, uncertainty remains around the specific strategies that may improve board performance (Holland, 2002) . Boards are also responsible for creating and monitoring strategic plans in nonprofit organizations. C reation and implementation of strategic plans may positively affect the financial success of an organization (Hu & Kapucu, 2017) . These strategic plans can assist nonprofits to envision ways to expand or sustain programs and services, and therefore improve or stabilize the financial health of the organization (Hu & Kapucu, 2017) . Thus, a board may perform better if board members possess both persona l and collective capabilities not only around the provision of resources , but also around creating and managing the strategic direction of an organization. If an effective board is necessary for an effective organization, it may be worth exploring the rol es of knowledge and confidence as they relate to board performance. Knowledge and Confidence Even if board members understand their roles and responsibilities, th ey may not necessarily have the specific skills or confidence to engage effectively with or on behalf of the

PAGE 14

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 7 organization. As such, understanding those roles and responsibilities appears to be vital to the health of an organization. Nonprofit boards embody four types of role sets: monitoring, supporting, partnering, and representing; when any one type is described as being deficient, board members perceive the organization as being less effective (Cumberland, Kerrick, D'Mello, & Petrosko, 2015) . K nowledge can help boards better provide oversight (LeRoux & Langer, 2016) , as b oard members are inclined to monitor the performance of the nonprofit based on their individual per sonal or professional competencies rather than on other performance measures (Miller, 2002) . icipation in monitoring and provision of resources within a nonprofit (W. Brown, Hillman , & Okun, 2011) . P revious experience on other nonprofit boards may also reliably forecast current confidence and participation in resource roles (W. Brown et al., 2011) . Not only must board members know what their duties entail, they might also benefit from increased levels of confidence about how to engage in those roles and responsibilities in ord er to effectively participate in resource provision activities. Knowledge, Confidence, and Training Board member confidence can impact how members operationalize their knowledge regarding roles and responsibilities , and how those competencies can relate to organizational effectiveness. When board members, through training, can better understand their roles and (Wright & Millesen, 2008) . W hile training may be lauded as a way to improve board performance, only minimal research exists on how that training might directly impact board member behavior (Wright & Millesen, 2008) . Brown, Hillman, and Okun (2011) studied the relationship between training (in

PAGE 15

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 8 addition to sense of community and mission attachment) and board member engagement with resource provision (Figure 1) . Figure 1 : Model to explain board member performance. From Brown, Hillman & Okun (2011). The study asked participants (current board members) to report confidence levels and the leve l of participation in monitoring and resource provision roles. Training was assessed by reported level s of ongoing or orientation training. Relationships between confidence and participation were strong, while m ission attachment provided the strongest in dicator of confidence and participation. Additionally, ongoing ( not just initial orientation) training was also an important factor in predicting both participation (and, therefore, confidence) in resource roles. The authors also suggest that further exp lor ation of how training influences behavior would be worth investigating through future research. It is clear that board member roles and responsibilities around resource provision are important to the overall health of a nonprofit organization. And, higher levels of board member knowledge of and confidence in provision of resource dut ies may suggest a more effective board and organization. O ngoing training around issues such as the provision of resources can also increase knowledge and confidence of board members within organizations. What is less clear is how exactly board members obtain these skills, who is responsible for ensuring how those skills are learned , and whether or not specific interventions enhance board member and subsequent organizational performance. This r esearch will, in a small way, attempt to address a gap between

PAGE 16

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 9 intervention and perceived knowledge and confidence of individual board members by implementing a learning session to examine the relationship between training and perceived knowledge, confidence, and engagement . Methodology Data were collected using a mixed method approach via a self reported survey instrument using Qualtrics® on line survey tools . The pre survey can be found under Appendix 1 and the post survey under Appendix 2 . The learning session for t rustees took place on February 23, 2019 , plus a make up session on March 12, 2019 for those who could not attend on February 2 3rd . The learning session curriculum can be found in Appendix 7. The hypotheses propose that the learning sessions will positively affect both perceived knowledge and confidence, and that levels of perceived knowledge and confidence will have an impact on individual future plans to engage in provision of resou rce activities. A pre and post survey was administered to assess relationships per the research questions . Based on the research questions detailed in the introduction, the hypotheses and propositions are as follows: Hypothesis 1 : Participating in lear ning sessions around board roles, responsibilities, and engagement as they relate to fund development will increas e t perceived knowledge around provision of resources duties. Hypothesis 2: Participating in learning sessions around board roles, res ponsibilities, and engagement as they relate to fund development will increase t confidence around their ability to engage in provision of resources activities.

PAGE 17

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 10 Proposition 1: The level of perceived knowledge around roles, responsibilities, and en gagement activities as they relate to fund development will affect planned t rustee engagement in new provision of resources activities. Proposition 2: The level of confidence around roles, responsibilities, and engagement activities as they relate to fund development will affect planned t rustee engagement in new provision of resources activities. The research questions are descriptive and attempt to explore how participation in learning session interventions (independent va riable s ), impact the way t rustees report on their perceived knowledge and confidence (dependent variables) around resource provision, as well as how the measured levels of knowledge and confidence (independent variables) impact future plans to engage in re source provision act ivities (dependent variables ) . Data Collection The survey population was logically limited to all active Art Center Trustees . Excluded from participating in the survey were the Executive Director (who is an ex officio member) , and the author of this paper, who is also a t rustee. All of the remaining eligible t rustees (12) personally agreed to participate in learning sessions and take both the pre and post surveys . However, one t rustee indicated she would be out of the country during the intervention period , so only 11 of the e ligible t rustees participated in p re and post session surveys. The survey collected mostly quantitative data and limited qualitative data, ask ed basic demographic information, and was administered electronically (via Qualtrics ® ) to all 11 eligible t rustees . The first survey was sent out prior to the learning session, and post surveys were sent after the learning session. For both the pre and post survey s (Appendix 5 and 6 ), p erceive d knowledge was assessed by asking t rustees to report via Likert scale (1 Strongly Agree 6

