







































Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Reynolds, Gendered Leadership in Accord Organizations  45 

 

Gendered Leadership in Accord Organizations  
 

Amy Reynolds 
 

 
 

Attention to gendered issues among Christian development organizations is often more likely to 

address external programming than internal organizational dynamics. In this paper, I examine how 

Christian development organizations are gendered in their leadership structure. I specifically examine 

the demographics of leadership in Accord member organizations at three periods in time: 2015, 2018, 

and 2021. Relying in part on data from tax records, I evaluate board and executive team compositions, 

the presence of female CEOs, and the wage differential among senior leaders. I find that women are 

significantly underrepresented in leadership, especially at top levels. Women earn less than men in 

similar positions. A number of organizations stand out for lacking any female representation on their 

executive teams and/or boards. The paper ends with some questions for the sector to ask and address 

moving forward. 

 

 
Introduction 

Across the international development sector, the 

need to address gendered inequalities as part of a 

development paradigm is widely recognized. But not all 

inequalities receive equal attention. For example, many 

organizations have programs that address gender-based 

violence and unequal access to economic resources, 

while less energy is directed to dealing with the ways 

gendered organizational dynamics shape programming 

and organizational strategies. Even as attention has 

increased toward addressing such internal dynamics in 

the last couple of decades, more effort is still directed 

toward external programs than internal dynamics.  

The Christian development sector is no exception 

to this, especially when it comes to internal dynamics 

that pertain to the gendered makeup of leadership 

teams. As this paper shows, the dominance of male 

leadership in Christian development organizations is 

not representative of the sector as a whole, where most 

program participants and those employed are women. 

Yet as Birmingham and Simard (2022) persuasively 

argue, diversity matters both as a theological imperative 

and for missional effectiveness. As highlighted in the 

Principles for Equality in Development Organizations 
(2019) preceding this article, increased women’s 

leadership in Christian organizations is critical to 

accomplishing the overall mission of promoting 

shalom.  

We lack adequate data to diagnose the current 

state of the whole Christian development sector around 

these issues, but this paper attempts partially to remedy 

this data gap by analyzing the gendered demographics 

of leadership in organizations in the Accord Network 

(hereafter simply “Accord”). It also points to where 

significant work needs to be done. It begins by 

reviewing trends in gender and development, as well as 

the overall state of women’s leadership in the nonprofit 

sector. It then addresses the unique challenges and 

opportunities around this issue for the Christian 

development sector. After explaining the methods used 

to gather and analyze information on the gender 

breakdown of leadership within Accord organizations, 

I present the data on the different levels of leadership 

and discuss the implications. 

 

The State of Women’s  

Leadership in Development Work 
Since the 1970s, there have been several initiatives 

to promote greater use of a gender lens in the 

international development sector, starting with Women 

in Development (WID). Early works (e.g., Boserup 

1970) called development actors to consider specific 

needs of women within economic development efforts 

and address the ways that discrimination and inequality 

hindered women. This framing shifted with the Gender 

and Development (GAD) paradigm in the 1980s and 

1990s. GAD focused less on women’s issues and more 

on the gendered structures that result in women’s 

marginalization. One piece of this is gender 

mainstreaming, discussed in the introduction to this 

journal issue (2025). Gender mainstreaming entails 

making gender central in all efforts and demands 

addressing internal structures that shape organizational 

policies (Eyben and Turquet 2013). 

One aspect of gender mainstreaming is seeking 

gender parity within organizational leadership. 

Traditionally, this includes paid officers, such as the 

chief executive officer or executive director, vice-

https://www.accordnetwork.org/


Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Reynolds, Gendered Leadership in Accord Organizations  46 

presidents and other c-suite officers, as well as the board 

of directors.  Women have been making significant 

gains in leadership representation within the sector and 

now make up 69% of staff in the nonprofit sector and 

62% of CEOs (Clerkin et al. 2024). However, women 

who do serve in leadership positions are more likely to 

work in newer organizations with smaller budgets 

(Gorman 2005; Lennon 2013). Women make 

up slightly over 50% of nonprofit boards and serve as 

board chairs in over 50% of organizations surveyed 

(Board Source 2021; Clerkin 2024). The sector is 

moving closer to greater parity and tracking more data 

around various metrics. 

Most of the data on gender in the nonprofit sector 

fails to consider different outcomes based on the 

intersections of gender and race.  Candid launched an 

effort in 2019 that encouraged nonprofits to report data 

on diversity and their gendered demographics and tied 

such reporting to transparency seals.
1

 To date, over 

62,000 organizations have reported (Clerkin et al. 

2024). The CEO level is one measure for which 

intersectional data have been recorded. Of the 63% of 

nonprofits led by a female CEO, 29% of those are led 

by women of color (for a total of 18% of all nonprofit 

leaders). Yet for both women more generally and 

women of color, they are more represented in the 

leadership of smaller vs larger organizations (Clerkin et 

al. 2024). Some qualitative studies also highlight that 

women of color face higher challenges in serving in 

nonprofit leadership (Biu 2019). 

The demographics of leadership teams are 

important for multiple reasons and have multiple 

impacts. Women’s presence on a board or on a 

leadership team does not automatically translate into 

greater gender awareness or increased missional 

effectiveness. Even so, often the strongest efforts to 

promote gender equality by and within organizations 

are often linked to women in leadership. Having strong 

female voices in leadership often furthers 

organizational efforts towards equality (Wallace 1998). 

In terms of board impact, although the presence of one 

woman on a board does not correlate with significant 

changes in an organization, having a critical number of 

women (often 3 or more) is associated with better 

gendered outcomes in an organization (Erkut, Krame, 

and Koinrad 2009). To take a specific example, the 

higher the number of women and ethnic/racial 

minorities serving on a nonprofit board, the greater 

likelihood that the organization will have whistleblower 

policies in pace (Ostrower 2007). 

