Affiliate Chapters: Are They Meeting Community Needs?

Affiliate Chapters: Are They Meeting Community Needs?

ASL Version: https://youtu.be/ymwR1SLNATw?si=sSZ_-9stlitA11Or

Mish Ktejik, EdD, NIC, SC:L, OHCI

Mish began interpreting in 2004 as a student interpreter in Milwaukee, WI, under the watchful eye of the Deaf community. She graduated from Gallaudet University in 2009 with MA degrees in Linguistics and Interpretation. She holds an Ed.D in Leadership with a focus of Second Language instruction. Her dissertation explored the leadership experience of RID Affiliate Chapter board members.

Mish is currently the department chair for the ASL/ English Interpreting Program at Portland Community College and teaches courses on ethics, interpreting processes, business practices, and the profession of interpreting. She’s previously served as a board of director for RID, ORID treasurer, and chair for ORID and PCRID committees. She spends her free time reading and cuddling with kittens. She is passionate about life long learning, teaching, and having a positive impact on communities.

Affiliate Chapters (ACs) have been cornerstones of sign language interpreting communities across the nation for over 50 years. They’re centralized hubs for resources, events, training, and volunteer opportunities. But are they meeting community needs? Or is it time for a new era of ACs?

In many ways, ACs “raised” me. Long before I understood the purposes of ACs, I volunteered for Wisconsin RID as an interpreter training program (ITP) student rep. It was the beginning of a long, beneficial relationship with RID and its Affiliate Chapters. When I entered the field as a recent graduate, Illinois RID and later Potomac Chapter RID supported me, giving me a sense of connection and community as I moved between the midwest and the east coast.

I spent years serving on committees, learning about bylaws and workshops and everything in between. My time on AC committees inspired me to serve on the national board as a Region V Rep and then on Oregon RID’s board as Treasurer. I learned how to dissect spreadsheets, host regional and national conferences, and how volunteer-led nonprofits work. The experiences absolutely made me a better person, as well as a better interpreter and educator.

At the same time, I started questioning the purpose of ACs. The same ‘hot topics’ were discussed year after year with no forward movement. Collected annual dues disappeared into inactivity.

Volunteers were a revolving door. ACs seemed cumbersome and barely stable while community groups seemed more successful when they did not work under the limitations of an AC.

I noticed informal groups often received more engagement from the community than a formal AC meeting. There were monthly Terp Talks hosted by one or two people, regular meetings of freelancers, and study groups hosted by recent graduates preparing for CASLI exams. These groups were quick to adapt to community feedback. The unofficial leaders handed off duties or pivoted priorities as needed, without a months-long process of an election or bylaws change.

This disconnect between the community and ACs was reinforced when I read RID’s Strategic Recommendations for ACs, published in May 2023. The report spoke of an identity crisis amongst ACs fueled by the lack of clarity, communition, and mutual support. Across the nation, the ACs were in a state of stagnation or decline, with only 16 of the 49 ACs considered “healthy” (Grieser & Ball, 2023).

As an active member of ACs, I wanted to understand what was happening. Why were these long-standing community organizations struggling? When it came time to choose a topic for my dissertation, it was natural for me to look at ACs. I spent a year researching nonprofits in general and, in the summer of 2023, interviewed AC board leaders about their experiences as volunteers in RID’s Affiliate Chapters.

First, I had to understand what Affiliate Chapters are. I learned that at the most basic definition, “affiliate chapters” is an oxymoron. RID Strategic Recommendations for RID AC Relations (Grieser & Ball, 2023) provide a clear explanation of the differences between chapters and affiliates. “Chapters” are organizations who are a part of the national organization - one structure, one tax ID, one mission all directly guided by the parent organization. Although 36 ACs use RID’s tax ID, these “chapters” operate independently from RID. “Affiliates” are separate legal entities with their own governing board, tax ID, bank accounts, and mission. Affiliates may have formal, documented agreements with other organizations for mutual support, and are completely independent from each other.

Simply put, RID’s Affiliate Chapters are neither chapters nor affiliates. Confusing, right? These blurred boundaries cause a lack of clarity around the roles and responsibilities between the ACs and RID (Grieser & Ball, 2023).