PAGE 18

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 11 Strongly Disagree) on questions around roles, responsibilities, and engagement activities , while c onfidence in engagement with fund development activities was assessed Likert scale (1 Very Confident 6 Not at all Confident ). Both surveys included a multiple choice question to determine personal support for the mission as reported b y each participating t rustee , and a second multiple choice question to gauge w t rustee about the concept of fund development . In addition to basic demographic questions, the pre survey instrument asked participants about previous experience on other nonprofit boards, and whether or not the t rustee ever participat ed in fund development training. The final section of the pre survey included a n open ended question about each participating t to 5 year vision for the Art Center as a way to tie individual support for the mission into the overall relationship around knowledge and confidence. In the post survey, f uture planned engagement was measured by the number of activities each member plan ned on participating in over the next six to nine months. The final section of the post survey included two Likert scaled question s asking if the participant thought the learning session was useful, and if s/he th ought the fund development training should be mandatory for all future t rustees. Two additional o pen ended questions asked participants to share what they liked most and what could be improved about the session. Internal validity was assessed by having the Executive Director , an outside consultant , and the Capstone project advisor examine and take the survey to determine if the measures ma d e sense, whether or not they capture d all of the intended information, and to determine if the questions and measures seem ed logical. Threats to internal validity are numerous. Trustees (participants) may have look ed for additional information on these learning topics on their own, which may have f avorably skew ed results, as perceived knowledge and

PAGE 19

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 12 confidence could increase due to information obtained outside the learning sess ion. Participants may not have read the pre session materials , which w ould have also provide d a muddled result. F our t rustees had to participate in the later make up session due to prior commitments, acute illness , and the birth of a child ; participation in this later session may have skew ed results despite presenting the same curriculum . Because the data were self reported, p articipants may have be en subject to a testing bias , as they will have participate d in two surveys over tim e. Respondents may have also wished to provide favorable answers in either test in order to create the appear ance of a positive outcome in order to benefit me, the researcher, personally. Last, the sample size of 1 1 was indeed a small one, and the size of a sample can strongly affect p values (Moore & McCabe, 2006) . Because of the small sample size of this study, the significance level is set higher than the typical .05 threshold at .10. Though the set p values may be higher for this project , important conclusions can often be drawn from small sample sizes (Moore & McCabe, 2006) . Because this sample is a non probability sample (all are t rustees within a specific organization) the results are likely not generalizable for other nonprofit organizations . However, the research design itself could be replicated in other organizations using the same or similar learning sessions and surveys. Data Analysis Paired T tests , cross tabulations , and chi square tests were conducted to determine the effectiveness of the learning session, and to examine relationships between variables. Results for the multiple choice questions were analyzed by frequency of selection, and the open ended question s are summarized in order to add dimension to the discussion and recommendations sections of the report.

PAGE 20

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 13 Results Demographic Data All 11 t rustees completed both the pre and post surveys. Five female and six male respondents ranged in age brackets from 25 35 years to 76 85 years, with a mostly even distribution among age groups (Figure 2) . O f the 11 t rustee s , two had previously participated in some kind of f und d evelopment training, and eight had previously served on nonprofit boards (Figure 2) . Figure 2 : Age and Previous Board Experience Perceived Knowledge of Provision of Resource Duties Descriptive statistics were used to provide summaries of the collected data and p aired sample t tests were used to explore each hypothesis. The first hypothesis proposed that p articipati on in learning sessions around board rol es, responsibilities, and engagement as they relate to fund development w ould increase trustees resources duties. A summary of responses for each question perceived k nowledge question is below in Table 1 . P aired s ample T Test s for each k nowledge related variable showed a statistically significant relationship between learning session participation and perceived knowledge in three 25 35 18% 36 45 18% 45 55 28% 56 65 18% 76 85 18% Age (n=11) Yes (8) Previous Board (n=11) No (3)

PAGE 21

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 14 of the four k nowledge related questions. The strongest statistical significance is between pre and post responses for questions three and four, while question one showed no significance: Table 1 : Knowledge 1. 2. 3. 4.

PAGE 22

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 15 Perceived Confidence Around Provision of Resource Duties Hypothesis 2 proposed that p articipating in learning sessions around board roles, responsibilities, and engagement as they relate to fund development w ould increase trustee confidence around the ability to eng age in provision of resources activities. A paired sample T test revealed a statistically significant relationship between learning session participation and confidence levels. A summary of responses to the level of confidence question is below in Table 2 . Table 2 : Confidence Perceived Knowledge, Confidence, and Engagement The first proposition predicted that t he level of perceived knowledge around roles, responsibilities, and engagement activities as they relate to fund development would affect planned trustee engagement in new provision of resources activities , and the second proposition predicted that t he lev el of confidence around roles, responsibilities, and engagement activities as they relate to fund development will affect planned trustee engagement in new provision of resources activities. C hi square tests did not reveal any statistically significant relationship between the levels of knowledge or confidence and the number of planned engagement activities. Unfortunately, sample sizes related to these questions were too small to run regression tests.

