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.

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.

How many surveys have you completed that gathered information about how the recession is affecting your nonprofit? I think that we’ve gotten at least ten requests to complete surveys in the past six months (and have responded to at least five or six). With the ease of surveying using SurveyMonkey, Zoomerang, and other services, it seems like everyone with a computer has recently conducted a survey about the recession. I gathered the various reports I’ve received lately and searched for others, finding many, many more.

Surveys are great and provide some reliable data and a lot of anecdotal information for use in case statements and meeting discussions. The surveys range from large, national organizations collecting data from several thousand organizations to local groups who reach a few dozen. Some surveys employed carefully planned research techniques, while others sent out a shotgun email and let respondents self-select. Whatever the audience, method, or response rate, all of the surveys I read came up with the same information: funding is down, demand is up, and nonprofits are turning themselves inside out – including deep cost cuts – in order to maintain services in the community.

• Guidestar’s survey (2,979 organizations) identified the basics: reduced income, reduced services, reduced expenses. The size of the respondent pool is impressive.

• Nonprofit Finance Fund (986 organizations) warned that nonprofits are “In Danger” and “Strained to the breaking point” with over 80% anticipating deficits this year and cash reserved down.

• Bridgespan Group’s survey (100 organizations), which was a follow up to last fall’s report, found that the situation had worsened and nonprofits were turning to tough measures, including deep costs cuts and use of reserves.

• Impact of the 2007-2009 Economic Recession on Nonprofit Organizations issued by Listening Post Project at Johns Hopkins University employs a recurring panel of selected and random nonprofits in several fields (363 organizations). The in-depth analysis reports that 80% of respondents are experiencing financial stress, but that most have maintained or increased the number of people served.
  • A particularly interesting comment is that “nonprofits appear to be at least partly buffered by government policies that are designed to be counter-cyclical, i.e. to expand when economic conditions deteriorate.” Reading this month’s headlines about state budgets, I’m surprised to read that government funding offers an offset to reductions in other sources.

• In direct contrast, the May 2009 Current Conditions Report from Minnesota Council of Nonprofits (571 organizations) reported that nonprofits are “bracing for extended impact” that is exacerbated by reductions in state and local funding and uncertainty about further reductions.

• Similar reports of financial strain can be found from the Christian Leadership Alliance (250 organizations), United Way of the Bay Area (391 organizations), and state nonprofit associations in Louisiana (312 organizations), New Jersey (351 organizations), and Arizona (87 organizations), among many others. There are many, many other surveys – for the arts, hospitals, environmental organizations, and on.

Thanks to the 6,390 nonprofits for taking the time to respond to the surveys listed above

Each survey report has its own focus, tone and summaries, although with some interesting contrasts. All report declines and reductions, but some use phrases like “struggling to survive” and “threats to well-being,” while others are more upbeat about the creativity, adaptability, and resilience (one of the most frequently used words). There are lots of comments about difficult decisions, uncertainty, program redesign and modification, new collaborations, focus on core mission, and contingency planning.

What they also all report is the great commitment and sacrifices being made by those who are employed by and volunteer for the responding nonprofits. One of the common themes is reductions in personnel costs through freezes, salary reductions, and furloughs at the same time that the organizations are serving more people with new and more complex needs. This is my greatest concern – for how long can nonprofits rely on staff and volunteers working more and harder, for less, to meet growing community needs?

I’m always cautious when I read reports since this kind of quick action survey relies on answers from a self-selected sliver of the sector. The surveys provide interesting and useful data to start planning, but it’s not sufficient to draw reliable conclusions. I’m interested now in reading some case stories of change and transformation. That is likely to take more time to achieve than a 10 minute survey, but it will be worth it.

Worrying about cash shortfalls is, without a doubt, at the top of the list of stressors for nonprofit directors and finance managers. In this situation, everyone’s dream is to have a stash of cash – a cash reserve account set aside to tap at a moment’s notice to solve the problem. I’m reluctant to endorse a universal standard for reserves, but there are “rules of thumb” and accepted practices calling for nonprofits to hold reserves of three to six months of operating expenses. Well it turns out that this “best practice” is a practice in theory only for many nonprofits.

