Balancing the Mission Checkbook

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.

How can you appeal to donors at a time when costs and demands for services are increasing? How about a letter or email detailing your line by line budget increases? Probably not – because what it costs to provide services isn’t compelling. It’s what results from the services that makes the case. By results, though, I don’t just mean a nice story or picture. I mean results. I’ve been reading and hearing more and more frequently about measuring, quantifying, and communicating the results of nonprofit programs, but somehow we (as a nonprofit community) still seem to be coming up short in public perception.

Once again, a study reports that public confidence in charities is declining. Less than 20% of respondents expressed the highest level of confidence in charities’ practices in using financial resources or in managing programs and services. This annual survey, conducted by Professor Paul Light from NYU’s Wagner School of Public Service, was recently summarized in The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Professor Light was the speaker at Charities Review Council’s Annual Forum in Saint Paul last week. After summarizing the survey results and trends, he focused on two key factors related to confidence. The essential question about confidence, he said, is whether or not the public (and your donors) believe that charities spend their money wisely. Not about what line items are in your budget, or how much is spent on program vs. management – the concern is whether money is spent wisely to accomplish something of value. The second, parallel question is how a nonprofit conveys and demonstrates their value. What benefits occur because of your program? Harlem Children’s Zone’s annual report, for example, is full of data about results, progress, and success. The data demonstrates that money is spent wisely because the results are so real. Professor Light repeated his mantra several times - measure something!

A headline last week in Philanthropy Today read “Mass. Charities Urged to Merge and Pool Resources”. The story comments on a report just released by The Boston Foundation on the financial status and condition of nonprofits in the state. The online story offers a few nuggets from the report and summarizes that “Its findings follow what officials at the foundation have been saying less formally in the past several years: that some of the state’s nonprofit groups should merge or pool resources to reduce overhead and offset cuts in state money and waning private donations.” This summary of the report’s recommendations is accurate, but it’s incomplete. The report itself, Passion & Purpose: Raising the Fiscal Fitness Bar for Massachusetts Nonprofits, offers so much more in information, analysis, and recommendations that are important for nonprofits everywhere.

In their analysis, the authors group nonprofits in three organizational/financial categories: small Grassroots Organizations, mid-sized Safety Net Organizations, and large Economic Engines. While it is a budgetary distinction, the authors dig into the financial profiles of these three groups and point out some systemic issues. They raise alarms, for example, about the vulnerable financial condition of the essential Safety Net Organizations caused by reliance on public funding that does not cover the cost of delivering services or building infrastructure and reserves. The report also acknowledges that the growth in the number of young Grassroots organizations can be seen as evidence that there are too many nonprofits, but that this group is often the source of new ideas and direct responsiveness to niche community needs.

The report concludes with three recommendations billed as “A Call to Action” on page 15 of the Executive Summary. The first recommendation, which earned the headline, is for Restructuring and Consolidation including mergers and/or alliances to efficiently provide some administrative and operational foundations. A great Minnesota example of this is MACC CommonWealth. The other recommendations that weren’t headlined are also important. The second is Repositioning nonprofits as an influential group in the state and region through collective action, policy work, and organizing for common goals such as cost savings, efficient regulations, and access to capital. In my view, the third Call to Action is most important – Reinvention and Reinvestment. This broad recommendation encompasses three themes: appropriate program funding structures that cover the cost of services, adequate funding for organizational capacity and stability, and healthy financial management practices. These structural questions are urgent. Nonprofits can’t merge their way out of recurring deficits if the formulas and expectations continue to demand more services for less money. The three recommendations have the most impact as a set – not an either/or choice. The challenges to stable services in the community and healthy nonprofits spring from various practices, systems, and perceptions and require multiple approaches. I hope you read this report and join the call to action.

When economic times get stressed, as they are now, nonprofit organizations are often urged to consider mergers or other collaborative structures as a strategy to navigate reductions and shifts in funding. The topic came up again at a meeting last week titled “The State We’re In: Fulfilling Human Service Needs in a Time of Economic Uncertainty.” Scott Russell at MinnPost.com wrote a good summary of the tone and comments of the meeting, Nonprofits hear a gloomy forecast about future funding. With financial pressures from all sides, coupled with increased demand for services stemming from employment and housing problems, many nonprofits will be hard pressed to keep up the juggling.

No one would say that mergers are the right answer for every nonprofit, but if you do think that joining forces would make sense and help your organization maintain stable services, where do you find your mate? All of the articles and books I’ve read discuss the importance of finding the right fit with leadership that can work together, board buy-in, and mission alignment. But where do you find them? What happens when the board chair or director of a small nonprofit calls the CEO of a large, established agency to inquire about a potential merger? Do they invite you over for coffee? Do they even return the call?

I think I’ve found the answer – speed dating for nonprofits! Speed dating is an organized event to help singles meet a number of people in one evening with the intent of finding one or two for an actual date. Speed dating for nonprofits would follow the formula. Nonprofit leaders, from large, medium, and small organizations, would be scheduled for a series of 5 to 8 minute conversations about mission, programs, and goals. A bell would indicate time to move on to the next “date.” No commitments or promises are made. At the end of the event everyone indicates on the list which of the nonprofits they would like to talk with further. It’s efficient and direct.

On the other hand, if you’d rather proceed with more control and confidentiality, there are a number of resources available. A short study published in 2004 by a collaborative of Milwaukee funders, Nonprofit Collaborations and Mergers: Finding the Right Fit, lists these key characteristics of successful partnerships: committed leadership, unambiguous goals, clearly defined roles, commitment at multiple levels of the organization, dedicated staff time, and sustainability in the midst of change. Fieldstone Alliance has two workbooks by David La Piana on nonprofit mergers. For hands on assistance, Project ReDesign is a new service from MAP for Nonprofits to assist with any part of considering, planning, and carrying out a merger.

Right now, about 25% of the nonprofits that we are working with pretty closely are in the midst of a capital campaign, are just finishing their campaign, or have plans to launch one in the next year or so. The meaning of “capital” campaign is evolving, and about one-third of these campaigns include a substantial amount of flexible working capital and infrastructure investment in addition to traditional bricks and mortar. (This is an important trend that I’ve written about before.) Looking at the campaigns and organizations as a whole, it’s clear that the campaigns that are going well were thoughtfully planned out, based on feasibility studies, and focused on donors with whom the nonprofit already had a relationship. The campaigns that have floundered or dragged on were based on some broad assumptions about who “should” support them, plugged numbers to fill out the budget, and the planning happened along the way. These observations lead right to the basics of capital campaigns – lots of planning, being realistic, committing the time and people, and monitoring everything as you progress.

Capital campaigns also demand consideration of external factors, including the competitive impact of other capital campaigns and of economic trends. We in Minnesota can thank the Minnesota Council on Foundations for conducting a survey last month on Capital and Endowment Campaigns in Minnesota, 2007-2008. The survey reports on 62 current and 72 planned campaigns for buildings, endowments, and infrastructure investments. The largest campaigns are for colleges and universities, with human services and health care a distant second and third. Interestingly, the higher ed, health care, and arts organizations expect most of their funds to come from individuals donors, while human service nonprofits expect about half to come from grants. This week’s Chronicle of Philanthropy reports in “Feeling the Squeeze” that some large capital campaigns are running into some resistance from large donors concerned about the economy. The examples in the article, which is only available in its online format to subscribers, indicated that gifts were delayed or stretched out, but that the campaigns continued to be successful in a different environment.

If you are beginning to plan a new fundraising push – whether you call it capital campaign or not – you need to understand the trends, the local landscape, and how many other “asks” will be in the mail.