Balancing the Mission Checkbook

How much are you willing to pay for a ticket to the theater, a management class, or a counseling session? What should other patrons or clients pay for that same service? Does it matter to you whether or not the price that you pay covers the actual costs of receiving that service?

The rapid changes in the availability of government and philanthropic funds to pay for and subsidize services have led many nonprofits to examine their financial structure and realize that they can’t afford to continue to offer their services for free or nearly free. That model may have worked when the grants and contributions were available, but it doesn’t any more.

Nonprofits Assistance Fund offers workshops and webinars for staff and board members of nonprofits on financial management topics. We charge a fee for these training programs. What’s the right price for us to charge? Change the specifics and that same question is being raised at nonprofits of every size and scope. The answer, as with everything, is “it depends.”  It depends on the purpose and goals, both programmatic and financial, of offering the service. Should prices be based only on costs, or does market demand factor in understanding what your clients or audience are willing to pay? Some of the fee-based services offered by nonprofits are more naturally based on market and competition. Others are much more sensitive to the ability of clients to pay. Theater tickets and tutoring for low-income students have different economic models.

When you start this analysis, it’s important to recognize that discussions about starting to charge a fee or making changes to prices often get caught up in emotions about money and organizational and personal values. When the suggestion of requiring a payment from clients first comes up, expect some of your colleagues to recoil in horror. Someone may even tell you that nonprofits are not legally allowed to charge for their services. (Please tell that to the two colleges that I’m currently supporting!) Talking about money is uncomfortable for many people, and offering services for no charge is very easy. Unless you have adequate subsidy dollars from contributions or other sources though, it’s not sustainable.

A recent post on the Stanford Social Innovation Review blog, Nine Tips to Better Nonprofit Pricing, provides a good start with the market approach. I highly recommend the article To Fee or Not to Fee?, published in the Summer 2004 issue of Nonprofit Quarterly for a thorough review of whether or not to charge a fee, how fees and program access can be aligned, and how to set prices. The article makes a strong case that charging fees improves the relationship with clients:

The most powerful argument in favor of charging fees is the discipline of the marketplace – that fees increase accountability to the people receiving services.

They include a summary of research that showed that fees may help clients buy-in to the services more and perceive greater benefits.

For most nonprofits, charging fees and setting prices will depend on a number of factors, but most of these can be addressed with operational capacity, program design, and differential pricing. This topic is worth a thorough review whether you currently charge fees or not as a part of long term financial planning and strategy.

In the report Creative Disruption published a few months ago by CompassPoint, the executive summary is titled “The Power of Sabbaticals” to confront to common assumptions that an executive sabbatical will result in chaos at the organization and the ultimate departure of the executive (after a “taste of freedom from the job”).

We now have evidence that these concerns are unfounded. In fact, EDs who go on sabbatical are more likely either to remain in their positions or extend their tenure, not cut it short. And rather than causing chaos, disruptions in an organization’s day-to-day affairs may be beneficial. Perhaps most importantly, a sabbatical can be a relatively inexpensive but highly productive capacity-building tool that yields measurable results.

We’ve proven the truth of that conclusion first hand here at Nonprofits Assistance Fund and at MAP for Nonprofits. Judy Alnes, Executive Director at MAP, took a sabbatical in October 2009. She wrote about what she learned during her time away in a thought-provoking guest commentary for Minnesota Council on Foundations. I’m still digesting my ideas and thoughts after a one month sabbatical in February of this year. It’s not really a surprise that having the opportunity and luxury to step back for a while benefited both Judy and me. Our absences had an entirely different benefit for those who were called upon to step in the lead while we were gone. Amy Wagner, Associate Director of MAP, and Janet Ogden-Brackett, Loan Fund Manager at Nonprofits Assistance Fund, deserve a thousand thanks (and some extra vacation). We asked them to share their thoughts about the experience.

Amy Wagner

Recently, Judy Alnes, Executive Director at MAP, known to me as “my boss,” took a sabbatical. While Judy was taking some time to travel, read, learn, connect, meet, think, recharge, etc., I had the chance to serve as MAP’s Acting Executive Director.

Judy was gone for five weeks. While that sounded like a long time when we were planning for it, it actually went by in a flash. Judy worked closely with MAP’s board and staff to prepare for her time away and there was clear communication on roles and responsibilities in her absence. One MAP staff member commented:

Staff at MAP know their roles and responsibilities and operate independently, which also led to a smooth operation. Everyone was willing to do what was necessary to help out.

