Balancing the Mission Checkbook

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.

All of us are reading waves of economic information right now - the stimulus, the proposed state and federal budgets - and are trying to sort out which parts have a direct impact on our communities and organizations. Both the stimulus and federal budget are big and bold and pretty overwhelming. There is so much to understand and analyze - thank goodness for some great resources like Minnesota Budget Bites and National Council of Nonprofits. I’m trying to keep up with the general framework and get into specific details when I need to. I hope that all of us who are committed to stronger communities will spend the necessary time to understand what’s needed and work together with the big picture in sight.

Considering the importance, scale and scope of the economic proposals, I am really disappointed that that the number one, highest priority, most important issue for many in the nonprofit world is the proposal contained in the President’s budget that would limit the extent of deductions for charitable contributions for those in the highest tax bracket, reported here in the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

Typical of the outcries in response is a statement from Independent Sector:

Independent Sector believes that this change could be a disincentive to some donors who might further cap their gifts on account of the new limit.

Most of the comments made by our well-known leaders include the phrase “In these hard economic times” and forecast doom if this change comes to pass.

I’m disappointed in this knee jerk reaction that’s just a version of NIMBYism at a time when we really need to pull together and work for the greater common good, which may involve sacrifice. Beyond that disappointment, I’m skeptical that doomsday will come. First of all, the change wouldn’t be effective until 2011, so it won’t impact donors “in this tough economic environment.” And if you really believe that your donors are in it for the tax deduction I think that you need to re-write your case statement. Surveys, like one conducted in 2006 by Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University for Bank of America, report that over 50% of the high net worth people interviewed would not decrease their giving even if there was no tax deduction at all. From what I’ve read, the tax deduction is more likely to impact the timing and form of a gift rather than whether a gift is made. It’s easy to get this form confused with substance. Consider this from Charity Navigator’s blog:

The data that we have seen over the years has shown a big spike in donations through our site during the last several days of the year, especially on December 31st which of course is the last day to make a qualified tax deductible charitable contribution (see our Tax Benefits of Giving article). This data indicates to us that the tax benefits really do motivate people to donate.

This logic needs checking - do the tax benefits “motivate” people to donate, or have we in the nonprofit world trained our donors to give in December regardless of their motivation? The New York Times article Limiting Deductions on Charity Draws Ire quotes several other experts about the relationship between tax deduction and reasons for giving and their confidence that taxes are at the low on the list.

Even if this tax code change would have an impact on total giving, it’s important to focus on the forest, rather than the leaves on the trees. The proposed federal budget blueprint represents a seismic shift in priorities and structure. I agree with blogger John D. Columbo’s comment:

So let’s not turn this into a doomsday scenario, folks. The truth is, if Obama can fix our health care system, charities as a whole (and everyone else, from GM to the local barbershop) are going to be much better off in the long run.

Independent Sector’s statement (quoted above) includes only one other paragraph about the rest of the 140 page blueprint for the federal budget:

The budget outline also calls for winding down spending for the war in Iraq, boosting funding for domestic priorities, and creating a “reserve fund” of $634 billion to cover health care expansion. The President has stated that his outline will cut the deficit in half by 2013.

Well, maybe that doesn’t seem that important to them.

Who needs to be accountable now?

Last December I posted an entry in response to a Wall Street Journal column by Sally Beatty in which I chafed at her observation that charities were not accountable enough about how they used donated funds. She said:

“It’s time to make sure our gifts are being used as intelligently as possible. Instead of showering hard-earned dollars on charities and hoping for the best, we need to demand clear, detailed information on the results of their efforts. We ask the government and public corporations to be transparent and accountable. Charities should meet the same standard.”

It seemed that a lot of business leaders held this same view of nonprofits. It seems like a good time to revisit this notion and ask about whose standards of accountability to use now.

In the past few months we heard about the three page proposal from the Secretary of the Treasury asking for a $700 billion check to intervene in the financial meltdown (that ended up to actually be a blank check). The bailouts have continued, leading columnists like Floyd Norris of the New York Times to shout, Accountability needed with bailouts. Most recently, when executives of the Big Three automakers struck out with a request for their own bailout, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said:

“It’s all about accountability and viability. Until we can see a plan where the auto industry is held accountable and a plan for viability on how they go into the future — until we see the plan, until they show us the plan, we cannot show them the money.”

Ask any nonprofit executive director or grant writer to guess how far they would get with a foundation or government agency if they submitted a three page request, or if they sat down at a site visit without a detailed project plan, budget, and evaluation outcomes. The answer is, not far.

Here’s a suggestion for how the nonprofit sector can contribute to the bailout – we can teach workshops and classes on accountability for government agencies and public corporations. Maybe it’s a new earned income opportunity.

