# data[].attributes.body
agree with TEC and Viki ^^

# data[].attributes.body
I think about if we have a broader definition of boards, what we have the capacity to steward/support at the national level (PRISM/NAB/RAB), and for those 'boards/council/committees' outside of this structure,... do their existence actually devalue some of the formal structures we have set up?

# data[].attributes.body
Boards do take a lot of efforts to steward at both the regional & national level. Also challenging and hard-to-measure because most regions don't have roles whose responsibility is directly fully or mostly at board management. So depending on the DOL, size of regional team, this could be a combination of ED, LT, and additional staff member time.
Broader question: do we have a stance on how much effort should be put into this at the regional level?

# data[].attributes.body
As we think about brand perception and implication of that for all 4 priorities, our regional boards could really be leveraged in building more trust with all of our audiences (prospects, cms, alumni, & community members.)

# data[].attributes.body
recruitment/networking with other people in the region who care about our mission and would also improve financial sustainability based on regional goals

# data[].attributes.body
Big driver in regional sustainability especially on the revenue front.
Broaden our reach, and strengthen our credibility in the local education ecosystem
Stabilizing force in change management
Depending on expertise, support program, communication, and general regional strategy.

# data[].attributes.body
I have a hypotheses that RABs could play a more explicit and intentional role in garnering perspective from community stakeholders as an input into regional decision-making. This could be thru the composition of the RAB in which there are parents, school leaders,  other educational service providers, etc. that are intentionally sought out as board members. Alternatively. the board could be the lead structure in engaging those stakeholders and bringing their perspective back

# data[].attributes.body
I don’t know enough about these other structures to give my opinion, but interested to learn.

# data[].attributes.body
This is such a good question b/c the investment is high.  EDs spend a lot of time managing their boards; I've heard it described as "similar management to a function" and I think that's a good representation.  RFE’s spend a good amount of time engaging board chairs & stewarding (e.g. during hiring processes).  Nationally we spend a lot of time stewarding as well.
We’ve spent years trying to help boards understand their role as advisory vs fiduciary.
And we’ve seen concrete risk from boards (e.g. ED hiring)
All to say, revising return, aligned to 10 yr goal, and aligned to strongest results feels right at this time.

# data[].attributes.body
Connection to the local community; boards provide connection, gravitas, and engagement within local community (although boards are only a subset, and generally a wealthy subset, of the local community; some regions have strong diversity metrics that help ensure boards are representative of the community)
Influence within the local community/state
Fundraising: there's a lot w/i this one word, but in quite a few places, board giving/connections are massive drivers of fundraising & hitting goal
Supporting ED growth/development
Thought partnership for EDs

# data[].attributes.body
I believe all of these structure should connect and engage with one another, but that each needs it's own distinct charge and purpose within the regional context. Essentially, the work of everyone in/supporting the region should be anchored in getting us closer to the 2030 goal. My hypothesis is that right now these groups are not in alignment in most regions and many of them lack a clear purpose/charge.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the sky is the limit with this one. I believe there's obviously the role of being stewards of our work and supporting our fundraising efforts. Both in terms of direct capacity giving/getting, but also the signaling of strength that it sends to have a group of local stakeholders supportive of/championing our work. This generally comes up with grants/foundations, but it also adds a level of credibility/legitimizes our work in some places.
Our boards could do a LOT more on the alumni front, from an access, support, resources, mentorship perspective. I think they could open doors and help accelerate the pace at which our alumni are positioned to lead in certain spaces/sectors.
I also think that the composition of our boards matters here. If we are fully anchored on boards from a community perspective, then truly reflecting the community is essential.

# data[].attributes.body
Unclear on this as of now, but what seems a bit out of alignment across the board is who actually owns/executes on regional board work. Sometimes it's directly the ED, in some cases it's an STO/CoS role, and in others its an HOD (or some combination of those 3). Do we have an opinion on how much capacity is needed on board work at the regional level? What assumptions are we making about our centralized capacity and how that should supplement/complement the regional capacity? And do we have guidance or an opinion on where board work is best situated within the regional context?

# data[].attributes.body
> I think we have an opportunity to develop a POV re: how TFA relates to / works in partnership with youth, parents/guardians, and educators (alumni and non-alumni) to shape our priorities and hold us accountable.
> One of the REI next steps is for TFA to launch a community impact assessment to deepen our understanding of the communities we serve. What is the role of boards in this assessment?

>

# data[].attributes.body
My hunch is yes, the resources are worth it- AND we are leaving opportunities on the table. I think both can be true.  I think if we could get more alignment on the question to the right, we might be able to streamline these functions more and get return. I know there are regions where state funding is tied back to board members- so that in and of itself likely proves it's worth- but know that is not the case across the board.

# data[].attributes.body
I could see providing a framework for responsibilities (like we did for regional boards) for other structures that make clear the purpose and hope for those structures (but wouldn't call them boards...maybe councils or some other term).  We can then report on them as part of a "regional snapshot" that the Governance Committee of the National Board will see and regional boards can have more line of sight into how regions are using those structure to help maximize their impact.

# data[].attributes.body
I wonder what their role could be with our alumni.  Seeing the data re: how motivated and inspired regional board members are makes me curious about how to harness that and connect it to shifts we want to make in the alumni space. Specifically, if we eventually provide more of a frame and accountability around all of the alumni and even all the other types of boards, we should think about intentional connection to regional boards and then national board.

