Balancing the Mission Checkbook

How can you appeal to donors at a time when costs and demands for services are increasing? How about a letter or email detailing your line by line budget increases? Probably not – because what it costs to provide services isn’t compelling. It’s what results from the services that makes the case. By results, though, I don’t just mean a nice story or picture. I mean results. I’ve been reading and hearing more and more frequently about measuring, quantifying, and communicating the results of nonprofit programs, but somehow we (as a nonprofit community) still seem to be coming up short in public perception.

Once again, a study reports that public confidence in charities is declining. Less than 20% of respondents expressed the highest level of confidence in charities’ practices in using financial resources or in managing programs and services. This annual survey, conducted by Professor Paul Light from NYU’s Wagner School of Public Service, was recently summarized in The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Professor Light was the speaker at Charities Review Council’s Annual Forum in Saint Paul last week. After summarizing the survey results and trends, he focused on two key factors related to confidence. The essential question about confidence, he said, is whether or not the public (and your donors) believe that charities spend their money wisely. Not about what line items are in your budget, or how much is spent on program vs. management – the concern is whether money is spent wisely to accomplish something of value. The second, parallel question is how a nonprofit conveys and demonstrates their value. What benefits occur because of your program? Harlem Children’s Zone’s annual report, for example, is full of data about results, progress, and success. The data demonstrates that money is spent wisely because the results are so real. Professor Light repeated his mantra several times - measure something!

Right now, about 25% of the nonprofits that we are working with pretty closely are in the midst of a capital campaign, are just finishing their campaign, or have plans to launch one in the next year or so. The meaning of “capital” campaign is evolving, and about one-third of these campaigns include a substantial amount of flexible working capital and infrastructure investment in addition to traditional bricks and mortar. (This is an important trend that I’ve written about before.) Looking at the campaigns and organizations as a whole, it’s clear that the campaigns that are going well were thoughtfully planned out, based on feasibility studies, and focused on donors with whom the nonprofit already had a relationship. The campaigns that have floundered or dragged on were based on some broad assumptions about who “should” support them, plugged numbers to fill out the budget, and the planning happened along the way. These observations lead right to the basics of capital campaigns – lots of planning, being realistic, committing the time and people, and monitoring everything as you progress.

Capital campaigns also demand consideration of external factors, including the competitive impact of other capital campaigns and of economic trends. We in Minnesota can thank the Minnesota Council on Foundations for conducting a survey last month on Capital and Endowment Campaigns in Minnesota, 2007-2008. The survey reports on 62 current and 72 planned campaigns for buildings, endowments, and infrastructure investments. The largest campaigns are for colleges and universities, with human services and health care a distant second and third. Interestingly, the higher ed, health care, and arts organizations expect most of their funds to come from individuals donors, while human service nonprofits expect about half to come from grants. This week’s Chronicle of Philanthropy reports in “Feeling the Squeeze” that some large capital campaigns are running into some resistance from large donors concerned about the economy. The examples in the article, which is only available in its online format to subscribers, indicated that gifts were delayed or stretched out, but that the campaigns continued to be successful in a different environment.

If you are beginning to plan a new fundraising push – whether you call it capital campaign or not – you need to understand the trends, the local landscape, and how many other “asks” will be in the mail.

Continuing on this theme, how effective are nonprofits at making the case for unrestricted support? Rather than bemoaning the lack of unrestricted funds, what can we learn? An article in last Sunday’s New York Times, “Here’s My Check, Spend It All At Once”, connects the current financial challenges at the American Red Cross to their Donor Direct policy established in response to the fallout about the use of funds donated after the September 11 attacks. When the Red Cross commits to direct all of your donated funds wherever you choose, what donor wouldn’t take the opportunity to be the master of their own philanthropy? The long-term results, though, may be the kind of deficits that the American Red Cross is facing. Was the Donor Direct policy an extreme reaction – did the Red Cross go too far as a reaction to a communications and PR problem?Following the references in the Times article, I compared the online fundraising messages of the American Red Cross and of Doctors Without Borders. The choice of how to direct donations is the first question for a donor at the American Red Cross. While the option “Where the Need is Greatest” is the first choice offered, specific funds are immediately listed below. The FAQ section even offers more options:

I don’t see the fund that I wanted to donate to. What do I do?
Due to space limitations, we are limited in how many funds we can make available for online donations. If you would like to donate to a fund that is not listed, please contact Donor Services.

Contrast this with the Doctors Without Borders website, which provides a concise summary of how funding is used to carry out their programs. Note that the information doesn’t offer the donor a choice to designate their funds to a specific use. In the FAQ section, in fact, Doctors Without Borders makes the case for unrestricted gifts:

Can I earmark my donation for a certain area/project?
We appreciate your interest in supporting our programs. While it is possible to have your gift directed toward a specific program or country where we are currently working, we ask that you contribute unrestricted funding. By not restricting your contribution for a specific emergency or project, you will enable us to allocate our resources more efficiently and where the needs are greatest.

All of these appeals and messages rely on trust, of course, and donor trust is what the American Red Cross must rebuild. Every nonprofit should care about this, because the public’s perception and confidence in the Red Cross is a good indicator of confidence in all nonprofits.

