Part of the value comes when you pull together all the pieces to have the form completed. The new 990 requires information about mission, program accomplishments and costs, board members and key staff, policies and governance practices, compensation, fundraising, finance, and much more. While many nonprofits rely on their audit firms to complete the 990, most of the required information is not financial and must be supplied by various departments or staff of the organization. The second part of the value comes from continuing to use the 990 as a communication and analysis tool. Here are four suggestions.

As an organizational tutorial

Read the whole 990, front to back. New managers, board members, emerging leaders, or anyone else on staff who wants to know more about the organization can get a complete overview of the organization by reading the complete form including all of the schedules. This assignment will also help you identify any questions or sections that need to be clarified or completed more thoroughly.

As a financial analysis tool

The 990 contains a complete financial report in a standard format. The new form expands the financial information, particularly the income section, to provide more complete data. Most financial analysis steps can be conducted using the 990. To make it easier, Nonprofits Assistance Fund created a new tool that we call the “990 Decoder.” Transfer the three financial pages from the Core Form onto this spreadsheet and you will generate a familiar looking Balance Sheet and Income Statement and a page of six standard nonprofit financial ratios. These can easily be used for comparison with other years or with other, peer nonprofits. Just “decode” their 990, too. We’re happy that the Minnesota Council on Foundations likes to decode 990s, too.

As a source of comparable compensation data

A month ago we were fielded a number of requests for help from board members of nonprofits who were responsible for obtaining information about executive director compensation from comparable organizations. In many cases, salary surveys fit the bill, such as the thorough review that Minnesota Council of Nonprofits compiles. Another simple approach is to create your own peer group of 4 or 5 nonprofits that are of similar size and type of service. Compile a custom comparison by using Guidestar to collect compensation data from your peers’ IRS 990s. Compensation is usually listed in Part VII on page 7. Guidestar registration is easy and free for the basic search. The information will be at least a year old, but as we told the board members we talked with, no one got much in the way of salary increases last year anyway.

As a communications tool

One of the unique features of the 990 is the Program Accomplishments section that is now the second page of the form. Hopefully you have taken advantage of the opportunity to communicate specifically what activities you completed, who you served, and how this work had an important impact in the community. Take an hour or so and read the Program Accomplishments for your nonprofit and then read the section for a few other organizations that you admire. How well did they communicate their work? How did you do? Learn from other organizations and look for ways to promote your 990 as another communications tool. Post it on your website (along with you audit, please).

Don’t let the IRS 990 sit around gathering dust. Give it a workout and help both your organizations and the nonprofit sector show the value of transparency and accountability.

• It tells you nothing about the impact the charity has on the people it’s trying to help.
• It discourages charities from investing in tools and expertise that would make them more effective.
• The rules for determining overhead costs are vague and every charity interprets them differently.

Hooray! I’ve been one of many voices speaking out on this problem for a long time, most recently in the post Donors and Overhead: Maybe They Don’t Care. This step by some of the most prominent national watchdogs, especially Charity Navigator, is huge. Ken Berger, CEO of Charity Navigator, elaborated on his own blog:

We do concur with the fundamental truth that the most critical dimension in evaluating a nonprofit has to do with achieving meaningful results.

Charity Navigator has been criticized for relying too heavily on the overhead ratio and other simplistic measures for their rating system. Berger has been blogging about their plans to shift to a more comprehensive approach, and this announcement is a breakthrough.

This feels like a gamechanger because now we can stop arguing about whether overhead is an accurate measure of charity performance. It’s not. Clearing that hurdle doesn’t get us to the finish line, though. Everyone in the nonprofit sector should cheer that the watchdogs are encouraging donors to review the impact and effectiveness of nonprofits – but how? There is not a single, simple alternative method to evaluate the effectiveness of all nonprofits. It’s essential for nonprofits to invest some time and brainpower to figure this out.

The organizations behind the press release have their own approaches:

• Consumer reviews: The personal experience approach of Great Nonprofits relies on a broad network of people who are involved with nonprofits to submit comments and ratings. Users of the website can search and browse for stories that interest or inspire them. Think of this as the Amazon reader reviews or TripAdvisor comments equivalent for nonprofits.

• Experts: Philanthropedia, on the other hand, relies on panels of experts in four different fields to pool their knowledge and assessment of which nonprofits are the “top” in effectiveness. Their “mutual funds” of nonprofits can become your vehicle for giving. In some ways this is a global, scaled up version of how we’ve used the local United Way.

• Data: GiveWell has a laser focus on reliable research and evaluation at nonprofits to support anecdotal stories or claims about impact. Read about their low opinion of the way nonprofits currently evaluate effectiveness. If better quality outcomes supported by good evidence is needed, then GiveWell will be there pushing us all.

Whatever approach you trust or endorse, get to it now. It will take us a long time reverse course for all the donors, advisers, and institutions that have used the program cost ratio as a stand-in for value. You’re going to have to offer some other data to replace it. Make it mean something. Ken Berger of Charity Navigator issued this call to action:

The nonprofit sector must get its act together and make sure it is really helping provide meaningful change in communities and peoples lives. It is life or death for many of those we serve whether we are effective or not. So let’s work together to measure, manage and deliver what is really important to make our world a better place.

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.