PAGE 23

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 16 Howev er, Figure 3 shows that each t rustee surveyed reported intent to engage in new provision of resource activities: Figure 3 : Planned Engagement in Provision of Resource Activities Concerns or worries about participating in fund development may also affect engagement , though statistical correlations are not explored here . Participants reported on specific issues that them , about fund development. The pre and post survey responses are below in Figure 4 . The post survey data reveal that in all but one category selected related to specific worries decreased, including two worries that were not selected at all . Figure 4 : Worries about Fund Developmen t 4 6 1 1-3 Activities 4-6 Activities 7-9 Activities 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other That I won't be good at it That I'll have to make direct asks for money How uncomfortable the topic makes me feel That I don't understand exactly what it means That it's not really my job That I'm not a "fund development" kind of person That I like to stick to programs and governance It doesn't worry me at all What worries me about fund development is: (n=11) PRE POST

PAGE 24

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 17 Engagement may also be affected mission. Selected r esponses about why the Art Center is important to the t rustees differed between the pre and post surveys (Figure 5 ). Overall, survey respondents selecte d more statements of importance in the post survey than in the pre survey . Most notably , in the post survey, all respondent s agreed with to post surveys. Figure 5 : Importance of the Art Cente r Training Questions specific to the training itself were included in the post survey and are summarized below in Table 3. All t rustee s strongly or moderately agreed that the learning sessions were useful, and that a version of the learning sessions should be required for future t rustees. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Other It is a valuable community asset It provides free programming to children with disabilities It brings joy to me and to others Of the variety of programs available to the community Opportunity to create art Opportunity to experience the arts. Access to the arts is critical to a healthy community Why is the Art Center important to me? (n=11) PRE POST

PAGE 25

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 1 8 Table 3 : Session Usefulness & Requirement Discussion and Recommendations Role ambiguity may decrease if board members better understand their roles (Wright & Millesen, 2008) . The change in three of the four knowledge scores seems to indicate a level of increased knowledge of roles and responsibilities for individual t rustees. Th e statistically significant relationship between three of the four k nowledge based questions and participation in the learning session may indicate the learning session provided participants with an opportunity to better understand their roles and responsibilities, particularly around fund development. The outlier knowle I understand how fund development is pre to post survey answers. It is possible that the question as constructed did not elicit the intended responses, as most respondents indicated a high level of initial agreement with the questio n . It may also be that most respondents already felt very knowledgeable about the heir learning experience. It is worth noting, however, that one respondent selected in the pre survey, and that same respondent reported an increased level of perceived knowledge n the post survey.

PAGE 26

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 19 The statistically significant relationship between the learning session intervention and reported confidence addresses Brown, Hillman, and Okun (2011) work on the relationship between training and board member engagement with resource provision (Figure 1). The authors urged further investigation into how training influences behavio r, in order to better understand the relationship between training, confidence, and participation in resource provision. The results suggest that this particular training had a real impact on the perceived confidence of participants. In general, the numb decreased in the post survey. This may also be an indication of perceived confidence as Howev survey that they had not reported in the pre The Brown, Hillman, and Okun study (2011) posits that while r elationships between confidence and participation are strong, mission atta chment provide s the strongest indicator of confidence and participation. The summary of post survey responses to the question about why the Art Center is important to them (Figure 5) would suggest that the learning sessions provided t rustees with a way to more deeply connect with both the mission and history of the Art Center , as all statements saw either an increase in response rates or were selected at the same high rate as in the pre survey. One t rustee wrote that the Art Center is important to them bec ause of T he sense of community within the organization itself (see Training Curriculum in Appendix 7 ). High levels of mission attachment were also evident in t he open ended responses to the pre survey What does our organization look like in 3 (see Appendix 4). The a nswers captured three general themes : growth,

PAGE 27

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 20 improved outreach and recognition, and improved baseline functioning. Many t rustees wrote that they would like to see more : more pr ograms, more space, more visibility. One t rustee reported . Others current financial needs, aside from the desired levels of future growth (2011) assertion around the importance of secur ing short term (or operational) stability to sustain or expand activities . One respondent merely wanted defined in the current strategic plan . The research was not able to determine a relationship between knowledge or confidence and planned future engagement in fund development activities. Results did not show a dir ect correlation between skill enhancement (learning session) and trustee performance (number of new planned activities) as described by Herman & Renz (2000) . One likely explanation is that the overall sample size and individual response sizes were too small to accurately test any relationships. It may also be that the survey as constructed did not pr ovide an adequate way for this type of relationship to be determined. If this training is repeated, the survey authors may want to keep this in mind and examine ways to improve the instrument. S ubjective interpretation of positive comments on the training, and of the reported intent to engage in new activities , suggest s that there may be improved board (and individual t rustee) performance in the future, though such a relationship could be difficult to mea sure. However, by indicating intent to participate in future provision of resource (fund development) activities, each t rustee has agreed to act as a catalyst for resources on behalf of the Art Center as described by

