The group is comprised of senior foundation representatives drawn from across ACF's membership, who will meet 7 times over an 18 month period. The meetings, which will vary in format depending on the topic and desired content, will include presentation of evidence (by experts from within and beyond the foundation sector), small group discussions, whole group exercises and visits. The group's full terms of reference can be found here.
The members of the group are: Jerry Wright, Wates Family Charities (group chair); Sheila Jane Malley, trustee of Co-op Foundation and Rosa (and ACF trustee); Steph Taylor, Charities Aid Foundation; Ellie Stout, Rothschild Foundation; Tina Gwynne-Evans, Bupa UK Foundation; Sara van der Pas, Wellcome Trust; Jo Wells, Blagrave Trust; Emily Harrison, Asda Foundation; John McCrohan, Masonic Charitable Foundation; Cherry Bushell, Wakefield and Tetley Trust; Quentin Elston, Mr.Willats' Charity; Lucy Bushill-Matthews, National Zakat Foundation; Pierre M Espinasse, The Kennedy Trust for Rheumatology Research; Debbie Lye, Spirit of 2012 Trust; Katie Le Quesne, chair of Lloyds Bank Foundation for the Channel Islands
Meeting SnapshotsMeeting #1 (December 2018) - Introduction meeting
Meeting #3 (April 2019) – What comes first, strategy or governance?
This meeting considered the question ‘Does strategy lead your governance or does your governance lead your strategy?
Penny Wilson, CEO of Getting on Board, shared her perspective with the group. Penny presented trends and issues on governance, for example the limitations of recruitment platforms and the possible misguided approach to trustee skills, before directly addressing the question framing the session. What comes first, strategy or governance? Penny responded that strategy comes first, and that governance is an effective tool to support and implement that strategy.
Penny posed a series of questions to the group, including:
- Are you comfortable that you have the right expertise on your Board?
- Is it ok for foundations to be different cases?
- Is there a role for foundations to strengthen governance in the wider sector? What are the best ways for foundations to support grantees with governance challenges?
- Is it ok for foundations to advocate open trustee recruitment if they are not practising it themselves?
Penny’s presentation resonated with many, and several other issues came to light in the ensuing discussion.
Board culture, internal power dynamics, and the balance between strategy and compliance at board meetings were all issues that influenced how foundations approached their strategy and governance.
Having teased out some of the issues, group members were given time to explore their own answers to the question ‘what comes first, strategy or governance?’ through visual representations. The group then came together to share their visualisations, which range from boxes and arrows to centipedes and leaves.
Looking more specifically at different foundation contexts, the group divided considered the influence of the founder or donor over the direction of the foundation from the perspectives of family, corporate and publicly-funded foundations. Emergent themes included the need to evolve over time, the distance between the foundation and the founder or donor’s other philanthropy, and the importance of values and purpose in guiding the foundation. There were also questions of accountability, choice and decision-making, with different implications for privately or publicly-funded foundations.
Meeting #4 (May 2019) - Accountability beyond compliance
The fourth meeting of the Strategy and Governance working group considered the topic of ‘accountability beyond compliance’. Accountability has been a key point of discussion in several of our working groups and is emerging as a cross-cutting theme. We were delighted to be joined by Amy Ross, Head of Learning and Strategy at Comic Relief and Mark Henderson, Director or Communications at the Wellcome Trust, who gave interesting and different perspectives on accountability.
To start the meeting, the group considered the broad question “what does accountability mean to you”? There were many and varied responses to this question but overall responses clustered around the concepts of honour, legitimacy, transparency and being answerable.
Through the course of the meeting, the group considered a range of questions:
- What are the additional accountabilities for different types of foundation?
- What should you be doing beyond legal compliance? Is there a moral imperative?
- Does your sense of accountability to these different stakeholder impacts upon your foundation behaviour? If so, how?
- What, if anything, does it mean to those stakeholders?
- What are the benefits of being accountable to certain stakeholders?
- Is it a good thing that some funders have a lack of accountability?
- How can independence affect behaviour and can it be used as a force for good? Can this be abused in any way?
In considering these questions the group made some reflections:
- There is a moral imperative to be accountable
- Foundations should be their own ‘harshest critic’ as a starting point for accountability (though it requires a change your mindset or culture to achieve it.)
- Foundations should consider the impact on our relationship with grantees
- Transparency is important e.g. in justifying decisions
- Foundations should undertake advocacy and tell society what the issues are.
- We are accountable to anyone who is interested in or has an interest in what we do.