A study by the Urban Institute, reported in the Washington Post this week, Nonprofits Imperiled By Low Reserves found that 57% of the Washington area nonprofits studies had less than three months of reserves, and 28% had none. The June 2009 Nonprofit Current Conditions Report published by Minnesota Council of Nonprofits found new cash flow concerns caused by slower payments from county and state agencies. Surveys in Minnesota have found that at least 35% of nonprofits anticipate cash flow problems this year and 30% have one month or less of operating reserves. Low reserves and cash flow problems are not restricted to small or struggling nonprofits – it’s a widespread management challenge. The Urban Institute study contained an interesting finding, according to the Post article:

According to the study, larger groups were less likely to have sufficient operating reserves than smaller ones, a finding that surprised researchers. Seventy percent of charities with expenses over $5 million had low operating reserves, compared with 50 percent of groups with less than $100,000 in expenses.

This shouldn’t be that surprising when you do the arithmetic. Imagine that you run a nonprofit with an $8 million annual budget. Maintaining a three month reserve would require a $2 million cash account. That’s (a) a big number and (b) very difficult to build up in the low surplus, service delivery model of most nonprofits. Rather than dwelling on the best practice or target for designated cash reserve accounts, maybe nonprofits need to learn to be more sophisticated managers of cash and its relative, working capital. This financial concept was described well by Ben Cameron of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation last week in a Chronicle of Philanthropy live online discussion, The Changing Role of Foundations.

Ben Cameron:
Most businesses recognize the need for ongoing working capital–it’s the heart of funds that allow a business to make strategic decisions around launching a new program or line of business, investing in a new facility, etc. I have been in discussions with some business executives who have been adamantly opposed to general operating support for arts organizations–thinking it gives organizations free license to be unstrategic and undisciplined–but instantly supportive of flexible working capital. In essence, the purposes are the same–the difference is in how the two terms are heard.

I’ve been advocating for better understanding of Nonprofit Capital for years. In the “nonprofits should be like business” debate, this is the one area where we do have a lot to learn. There aren’t many businesses that strive to hold a three month cash reserve account. That would be viewed poorly, in fact, because it’s an inefficient use of capital.

For peek at how the very largest and most sophisticated nonprofits solve a cash flow problem, read about how Dartmouth Joins Harvard, Princeton in Tapping Credit Markets. Because of the drop in endowments, Bloomberg reported that Dartmouth College just issued $250 million of 10-year notes “for liquidity and general working capital,” according to Julie Dolan, associate vice-president for fiscal affairs at Dartmouth.

Learn to love these words: Working Capital.

Where do you send the condolence card after the death of a nonprofit?

Today’s Star Tribune reported that the Senior Federation to Shut Down because of financial challenges resulting from drops in both grant support and memberships. The economy is certainly a big factor since the Federation’s funders include several health care organizations that are cutting budgets everywhere. Membership declines reflect both demographic shifts and changes in the needs of their constituents. Founded in 1973, the Federation really made its mark in the 1990s with advocacy and action to make prescription drugs more affordable with bus trips to Canada and online sales.

This news about the Senior Federation is not the first or the last time that a nonprofit will close. Two weeks ago Centro Legal closed its doors after almost 30 years of providing legal services to low-income, Spanish-speaking clientele with issues related to housing, domestic violence and immigration. The loss of these services has a very real impact on the community.

The current economy has exacerbated the already fragile financial state of many nonprofits which is likely to result in more closures. Every closure is hard, painful, and sad. This sadness made me think about the sadness I’ve seen in the past month after the cancer-related deaths of three acquaintances. These losses were hard, painful, and very sad. Each of these wonderful people were remembered at memorial services billed as “A celebration of the life of … ”  The events were indeed celebrations with music, laughter, tears, stories, and food. Friends and members of the community even bring the food, passing out turkey sandwiches and brownies in church basements and park shelters.

I think that we need to organize memorial services for nonprofits. A celebration of the life of the Senior Federation, a celebration of the life of Centro Legal, a celebration of the life of _______ . Current and past board and staff members, clients, members, funders, and the community could gather to tell stories, cry a bit, remember the history and changes, take pride in the impact and significance of the organization, and say goodbye. Invite me and I’ll bring a tray of brownies.