Publication method
Editorial Standards
BoardReady IPS publishes educational working tools for nonprofit, foundation, and endowment investment governance. These standards explain what the resources claim, how they are sourced, and where their limits begin.
Published by BoardReady IPS · Educational resource
Publisher and authorship
Resources are published by BoardReady IPS as an organization. The site does not claim that a named individual authored or professionally reviewed a page unless that person and role are explicitly identified on the page and the review actually occurred. “Updated” means the page was revised or checked on the displayed date; it does not imply legal, tax, accounting, fiduciary, or investment approval.
Editorial purpose
The site helps boards identify, organize, document, and revisit investment-governance decisions. It favors direct answers, complete working structures, visible open questions, evidence fields, decision-rights tables, and clear distinctions between board policy and provider implementation.
Content is designed to support a board process. It does not determine prudence, recommend securities or an asset allocation, interpret governing documents or gift instruments, apply a jurisdiction’s law, perform tax or accounting calculations, or replace qualified professional advice.
Research and sources
Priority is given to primary and institutionally accountable sources: model-act materials from the Uniform Law Commission; IRS instructions and topic pages; governance resources from established nonprofit organizations; professional standards bodies; and public policies, charters, or educational material published by institutions responsible for them. Material factual and legal-context claims should link to a relevant source near the claim or in a clearly labeled source list.
A source demonstrates what that source says. It does not prove that the same rule, policy, or practice applies to every organization. State law, gift language, governing documents, tax status, contracts, accounting treatment, and institutional facts can change an answer.
Templates, examples, and numbers
- Adaptable sample language is marked and uses brackets for decisions the organization must make.
- Fictional examples are labeled. They are not client experiences, testimonials, or evidence that an approach suits another institution.
- Illustrative arithmetic explains mechanics only. A sample percentage is not presented as a prudent or recommended rate.
- Open questions remain visible rather than being completed with invented facts.
Legal and high-stakes topics
Pages discussing UPMIFA identify it as a model act and direct readers to applicable state enactments and counsel. Pages discussing private foundations separate federal tax calculations from an IPS or endowment spending rule. Pages discussing donor restrictions tell readers to use the gift instrument and fund-level records. These safeguards are not substitutes for professional review.
Updates and review
Each guide displays an update date. Pages should be revisited when linked authoritative sources change, a legal or regulatory context materially changes, a tool or download changes, an error is found, or the page no longer answers the board task it claims to support. Routine review may result in no change.
Automated tests can verify links, metadata, structured-data syntax, file availability, and interaction behavior. They cannot establish the professional suitability of policy language for an institution. Subject-matter review is claimed only when an identifiable reviewer has actually performed it.
Corrections and transparency
Material corrections should update the page promptly and, where useful to readers, explain the correction and date. A working public corrections channel is not yet published in this local pre-launch version. It should be added and tested before the site is represented as accepting public correction requests.
Use of generated assistance
Drafting tools may assist with research organization, editing, code, and quality checks. Publication responsibility remains with BoardReady IPS. A fluent draft is not treated as evidence; claims should be supported, examples labeled, calculations checked, and unknowns left open.