What happens when public budgeting theory meets nonprofit cash flow reality?
There have been many columns and editorials about the dangers of state governments using budget strategies that are no more than accounting gimmicks. Transfer reserves from one fund to another. Use bond financing for current expenses. Shift payments from one fiscal year to the next. Voila, problem solved. Bill Gates, in this TED Talk on state budgets and education funding, took a jab at these state accounting schemes by observing, “Enron would blush.” He believes that state governments should be required to follow the same accrual Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) as businesses and nonprofits. The new governor of Connecticut, Dan Malloy, is implementing his priority campaign pledges to move the state to GAAP standards. I know this sounds incredibly uninteresting to most people, but it’s actually a huge leap. In Connecticut, for example, taking away the accounting sleight of hand of shifts and transfers will add $1.2 billion to the state’s deficit.
I find this all fascinating on a policy level, and I’m happy to talk about these kinds of questions over a glass of wine (yes, I know how to have fun). What happens, though, when theory about state policy meets daily reality at nonprofits that deliver public services? It’s not theoretical anymore. In Minnesota we have a very real case study as a result of an accounting shift for the state public education budget. Charter schools, a type of public school, have been scrambling for two years to manage the cash flow crisis caused by one of the shifts. State aid to public schools is paid beginning in July in even amounts over the year based on the number of students enrolled and attending school. The state started “shifting” some of the education aid payments to future years to reduce the budget hole. What had been a 10% shift, called the holdback, has been increased twice in the last two years to help address the state’s budget problems. In the 2009-2010 school year 27% of state aid was deferred to the next year. For the current school year the shift is 30% of state aid. Because of the state’s continuing budget difficulties, the payment shift seems likely to stay in place for years to come.
Earlier this year Nonprofit Assistance Fund, Minnesota Association of Charter Schools and Charter School Partners conducted a survey of Minnesota’s charter schools to understand how charter schools responded to the funding shift, including the availability of credit, the cost of borrowing, and impact on school operations and education services. This week we released a report on the results of the survey to bring attention to this clash of policy theory and cash flow reality.
Highlights
- Charter schools have used every tool available to them to manage their cash flow, including internal fund balance reserves, renegotiating lease terms, budget cuts, loans from commercial banks, nonprofit loan funds, outside supporters and affiliates, and sale of receivables.
- Given that traditional school districts have taxing authority and a state guarantee of any loan, districts can typically receive loans with a 1% or less interest rate. Charter schools, who do not have these financing mechanisms in place, have faced obstacles to accessing credit and must pay between 6% to as high as 23% in loan fees (includes interest, fees and legal expenses).
- A gross inequity exists between traditional school districts and charter schools as to how the holdback impacts their respected operations.
- A 30% holdback is unsustainable for many charter schools in Minnesota and unless this is addressed, solid, high-performing charters will be at risk of ongoing financial instability.
Recommendations to reduce the inequity
The report recommends three possible policy changes that could address the inequity and help resolve cash-flow gap financing issues for charter schools, including:
- Reduce the holdback for charter schools from 30% to 15%.
- Provide a state-backed, low-interest loan pool.
- Improve access to private capital (market rate loans) via a state-authorized ‘written assignment’ to banks.
You can read the release and the State Education Funding Shift Has a Disparate Impact on Minnesota Charter Schools report here.
This is just one case of the impact of state accounting schemes. There are many others all over the country. The solution isn’t simply a matter of GAAP accounting. If not through accounting, Minnesota, Connecticut, and 46 other states still have a hole to fill. It’s important to remember that theory quickly becomes reality when it hits the ground.