And there was a need to help out. Judy’s planned sabbatical happened to fall exactly at the same time that we were preparing to launch GiveMN.  Since MAP was the nonprofit rollout partner in this effort, and I was the project manager and lead trainer, we were stretched. In addition, a key staff member was called away to address a family emergency during this time. Thankfully, everyone was willing to step up, pitch in and work as a team to keep things moving smoothly. In retrospect, it may have been better to plan for the unexpected and think proactively about who would be “on deck” to help in various scenarios. That may have taken some pressure off of me and given others more of a chance to contribute in new ways.

Personally, Judy’s sabbatical gave me a chance to develop and demonstrate my leadership abilities. I gained a greater appreciation for the role of the ED, and all the different constituencies with whom the ED interacts and to whom they are accountable. I gained a greater appreciation of the role the ED has in setting the tone in the office and creating an environment in which people can share their talents. I gained confidence in my ability to work with our board and our funders. I saw, and I know others sensed as well, that while serving as an ED is a big and important job, leadership does not reside in one person – there’s a whole team of staff and board members leading the organization. Since Judy’s return from sabbatical, I’ve been named MAP’s Associate Director. This new position is part of an organizational change that in large part resulted directly from what Judy and MAP as a whole learned during the sabbatical. The organizational shifts aim to give Judy more time to focus on MAP’s voice and impact in the community, me more time to work on new collaborations and partnerships, and others at MAP new opportunities to learn, lead, collaborate and contribute. I think we will feel the positive impact of this sabbatical for years to come.

Janet Ogden-Brackett

When I thought about what to include in this blog, I just knew I wanted to share some funny stories from the four-week period in which Kate Barr was on sabbatical. There is the story where the construction crew announced they would be removing the doorframe from my office at the exact moment that I was on a conference call. Maybe I would try to describe the amount of dust that sanding drywall produces or the screeching sound of the hydraulic lift. I only wish I could share a recording of one of the carpenters who loved to sing along to the oldies radio station.

Wait, I’m getting a little ahead myself.

Let me explain that the same four weeks that Kate was out coincided with the renovation of our office space. We had never planned for this to happen but as we saw the two events align, there was no real reason to change either one. We knew there would be the additional challenges of managing construction, but everything was very well planned, right down to the last detail.

The real value of the sabbatical is not how we addressed the unexpected and often hilarious challenges, or gained greater appreciation for scenario planning and always having at the ready a good plan b. Rather the value is in the rare opportunity for our organization to gain increased capacity through renewed leadership and an empowered staff.

There has to be a very special team in place in order to pull off a sabbatical. The first step comes not from a beleaguered Executive Director who makes the request of the Board because they need a long vacation, but rather from thoughtful leadership that can see the benefits of the break to staff and board as well as themselves. The Board must buy in that the benefits are identifiable and real and staff must be willing to step up and work as a team while assuming a great deal of responsibility. A successful sabbatical inspires and empowers everyone.

The changes here at Nonprofits Assistance Fund are large and small, obvious and subtle. The most obvious difference is to the office space; the change is big and audacious. Other changes took place as we developed our skills in unfamiliar areas from capable to proficient. We all raised our expectations for each other and ourselves. The more subtle changes will have a greater lasting impact to our organization. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “The mind, once expanded to the dimensions of larger ideas, never returns to its original size.”  We asked every single staff member to step up into more responsibility and take on more work. After the sabbatical, there was no reason to step back. The entire team is better for the experience and our internal capacity is far superior to what it once was. To me it feels like we took a giant step forward and with every new undertaking, we now start closer to the finish line.

Now that most nonprofits have filed the new version of the IRS 990, you might be taking a deep breath of relief that you got that big change done with and over. Don’t let the 990 sit in a drawer, though. Not after all that work. The new 990 is a big step forward to bring better, more usable information to a wide range of stakeholders including current and prospective donors, watchdog groups, public officials, media, and other nonprofits. Ultimately, the most important user of your 990 is you.

