Centro Presente, a Latino immigrant rights organization, underwent a major transformation in its governance model to become more community-centered and democratic. It shifted from a top-down, hierarchical structure led by experts to a system-wide governance model where major decisions are made jointly by members, staff, and board. This included electing a board comprised of active members. Centro also established membership and flexible team structures to promote community empowerment and participation in decision-making. As a result, Centro became more responsive to its constituents and a stronger advocate for immigrant rights.

1. CASE STUDY
System-Wide Governance
for Community Empowerment
by Judy Freiwirth and Maria Elena Letona
W
H E N I M M I GR A N T S T O O K T O O U R attempts to have the organization respond to
nation’s streets this year to advo- urgent changes in immigration policy that would
Centro undertook a cate for immigrant’s rights, the dramatically affect many of Centro’s con-
country was somewhat taken by stituents, the ED and several board members
sur pr ise. But nonprofit s and knew that something had to radically change.
process to become
unions who have been working in these commu- T he orga n ization a nd it s boa rd were not
nities for decades knew the power and potential responding to acutely time-sensitive problems,
an organization “of
of the moment. One of the groups involved in and a significant gulf had opened between the
this national showing was Centro Presente, a organization and its constituency. Centro’s pres-
the community.”
25-year-old Latino rights organization that tige in the community suffered, and constituents
inhabits a buzzing old cavern of an office in no longer felt connected beyond the practical
Cambridge, Massachusetts. aspects of having paperwork filed on their
Founded in 1981 as an activist organization, behalf or attending their ESL class.
Centro Presente became increasingly entrenched If Centro were to truly carry out its mission—
in service delivery. Although its staff reflected the that is, to empower the Latino immigrant com-
constituency it served, it largely internalized a munity—the organization needed to transform.
hierarchal relationship to clients: staff often This included shifting its focus from service pro-
viewed themselves as the experts to whom com- vision to active community organizing and
munity members came to resolve their problems. engendering a whole new level of community
More troubling was the board of directors, which engagement, including a new governance model.
had also been operating on a traditional hierar- The organization and its executive director
chal governance model and whose members were began experimenting with the notion of system-
not of the community being served. wide governance as one of the options.
This situation had the predictable outcome of
robbing the organization of its nerve endings. In A Transformational Model
2001, when the board’s leadership blocked all In 2002, Centro undertook a process to become
an organization “of the community.” Its long-
J U DY F REIW IRTH , P SY .D., is an organizational consult- range goal was to build power within its commu-
ant and founder/coordinator of the Alliance for Nonprofit nity, and Centro’s leaders realized that if they
Management’s national network, focused on developing were to be true to their mission of community
new models of governance. M A R I A E L E N A L E T ON A , empowerment, they needed to overhaul and
P H .D., is the executive director of Centro Presente. completely transform their governance system.
24 REPRINTED FROM THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY WWW.NONPROFITQUARTERLY.ORG • WINTER 2006

2. Our premise is that the nonprofit sector, above These two conceptions of power are contradic-
all, should be the place that fosters and advances tory and cannot be peacefully reconciled.
democracy and self-determination, and that this There are alternative ways of thinking about
must go deeper than just advocating for its value governance for nonprofits—ways that build upon Do we want
outside our organizations. If nonprofit organiza- participatory principles and that expand beyond
tions are to be truly accountable to their commu- the board of directors as the sole locus of gover- to perpetuate
nities and constituencies, democracy has to be at nance. System-Wide Governance is a model in
its core. Yet, by and large, the nonprofit sector has which governance responsibility is shared across organizations that
tended to replicate structures and processes that the organizational system among the key sectors
do not foster democracy within organizations. We of an organization—that is, its constituents or are embedded in
have obser ved that traditional governance members, staff, and board. It is based upon prin-
models, based on outdated top-down “command ciples of participatory democracy, self-determina- practices of “power
and control” paradigms, still dominate. Such hier- t ion , a nd genu i ne pa r t ner sh ip a nd on
archical structures not only run counter to dem- community-level decision-making as the founda- over others” or do
ocratic values and ideals, they often impede an tion of true democracy. The principles underlying
organization’s achievement of its goals and, ulti- shared or partnership governance are not new, we want to establish
mately, its mission. If the voices of those who are and have been used for many years within pro-
directly impacted by our actions are not included gressive, movement-based organizations. structures and
in key decision-making processes, we too often In this approach, critical organizational and
arrive at wrong conclusions or decisions that are strategic decisions are made together by active processes that
incongruent with constituencies’ needs, let alone constituents/members, staff, and board. The
with our missions. Governance is about power, types of decisions that are made in this way are promote “power
control, authority, and influence. The key ques- those that determine key strategic directions or
tion is, do we want to perpetuate organizations changes, long-term programmatic or organiza- with others”?