How do you know what you don’t know? Someone asked this question last week in a workshop on the topic of board oversight and some high-profile problems. It’s such a great and critical question. There’s been a swirl of conversations in the last week or so about financial problems and governance issues at a number of nonprofits, both local and national. No matter what the details are, questions have been raised in every situation about the board’s role – what did they know, when did they know it, and what did they do? But what’s the first step for the board, since they are relying on reports from the staff and have little or no access to the raw information. Boards that ask for lots of details are accused of micro-managing and not trusting the staff. So how do you know what you don’t know? There has to be a balancing act between accepting reports at face value and asking questions that go beyond the information presented. I think that there’s an art to asking good questions – my favorites generally start with either “Why…?” or “What if…?” (I actually have those two words up on the wall in my office). Speaking last night to a group of people who had recently joined boards of nonprofits, I suggested that asking questions is their primary job. It’s great if they get an answer that makes sense. However, the role of governing requires further action and follow up when the answer doesn’t make sense, or when the answer is “Don’t worry about it,” or “I’ll find out later.” The distinction between hyper-questioning and prudent questioning depends on circumstances, but in every one of these recent governance and financial situations there were some “why” questions that needed to be asked and then carried through.

This complex balancing act between supporting and governing is discussed in the article Why Boards Don’t Govern available from CompassPoint. One point raised in this article is the importance of creating an atmosphere and culture at board meetings that encourages questions and disagreements. I know in financial matters, many board members feel like second-class citizens because they are not the “financial” board members. The fact is that if they have a question, or if something doesn’t make sense, they need to feel free and encouraged to ask the question. It just might be the question to unlocks the truth.

There was no telling what people might find out once they felt free to ask whatever questions they wanted to. (Joseph Heller, Catch 22).

Eight years ago, ACORN, a national grassroots community organizing nonprofit, was the victim of an embezzlement of almost $1 million from an employee who was the brother of the organization’s founder. The fraud was never reported to their board of directors or legal authorities, but a small internal group negotiated a restitution agreement and then kept the perpetrator on staff. The situation just became public after pressure from a whistle-blower and was reported this week in The New York Times. Quoted in the article, ACORN’s president said, “We thought it best at the time to protect the organization, as well as to get the funds back into the organization, to deal with it in-house.”

Can we make a list of the problems with this scenario? Among other reactions, I want to thank the whistle-blower, though I would like to know why it took eight years for anyone to think this was not OK. Yesterday, ACORN released a statement from the president apologizing for their handling of the situation and announcing that the founder (brother of the embezzler) had stepped down. The most alarming phrase in the statement is that “The ACORN Board recently learned …” How comfortable would you be if you sat on that board – with fiduciary responsibility – and learned that you had been sitting for years on this ethical powder keg?

The statement says, “We want to assure our many friends and supporters that ACORN’s Board has taken additional steps to ensure increased transparency and accountability” (emphasis mine). It seems to me that they need to start with basic transparency and accountability. They can start with a basic accountability overview from Independent Sector.

There is a lesson here for every nonprofit organization. Public trust really is the most important asset for each individual nonprofit and for the whole sector. It’s too easy to mess it up, which is why we all get asked to answer questions and fill out forms and certifications by donors, foundations, the IRS, state Attorney General, etc, etc, etc. As long as these kind of egregious situations occur, and especially when they are mishandled, nonprofits will be subject to deeper scrutiny and misgivings about trustworthiness.

When economic times get stressed, as they are now, nonprofit organizations are often urged to consider mergers or other collaborative structures as a strategy to navigate reductions and shifts in funding. The topic came up again at a meeting last week titled “The State We’re In: Fulfilling Human Service Needs in a Time of Economic Uncertainty.” Scott Russell at MinnPost.com wrote a good summary of the tone and comments of the meeting, Nonprofits hear a gloomy forecast about future funding. With financial pressures from all sides, coupled with increased demand for services stemming from employment and housing problems, many nonprofits will be hard pressed to keep up the juggling.

No one would say that mergers are the right answer for every nonprofit, but if you do think that joining forces would make sense and help your organization maintain stable services, where do you find your mate? All of the articles and books I’ve read discuss the importance of finding the right fit with leadership that can work together, board buy-in, and mission alignment. But where do you find them? What happens when the board chair or director of a small nonprofit calls the CEO of a large, established agency to inquire about a potential merger? Do they invite you over for coffee? Do they even return the call?

I think I’ve found the answer – speed dating for nonprofits! Speed dating is an organized event to help singles meet a number of people in one evening with the intent of finding one or two for an actual date. Speed dating for nonprofits would follow the formula. Nonprofit leaders, from large, medium, and small organizations, would be scheduled for a series of 5 to 8 minute conversations about mission, programs, and goals. A bell would indicate time to move on to the next “date.” No commitments or promises are made. At the end of the event everyone indicates on the list which of the nonprofits they would like to talk with further. It’s efficient and direct.

On the other hand, if you’d rather proceed with more control and confidentiality, there are a number of resources available. A short study published in 2004 by a collaborative of Milwaukee funders, Nonprofit Collaborations and Mergers: Finding the Right Fit, lists these key characteristics of successful partnerships: committed leadership, unambiguous goals, clearly defined roles, commitment at multiple levels of the organization, dedicated staff time, and sustainability in the midst of change. Fieldstone Alliance has two workbooks by David La Piana on nonprofit mergers. For hands on assistance, Project ReDesign is a new service from MAP for Nonprofits to assist with any part of considering, planning, and carrying out a merger.