Part of the value comes when you pull together all the pieces to have the form completed. The new 990 requires information about mission, program accomplishments and costs, board members and key staff, policies and governance practices, compensation, fundraising, finance, and much more. While many nonprofits rely on their audit firms to complete the 990, most of the required information is not financial and must be supplied by various departments or staff of the organization. The second part of the value comes from continuing to use the 990 as a communication and analysis tool. Here are four suggestions.

As an organizational tutorial

Read the whole 990, front to back. New managers, board members, emerging leaders, or anyone else on staff who wants to know more about the organization can get a complete overview of the organization by reading the complete form including all of the schedules. This assignment will also help you identify any questions or sections that need to be clarified or completed more thoroughly.

As a financial analysis tool

The 990 contains a complete financial report in a standard format. The new form expands the financial information, particularly the income section, to provide more complete data. Most financial analysis steps can be conducted using the 990. To make it easier, Nonprofits Assistance Fund created a new tool that we call the “990 Decoder.” Transfer the three financial pages from the Core Form onto this spreadsheet and you will generate a familiar looking Balance Sheet and Income Statement and a page of six standard nonprofit financial ratios. These can easily be used for comparison with other years or with other, peer nonprofits. Just “decode” their 990, too. We’re happy that the Minnesota Council on Foundations likes to decode 990s, too.

As a source of comparable compensation data

A month ago we were fielded a number of requests for help from board members of nonprofits who were responsible for obtaining information about executive director compensation from comparable organizations. In many cases, salary surveys fit the bill, such as the thorough review that Minnesota Council of Nonprofits compiles. Another simple approach is to create your own peer group of 4 or 5 nonprofits that are of similar size and type of service. Compile a custom comparison by using Guidestar to collect compensation data from your peers’ IRS 990s. Compensation is usually listed in Part VII on page 7. Guidestar registration is easy and free for the basic search. The information will be at least a year old, but as we told the board members we talked with, no one got much in the way of salary increases last year anyway.

As a communications tool

One of the unique features of the 990 is the Program Accomplishments section that is now the second page of the form. Hopefully you have taken advantage of the opportunity to communicate specifically what activities you completed, who you served, and how this work had an important impact in the community. Take an hour or so and read the Program Accomplishments for your nonprofit and then read the section for a few other organizations that you admire. How well did they communicate their work? How did you do? Learn from other organizations and look for ways to promote your 990 as another communications tool. Post it on your website (along with you audit, please).

Don’t let the IRS 990 sit around gathering dust. Give it a workout and help both your organizations and the nonprofit sector show the value of transparency and accountability.

There are some recurring terms that I’ve been hearing over and over in meetings, conferences, and articles intended to help nonprofits, including arts organizations, respond to the serious challenges created by the recession. From what I hear we all need to be resilient, learn to innovate, and adapt to a new normal. It sounds good, but is there some substance that we can use behind these words?

Resilience: Frankly, the people who lead and work for arts organizations have always been about as resilient as you could be, if resilience means the ability to improvise with what’s at hand and bounce back.

Innovation: How about innovation? The arts shine as innovators in creating art, but much less so on the organizational side. Most nonprofit arts organizations are structured using a management and financial model that’s been around for a long time. More and more questions have been raised about the model that will eventually lead to some more options. On his great blog The Artful Manager Andrew Taylor frequently writes about these questions including here and here. There are other interesting developments in helping arts organizations to innovate for long-term structural change. The James Irvine Foundation states that “we define innovation as instances of organizational change that stem from a shift in underlying assumptions and provide new ways to fulfill the mission.” Incremental change isn’t enough for arts organizations to confront their long-term challenges.

Adapting to the new normal: I’m not so sure that we ever had an “old normal”, or that change is a new dynamic. Regardless of the current terminology, though, arts organizations are facing deep and sustained changes to their funding sources, audiences, and role in the community. There is a lot to learn about becoming more adept at identifying the questions and leading the necessary changes. The article Leadership in a (Permanent) Crisis describes adaptive leadership as the capacity to sort out and balance the short and long term issues. Facing immediate problems, many managers will hunker down and nibble around the edges of problems.

People who practice what we call adaptive leadership do not make this mistake. Instead of hunkering down they seize the opportunity of moments like this one to hit the organizational reset button. They use the turbulence of the present to build on and bring closure to the past. In the process, they change key rules of the game, reshape parts of the organization, and redefine the work the people do.

The time is critical for many arts organizations to understand their current situation, envision the extent of changes, and learn to truly and continually adapt.