Even with increased attention to issues of diversity 

in leadership in the last decade—and increased women’s 

                                                        
1

 Candid provides perhaps the most comprehensive data available on the nonprofit sector and was formed in 2019 

when GuideStar and the Foundation Center merged. They give nonprofits a “seal of transparency” (bronze, silver, 

gold, or platinum) based on their transparency and data they make available (Candid 2024). 

representation in leadership across sectors—there are 

concerns that some of this progress may have stalled or 

reversed. The COVID-19 pandemic saw a reversal of 

efforts towards gender equality across most professional 

sectors; within the nonprofit sector, women were often 

on the frontlines, and experienced higher rates of 

burnout and increased personal responsibilities 

(McKinsey 2021; Clary and Rose 2021). In the last few 

years, a number of organizations distanced themselves 

more from efforts to increase gender diversity and 

create more gender inclusive environments (McKinsey 

2024). Given the current political administration’s 

antagonism toward Diversity, Equity and Inclusion 

Initiatives (DEI), there will likely be fewer resources in 

the nonprofit sector directed towards increased gender 

diversity and inclusion.  

 

The Unique Challenges and Opportunities  

of the Christian Development Sector 
Reasonable estimates suggest that between 30-50% 

of the nonprofit sector in the United States has 

consistently been religious from its inception to the 

present day (McCleary 2009). Of the 100 largest 

charities in the United States, about one quarter of 

these are religious, and half of those—or 13 of the 100 

largest charities—are religious nonprofits focused on 

meeting international needs (Forbes 2023). 

Marshall (2010) highlights how religious 

development organizations and non-religious 

organizations are different in how they approach gender 

issues. This may include differences in perspectives on 

family, gender roles, and sexuality. Religious actors may 

be wary of secular feminist organizations that ignore the 

importance of religion, and feminist actors may 

discount religious actors, viewing them mainly as the 

key drivers of gender inequality. This is not to say (and 

Marshall does not suggest) that religious actors are more 

opposed to gender equality than are other actors. For 

example, among Christian actors, there is a wide range 

of responses to issues of equity, often driven by 

understandings of the Christian faith. Religious 

communities have both contributed to and hindered 

women’s empowerment; in this volume, Jones and 

Odhiambo (2025) highlight some of the ways this plays 

out on the ground.  

In many Christian traditions, and especially among 

evangelical Christian traditions, restrictions are often in 

place on the roles women can hold. This is especially 

true when it comes to positions of leadership. For many 

ecumenical evangelical organizations which bring 

together people of various traditions, there is often a 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Reynolds, Gendered Leadership in Accord Organizations  47 

lack of clear theology around the leadership of women. 

Senior leaders in Christian nonprofits often disagree on 

the perspective of their organization around women’s 

leadership (Reynolds and Curry 2016). Scholars have 

noted that the lack of clear organizational positions 

around gender is often linked with unclear and 

conflicting views held by leaders on the desirability of 

women’s leadership (Gallagher 2003; Cochran 2005). 

Lack of a clear theology, or the presence of conflicting 

theologies about women, have been connected to broad 

cultural patterns that are not conducive to women’s 

leadership. In such uncertain situations, women who 

are hired are unlikely to stay (Ingersoll 2003; Creegan 

and Pohl 2005; Birmingham and Simard 2022). 

Women might be asked to lead but then face resistance 

when they do lead. In environments without clear 

commitments to women’s leadership, many women 

leaders leave after a short time and sign on with 

organizations that are more supportive of their gifts 

(Ingersoll 2003).  

Like organizations across the nonprofit world, 

Christian development organizations are often 

influenced by the views and policies of donors and 

supporters. Churches are often key supporters of 

nonprofits, in terms of both funding and personnel. 

Many involved in the faith-based social and 

development sector are motivated by faith and may first 

encounter or learn about the work of a development 

organization through their church. Nonprofits then may 

often be supported by denominations that vary 

significantly in their official theological stances towards 

women in leadership. Some are clearly supportive, 

while others say little about their theologies as they 

relate to issues of women in leadership. Still others see 

a hierarchy in men’s and women’s roles as being 

ordained by God, and thus a requirement of faithful 

obedience. This can naturally complicate things for 

nonprofit organizations that interact with a variety of 

churches. 

Among the churches that officially do support 

women’s leadership in all areas, there are significant 

differences in their strategies. For example, even among 

churches or institutions that affirm women’s leadership 

in all areas, some direct intentional efforts towards 

developing women as leaders, while others invest very 

little in challenging longstanding male leadership 

patterns. Gender inequality often persists in evangelical 

communities even when gender equality is valued, 

because these communities fail to address systemic 

issues that marginalize women (Swartz 2022). 

Moreover, research on some Christian denominations 

that encourage women in leadership often reveals 

significant pay and leadership gaps between female and 

male clergy (Schleifer and Miller 2017).  

While Christianity can often be a source of formal 

and informal gender barriers for women, there are also 

ways in which the Christian faith can and does challenge 

women’s inequality in society. In the United States, 

many early women’s movements were led by Christians 

and Christian organizations (Hassey 1989). For 

marginalized communities, religious institutions have 

often stepped forward to encourage people’s leadership 

when it was otherwise limited. To take an example from 

the Black Church, research finds Christian churches 

played a key role in developing the leadership skills and 

providing leadership opportunities for both black 

women and men (Patillo-McCoy 1998). For many 

Black Christian female leaders, regardless of whether 

their church supported them, faith was often a key 

driver in their persistence despite obstacles around 

them (Dym and Hutson 2005; Gassman et al. 2011).  

 

Christian Development  

Organizations and Available Data 
Given these challenges, I would expect Christian 

development organizations to lack gender parity and to 

lag behind the nonprofit sector more broadly. Most of 

the research on nonprofits, including some of the 

research referenced here, often relies on qualitative 

data, making it hard to test this hypothesis. Looking at 

the development sector specifically, a review of research 

from 1980-2014 finds that only 16% of research 

employs statistical data (Brass et al. 2018), and that 

which does is often limited in scope. The quantitative 

data around demographics that are available are often 

based on self-reported data or responses to optional 

surveys (Clarkin et al. 2024; Board Source 2021; Lenon 

2013; Laponsky and Larkin 2009).    

