Balancing the Mission Checkbook

There are some recurring terms that I’ve been hearing over and over in meetings, conferences, and articles intended to help nonprofits, including arts organizations, respond to the serious challenges created by the recession. From what I hear we all need to be resilient, learn to innovate, and adapt to a new normal. It sounds good, but is there some substance that we can use behind these words?

Resilience: Frankly, the people who lead and work for arts organizations have always been about as resilient as you could be, if resilience means the ability to improvise with what’s at hand and bounce back.

Innovation: How about innovation? The arts shine as innovators in creating art, but much less so on the organizational side. Most nonprofit arts organizations are structured using a management and financial model that’s been around for a long time. More and more questions have been raised about the model that will eventually lead to some more options. On his great blog The Artful Manager Andrew Taylor frequently writes about these questions including here and here. There are other interesting developments in helping arts organizations to innovate for long-term structural change. The James Irvine Foundation states that “we define innovation as instances of organizational change that stem from a shift in underlying assumptions and provide new ways to fulfill the mission.” Incremental change isn’t enough for arts organizations to confront their long-term challenges.

Adapting to the new normal: I’m not so sure that we ever had an “old normal”, or that change is a new dynamic. Regardless of the current terminology, though, arts organizations are facing deep and sustained changes to their funding sources, audiences, and role in the community. There is a lot to learn about becoming more adept at identifying the questions and leading the necessary changes. The article Leadership in a (Permanent) Crisis describes adaptive leadership as the capacity to sort out and balance the short and long term issues. Facing immediate problems, many managers will hunker down and nibble around the edges of problems.

People who practice what we call adaptive leadership do not make this mistake. Instead of hunkering down they seize the opportunity of moments like this one to hit the organizational reset button. They use the turbulence of the present to build on and bring closure to the past. In the process, they change key rules of the game, reshape parts of the organization, and redefine the work the people do.

The time is critical for many arts organizations to understand their current situation, envision the extent of changes, and learn to truly and continually adapt.

What if? Last week I was sad to read that the Harlem School of the Arts closed its doors. The school was an institution in the neighborhood for over 40 years. The news report paints a case story of their failure to adapt – years of financial, management and governance problems and attempts to address them with short-term cuts, emergency fundraising efforts, and fingerpointing. If we don’t want to see this happen elsewhere we need to learn some new approaches.

Yes, they’re the buzz words of the day, but I can’t argue with the importance of resilience, innovation and adaptive leadership.

This blog was cross-posted at Springboard for the Arts’ Springblog.

This guest post was written by Carol Berde, nonprofit consultant.

Live Heart Healthy

Have you noticed the articles that accompany tax season each year, with advice about which financial records to keep and which to toss out? That inspired a little file purging in my office, or, as I thought of it, clearing the clots out of the office arteries. One item I found (and kept) got me thinking that nonprofit organizations also have to keep their arteries clear – not just once a year, but continually.

I found notes from a philanthropy conference I attended in 2002, in which the speaker urged his audience to “get comfortable with the new reality” following the post-9/11 economic downturn. Sounds a lot like the “new normal” we hear about today, doesn’t it?

In July 2009, the Pohlad Family Foundation made grants totaling almost $5 million to more than 70 nonprofits that provide housing for the homeless, human services, and community health care in the metro area. I had the privilege of being part of the team that assisted the Foundation and MAP for Nonprofits in making these funding decisions. As Scott Russell reported in a MinnPost piece about the Pohlad initiative on August 13th last year, “waiting lists and overstretched services are commonplace” at these organizations:

Many foundations and philanthropists have focused on meeting basic needs. The federal stimulus package has helped in some cases. Yet clearly money is tight from both government and givers.

Are tight funding, waiting lists, and overstretched services the “new reality” for nonprofits working to meet essential human needs? If it is, how can nonprofits keep their arteries healthy even as they serve more people with fewer resources?

Insight into the first question comes from our review of reports six months later from organizations that received these Pohlad funds. Among other things, grantees were asked to assess whether their financial condition had changed in the last six months of 2009. Of the 68 organizations reporting, 43% said their financial condition was better, 37% said it was unchanged, and 21% said it was worse. Operational efficiencies, expense controls – often including staff layoffs and elimination of retirement contributions – and Federal stimulus funds contributed to “better” financial positions. On the other hand, changed priorities on the part of public and private funders were the chief reason for “worse” financial positions. Huge increases in uncompensated care for people without health insurance or resources to pay deductibles and co-pays was another major stress on community-based providers of health and mental health care. “While we are effectively managing the downturn, we have been less successful stemming the tide of declining revenues and changing [funder] priorities,” wrote one grantee.

