Exploring Relationship Possibilities:
The National Dialogue between NAEYC and Affiliates:
A Working Draft of a White Paper for the Affiliate Network
Power in organizations is the capacity generated by
relationship. What gives power its charge–positive or negative–
is the quality of the relationship.
Margaret J. Wheatley, A Simpler Way, 1996
Prepared by Gwen Simmons
Senior Director, NAEYC Affiliate and Member Relations
February 2011
Page 1 of 12
2/25/11
Navigating the White Paper
This document has been organized into 8 sections. Each section opens with a framing statement and
concludes with three highlighted points to Keep in Mind as you build your understanding of the content.
An addendum and bibliography complete the document. The 8 sections are;








Introduction
Purpose
Why Now
Issues and Trends
Learning from the Past
Proposed Plan and Timeline
Conclusions and Summary
Chronicle of Activities and Accomplishments
Introduction
Expectations
“Running a 501©3 organization is simply too much for them [local affiliates]; yet that is what they must
do if they want to be a local affiliate. So they muddle through” (State Affiliate Executive Director 2010)1.
Affiliate leadership consistently reports the challenge and drain of operating an all volunteer nonprofit
organization. How can the passion of making a difference for young children be returned, especially at
the local level?
Challenges of Volunteer Leadership
“We are having our January Board meeting next Wednesday for all who can be there. We have
important business to discuss about whether we continue to exist as an Affiliate for NAEYC as we
have been unable to replace our officers who have ended their terms. Please think about the value
of having our own affiliate organization, and what we will lose if we are unable to continue.” —
Outreach to Membership by Local Affiliate President, January 20112
A growing trend is emerging of local affiliate dissolving due to lack of leadership. How can we ensure a
steady flow of new leadership within the Affiliate network and the early childhood field?
History Repeats Itself
1
Online survey conducted summer 2010 through SurveyMonkey.com
2
January email correspondence received by Affiliate and Member Relations Department
Page 2 of 12
2/25/11
“I am surprised by the ebbs and flows in participation in membership and leadership at the local
level. Often National does not recognize the drastic change until it is too late and then the rebuilding
process begins.” —Affiliate President, 20103
“How is NAEYC planning to support affiliates that are essentially small, nonprofit organizations and
are struggling to survive in this current economic climate”? —Local Affiliate President, January 2011
Leadership Call
The current uncertain and constantly shifting economic times requires a new nimbleness in nonprofit
organizations. Does the right relationship exist for promoting nimbleness at all levels of our
Association? What can be learned from previous efforts to explore governance relations between
NAEYC and its Affiliates?
Relationship
“‘How would you define the current relationship between NAEYC and its Affiliates?’ I asked this
question of our board at a meeting last week; their response was the same as my initial reaction–
‘what relationship?’” —Affiliate President 20104
The current relationship between NAEYC and its Affiliates is fragile. What needs to change in order to
move NAEYC’s mission forward through the Affiliate network and our shared members?
History shows that NAEYC has engaged in at least six different governance studies including reaffiliation:
1956
1963
1977
1992
1997 - 2000
2001
Affiliate registration begins
Formalized structure with shared membership is launched
Governance study addresses structure and centralized dues process
Structure study revisits mission, membership, organizational structure
Summits I and II address growth in membership and necessary structural changes
for the next millennium
Re-affiliation requires new legal and fiscal criteria of Affiliates
Each initiative addressed a discreet component of the relationship among NAEYC’s “parts.” Missing from
these restructuring efforts, however, has been attention to the relationship itself. To date the focus has
been on fiscal and structural aspects of the relationship. As a result, attention has been given to
technical elements and overlooked the shared connections that form the heart of a relationship.
The National Dialogue is different – how? And, why is now the right time to open this Dialogue? To
quote Stephen Covey, “Keep the end in mind.” NAEYC is uniquely poised to use the opportunity of a
national dialogue to bring Affiliate leadership together to define the fundamental nature of our
relationship. Getting this right is essential to fully defining all other aspects of our relationship – vision,
mission, volunteer leadership, membership, structure, and legal and fiscal implications.