that are embedded in practices of “power over tional visions, new initiatives, political positions,
others” or do we want to establish structures and and major policy and/or organizational deci-
processes that promote “power with others”? sions. Some more limited dialogues, explo-
IMAGE © IMAGES.COM / CORBIS REPRINTED FROM THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY 25

3. rations, and decisions are situated in individual organization, and all sectors need to be informed
components of the organization, depending and knowledgeable about them.
upon the nature of the issue and its importance, This model also employs a team structure,
while others are dealt with simultaneously by using members or constituents, board, and staff
the different sectors or in different configura- to carry out some of the governance functions.
Similar principles
tions. All of these decisions eventually feed back Rather than having one person lead the team, a
into strategy-making for the whole organization. board member and constituent or staff member
have been used in
Policy changes, for example, might be discussed form a partnership. To be effective, they need to
large-scale change first in different components and then by the operate within an “open-system”— that is, there
whole group, or by a group made up of members is a continual communication, transparency,
and planning models from each sector. and coordination among the teams, the board,
For some decisions, the broader community and the larger constituency and community.
in which “the whole and other stakeholders are brought together to
participate. This larger group may be convened Transformation in Context
system” joins to make decisions regarding long-term direc- When Centro chose the System-Wide Gover-
tions that may affect the future of a specific nance approach, it knew that reconstituting the
together to make community or a constituency. board would not be enough—the staff needed to
Similar principles have been used in large- change the way it perceived the community.
significant strategic scale change and planning models in which “the Whenever an organization delivers services,
whole system” joins together to make significant power relationships are built in between the
planning or strategic planning or organizational change service delivery staff and “clients” and between
decisions. Two of the most widely used large the board and the community. Centro learned
organizational scale models, Future Search conferences1 and that it needed to have ongoing conversations
Whole Scale Change methodology,2 are based on about what power-sharing meant, what having
change decisions. a few core principles: that you need a wide range more knowledge does in terms of power, and that
of perspectives in order to analyze current experience is just as valuable as expert knowl-
reality and make creative, informed strategic edge. The challenge was also to have everyone in
decisions, and that you need to create peer rela- the organization, without exception, think and
tionships among many different kinds of stake- act as an organizer. Job descriptions were rewrit-
holders to find visionar y ways forward. A ten to include concrete organizing responsibili-
System-Wide Governance model incorporates ties and staff learned to adopt new ways of
whole-scale planning sessions into the regular engaging with constituents. Not all staff agreed
governance work of the organization. with the changes, and some who were not com-
In a System-Wide Governance model, the fortable with the transformational process chose
board is comprised of members of the commu- to leave. Newly hired staff incorporated them-
nity/constituency. It assumes that the people the selves into a new culture and were able to more
organization serves possess the “lived” experi- quickly think and act as organizers.
ence and passion to best move the organization Centro Presente was now ready to launch its
forward. This is in contrast to the prevailing membership program. The membership model
trend of professionalizing nonprofit boards is premised on the belief that there should be a
despite the lack of research demonstrating that relationship of equals between Centro Presente
professional or wealthy board members improve and the community to whom it owes its exis-
board performance. System-Wide Governance tence, that both could be par tners in the
creates boards that reflect and “live” the organi- strengthening of the organization and in the
zation’s mission. process of improving life conditions in the com-
The board may continue to take on some of munity. The membership program provided
the legal and fiduciary responsibilities, while the former “clients,” “students,” and “constituents”
other organizational components, in partnership the space to take active, direct, and ample par-
with the board, will be accountable for the orga- t ic ipa t ion i n t he orga n i z a t ion ’ s work a s
nization’s major strategic, policy, or other issues. “members”—Latino immigrants who were
Fiduciary and legal and other framing informa- willing to be active shapers of Centro’s future.