- Demonstrating impact is an important aspect of demonstrating accountability.
- Accountability can drive collaboration and makes us accountable to other funders.
- We are accountable to history and need to think about timescales for change and long-term projects.
Meeting #5 (September 2019) - the external context: through the lens of 'power'
The working group met for their fifth meeting to consider ‘the external context: through the lens of power’. The group considered the questions: how do boards consider/engage with the external context (including issues such as climate change as well as the communities with whom they engage)? How does this engagement inform strategy?
We were joined by two inspiring speakers, Paula Harriott, Head of Prisoner Involvement at the Prison Reform Trust, a champion of lived experience and a challenging voice in the sector around power dynamics, and Nicholas Ferguson, Founder of the Kilfinan Trust in Argyll and Bute, and previously chair of Sky and current chair of Savills.
While the Prison Reform Trust and Kilfinan Trust are very different in terms of their communities of interest, scale and geographical reach, both speakers emphasised the importance of working in partnership, putting communities of interest at the centre of their work, having those with lived experience in an organisation, investing time in understanding if and how the needs of communities of interest are represented, connecting boards with the purpose of an organisation.
After a very lively and broad Q&A with the speakers, the group moved on to consider the question, ‘how can trusts and foundations identify their blindspots’? A variety of ways to hear external perspectives was considered, from contracting evaluations to establishing a network of communities of interest to conducting ‘peer health checks’. It was recognised that foundations could still be doing more, and even when external perspectives are sought, there are limits on the range of voices being heard and the extent to which those perspectives are given frankly and openly. But it takes time, complexity, and a supportive culture to engage well, as well as a need for some sort of ‘gold standard’ against which practice can be measured and assessed.
Returning to the central theme of power, it was noted that power can be a positive, for example in giving foundations credibility and confidence to speak out publicly. Often we focus on its negative connotations.
Meeting #6 (November 2019) - the board - whose expertise?
The sixth meeting of the Strategy and Governance working group looked through the lens of ‘power’ at the question: ‘whose expertise?’ The group particularly focused on the composition of boards and the value of different types of expertise, while exploring how current models of governance can be improved.
Members first considered how their own organisations interact with their boards. It was noted that each chair and each trustee is different, so the relationship between the board and organisation’s staff will significantly vary, as will the dynamic of the board. Despite variations, members agreed that a breadth of knowledge and perspective is important and that all trustees should have an active interest in the foundation’s work.
The group welcomed Bob Thust, co-founder of Practical Governance, a consultancy which provides governance support to organisations, networks, movements, and partnerships. Its mission is to implement ways of organising and making decisions that unleash social change. Bob stimulated discussion around models of governance by explaining that the predominant approach to governance prioritises risk aversion and self-preservation.
Bob introduced his concept of ‘permeable governance’, which looks beyond the board at different stakeholders and the governance roles or functions each of them can hold. He argued that expecting boards to carry out all functions sets them up for failure. Instead, power should be distributed between stakeholders so that good governance is practiced by the organisation as a whole.
The presentation sparked a debate around how distributing power might enable the board to possess both professional experience and lived experience. It was thought that taking on Bob’s concept of permeable governance could help organisations shift the composition of its board, particularly towards younger perspectives or local knowledge.
The group acknowledged that regular, free and equal communication between the board and SMT about strategy direction and decision-making processes, as well as a greater level of transparency between stakeholders is essential for good governance. Gathering feedback from grantees and unsuccessful applicants, as well as offering feedback in return, was particularly highlighted as important point of communication which should inform and influence governance.
While governance models will vary depending on the organisation, most trustees are volunteers who meet infrequently. The group recognised that boards often have too little time to reflect in depth on issues around governance and may find it easier to keep doing things the way they have always been done. The group therefore considered it especially important that the board creates a space for reflection, learning, and clarity around the culture of the organisation.
Below you will find a suggested reading list, which the working group identified and considered as part of its deliberations. If you would like to send suggestions to us, please do by emailing Max@acf.org.uk
- Charity Governance Code (2017)
- Governance Action Inquiry (2018) article by Julian Corner, Lankelly Chase Foundation
- Philanthropy delivers an outcome - and its name is Brett Kavanaugh (2018) Brad K Smith, President of the Foundation Center
- Foundation strategy ... the enemy of collaboration? (2015) Brad K Smith
- The looming crisis in charity trustee recruitment (2017) Getting on Board
- How to recruit trustees for your charity: A practical guide (2019) Getting on Board