A Guide for Effective Governance: Considerations and Lessons Learned For Afterschool Networks
June 2006

The Afterschool Investments Project

The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) provides federal resources for child care that support both direct services and quality enhancements. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Child Care Bureau awards CCDF grants to states, territories, and tribes. With nearly half of the children receiving services being of school or kindergarten age, CCDF provides significant funding for afterschool care in a variety of settings. The majority of CCDF dollars are used to provide subsidies to eligible low-income children under age 13. A portion of CCDF funding is also used for quality improvement initiatives, such as professional development and technical assistance, with the goal of building the capacity of states to deliver quality services including programs before and afterschool, during summers, and on school holidays.

To support state efforts to provide quality afterschool opportunities, the Child Care Bureau awarded a technical assistance contract on out-of-school time to The Finance Project and its partner, The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. The Afterschool Investments project provides technical assistance to Child Care and Development Fund grantees and other state and local leaders who support afterschool efforts. The goals of the project include:

• Identifying ways that states and communities are using Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) subsidy and quality dollars to support out-of-school time programs, and sharing these practices and approaches with other states;



• Identifying administrative and implementation issues related to CCDF investments in out-of-school time programs, and providing information and context (about barriers, problems, opportunities) as well as practical tools that will help CCDF administrators make decisions; and



• Identifying other major programs and sectors that are potential partners for CCDF in supporting out-of-school time programs, and providing models, strategies, and tools for coordination with other programs and sectors.

• Develops state profiles of afterschool resources, policies, and issues;



• Creates tools and materials to support the development and sustainability of afterschool efforts; and



• Provides technical assistance at meetings and conferences around building state collaborations for afterschool.

For more information about the project or to submit a request for technical assistance or information, contact The Finance Project at (202) 587-1000 or by email at afterschool@financeproject.org, or visit http://www.nccic.org/afterschool

Table of Contents

Introduction

What is Network Governance?

Why Does Network Governance Matter?

I. Vision

II. Structure and Leadership

III. Broad Representation and Participation

IV. Decision-Making

V. Communication

VI. Measuring Results

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Appendix A: Contact Information for Networks Referenced in this Guide

Appendix B: Examples of Network Organizational Charts

Appendix C: Governance Tools and Resources

Introduction

Many states and communities are searching for ways to ensure that children spend their nonschool hours in safe and supervised environments engaged in activities that promote learning, youth development, healthy behaviors, and recreation. The specific activities in which children engage during these hours and the places in which programs take place vary greatly in scope and setting, and the numerous public and private funding sources supporting afterschool programs vary greatly in overall mission.¹ In many states and communities, the broad range of stakeholders who care about improving the quality, broadening the availability, and ensuring the sustainability of afterschool programs come together to strengthen and support each other’s efforts by forming networks--or collaborative associations. Networks employ a variety of strategies to achieve these goals including building state, regional, and local partnerships to promote good policy; working to direct adequate resources to sustain new and existing programs; and supporting efforts to provide high-quality services to all children.

An effective governance structure is essential to ensuring that a network is well managed, fosters leadership, and supports progress toward the stated goals. However, designing and managing an effective governance structure is often a challenging process. At the same time that a network endeavors to implement a vision, it must address such issues as how to make and implement decisions, whose participation or buy-in is needed for an initiative to succeed, how to secure that support and participation, and how to ensure effective communication and accountability. Moreover, as a network evolves and matures, the governance structure may also have to evolve to respond to changing needs.

This guide provides information on the design and function of effective afterschool network governance structures. It focuses on six key domains: (1) Vision, (2) Structure and Leadership, (3) Broad Representation and Participation, (4) Decision-Making and Accountability, (5) Communication, and (6) Measuring Results. State and local network experiences are shared throughout the guide and in the "Lessons from State and Local Networks" text boxes. The checklist on page 41 summarizes the major considerations for network governance put forth in this guide. Finally, the appendices offer lists of helpful tools and resources related to the issues discussed. It must be emphasized that this guide does not endorse a particular governance model--there is no cookie-cutter approach to effective governance. The unique assets and circumstances of each state or community will play a large role in determining the best governance structure for that network.

What Is Network Governance?