This anecdotal evidence suggests to me that settling into the “new reality” or “new normal” is not a one-time event for nonprofits. Cutting budgets, the work of 2009 for many, was necessary but insufficient. Rather, keeping a nonprofit’s arteries clear is a continual process of assessment and adjustment, just as watching our diets, exercising, monitoring cholesterol, and, if necessary, taking medication is for people who want to keep their arteries healthy. Here’s a three-part prescription for nonprofits’ heart health.

1. Scan the environment – both inside and outside the organization – continually. Planning for change is preferable to being surprised. Staying ahead and in touch is an added responsibility for executive directors who are already more than busy, but it is essential in the “new normal.”
2. Monitor priorities and strategies and make course corrections. Change is happening too fast for the old-style strategic plan that was adopted and treated like a fossil to still be useful. But that doesn’t mean that the whole idea of strategic planning has become irrelevant. To the contrary, having a clear strategic direction, overarching priorities, and well thought-out goals and strategies to realize them is more important than ever. Organizations that remain effective and use scarce resources efficiently do so, in large part, because they have a plan. What’s different in the “new normal” world is that a strategic plan must be dynamic, re-calibrated every 6 to 12 months in response to progress (or lack of it) and changes in the environment in which the nonprofit operates.
3. Confront the gnarly issues. Programs rarely operate in isolation; organizational problems tend to be intertwined; and changes in funding streams often affect multiple aspects of a nonprofit. Loss of support for a particular program or service, for example, may also mean a reduction in administrative funds or ineligibility for a different funding source. Understanding each program’s true costs and financial contribution can be empowering. Data, no matter how discouraging the story they tell, often pinpoint decisions that can no longer be postponed. If most discussions in an organization end by circling back to the same complex issues, it’s time to unravel them.

We know from our personal behavior that maintaining a healthy heart takes effort and discipline; so too with nonprofits that want to be healthy. But just as there are websites and coaches for personal fitness, there are great resources on the internet to help nonprofits stay healthy. One of the best is the site you’re on now, www.nonprofitsassistancefund.org. Another of my favorites is The Bridgespan Group,  especially an article written for the Harvard Business Review, Delivering on the Promise of Nonprofits, that includes a useful matrix for analyzing mission relevance and financial contribution or cost of each program.

About Carol Berde

Carol Berde has worked with nonprofits for 30 years from both sides of the desk: a long career at The McKnight Foundation and, more recently, as a consultant to nonprofits and foundations. She can be reached at carolberde@comcast.net.

This guest post was written by Judy Alnes, Executive Director of MAP for Nonprofits.

I was glad to be asked to fill Kate Barr’s blog shoes while she is on sabbatical. I often write pithy blogs, if only in my mind. This assignment forced me to round up some of those loose ideas and put pen to paper; or rather, fingers to keys.

It’s Time to Innovate

Social innovation is on the tip of a lot of tongues these days. Most of us in the nonprofit sector are facing the fact that financial resources will remain tight for several years. Many of us have tried to do “more with less.” We’re now awakening to the fact that it is time to do things differently. In other words, it is time to innovate.

So what is social innovation? I especially like the definition used by Andrew Wolk of Root Cause in a recent speech he gave to the Texas Governor’s Nonprofit Leadership Conference:

Social innovation is the process of developing, testing, honing, and spreading transformative approaches to pressing social issues. It is finding ways to do things better and utilize resources more wisely.

Just as important is what social innovation is not! It is not only the purview of those who are leaders of social enterprises. It’s not just for Ashoka Fellows; though they are a remarkably innovative group. In fact, innovation is a discipline that each and every nonprofit and institution needs to incorporate in its work.

Getting Started

Where do we start?

We start by nurturing the seeds of discontent most of us share that we’re not making the progress we want to make on the issues facing our communities and our world.

Next, we arm ourselves with information about innovative processes. I highly recommend two books: The Medici Effect and Blue Ocean Strategy. Then add a daily Google Alert on social innovation or on the innovations in your particular field. It is okay to copy other nonprofits’ innovations in your own organization. Take a look at www.ideaencore.com – an online marketplace of other nonprofit organization’s best practices and resources.

Inside our organizations we can form teams that work on “developing, testing, and honing” advancements in our fields. We can charge individuals with responsibility to work on the next improvements in our processes, products, and services. We can start to admire the breakthroughs being achieved in other fields and think through how those breakthroughs might translate to our own challenges.

