Balancing the Mission Checkbook

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.

I have often said that my least favorite question is “What is the ideal target amount for a nonprofit to have in an operating reserve?” Because there is never a simple answer for the question, I wrote a post a while ago on The Cash Reserves Myth:

Every nonprofit should have a cash reserve equal to three months of expenses.” There’s some truth and some myth to this “best practice.” It is absolutely true that every nonprofit needs to have adequate cash balances available to support the timing of payroll and other expenses, as well as to pay for unanticipated costs or increases. It’s a myth, however, that a single standard applies for all nonprofits. I have two issues with the “three month reserve” standard. One is that different organizations need different amounts of cash on hand. The second is that building a reserve of three months of expenses is not a practical, or even desirable, goal for all nonprofits.

In an article I wrote a couple of years ago, The Yin and Yang of Nonprofit Reserves, I recommended different ranges depending on the stability of incoming cash flow, with reserves as low as one to two months of operating expenses. One reason for my caution about standard reserve ratios has been the business question of whether idle cash is an efficient use of capital.

I take it all back. Well, I take some of it back.

The Value of Cash Reserves

The past 18 months have been a lab test of the value of cash reserves. This isn’t a surprise, I suppose, but it has made me re-think my earlier questions about the focus on reserves. It is clear that nonprofits that have been able to build up a good cash cushion have had options and opportunities in the past year that enabled them to respond to reduced income and increased demand more strategically and carefully than those organizations with few extra dollars in the bank. You know what I mean whether you are affiliated with a nonprofit that has reserves or with one that does not.

In the survey that the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits conducted to prepare the most recent Current Conditions Report, several questions were included about operating reserves. MCN generously shared the survey data with me for an in-depth analysis of these questions. The responses illustrate the differences between nonprofits with and those without reserves.

• How much in reserves? For all respondents, 34% have one month or less, 18% have none, and 6% had a reserve fund but depleted it in 2009.
• Asked if they anticipated dipping into reserves in 2010, 24% of nonprofits replied that they do.
• Not surprisingly, 65% of nonprofits with minimal or no reserves experienced cash flow problems in 2009, and most of them anticipate prolonged cash flow problems in 2010. Nonprofits of all sizes fell into this group, most commonly in arts & culture and social services.

Why does it matter? I sliced the responses further and found that the nonprofits with minimal or no reserves were more likely to have cut budgets, eliminated staff positions, reduced wages and benefits. They were also less likely to have been able to increase services to respond to growing demand.

There’s a caveat that these results aren’t necessarily caused by the lack of reserves. It’s quite likely that other factors are at play, including the broader question of the governance and management practices and business model needed for nonprofits to build reserves over time through operating surpluses.

This survey and the practical cases that we talk with every day have taught me to truly appreciate – to love – operating reserves.

Build the Right Reserve for Your Organization

I still believe that the “right” target for reserves needs to be customized for each nonprofit based on their operating structure, cash flow, and ability to generate surpluses in the operating budget. Building reserves requires an intentional budget strategy and follow through to generate surplus funds. Whatever the target amount, reserves are most useful if there is clear agreement about their purpose and use codified in a written policy. Nonprofits Assistance Fund has developed a new resource, Operating Reserves Overview and Policy Example. If you are interested in a deeper dive on the issues, considerations, and structure for reserves, you’ll love the Nonprofit Operating Reserves Initiative Workgroup White Paper. They answer the “how much” question with a useful chart that sorts through the “it depends” factors.

Is it puppy love or the real thing?

The Low-profit limited-liability company (L3C) structure is attracting attention and commentary about a new way to solve community problems using market-driven practices. The idea of a “new model” is so alluring, though, that I see misunderstanding and lots of hopeful thinking. I like the structure and give lots of credit for innovation and perseverance for its creation and growth to Americans for Community Development. My concern is that the L3C is being discussed by nonprofits and businesses as a single solution to some complex problems. It isn’t.

