Week 10: Subsectors II + program design
Oct 26 & 28 · M5. A TA-facilitated program studio and site-visit debriefs, then the second subsector tour and starter-board studio.
This week’s big question
What do a credible program and a working board actually look like? Monday’s TA-facilitated studio builds a flagship program from real organizations’ practices and hears what classmates learned on their visits. Wednesday adds arts, advocacy, and religion to the subsector tour, then builds the board that would oversee your program. Module 5 · builds LO2 (subsectors and operations), LO5 (verified program and governance sources) · thread: data/evidence.
Readings
| Reading | Focus & purpose |
|---|---|
| Core · David Suárez, “Advocacy, Civic Engagement, and Social Change”, ch. 20 of The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook (Stanford, 2020). Read pp. 491–503. 13 pp. | The nonprofits that try to change the rules rather than deliver a service. |
| Recommended · Brad R. Fulton, “Religious Organizations: Crosscutting the Nonprofit Sector”, ch. 26 of the same handbook, pp. 579–588. 10 pp. | The largest subsector, and the one least visible in the data. Read it if your program is faith-based or works with congregations. |
| Current · Candid, “Arts Nonprofits Saw Revenue Fall in Every Category in 2024”. 3 pp. | What a bad revenue year looks like across a whole subsector at once. |
| Optional · Lake Institute, “Giving USA 2026: What the Latest Data Means for Faith-Based Giving”. | The current figures on giving to congregations and faith-based organizations. |
| Optional · Francie Ostrower, “Nonprofit Arts Organizations”, ch. 19 of the handbook. | Read it if your team’s program is in the arts. |
| Optional · Cato, “End the NEA”. | A provocation: should the federal government fund the arts at all? |
| Optional · Pew, “Decline of Christianity in the U.S. May Have Leveled Off” (2025). | Current U.S. figures on religious identity and attendance. |
Session 1 · Mon Oct 26: TA-facilitated program studio and site-visit debriefs
A Rail B studio: your team specifies one flagship program for its new nonprofit. The TA facilitates the case discussion, written worked example, and peer review. Existing programs give you design choices to learn from and adapt. Read Suárez and the Candid piece before Monday; we discuss them in Wednesday’s second subsector tour.
We watch Habitat for Humanity of Monroe County’s “Habitat 101” (2015, 3:15) in class. Discuss these questions with your team and record brief notes on sheet 1:
- Problem and response: who is the program for, and what does Habitat change so those families can buy a home?
- The dosage: what does a family do, and for how long? Which requirement could keep out a family that needs a home, and what is it for?
- Your program: choose one of Habitat’s design choices (who qualifies, what participants give, or the dosage). What would your program keep or change for the people it serves, and why? If none fits, explain why.
After eight minutes of team discussion, read the worked example on sheet 3: the program’s current rules, from Habitat’s own application page, and a labeled hypothetical adaptation. Compare it with your answers. The video’s figures are from 2015 and name no source, so treat them as historical claims, not facts. A program page shows the rules, not the results.
Apply the same questions to your own program on sheet 2: who qualifies and how many, what participants do and get, where, the dosage (how much, how often, for how long), and the intended outcome from your B1 chain. Cite the practice you adapt (legal name, EIN for a U.S. organization, page or section), say what you keep or change and why you expect it to produce the outcome, and name an assumption to test. Teams swap sheets to check the source, the dosage, who is left out, and the assumption. The B1 instructions explain how to cite U.S. and international examples.
Then four classmates give three-minute site-visit debriefs, one minute each on the organization and what they went to see; what the visit showed that the 990 did not, and the reverse; and a question they would ask next. Record one example in each direction on your own sheet 4. These notes help you explain what the visit adds in A4.
Keep the worksheets and share a copy of the program sketch with every teammate: sheet 2 goes into the program section of B3, due Sun Dec 6. Before you leave, hand in a short individual exit slip with your name, one program design choice with its source and an assumption to test, and one visit-versus-filing contrast from the debriefs. Bring your NTEE worksheet, B1 chain, and a laptop. Debrief speakers should have their visit notes and one relevant 990 line ready.
Session 2 · Wed Oct 28: Subsector tour 2 and governance sketch
We start with a 17-minute tour of arts (who pays, and what fell in 2024), advocacy (what a charity may say, from Suárez’s Table 20.1), and religion (why a congregation files no 990). Use it to reconsider one choice or assumption in Monday’s program sketch.
Then a Rail B studio: your team designs a starter board for its new nonprofit. Real boards give you practices to learn from and adapt. Bylaws can show that a seat exists without showing that it shapes decisions.
We start with what a board is for, in WonderLab’s own words, where the board shows up on the Form 990 (Part I lines 3–4, Part VI, Part VII), and what makes a voting member independent. Then we read one Bloomington board in class: South Central Community Action Program (SCCAP), whose revenue you read in Week 9. Its bylaws (pp. 3–5) split its board into thirds: elected officials or their representatives, representatives of low-income residents chosen by a democratic process, and private agencies and community groups. Discuss these questions with your team and record brief notes on sheet 1:
- Who sits there: who holds SCCAP’s seats, and how are the low-income representatives chosen?
- Seats and duties: what could each group bring to the board’s work on policy, the budget, and the executive director? What would you check before calling the design effective?
- Your startup: choose a practice your team could learn from. What would you keep or change for your board, and why? If it does not fit your mission, explain why.
After eight minutes of team discussion, we compare our reading of the three groups and a hypothetical startup that adapts one practice. SCCAP’s thirds follow a federal rule for a nonprofit community action agency’s block grant, so your board still needs its own reason for each seat. Then we ask who sits on a charity’s board where you grew up.
Apply the same questions to your board on sheet 2: six seats, each a role or skill with what it helps the board decide or oversee for Monday’s program; the practice behind each borrowed seat or rule, cited as B1 asks, and what you changed and why it fits your program; four officers, a term, meetings a year, and the first two Part VI policies, with most voting members independent. Name the least-sure seat and an assumption to test. Teams swap sheets to check the practices, the reasons, independence, and the assumption.
Keep both worksheets and share the board sketch with every teammate: sheet 2 feeds the board section of B3. Before you leave, hand in an individual exit slip with your name, one board seat and what it oversees, the source of a practice you adapted, and an assumption to test. Bring a laptop and Monday’s program sketch.
What’s due / prep
- Nothing is uploaded this week. The two studios build the Subsector + Program + Board sketch, one of the sections the B3 Assembled draft banks in December.
Looking ahead
- The A4 Final report (20 pts) is due Sun Nov 15, and from here it’s the main thing on your desk: your org, decoded through the visit, the filing, and the A3 comparison. Next week introduces the values thread, so start noticing what draws you to give and serve.