Balancing the Mission Checkbook

How many of you have wanted to take a break from the pace and pressure of work and decompress? I have been given this gift in the form of a one-month sabbatical during February. After seeing the positive effects of a similar break on a friend of mine, I made the request and our board quickly agreed. While I didn’t do any other research about sabbaticals, it made instinctive sense that time away would be a good idea for both me and for Nonprofits Assistance Fund. In the year since my request, two other professional colleagues have taken one-month sabbaticals and had very positive experiences for themselves and the staff of their organizations.

Now, just in time for my break, CompassPoint released a study titled Creative Disruption about sabbaticals at nonprofit organizations. This summary of the report is affirming for my own sabbatical and for any of you who’ve been thinking about it.

This study exposes the myth that an executive sabbatical will be a chaotic disruption, finding instead that the creative disruption of a well-planned sabbatical can be productive for the entire leadership of an organization.

Organizational capacity is increased as the second tier of leadership takes on new responsibilities. Governance is strengthened as a result of the planning and learning that goes with a sabbatical process. Executive directors come back rejuvenated, with a fresh vision and innovative ideas, and tend to extend their tenure with the organization. And funders gain a deeper perspective on community needs from the feedback, networking, and innovative ideas that sabbatical alumni bring.

The report is an interesting read, including the results of surveys of executives who took sabbaticals and the interim directors who took on a new role. The subjects of the study were all recipients of funding to support sabbaticals, usually for three months.

I’m eager to see what kinds of experiences and ideas I have during the month. I’ll be kicking back for some of the time and using some of it for reading and discussions about the big issues and ideas for nonprofits in the future. (Although I can promise I will not spend all four weeks of February in Minnesota.) I started this weekend by reading an advance copy of the book Switch How to Change Things When Change is Hard by Chip and Dan Heath. The book addresses the reasons why change is so hard with a well-formed framework that makes the concepts accessible and actionable. They offer three essential components needed for change to happen:

1. Direct the Rider - clarity and direction
2. Motivate the Elephant - emotions and energy
3. Shape the Path - plan and influence the situation

The book will be released on February 16th, but you can read an extensive excerpt in Fast Company.

More reading and thinking to come, but you probably won’t hear much from me this month. We’d love to hear any comments about sabbaticals from other nonprofits - what have you done, or wished you could do?

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.

I have not had the H1N1 flu.  I hope to keep it that way. However, this flu is starting to really affect me because of the number of people who are not so lucky.

As an example, in just the last week:

• I attended two important meetings where key participants were missing in action.
• Three training events and webinars were canceled.
• A professional associate stayed home with his son for several days.

Two days ago we had to scramble to replace the speaker for one of our own training events.  That really brought this home.

Scramble really describes the activities. There were many emails sent looking for a replacement, and the reply often was “I’m already scheduled for another training, meeting, travel…” Fortunately, a replacement was found (who did a great job) and I am grateful for the size and quality of the network of consultants in the Twin Cities.  But it’s clear that none of us have any slack in our schedules anymore. All the reductions in staff and hours in the past year have taken their toll, removing any elbow room (if there ever was any to start with).

Contingency Planning

The whole process got me thinking about contingency planning. This is going to happen again and again this year and we all need to be prepared. We have a Disaster Recovery Plan, but it wasn’t developed to address this situation. We need to have a plan for deciding when to cancel a meeting or training, when to use a backup plan, and who to call on for reinforcements. We might need to look around for some elbow room again by scaling back a little on commitments for the next few months.

How are you adjusting to more and more absences caused by this flu? Do you have a clear agreement on priorities and steps to take when you have multiple staff members all sick at once?  The Nonprofit Risk Management Center has a number of useful resources and tools, including a list of contingency planning resources and a tutorial on business continuity planning.

As with any planning process, agreeing on the priorities and responsibilities is step one. We’re starting today.

