Balancing the Mission Checkbook

It’s been gratifying to hear and read the great feedback about An Executive Director’s Guide to Financial Leadership published in the current issue of The Nonprofit Quarterly. I enjoyed writing the article with co-author Jeanne Bell from CompassPoint Nonprofit Services. We have very similar approaches to finance as a tool for mission and community impact. Nonprofit managers and directors have posted online comments and given me direct feedback that they appreciate the practical guidance that goes far beyond bookkeeping basics. These principles help to build strong infrastructure and capacity, and break some habits that aren’t serving our organizations very well.

I encourage you to read the full article (and subscribe to the magazine!)  Here is the brief “Executive Director’s Finance Cheat Sheet” of the eight key business principles that we believe are essential for financial leaders.

1. Develop your annual budget with a commitment to its net financial result—whether surplus or planned deficit—and then adjust spending during the year if income is not coming in on pace to yield that net result. Then, complement your annual budget with rolling financial projections that incorporate your most current information about probable future financial results.
2. Diversify your income cautiously, ensuring you have the capacity to develop and sustain the programmatic and operational requirements of attracting each new resource type well.
3. Develop cash flow projections along with the budget and rolling projections so that you can anticipate any cash flow problems well in advance, when you have more options.
4. Plan goals for financial reserves based on your typical cash flow cycles and risks and incorporate reserves into all financial plans and policies. Be sure to foster a financial culture for staff and board that understands the importance of a regular operating profit or surplus.
5. Pursue restricted funding from those foundations and corporations that understand and value your organization’s mission and particular strategies for achieving impact. When pursuing restricted funding, develop proposal narratives and accompanying budgets that link staff development to program design to superior outcomes, including all related costs as direct.
6. Ensure that your finance function is always properly staffed; if necessary, use a mix of staff and expert contract consultants to achieve this.
7. Discuss expectations for financial roles and responsibilities with board leadership to create accountability and information flow that matches the size and life stage of the organization. Make sure to invest time to develop meaningful financial report formats for the board that reinforce organizational strategies and goals and supports the board in fulfilling their responsibilities.
8. Introduce the concept of enterprise risk management to your team and initiate an internal assessment of a full range of risks.

Read the article and let me know what you think and what other principles we should add. For those of you in Minnesota, we’ll have a chance to hear directly from Jeanne Bell at a conference coming up in April that Nonprofits Assistance Fund is co-hosting with Minnesota Council of Nonprofits. Watch for more information soon!

When the Daring to Lead 2011 report was released a few months ago, a lot of the coverage about this survey of 3,000 nonprofit CEOs/executive directors highlighted that two-thirds of directors anticipated leaving their jobs within five years. The report itself calls attention to this on the first pages with bold letters: “Though slowed by the recession, projected rates of executive turnover remain high and many boards of directors are under-prepared to select and support new leaders.” Despite this, according to the report, fewer than 20% of nonprofits have a documented succession plan that could help boards respond to the departure of the director.

This focus makes me wonder about something: How much impact does the departure of an executive director have on a nonprofit? Of course the executive leadership role is important (as an ED myself, I certainly hope so). But if nonprofits are thrown into chaos or disaster by the loss of their ED, they have systemic problems that need to be addressed. A succession plan will give the board a roadmap to react to a departure, but building leadership within the organization is more proactive and effective. Some nonprofits groom another person to step into the ED role. There are lots of reasons not to lock into a selection prematurely, though.

Shared leadership is one approach to strengthening organizations by distributing authority and responsibility broadly. The article “Doing More with More: Putting Shared Leadership into Practice” in a recent issue of Nonprofit Quarterly reports on a two year study of 27 organizations that put this into practice. The concept of shared leadership isn’t radical or new, but as the authors note:

Most organizations continue to accept a hierarchical structure, with the executive director shouldering an enormous burden of responsibility for organizational success. The LLC participants generally reported that this was true of their organizations. However, we found that this concentration of power was not because executive directors were power hungry. Nor was it even deliberate. It was due to a lack of familiarity with the alternatives.

Implementing this approach requires nonprofits to un-learn some common practices. Success depended on senior leadership’s commitment to change, time to educate and plan fundamentally sound management practices, and engagement and accountability. They found that the 27 organizations adapted the practice to their organizations. One result was that “These organizations’ leadership capacity has expanded. (…) This reduces the stress and potential burnout on the part of executive directors, while helping to advance, develop, and retain other staff.” It seems to me that this would also make the departure of ED more easily managed. Boards could rely on the distributed leadership to maintain stability and agility and help define the profile of the next ED.

I’m also intrigued with the possibilities of this finding, “In many cases, shared leadership has also led to programmatic changes, and many of the participating organizations are beginning to think about how to expand the concept of shared leadership to their boards and allies.” Sharing leadership outside the staff chart could change relationships and impact significantly.

Another proponent of this kind of shared leadership is Leslie Crutchfield, one of the authors of the book Forces for Good. The book examines high-impact nonprofits to discover the common traits and practices. One of the six practices that help these nonprofits to produce results is to share leadership across staff, board members, and external networks.  I’m hoping to learn more about shared leadership and how to implement these practices from Crutchfield when she’s in Minneapolis this fall for United Front 2011. Crutchfield is speaking at the luncheon that is also part of the schedule for the MCN’s Annual Conference.

Nonprofits that develop broad leadership by sharing authority and responsibility effectively will be well positioned for transitions and departures – whether they have a written succession plan or not.

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.