What if? Last week I was sad to read that the Harlem School of the Arts closed its doors. The school was an institution in the neighborhood for over 40 years. The news report paints a case story of their failure to adapt – years of financial, management and governance problems and attempts to address them with short-term cuts, emergency fundraising efforts, and fingerpointing. If we don’t want to see this happen elsewhere we need to learn some new approaches.

Yes, they’re the buzz words of the day, but I can’t argue with the importance of resilience, innovation and adaptive leadership.

This blog was cross-posted at Springboard for the Arts’ Springblog.

This guest post was written by Carol Berde, nonprofit consultant.

Live Heart Healthy

Have you noticed the articles that accompany tax season each year, with advice about which financial records to keep and which to toss out? That inspired a little file purging in my office, or, as I thought of it, clearing the clots out of the office arteries. One item I found (and kept) got me thinking that nonprofit organizations also have to keep their arteries clear – not just once a year, but continually.

I found notes from a philanthropy conference I attended in 2002, in which the speaker urged his audience to “get comfortable with the new reality” following the post-9/11 economic downturn. Sounds a lot like the “new normal” we hear about today, doesn’t it?

In July 2009, the Pohlad Family Foundation made grants totaling almost $5 million to more than 70 nonprofits that provide housing for the homeless, human services, and community health care in the metro area. I had the privilege of being part of the team that assisted the Foundation and MAP for Nonprofits in making these funding decisions. As Scott Russell reported in a MinnPost piece about the Pohlad initiative on August 13th last year, “waiting lists and overstretched services are commonplace” at these organizations:

Many foundations and philanthropists have focused on meeting basic needs. The federal stimulus package has helped in some cases. Yet clearly money is tight from both government and givers.

Are tight funding, waiting lists, and overstretched services the “new reality” for nonprofits working to meet essential human needs? If it is, how can nonprofits keep their arteries healthy even as they serve more people with fewer resources?

Insight into the first question comes from our review of reports six months later from organizations that received these Pohlad funds. Among other things, grantees were asked to assess whether their financial condition had changed in the last six months of 2009. Of the 68 organizations reporting, 43% said their financial condition was better, 37% said it was unchanged, and 21% said it was worse. Operational efficiencies, expense controls – often including staff layoffs and elimination of retirement contributions – and Federal stimulus funds contributed to “better” financial positions. On the other hand, changed priorities on the part of public and private funders were the chief reason for “worse” financial positions. Huge increases in uncompensated care for people without health insurance or resources to pay deductibles and co-pays was another major stress on community-based providers of health and mental health care. “While we are effectively managing the downturn, we have been less successful stemming the tide of declining revenues and changing [funder] priorities,” wrote one grantee.

This anecdotal evidence suggests to me that settling into the “new reality” or “new normal” is not a one-time event for nonprofits. Cutting budgets, the work of 2009 for many, was necessary but insufficient. Rather, keeping a nonprofit’s arteries clear is a continual process of assessment and adjustment, just as watching our diets, exercising, monitoring cholesterol, and, if necessary, taking medication is for people who want to keep their arteries healthy. Here’s a three-part prescription for nonprofits’ heart health.

1. Scan the environment – both inside and outside the organization – continually. Planning for change is preferable to being surprised. Staying ahead and in touch is an added responsibility for executive directors who are already more than busy, but it is essential in the “new normal.”
2. Monitor priorities and strategies and make course corrections. Change is happening too fast for the old-style strategic plan that was adopted and treated like a fossil to still be useful. But that doesn’t mean that the whole idea of strategic planning has become irrelevant. To the contrary, having a clear strategic direction, overarching priorities, and well thought-out goals and strategies to realize them is more important than ever. Organizations that remain effective and use scarce resources efficiently do so, in large part, because they have a plan. What’s different in the “new normal” world is that a strategic plan must be dynamic, re-calibrated every 6 to 12 months in response to progress (or lack of it) and changes in the environment in which the nonprofit operates.
3. Confront the gnarly issues. Programs rarely operate in isolation; organizational problems tend to be intertwined; and changes in funding streams often affect multiple aspects of a nonprofit. Loss of support for a particular program or service, for example, may also mean a reduction in administrative funds or ineligibility for a different funding source. Understanding each program’s true costs and financial contribution can be empowering. Data, no matter how discouraging the story they tell, often pinpoint decisions that can no longer be postponed. If most discussions in an organization end by circling back to the same complex issues, it’s time to unravel them.

