Balancing the Mission Checkbook

I’m convinced that the reason that people care about the overhead ratio of charities is because we keep telling them that it’s important. I have an announcement to make: I am a donor to quite a few nonprofits, and I don’t care what percentage of their budget is spent for overhead. I think that a lot of donors would agree.

Yet, in another article advising us about charitable giving, 5 Tips on How to Stretch Your Charitable Dollars published in the New York Times online published by the AP and picked up by the New York Times and other newspapers, overhead is (once again) emphasized:

Tip #2: EXAMINE CHARITIES CLOSELY. Do the same due diligence on your donations that you would your investments or your business…
Pay especially close attention to the overhead. Anything above 9 to 14 percent is out of line and signifies that too much money goes to staff or office space and not enough to the beneficiaries, according to Stephanie Risa Stein, managing director of New York-based Philanthropic Capital Advisors LLC.

Here’s my soapbox

I agree that it’s wise to “Do the same due diligence on your donations that you would your investments or your business.” But when I review an investment opportunity, I review based on the expected criteria for a successful business - profitability, market share, and returns. I don’t review their overhead and management costs. So why would overhead be the criteria for a charity?

I’d like to re-write this “tip.”

EXAMINE CHARITIES CLOSELY. Do some due diligence on charities before you donate, just as you would for an investment or business opportunity. Pay especially close attention to how successful the nonprofit has been at achieving its mission. Do they provide information about how effective their programs are and what impact they have on the people and communities that they serve? Do they have a way to measure and communicate progress and/or success?

I put these two types of “due diligence” to the test with five Minnesota nonprofits that I have supported in the past. I looked at the 990s on Guidestar and found that their overhead ratios ranged from 5% to 17%. Then I looked up web sites and annual reports. Here’s what I (a donor) care about:

• St. Stephen’s Human Services provided food and shelter to 6,000 very poor adults and children
• CommonBond Communities houses 7,850 residents in quality affordable housing
• Admission Possible had a 99% success rate in students admitted to college
• Ten Thousand Things presents astounding theater to people in homeless shelters and prisons
• Minnesota Fringe Festival creates connections for audiences and artists that’s the envy of theater communities in many other cities (the 2009 festival starts this Thursday).

Which of these has the “best” overhead ratio?

I don’t care.

I care that they are effective nonprofits that can tell donors what they do and why it matters. Why would a donor rather examine overhead? Before someone jumps on this point, I agree that 90% on fundraising is completely unreasonable, but that kind of organization can’t demonstrate real results anyway. So can we stop using overhead as the primary criteria for donors - please?

One positive comment about this article - Rich Cowles, Executive Director of Charities Review Council is quoted with good advice for donors about budgeting and planning their giving. Nice national recognition of the Council’s good work and solid reputation.

How many surveys have you completed that gathered information about how the recession is affecting your nonprofit? I think that we’ve gotten at least ten requests to complete surveys in the past six months (and have responded to at least five or six). With the ease of surveying using SurveyMonkey, Zoomerang, and other services, it seems like everyone with a computer has recently conducted a survey about the recession. I gathered the various reports I’ve received lately and searched for others, finding many, many more.

Surveys are great and provide some reliable data and a lot of anecdotal information for use in case statements and meeting discussions. The surveys range from large, national organizations collecting data from several thousand organizations to local groups who reach a few dozen. Some surveys employed carefully planned research techniques, while others sent out a shotgun email and let respondents self-select. Whatever the audience, method, or response rate, all of the surveys I read came up with the same information: funding is down, demand is up, and nonprofits are turning themselves inside out - including deep cost cuts - in order to maintain services in the community.

• Guidestar’s survey (2,979 organizations) identified the basics: reduced income, reduced services, reduced expenses. The size of the respondent pool is impressive.

• Nonprofit Finance Fund (986 organizations) warned that nonprofits are “In Danger” and “Strained to the breaking point” with over 80% anticipating deficits this year and cash reserved down.

• Bridgespan Group’s survey (100 organizations), which was a follow up to last fall’s report, found that the situation had worsened and nonprofits were turning to tough measures, including deep costs cuts and use of reserves.

• Impact of the 2007-2009 Economic Recession on Nonprofit Organizations issued by Listening Post Project at Johns Hopkins University employs a recurring panel of selected and random nonprofits in several fields (363 organizations). The in-depth analysis reports that 80% of respondents are experiencing financial stress, but that most have maintained or increased the number of people served.
  • A particularly interesting comment is that “nonprofits appear to be at least partly buffered by government policies that are designed to be counter-cyclical, i.e. to expand when economic conditions deteriorate.” Reading this month’s headlines about state budgets, I’m surprised to read that government funding offers an offset to reductions in other sources.

• In direct contrast, the May 2009 Current Conditions Report from Minnesota Council of Nonprofits (571 organizations) reported that nonprofits are “bracing for extended impact” that is exacerbated by reductions in state and local funding and uncertainty about further reductions.

• Similar reports of financial strain can be found from the Christian Leadership Alliance (250 organizations), United Way of the Bay Area (391 organizations), and state nonprofit associations in Louisiana (312 organizations), New Jersey (351 organizations), and Arizona (87 organizations), among many others. There are many, many other surveys - for the arts, hospitals, environmental organizations, and on.

Thanks to the 6,390 nonprofits for taking the time to respond to the surveys listed above

Each survey report has its own focus, tone and summaries, although with some interesting contrasts. All report declines and reductions, but some use phrases like “struggling to survive” and “threats to well-being,” while others are more upbeat about the creativity, adaptability, and resilience (one of the most frequently used words). There are lots of comments about difficult decisions, uncertainty, program redesign and modification, new collaborations, focus on core mission, and contingency planning.

What they also all report is the great commitment and sacrifices being made by those who are employed by and volunteer for the responding nonprofits. One of the common themes is reductions in personnel costs through freezes, salary reductions, and furloughs at the same time that the organizations are serving more people with new and more complex needs. This is my greatest concern - for how long can nonprofits rely on staff and volunteers working more and harder, for less, to meet growing community needs?

I’m always cautious when I read reports since this kind of quick action survey relies on answers from a self-selected sliver of the sector. The surveys provide interesting and useful data to start planning, but it’s not sufficient to draw reliable conclusions. I’m interested now in reading some case stories of change and transformation. That is likely to take more time to achieve than a 10 minute survey, but it will be worth it.