Mike Burns posted an entry on his Nonprofit Board Crisis blog this week about the important and underrated role of the board secretary. I’ve been thinking along the same lines about the board treasurers. A couple of weeks ago I was asked by a friend who had just become board treasurer for a nonprofit what they should learn or read to become good at the job. I suggested a couple of workshops, articles and blogs. Shortly after that conversation I attended a board meeting of a nonprofit to talk about their financial reports and learned that they don’t have a treasurer. No one wants the job. I worked hard to make the role sounds exciting and glamorous, but I don’t think that anyone was buying it.

If you read the by-laws of most nonprofits it’s no wonder that the role is seen as dull and/or daunting. Here’s an example from one of many templates available:

The Treasurer, subject to the order of the Board of Directors, shall have the care and custody of the money, funds, valuable papers, and documents of the Corporation and shall have and exercise, under the supervision of the Board of Directors, all the powers and duties commonly incident to such office. The Treasurer shall deposit all funds of the Corporation in such bank or banks as the Board of Directors shall designate. The Treasurer may endorse for deposit or collection all checks and notes payable to the Corporation or to its order, may accept drafts on behalf of the Corporation. The Treasurer shall keep accurate books of account of the Corporation’s transactions which shall be the property of the Corporation, and shall be subject at all times to the inspection and control of the Board of Directors.

This sounds like the bookkeepers’ job description with legal responsibilities. I can tell you that even as a person with good finance and accounting experience I don’t want that job. Fortunately, nonprofits that are large enough to have paid staff to handle accounting and daily financial management don’t need the treasurer to make deposits or keep the books. What they need is a board treasurer who is willing and able to provide leadership in the financial life of the organization.

That financial leadership requires a combination of skills and characteristics. A great treasurer balances these responsibilities:

• Knowledge – Thorough understanding of the financial reports. It helps to have some financial background, which may require some supplemental training in nonprofit financial terminology and requirements.

• Communications – Able to translate financial information and financial concepts for the board. The treasurer doesn’t necessarily have to present the financial reports at board meetings, but they may need to help to explain and re-frame until everyone understands the reports. It’s also the treasurer’s role to interpret and translate the board’s questions, goals, or concerns about the financial information or financial situation to the staff.

• Planning – Partner with the staff leadership to develop a useful budget. The treasurer can bring great value in preparing for budget discussions and conveying budget information to the board. Budgets are the financial version of an annual or strategic plan and the treasurer is in the best position to make sure that budget priorities and decisions reflect the intentions and objectives of the board.

• Strategy - Great treasurers go beyond annual budgets, audits, and financial reports to bring financial leadership to the organization. Great treasurers look down the road to find the financial options and decisions needed for longer term goals and initiate discussions to connect finance and mission.

Come to think of it, I think it sounds pretty exciting and glamorous. Sign me up.

Nonprofit board members are asking what they should do – specifically to help organizations navigate the economic mess. BoardSource recently published Facing the Financial Crisis: 10 Smart Things Your Board Can Do Now. The article offers a solid, strategic perspective for boards. I have some supplemental words of advice for each individual board members – three steps for board members to consider in a downturn.

1. Step out

Step out of the familiar and comfortable role of supporter and cheerleader.

Now is the time to ask important questions about impact, effectiveness, and entrenched practices. Board members can often bring the outside viewpoint required to ask the right “why” and “what if” questions.

Some of the most important questions to ask right now are about budget assumptions. Any significant revenue number in the budget needs to have a good plan and rationale, not a wish and a prayer

2. Step back

Step back and let the staff do their work.

I have seen boards get carried away generating ideas for new reports, analysis, and research without considering how much time it would take the director and staff to complete the work required to follow through on the ideas. The board chair is the moderator of this balancing act, making sure that every new task suggested by the board is weighed against other priorities and internal capacity.

I urge particular caution for board members who suggest that the nonprofit start a new way of raising funds. If you’ve never hosted a fundraising event, or carried out a significant individual donor campaign, this might not be the time to divert staff time and effort. Remember that each type of income is essentially a new business.

3. Step off

Step off of the board if you do not have the time or energy to work hard for the next two years.

This is not going to be easy and nonprofits need to have the right people on the board. It’s nothing personal, but it’s a good time to ask yourself if you can commit to this organization.

Earlier this year, I proposed Accountability Lesson Number 1: Questions Must Be Asked to encourage directors of nonprofits to overcome their hesitancy to ask questions. In particular, when financial or governance issues are unclear or incomplete, they should continue to pose questions until they get answers. In some ways, asking questions is one of a board member’s primary jobs. What comes next, though, after the questions are answered?

Next lesson: Action must be taken. One of the most interesting dynamics in nonprofits is the relationship and shared authority of executive directors/CEOs and their board of directors. We could debate infinitely the question of who is really in charge. In day to day life, most nonprofits find a way to make it work if they have assembled and hired the right people, agree on roles, and know how to share and use information. There are times, though, when the board needs to assert its real and legitimate authority to make a big decision – to take action in the face of urgent needs for the nonprofit and its mission. In Lesson Number 1, I said that asking questions is one of the board member’s most important roles. I will state here that I think the primary role for board members, especially board chairs, is to know when they need to take action, and then to do it. I think this is an urgent issue right now because I have often seen the sometime dire consequences of reluctant, slow decisions. Too often, board members who have been expected to be good supporters and cheerleaders can’t seem to change gears and be the leaders they need to be. If the board’s practice has been to ask for more information and then defer decisions to the next meeting, and then the next, then real problems can grow while the options shrink.

The need to step up and take action is always applicable, but it seems to be more urgent right now. If income sources are less reliable, or costs are harder to identify and match with impact, then boards simply must ask questions and then follow up with real decisions – and real governance.

What do you think about these Accountability Lessons?  Do you have an example where asking tough questions and then taking action led to positive change? Or do you have lessons learned that may be helpful to others?  I invite you to share your experiences in the comments section.