Innovating won’t be easy. Many organizations have stretched their people thin in an effort to keep delivering services at a pre-recession level despite a decline in resources. It’s not hard to predict what will happen if we don’t get around to innovation. Our results will look a lot like they do today. As the great inventor Thomas Edison said, “there is a way to do it better – find it.”

What amount is the right size of donation for your organization? Most of us would laugh at the question and answer “$1 million, of course.” But ask again, with a dose of both reality and prudence. What is the amount that would have a long term, stabilizing impact on your organization if you could rely on annual gifts from many donors? It’s probably far, far below $1 million. It’s probably even below $1,000. Many nonprofits overshoot this number, though, chasing larger gifts and grants, thinking that bigger dollars are the answer. I’m not sure that’s ever a realistic strategy, but I think it’s too risky in the midst of the recession.

The Value of Smaller Gifts

I’m pleased that smaller gifts are drawing greater attention and wanted to highlight a few noteworthy examples. The article Save Our Ship in American Theatre Magazine describes the efforts of theaters to rebuild from financial struggles:

The hero who emerges from emergency campaigns is the small donor. Practically every artistic leader I spoke with used the words “grassroots” and recounted anecdotes about donated piggy banks. Over and over, artistic leaders said that it was not one single donor that saved them but rather many, many modest donations – gifts of $100 and $150 that added up to serious money.

The value of many, many small donations was proven on November 17th. At the end of the fundraising-palooza of Give to the Max Day, 38,778 gifts had been made totaling $14,000,406. That divides to a $361 average gift. Many of the most impressive Give to the Max Day campaigns yielded great numbers of both donors and dollars with pretty small average gifts. The organizations with the largest numbers of donors had average gifts ranging from $75 to $100. Organizations receiving the most dollars also had modest average gifts between $65 and $325.  Other examples of the power of small donations can be seen in the international response to the recent earthquake in Haiti, such as the American Red Cross raising $3 million as of 9am EST in $10 increments through a text message campaign.

In his book The Art of the Turnaround, Michael Kaiser describes the process of Alvin Ailey Dance Company’s financial recovery. He offers this advice:

Aiming to fill a deficit with one extraordinary gift is usually just a pipe dream. We need to focus on “right-sized gifts,” gifts that make sense given the budget and the profile of the organization. For the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, with a $6-million budget and a $1.5-million deficit, $50 was too low and $1-million was too high. At Ailey, while we did receive larger gifts, we focused our fund-raising on $1,000 gifts. Our board felt comfortable asking for this amount from friends and associates, and this was an amount that would make a difference to us.”

If you prefer to hold out hope for large gifts and grants, be aware of the risks. The Minnesota Council on Foundations just released their 2010 Funding Outlook based on a recent survey. The survey found that overall funding by Minnesota’s foundations will stay fairly level in 2010 compared to 2009, for which we should be thankful. There is wide variation, though, in the grantmakers’ forecasts. More grantmakers expect decreases in giving in 2010 than expect increases: 30 percent expect to give less compared to 25 percent who expect to give more. At least 20% of foundations expect to decrease the number of grants awarded, as well.

Keep up the grantwriting, RFP submissions, and lunches with prospective large donors. But take Michael Kaiser’s advice to heart – make the priority for 2010 to build a reliable base of “right-sized” gifts.  They really do amount to something very important.

There was a breakthrough last week for nonprofits. In a joint announcement, Guidestar and other major charity “watchdogs” made a very strong case that overhead ratios are meaningless. The phrase used in the opening paragraph says the ratio is “useless for evaluating a charity’s impact.” Read the full release The Worst (and Best) Way to Pick a Charity This Year and then copy it to share far and wide. Some of the reasons for de-emphasizing this ratio cited in the announcement will be familiar to nonprofit leaders:

• It tells you nothing about the impact the charity has on the people it’s trying to help.
• It discourages charities from investing in tools and expertise that would make them more effective.
• The rules for determining overhead costs are vague and every charity interprets them differently.

Hooray! I’ve been one of many voices speaking out on this problem for a long time, most recently in the post Donors and Overhead: Maybe They Don’t Care. This step by some of the most prominent national watchdogs, especially Charity Navigator, is huge. Ken Berger, CEO of Charity Navigator, elaborated on his own blog:

We do concur with the fundamental truth that the most critical dimension in evaluating a nonprofit has to do with achieving meaningful results.

Charity Navigator has been criticized for relying too heavily on the overhead ratio and other simplistic measures for their rating system. Berger has been blogging about their plans to shift to a more comprehensive approach, and this announcement is a breakthrough.