To further the confusion, RID operates both as a membership organization and as a headquarters for 49 ACs, dividing its limited resources. Typically a national nonprofit organization focuses on supporting chapters as organizational members, while chapters focus on individual members (BoardSource, 2010). The dual function of the national organization further complicates the already murky relationship between RID and its ACs.

In my quest to learn more about the Affiliate-Chapters-which-are-not-affiliates-or-chapters, I sent emails to every AC asking to interview the volunteer leaders who are at the heart of these organizations. I was thrilled to find many people willing to tell me their stories.

The AC leaders shared the connections and disconnections they felt within the ACs. The bond between each individual and their community volunteerism was evident. Many felt called to serve the community and saw the role as an extension of their personality or identity. They brought their whole self, their beliefs, and their social identities with them as they volunteered. For them, it was personal.

To the people I interviewed, fulfilling the status quo was not enough. Volunteer leaders were hungry for positive community impact and saw ACs as potential agents of change. They wanted ACs to meet community needs better, serve as tools for social justice, and foster the next generation of interpreters.

With this level of passion driving the wheel, we assume AC leaders could only succeed in their goals. And yet, volunteer leaders quickly learned that while ACs seemed like potential agents of change, the organizations themselves were also barriers.

Every couple of years, sometimes even annually, each of the 49 Affiliate Chapters welcomes new board members. These volunteers are largely unaware of what is in store for them. There is minimal training at best, a lack of support or oversight, and no succession plan. They spend their term figuring out how to run a nonprofit organization from A to Z. They learn bylaws, run meetings, balance the books, support committees, collect dues, send out newsletters, and comply with RID and state regulations. The behind the scenes duties can be overwhelming.

It is no wonder that many volunteers burn out. Unfortunately, burn out has a domino effect. Some people ghost. Others become disillusioned and frustrated. People leave depleted, unable to support the next board. And then it starts all over again, with the next board left to figure it all out from scratch.

In this endless cycle of turnover, community needs are put on hold as the demands of running nonprofit organizations take precedence. As I spoke with board members throughout the summer, I felt inspired by their dedication and disheartened by their experiences. I heard the same stories over and over. Despite the passion and caring that fuel AC leaders, ACs are built in a way that fails to meet the community needs.

What we’re doing is not working.

I say “we” purposefully because the state of ACs involves every RID member. Whether you are active in your local AC or not, whether your AC is “healthy” or not, it exists to meet the needs of a community you are a part of. As community-run organizations, this is entirely a “we” conversation.

Our ACs are in a state of crisis. Even as our profession grows, only 3 of the 49 ACs report growing membership. In 2022, only 15 had a full Board of Directors and only 16 ACs were considered “healthy.” Our volunteer leaders are burnt out, overwhelmed, and questioning the validity of Affiliate Chapters.

This is not unique to RID’s ACs. Nationwide, nonprofit organizations are run by untrained volunteer leaders with no oversight, resulting in mismanagement and misconduct (Molk & Sokol, 2021). Cultural values have shifted towards individualism (Hansen & Slagsvold, 2020) while globalization and rapid technological advances occur. Nonprofits have been slow to adapt, clinging to inefficient practices of the past (Bruneel et al., 2020). They are also completely dependent on volunteers to run, causing difficulties and destabilization in the organizations (Lhotka, 2020).

The time and energy needed to run a nonprofit is demanding. Running 49 nonprofits simultaneously is detrimental to our volunteers and our communities. As one board member explained to me, “I’d rather invest in the community. I’d rather be creative in the ways that we can show up in the community. Instead, I have to spend six hours on a Saturday with my Vice President, figuring out how to do these taxes.”

In my own experience as a volunteer, I felt the same way. Honestly, I love the behind the scenes stuff. Spreadsheets satisfy my inner nerd.

I happily helped host conferences and rewrite the AC Handbook, adding untold hours to my regular volunteer duties. But these tasks were only fulfilling when they directly benefited the community. So many of my volunteer duties felt like spinning wheels in mud. A lot of effort with no movement.

The community-driven passion felt by the AC leaders is not enough to sustain these nonprofit organizations. We as a community have to do a deep dive into our ACs and redesign them into sustainable, community-focused chapters.

