Webinar: Lived experience on nonprofit boards

Check your constitution (governing documents), but we don’t know of any reason why not – indeed we would encourage it

We are not really advocating ‘representation’ in that respect. We are more interested in ensuring a range of different voices are around the board table, including those with lived experience of the cause or challenge the charity exists to address. There are many other ways of getting ‘representation’.

Good practice is to declare any conflicts of interest at the time of recruitment and include these as part of the organisation’s governance risks. Otherwise in managing possible conflicts on an on-going basis, good practice includes reminding trustees to be alert to potential conflicts and to declare them at the appropriate times, eg. when board agendas/papers are circulated and in the Chair's introduction at the start of the board meeting.

Charities often use professional head-hunters whose networks will rarely include those with lived experience of the charity’s cause. You could consider approaching organisations who have experience and networks or the Centre for Knowledge Equity (website and resources) or organisations like Expert Citizens who have connections. Social media is important (#livedexperience).

We don’t see the inclusion of trustees with lived experience as being about representation in that sense. We would expect every trustee (with their diversity of experience) to acquaint themselves with the breadth and depth of needs and views of both prospective and current services users.

Often it’s about how information is presented, which should be done in a way that anyone can understand. With current Charity Commission regulations, it is hard to pay trustees for their time spent in the role, but there are other ways to recompense trustees, such as support via a development budget for new trustees.

This is not an issue that only applies to trustees with lived experience; other trustees will often focus on their specialist area and not contribute as much to others. We shouldn’t put trustees with lived experience of the cause in boxes – they have just the same responsibilities as any other trustee and should expect (and the whole board should expect) to contribute to all areas as part of their collective responsibility. It’s about being transparent about the nature and responsibilities of the trustee role and giving support to new trustees (with whatever knowledge, skills or experience they bring) to enable them to be effective in the role and confident about all aspects (even if they aren’t, for example, a financial expert). Boards should not expect new trustees to be fully up to speed right from the beginning but be prepared to support and help them develop their understanding and the necessary knowledge.

It can be hard (and hard for all trustees) when there’s a crisis, but with the right coaching and support (from other board members or a member of the executive team) everyone can make a valuable contribution. It’s really important to help everyone on the board understand how things work and how they might contribute effectively in a meeting. Prior preparation is essential as well as offering support.

‘Traditional’ trustees need support too on how to work with trustees with lived experience; it can be uncomfortable (for everyone) to hear experiences that might be completely outside their own. It can be helpful to find ways to overcome that discomfort and encourage greater equality, for example by occasionally holding meetings where the service is delivered, so that trustees have an opportunity to meet those who are being supported and hear their stories, in a location where those with lived experience feel safe.

Be alert; identify them; call them out!  Have board meeting reviews that address what works well and what could work better. Have an annual review, both of the board (external every three years) and of individual trustees. You will get power dynamics - indeed we want people to challenge each other - but it needs to be focused on improving governance and making better decisions.

Our starting point is that the board wants to learn about different lived experiences and is open to hearing different views.

We need to recognise that lived experience is a ‘knowledge’ just as much as, for example, knowledge of accounting, and to value it equally. It shouldn’t be about introducing those with lived experience onto your board as a box to be ticked (‘because it’s the right thing to do’).

In preparing a ‘traditional’ board for this change, it can be helpful to bring in consultants, such as Expert Citizens. Having lived experience in the room is more likely to result in a diverse range of views being heard which can be uncomfortable. It can be a major change for many boards – having those with lived experience fully participating in the boardroom, is very different than, say, hearing a case study from a beneficiary who then leaves the room.

Boards can overthink the legal requirements of what it is to be a trustee, and you could argue that our model is out of date. The organisation will have an executive with those specialisms - the board needs to be able to hold the executive to account by asking questions.

Every sector/organisation has its own jargon (its own language).

We just need to be conscious of it and alert to the need to speak in plain English. The board needs to hold the executive to account for this by alerting them to wording that isn’t clear or is full of jargon. Get back to basics!

This question was asked in response to the webinar video clip in which Naana Otoo-Oyortey describes an instance when she felt she was going to be a ‘token’ person on a board.

The truth is that you don’t! However, if there has not been evidence of diversity on the board previously then the context of the recruitment could lead you to feel that there is tokenism eg. is it because funders have asked the question? An honest message from the board that we have not got diversity right and are working on this (as part of an organisational value that includes staff) helps to dispel this fear.

This is touched on in another question about tokenism (above). Part of a diversity review does identify:

• What is missing (eg. different perspectives)
• What might be some of the barriers to attracting diverse members?
• What do we really have to look at to improve “inclusion” on our board - not just being invited to the party but also asked to dance?!
• Being clear about skills needed which can be combined with race/ethnic diversity can help potential trustees feel they are adding real value

There is not a specific definition. It’s more about making your board more inclusive overall, rather than conforming to a narrow definition.

In this online resource, we are, especially interested in encouraging the idea of organisations actively seeking to ensure they have trustees with personal experience of the challenges they are trying to tackle (but that doesn’t have to be as a service user).

It could be either.

Only if the funders are doing the same ie. that decisions are made with input from those with lived experience!

We’re not really keen on any specific labels which encourage people to be put in boxes when all trustees have the same legal responsibilities and accountabilities; and not keen on ‘user’ as the word has connotations of addiction; but as we heard in the webinar, if the trustee with lived experience would prefer to have such a title, that is of course their choice.

Totally agree about not assigning labels but if the trustees themselves prefer that title that’s fine.

If the indirect (or direct) lived experience is current, that’s the most valuable (rather than past life experience where the situation may be very different now). Indirect lived experience, such as the experience of a carer of someone with mental health issues, can be very useful.

We all have life experience; we all bring very different experiences into the boardroom.

It’s up to individuals to make the choice whether to seek such qualifications but if they do, they should be supported in that endeavour.

Exactly – thank you!