Governance means both the structure that is charged with decision-making and the process by which decisions are made. Governance mechanisms guide network planning, oversight and policy direction, decision-making, implementation of administrative functions, program operations, and fiscal decisions. Networks are collaborative groups, in which a cross-section of stakeholders agrees to share responsibility, resources, and accountability in order to achieve shared goals that no single entity could accomplish on its own, including changes in policies, practices, and resource development. Collaborative governance requires network partners to clarify roles and expectations, revisit those roles and expectations when needed, and adjust their own policies when necessary to solve problems.

The specific governance structure that supports the work of an afterschool network will reflect the needs of the state or community, the nature of the network’s goals, and the anticipated timeframe for achieving those goals. In some cases, a formal governance structure will grow out of years of informal collaboration during which partners gradually build trust, beginning with small, shared accomplishments, before establishing formalized governance. In other cases, a legislative mandate or executive order will require the creation of a governance body that guides the work of partners from the network’s inception.

Keep in mind that governance structures need to be dynamic and adaptable. The conditions that existed during the formation of a governance structure may change over time, and the network’s governance structure should be able to adapt to changes in the organization and the surrounding environment.

I. Vision -- Development, communication, and promotion of the network’s vision and mission as well as building commitment, support, and responsibility for achieving the vision.

II. Structure and Leadership -- Determination of how to structure and ensure adequate leadership of the network, including where the network will reside and how it will be organized and staffed.

III. Broad Representation and Participation -- Formation and implementation of strategies to involve a wide range of stakeholders in the network and to encourage their effective participation.

IV. Decision-Making -- Clarification of how decisions will be made and implemented, including both structure and process.

V. Communication -- Development, maintenance, and implementation of an overall strategy for communicating both within the network and with other stakeholders in the community at large. Those on the ground level who implement policy as well as those in positions of power who influence or develop policy must be kept informed of the network’s activities.

VI. Measuring Results -- Establishment of a results-based accountability system that allows the network to monitor its progress toward achieving desired outcomes.

Why Does Network Governance Matter?

Governance structures are the key operational mechanism of collaborative initiatives through which everything is negotiated. Thus a governance structure’s efficacy, or lack thereof, tends to weave its way into all aspects of the network’s efforts.

Effective governance structures:

• Provide a stable foundation for high-quality work. The positive leadership, strategic direction, meaningful linkages, and focus that come from a strong governance body (or bodies) provide the critical foundation of support that an afterschool network requires.


• Are rewarded by funders. Both public and private grantors increasingly want to see evidence of successful partnering and collaborative governance, and are inclined to view evidence of true collaboration as a critical success factor.


• Ensure that all stakeholders are present at the table. A good governance structure gives stakeholders a forum for conveying their views and the opportunity to influence initiatives and explore alternatives. Good governance also limits the tendency toward nay-saying after decisions have been made and implemented.


• Promote sustainability through broad-based support. Involving appropriate stakeholders in a positive and dynamic governance structure is one of the most effective ways in which a network can cultivate the broad base of support necessary for long-term sustainability.


• Keep partners and stakeholders active and engaged over time. A governance structure can be designed and implemented so that the strengths of each stakeholder are maximized, limitations (e.g., time, resources) are acknowledged, and each group’s needs are met in the process.

I. Vision

Although setting up a formal governance structure is an important early step in network development, network partners must first have a clear and shared vision in place before they can begin to consider the issue of governance in a sensible and strategic way. Until the network leaders can clearly articulate their vision and the major strategies for achieving that vision, it will be difficult to develop a governance structure to manage and evaluate their work.

Developing a common, shared vision is the first step in building trust among network members and is critical to the healthy functioning of a network. A vision statement provides a concrete reminder of what members of a network believe and what they want to accomplish. Keep in mind that an emerging network brings together a diverse set of stakeholders around the common issue of afterschool programming. Although the issue of afterschool is on the agenda of all these various stakeholders, each partner offers a unique set of perspectives, needs, and assets. In order to proceed, group members need to state their goals and create a comprehensible vision that enjoys buy-in from all stakeholders and lays out expectations for the group. The vision is the network’s unifying idea, and it must be articulated before a governance structure can be developed.

What Resources, Including Time, are Available?
Vision statements should be compelling and inspiring, motivating stakeholders to move forward. During the process of developing a vision statement, network members begin to understand their unique roles and how they need to work with other members to ensure the network’s success. In the end, the vision statement should reflect consensus goals and desired outcomes. Members of the network should be committed to the vision and willing to share responsibility for achieving its goals.