3
4
Online survey conducted summer 2010 through SurveyMonkey.com
Online survey conducted summer 2010 through SurveyMonkey.com
Page 3 of 12
2/25/11
“The source of change and growth for an organization…is to develop increased awareness of who it is,
now. If we take time to reflect together on who we are and who we could choose to become, we will be
led to explore our agreements of belonging , the principles and values we display in our behaviors, the
purposes that have called us together, and the worlds we’ve created.” Margaret J. Wheatley
Purpose
Exploring Relationship Possibilities: the National Dialogue
NAEYC is initiating a national dialogue to strengthen the relationship between the national office and its
affiliate structure. Evidence is mounting that the current relationship is frayed. Through the use of a
systematic yet authentic dialogue with affiliate leadership, we will explore the relationship that needs to
be in place to move NAEYC’s agenda forward to Vision 2015 and beyond. How should NAEYC and
Affiliates relate to one another? Is the relationship being maximized? Is a shared sense of purpose
present to bond us around common work?
Many NAEYC Governing Board members participated in the fall 2010 Leadership Day, giving weight to
the importance of the national dialogue. Their continued participation – in regional meetings, virtual
conversations and in the final deliberation of the anticipated recommendations that emerge from this
dialogue is critical. The NAEYC Governing Board affirmed their commitment to the National Dialogue
and Guiding Principles at their January 2011 meeting in Washington, DC through a formal motion; “We
commit ourselves and the association to these principles and the ongoing work toward healthier
relationships within the association, and toward reaching new and shared understandings of our past,
present, and future.”
To advance this work, an operational definition of “relationship” was developed by Affiliate leaders
during Leadership Day in Anaheim and further refined during the December 2010 Leadership call. Our
members told us that the ideal relationship should embody the following;





Authentic and sustainable connection around a common purpose
Shared values and goals
Meaningful two-way exchange of information
Mutual give and take
A connection that is responsive, supportive, and nurturing
Why Now? Timing is Everything
Several key factors have coalesced to set the stage for examining the relationship between NAEYC and
its affiliates:
 Emerging trends in organizational development among State Affiliates
 Impact of shifting economic, political, and social climates
 Significant, dynamic changes underway in the early care and education community
 Downward trends in Association membership
 Recent adoption of Vision 2015 by the Governing Board
Page 4 of 12
2/25/11
2011 marks the ten-year anniversary of NAEYC’s re-affiliation process. The 2001 re-affiliation process
cemented and formalized a structural and legal relationship between NAEYC and its affiliates – with an
emphasis intentionally placed on building the capacity of state affiliates. This process promoted
accountability through use of nonprofit best practices and included signed legal documents (charter
agreements) between NAEYC and its affiliates. Additionally, the re-affiliation process marked the move
to national membership dues collection (with affiliate dues set by state affiliates). Given the devolution
from federal to state control occurring at the time, the Board decided to invest in strong state affiliates
in order to create a strong NAEYC policy voice in every state. Karen Hughes, NAEYC’s first Director of
Affiliate Relations, was charged with the design and implementation of the re-affiliation process,
inheriting broad goals such as “creating solid financial organizations” within three years.
During a recent interview5 Karen shared her understanding of the Governing Board’s expectations,
“…we would have high performing affiliates all over the country – a good, lofty goal that is worthy – just
not possible within a three year process.”
Karen identified several obstacles in her work including a high-level of mistrust by numerous affiliate
leaders. “I hadn’t realized how broken the relationships were between affiliates and NAEYC. We had to
rebuild trust and the relationship before we could get to the work. The history with NAEYC was an
obstacle for some. There was resistance to doing things differently” (Karen Hughes, personal
communication).
Charter agreements were signed in 2004 – the culmination of tremendous effort and work on the part
of affiliates and of NAEYC. Most agree, despite the level of effort involved, that re-affiliation was a
necessary step, providing a strong structural foundation for NAEYC and its affiliates. New supports,
resources, and technical assistance were introduced. Many state and local affiliates flourished, hiring
staff and Executive Directors that led these organizations to a heightened status within their
communities and states. But there were then, and there are now, unintended consequences felt
throughout the Affiliate network.
