Balancing the Mission Checkbook

Unfortunately, the news has been full of stories of struggling nonprofit organizations. Every nonprofit is grappling with budgets and growing community needs in the face of economic pressures. Fundraising is mixed right now, with individual giving as the biggest concern for many organizations, and corporate giving still an open question. Meanwhile, utilities and transportation costs are up and programs are trying to serve more clients. Balancing mission and money is always hard work.

It seems that every article includes a comment by either the director or board chair that identifies the current economic downturn as the cause of the financial problems. The next time you read something similar, consider the possibility that, in some cases, “it’s the economy” might be a masking a different story.

By doing a little financial detective work, I’ve found that some of the nonprofits that identify the current economy as their problem have actually been operating with deficits for several years. They spend more than they bring in – and eventually it catches up with them. Checking this out requires a few steps. Access to IRS 990s on Guidestar is a gift for this kind of research. Page 1 (Part I) of the 990 reports all income and expenses and the resulting surplus or deficit. Because this section consolidates all unrestricted, restricted, capital, and endowment activity, though, it isn’t helpful in reporting the operating results. Page ahead to Part IV, the balance sheet, and look at Line 67 – Unrestricted Net Assets. If the organization had an operating surplus, this balance will increase from the beginning to the end of the year. If they had an operating deficit, then the balance will decrease.

There are a wide range of reasons and circumstances that result in operating deficits. Recurring and unmanaged operating deficits are the number one red flag of financial problems and raise questions about ongoing viability. If deficits recur, the management and board must take the time to understand the causes and make needed changes in income and expenses. Raising money is challenging in every economic environment, especially during a downturn. Make sure you can distinguish between the economic, management, and program considerations that result in deficits and take the steps needed to address each one.

Jeanne Bell at CompassPoint wrote a wonderful column about surplus and deficit planning, Nonprofit Budgets Have to Balance: False!. She asks strategic questions about budgets:

Instead of “How can we make the budget balance?” the annual budgeting cycle should begin with the question, “What financial outcome does our organization want or need this year?”

I can’t think of a single nonprofit that would answer that question by saying, “Our desired financial outcome is to run out of money and close our doors.”

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?