PAGE 28

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 21 Hillman and Dalziel (2003) , which may add to the body of information around what might specifically be implemented in order to improve board performance (Holland, 2002) . Overall, the learning session was well received by t rustee participants. The strong support of all trustees to provide this type of training to all future trustees is notable , as the Brown, Hillman, and Okun (2011) study stressed that both ongoing and not just orie ntation training may be important factors in predicting engagement (confidence) in resource provision activities. With all t rustees either strongly or moderately agreeing that the learning session was useful and should be required for all new t rustees , t he client may assume the learning sessions were a good use of the t . Qualitative feedback about the session was also positive (see Appendices 5 and 6 for all survey responses) . When asked in the survey about what they liked most about the le arning session, one participa nt wrote that us all on the same page as far as understanding necessity for fund development and potential they particularly the cl arification of my role in fundraising, making the process seem less intimidating, and pointing out the many trustee two others commented that the data presented on the financial The comments for session improvement were constructive. When asked what could be improved about the learning session, one participant responded that they would like to have more dialogue with other t rustees around how each person feels about participating in various aspects of fund development. Another t rustee indicated they would like to wait until the end of the fiscal year to make suggestions for additions or improvements to the learning session (for future

PAGE 29

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 22 t rustees). Other s simpli fication of content. Thus, the results of the survey provide a variety of possible conclusions. The data indicate a relationship between increased knowledge and confidence and participation in the learning sessions. The data do not, however, point to a relationship between knowledge, confidence, and planned engagement, possibly due to the way the questions were constructed and/or to the very small sample size analyzed. Attachment to the mission of the organization appears to have increased as a result of the training, while general concerns about fund development appear to have decreased. Overall, the learning sessions/trainings were positively received by t rustees, and all participants agreed that future t rustees should engage in some form of the fund development training. Recommendations Based on the research results t he following recommendations are proposed: 1. Find ways to intentionally and continuously connect all t rustees to the history and mission of the Art Center. Connecting t rustees to the mission may improve overall confidence in board member participation, including engagement in fund development activities. As described earlier , confidence is important to t rustee performance around fund development, and mission attachment m ay increase confidence levels . For new t rustees, providing mandatory training on topics like fund development (see Recommendation 2 below) will be a natural venue for this kind of mission/history exposure. The client should a lso consider exploring other w ays to connect trustees to the mission, such as during board retreats or special events. 2. Enhance and refine the recently developed learning session (training) on fund development. Consider suggestions for improvement per the survey responses , such as strea mlining content

PAGE 30

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 23 to make it less repetitive, simplifying concepts, and inviting dialogue between t rustees to gauge individual perceptions . Also, revisit the curriculum after the end of the current fiscal year to see if any additions or changes should be made based on end of year results, needs, or discoveries. 3. Develop learning sessions (trainings) on other meaningful Board roles . Create training content for topics such as (but not limited to) gov ernance, finance/accounting , and policies . The principles of knowledge and confidence , and how they can affect board effectiveness, extend to other areas of t rustee responsibili ty. P roviding content for orientation or training on these topics may be a way to improve overall board and/or organizational performance. 4. Revise bylaws to include a clause on mandatory training (or on boarding/orientation) for trustees (current and future) on overall board roles and responsibilities, including but not limited to fund development and governance . (Robinson, 2001) . This obligatory training can serve as a way to ground each t rustee on roles, responsibilities, and engagement tactics, and instill confiden ce in their abilities to engage in Board duties. B ecause a y centers around giving, providing written expectations to members around giving is important (Herman & Renz, 2000) . Delivering training may improve overall knowledge and confidence of trustees, which can in turn lead to better overall enga gement in trustee responsibilities, including in matters of governance and fund development. 5. Provide ongoing (not just orientation) training on topics fund development, governance, finance, etc. to trustees. While orientation /onboarding training is important, the Brown, Hillman, and Okun (2011) study stressed that both ongoing and n ot just orientation

PAGE 31

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 24 training may be important factors in predicting engagement (confidence) in resource provision activities. Ongoing training in these topics may build confidence in and knowledge of the variety of roles and responsibilities of the Art , and may also serve as forums for new and incumbent trustees to share information and ideas. Conclusion This project attempted to describe the integral role nonprofit boards play in resource acquisition for an organization. It further linke d the concepts of roles and responsibilities of nonprofit board s around fund de velopment, and how knowledge, confidence , and training can play important roles around the procurement of resources. It was hypothesized that the implementation of learning ses sions w ould positively affect the knowledge and confidence of Art Center Trustees around these concepts , enhancing each t intent to engage in and pursue fund development activities . While knowledge and confidence did appear to increase, it is not known if those increases had an impact on intent to engage in resource procurement activities. Strong support for the mission, however, may have a positive impact on overall participation in fund development both now and in t he future. Action on recommendation s may bring a greater depth of t rustee engagement and a richness of experience to the organization , potentially ensuring a measure of financial stability for the Art Center in the future. While this research may prove u seful as a way to understand how to increase t rustee knowledge and confidence around the provision of resources , and to recommend future training for t rustees on fund development , it cannot predict whether or not these increases will lead to actual improve d organizational financial performance. One might hope that any improvements in these areas would result in better fiscal outcomes for the Art Center , but the limits of this

PAGE 32

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 25 research cannot provide any direct correlations. Future research could investiga te the financial health of the Art Center over time to determine whether or not the organization benefitted directly or tangentially in some way from these or later interventions.