Keep in Mind
•
•
•
The operational definition of relationship
Why now is the right time for NAEYC to begin a national dialogue
The 2001 re-affiliation process was necessary and successful; it also resulted in
unintended consequences
Issues and Trends
The shift to a state focus has left many local leaders feeling disconnected. Many report feeling “as if
we’ve lost our voice.” Local affiliates find it particularly difficult to maintain programs and services to
members in addition to complying with re-affiliation criteria. The demand of implementing business
practices has dominated volunteer leadership’s energy, time, and resources – eliminating the passion of
many to participate in leadership roles that will change the quality of ECE in their communities and
5
Karen Hughes interviewed by author, August 11, 2010.
Page 5 of 12
2/25/11
states. Thus, the attention to nonprofit practices has left many state
affiliates increasingly distanced from association work. As a result, some
affiliates are exploring organizational and structural frames of reference
that will likely further diminish their engagement in affiliate related work.
Other affiliate leaders report that elevated expectations (by NAEYC)
without sufficient increased in resources leave many affiliates feeling
unsupported in their efforts to meet NAEYC’s expectations.
State Affiliates became engaged with nonprofit activities and contracts in
response to NAEYC’s urging that they create diversified revenue streams.
Now, the stagnant economy is undermining these activities, placing many
State Affiliates in dire financial straits. Several State Affiliates have
reported a significant downsize in staff or the decision to move office
locations as a cost saving measure. Multiple State Affiliates are engaged in
strategic planning processes, leading to restructuring of their boards, and a
reconfiguration of their governance structures. Some are dissolving a
portion of their local affiliate chapters, while other states are re-directing
their attention to their local affiliate chapter relationships. The result is a
fragmented structure and relationship between NAEYC and its affiliates.
Because they are
engaged in direct
working relationship s
with children and their
parents, the Affiliate
Groups are viewed as
one of the greatest
strengths of the
Association. With
needs and resources
varying so
tremendously in
various sections of the
country, each Affiliate
Group is in the best
position to design and
implement programs
and services uniquely
and specifically
appropriate to the
community or area in
which the members
functions.
During an August 2010 interview6, former NAEYC Executive Director, Mark
Ginsberg was asked about the successes, accomplishments and unmet
expectations that emerged from Re-affiliation. “Few can deny that
confronting the issues was necessary due to the legal and fiscal
relationship implications but many agree that the process itself became
too strident. (Still) It transformed the relationship between NAEYC and its
Affiliates, and more importantly, began to reframe Affiliates as
organizations, as a business rather than social clubs. The intent was to
create a more unified purpose and mission, and for Affiliates to be more organized and professional
with a clearer mission. In retrospect, it became a process that was led by NAEYC versus being cocreated. It became too top down – a struggle versus an opportunity”.
The National Dialogue is being designed to address some of these unintended consequences without
losing the benefits of the most recent restructuring efforts. Interestingly, the changes occurring among
NAEYC state and local affiliates reflect a trend found in the broader association world.
So, it is timely to note that debate exists among other association leaders regarding the merits of
affiliated networks (chapters) to national headquarters. During an interview, Cynthia D’Amour, author,
Leadership Strategist, and founder of the Chapter Leaders Playground, provided examples of national
associations that are choosing to invest in chapters and affiliated networks because they recognize the
momentum, power and influence that localized grassroots networks can have on their mission. Others,
6
Mark Ginsberg interviewed by Stacie Goffin, August 2010.
Page 6 of 12
2/25/11
however, are moving in the opposite direction. As one example, she cited The American College of
Health Care Executives (ACHE). ACHE leadership recently determined to eliminate all of their chapters.
Based on dwindling membership, they later reversed their decision, re-invested in training and other
chapter supports and, according to Cynthia, “they are now growing like firecrackers”.
What is different is that reinvestment in chapters by national associations is part of a new paradigm
highlighting “interdependency” among an association’s various parts versus reliance on a hierarchy
between a national office and its affiliated network. This change reflects a top down, nationally focused
agenda to a more integrated approach engaging chapters directly in an outreach campaign, an increase
in member services, the development and understanding of policy agendas, and an overall approach to
the shared membership. As the National Dialogue progresses, additional research about other
associations - from both schools of thought - will be included for discussion and deliberation.