Whose Input is Needed?
Creating a vision statement that truly reflects shared network goals requires representation from a wide range of partners. The composition of the group that develops the vision may vary but should at least include representatives from organizations that are involved in or benefit from afterschool programming. Typical partners in an afterschool network visioning process include state and local government agencies, educators, school-age providers, families, employers, foundations, youth development workers, community-based organizations, and law enforcement agencies. If all partners are involved at this early stage, they will understand the different perspectives and opinions in the group and are more likely to approve of and buy into the final vision.

Usually the visioning process takes place during a group meeting or planning session. Ideally, the size of the group should be about 30 people. Working with a larger group can ensure early buy-in from a broader range of stakeholders, but can also make achieving consensus more difficult. A group larger than 30 might consider making decisions in small breakout groups before discussing issues with the larger body. Alternatively, the visioning process might begin with a smaller group that invites additional stakeholders to join the process only after a strong sense of agreement has been reached. The actual number of people involved in the process is less important than ensuring that the right people are involved and having a good facilitator to lead the group through the process.

Who Should Facilitate?
Keep in mind that network members often bring different perspectives and opinions to the table. An outside neutral facilitator can help a group find its common purpose by keeping group members focused and encouraging the consideration of all ideas. Use of an outside facilitator also enables all members of the group to participate actively in the process.

What are the Steps in the Process?
When developing a vision statement, many groups opt for a three-step process. First, the group brainstorms ideas; this visioning should take into account the network’s scope, parameters, and priorities. Consider desired results, the conditions and causes necessary to achieving those results, and the potential problems and opportunities the network may encounter over time.

Next, the group drafts a preliminary vision statement based on the results of the brainstorming session. Depending on the situation and the cohesiveness of the group, it may be more productive for a small group to begin by drafting a vision statement based on the full group’s discussions and then bringing it back to the full group for analysis.

Finally, the group revises the vision statement. After several iterations, members should eventually arrive at a statement that is unanimously supported. Keep in mind that the goals related to the vision and the strategies to achieve those goals may need to be revisited and revised again, particularly if circumstances change (e.g., new stakeholders join the group or new priorities are identified). Depending upon the level of intensity a group undertakes to develop a vision, the timeframe to complete a process can range from one day-long meeting to three or four shorter meetings with some smaller group decision-making in between larger meetings.

How Will the Vision be Used?
The vision should be an energizing statement that reminds partners of their shared goals and motivates them to work together. A network should consider not only how its governance structure will be aligned to support the vision but also how it will communicate the vision to prospective stakeholders.² This guide presents considerations related to both of these goals. Ensuring continued buy-in for the vision is necessary to mobilize current and potential partners effectively and to drive network goals and activities over the long term.

Think about how the network can generate interest in and build momentum for its work. Examples of possible strategies include the following:

• Develop a one-page document that describes the network’s vision, goals, and major activities.


• Set up an online listserv for quick communication.


• Publish an electronic newsletter.


• Establish a network Web site.


• Develop a short message (no more than 35 words) that network stakeholders can use to communicate the value of and build support for the network.

II. Structure and Leadership

In addition to clarifying the network’s goals and vision, emerging networks need to make a number of key decisions about the structure and leadership of the governing body, including where it will reside, how it will be organized and staffed, and what roles each partner will play.

Deciding on a Home for the Network
One of the first issues that an emerging afterschool network must address is where to reside. Networks frequently evolve from an existing organization that has been working on afterschool issues and has built trust and partnerships in the field. The organization then receives support to foster the development of a network, serving as the fiscal agent and providing the needed staff. The host organization reaches out to a broader coalition of like-minded organizations that jointly develop a separate and distinct governance structure to carry out the network’s mission.

It is not always the case that there is a natural or obvious answer to the question of where to house the network. Should the network reside within an existing public or private organization? Should the network partners create an entirely new organization? The typical outcome often lies somewhere in between. For example, a new organization or entity is formed but is largely staffed and supported by existing organizations; or, an initiative is housed within an existing organization, but a new and separate oversight or advisory committee is established to distinguish the new effort from the organization’s ongoing work. When choosing the best location for the network, consider the pros and cons of each option--forming a new and independent organization (i.e., establishing a 501(c)(3)--see the box on page 16), working through or allying with an existing organization, or embedding a network within an organization. The table on page 19 summarizes the pros and cons of each of these options.