PAGE 33

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 26 References About The Art Center. (2019). Retrieved from https://gjartcenter.org/wp/visit/about the art center/ Anwar Mchenry, J. (2009). A Place for the Arts in Rural Revitalisation and the Social Wellbeing of Australian Rural Communities. Rural Society, 19 (1), 60 70. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5172/rsj.351.19.1.60 . doi:10.5172/rsj.351.19.1.60 Betzler, D., & Gmür, M. (2012). Towards fun d raising excellence in museums linking governance with performance. 17 (3), 275 292. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/nvsm.1429 . doi:doi:10.1002/nvsm.14 29 Bowman, W. (2011). Financial capacity and sustainability of ordinary nonprofits. 22 (1), 37 51. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/nml.20039 . doi:doi:10 .1002/nml.20039 Brody, E. (2006). The legal framework for nonprofit organizations. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: a research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 243 266). New Haven: Yale University Press. Brown, W. (2005). Exploring the as sociation between board and organizational performance in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15 (3), 371 380. Brown, W., Hillman, A., & Okun, M. (2011). Factors that influence monitoring and resource provision among nonprofit board members. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41 (1), 145 156. Brown, W. A. (2007). Board development practices and competent board members: Implications for performance. 17 (3), 301 317. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/nml.151 . doi:doi:10.1002/nml.151

PAGE 34

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 27 Cornforth, C. (2001). What makes boards effective? An examination of the relationships between board inputs, structures, processes and effectiveness in non profit organisations. 9 (3), 217 227. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467 8683.00249 . doi:doi:10.1111/1467 8683.00249 The economic impact of nonprofit arts & cultural organizations & their audiences in the city of Grand Junction, Colorado . (2017). Washington, D.C.: Arts and Economic Prosperity® 5 Green, J. C., & Griesinger, D. W. (1996). Board performance and organizational effectiveness in no nprofit social services organizations. 6 (4), 381 402. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/nml.4130060407 . doi:doi:10.1002/nml.4130060407 Herman, R. D. , & Renz, D. O. (2000). Board practices of especially effective and less effective local nonprofit organizations. 30 (2), 146 160. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/do i/abs/10.1177/02750740022064605 . doi:10.1177/02750740022064605 Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. The Academy of Management Review, 28 (3), 383 396. Retrie ved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30040728 . doi:10.2307/30040728 Hodge, M., & Piccolo, R. (2011). Nonprofit board effectiveness, private philanthropy, and financial vulnerability Public Administration Quarterly, 34 (4), 520 550. Holland, T. P. (2002). Board Accountability: Lessons from the Field. 12 (4), 409 428. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/nml.1 2406 . doi:doi:10.1002/nml.12406

PAGE 35

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 28 Hu, Q., & Kapucu, N. (2017). Can management practices make a difference? Nonprofit organization financial performance during times of economic stress. Journal of Economics and Financial Analysis, 1 (2), 71 88. LeRoux, K., & Langer, J. (2016). What nonprofit executives want and what they get from board members. 27 (2), 147 164. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/nml.21234 . doi: doi:10.1002/nml.21234 Miller, J. (2002). The board as a monitor of organizational activity: The applicability of agency theory to nonprofit boards. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 12 (4), 429 450. Miller Millesen, J. (2003). Understanding the behavior o f nonprofit boards of directors: A theory based approach. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32 (4), 521 547. Moore, D. S., & McCabe, G. P. (2006). Introduction to the practice of statistics (5th ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman and Co. Pfeffer, J., & S alancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective . New York: Harper & Row. Preston, J. B., & Brown, W. A. (2004). Commitment and performance of nonprofit board members. 15 (2), 221 238. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/nml.63 . doi:doi:10.1002/nml.63 Robinson, M. K. (2001). Nonprofit boards that work: the end of one size fits all governance . New York: John Wiley. Rural arts, design, & innovation in America: Research findings from the rural establishment innovation survey (2017). Washington, D.C.: Art Works; National Endowment for the Arts

PAGE 36

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 29 Wright, B. E., & Millesen, J. L. (2008). Nonprofit board role ambiguit y: Investigating its prevalence, antecedents, and consequences. 38 (3), 322 338. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0275074007309151 . doi:10.1177/02750740 07309151

PAGE 37

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 30 Appendices Appendix 1 : Pre Training Survey Art Center Board Capstone Project Pre Session Survey Intro : You are being invited to participate in a research study about the Art Center and t rustee participation in Fund Development. This research project is being conducted by Ronya Anna, Art Center t rustee and graduate student at the University of Colorado Denver, as a component of her Capstone project. The objective of this research project is to attempt to better understand the impact of learning sessions on t rustee knowledge, confidence, and engagement around Fund Development. The survey is being given to all current t rustees except for Ms. Anna. The information you provide will help me understand how t rustees and the Art Center might benefit from learning sessions on Fund Development. Your participation in this study is voluntary. And, nothing you say on the questionnaire will be linked to your identity or be distributed with any identifying details. If you have questions about this survey please contact Ronya Anna at ronyaanna@xxxx.com . Please rate your level of agreement or confidence with the following statements: 1. I understand how fund development is linked to the Art Center's strategic goals. Likert Scale: Strongly Agree, Moderately Agree, Mildly Agree, Mildly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Strongly Disagree

PAGE 38

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 31 2. I understand my role as a Board T rustee regarding fund development (provision of resources) for the Art Center. Likert Scale: Strongly Agree, Moderately Agree, Mildly Agree, Mildly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Strongly Disagree 3. I understand my responsibilities as a Board Trustee rega rding fund development (provision of resources) for the Art Center. Likert Scale: Strongly Agree, Moderately Agree, Mildly Agree, Mildly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Strongly Disagree 4. What is your current level of confidence around your personal abilit y to engage in fund development (provision of resource) activities for the Art Center? Likert Scale: Very Confident, Moderately Confident, Somewhat Confident, Somewhat Not Confident, Moderately Not Confident, Not at All Confident 5. I understand at least 3 ways I can personally engage in Fund Development activities for the Art Center. Likert Scale: Strongly Agree, Moderately Agree, Mildly Agree, Mildly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Strongly Disagree 6. What worries me most when I hear the term "Fund Development" is (click all that apply): That I'll have to make direct asks for money. T hat I won't be good at it. How uncomfortabl e the topic makes me feel. That I don't underst and exactly what it means. Th at it's not really my job. That I'm not a "fund d evelopment" kind of person.

