Balancing the Mission Checkbook

The topic of social enterprise comes up often in discussions and meetings that I have with nonprofits, businesspeople interested in nonprofits, and foundations. I keep tripping over the lexicon, though, because I don’t think that the commonly used terms are certain, universal, or completely clear. It seems that the “field” encompasses a number of different types of organizations with different definitions and identifiers. Because I dance around these phrases so often, I looked around the other day to compile definitions for these terms in regular use.

Social enterprise is defined by Social Enterprise Alliance as “an organization or venture (within an organization) that advances a social mission through entrepreneurial, earned income strategies.” This often reflects a market-based effort to receive earned income in direct exchange for a product or service. Examples of social enterprise from SEA include:

• A substance abuse treatment facility operating a moving company
• An organization promoting college enrollment that provides workshops to educators
• A youth services organization opening a pretzel shop or ice cream shop franchise
• Goodwill thrift stores

Social entrepreneurs are defined by Ashoka as those who “act as the change agents for society, seizing opportunities others miss and improving systems, inventing new approaches, and creating solutions to change society for the better. While a business entrepreneur might create entirely new industries, a social entrepreneur comes up with new solutions to social problems and then implements them on a large scale.” Examples include:

• Jim McCorkell, founder of Admission Possible (an Ashoka Fellow)
• Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank

A socially responsible business is defined as a venture (generally for-profit) that seeks to “leverage business for a more just and sustainable world” (Social Venture Network) or “help create a better world by building healthy communities, promoting economic equity, and fostering a clean environment” (Social Investment Forum). In addition to generating a profit for shareholders, these businesses have goals in the areas of economic development, employment, environmental practices, or ethical business practices.

For me, the key distinctions between these terms are the following:

• Social enterprises are defined by revenue source
• Social entrepreneurs are defined by innovative vision and strategy
• Socially responsible businesses are defined by the intention and goals of a for-profit business
  

It may seem to some people that the definitions are just semantics, but I think they’re important if we want to create resources, find capital, and develop a knowledge base. The needs and demands are probably different if your focus is on revenue sources rather than a game changing strategy.What do you think - do these definitions matter? Are the three listed here on the right track, or would you offer some others?

Unfortunately, the news has been full of stories of struggling nonprofit organizations. Every nonprofit is grappling with budgets and growing community needs in the face of economic pressures. Fundraising is mixed right now, with individual giving as the biggest concern for many organizations, and corporate giving still an open question. Meanwhile, utilities and transportation costs are up and programs are trying to serve more clients. Balancing mission and money is always hard work.

It seems that every article includes a comment by either the director or board chair that identifies the current economic downturn as the cause of the financial problems. The next time you read something similar, consider the possibility that, in some cases, “it’s the economy” might be a masking a different story.

By doing a little financial detective work, I’ve found that some of the nonprofits that identify the current economy as their problem have actually been operating with deficits for several years. They spend more than they bring in – and eventually it catches up with them. Checking this out requires a few steps. Access to IRS 990s on Guidestar is a gift for this kind of research. Page 1 (Part I) of the 990 reports all income and expenses and the resulting surplus or deficit. Because this section consolidates all unrestricted, restricted, capital, and endowment activity, though, it isn’t helpful in reporting the operating results. Page ahead to Part IV, the balance sheet, and look at Line 67 – Unrestricted Net Assets. If the organization had an operating surplus, this balance will increase from the beginning to the end of the year. If they had an operating deficit, then the balance will decrease.

There are a wide range of reasons and circumstances that result in operating deficits. Recurring and unmanaged operating deficits are the number one red flag of financial problems and raise questions about ongoing viability. If deficits recur, the management and board must take the time to understand the causes and make needed changes in income and expenses. Raising money is challenging in every economic environment, especially during a downturn. Make sure you can distinguish between the economic, management, and program considerations that result in deficits and take the steps needed to address each one.