Keep in Mind
•
•
•
Affiliate leadership report feeling disconnected from the national association – especially at
the local level
Maintaining the nonprofit model is challenging for many Affiliates given the current economy
and time constraints of volunteer leadership
The broader association world is wrestling with the same issues
Learning from the Past
From N.A.N.E. to NAEYC – Tracing the Re-affiliation Process over Time
The most recent re-affiliation process (2001) was not the first exploration of governance and
organizational relations in NAEYC’s history. Affiliation began with a conversation among participants at
the 1943 NANE conference in Boston about the merit of establishing a formal relationship between local
chapters and the national organization.
There is evidence that in these periodic explorations of governance, members (through their Affiliate
leadership) have expressed their desire to be more influential and engaged in the national office
agenda. History chronicles the complexity of processing dues, the need for a “western” voice, the desire
for better defined accountability, the need for a collective voice to move policy agendas, the challenge
of addressing a dramatic influx of members, and the need to be better positioned at the state level to
shape policy. While several strategies have been employed over the years, the fundamental issues
remain unresolved. The constancy of these recurring trends sparks the need for the National Dialogue.
In a 1955 open letter to NANE members, President Harriet Nash wrote, “It is important that all of us do
some serious thinking and planning concerning the future of NANE. We want it to be an opportunity to
face very squarely where nursery education is headed today. What is our role as an association? Should
NANE continue to exist? If so, in what form? By 1956 a formal affiliation program was established
within NANE with six groups becoming the first to affiliate with NANE. President Nash remarked, “The
experiment of affiliation has begun” (1956).
Page 7 of 12
2/25/11
The year 1963 to 1964 was identified as the Year of Decision for the National Association for Nursery
Education: NANE reorganized, changed its name to NAEYC, and moved its headquarters to Washington,
DC. Relevant to this discussion is the fact that a formal Affiliate Group structure finally was
implemented. Affiliate groups were required to pay annual dues ($3.00) to NAEYC for every member of
their organization. (The requirement for joint membership was not reciprocated; NAEYC allowed
independent members to join the national organization only until the re-affiliation process in 2001.)
The following nine year period reflects growth in the Association, resulting in the Governing Board
engagement in an extensive self-study of its purpose and activities from 1969 to 1970. A governance
study was commissioned in 1977 to again consider potential changes in structure. Once again the
practical matter of operating the
“Our informal and decentralized organization was
association—dues—drives a necessary
appropriate to our past; a more formal structure
governance review. Despite best efforts
is essential to our future” Barbara Bowman, (YC
by all at the local, state and national
1992)
levels of the Association, these same
topics will emerge again, in the next 10
years for self-examination. The pattern continues and is still not resolved. By 1986, the Association had
grown in stature and size, but still struggled with the relationship between the national office and
Affiliate Groups. In celebration of NAEYC’s 60th anniversary, Barbara Bowman, NAEYC President, called
for the Governing Board to “explore ways to improve the structural relationship between itself and
Affiliate Groups” citing the need for clear guidelines and accountability at all levels of the organization,
and the development of an annual policy agenda around which Affiliates and national could rally.
In 1989, the Governing Board engaged an outside consultation firm specializing in nonprofit
membership association management. The consulting group
concluded “that NAEYC is a strong, highly effective
organization with growing membership, programs, reputation,
Four principle complaints
visibility and influence on practices and policies regarding the
surfaced from the 1989
education of young children.” Three key areas for
external review: NAEYC should
improvement surfaced: NAEYC’s identity and mission,
devote more resources to
Board/staff roles and relationships, and the Role of Affiliates
building organizational
and membership. Historical records indicate that the Board
capacity within Affiliate
and staff began to work on a set of practices and
Groups, Affiliates desired more
understandings about the roles and functions of each group,
voice and influence in NAEYC’s
and additional technical assistance and support for Affiliate
deliberative process, NAEYC
Groups expanded NAEYC’s capacity to work with Affiliate
needed more awareness of the
Groups.