PAGE 39

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 32 That I like to stick t o programs and governance. It doesn 't worry me at all Other (please describe): 7. The Art Center is important to me because (click all that apply): Access to the arts is critic a l to a healthy community. It provides me (or my family) the opportuni ty to experience the arts. It provides me (or my family) the opportunity to create art. Of the variety of programs a vailable to the community. It bring s joy to me and to others. It provides free programming to c hildren with disabilities. It is a valuable community asset. Other (please describe) 8. Describe your vision for the Art Center. What does our organization look like in 3 5 years? Please share your most visionary and candid thoughts. 9. How long have you served as a t rustee for the Art Center? (you can include previous terms in addition to the current term). Less than 1 Year 1 3 Years 4 6 Years 7+ Years

PAGE 40

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 33 10. Have you participated in any type of fund development (provisio n of resources) training for any nonprofit within the last 5 years? No Yes 11. Please briefly describe the type and length of training. 12. Have you previously served on a nonprofit board? Yes No 13. Please select the approximate combined length of service for all other nonprofit boards ( not including the Art Center). 1 2 Years 3 6 Years 7+ Years 14. Gender Please choose one. Male Female Other(s) 15. Age Range Please choose one. 25 35 36 45 46 55 56 65 66 75

PAGE 41

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 34 76 85 86+

PAGE 42

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 35 Appendix 2 : Post Training Survey Art Center Board Capstone Project P ost Session Survey You are again being invited to participate in a research study about the Art Center and t rustee participation in Fund Development. This research proj ect is being conducted by Ronya Anna, Art Center T rustee and graduate student at the University of Colorado Denver, as a component of her Capstone project. The objective of this research project is to attempt to better understand the impact of learning s essions on t rustee knowledge, confidence, and engagement around Fund Development. The survey is being given to all current t rustees except for Ms. Anna. This is the POST learning session survey. The information you provide will help me understand how t rustees and the Art Center might benefit from learning sessions on Fund Development. Y our participation in this study is voluntary. And, nothing you say on the questionnaire will be linked to your identity or be distributed with any identifying details. I f you have questions about this survey please contact Ronya Anna at ronyaanna@ xxxx .com. 1. Did you participate in the February 23, 2019 Board Retreat/Learning Sessions? Yes No 2. If you answered "No", did you participate in the later make up sessions? Yes No

PAGE 43

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 36 Please rate your level of agreement or confidence with the following statements: 3. I understand how fund development is linked to the Art Center's strategic goals. Likert Scale: Strongly Agree, Moderately Agree, Mildly Agree, Mildly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Strongly Disagree 4. I understand my role as a Board Trustee regarding fund development (provision of resources) for the Art Center. Likert Scale: Strongly Agree, Moderately Agree, Mildly Agree, Mildly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Strongly Disagree 5. I understand my responsibilities as a Board Trustee regarding fund development (provision of resources) for the Art Center. Likert Scale: Strongly Agree, Moder ately Agree, Mildly Agree, Mildly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Strongly Disagree 6. What is your current level of confidence around your personal ability to engage in fund development (provision of resource) activities for the Art Center? Likert Scale: Ve ry Confident, Moderately Confident, Somewhat Confident, Somewhat Not Confident, Moderately Not Confident, Not at All Confident 7. I understand at least 3 ways I can personally engage in Fund Development activities for the Art Center. Likert Scale: Strongly Agree, Moderately Agree, Mildly Agree, Mildly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Strongly Disagree 8. How many fund development activities do you intend to personally engage in over the next 6 9 months for the Art Center? 0

PAGE 44

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 37 1 3 4 6 7 9 10+ 9. What worries me most when I hear the term "Fund Development" is (click all that apply): That I'll have to make direct asks for money. That I won't be good at it. How uncomfortable the topic makes me feel. That I don't understand exactly what it means . That it's not really my job. That I'm not a "fund development" kind of person. That I like to stick to programs and governance. It doesn't worry me at all Other (please describe): 10. The Art Center is important to me because (click all that a pply): Access to the arts is critical to a healthy community. It provides me (or my family) the opportunity to experience the arts. It provides me (or my family) the opportunity to create art. Of the variety of programs available to the community. It brings joy to me and to others. It provides free programming to children with disabilities. It is a valuable community asset. Other (please describe)

PAGE 45

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 38 11. I believe the learning sessions on Board Fund Development were useful. Likert Scale: Strongly A gree, Moderately Agree, Mildly Agree, Mildly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Strongly Disagree 12. I believe requiring participation in a Learning Session on Board Fund Development would be useful for new t rustees who join the Art Center's Board. Likert Scale: Strongly Agree, Moderately Agree, Mildly Agree, Mildly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Strongly Disagree 13. What did you like or appreciate most about the Learning Sessions? 14. What could be improved about the Learning Sessions?