Jeanne Bell at CompassPoint wrote a wonderful column about surplus and deficit planning, Nonprofit Budgets Have to Balance: False!. She asks strategic questions about budgets:

Instead of “How can we make the budget balance?” the annual budgeting cycle should begin with the question, “What financial outcome does our organization want or need this year?”

I can’t think of a single nonprofit that would answer that question by saying, “Our desired financial outcome is to run out of money and close our doors.”

A couple of weeks ago The Financial Times posted an online article, MBAs lift non-profit sector, which sings the praises of MBA degrees for those seeking leadership roles at nonprofits. The article portrays those with MBAs as possessors of a set of skills and abilities that have been unavailable to nonprofits. The FT article and similar postings over the past few months have generated a variety of responses, both from fans of MBAs and from contrarians. There’s the “nonprofits need to be more business-like” school of thought, and then there’s the “but we’re really different” argument. At the PhilanTopic blog, Tracy Kaufman posted What’s so great about an MBA? with a skeptical view of MBAs. She hits it exactly right, I think, with this comment, “But to suggest that what nonprofits really need to be effective is a couple of MBAs and more business discipline strikes this nonprofit employee as, well…beside the point.”

Exactly. It is beside the point what degrees the leaders or staff have. It’s the skills and knowledge that matter, and the ability to use those skills, knowledge, experience, etc. to effectively impact the community. It’s worth considering why this needs to be a debate at all. Is this an example of a chip on the shoulders of the nonprofit sector?

The best hope for the next era of leadership depends, I think, on flexible, adaptable, and smart people of all stripes. The Future Leaders in Philanthropy blog has a nice post that describes the benefits of, and distinctions between, MBA and MPA degrees. My advice is that (1) graduate degrees are great for learning, opening your mind to new and emerging ideas, and working collaboratively with different people; (2) any professional degree program with rigor will be a good experience; and (3) you should pursue the degree program that sounds like it will get you where you want to be.

Disclaimer: After two decades in a for-profit business, I spend my days helping nonprofit organizations navigate the most business-like aspects of their organizations – the finances. I’m pretty good at it. I do not have an MBA.

Wouldn’t every nonprofit, and the nonprofit sector overall, love to be able to increase contributions by 50%? No problem!

I don’t actually have the magic trick to make more dollars come in the door. The big increase in contributions is already in our hands in the form of volunteer labor. It’s a fact. When the value of volunteer labor is included, the total amount of contributions to US nonprofits increases by over 50%.

Here’s the data in a nutshell: The Corporation for National and Community Service just released their annual Volunteering in America study. They report that 61 million Americans volunteered in their communities in 2007, donating 8.1 billion hours of service worth more than $158 billion. The recent Giving USA survey for 2007 reported that cash contributions exceeded $300 billion for the first time. This includes individuals, bequests, corporations, and foundations. The actual value of charitable giving, when donated labor is included, is over $450 billion.

Think about that – 8.1 billion hours is roughly equivalent to 4 million full-time employees. Wow.

Where does this $158 billion calculation come from? Every year, Independent Sector calculates an hourly equivalent for volunteer time. The current value is $19.51 per hour, which is reportedly based on the average hourly earnings of all production and non-supervisory workers on private, non-farm payrolls as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Independent Sector takes this figure and increases it by 12% to estimate for fringe benefits. (I will leave for another discussion the fact that many employees of nonprofit organizations earn less than this amount.) I encourage every nonprofit with volunteer labor to calculate this value for themselves.

Unfortunately, it’s too easy for this important economic information to be lost because of accounting rules. Most of this economic value is never reported in audited financial statements or IRS 990s. The applicable accounting rule, FASB 116: Accounting for contributions, limits the recognition of the financial value of volunteers to a very narrow definition. Because of this, the actual economic profile of many nonprofits is skewed. When comparing nonprofits to for-profit enterprises, we usually dwell on the role of contributed income and subsidy. The importance of contributed labor is easily lost. I understand why the accounting profession is concerned about accuracy and reliability when recognizing the value of volunteers. However, it’s time to revisit these accounting rules. We’ve been willing to overlook this financial under-reporting for years, but I think the importance and value of volunteers is becoming too significant to ignore for much longer.