Beyond the general challenges regarding data on 

the nonprofit sector, there are more specific challenges 

for those studying the religious nonprofit or religious 

development sector. Often, religious nonprofits are not 

considered as a unique subset. While some self-studies 

exist (such as the 2021 Leading Edge reports on the 

gender gap in the Jewish nonprofit sector), little macro-

level data exist on religious nonprofits. Some of this is 

due to a lack of recognition of the importance of this 

subsector, and some may be due to definitions, because 

scholars disagree on what defines a religious 

organization (Austin et al. 2022). More macro-level 

research is needed to map the gendered leadership 

dynamics in the religious nonprofit sector. 

Ma and colleagues highlight some new possibilities 

for research in the US non-profit sector, and ways to 

make use of electronic tax data (Ma 2021). Tax forms 

have the advantage of not relying on organizations’ own 

self-reporting, thus avoiding biased samples. In 

addition, the metrics are similar across nonprofits. 

Although some religious organizations can avoid filing 

as nonprofits through their classification as churches, 

most Christian nonprofits file these reports annually, 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Reynolds, Gendered Leadership in Accord Organizations  48 

allowing researchers to track organizations through 

publicly accessible records as well as over time.
2

  

 

Methodology  
The purpose of this study is to assess the gender 

breakdown of leadership in Christian development 

organizations. Specifically, I compare numbers of 

women and men serving in CEO positions, on 

executive teams, and on boards of directors. I consider 

how this has changed over time, drawing on data points 

from 2015, 2018, and 2021. 

In investigating the Christian development sector, I 

choose in this paper to focus on organizations that are 

members of the Accord Network. Formed originally in 

1977 as the Association of Evangelical Relief and 

Development Organizations (AERDO), the aim of the 

umbrella group was to help Christian development 

groups collaborate with one another and be in 

community; such a collaboration also fostered the 

possibility of small organizations being able 

collaboratively submit grant requests. Accord is the 

largest network of Christ-centered relief and 

development groups in the United States (Offutt and 

Reynolds 2019). Other international Christian 

networks include the ACT alliance (connected with the 

World Council of Churches), Caritas Internationalists 

(a Catholic network), and Micah Global (an alliance of 

mostly evangelical organizations engaged in relief, 

development, advocacy and creation care).
3

  

I focus on Accord organizations in this study for 

several reasons. There is much debate over what makes 

an organization “Christian.” Options include 

organizations with official denominational ties, those 

with religious histories, those that clearly express their 

Christian purpose and identity in a mission statement, 

and those that focus on evangelistic activities (Austin et 

al. 2022). By choosing to study Accord organizations, 

we are selecting organizations that self-affiliate with 

Christian development, which includes organizations 

across these different categories. Second, from a data 

perspective, because Accord is based in the US, it 

allows the use of the same set of published records—US 

tax records—for all organizations, creating a consistency 

in data collection.  

One challenge is in determining which 

organizations count as Accord members for this study, 

because every year new organizations join while others 

                                                        
2

 Some organizations not required to file may make a “Pro Forma Form 990” available to their audiences for 

transparency purposes—Catholic Relief Services is one example (Catholic Relief Services 2024).  
3

 The information referenced comes from the websites of these organizations: ACT Alliance (actalliance.org), Caritas 

(caritas.org), Micah Global (micahglobal.org). 
4

 The twelve with partial records are mostly organizations that became sizable nonprofits after 2015, as well as two that 

ceased filing (Compassion International and Masters Touch Global Ministries) due to reclassification away from relief 

and development organizations. 

leave. Much of this churn results from established 

organizations joining and leaving, but some is due also 

to the formation of new nonprofits and the closure or 

reclassification of others. For purposes of this study, I 

employ a broad definition, including both those that 

were part of Accord in the years before the focus of this 

study (2010 and/or 2014), as well as those that are part 

of Accord at the time of the study in 2024.  

 

Data Collection 
In terms of tax records, most organizations that 

claim a tax-exempt status at the federal level are 

required to file a Form 990. Exceptions exist for those 

with budgets under $200,000 (organizations that file an 

abbreviated form), or religious institutions like 

churches. Some primarily mission-related organizations 

are exempt from filing, as well as groups that reclassified 

from nonprofits to churches. This analysis tracks 

organizations that filed in 2015, 2018, and 2021, for a 

total of 117 former and current Accord organizations. 

Twelve additional organizations have records for partial 

years within that period but were excluded from the 

analysis.
4

 Of these 117 nonprofits, only 44% are both 

current and past members, 38% are past members, and 

18% are new members.  

In most cases, I pulled tax records from years 

ending in 2015, 2018, and 2021. There are a few cases 

for which an alternative filing was considered (2014 

instead of 2015; 2017 instead of 2018) due to gaps in 

filing or the lack of availability in a particular year. Tax 

records are usually available between 2-3 years after 

filing. For the earlier records (2015 and 2018), and with 

the assistance of student researchers, most of the data 

were coded by hand based on PDF filings. For 2021 

data, new technologies now exist in accessing tax 

records, and such records were generally downloaded 

through the Giving Tuesday Data Commons (2024), 

though they had to be double-checked and cleaned. In 

a few cases, 2021 PDF files were consulted for 

information missing from the downloaded database. 

From the tax forms, I collected information on the 

organization’s expenses and revenues, the amount of 

revenue from government funding and in-kind gifts, 

and the location of headquarters. For 2021 

organizations, there is also information on whether they 

have a whistleblower policy, which as previously 

mentioned, has been correlated with women serving in 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Reynolds, Gendered Leadership in Accord Organizations  49 

leadership (Ostrower 2007). In addition to this 

organizational data, I included information on all 

individuals listed in Part VII of the 990, which includes 

officers, highly paid employees,
5

 board members, and 

other key leaders. The salaries of these individuals—

including direct salary, benefits, and salary paid by 

related organizations—were also collected. 

 

Data Coding 
While the tax records do require organizations to 

note who serves as trustees or officers, the hierarchy of 

individuals is not listed. Along with student research 

assistants, I coded individuals into various categories. 

