I currently lead a YMCA Branch Community Council. We are literally this week interviewing new Council members. We have been hoping to get a cross section of the community on our team- and so far that has happened. Each candidate has a passion for an aspect of our work and wants to dig in and help.
There were some larger financial problems around 2020 - yes. On the other hand what I call the "Mother Ship" sends out sensible programs and events, and the mission and vision seems on target. We get good support with fundraising and there is a major current investment in our inner -city infrastructure. I know for a fact our best branch leader came from an inner-city Y.
Given the staffing situation - we made a decision to focus the volunteer council on external relations - constant meetings with community partners and local government. The staff is heads down on guest experience + safety -our large pool facility is crazy busy with swim lessons (many scholarships) and our childcare + youth programs this season.
One bit of your advice I love- General Boards can be seduced by the idea of consultants and expensive outside leadership hiring. This need to be banned- if you want to lead the Y you need to care enough to not need the $2M. For nonprofits, a seven or eight figure "rockstar" CEO/President/consultant should be characterized as a large block of concrete and not a life ring thrown to a drowning person in the water.
The Branch Community Council model you're describing is what the governance section argues for. Specific people, specific programs, specific community, specific work. Dividing the council toward external relations while staff handles operations and guest experience is sensible. The scholarship swim lessons and inner-city infrastructure investment are real, and the article acknowledges that well-run affiliates exist. The problem is network inconsistency, and the national structure does not do enough to pull struggling affiliates up to the standard the good ones set.
Your point on executive compensation is the best version of that argument in the piece. A seven-figure nonprofit CEO is basically large block of concrete dragging the organization down.
I currently lead a YMCA Branch Community Council. We are literally this week interviewing new Council members. We have been hoping to get a cross section of the community on our team- and so far that has happened. Each candidate has a passion for an aspect of our work and wants to dig in and help.
There were some larger financial problems around 2020 - yes. On the other hand what I call the "Mother Ship" sends out sensible programs and events, and the mission and vision seems on target. We get good support with fundraising and there is a major current investment in our inner -city infrastructure. I know for a fact our best branch leader came from an inner-city Y.
Given the staffing situation - we made a decision to focus the volunteer council on external relations - constant meetings with community partners and local government. The staff is heads down on guest experience + safety -our large pool facility is crazy busy with swim lessons (many scholarships) and our childcare + youth programs this season.
One bit of your advice I love- General Boards can be seduced by the idea of consultants and expensive outside leadership hiring. This need to be banned- if you want to lead the Y you need to care enough to not need the $2M. For nonprofits, a seven or eight figure "rockstar" CEO/President/consultant should be characterized as a large block of concrete and not a life ring thrown to a drowning person in the water.
The Branch Community Council model you're describing is what the governance section argues for. Specific people, specific programs, specific community, specific work. Dividing the council toward external relations while staff handles operations and guest experience is sensible. The scholarship swim lessons and inner-city infrastructure investment are real, and the article acknowledges that well-run affiliates exist. The problem is network inconsistency, and the national structure does not do enough to pull struggling affiliates up to the standard the good ones set.
Your point on executive compensation is the best version of that argument in the piece. A seven-figure nonprofit CEO is basically large block of concrete dragging the organization down.