Balancing the Mission Checkbook

Recently a member of our staff at Nonprofits Assistance Fund met with a terrific nonprofit in Minnesota to help them assess their financial situation and create a stabilization plan. The financial situation turned out to be worse than originally reported for one reason – payroll taxes. Specifically, between $50,000 and $100,000 of unpaid taxes withheld from paychecks and due from the employer. Now the financial plan for this organization will be dictated by the urgent need to deal with the taxes and significant interest and penalties. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. On average we meet with ten or twelve nonprofits every year who are trying to untangle the problems caused by unpaid payroll taxes. Every one of them wishes that they could go back in time and make different decisions. If they could, they would pay the taxes and juggle finances another way.

I’ve told the story many times about my first job at a nonprofit. I was a receptionist at an arts organization (a long time ago). The board of directors discovered that payroll taxes had not been paid for many months. The financial situation was dire and the board took extreme action. All but two staff members were laid off or furloughed, the board took over all financial matters, and a major budget reduction was implemented. They had to have someone answering the phones (this was long before voice mail and email), so I kept my job. After the immediate crisis was over I was asked to take on some financial tasks and eventually became business manager. That firsthand experience with the impact of unpaid tax liabilities is forever seared on my brain. It’s the worst way to solve a cash flow problem ever.

Here’s how it happens – slowly and silently. Cash flow is tight and when taxes are due, the director/business manager/accountant holds off on the payment “until the grant check comes next week.” The check comes, but other obligations are due. Pretty soon it’s time for payroll again and cash flow is still tight. By the third payroll, the unpaid taxes are starting to add up to more than can be paid all at once. Meanwhile, the landlord, vendors, and contractors are calling to remind our intrepid manager that payments are due. The IRS doesn’t call, though. This is one of the most insidious parts. People often choose to pay low priority bills before urgent obligations because of relationships, annoying phone calls, or emotions. The IRS doesn’t take action to demand payment of delinquent taxes for quite a while. When they do, the matter is immediately urgent and expensive and becomes the #1 priority for the organization.

As an example, this article from North Carolina, Nonprofit’s IRS bill tops $850K, describes a mental health agency that had their state funding cut by 23%. They reduced their budget but also had serious cash flow delays. As stated in the article, “they fell behind in making payroll tax payments.” It appears from the article that the agency financed their budget deficit by deferring tax payments. Ultimately, the IRS filed a lien and the situation became a crisis so severe that the agency ultimately closed in July 2010. When they faced the state budget cuts and delays, the statewide mental health agency had to make some tough decisions. It’s really unfortunate that they chose delayed payroll taxes to “manage” their finances.

If you need another reason to stay current with payroll taxes, share the article Not Paying Your Taxes? Your Board Could Be Personally Liable from Nonprofit Quarterly with your board members. The article lists seven lessons learned from payroll tax cases.

Lesson two: Virtually any alternative – including taking on additional debt, restructuring, downsizing, and filing for bankruptcy – is better than failing to remit withholding taxes to the government.

That’s a pretty harsh lesson, but it underlines the severity of consequences of this financial choice. The worst one.

Last month I posted this blog asking whether charity contests like Pepsi Refresh are ultimately productive for the nonprofits that participate. The cash is great when you win, but at what cost? In this Chronicle of Philanthropy article from last year, one executive director reported that he spent 75% of his time one month drumming up votes for a contest. Now we’re learning that even all that time might not be enough to win.  According to the New York Times article New Charges of Cheating Tarnish Pepsi Fund-Raising Contest for Nonprofits some contest winners used proxy voting, mass emails and other prohibited methods. I raised the question last month about whether contests help nonprofits build relationships with donors.  If the contest is won by gaming the system, then these aren’t about building support at all. It’s just about the cash.

I have a second concern about contest-style philanthropy. Is this an effective way to pick a charity? Do we care that Pepsi’s money may or may not be going to charities or projects that will have a real impact? I don’t know enough about the organizations that won money from Pepsi in 2010, but frankly some of the descriptions are pretty vague and evidence of results is hard to find.  There’s a lot of sincere intention and quite a few competitors are startup organizations, however some appear to have been started in order to compete for funding.

The nonprofit and foundation world has been encouraging donors to seek out high-performing charities, such as in this article by Sean Stannard-Stockton. Nonprofits are working hard to evaluate, measure and communicate impact. Charity contests don’t reward nonprofits with the best results or greatest impact on clients. They reward marketing.

The traditional cumbersome foundation process probably needs a different kind of refreshing, but I have strong misgivings about throwing review and evaluation out the window.  The Technology in the Arts blog asked some good questions last summer in a post about American Express’ online giving contest.

While increased online support and a focus on technology use to reach constituents could provide benefits in this funding model, the prom queens method of distributing support should probably be left where it belongs: high school. This model has no way of insuring the best organizations reap the rewards or that the most efficient and effective programs receive funding. Popularity does not always equal quality, but it will always decide the winner in this funding model.

It’s worth noting that while the marketing department promotes their online contest, PepsiCo Foundation still makes grants the old fashioned way, with criteria including evidence of proven success in the field or scope of work specific to the request, and a method by which to measure and track impact and progress. There is a difference between marketing and traditional philanthropy. Should that matter to nonprofits that need funding to do their work? I think it should.

Want to know who’s winning the Pepsi Refresh contest? According to Mashable, the contest received 61 million votes in 2010. That’s 61 million brand impressions for Pepsi. We have a winner!