First, individuals were coded exclusively for this study 

as board or paid (even though some might occupy both 

positions). Those noted as trustees and/or directors and 

who received no salary were coded as board members. 

In some cases, those receiving a minimal salary (under 

$30,000) were also coded as board members when it 

appeared that was their primary task.
6

  Paid members 

included those currently working for the organizations 

and former employees receiving salaries. Paid 

members were categorized in one of four ways—as tier 

1 (those serving as presidents or CEOs), tier 2 (those 

serving on executive teams, such as those in VP 

positions, or presidents/directors of regions or 

countries), former (not currently serving), and non-

executive (such as an assistant to the president or 

controller). In some cases, those listed as presidents and 

vice-presidents received no salary, and I coded these 

cases as board members instead of paid executives. 

In addition to coding titles, I also coded for gender. 

There is some room for error with coding, although I 

used different methods to try and minimize that error. 

People were coded based on pronouns or 

organizational data available on websites, LinkedIn 

profiles, and other web searches. In many cases, names 

strongly associated with one gender were coded 

accordingly (e.g. Jonathan or Adrianna).
7

   

 

Data and Analysis 
Data Overview 

Table 1 provides an overview of the sample being 

considered in this paper. For 2015, 2018, and 2021, I 

include the 117 organizations with data for each of these 

three years. The typical (median) organization had 

expenses of between $2.5-$3 million, even though the 

average reported is much higher at between $45-52 

                                                        
5 Organizations are required to list the five highest paid employees who make over 100,000 a year. 
6

 Two organizations stood out for having numerous board members being paid between $20,000-$30,000: Bethesda 

Ministries and Convoy of Hope.  
7

 Everyone was coded as female or male, as we did not run into cases of those identifying as non-binary in our overview 

among those in senior leadership positions. 

million due to the presence of a few very large 

organizations. The number and percentage of 

organizations with the smallest budgets (under $1 

million) has declined over time, from 31% to 16%, 

though the number of organizations with budgets under 

$5 million remains similar over time, decreasing slightly 

from 65% in 2015 to 59% in 2021. The movement in 

the median over time is between 13-14%, which 

corresponds to the rate of inflation during this time 

(BLS 2024). 

 

 2015 2018 2021 

Under $1 million 36 (31%) 28 (24%) 19 (16%) 

$1-2.5 million 22 (19%) 26 (22%) 37 (32%) 

$2.5-5 million 18 (15%) 20 (17%) 13 (11%) 

$5-10 million 6 (5%) 9 (8%) 13 (11%) 

$10-25 million 15 (13%) 13 (11%) 11 (9%) 

$25-50 million 7 (6%) 5 (4%) 9 (8%) 

$50-100million 4 (3%) 6 (5%) 6 (5%) 

$100-250million 3 (3%) 4 (3%) 3 (3%) 

$250-500 million 3 (3%) 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 

$500 million plus 3 (3%) 4 (3%) 5 (4%) 

    

Mean Expenses $44.6 

million 

$46.0 

million 

$50.6 

million 

Median 

Expenses 

$2.51 

million 

$2.83 

million 

$3.13 

million 

    

Total n 117 117 117 

Table 1: Budget Size of Accord Members 

 

Table 2 presents a breakdown on the people 

serving within these organizations. Two different 

categories are reported—the first is the board of 

directors, which vary in size, are usually unpaid, and 

generally govern the organizations and help set 

priorities. Executive teams, which include the president 

and CEO and others in senior leadership (sometimes 

referred to as c-suite) are also included, even though 

some nonprofits lack paid executive teams. Boards 

were much larger than executive teams, with at least half 

of the organizations having nine members or more on 

their board. Boards were also the place where women 

were the best represented, although they were still 

significantly underrepresented. Women have slowly 

increased their percentages of board positions over 

time, from 24% in 2015 to 30% in 2021.   



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Reynolds, Gendered Leadership in Accord Organizations  50 

 

 2015 2018 2021 
Average (mean) 

Board Size 
 

10 

 

10 

 

11 
Median Board Size 9 9 9 
Percentage of 

Females on the 

Board  

 

24% 
 

26% 
 

30% 

Average (mean)  

Executive Team 

Size 

2.4 2.4 3.0 

    
Organizations with 

…  
   

No Exec Team 10 11 11 
1 Leader 60 52 42 
2+ Leaders 47 55 65 
A Female Exec  38 (32%) 42 (36%) 50 (43%) 
Only Male Execs 69 (59%) 64 (55%) 56 (53%) 
    
Number of Female 

Executives 
54 out of 

276 (20%) 
58 out of 

285 

(20%) 

93 out of 

374 

(25%) 
    
Organizations with 

female CEO
8

 
15 out of 

106  

(14%) 

18 out of 

103 

(17%) 

18 out of 

101 

(18%) 
Total n 117 117 117 

Table 2: Leadership Overview of Accord 

Organizations 

 

Comparatively, the mean number of executive 

team members was 2.4, with almost half of 

organizations having two or fewer executive members 

(in 2015 and 2018, half of the organizations had one or 

zero executive members). Because many teams are so 

small, I consider which teams had any paid female 

executives. Only 38 out of the 107 organizations that 

had a paid executive or executive team in 2015 had a 

female serving—or 36% of teams. By 2021 that number 

had increased to 47%, though that still means over half 

of organizations with paid executives lacked any female 

executives. 

Women’s representation was the lowest for the 

CEO or top-level position. 14% of the organizations 

had a female leader in 2015, a number that improves 

slightly to 17% in 2018 and 18% in 2021. Unlike the 

other measures, this did not change considerably 

between 2015 and 2021. 

In the sections that follow, I examine each of these 

three general categories (board, executive teams, and 

top leaders) separately, looking more deeply into 

variation among the Accord sample. It is important to 

highlight that the general lack of women in leadership 

                                                        
8

 This number is out of organizations that have a paid individual in a tier 1 role. 

is not because most of these organizations lack policies 

that would allow for women in leadership. Based on the 

recent Accord survey (Offutt and Reynolds 2019), over 

three-quarters of Accord member organizations rated 

gender inequality to be a somewhat or very important 

issue for their organization to address.  