I find it interesting that I’ve read and heard quite a lot lately about foundation leaders discussing the relative merits and challenges of moving some of their grantmaking from program and project grants to general operating support. The New York Times recently published a re-framing piece on this by Denise Caruso, “Can Foundations Take the Long View Again?” The members of GEO (Grantmakers for Effective Organizations) have been engaged in a long discussion and analysis on this topic. They have published several thoughtful guides (free registration is required to view them). What I don’t think I’ve heard is a comparable discussion from nonprofit leaders about how much impact and long-term value their clients and communities would gain from more general operating support. If you are the director of a nonprofit, you may think that is an obvious statement – but I don’t think that connection is made very well. There are several issues involved, including different terminology and understanding of budgets.

What is a general operating grant? Is it a grant to pay for overhead expenses, or is it funding to provide comprehensive support for the organization’s mission and activities? Too frequently, the term is used as in this excerpt from an article, “General operating money is certainly one of the more difficult categories of funding to secure, mostly because it’s a lot less appealing to the funder. Let’s face it, paying rent is not nearly as sexy as helping people fulfill their potential as human beings.” STOP saying that. This is the kind of thinking and woe-is-me mentality that can’t make the case for general operating support. There is an implicit choice in this article: We have $10,000. Should we spend it on rent, or should we spend it to help people fulfill their potential as human beings? How about this instead: Let’s spend it on rent, salaries, benefits, supplies, and phones to operate our effective, innovative programs that help people fulfill their potential.

Do we need some new terminology to cut through this mess?

• General Operating Grant: Apparently, this is a grant to pay for distracting, hard to justify, and uninteresting expenses (like rent and phones).

• Program Grant: A grant that is restricted for a defined set of activities and outcomes that fit with the organization’s mission. All expenses included in the program budget, including salaries, rent, and supplies, are needed to carry out the program’s goals.

• Core Mission Grant: A grant provided to an effective organization to use as their leaders direct in order to support and achieve their mission. Some of the funds may be spent on immediate program and organizational needs and some on long-term investments, such as program development, staff training, and technology.

According to Caruso’s article, “The majority of foundation leaders polled in the studies acknowledged that unrestricted operating funds were better and more effective for grantees. But they continue to focus their grantmaking on project support, they said, because they prefer its clear-cut results.” Flexibility is the key value of core, or operating, support. Think about how you can make the case that flexibility will enable your nonprofit to be more responsive to community, better prepared for the future, and more effective in all of your programs and activities - that’s results.

Reading the headlines reflecting concerns and jitters about the direction of the economy is causing leaders of nonprofits to ask how it will affect their organizations. For some people, a state of worry has set in. I can see why. Today, the StarTribune posted this article on their website, “Chairman Bernanke says Fed ready to cut interest rates again as needed.” The article predicts further cuts to key interest rates “to rescue a weakening economy.” Factors cited included the unemployment rate, weak real estate, tightening credit, and high energy prices. What’s a nonprofit leader to do? Anyone who has worked for a nonprofit for more than three years has experience with a tough economy, so many directors and managers will be well prepared to respond to lean times. But how worried should you be right now and what are your concerns? I think it’s worth a review of the causes and effects that may have a direct impact on your nonprofit organization.

The key is to understand your income mix. There are essentially five distinct sources of nonprofit income and each income source expands or contracts depending on different factors in the economy. If you understand the sources of income that are most important to your organization, then you can focus on following movements and trends that will matter. One overall trend to keep in mind is that the “nonprofit economy” tends to lag the general economy by about a year. Here are some ideas for trend watching the economy.

Program service revenue, or payment for directly providing services, is the largest total source of income for nonprofits. Income from contracts for service, especially from government agencies, is determined based on tax receipts and state and local budgets. We know how many reductions occurred a few years ago and most of these sources haven’t rebounded. If this is your primary income source, the keys are the reports from the state and the budget process. You can track these through the Minnesota Budget Project. To survive with contracts, it’s important to understand the true costs of delivering the services (which is probably not the amount you are paid for delivering the services) and having your eyes open about the need for additional subsidy - and where to get it.

Program service revenue that is paid directly by the user of the service - like tuition, memberships, tickets, and fees – is a lot like business income and reacts to market downturns depending on the buying power of your customer. If your service is considered discretionary, like entertainment, then consumer spending is worth tracking by reading the business section of the paper.

If foundation grants are an important component of your income, watch the stock market. Because endowment payouts are calculated in a way that evens out big increases and decreases, there is no reason to expect a big decrease in 2008. However, pay attention to the excellent surveys and analysis from Minnesota Council on Foundation including Grantmaking Outlook and Giving in Minnesota. If the market performs poorly over time, some reductions in grants could develop. Keep in mind, though, that even with the poor market performance several years ago, grants from Minnesota foundations have increased total dollars almost every year (more details in the MCF reports). If your endowment is an important source of income, the same market trends described above apply.

For nonprofits that rely on individual donors it’s a mixed bag of economic news. This recent online discussion about the Outlook for 2008 hosted by the Chronicle of Philanthropy highlights some opportunities for planned giving and large gifts that transcend the economy, and emphasize the importance of relationships and communications in maintaining a building a donor base.

So don’t assume the worst or start a chorus of woe about the poor economy. Yes, there will be challenges, but you can understand how economic trends will affect your nonprofit. Knowledge is power and will help you anticipate and plan for any changes.

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?