Update: Here is an H1N1 Flu Preparedness Toolkit from the National Council of Nonprofits.

Last week I had the pleasure to participate in the final round of judging for the Minnesota Cup business plan competition, “looking for the next great entrepreneurial success story in our state.” The judges finished the afternoon of presentations from the six impressive finalists with some discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the business plans. Everyone agreed that all of the ideas were innovative and had great market potential. Most of the questions boiled down to execution – did they have the right people beyond the founder, would they be able to build the kinds of systems and structures they would need, would they have enough capital to spend to build the systems? The judges understood that breakthrough ideas are only as good as the follow through and structure to make them happen. The day ended with a well attended event and announcement of the winning business plan.  Each finalist won some seed funding and pro bono professional services for prevailing at the division level and the grand prize included more seed funding to implement the plan.

What a stark contrast, then, to read The Bridgespan Group’s recent article The Nonprofit Starvation Cycle about the causes and consequences of weak infrastructure at many nonprofits:

Organizations that build robust infrastructure—which includes sturdy information technology systems, financial systems, skills training, fundraising processes, and other essential overhead—are more likely to succeed than those that do not. This is not news, and nonprofits are no exception to the rule.

The judges for the Minnesota Cup business plan competition certainly know this about business. But what would be the questions raised by a corollary panel reviewing nonprofit plans? Unfortunately, I think they would focus on overhead ratios rather than the importance of having the right systems, structure, and technology to implement the plans, along with sufficient operations and finance staff. The infrastructure that’s encouraged for growing business is overlooked (or undermined) for nonprofits.

The Bridgespan Group believes that this starvation cycle begins with funders:

Our research reveals that a vicious cycle fuels the persistent underfunding of overhead. The first step in the cycle is funders’ unrealistic expectations about how much it costs to run a nonprofit. At the second step, nonprofits feel pressure to conform to funders’ unrealistic expectations. At the third step, nonprofits respond to this pressure in two ways: They spend too little on overhead, and they underreport their expenditures on tax forms and in fundraising materials. This underspending and underreporting in turn perpetuates funders’ unrealistic expectations. Over time, funders expect grantees to do more and more with less and less—a cycle that slowly starves nonprofits.

I think that the authors describe the cycle perfectly, but you could replace the word “funders” with “boards of directors” or several other nonprofit stakeholders just as accurately. The burden of breaking the starvation cycle is shared and will require us to understand the real value of infrastructure in accomplishing mission. Start with this question: what could you achieve in the community if your organization had the structure – systems, facilities, processes, staff - that were needed for long term success? What would you need to make that happen, and how much would it cost?  For the entrepreneurs at the Minnesota Cup, their potential investors understand the importance of seed funding to build the staff and systems needed for success. We in the nonprofit world need to learn the language and incentives to advocate for infrastructure funding critical for community success.

This is not a breakthrough idea, but I am completely convinced that leadership will be the only determining factor for the survival and success of nonprofits throughout this recession. I see signs of it all the time. As the months of recession drag on, the effects of the presence and absence of real leadership at nonprofit organizations becomes more and more clear. A couple of really interesting recent blog posts got me thinking about these leadership voids and how to fill them.

In the post Nonprofits Will Never Be Respected Until We Start Respecting Ourselves, Rosetta Thurman confronts the self-induced damage of low wages, chip on the shoulders image of many nonprofit employees. She then builds up to this call to action:

With all of our own moaning and groaning about our sector, it’s no wonder other people emphasize the “non” in our nonprofit field. Believe me, I’ve been guilty of all of the above. But what’s happened is that in all of our “insider baseball” talk amongst ourselves about what’s wrong with our sector, we have somehow internalized it all to conclude that this is just how it is. This is just the nature of “nonprofit culture”. We forget that WE are nonprofit culture. The nonprofit “sector” is made up of individual organizations, which are made up of individual people, which means that this is all up to us. It is what we make it to be. So when are we going to be the change we say we wish to see?