 

The Lack of Critical Levels of Female 

Representation on Boards 
The power that boards hold varies across 

organizations, with some boards having much more 

decision-making power than others. Schietle (2010) has 

noted the varied authority they have in setting goals, 

supervising leaders, or hiring. Even as their power varies, 

boards play an important role in shaping how the dollars 

of nonprofits are spent. As reported in Table 2, the 

average number of board members per organization was 

between 10-11, and the average percentage of female 

board members an organization had was between 24-

30%. In other words, among Christian development 

organizations, there was a ratio of about 1:3 for women 

to men holding board or trustee level positions. This is 

half of what is reported in the nonprofit sector generally, 

where the average board is between 52-53% female 

(Board Source 2021; Clarkin 2024).  

 

 2015 2018 2021 

No Female 

Board Members 

19 (16%) 12 (10%) 10 (9%) 

Under 33% 

Female 

63 (54%) 66 (56%) 55 (47%) 

Between 33%-

50% Female 

25 (21%) 30 (26%) 34 (29%) 

50% Female 5 (4%) 4 (3%) 4 (3% 

Between 50-67% 

Female 

3 (3%) 3 (3%) 9 (8%) 

Over 67% 

Female 

2 (2%) 2 (2%) 5(4%) 

No Male Board 

Members 

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 

    

Average % 

Board Female 

24% 26% 30 % 

Total n 117 117 117 

    

Table 3: Boards Categorized by Percentage of Female 

Members 

While women’s overall underrepresentation on 

boards is important to note, considering only the 

average can hide the variance among Accord 

organizations. As previously noted, research suggests 

that having at least 3 or more women on a board, or 

about one-third of the board in this case, is the critical 

number needed for women’s voices to be included 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Reynolds, Gendered Leadership in Accord Organizations  51 

(Erkut, Krame, and Koinrad 2009). Otherwise, it is 

likely that women may serve as tokens or be pitted 

against each other. In Table 3 I use this one-third 

measure as a benchmark; I categorize organizations in 

part based on whether one-third of their board is female 

or male. Figure 1 presents a visual of the percentages of 

organizations in each of these categories. 

These numbers are alarming for two reasons. 

Perhaps the most striking is that 19 organizations in 

2015 had no women serving on their board of directors 

(a number that decreases to 10 by 2021). This bears 

further investigating as to why women on boards have 

been absent. It seems likely that in many of these 

organizations women were actively excluded or 

discriminated against, if one accepts that appointing a 

female to one position among ten or eleven possible 

positions is unlikely to be a challenging task. Table 3 

also shows that none of the 117 Accord member 

organizations lacked a male voice on their board in any 

of the time periods. 

The second noteworthy finding is that most 

Accord organizations lacked a critical concentration of 

women serving on their boards, although very few 

lacked a critical mass of men serving. Based on the one-

third benchmark, the ideal would normally be to have 

women and men each represent at least one-third of the 

board.
9

 Only 28% (or 33 organizations) met this goal in 

2015. By 2021, 40% (or 47 organizations) met this goal, 

a sizable improvement, but which still means that half 

of organizations failed to meet this wide target. 

For logistical regressions including years, expenses, 

receipt of government funding, and the existence of a 

whistleblower policy as variables, none is significant in 

predicting which organizations had no or few women 

serving. Perhaps future analyses could add controls for 

theological variables and political commitments, as well 

as peer networks, to consider if these explain some of 

the variance. 

 

 

 
  

                                                        
9

 I acknowledge there could be situations where an all-female or all-male board might be strategic, but this is not the 

case for most international development organizations that partner with women and men around the world in their 

programmatic efforts. 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Reynolds, Gendered Leadership in Accord Organizations  52 

Accord Executive Teams Lack Gender Parity 
Of the 117 Accord organizations in this sample, 

106-107 had paid executive teams during the period of 

2015-2021. For those with only one paid leader, it was 

often someone serving at a CEO or presidential level, 

although in some cases that paid leader was serving at 

the second tier to an unpaid president. As noted 

previously in Table 2, of the 106-107 Accord 

organizations with paid leadership teams, a significant 

number had only one paid leader (60 in 2015, 52 in 

2018, and 42 in 2021). In this section, I analyze the 

gender composition of executive teams, and I consider 

only the 47-64 groups across the years that had 

executive teams with multiple paid leaders. 

Table 4 provides a categorization of organizations 

based on the levels of women and men serving on 

executive teams, similar to the levels reported in Table 

3 for board members. Figure 2 (next page) likewise 

portrays the percentages of female executive leaders for 

the 47-64 organizations each year with executive teams.  

 

 2015 2018 2021 

No Female 

Executives 

18 

(38%) 

25 

(46%) 

24 (38%) 

Under 33% 

Female 

12 

(26%) 

12 

(22%) 

14 (22%) 

Between 33%-

50% Female 

9 (19%) 8 (15%) 11 (17%) 

50% Female 7 (15%) 9 (17%) 10 (16%) 

Between 50-67% 

Female 

1 (2%) 0 4 (6%) 

Over 67% 

Female 

0 0 1 (2%) 

No Male 

Executives 

0 0 0 

n 47 54 64 

Table 4: Executive Teams of Two or More Categorized 

by Percentage of Female Leaders  

As noted in Table 2, women made up between 20% 

(2015) to 25% (2021) of those serving on the executive 

teams for Accord organizations. Figure 2 (next page) 

reveals that among the organizations that had executive 

teams with multiple paid members, women were rarely 

represented in equitable numbers. In fact, no 

organizations in the sample had only female executive 

team members listed on their tax forms (when multiple 

leaders were listed). Yet over a third of Accord 

organizations with paid executive teams had only men 

serving in such positions.  

Using the one-third target, the data reveal that a 

minority of organizations have executive teams that are 

at least one-third female and one-third male. About a 

third (37%) of organizations in 2015 had teams between 

33% and 67% female. This number drops to 30% in 

2018, and then rises slightly to 32% in 2021. This 

number does not seem to improve over time, unlike the 

board percentages for which positive change had 

occurred over the six-year period. In 2021, while 98% 

of organizations with executive teams of two or more 

were at least one-third male, only 40% of organizations 

had teams that were at least one-third female. These 

organizations are thus almost always likely to have men 

represented in the decision-making (and paid decision- 

making)—but they are more likely to lack women in this 

decision-making process. 