We know from our personal behavior that maintaining a healthy heart takes effort and discipline; so too with nonprofits that want to be healthy. But just as there are websites and coaches for personal fitness, there are great resources on the internet to help nonprofits stay healthy. One of the best is the site you’re on now, www.nonprofitsassistancefund.org. Another of my favorites is The Bridgespan Group,  especially an article written for the Harvard Business Review, Delivering on the Promise of Nonprofits, that includes a useful matrix for analyzing mission relevance and financial contribution or cost of each program.

About Carol Berde

Carol Berde has worked with nonprofits for 30 years from both sides of the desk: a long career at The McKnight Foundation and, more recently, as a consultant to nonprofits and foundations. She can be reached at carolberde@comcast.net.

I have often said that my least favorite question is “What is the ideal target amount for a nonprofit to have in an operating reserve?” Because there is never a simple answer for the question, I wrote a post a while ago on The Cash Reserves Myth:

Every nonprofit should have a cash reserve equal to three months of expenses.” There’s some truth and some myth to this “best practice.” It is absolutely true that every nonprofit needs to have adequate cash balances available to support the timing of payroll and other expenses, as well as to pay for unanticipated costs or increases. It’s a myth, however, that a single standard applies for all nonprofits. I have two issues with the “three month reserve” standard. One is that different organizations need different amounts of cash on hand. The second is that building a reserve of three months of expenses is not a practical, or even desirable, goal for all nonprofits.

In an article I wrote a couple of years ago, The Yin and Yang of Nonprofit Reserves, I recommended different ranges depending on the stability of incoming cash flow, with reserves as low as one to two months of operating expenses. One reason for my caution about standard reserve ratios has been the business question of whether idle cash is an efficient use of capital.

I take it all back. Well, I take some of it back.

The Value of Cash Reserves

The past 18 months have been a lab test of the value of cash reserves. This isn’t a surprise, I suppose, but it has made me re-think my earlier questions about the focus on reserves. It is clear that nonprofits that have been able to build up a good cash cushion have had options and opportunities in the past year that enabled them to respond to reduced income and increased demand more strategically and carefully than those organizations with few extra dollars in the bank. You know what I mean whether you are affiliated with a nonprofit that has reserves or with one that does not.

In the survey that the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits conducted to prepare the most recent Current Conditions Report, several questions were included about operating reserves. MCN generously shared the survey data with me for an in-depth analysis of these questions. The responses illustrate the differences between nonprofits with and those without reserves.

• How much in reserves? For all respondents, 34% have one month or less, 18% have none, and 6% had a reserve fund but depleted it in 2009.
• Asked if they anticipated dipping into reserves in 2010, 24% of nonprofits replied that they do.
• Not surprisingly, 65% of nonprofits with minimal or no reserves experienced cash flow problems in 2009, and most of them anticipate prolonged cash flow problems in 2010. Nonprofits of all sizes fell into this group, most commonly in arts & culture and social services.

Why does it matter? I sliced the responses further and found that the nonprofits with minimal or no reserves were more likely to have cut budgets, eliminated staff positions, reduced wages and benefits. They were also less likely to have been able to increase services to respond to growing demand.

There’s a caveat that these results aren’t necessarily caused by the lack of reserves. It’s quite likely that other factors are at play, including the broader question of the governance and management practices and business model needed for nonprofits to build reserves over time through operating surpluses.

This survey and the practical cases that we talk with every day have taught me to truly appreciate – to love – operating reserves.

Build the Right Reserve for Your Organization

I still believe that the “right” target for reserves needs to be customized for each nonprofit based on their operating structure, cash flow, and ability to generate surpluses in the operating budget. Building reserves requires an intentional budget strategy and follow through to generate surplus funds. Whatever the target amount, reserves are most useful if there is clear agreement about their purpose and use codified in a written policy. Nonprofits Assistance Fund has developed Nonprofit operating reserves policy guidelines and examples. If you are interested in a deeper dive on the issues, considerations, and structure for reserves, you’ll love the Nonprofit Operating Reserves Initiative Workgroup White Paper. They answer the “how much” question with a useful chart that sorts through the “it depends” factors.