As described in ACD’s FAQS, the L3C structure is a viable approach to attracting capital with lower than market returns and a social mission. It is not, however, a solution to nonprofit or business entities that have expenses that are higher than revenue (that’s called a deficit in both worlds). It is also not a solution to a business or nonprofit that is losing its market, audience, donors, or other revenue sources.

In this recent article in The Chicago Tribune, for example, one of the cases offered is instructive:

Social entrepreneur Mike Melillo of Watchung, N.J., hopes to secure foundation funds for his social media company by converting the LLC to an L3C. He launched SocialChord, which provides local online communities, with the intention of bringing in investors. Despite two years of trying, Melillo hasn’t nabbed the capital he was counting on. Without the L3C structure to potentially open a new funding stream, Melillo said, “at this point, I’d probably just fold.”

In this case I would want more information about the ongoing business (revenues, expenses, market potentials) before agreeing that the L3C structure brings instant relief.

The allure of the L3C has been problematic for nonprofits as well. Most nonprofits require ingoing contributed funds (individuals, foundations, events) to pay annual expenses to deliver programs and services. These donors generally expect to give to an organization with IRS tax-exempt status. The L3C structure won’t satisfy this requirement – it is developed to attract capital but not tax-deductible, contributed funds. I can think of a few (but only a few) nonprofits that only require low cost, patient capital to support their mission.

Jeff Texler recently questioned whether the L3C structure was really needed by nonprofits in a blog post on JustMeans.

I say all this not to discourage anyone from forming an L3C or advocating for a similar statute in their own state. Rather, my aim is simply to provide a needed reality check. Based on the experience of another standardized social benefit form – the UK’s CIC – the L3C is likely to be no more a magnet for investment and revenue than any other kind of business. In fact, it might even prove to be less successful, since most investors won’t know what it is. Rather than simply dreaming about how the L3C could solve your organization’s money problems, you should also look into what is already possible.

I think his point is important for nonprofits that have fallen in love with the idea of a “new model.” I recently read this online post: “I would like to form an L3C to provide housing and services to various special populations …” First, I’d be interested to know why the 501c3 structure wouldn’t work for this proposed entity. Second, I wonder if the L3C would serve this mission at all. Is this a capital need, or will ongoing support be needed?

Structure should always follow purpose and goals, not lead the way. While the booklet If the Shoe Fits published by REDF was published before the L3C existed, it’s a great primer for the questions to ask before you let the excitement of a new idea outpace the needs of the organization.

I’m convinced that the reason that people care about the overhead ratio of charities is because we keep telling them that it’s important. I have an announcement to make: I am a donor to quite a few nonprofits, and I don’t care what percentage of their budget is spent for overhead. I think that a lot of donors would agree.

Yet, in another article advising us about charitable giving, 5 Tips on How to Stretch Your Charitable Dollars published in the New York Times online published by the AP and picked up by the New York Times and other newspapers, overhead is (once again) emphasized:

Tip #2: EXAMINE CHARITIES CLOSELY. Do the same due diligence on your donations that you would your investments or your business…
Pay especially close attention to the overhead. Anything above 9 to 14 percent is out of line and signifies that too much money goes to staff or office space and not enough to the beneficiaries, according to Stephanie Risa Stein, managing director of New York-based Philanthropic Capital Advisors LLC.

Here’s my soapbox

I agree that it’s wise to “Do the same due diligence on your donations that you would your investments or your business.” But when I review an investment opportunity, I review based on the expected criteria for a successful business – profitability, market share, and returns. I don’t review their overhead and management costs. So why would overhead be the criteria for a charity?

I’d like to re-write this “tip.”

EXAMINE CHARITIES CLOSELY. Do some due diligence on charities before you donate, just as you would for an investment or business opportunity. Pay especially close attention to how successful the nonprofit has been at achieving its mission. Do they provide information about how effective their programs are and what impact they have on the people and communities that they serve? Do they have a way to measure and communicate progress and/or success?