A paradigm shift is long overdue. Our Affiliate Chapters emerged half a century ago in an era of snail mail and long distance phone call charges. The national RID was in its infancy and having independently-run, local chapters was a necessity. The world has changed and, like other nonprofit organizations across the nation, RID and its ACs need to adapt.

RID’s Strategic Recommendations for Affiliate Chapters are a good place to start. But it’s not enough. We have 49 Affiliate Chapters across the nation struggling to keep their operational wheels turning at the sake of community engagement. It is time to pool our resources, consolidate operations, and create a nationwide network of support.

In order to tap into the full potential of ACs, we have to shift towards a more modern design. The traditional model we have used for decades has become a cumbersome drain on our communities. The good news is that nonprofit organizations like ACs can be nontraditional. They can be designed to fit our needs, rather than the current practice of sacrificing community needs to serve an outdated structure.

For example, ACs could pool resources and share operational duties. This could happen through informal partnerships between ACs or on a larger scale such as reorganizing the network of ACs as a whole.

Nonprofit organizations can be designed with boards within boards, with each board focusing on their own duties or geographical area. For example, a national governance board of directors, regional managing boards, and local community boards can all exist within the same nonprofit (and even have their own bylaws and funds!).

Consolidating AC duties would give local boards freedom to meet membership needs. Regional boards could focus on the chapters’ operations and provide much needed support to local boards. Volunteers would no longer need to exhaust themselves juggling both operations and community engagement. However, restructuring ACs on a national level takes a larger conversation and cannot be accomplished quickly.

In the meantime, there are steps ACs can take to run more efficiently and relieve some of the burden on volunteer leaders:

• Explore non-hierarchical boards by removing specific roles with the exception of a chair who will call meetings to order

• Adopt shared leadership practices where volunteers divide duties based on personal strengths, not positions

• Allow for rotating responsibilities and flexible workload to match volunteer capacity and unexpected life happenings

• Eliminate stagnant standing committees and recruit volunteers for specific short-term projects or events

• Simplify bylaws to the bare necessities and create a Policy and Procedures Manual (PPM) which can be updated without a lengthy voting process

Most importantly, develop practices that renew the lifeblood of your organization. Encourage volunteer leaders to maintain healthy boundaries with their volunteer duties. A new philosophy of Service Leadership has emerged in the nonprofit world. Rather than giving unendingly for the higher good, this new approach measures success by improvements in other people, society, and oneself

Volunteers who feel renewed and rewarded at the end of a term are more likely to continue engaging in the organization (Huang et al., 2020). So celebrate your volunteers and their accomplishments publicly! Appreciation builds a sense of community and connection.

ACs were once the center of local interpreting communities and can be again. This next era of ACs may bring large scale changes but it can only happen if we’re willing to try new approaches. Shared operations, non-traditional nonprofit structures, and shifting away from the familiar may seem overwhelming at first. But by exploring these possibilities together, we can bring the heart of our organizations back to the community.

References

BoardSource. (2010). The handbook of non profit governance (Vol. 20). John Wiley & Sons.

Bruneel, J., Clarysse, B., Staessens, M., & Weemaes, S. (2020). Breaking with the past: The need for innovation in the governance of nonprofit social enterprises. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(2), 209-225.

Grieser, S., & Ball, C. (2023). Revitalizing our network strategic recommendations for RID’s Affiliate Chapter relations. Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc.

Hansen, T., & Slagsvold, B. (2020). An “army of volunteers”? Engagement, motivation, and barriers to volunteering among the baby boomers. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 63(4), 335-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2020.1758269

Huang, Y., Bortree, D. S., Yang, F., & Wang, R. (2020). Encouraging volunteering in nonprofit organizations: The role of organizational inclusion and volunteer need satisfaction. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 32(2), 147-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 0495142.2019.1589624

Lhotka, F. (2020). What motivates volunteers to assume governance responsibilities? A study of volunteer motivation in Mendoza, Argentina [Master’s Thesis, University of Victoria]. University of Victoria.

Molk, P., & Sokol, D. D. (2021). The challenges of nonprofit governance. Boston College Review, 62(5), 1497. https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol62/iss5/2