Forming a New, Distinct Organization
Typically, the decision to form a new organization is not made early in the development of a network. Most of the time the network is nurtured by another entity for the first few years before the leaders arrive at a point where they are ready to or have a need to be a separate 15 organization, unattached to the larger entity. Some networks never reach that point, feeling that the costs of independent status outweigh the benefits of its continued association or relationship with the other organization. That said, the decision to form a new entity requires significant organizational development resources and is generally pursued when no existing organization has the capacity to house a network, or when turf issues prohibit housing the network within an existing organization.

The primary benefit of forming a new, independent organization is that the new entity can create its own distinct brand and identity and thus avoid being associated with the reputation, history, and obligations of existing groups. A new organization is also free from internal tensions that might arise from decisions that affect the network and its parent organization in conflicting ways.

The downside to forming a new entity is that it may initially lack credibility or power until establishing itself and developing a record of accomplishment. Creating a new identity from scratch can be costly and time consuming. In addition, a new organization will, by necessity, need to spend time and energy putting in place basic organizational structures, such as fiscal systems, management controls, and legal paperwork that would already exist in an established organization. These tasks require time and energy that might otherwise go toward network-building activities. For smaller organizations, cash flow and establishing credit are important considerations. Finally, the network must carefully consider the long term sustainability of creating a new organization. If a new organization is formed in response to one initiative or funder, will the organization be able to sustain itself over time? Will the community be willing to support the new organization?

Working Through or Allying with an Existing Organization
An obvious and major benefit to allying with or working through an existing organization is that it can be much easier than weathering the challenges of forming a new entity. The existing organization, which can be a public agency or a private organization, can bring to the table a strong track record, significant staff and management resources, organizational capacity, institutional knowledge, and ready partnerships. This approach avoids the need to focus attention on organizational issues and allows partners to focus instead on the activities of the network.

The major downside to working through an existing public or private organization is the potential loss of independence for the new network if others identify it with an already established entity or well known agenda. A network that chooses this route may find it needs to distinguish itself from its host organization, if necessary, so that prospective partners trust that the network exercises autonomy and is serious about its mission.

The Middle Ground: Embedding a Network Within an Organization
For many emerging networks, finding a middle ground between being part of an existing entity or creating a new 501(C)(3) is a win-win situation. For example, network leaders may decide to have the network become its own legal entity but share physical space and administrative resources with another larger organization to cut costs and save time and energy. Many networks benefit from the best of both worlds: network leaders seek to form a governance structure that enjoys the energy and independence of a new entity while drawing from the experience and resources of an established organization. The North Carolina Center for Afterschool Programs, for instance, has been able to maximize its connections to the strong credibility and larger body of work of its host organization, the North Carolina Public School Forum, including that organization’s reputation as a neutral convener and its record on policy development. Similarly, the existing advocacy organization Kansas Action for Children has been instrumental in providing guidance to the formation of that state’s afterschool network, the Kansas Enrichment Network, which is housed in the school of education at the University of Kansas. The executive director of Kansas Action for Children also chairs the executive committee of the network, and Kansas Action for Children continues to provide expertise and helpful strategy to the network.

The benefits of the middle ground are that the network can function like a new organization by developing its own distinct brand and identity without having to devote time and resources to organizational development. Of course, the network still runs the risk of being associated with the agency in which it is embedded and must, at the same time, work to build its own credibility in the field.

Organizing the Governance Structure
There is no single way to organize a governance structure; numerous variations exist, and what works for one network may not be the best approach for another. Ultimately, the governance structure that a network adopts must fit the network’s unique set of circumstances. Many networks have found it helpful to look at governance models from organizations in states or localities with similar political and economic environments.

Most network organizational structures have multiple levels. Appendix B provides examples of organizational charts from the state networks in New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. Network governance structures commonly include the following components:

• A board of directors (which can also be referred to as a steering committee or advisory board) typically sets policies and strategic directions for the network and may even have legal or financial responsibility for the network, depending on the network’s organizational status. Its major role is to run the network’s fiscal and administrative functions. The duties of the board may include (but are not limited to) overseeing and evaluating the network’s work plan, hiring staff or delegating the task of hiring staff, supervising staff, managing finances; preparing reports to state and local government agencies, convening meetings, engaging in policy development and public engagement, and fundraising.