Echoing the “take charge” message in An Open Letter to Arts Administrators, Adam Thurman (Two bloggers named Thurman, hmmm) describes the painful position of mid-level arts administrators who don’t feel supported, respected, or valued.

It doesn’t have to be like that.  I know you’ve probably convinced yourself that all the garbage you deal with is just the cost of being in the field.

It isn’t.  If the group you work for is being run poorly it is because people are ACTIVELY making choices that allow that to happen.  It isn’t just a matter of circumstance.  It’s an outcome of choice.

You deserve better then that.  You deserve to work at an organization that produces great art, treats people with respect and pays fairly.  No matter how much people may tell you otherwise those three goals are NOT mutual exclusive.

He then advises that these arts administrators give themselves a year to help bring about change - or to leave.  I love the simplicity and enormity of that advice.

Be a leader, or leave.

But how can you be a leader if you aren’t the CEO, Executive Director, CFO, Director of Development, Board Chair, etc, etc?  By leading, that’s how. I know of many cases where a new board member, mid-level program manager, or finance staffer stepped into the void, told the truth, and brought about important change. To be frank, there is risk and a lot of work involved.

Our new Recession Risk Assessment resource includes suggestions for actions to take based on the risk level. For organizations with high level of leadership risks, the advice is: “The organization urgently needs a leader to step forward to call attention to the challenges, even if it causes discomfort.”

Be a leader - why not you? Why not now?

I think that I’m losing my ability to be patient and finesse conversations about how nonprofits can deal with the recession. Instead, I’m becoming a blunt instrument with one recurring message - Act Now.

Unfortunately, quite a few nonprofits are in very fragile financial condition and don’t have much elbow room. In other circumstances, I like to work through the possibilities and understand the complexities and reasons behind a nonprofit’s structure and history. Now it’s all about speed.

For example, in the last two weeks I’ve made these very direct and difficult comments to leaders of three different nonprofits:

• Direct comment 1: “I think that your grant budget is unrealistic. I think that you need to create a scenario budget plan to reduce expenses by 30%.”

• Direct comment 2: “Based on your history of recurring operating deficits, you need more than a few expense reductions. You need to reconsider the entire structure of your programs.”

• Direct comment 3: “You don’t have time to research some new grants. You’ll be out of cash in one month.”

Not much finessing here. Because of this need for urgency, we developed a Recession Risk and Preparedness Assessment for nonprofits to quickly identify how urgently they need to act and where to start. These twenty questions cover financial condition, financial information, organizational change factors, and leadership. Use it to find your starting point.

In this week’s issue of The Chronicle of Philanthropy, consultant Pat Nichols described how frustrating it is to watch ineffective and slow reactions to urgent situations in the article A CEO Survival Guide for Touch Times. Because this requires a paid subscription to access, here’s an excerpt of some key points in this excellent piece:

Center all decision making on the mission. If, in facing tough choices, we are not explicit and rigorous about how the decisions we make serve the mission, we have fallen short of our responsibilities.

Be open and engage everyone. Everyone will find this period and the process unsettling. No one, at the outset, can guarantee an outcome. What we can do, though, is find creative means to discuss what is happening and encourage participation from all quarters.

Move quickly but systematically. When uncertainty reigns, people draw comfort from knowing that, though there is no resolution at present, there is rapid and systematic movement toward a resolution.

Be hopeful in style and rigorous in analysis. This balancing act is, perhaps, the toughest of these principles to observe. As leaders, our colleagues depend on us to set a tone, and to convey hope. However, it is also crucial that we ask the tough questions and discount our desire to believe the best.

Live with ambiguity, acknowledge uncertainty. We must act on incomplete and imperfect information; we must make assumptions and decisions that will prove to be wrong. This requires that we acknowledge what we don’t know and be prepared to adjust when we are mistaken.

The time to act is now - for all of us.