PAGE 46

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 39 Appendix 3 : Survey Results Compilation Pre Survey Demographic Pre Survey Board Service and Fund Development Training Participation

PAGE 47

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 40 Pre and Post Survey Knowledge and Confidence

PAGE 48

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 41 Pre and Post Survey Worries and Importance

PAGE 49

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 42 Post Survey Only Number of Planned new Engagement Activities Post Survey Only Importance of Learning Session and Mandatory Future Trustee Training

PAGE 50

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 43 Appendix 4 : Pre Survey Responses , AC Vision Pre Survey: Survey question responses to What does our organization look like in 3 5 years? (n=11) 1. I hope we are well on our way to building an arts and cultural center that houses several community non profits. I hope the Art Center is recognized as a valued community asset. I want a new facility with enough space to accommodate our many needs. I want an Art Center we can be proud of. At present, I am concerned for the future of our Art Center. 2. A vibrant self sustaining center with continuous funding to cover baseline function and any additional funding via grants and donations being put towards improvements and growth . 3. It aligns with what is defi ned in the current strategic plan. 4. In addition to serving its existing clientele, in 3 5 years I would hope that the Art Center is recognized and utilized by a broader swath of the community (i.e., younger singles and families) as a vibrant hub to experien ce and create art. 5. That we would have strong support from the community. The ED will be self directed. 6. I envision the Art Center being recognized, respected, and utilized throughout the community. I hope the vision of an arts campus will be on its way to b ecoming reality. 7. Hopefully a larger more efficient building in an area that involves a campus of other facil i t i es . 8. A larger facility with even greater hands on activities for kids and adults in a variety of mediums.

PAGE 51

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 44 9. I would like to see the move to downtown to bring us into alignment with w here the "action" is happening. I'd like to see us diversify our artistic output to attract younger audiences (by which I mean under 60). I would like us to bring in more exciting, compelling exhibitions from across the co untry. I would like to see our collections exhibited across the country. I would like to see the Art Center take its place as a major artistic entity on the Western Slope and the entire state. 10. Improved outreach to a broader community in the Valley. I feel we do not position ourselves to make more of an impact, outside of our regular demographic . 11. More variety of programs than now. Program marketing to different types of interests. More outreach to participants, e. g., students of all ages, veterans and senior citizens.

PAGE 52

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 45 Appendix 5 : Post Survey Responses Appreciation Post 1. It helps unite the board and put us all o n the same page as far as understanding necessity for fund development and potential strategies about it. 2. The brevity and specificity used in delivering the information. The valuable information it provided. 3. Clarity of presentation . 4. Organized, comprehensiv e presentation . 5. T he clarification of my role in fundraising. making the process seem less intimid a ting, and pointing out the many ways to approach it, and use those that are comfortable to me. 6. L earning about the variety of ways that fund development happens . 7. That the A rt C enter has not moved forward in many years, as we have stayed stagnant in fund development and income. 8. T he research that was provided on the financials was eye opening . 9. "Menu of Options" Exercise . 10. The clarification of fund development and fund raising. Well organized presentation. Excellent facilitating. I feel it was a valuable use of my time.

PAGE 53

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 46 Appendix 6 : Post Survey Reponses Improvement Post roved about the Learning 1. Not sure. 2. So far so good I may think of things at the end of fiscal year that I would also like to see added; but at this time, I think it included all necessary information . 3. Simplify content . 4. Repetition . 5. Beer and wine . 6. The second session, with practical action steps, was much more helpful to me than our first meeting on the topic. Perhaps combine them for efficiency? 7. It was upbeat and informative. Perhaps learning how some of the other trustees feel about their participation in different aspects. 8. N one at this time .

PAGE 54

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 47 Appendix 7 : Training Curriculum Learning session content: Session content was and Development Directors of the Art Center, and a volunteer facilitator familiar with the Art Center. This facilitator has more than 30 years of successful board development, fund development, and capital campaig n experience in the Front Range and throughout the country. The session content was based largely on the expressed needs of the Executive Director & Development Director, with input from the Board Chair; additionally, the facilitator provided professiona was adapted from previous materials, as there was no reasonable way to develop original material in the time allotted; further, there is so much content to mine in this particul ar field that it was unlikely original material could have been meaningfully developed. Session content was structured as follows: 1. Building emotional case for support History and mission of the Art Center 2. Review of current Bylaws re: Trustee expectatio ns around engagement in f und d evelopment o Competency: knowledge of the Bylaws regarding roles & responsibilities around f und d evelopment 3. Board Roles & Responsibilities a deeper review, including some academic literature (brief) o Competency: knowledge o f personal roles & responsibilities around f und d evelopment. 4. Strategic plan review: Fund Development. What are our goals and how do we get there? o Interactive

PAGE 55

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 48 o Competency: knowledge of how roles and responsibilities around f und d evelopment are linked to specific goals in the strategic plan. 5. Historical revenue realities how have revenues and budgets changed over the past 10 3 5 year vision and miss ion implementation? o Competency: knowledge of why revenues matter for future mission implementation (strategic plan). o Competency: confidence in understanding funding sources. 6. Where does that revenue come from? Current state of funding sources and categories, including expenses & revenues o Description of revenue sources and expense categories o Competency: knowledge of revenue streams o Competency: confidence in understanding reve nue streams. 7. Foundation and Guild what are they? (Foundation: endowment/long term vs Guild: short term operational fundraising) o Competencies: knowledge and confidence around internal f und d evelopment activities. 8. How to: Menu (toolkit) of fund development activity options & resources + examples o Competency: knowledge of ways to engage in f und d evelopment activities. o Competency: confidence around ability to engage in f und d evelopment activities. 9. Personal goals articipate in these activities over the next 6 9 months ? o D