• An executive or coordinating committee is a subset of the board, usually composed of network officers or other members that have been authorized to make decisions for the network between board meetings. The executive committee is charged with ensuring that policies and directions determined by the network’s board are implemented and with overseeing routine operations.



• Subcommittees, working groups, or standing committees manage specific issues and report to the board of directors.



• Connections to other organizations like provider groups, advocacy organizations, and parents. Sometimes networks invite these groups to elect members that may serve on subcommittees in order to provide a more formal link to the community.

For example, the North Carolina afterschool network has a two-tiered governance structure. Its coordinating committee, which functions as an executive committee, is responsible for policy-making and determining the network’s direction. Organizations that serve on this committee have invested funds or significant in-kind resources into the network. This group meets formally once a year and informally on an as-needed basis. The network also has an advisory board, which gives advice to the network and coordinating committee, and includes representatives from different constituencies across the state. The network’s working groups are formed from the advisory board, and its members serve on committees. Four formal meetings of the advisory board take place each year.

Determining Roles and Responsibilities
Networks must also make decisions about how to constitute their boards. The ideal size for each component of a governing body will vary. Leaders will need to determine an appropriate size with respect to the numbers of members in a governing body, and how much power and authority should be given to smaller committees with respect to the larger policy-making structure. This requires agreeing upon a process for how and by whom board and committee members will be chosen, how long they will serve, and how the network will handle turnover and succession. Networks frequently document how to handle these and other issues related to governance in written bylaws. Rhode Island’s After School Plus Alliance, for instance, drafted bylaws that specify the composition of its board, including dedicated slots for parents, youth, providers, businesses, faith-based organizations, and state agencies. A network’s bylaws can be as simple or complicated as needed.

Members of the governance team need to understand their individual roles. Some networks have found it useful to arrange a board retreat or develop a manual in order to help members understand their roles and responsibilities. Other options include holding an orientation for new board members or pairing a seasoned board member with one who is new.

The composition of the network’s governance structure may change over time as the network grows. Therefore, it is important to garner leadership from stakeholders who know the field well and can provide direction and vision for the network’s activities. As a network matures and focuses more on policy and continuing resource development, it is also important to ensure that public and private sector leaders—policy-makers, business leaders, and other influential people who can move a policy agenda or secure resources to support the network or afterschool programs—are involved. Networks gain strength through the engagement of diverse partners; a structure that offers meaningful roles and opportunities for many participants will support the long-term sustainability of the network. The South Carolina Afterschool Alliance has found that use of a committee structure ensures that expertise is strategically tapped. In New Hampshire, the board of the statewide network PlusTime New Hampshire was initially composed of leaders from the provider community. As the network began to be viewed as an expert resource on afterschool programming, the board composition changed to include members with access to state policy leaders.

If the network enlists the involvement of political figures, it may be important to seek out representation from both parties to ensure that the network can work in a bipartisan manner. Finally, many network coordinators warn that high-level policy-makers will only want to take part in a network’s board or advisory group if that network has a definite plan for achieving its goals, so make sure that goals are well defined and clearly articulated before inviting those individuals to the table. Have a specific role in mind for policy-makers when you approach them. Let them share what they have to offer and what they are willing to do for the organization, and be realistic about the level of involvement they can provide.

Consider how the network can connect with local partners to broaden its reach. In many cases, this objective may mean something as simple as tapping into existing groups to reach a particular audience. For example, The Washington Afterschool Network connects with parents and youth in Washington state by engaging local Parent-Teacher Associations and youth representatives from local YMCAs and 4-H clubs.

Sometimes the connection is more formal. For example, regional affiliate networks are a way for statewide or large community networks to address the need for broad geographical representation. Louisiana’s statewide afterschool network includes a regional component to its organizational structure. The regional concept was developed by the Greater New Orleans Afterschool Partnership and will be replicated across the state. The network identifies regional conveners, typically large entities that fund local programs, such as the United Way or community foundations. The regional conveners are invited to be part of the state leadership team in order to create a cadre of advisors from throughout the state who can promote the network’s goals while meeting the concerns of local partners.