tion, however, should be transparent within the
26 REPRINTED FROM THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY WWW.NONPROFITQUARTERLY.ORG • WINTER 2006

4. Experimenting with Alternatives roots fundraising strategies and events. Member
In 2004, after working steadily on these issues leadership has dramatically increased as a
for about a year and a half, members elected a result of the teamwork.
new board comprised of active Centro Presente Fundraising has also been transformed and
members. Once this happened, Centro began to become truly integrated into the other work of
Centro’s board
experiment with alternative governance models. the organization. By placing the task of active
Although the membership has final authority fundraising within a member/board/staff team
committee structure
through member assemblies and member com- structure, the membership not only takes the
munity meetings, key decisions regarding lead in organizing fundraising events, but uses
also underwent
mission, strategic direction, policy, political them to help mobilize the membership for its
decisions, and new programmatic initiatives organizing campaigns and other work of the
major restructuring.
have been made by a partnership model—large organization.
ret reat s t w ice a yea r that i nclude active Four years into the transformational process,
Rather than
members, the full board, and staff. Centro Presente is an entirely different organi-
If the whole organization is responsible for the zation than it was when it embarked on this
adapting the
major strategic, planning, and policy decisions, journey. As of December 2006, Centro has over
what type of decisions does the board make 1,200 active members.3 Using this new model of
traditional
within this model? The Centro board now func- governance, Centro has become a vibrant leader
tions as an “executive committee” akin to one in the immigrant rights movement, both nation- committee model
you might find in a traditional board structure. ally and locally, while providing legal assistance
The board is accountable to the membership and and adult education to over 3,500 people. As one for the board,
the larger community. It continues to meet member described the difference this model has
monthly and has decision-making authority over made for the board: they designed a
some issues, such as financial oversight, person-
nel issues related to the executive director, legal This is the most engaged and consistent board
unique, flexible
issues, and other issues that can’t wait until the we’ve ever had! Since they’ve come through the
membership is convened. Similar to some exec- membership at Centro, they know about the
team structure
utive committees, it also provides support to the organization . . . they know the staff and the
executive director as issues arise and it must work . . . they know the issues, and since
comprised of
bring major decisions back to the membership. they’ve personally benefited from the organiza-
The board model is still evolving and will need tion, they have a passionate interest in Centro
members, board,
to maintain its flexibility as the organization con- and its future.
tinues to learn from experience. and staff.
The experience of Centro Presente demon-
Inclusive, Flexible, Working Teams strates that organizations can not only challenge
Centro’s board committee structure also under- their current assumptions about their con-
went major restructuring. Rather than adapting stituencies and power dynamics, but can suc-
the traditional committee model for the board, c e s s f u l l y t r a n s fo r m t h e i r b o a r d s a n d
they designed a unique, flexible team structure organizations to truly be more democratic, pas-
comprised of members, board, and staff. In sionate, inclusive and, ultimately, more respon-
order to be responsive to a fast-changing envi- sive to the community they serve.
ronment and shifting organizational priorities,
the teams were designed to be flexible both in Endnotes
terms of focus and composition and to serve as 1. Weisbord, M. & Janoff, S. Future Search: An
an important platform for leadership develop- Action Guide to Finding Common Ground in Orga-
ment in all sectors of the organization, particu- nizations & Communities. Berrett-Koehler Publish-
la rly for t he member ship a nd boa rd. For ers, 1995.
example, most recently Centro has had three 2. Dannemiller Tyson Associates
such teams—one designs and implements immi- 3. Centro has a staff of 12 and a budget of $820,000.
grant rights organizing strategy, the second
designs and organizes popular education initia- Reprints of this article may be ordered from store.non-
tives, and a third proposes and organizes grass- profitquarterly.org, using code 130404.
WINTER 2006 • WWW.NONPROFITQUARTERLY.ORG REPRINTED FROM THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY 27