Balancing the Mission Checkbook

The theme for the Carnival of Nonprofit Consultants this week is “What one thing should we do to improve the state of the sector?” My nomination is to declare 2008 the year that the program service-administrative cost ratio formula became irrelevant.

Yes, the good old 70%-30% ratio has been declared officially useless in identifying whether or not a nonprofit organization is effective in accomplishing its mission and helping the community. Most readers of these blogs have probably been beating their heads against the wall about this anyway. I read a lot of research reports and I have never read one that demonstrated that the expense ratio is a clear indicator of the quality of programs or management, or impact on the lives of people. One reason why we continue to chase this argument, though, is because the ratio is prominent, well known, and easily calculated.

We need a two-step retirement plan. First is to jointly stop using the ratio as a way to distinguish our organizations from others, in an unhealthy type of competition, as in “our administrative ratio only is 5%, so your donated dollar will go farther with us.” The second is to find a better way to convey the quality and effectiveness of the work that you do, which requires a real method of evaluating and communicating the programs and impact on clients.

So don’t be irrelevant – join the movement.

We’ve worked with several nonprofit organizations during the difficult period leading up to closing the organization. Sometimes the decision is internally driven and intentional, and sometimes it’s after fighting it, kicking and screaming. How do you know if it’s time to close, and how to make such a monumental decision? I can think of three specific instances with very different characteristics and outcomes. The first is an arts organization that carefully and systematically paid their obligations and closed their doors after several difficult years of declining earned and contributed income; the second a youth-serving nonprofit that stayed in denial for too long before filing bankruptcy and leaving both students and creditors uninformed; and last is a small organization that remains in operation, though their relevance in the community and support from both donors and volunteers dropped off years ago. They stay alive as long as the director is willing to work with little compensation and little support. In another situation, though, I worked with an organization whose executive director repeatedly suggested closing the doors because fundraising was so difficult. The board realized that the mission was as vital as ever, though, and the solution was a different, less burned-out, director to bring new energy and ideas. These are important organizational questions that touch on financial, governance, fundraising, and mission questions. There aren’t easy answers or absolutes when it comes to closing or changing structures. Come participate in an ongoing discussion of these questions in an online discussion at Nonprofit Quarterly’s Web site - see the invitation from editor Andrew Crosby below.

Find out how one organization weighed the decision about whether it should close, and contribute your own analysis of whether they made the right decision in the Nonprofit Quarterly Online Forum.

Beginning today you can join Mark A. Hager of the University of Texas, San Anton, and Kate Barr of the Nonprofits Assistance Fund in the Twin Cities, to discuss “The Ultimate Question,” authored by Mark and published in the Fall 2007 issue.This will be a great discussion for executives, consultants, board members, and funders interested in how such decisions are made — and may be considering such decisions themselves.Just register on NPQ’s Web site to access the Forum and join us for a thought-provoking exchange where you can offer your experience, pose questions, and comment on those of others.

Once you have registered, a link to the NPQ Forum appears under the User Menu. Inside you’ll find a reprint of the case, financial background material, and some starter discussion threads that you can add to, comment on, or create your own.

So register on the NPQ Web site today to participate.

Andrew Crosby, Editor

p.s. If you have any technical questions, contact webmaster James Morgan. For any questions regarding content, please contact Andrew.

Call it what you want – surplus, positive change in net assets, or profit – nonprofit organizations really need to plan for, and embrace, the importance of building financial capacity by generating a cushion. We don’t have a common language for this, and many nonprofit leaders would be uncomfortable using a term like “profit” when describing their financial goals. The word is much less important than the practice of budgeting and managing to build surpluses. Read “Organizational Slack (or Goldilocks and the Three Budgets” by Woods Bowman, published in the Spring 2007 issue of The Nonprofit Quarterly, for a very helpful overview of the topic.

The definition of slack used by Bowman is “a cushion of potential resources which allow an organization to adapt to internal pressures for changes in policy, as well as to initiate changes in strategy with respect to the external environment.” The benefit of a cushion is probably clear to any nonprofit director. Money doesn’t just fall into your lap to build a reserve. Bowman makes it simple and direct: “Where does financial capacity come from? There can be only one place: annual surpluses.”

Planning for an annual surplus, specifically an unrestricted surplus, is a positive, important, beneficial, and necessary practice for all nonprofits. I emphasize the importance of viewing unrestricted operating results, rather than the total of all unrestricted and restricted funds, because of the volatility in results caused by the timing of project and multi-year grants.

One step that could encourage the practice is to add a measure or ratio that defines the annual addition to the reserve or cushion. In the for-profit world, this is communicated in a fundamental ratio:

Net Operating Income = Profitability Ratio
Total Sales, or Revenue

The comparable measure for a nonprofit could be a CINA (change in net assets) ratio:

Unrestricted Change in Net Assets = CINA Ratio
Total Unrestricted Income

Try calculating this ratio for your nonprofit organization for the past few years and you will start to see how well the ratio can communicate the building, or depleting, of financial capacity. How high should the ratio be? On this point a for-profit and nonprofit organization will differ. A for-profit company seeks the highest ratio possible. For a nonprofit the ideal amount of surplus depends on what they need – and that balancing act is complicated. Bowman’s article has a whole section on measuring the right amount of slack needed.