Another way to compare women’s parity on 

executive teams is to consider salary and pay equity. 

Figure 3 (next page) presents a visual of the salaries 

received by women and men executives in Accord 

organizations in 2015, 2018, and 2021. It shows the 

difference in the average amount received by women 

and men leading organizations. For example, in 2021, 

men serving in a vice-presidential or other c-suite role 

averaged $181 thousand compared to women who 

averaged $169 thousand. Figure 4, on the other hand, 

shows details of what this represents in terms of the total 

dollars paid to women and men executives leading 

organizations in the sample of 117 organizations over 

the three time points.  

I ran a regression on salary (not presented here) in 

which I included the variables of expenses of the 

organization, year, whether an organization is currently 

part of Accord, the tier the person occupies, and the 

person’s gender. I found that gender was statistically 

significant, and these variables together explain 22% of 

the variation of pay among leaders. With these controls, 

being female is associated with $20,374 dollars less a 

year, a statistic that is significant at a .001 level. This is 

similar to Candid’s finding that male CEOs received 

about 27% more on average than their female 

counterparts (Clerkin 2024). 

When one considers the pay disparity and the 

underrepresentation of women on leadership teams, 

the financial reality is staggering, as evidenced by Figure 

4 (next page). In 2021, for example, $55.4 million 

dollars in expenses were spent on the salaries of male 

Accord leaders, compared to $19.4 million for female 

Accord leaders—the most equitable of the years being 

studied. Another way to think about this is that for every 

dollar a person contributes towards leadership teams, 

$.26 went to women and $.74 went to men. For 2015, 

that amount was $.19 for women out of a dollar. These 

are numbers that donor communities should be aware 

of as they consider how they give resources.  



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Reynolds, Gendered Leadership in Accord Organizations  53 

 
 

 

 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Reynolds, Gendered Leadership in Accord Organizations  54 

Only a Few Women CEOs Serve in Accord 

Organizations 
Table 2 on p. 14 shows the number of Accord 

organizations with women serving as CEOs. This 

number was 15 (out of 106) organizations in 2015, 18 

(out of 103) in 2018, and 18 (out of 101) in 2021. As 

evidenced in Figure 3 on p. 17, those women also 

received significantly less in terms of salary. Female 

CEOs in Accord organizations averaged $128 thousand 

in 2021 compared to $177 thousand for male CEOs, or 

72% of what their male counterparts earned. Some, but 

not all, of this is likely due to the budget size of 

organizations. Figure 5 below presents the percentage 

of organizations with female CEOs grouped by budget 

size. 

 

 
 

Accord organizations look drastically different in 

terms of the percentage of female CEOs than the 

nonprofit sector generally. Instead of the 62% figure of 

women CEOs in the nonprofit sector overall (Clerkin 

et al. 2024), women in the Accord network made up 

only 18% of CEOs in 2021. Even in the organizations 

with small budgets of between $1-$2.5 million dollars, 

women accounted for only about a quarter of those 

holding the CEO positions. These patterns for Accord 

organizations also look different than for other 

nonprofits in the United States, where women’s 

representation decreases as budgets increase (Lennon 

2013; Clerkin et al. 2024). In the Accord Network, 

women are more likely to serve as CEOs in small 

organizations and large organizations, but not the mid-

range ones. The reasons for this need to be further 

investigated, but it may because larger organizations are 

more likely to engage with secular actors or in networks 

where women in leadership are more common.  

Of note is the fact that there has been little progress 

over the past 6 years. This stands in contrast to boards 

and executive teams, for which, on average, women’s 

representation is increasing. Some Accord 

organizations appear open to women being on 

leadership teams, but may still be resistant to women 

serving as the key leader. Further inquiry into obstacles 

that exist around this role would be helpful. Past 

qualitative research on women leading in evangelical 

settings (Ingersoll 2003; Creegan and Pohl 2005) 

suggests that those obstacles may be due to conflicting 

attitudes many Christians hold around fully supporting 

women in leadership, or to a lack of commitment and 

intentionality toward gender equality by the 

organizations (Reynolds and Curry 2016). 

 

Discussion and Conclusion 
Organizations affiliated with the Accord Network 

have a significant problem when it comes to the role of 

women in leadership. Not only are women substantially 

underrepresented when it comes to the CEO position, 

executive teams and boards, but a significant number of 

organizations lack female representation entirely on 

their boards and/or executive teams, a situation that is 

both startling and concerning. Moreover, the low 

average overall means that few organizations have the 

critical number of women in leadership necessary for 

the real inclusion of women’s voices. These low 

numbers typically make the climate less hospitable for 

the few women who are currently serving and leading 

(Birmingham and Simard 2022). 

For organizations in Accord that seek the 

flourishing and shalom of women and men around the 

world, and who deal with issues like gender-based 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Reynolds, Gendered Leadership in Accord Organizations  55 

violence and discrimination towards women, all of this 

seems especially problematic. We must ask why so 

many Accord organizations lack female leadership. As 

suggested earlier, part of the explanation may be 

because of resistance on the part of some organizations 

to have women serving, perhaps due to cultural or 

theological perspectives. While it was previously 

reported that three-quarters of Accord organizations 

claim gender equity to be a value, this means that almost 

one-quarter do not. Indeed, they may hold the opposite 

value. Other organizations say they value it, but do little 

to make it happen. 

It is worth noting here that Accord has eight 

principles of Integral Mission to which all members 

subscribe. Some of these engage the issue of co-laboring 

with partners, but none touches upon the importance 

of women and men serving together. If having women 

and men thrive in exercising their talents for the 

kingdom is indeed a value for Accord, then it is 

important for them to say it openly and clearly. 