# data[].attributes.body
I think no. There is great ROI and don't want to miss that , but when I think about all of my regional colleagues who help manage the regional board relationships, the EDs and time spent preparing and cultivating relationships and those who also manage all of the other "boards"...I think the ROI for individual regions is probably high but across TFA there must be reflections, strategies across regions, people to leverage across regions, lessons learned etc that we are missing. The slack channel is good for helping to make some connections and engaging in one off questions but could see us eventually spending some time to think through what should be the ROI for TFA as a whole vs. individual regions (if there should be one).

# data[].attributes.body
I have a bias that the "board" designation should denominate a structure with a clear charge and measurable outcomes that are clearly linked to the 2030 goal for the region - structures that serve different purposes should have different names, e.g. councils, committee, etc. All boards in a community that are under the TFA umbrella should have a formal relationship with one another and I think that relationship could take different shapes and forms - seating, reporting/chartering, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
I think this is a hard Q to answer as of yet. On the one hand, it is clear that we receive significant and measurable benefits from the relationships we have cultivated with the 600+ folx that make up our RABs - local funds, influence, etc. From my vantage point, it is not simple to connect the dots on all of the investments that have produced those results - change in ED profile, additional FTEs with responsibility for board experience in role description, national resources (governance team + national devo), etc.

# data[].attributes.body
I think an early step is for our team, in partnership with CLE & Anne's team, is to step back on the purpose of these other structures and develop a POV on what structures will be needed to achieve the 10YG - and then from there define the relationship with the NAB/RABs/etc. Each of these other structures (e.g. collective, prism, etc) has its own origin story, seems to be operating fairly autonomously from one another and their specific functions (and impact) aren't wholly clear to me. I wonder what possibilities would be unlocked if we took a holistic view across these structures.

# data[].attributes.body
I see strongest alignment to Priority 4 & enablers.
Priority 4: helping to hone local strategic clarity, drivers of systems change, TFA's brand strength/recognition, and connections across the community for alumni in key roles
Enablers: sustainability

# data[].attributes.body
Ditto everything in the "to date" that Dwayne named above. The only other things I'd add there are 1) mentorship/executive thought-partnership to EDs directly in their own leadership. That's a unique role I generally seeing board chairs playing, but I think other board members likely contribute to that as well, and 2) evaluating ED performance and supporting with ED hiring when there is a vacancy.
Left on the table:
Strategy development. I don't think there is a consistency around how our boards engage in our ongoing "localization" efforts of our 10-year goal or overall strategy. My hunch is it's highly variable across the system.
Deeper community engagement/credibility. I think the composition of our boards (community leaders, parents, organizers, alums, etc) could strengthen our credibility and accountability to our communities, but as of now, I don't believe we have a shared organizational opinion on this so it looks different across the system.

# data[].attributes.body
To Date
> direct fundraising
> leveraging networks to support regions in advancing their priorities (e.g. partnership development, fundraising, etc)
> providing subject-matter expertise & serving as thought-partners to regions

What's being left on the table
> I believe our strategy calls for us to play a more active role in shaping local ed policies. What might the role of boards be in this effort? What does that suggest about the board member profile?

# data[].attributes.body
Amazing to see hard data re: the fundraising support of regional boards.  Some are also a great support to the EDs and the role itself, from thought partnering to helping us with succession planning, recommending candidates etc.
They also enhance our credibility in the region and local communities.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that it is unrealistic for our EDs or national board to shoulder all the responsibility of being larger stewards of TFA In 50 different places. The boards have a UNIQUE ability to partner with the ED and their RLT to spread the word of TFA (be evangelists if you will) in a way that other stakeholders likely can, or will, not. They can be a broader face of the regional vision and mission that will be critical as we move more swiftly into the 10-year goal.

# data[].attributes.body
It is likely my love of linear thinking, but I think in my idea world the regional board would be made up of each of the Chairs of these other boards (and likely other people as well) so that there is a cohesive approach in the region. The auxiliary boards would almost be committees of the regional board, and with having the lead from each of those on the regional board, we could also clearly get to a place of greater diversity on regional boards in a host of ways.  I also think it would just create greater ability to scale good ideas etc.

# data[].attributes.body
I have an emerging hypothesis that we an build on the current strengths of the RAB model AND genuinely accelerate our momentum towards the 2030 goal by re-imagining RABs as primarily sources of deep community perspective and support (vs. source of tactical accountability for short-term goals, compliance requirements, etc). In this manner, RABs would function as a source of community accountability as one of -- albeit not the only - most important and consistent spaces we dialogue with the community about what kids and parents want and how TFA is contributing to the community's vision coming to pass

# data[].attributes.body
When we think expansively about other structures (e.g. PRISM/Auxiliary/NAB/National Board), what should the relationship be between these ecosystems?

# data[].attributes.body
Do the organization contributions to board work match the return on investment by organization (e.g. FTE, sharing of resources)? What are we leaving on the table?

# data[].attributes.body
In service of community engagement & accountability, what unique contributions regional boards are/could make in a local-context aligned with the 4 priorities?

# data[].attributes.body
How are regional boards uniquely positioned to contribute to regional progress? Where have we seen that to date?

# data[].attributes.body
This would be awesome! However, I do think this will require us to have more of a position around the composition of our board (i.e. who should they be? how are they currently engaged in the community)