grassroots views of
1992 was the year NAEYC examined its effectiveness as an
membership, and NAEYC’s
organization. Explored were Affiliate size and capacity,
leadership and membership
consistency of affiliate and membership services throughout a
lacked the diversity of the field
largely volunteer organization, and a structure for decision
of early childhood education.
making that would reflect the views of individual members,
(NAEYC 1989 Annual Report)
Page 8 of 12
2/25/11
specialized Interests, and Affiliates. That year’s annual Spring Leadership conference addressed
organizational, structural and relationship issues.
Between 1992 and 1998, the examination of the national organization continued, along with the
noticeable increase in membership. Six years of growth and reflection resulted in the hosting of the
Summit II Conference. Held in April of 1998, the Summit II addressed the dramatic growth in
membership and necessary structural changes for the next millennium. A two-part strategy emerged; a
plan for strengthening and clarifying the relationship between national and individual members and a
year-long planning process focused on recommendations for a new structure of relationships among
and between Affiliate Groups and the National Association. This strategy called for “relationships to be
defined by Affiliate leaders, with input from individual members and with the support of the national
board and staff”. ADP – the Association Development Process was well received and implemented from
1996 through 1999. By 2001, the most recent re-affiliation process was set into motion at the direction
of the Governing Board in response to the devolution from federal to state control, and the Boards
intent to create strong state affiliates.
Keep in Mind
•
•
•
The issues of organizational structure and mission clarity emerge frequently throughout
NAEYC’s history
Previous conversations primarily focused on legal and structural issues rather than the
relational issues
NAEYC and its Affiliates have a long-standing commitment to finding the “right fit” to
maintain an effective and dynamic presence in the ECE community
Proposed Plan and Timeline
Managing the Work
For 2011, the work of the Affiliates and NAEYC is the National Dialogue. The Affiliate and Member
Relations department recently reorganized, increasing their capacity to manage this effort.
Communications
NAEYC staff will use existing communication tools; Affiliate Connections e-News, online Affiliate
Resource Center, and Leadership calls to keep the Affiliate network informed and engaged. The
iCohere platform may provide opportunities to conduct and extend regional meetings to a broader
audience.
Convening Leadership and Members
NAEYC will convene 10 regional meetings over the next 12 to 18 months, with locations selected in
collaboration with Affiliate leadership from each region to ensure maximum participation by affiliate
board members, staff and members. Each meeting will be facilitated by NAEYC staff, assisted by
invited leadership from the Affiliate Council, the NAEYC Governing Board and Senior Affiliate staff.
Page 9 of 12
2/25/11
NAEYC staff is currently exploring virtual platforms to ensure the broadest possible participation as
the dialogue takes shape over the coming months. As the dialogue unfolds across the country (faceto-face and virtually) specific topics such as structure, dues, shared membership, roles and
functions, and expectations will be thoroughly examined. It is our intent to first drive the
relationship discussion which will then inform the practical issues around the operational or
structural needs of the Association.
An essential component to the success of the dialogue is the agreement around the operational
definition of relationship, the guiding principles and key questions, developed by Affiliate leadership
and Board approved, ensuring continuity and shared understanding of both purpose and desired
ends. Leadership developed and refined the following guiding principles during Leadership Day and
the December 2010 Leadership call;
Guiding Principles






Respect Preceding Work
Strive to Create a Transforming Vision
Owned by All Participants by way of an Honest and Truthful Dialogue Process
Consider All Opinions, Feelings, and Thoughts
Recognize the Need for Adaptation and Change
Embrace Change in Thought and Deed
National Meetings and Recommendations
The June 2011 Affiliate Council meeting in Providence and the November 2011 Leadership day in
Orlando provide national opportunities to convene Affiliate leadership. We anticipate regional
meetings to be completed by early 2012, with ongoing interim reports delivered to the Affiliate
Council Executive Committee throughout this process. The Affiliate Council will send final
recommendations to the Governing Board for deliberation at their September 2012 meeting.
