When Nonprofit Boards Still Have Options: Governance and Collaboration Lessons from Family Foundations
After 75 years of service, Family Foundations closed its doors on June 30, 2025.
What began in 1955 as Family Counseling Services—a joint effort of the Junior League, United Way, and the Jewish Welfare League—evolved into Family Foundations, carrying forward a long-standing commitment to mental health and financial wellness for families across Northeast Florida.
For decades, the organization served the community with dedication. I want to acknowledge, with deep gratitude, the donors, board members, staff, and partners who gave their time, expertise, and care to that mission. I also want to recognize the heartbreak many former staff experienced as the decision was made to close—an outcome no one entered this work hoping for.
While the organization has closed, the impact of its work has not. The relationships built, the services delivered, and the lives touched continue to ripple through our community.
In reflecting on the closure, it became clear that there are important lessons to share—lessons that can help other nonprofit boards navigate sustainability, governance, and collaboration in what are undeniably challenging economic times. I appreciate the opportunity to share this through the work of the Non-Profit Center.
WHAT BOARDS SHOULD MONITOR BEFORE CRISIS HITS
Boards are often very good at monitoring performance—program outcomes, balanced budgets, clean audits. Those things matter. But in times of stress, boards also need to monitor pressure points, not just results.
Boards should pay particular attention to financial trends such as cash flow, reliance on reserves, payroll timing, and delayed payments, or asks for accelerated payments from funders; funding concentration and flexibility, overdependence on a small number of grants or major donors; leadership capacity and structure; and whether systems and controls provide timely, complete, and reliable information.
Late or incomplete information is an early warning signal. Boards don’t usually miss crises—they normalize early signals, and over time that normalization leads directly to crisis.
LOOKING BACK: WHEN BOARDS STILL HAD MEANINGFUL OPTIONS
Looking back, there were moments when the Board still had meaningful options—but those windows close much faster than people expect.
At the time, none of those moments felt like a crisis. They felt manageable, explainable, and temporary. That’s often how it happens
One early inflection point came when reserves began covering ongoing operations. While this can look like prudent cash management, it is often the first sign that the operating model is no longer working as designed.
Another inflection point occurred when financial information was repeatedly late or incomplete. A single delay can happen; a pattern should prompt deeper inquiry.
A third moment came when a long-time donor stepped back from a significant commitment. In hindsight, that donor was likely sensing instability before the board fully recognized it.
The conversations that needed to happen sooner were not about cutting programs or making dramatic moves. They were about transparency, structure, and sustainability—and about whether the organization, as designed, could withstand continued pressure.
COLLABORATION, PARTNERSHIPS, AND THE COST OF TIMING
Collaboration options such as shared services, fiscal sponsorship, program spin-offs, strategic mergers, or planned wind-downs are most effective when explored early.
After stepping in as Interim CEO, I explored whether a merger or sustained collaboration was possible. While willing partners existed, the accumulated financial risk ultimately made collaboration infeasible.
Collaboration has a window. When risk accumulates quietly, even well-aligned partners may no longer be able to step in.
ADVICE TO BOARD CHAIRS WHO SENSE UNSUSTAINABILITY
For board chairs who sense something may not be sustainable, I offer this: trust your instincts. If it doesn’t feel right, ask questions. Ask for unfiltered financial truth; create space for gathering facts before making decisions; and shift from oversight to option-building—especially collaboration.
In governance, we often say boards should be noses in, fingers out. When boards have to put fingers in, governance has already broken down. The goal is to never get there.
By the time collaboration feels unavoidable, it may already be unavailable. That is why boards must explore it sooner—while choice still exists.
About the Author
Beth Tate is an executive advisor and former nonprofit board chair with deep experience in governance, financial oversight, and organizational sustainability. She works with nonprofit boards and executive leaders at moments of transition—helping them gain clarity around risk, structure, and strategic options, including collaboration and partnership. Beth is also a former Chief Audit Executive and currently serves in leadership roles across business, civic, and nonprofit sectors in Northeast Florida.