End note: There’s a bit of local pride to be found in the new volunteering study. Minnesota ranks #3 by state and the Twin Cities is #1 for large cities in the percentage of the adult population who volunteer. Learn more about how to make the most of volunteers from Hands On Twin Cities.

How do you know what you don’t know? Someone asked this question last week in a workshop on the topic of board oversight and some high-profile problems. It’s such a great and critical question. There’s been a swirl of conversations in the last week or so about financial problems and governance issues at a number of nonprofits, both local and national. No matter what the details are, questions have been raised in every situation about the board’s role – what did they know, when did they know it, and what did they do? But what’s the first step for the board, since they are relying on reports from the staff and have little or no access to the raw information. Boards that ask for lots of details are accused of micro-managing and not trusting the staff. So how do you know what you don’t know? There has to be a balancing act between accepting reports at face value and asking questions that go beyond the information presented. I think that there’s an art to asking good questions – my favorites generally start with either “Why…?” or “What if…?” (I actually have those two words up on the wall in my office). Speaking last night to a group of people who had recently joined boards of nonprofits, I suggested that asking questions is their primary job. It’s great if they get an answer that makes sense. However, the role of governing requires further action and follow up when the answer doesn’t make sense, or when the answer is “Don’t worry about it,” or “I’ll find out later.” The distinction between hyper-questioning and prudent questioning depends on circumstances, but in every one of these recent governance and financial situations there were some “why” questions that needed to be asked and then carried through.

This complex balancing act between supporting and governing is discussed in the article Why Boards Don’t Govern available from CompassPoint. One point raised in this article is the importance of creating an atmosphere and culture at board meetings that encourages questions and disagreements. I know in financial matters, many board members feel like second-class citizens because they are not the “financial” board members. The fact is that if they have a question, or if something doesn’t make sense, they need to feel free and encouraged to ask the question. It just might be the question to unlocks the truth.

There was no telling what people might find out once they felt free to ask whatever questions they wanted to. (Joseph Heller, Catch 22).

Eight years ago, ACORN, a national grassroots community organizing nonprofit, was the victim of an embezzlement of almost $1 million from an employee who was the brother of the organization’s founder. The fraud was never reported to their board of directors or legal authorities, but a small internal group negotiated a restitution agreement and then kept the perpetrator on staff. The situation just became public after pressure from a whistle-blower and was reported this week in The New York Times. Quoted in the article, ACORN’s president said, “We thought it best at the time to protect the organization, as well as to get the funds back into the organization, to deal with it in-house.”

Can we make a list of the problems with this scenario? Among other reactions, I want to thank the whistle-blower, though I would like to know why it took eight years for anyone to think this was not OK. Yesterday, ACORN released a statement from the president apologizing for their handling of the situation and announcing that the founder (brother of the embezzler) had stepped down. The most alarming phrase in the statement is that “The ACORN Board recently learned …” How comfortable would you be if you sat on that board – with fiduciary responsibility – and learned that you had been sitting for years on this ethical powder keg?

The statement says, “We want to assure our many friends and supporters that ACORN’s Board has taken additional steps to ensure increased transparency and accountability” (emphasis mine). It seems to me that they need to start with basic transparency and accountability. They can start with a basic accountability overview from Independent Sector.

There is a lesson here for every nonprofit organization. Public trust really is the most important asset for each individual nonprofit and for the whole sector. It’s too easy to mess it up, which is why we all get asked to answer questions and fill out forms and certifications by donors, foundations, the IRS, state Attorney General, etc, etc, etc. As long as these kind of egregious situations occur, and especially when they are mishandled, nonprofits will be subject to deeper scrutiny and misgivings about trustworthiness.