Currently, a lack of clarity among organizations on their 

theological commitment is a key factor stunting efforts 

towards gender equality in Christian organizations 

(Reynolds and Curry 2016). More clarity by Accord on 

whether all-male leadership is a theologically or 

practically sound practice would be very helpful. If 

gender equity is indeed important for Accord and its 

work of integral mission, clarity on this issue would 

likely drive organizations to be more intentional about 

it. If gender discrimination is considered appropriate or 

permissible in only some instances, that should also be 

clearly stated (as well as identifying which situations).  It 

may be that fully empowering women is a value Accord 

is not willing to strongly embrace, or on which the 

network is willing to have members agree to disagree. 

Stating this clearly might help some organizational 

members know whether Accord is truly supportive of 

women in leadership. 

Much research and many resources exist in terms 

of best practices for organizations that wish to provide 

more inclusive workplaces, whether around gender or 

around gender and race/ethnicity. Some of this is 

specifically directed towards Christian nonprofits like 

Accord members (Reynolds and Curry 2016; 

Birmingham and Simard 2022). Some of these 

practices include intentionally investing in diversity (in 

terms of both time and resources), fostering discussion 

around gender for all members, outspoken support of 

gender equity among top leaders, both male and 

female, performing gender audits, and regularly 

assessing the organization.  

Finally, the research done for this study raises 

questions about the commitment to transparency and 

availability of data by members of the Accord network. 

Principle Eight of Accord’s Integral Mission Principles 

states that “We Tell the Story with Integrity” (Accord 

2024), meaning that they value truth and transparency 

in how members talk about their work, and “what (they) 

choose to say.”  The data on gendered and racial 

demographics are important for organizations to report, 

and having targets for female representation is tied to 

greater female representation in organizations (Sojo et 

al. 2016). Organizations should report on these 

demographics publicly. While the European Union’s 

Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) 

requires this of many nonprofits, in the USA to date 

organizations do not have to reveal this level of 

information. I recognize the limitations that come with 

using tax data—while one can reasonably (with some 

error) code for gender, the same is not true for issues 

of race and/or disability. Only with greater transparency 

from organizations can we track trends and measure 

progress in the field.  

Candid (see Clerkin et al. 2024) is in the process of 

self-collecting such data from organizations that choose 

to report, which is already a good step. But even in these 

cases, the intersection of race and gender is rarely 

reported. For example, organizations list people of 

color serving and women serving on their boards, but 

do not provide information on women of color serving 

on these boards. For organizations committed both to 

transparency and to reporting, it would be useful to 

report racial/ethnic and gender data in overlapping 

ways, so that analysis can move beyond considering 

gender alone (as done in this paper) and consider how 

it interacts with race and ethnicity.  Further, as some 

financial data is reported, donors might also request 

more transparency related to whom is being paid with 

their contributions. Considering these various data 

points is vital for assessing and addressing the range of 

challenges women face in the leadership of Accord 

organizations. 

References 
 

Accord. 2024. “Integral Mission Principles.” 

https://accord-network.org/principles. Accessed 

July 2024. 

Birmingham, Beth, and Eeva Sallinen Simard. 2022. 

Creating Cultures of Belonging: Cultivating 
Organizations Where Women and Men Thrive. 
Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press. 

 

 

Biu, Ofronama. 2019. Race to Lead: Women of 
Color in the Nonprofit Sector. Building 

Movement Project. https://racetolead.org/women-

of-color/  

BoardSource. 2021. “Leading with Intent: 

BoardSource Index of Nonprofit Practices.” 

https://leadingwithintent.org/  

https://accord-network.causemachine.com/im-principles
https://accord-network.org/principles
https://racetolead.org/women-of-color/
https://racetolead.org/women-of-color/
https://leadingwithintent.org/


Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Reynolds, Gendered Leadership in Accord Organizations  56 

Boserup, Ester. 1970. Women’s Role in Economic 
Development. Oxford: Earthscan Publications.  

Brass, Jennifer N., Wesley Longhofer, Rachel S. 

Robinson, and Allison Schnable. 2018. “NGOs 

and International Development: A Review of 

Thirty-Five Years of Scholarship.” World 
Development 112: 136–49. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2024. “CPI Inflation 

Calculator.” Available at https://data.bls.gov/cgi-

bin/cpicalc.pl. Accessed August 2024. 

Candid. 2024. “About Us.” Available at 

https://candid.org/about. Accessed August 2024. 

Catholic Relief Services. “Financial Reports.” 

Available at https://www.crs.org/about/financial-

reports/pro-forma-irs-form-990. Accessed August 

2024. 

Center for Global Development. 2018 (March). “It's 

High Time We Walk the Talk on Gender 

Equality in Global Development Workplaces. 

Here's How.” https://www.cgdev.org/blog/its-high-

time-we-walk-talk-global-development-workplaces-

heres-how.  

Clerkin, Cathleen. 2024 (April 26). “More Women 

Work in Nonprofits. So Why do Men End up 

Leading Them?” Harvard Business Review. 

https://hbr.org/2024/04/more-women-work-in-

nonprofits-so-why-do-men-end-up-leading-them?  

Clerkin, Cathleen, Mantin Diomande, Anna Koob, 

and Guy Mika. 2024. The State of Diversity in the 
U.S. Nonprofit Sector. Candid. 

doi:10.15868/socialsector.43685 

Cochran, Pamela. 2005. Evangelical Feminism: A 
History. New York: NYU Press. 

Creegan, Nicole, and Christine Pohl. 2005. Living on 

the Boundaries: Evangelical Women, Feminism, 
and the Theological Academy. Downers Grove: 

IVP Academic.  

Dym, Barry, and Harry Hutson. 2005. Leadership in 
Nonprofit Organizations: Lessons from the Third 
Sector. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 

Erkut, Sumru, Vicki Kramer, and Alison Konrad. 

2008. “Critical Mass; Does the Number of 

Women on a Corporate Board make a 

Difference?” In Susan Vinnicombe, Val Singh, 

Ronald J. Burke, Diana Bilimoria, and Morten 

Huse, eds. Women on Corporate Boards of 
Directors: International Research and Practice. 

Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. 

