Balancing the Mission Checkbook

How do you know what you don’t know? Someone asked this question last week in a workshop on the topic of board oversight and some high-profile problems. It’s such a great and critical question. There’s been a swirl of conversations in the last week or so about financial problems and governance issues at a number of nonprofits, both local and national. No matter what the details are, questions have been raised in every situation about the board’s role – what did they know, when did they know it, and what did they do? But what’s the first step for the board, since they are relying on reports from the staff and have little or no access to the raw information. Boards that ask for lots of details are accused of micro-managing and not trusting the staff. So how do you know what you don’t know? There has to be a balancing act between accepting reports at face value and asking questions that go beyond the information presented. I think that there’s an art to asking good questions – my favorites generally start with either “Why…?” or “What if…?” (I actually have those two words up on the wall in my office). Speaking last night to a group of people who had recently joined boards of nonprofits, I suggested that asking questions is their primary job. It’s great if they get an answer that makes sense. However, the role of governing requires further action and follow up when the answer doesn’t make sense, or when the answer is “Don’t worry about it,” or “I’ll find out later.” The distinction between hyper-questioning and prudent questioning depends on circumstances, but in every one of these recent governance and financial situations there were some “why” questions that needed to be asked and then carried through.

This complex balancing act between supporting and governing is discussed in the article Why Boards Don’t Govern available from CompassPoint. One point raised in this article is the importance of creating an atmosphere and culture at board meetings that encourages questions and disagreements. I know in financial matters, many board members feel like second-class citizens because they are not the “financial” board members. The fact is that if they have a question, or if something doesn’t make sense, they need to feel free and encouraged to ask the question. It just might be the question to unlocks the truth.

There was no telling what people might find out once they felt free to ask whatever questions they wanted to. (Joseph Heller, Catch 22).

Eight years ago, ACORN, a national grassroots community organizing nonprofit, was the victim of an embezzlement of almost $1 million from an employee who was the brother of the organization’s founder. The fraud was never reported to their board of directors or legal authorities, but a small internal group negotiated a restitution agreement and then kept the perpetrator on staff. The situation just became public after pressure from a whistle-blower and was reported this week in The New York Times. Quoted in the article, ACORN’s president said, “We thought it best at the time to protect the organization, as well as to get the funds back into the organization, to deal with it in-house.”

Can we make a list of the problems with this scenario? Among other reactions, I want to thank the whistle-blower, though I would like to know why it took eight years for anyone to think this was not OK. Yesterday, ACORN released a statement from the president apologizing for their handling of the situation and announcing that the founder (brother of the embezzler) had stepped down. The most alarming phrase in the statement is that “The ACORN Board recently learned …” How comfortable would you be if you sat on that board – with fiduciary responsibility – and learned that you had been sitting for years on this ethical powder keg?

The statement says, “We want to assure our many friends and supporters that ACORN’s Board has taken additional steps to ensure increased transparency and accountability” (emphasis mine). It seems to me that they need to start with basic transparency and accountability. They can start with a basic accountability overview from Independent Sector.

There is a lesson here for every nonprofit organization. Public trust really is the most important asset for each individual nonprofit and for the whole sector. It’s too easy to mess it up, which is why we all get asked to answer questions and fill out forms and certifications by donors, foundations, the IRS, state Attorney General, etc, etc, etc. As long as these kind of egregious situations occur, and especially when they are mishandled, nonprofits will be subject to deeper scrutiny and misgivings about trustworthiness.

Many nonprofits think about the Internal Revenue Service only once a year - when they are filing their 990 return. Since the IRS is the regulator and enforcer of exempt status and activities, you might want to pay closer and more frequent attention. Of increasing importance are questions about the role and scope of the IRS’s watchdog and oversight activity. The IRS website has a section devoted to Exempt Organizations that contains some valuable resources. The article on Governance and Related Topics opens, “The Internal Revenue Service believes that a well-governed charity is more likely to obey the tax laws, safeguard charitable assets, and serve charitable interests than one with poor or lax governance.” Who could disagree? But where does the IRS fit in assessing the quality and effectiveness of your governance practices?

In speeches delivered at a conference on April 23rd and 24th, Commissioner Steven Miller makes clear that the IRS believes that there is no question about whether they have a role, but rather what that role is. In his April 23rd speech as part of a panel on nonprofit governance he addresses the questions by saying, “despite the absence of explicit federal statutory provisions setting forth clear governance standards, what I am calling jurisdictional gaps, we are not interlopers trying to regulate an area that is beyond our sphere.” In other words – the IRS intends to exercise its muscles, real and perceived, in the movement to push nonprofits to more specific standards in governance practices. If you doubt that they can, read the 20 questions contained in the Governance, Management, and Disclosure section in the new Form 990.