This feels like a gamechanger because now we can stop arguing about whether overhead is an accurate measure of charity performance. It’s not. Clearing that hurdle doesn’t get us to the finish line, though. Everyone in the nonprofit sector should cheer that the watchdogs are encouraging donors to review the impact and effectiveness of nonprofits – but how? There is not a single, simple alternative method to evaluate the effectiveness of all nonprofits. It’s essential for nonprofits to invest some time and brainpower to figure this out.

The organizations behind the press release have their own approaches:

• Consumer reviews: The personal experience approach of Great Nonprofits relies on a broad network of people who are involved with nonprofits to submit comments and ratings. Users of the website can search and browse for stories that interest or inspire them. Think of this as the Amazon reader reviews or TripAdvisor comments equivalent for nonprofits.

• Experts: Philanthropedia, on the other hand, relies on panels of experts in four different fields to pool their knowledge and assessment of which nonprofits are the “top” in effectiveness. Their “mutual funds” of nonprofits can become your vehicle for giving. In some ways this is a global, scaled up version of how we’ve used the local United Way.

• Data: GiveWell has a laser focus on reliable research and evaluation at nonprofits to support anecdotal stories or claims about impact. Read about their low opinion of the way nonprofits currently evaluate effectiveness. If better quality outcomes supported by good evidence is needed, then GiveWell will be there pushing us all.

Whatever approach you trust or endorse, get to it now. It will take us a long time reverse course for all the donors, advisers, and institutions that have used the program cost ratio as a stand-in for value. You’re going to have to offer some other data to replace it. Make it mean something. Ken Berger of Charity Navigator issued this call to action:

The nonprofit sector must get its act together and make sure it is really helping provide meaningful change in communities and peoples lives. It is life or death for many of those we serve whether we are effective or not. So let’s work together to measure, manage and deliver what is really important to make our world a better place.

I am so glad that I’m not the director of a Minnesota charter school. Imagine working in a small segment of the nonprofit sector, comprised of 150 organizations, and opening the paper to regularly find a headline announcing that your field is “out of control” or in “rough waters.” Meanwhile, you go to work every day to lead the teachers at your school and together work to educate the students whose families have chosen to enroll at your school. I wouldn’t appreciate, much less enjoy, the attention. Every report brings with it questions about whether our hypothetical school director is among those with the problems described in the news. Whatever the current condition of this individual school, they end up tainted a bit by the sheer volume of news.

In just the past week, our hypothetical charter school director has seen these reports:

• State charter schools program is ‘out of control’, reports the Star Tribune in an investigative article about the use of bonds for financing of 18 buildings for charter schools.
• The Pioneer Press reported Strapped St. Paul charter school to close midyear on the decision by the board of directors of Skills for Tomorrow school to close at the semester break because of declining enrollment.
• Last week, in Payment shift makes rough waters for charter schools Minnesota Public Radio provided background and examples of the impact on charter schools of the state’s new deferred payment schedule for all public school payments.

While each news story is accurate, it does not paint an accurate overall picture. The individual schools don’t have the chance to explain all of their plans, budgets, and curriculum philosophy to the community. I have a deep enough understanding of charter schools to respond to each with the comment that “it’s more complicated than that.” I don’t want to gloss over some very real issues with finance, leadership and governance at some charter schools, but I am trying to figure out why this small group of nonprofits is such a magnet for news, investigation, and opinion.

As some background, Minnesota was the first state in the nation to create “charter schools.” Today Minnesota has about 150 operating charter schools, with roughly half in the Twin Cities Metro area, and the remainder in Greater Minnesota. Together, these schools serve about 33,000 students. Charter schools are true public schools. They are created by state law, are funded by government, and are subject to most state laws governing public education. They cannot charge tuition and they cannot discriminate in admissions. They are subject to state graduation requirements and the mandates of the federal No Child Left Behind legislation. Structurally, charter schools are both nonprofit corporations and independent school districts.

This structure presents complexities that affect both governance and financial management. As I detailed in a previous entry, Charter school myths and realities, the reality is that the management quality of most charter schools in Minnesota is on par with the management of nonprofit organizations overall. The vast majority of charter school directors and teachers are hardworking, mission-focused, committed educators, and I thank them for their work.

For such a small group of organizations, charter schools attract an awful lot of attention, scrutiny, and criticism. As a community, we feel strongly about education and about the use of taxes and public funds. Charter schools are right in the middle of both.  The field needs to find a way to communicate their value to the community – unless they like opening the paper every day to read another report about problems.