Surveys are great and provide some reliable data and a lot of anecdotal information for use in case statements and meeting discussions. The surveys range from large, national organizations collecting data from several thousand organizations to local groups who reach a few dozen. Some surveys employed carefully planned research techniques, while others sent out a shotgun email and let respondents self-select. Whatever the audience, method, or response rate, all of the surveys I read came up with the same information: funding is down, demand is up, and nonprofits are turning themselves inside out – including deep cost cuts – in order to maintain services in the community.

• Guidestar’s survey (2,979 organizations) identified the basics: reduced income, reduced services, reduced expenses. The size of the respondent pool is impressive.

• Nonprofit Finance Fund (986 organizations) warned that nonprofits are “In Danger” and “Strained to the breaking point” with over 80% anticipating deficits this year and cash reserved down.

• Bridgespan Group’s survey (100 organizations), which was a follow up to last fall’s report, found that the situation had worsened and nonprofits were turning to tough measures, including deep costs cuts and use of reserves.

• Impact of the 2007-2009 Economic Recession on Nonprofit Organizations issued by Listening Post Project at Johns Hopkins University employs a recurring panel of selected and random nonprofits in several fields (363 organizations). The in-depth analysis reports that 80% of respondents are experiencing financial stress, but that most have maintained or increased the number of people served.
  • A particularly interesting comment is that “nonprofits appear to be at least partly buffered by government policies that are designed to be counter-cyclical, i.e. to expand when economic conditions deteriorate.” Reading this month’s headlines about state budgets, I’m surprised to read that government funding offers an offset to reductions in other sources.

• In direct contrast, the May 2009 Current Conditions Report from Minnesota Council of Nonprofits (571 organizations) reported that nonprofits are “bracing for extended impact” that is exacerbated by reductions in state and local funding and uncertainty about further reductions.

• Similar reports of financial strain can be found from the Christian Leadership Alliance (250 organizations), United Way of the Bay Area (391 organizations), and state nonprofit associations in Louisiana (312 organizations), New Jersey (351 organizations), and Arizona (87 organizations), among many others. There are many, many other surveys – for the arts, hospitals, environmental organizations, and on.

Thanks to the 6,390 nonprofits for taking the time to respond to the surveys listed above

Each survey report has its own focus, tone and summaries, although with some interesting contrasts. All report declines and reductions, but some use phrases like “struggling to survive” and “threats to well-being,” while others are more upbeat about the creativity, adaptability, and resilience (one of the most frequently used words). There are lots of comments about difficult decisions, uncertainty, program redesign and modification, new collaborations, focus on core mission, and contingency planning.

What they also all report is the great commitment and sacrifices being made by those who are employed by and volunteer for the responding nonprofits. One of the common themes is reductions in personnel costs through freezes, salary reductions, and furloughs at the same time that the organizations are serving more people with new and more complex needs. This is my greatest concern – for how long can nonprofits rely on staff and volunteers working more and harder, for less, to meet growing community needs?

I’m always cautious when I read reports since this kind of quick action survey relies on answers from a self-selected sliver of the sector. The surveys provide interesting and useful data to start planning, but it’s not sufficient to draw reliable conclusions. I’m interested now in reading some case stories of change and transformation. That is likely to take more time to achieve than a 10 minute survey, but it will be worth it.

Transparency

In December 2007 I wrote about Transparency and Financial Information:

I would strongly suggest that nonprofit organizations make the effort to make usable financial information available on their website. The IRS 990 is already a public document, so it seems like the obvious tool for financial disclosure. However, I think we should go past the 990 to share better information, especially since everyone seems to agree that the current version of the IRS 990 is overly complex, confusing, and very difficult to use. A better solution would be having the audited financial statement easily available on the website.

Guidestar recently published The State of Nonprofit Transparency Report, which included these findings:

A high percentage (93 percent) of nonprofits are embracing the Internet to disclose information about their programs and services.

Only 13 percent posted their audited financial statements on their Web sites. The results of our survey show a reluctance to disclose audited financial statements publicly. Although not all nonprofits obtain audits of their financial statements, our survey sample reflects organizations of the size for which an audit is both prudent and a necessary tool for assessing management’s financial capabilities and the organization’s financial health.

Let’s hear it for more audits online!

Mergers and Strategic Collaborations

In June 2008 I suggested Speed Dating for Nonprofits:

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? 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.

I’m excited that MAP for Nonprofits and the MACC Alliance for Connected Communities have organized a Speed Dating event on May 20^th to explore strategic partnerships.

Low-profit, Limited Liability Corporation (L3C)

And in May 2008 in Where For-Profit and Nonprofit Meet I was excited about the new hybrid Low-profit, Limited Liability Corporation (L3C) that had been adopted in Vermont.

The idea is to create businesses that can attract some private capital, bolster that with more patient philanthropic or socially motivated investment, and result in value to the community (jobs, housing, local revitalization) and a below-market return to investors. This structure is not a fit for every nonprofit, or even for every social enterprise. The L3C is all about raising capital, and when the need for capital is significant, this is worth considering.

This post continues to attract readers and questions. The most common confusion is about the fit for nonprofits that need subsidy (i.e. grants and contributions), rather than capital. The L3C is designed for capital but doesn’t offer any incentive for contributions. For more information, the experts on the L3C are Americans for Community Development. We’ll explain this new hybrid form at the May 14^th meeting of the Social Enterprise Network.

Since the post was written several other states have adopted the model, with others in the legislative process. I’m hoping that Minnesota can get on the bandwagon in the next year.

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.”

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?