I put these two types of “due diligence” to the test with five Minnesota nonprofits that I have supported in the past. I looked at the 990s on Guidestar and found that their overhead ratios ranged from 5% to 17%. Then I looked up web sites and annual reports. Here’s what I (a donor) care about:

• St. Stephen’s Human Services provided food and shelter to 6,000 very poor adults and children
• CommonBond Communities houses 7,850 residents in quality affordable housing
• Admission Possible had a 99% success rate in students admitted to college
• Ten Thousand Things presents astounding theater to people in homeless shelters and prisons
• Minnesota Fringe Festival creates connections for audiences and artists that’s the envy of theater communities in many other cities (the 2009 festival starts this Thursday).

Which of these has the “best” overhead ratio?

I don’t care.

I care that they are effective nonprofits that can tell donors what they do and why it matters. Why would a donor rather examine overhead? Before someone jumps on this point, I agree that 90% on fundraising is completely unreasonable, but that kind of organization can’t demonstrate real results anyway. So can we stop using overhead as the primary criteria for donors – please?

One positive comment about this article – Rich Cowles, Executive Director of Charities Review Council is quoted with good advice for donors about budgeting and planning their giving. Nice national recognition of the Council’s good work and solid reputation.

The New York Times published an article this week about the Gilmanton New Hampshire Year-Round Library Association and their efforts to raise money for operating costs. Led by dedicated and committed volunteers, a facility has been built by moving and refurbishing an 18th century barn, but no funds are in hand to open the doors. The article reports that they are “looking for someone who will provide at least $1 million for a private endowment” to support the ongoing operating costs. Wouldn’t every nonprofit like to “find” someone who will donate $1 million! This is a case for Mythbusters – Nonprofit Finance Edition.

There are no magic donors. In the article, one of the volunteers hopes that “Maybe someone out there has had a dear loved one that’s passed away, or a child or parent they’ve given everything possible to, and this would be a special new gift.” I don’t mean to pick on the volunteers for their effort. And I certainly love the picture of the barn/library, having grown up in New England with a lot of time spent in a picturesque, cozy library. I hear that kind of wishful thinking elsewhere, though, and am concerned that the myth of the elusive, secret donor is dangerous. Hoping and waiting for One Big Gift that solves everything might just be an excuse not to do the hard work of fundraising. Now, as always, fundraising involves identifying those who care about the cause, building relationships, making the case, and demonstrating responsibility – step by step.  I recommend this recent blog post from PhilanTopic that smartly translates the core principles of donor cultivation and planning into useful advice for today.

If you’re like me, you’re reading a lot of reports, surveys, and advice right now looking for useful data and direction. To help you cull through this material, Nonprofit Assistance Fund has launched a new blog, Nonprofit Harvest.  Our goal is not to post every available resource, but to consistently provide useful content that will help nonprofits.  I encourage you to read the blog, share resources you have found helpful, and offer your own suggestions for how nonprofits can navigate this challenging economy.

At Nonprofits Assistance Fund we frequently talk with managers of nonprofit organization that are facing cash flow shortfalls. It’s really common that the of timing income and expenses gets out of sync.  Income is received according to grant, contract, and contribution cycles, which are often irregular. Meanwhile, payroll and rent payments have to be paid very regularly.  While this is an everyday topic for our staff, cash flow problems cause concern and worry at the nonprofits that are feeling the pinch.

To all those nonprofits, current news reports can help you understand that cash flow is important for every nonprofit, business, and even government.  Large businesses are scrambling to obtain short-term cash from borrowing through what’s known as commercial paper.  Over the weekend, the state governments of both Massachusetts and California notified that US Treasury Department that they might need short-term cash flow assistance. These are big numbers, too. Next time your nonprofit needs some help in tiding over a cash flow dip, take heart. You’re in good company, and this is a day to day reality for any organization.

If you are interested in assessing your organization’s cash position, you can download our Cash Flow Template to make your own cash flow projection.