PAGE 56

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 49 Appendix 8 : Competencies The project demonstrate d the following program com petencies and sub competencies: Competency #1: To lead and manage in public governance . I used the principles described in this competency to work within a nonprofit organization. Understanding how nonprofits ostensibly provide a set of public goods to the community w as useful to understand community and its board. While working with Art Center staff and trustees to determine an appropriate project, I was grateful how previous coursework grounded me in organizational theory and behavior and help ed guide me through those discussions. I was also able to apply theories of leadership to motive t rustees and staff and build support for the proposed project. These leadership principles also helped establish rapport and buy in from all involved parties, which in turn made the implementation of the project a success. Competency #3: To analyze, synthesize, think critically, solve problems and make decisions . To carry out the project and craft the appropriate research questions required an extensive literature review to determine relevant relationship and gaps in the subject matter. I also had to determine the appropriate research methods and analytical tools would be needed t o answer the research questions as posed and carry out the surveys and subsequent analyses. Those analyses enabled me to draw (hopefully) appropriate conclusions and develop recommendations based on critical assessment of those results, with the understan ding that there are multiple perspectives within any organization, and that not every recommendation will be considered. Competency # 5 : To communicate and interact productively with a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry . As with the work describ ed under Competency #1, the

PAGE 57

NONPROFIT BOARDS: KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, AND ENGAGEMENT 50 project required extensive teamwork and partnerships with both staff, t rustees, and an outside consultant. Effective and consistent written and oral communication s w ere critical to achieve buy in from all parties; likewise, I e ngaged those parties to better understand their particular needs or limitations in order to produce the best possible pr oject.

PAGE 58

Form Name: capstone repository permission Submission Time: May 15, 2019 5:45 pm Browser: Chrome 74.0.3729.157 / Windows 7 IP Address: 184.166.218.144 Unique ID: 505033939 Location: 39.063899993896, -108.55069732666 Description Area SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELECTRONIC CAPSTONE REPOSITORY Description Area Dear Capstone Author and Capstone Client:The Auraria Library Digital Library Program is a nonprofit center responsible for the collection and preservation of digital resources for education.The capstone project, protected by your copyright, and/or created under the supervision of the client has been identified as important to the educational mission of the University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library.The University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library respectfully requests non-exclusive rights to digitize the capstone project for Internet distribution in image and text formats for an unlimited term. Digitized versions will be made available via the Internet, for onand off-line educational use, with a statement identifying your rights as copyright holder and the terms of the grant of permissions.Please review, sign and return the follow Grant of Permissions. Please do not hesitate to call me or email your questions.Sincerely,Matthew C. MarinerAuraria LibraryDigital Collections ManagerMatthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303.556.5817 Grant of Permissions Description Area In reference to the following title(s): Author (Student Name) Ronya Anna Title (Capstone Project Title) Nonprofit Boards: Knowledge, Confidence, and Engagement Around the Provision of Resources Publication Date 2019 I am the: Client Description Area As client of the copyright holder affirm that the content submitted is identical to that which was originally supervised and that the content is suitable for publication in the Auraria Library Digital Collections.

PAGE 59

Description Area This is a non-exclusive grant of permissions for on-line and off-line use for an indefinite term. Off-line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate imageand text-based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search software. This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit. Signature Your Name Lee Borden Date 5/15/2019 Email Address lborden@gjartcenter.org ATTENTION Description Area Grant of Permissions is provided to: Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. MarinerAuraria Library1100 Lawrence | Denver, CO 80204matthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303-556-5817

PAGE 60

Form Name: capstone repository permission Submission Time: May 15, 2019 5:44 pm Browser: Safari 12.1 / OS X IP Address: 184.166.34.219 Unique ID: 505033690 Location: 39.063899993896, -108.55069732666 Description Area SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELECTRONIC CAPSTONE REPOSITORY Description Area Dear Capstone Author and Capstone Client:The Auraria Library Digital Library Program is a nonprofit center responsible for the collection and preservation of digital resources for education.The capstone project, protected by your copyright, and/or created under the supervision of the client has been identified as important to the educational mission of the University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library.The University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library respectfully requests non-exclusive rights to digitize the capstone project for Internet distribution in image and text formats for an unlimited term. Digitized versions will be made available via the Internet, for onand off-line educational use, with a statement identifying your rights as copyright holder and the terms of the grant of permissions.Please review, sign and return the follow Grant of Permissions. Please do not hesitate to call me or email your questions.Sincerely,Matthew C. MarinerAuraria LibraryDigital Collections ManagerMatthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303.556.5817 Grant of Permissions Description Area In reference to the following title(s): Author (Student Name) Ronya Anna Title (Capstone Project Title) Nonprofit boards: Knowledge, confidence, and engagement around the provision of resources Publication Date 2019 I am the: Author (student) Description Area As copyright holder or licensee with the authority to grant copyright permissions for the aforementioned title(s), I hereby authorize Auraria Library and University of Colorado Denver to digitize, distribute, and archive the title(s) for nonprofit, educational purposes via the Internet or successive technologies.

PAGE 61

Description Area This is a non-exclusive grant of permissions for on-line and off-line use for an indefinite term. Off-line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate imageand text-based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search software. This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit. Signature Your Name Ronya Anna Date 15 May 2019 Email Address ronyaanna@gmail.com ATTENTION Description Area Grant of Permissions is provided to: Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. MarinerAuraria Library1100 Lawrence | Denver, CO 80204matthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303-556-5817