Eyben, Rosalind and Laura Turquet. 2013. Feminists 
in Development Organizations: Change from the 
Margins. Warwickshire: Practical Action 

Publishing. 

Forbes. 2023. “The 100 Largest U.S. Charities.” 

Forbes Magazine. Retrieved from 

https://www.forbes.com/top-charities/list/#.  

Gallagher, Sally. 2003. Evangelical Identity and 
Gendered Family Life. New Brunswick: Rutgers 

University Press. 

Gasman, Marybeth, Noah D. Drezner, Edward 

Epstein, Tyrone Freeman, and Vida L. Avery. 

2011. Race, Gender, and Leadership in 
Nonprofit Organizations. London: Palgrave 

Macmillan. 

Giving Tuesday Data Commons. 2024. Contains 

information from 990 Part 7A Officers and Form 

990 Basic Fields. Available at 

https://990data.givingtuesday.org/datamarts/ 

under the Open Database License (ODbL). 

Accessed July 2024. 

Hassey, Janette. 1989. "A Brief History of Christian 

Feminism." Transformation 6 (2): 1–5. 

Ingersoll, Julie. 2003. Evangelical Christian Women: 
War Stories in the Gender Battles. New York: 

NYU Press. 

Laponsky, Lucie, and Deborah Larkin. 2009. White 
House Project: Benchmarking Women’s 
Leadership. New York: White House Project. 

Leading Edge. 2021. The Gender Gap in Jewish 
Nonprofit Leadership: An Ecosystem View. 

https://www.leadingedge.org/resource/the-gender-

gap-in-jewish-nonprofit-leadership/.  

Lennon, Tiffani. 2013. Benchmarking Women’s 
Leadership in the United States. Denver: 

University of Denver. 

Ma, Ji. 2021. “Automated Coding Using Machine 

Learning and Remapping the U.S. Nonprofit 

Sector: A Guide and Benchmark.” Nonprofit and 
Voluntary Sector Quarterly 50 (3): 662–87. 

Marshall, Katherine. 2010. “Development, Religion, 

and Women’s Roles in Contemporary Societies.” 

The Review of Faith and International Affairs 8 

(4): 33–40. doi:10.1080/15570274.2010.528970 

McClearly, Rachel. 2009. Global Compassion: Private 
Voluntary Organizations and U.S. Foreign Policy 
Since 1939. New York: Oxford University Press. 

McKinsey & Company 2021. Women in the 

Workplace 2021. 

https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/fea

tured%20insights/diversity%20and%20inclusion/w

omen%20in%20the%20workplace%202021/wom

en-in-the-workplace-2021.pdf.   

McKinsey & Company. 2024. Women in the 

Workplace 2024. 

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-

insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-

workplace.  

Offutt, Stephen, and Amy Reynolds. 2019. “Christian 

Ideas of Development.” Christian Relief, 

Development, and Advocacy Journal 1 (1): 1–14. 

 

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
https://candid.org/about
https://www.crs.org/about/financial-reports/pro-forma-irs-form-990
https://www.crs.org/about/financial-reports/pro-forma-irs-form-990
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/its-high-time-we-walk-talk-global-development-workplaces-heres-how
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/its-high-time-we-walk-talk-global-development-workplaces-heres-how
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/its-high-time-we-walk-talk-global-development-workplaces-heres-how
https://hbr.org/2024/04/more-women-work-in-nonprofits-so-why-do-men-end-up-leading-them
https://hbr.org/2024/04/more-women-work-in-nonprofits-so-why-do-men-end-up-leading-them
https://www.forbes.com/top-charities/list/
https://990data.givingtuesday.org/datamarts/
https://www.leadingedge.org/resource/the-gender-gap-in-jewish-nonprofit-leadership/
https://www.leadingedge.org/resource/the-gender-gap-in-jewish-nonprofit-leadership/
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insights/diversity%20and%20inclusion/women%20in%20the%20workplace%202021/women-in-the-workplace-2021.pdf
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insights/diversity%20and%20inclusion/women%20in%20the%20workplace%202021/women-in-the-workplace-2021.pdf
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insights/diversity%20and%20inclusion/women%20in%20the%20workplace%202021/women-in-the-workplace-2021.pdf
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insights/diversity%20and%20inclusion/women%20in%20the%20workplace%202021/women-in-the-workplace-2021.pdf
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace


Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Reynolds, Gendered Leadership in Accord Organizations  57 

Ostrower, Francie. 2007. Nonprofit Governance in 
the United States: Findings of Performance and 
Accountability from the First National 
Representative Study. Washington DC: The 

Urban Institute. 

Patillo-McCoy, Mary. 1998. “Church Culture as a 

Strategy of Action in the Black Community.” 

American Sociological Review 63 (6): 767–784. 

Reynolds, Amy, and Janel Curry. 2016. Best Practices 
for Recruiting, Attracting, and Retaining Women 
in Leadership in Christian Nonprofits. Report for 

the Women in Leadership National Study. 

Wenham: Gordon College.  

Sojo, Victor, Robert Wood, Sally Wood, and Melissa 

Wheeler. 2016. “Reporting Requirements, 

Targets, and Quotas for Women in Leadership.” 

The Leadership Quarterly 27 (3): 519–536. 

Scheitle, Christopher. 2010. Beyond the 
Congregation: The World of Christian 
Nonprofits. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Schleifer, Cyrus and Amy Miller. 2017.” Occupational 

Gender Inequality among American Clergy, 

1976–2016: Revisiting the Stained-Glass Ceiling.” 

Sociology of Religion 78 (4): 387–410. 

Swartz, Lisa. 2022. Stained Glass Ceilings: How 

Evangelicals Do Gender and Practice Power. New 

Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. 

Wallace, Tina. 1998 “Institutionalizing Gender in UK 

NGOs.” Development in Practice 8 (2): 159–172. 
 

 

Amy Reynolds is an associate professor of sociology at 

Wheaton College, where she specializes in economic 

globalization, religion, and gender.  
 

Author email: Amy.Reynolds@wheaton.edu  
 

 

 

 

mailto:Amy.Reynolds@wheaton.edu