The new IRS 990 form is effective in 2009, with a two year transition period for some nonprofits. Most nonprofits I’ve talked with have only a general awareness of it out there in the future. It’s time to pay close attention now. It’s a significant change to the current 990, with several new schedules that may require different record keeping for 2008 activities. The IRS recently released the draft instructions that offer the most detailed view. (Read through Part VI of the new form: Governance, Management, and Disclosure.) You’ll also be seeing more e-newsletters from accounting firms and nonprofit associations with updates and training events.

Regarding the question of whether the IRS should have an enforcement/watchdog role in governance, I think we should take a step back. Let’s consider why the service, and Congress, think that they need to. When there are bad actors and the public feels victimized, regulations often follow.

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.

Continuing a theme from last week, during this year-end fundraising season I’ve come across quite a few “tips” for donors about how to select charities to support. Universally, every list includes advice to review the portion of expenses devoted to program compared to administration and fundraising. The responsible advisors generally suggest that program expenses represent at least 70% of the dollars. While I wish that we could move away from using this ratio as a primary measure, I agree that program expenses should dominate any budget. I have a problem, though, when the advice goes further and characterizes administrative and fundraising costs as a poor use of resources. This is especially important when, at the same time, we see more and more opinion pieces that demand greater openness and measurement of impact and effectiveness. The Wall Street Journal published one the other day, December 10th. The writer chastises charities for failing to disclose and share information about their financial activities and the impact of their work. She suggests better use of websites, annual reports, and evaluation and measurement systems and reports, all of which I wholeheartedly support. However, these critics need to understand that you can’t have it both ways. If donors and the public want nonprofit organizations to be accountable, transparent, well managed and governed, then we need to spend some money to build and maintain staff and systems to accomplish these important goals – and these costs are administrative costs.

In the same issue of the Wall Street Journal was an accompanying article, “Checking on Charities,” which offers advice about how to evaluate a charity, including the comment “Let’s start with how much the charity spends on its work.” Communication and disclosure activities would not be considered by our accountants to be part of our “work,” so when we build good systems for measuring and communicating impact, then we will spend more on administration, not less. I fear that we could feel a backlash as the expense ratio inches up.

Part of the problem probably lies in definitions. An outside donor likely has his or her own idea or impression of what is considered “administration,” but the actual expense classifications are dictated by FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board) and IRS rules. Nonprofits Assistance Fund has prepared a short summary of these rules, Overhead Costs. As an example, here are some of the expenses we classify as administrative at Nonprofits Assistance Fund:

• Completing the financial audit and 990
• Organizational communication, including annual report and website
• Planning evaluations
• Consultants to create a system to monitor evaluation results and impact
• Submitting information to the state attorney general, Guidestar, and other watchdog agencies

We are committed to strong infrastructure and greater disclosure and accountability, and our administrative expense percentage has increased as a result. We also do great work in the community. We can certainly do a better job to educate our donors on the value of our administrative costs and how these best practices allow us to do our “real work” most effectively. And I do worry about the impact of the contradictory clamor.

Are you also concerned about this double bind – do you hear more demand for disclosure and information at the same time that administrative costs are criticized?

In the midst of the big fundraising season of the year, I’m wondering about how much nonprofits really want to be open and forthcoming about their financial information. With all the talk about accountability and transparency, I don’t see a lot of evidence of easily available, freely shared financial information from most nonprofits. While I realize that I have a unique (and probably unusual) interest in financial information, I think that it’s important to walk the walk of transparency.

The Panel on the Nonprofit Sector, convened by Independent Sector, just released their report, Principles for Good Governance and Ethical Practice: A Guide for Charities and Foundations. The report lays out 33 practices “that should be considered by every charitable organization as a guide for strengthening its effectiveness and accountability.” Number seven on the list reads:

A charitable organization should make information about its operations, including its governance, finances, programs and activities, widely available to the public. Charitable organizations also should consider making information available on the methods they use to evaluate the outcomes of their work and sharing the results of those evaluations.

In the longer description of ways to implement this practice, the panel suggests an annual report and using websites to make available information such as the IRS 990 and other financial statements.

I would strongly suggest that nonprofit organizations make the effort to make usable financial information available on their website. The IRS 990 is already a public document, so it seems like the obvious tool for financial disclosure. However, I think we should go past the 990 to share better information, especially since everyone seems to agree that the current version of the IRS 990 is overly complex, confusing, and very difficult to use. A better solution would be having the audited financial statement easily available on the website. Many nonprofits already do this, but most do not. I checked the websites of six organizations in Minnesota that I have supported financially in the last few years. Of these six, one had their audit posted, three had a detailed annual report but no audit or 990, and two had no financial information that I could find. Why not post the audited financial report?

I recommend a look at the financial section from the website of The San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center. In addition to posting their annual report and audit, The Center devotes a page to describing their financial management commitments and policies what a great a model of financial transparency.