Conclusion and Summary
I began my tenure at NAEYC in 2007 with my first onsite visit in Anchorage, Alaska. Asked to speak
at their annual conference, I tailored my remarks to their request - an inspirational message that
would clearly define the connection between NAEYC, Alaska AEYC and their three local affiliate
chapters. I was surprised as the months went by and how frequently “connecting the dots” came
up in my conversations and onsite visits with other affiliate leaders. I was also struck by the number
of negative comments about re-affiliation (2001) that still resonated throughout leadership. At one
point I publicly stated that “re-affiliation would never need to be mentioned again”. My
understanding of the relationship between NAEYC and its Affiliates began to unfold.
Leadership Day in Anaheim surfaced continued mistrust of NAEYC by Affiliate leadership as to
whether or not “this time would be indeed be different” from previous conversations. Yet by the
close of a long, intense day, nearly every individual in the room publicly shared their passion and
Page 10 of 12
2/25/11
commitment to this unique opportunity to “get it right this time”. History does repeat itself, yet we
can learn from the past. Researching past re-affiliation efforts, reinforces my belief that the time is
right in 2011 to move this national dialogue forward – to explore relationship possibilities.
We are better together. I’ve repeated this activity many times across the country since my Alaska
trip. It symbolizes the power of connectedness, our shared commitment to making a difference in
the lives of all young children, and our commitment to our shared member.
We are Better Together: Please stand if you are a member of Alaska AEYC. Please stand if you
are one of 6,500 early childhood professionals working every day with Alaska’s youngest
children. Alone you are strong advocates. Take your left hand and place it on the right shoulder
of the person next to you -that connection represents Alaska AEYC. You are over 300 in number.
Together you are stronger advocates. Now take your right hand and place it in on the back of
the person in front of you – that connection represents NAEYC. You are nearly 80,000! Close
your eyes for a moment. Feel the difference in how you stand – the greater sense of strength
and power. Together we are NAEYC. Together we can make the greatest difference.
The challenge before NAEYC and its Affiliates is to create the right relationship that will support the
connected nature of our Association and shared member. Together we can move NAEYC’s agenda
through Vision 2015 and beyond.
Chronicle of Activities and Accomplishments to Date
Research and Planning
•
•
Historical Document Review
Survey – 4 Reflective Questions sent to Affiliate Leadership, NAEYC Governing Board and Senior
Staff
Interviews Conducted
Association Component Expert
NAEYC Senior Staff – Past and Current
Affiliate Council Leadership – Past and Current
Reports and Presentations
•
•
•
•
•
•
January 2010 Trend Report: Governing Board Book
September 2010 Board Presentation
November 2010 Leadership Day: Organizing for National Dialogue
December 2010 Leadership Call -Refined Guiding Principles and Operational Definition of
Relationship
December 2010NAEYC Staff Meeting
January 2011Governing Board Meeting: White Paper Delivered and Approved
Page 11 of 12
2/25/11
Resources and Communiqués
•
•
•
•
•
National Dialogue section created in our online Affiliate Resource Center - Leadership Day
meeting notes, transcribed wall charts, Power Point, FAQ, Meeting Agenda and Activities
Article in December 8, 2010 Affiliate Connections e-News
New Directions for 2011 Affiliate Letter (January 2011)
Article in February 3, 2011 Affiliate Connections e-News
Ongoing Documentation, Observations and Lessons from the Road
References
Bowman, B. 1986. Birthday Thoughts. Young Children 41 (2): 3-8.
Copple, C., & L. Thompson, eds. 2001. NAEYC at 75 reflections on the past challenges for the future.
Washington, DC: NAEYC.
Smith, M. 1989. NAEYC: Confronting Touch Issues. Young Children 45 (1): 32-37.
August 1971. Rationale for Affiliate Group Role. Young Children 26 (6): 352 E-F.
November 1998. NAEYC Annual Report. Young Children 53 (6): 43-54.
Addendum
1.
2.
3.
4.
NAEYC Affiliate Structure 2011
National Dues Chart (current FY)
NAEYC Local Affiliate Chapter Status Report
Charter Agreement
Page 12 of 12
2/25/11