Leading and Staffing the Network
Leadership of the governing body is another important factor that can determine the efficacy of the network. Successful collaborations often require a lead agency or an identified leader to unite the work of the collaborative. Afterschool networks should carefully consider which individuals or organizations are best positioned to offer leadership. The network should also develop strategies for involving key champions--leaders from business, government, places of worship, and other parts of the community who can use their power and influence to generate support for the network and implement policy agendas.

Finally, it is important to devote adequate resources and realistic time allocations for network staffing. The best-designed network governance structure will not be successful without dedicated staff time to manage its tasks. When resources are available to hire network staff, consider how the network will manage human resources issues, such as how staff is supervised, how grievances are handled, and so forth. Afterschool networks frequently cite maintaining adequate staff as a challenge, but a few have devised creative strategies to overcome this obstacle. For example, the state networks in North Carolina, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, and Vermont, and the First Five Commission in Kern County, California, all use college interns, work-study students, or volunteers from the Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) and AmeriCorps programs. Working with interns and volunteers is a low-cost way to staff the network and provides opportunities for young students to become engaged in the afterschool arena.

Successful network coordinators note that there needs to be a balance between those who can provide leadership—the individuals that a network may want to include on the board—and those who can carry out the day-to-day tasks. A board needs both the high-powered movers-and- shakers and the worker bees whose participation on committees and work groups will be vital to the network’s success. The next section explores how networks can promote the participation of all vital stakeholders.

III. Broad Representation and Participation

Emerging networks must consider how to secure broad representation and participation among stakeholders. Partners should plan carefully how stakeholders will be selected and how their involvement will be structured. To encourage effective participation, the network should have clearly defined roles and realistic expectations for members of the governing body. Documenting these processes in the network’s bylaws is one way of demonstrating that the network is both purposeful and transparent in how it involves stakeholders.

Broad Representation
In forming an afterschool network, organizers must take care to involve as many of the key actors as possible, because failure to do so can result in conflict and charges of inadequate representation later on. When considering who and what interests should be at the table, potential stakeholders might include representatives from state and local government agencies (e.g., social services, public welfare, child care, health, juvenile justice, law enforcement, and education); regional interests; the faith-based sector; the business or corporate sector; grassroots organizations; the nonprofit or civic community; foundations; other state associations and coalitions; afterschool service providers; groups that represent parents and families; youth representatives; and the media.

Some networks seek to formalize their members’ commitment by asking partners to sign memoranda of understanding (MOU) or letters of agreement. This step helps codify standards and expectations from each partner. Other networks require voting members to agree to support the network through either in-kind or financial contributions. Both strategies give credibility to the partnership and encourage partners to buy into the mission of the network.

Often, the governance structure of a collaborative entity such as an afterschool network will comprise:

• Decision-makers or other influential stakeholders:
  • governor’s policy advisors
  • business leaders
  • legislative aides
  • local politicians
• Other key stakeholders:
  • regional representatives
  • state and local agency staff
• Members of the population being served:
  • providers
  • advocates
  • parents

Participation in the Network
Simply inviting broad representation in the governance structure does not guarantee that participation will follow. To help partners understand the network’s mission and their role within the network, many networks provide an orientation session for new members as well as ongoing opportunities for training and engagement.

As the network pursues broad representation and participation, consider the individual circumstances and priorities in the state or community. What types of groups and individuals should represent the network? If representation from particular organizations or political figures is desired, consider how to manage turnover and maintain that representation over time. All network partners should sense that their roles are meaningful, appropriate, and that they provide important opportunities for contribution. All members must understand and embrace their role in the implementation of decisions. Finally, as the network grows and its needs change, the composition of the partners at the table will also change.

Key stakeholders (both grassroots and decision-makers) will stay at the table when they have meaningful positions and understand the issues at hand. They open doors, help the network build new relationships, and ultimately influence policy decisions.

Meeting schedules need to be planned carefully in order to have a broad representation of the afterschool community at network meetings. Consider having various public meetings at different times, with varying frequency. Some networks have tried to minimize travel and time burdens by holding quarterly meetings attached to a larger meeting or conference. States with large geographic areas or diverse regional concerns hold regularly scheduled regional meetings to h