Balancing the Mission Checkbook

Many nonprofits think about the Internal Revenue Service only once a year - when they are filing their 990 return. Since the IRS is the regulator and enforcer of exempt status and activities, you might want to pay closer and more frequent attention. Of increasing importance are questions about the role and scope of the IRS’s watchdog and oversight activity. The IRS website has a section devoted to Exempt Organizations that contains some valuable resources. The article on Governance and Related Topics opens, “The Internal Revenue Service believes that a well-governed charity is more likely to obey the tax laws, safeguard charitable assets, and serve charitable interests than one with poor or lax governance.” Who could disagree? But where does the IRS fit in assessing the quality and effectiveness of your governance practices?

In speeches delivered at a conference on April 23rd and 24th, Commissioner Steven Miller makes clear that the IRS believes that there is no question about whether they have a role, but rather what that role is. In his April 23rd speech as part of a panel on nonprofit governance he addresses the questions by saying, “despite the absence of explicit federal statutory provisions setting forth clear governance standards, what I am calling jurisdictional gaps, we are not interlopers trying to regulate an area that is beyond our sphere.” In other words – the IRS intends to exercise its muscles, real and perceived, in the movement to push nonprofits to more specific standards in governance practices. If you doubt that they can, read the 20 questions contained in the Governance, Management, and Disclosure section in the new Form 990.

The new IRS 990 form is effective in 2009, with a two year transition period for some nonprofits. Most nonprofits I’ve talked with have only a general awareness of it out there in the future. It’s time to pay close attention now. It’s a significant change to the current 990, with several new schedules that may require different record keeping for 2008 activities. The IRS recently released the draft instructions that offer the most detailed view. (Read through Part VI of the new form: Governance, Management, and Disclosure.) You’ll also be seeing more e-newsletters from accounting firms and nonprofit associations with updates and training events.

Regarding the question of whether the IRS should have an enforcement/watchdog role in governance, I think we should take a step back. Let’s consider why the service, and Congress, think that they need to. When there are bad actors and the public feels victimized, regulations often follow.

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?

In just a few days the comment period will end for the IRS proposed changes to Form 990. Since these proposed changes will impact every nonprofit organization that is required to file a 990 (nonprofits with revenues over $25,000) it will be worthwhile to pay attention to the comments and the IRS’ process for considering and responding to the input received. IRS hopes to have the changes finalized and a new 990 form in place for the 2008 tax year and they have a mountain of comments to digest if they want to stay on schedule. Many commentators, in fact, are urging the IRS to delay the implementation date of all or parts of the new form to allow time for more review and discussion of the impact of this major change. Comments are available for review on the IRS web site. Many state and national organizations have convened their members and constituents to analyze the draft and submit thorough comments, including Independent Sector and the National Council of Nonprofit Associations. Read these comment letters to get a sense of the analysis and feedback to the IRS.

Form 990 has not had a major overhaul in many years. The need for a change is widely accepted, and summarized well in the IRS background paper on the redesign: “The current 990 has not kept pace with changes in the sector and the law. Because of its history of ad hoc revisions, the current form neither adequately describes the filing organization nor provides a basis for comparing an organization with its peers.” The proposed redesigned Form 990 consists of a 10 page core form for all filers, and 15 separate schedules that will be required only of those nonprofits for which the information applies. This format will hopefully be much easier to read and keep related information together instead of scattered on different pages and schedules. It is very different, though, and will require learning a new structure and format.

The core form begins with a summary page with the organization’s mission and activities and several key points about activities, governance, and key financial information. While comments are generally positive about the summary page, there are concerns throughout the proposed form about questions that reach into what might be called best practices. Management and governance practices are developed to respond to an individual organization’s structure, community, financial situation, and activities and any simple yes and no questions can easily be misinterpreted without sufficient context. The comments reflect this concern over and over again, on questions about compensation, conflicts of interest, and audit committees.

The 15 proposed schedules range from supplemental financial information that will be required for most filers to schedules for tax-exempt bonds or foreign activities that would apply to a small percentage. There are several proposed schedules that will require new reporting for many organizations such as non-cash contributions and gaming and fundraising events. Some of these will necessitate additional recordkeeping and could be onerous. Hospitals have commented en masse requesting a delay of the implementation for a new schedule regarding community benefits and charity care.

I suggest you pay attention to this change as it goes through review and any further drafts or discussion. A clearer, more easily understood Form 990 will be good in the end, but will require much effort along the way.

Do you grit your teeth when an acquaintance tells you about a nonprofit and adds a comment like “well, they’re just a nonprofit, so what do you expect?” The implication is that nonprofits can’t be expected to be well run, but we put up with it because of the mission. “Perception is reality” is a communication fundamental. If a perception that nonprofits are poorly run is widespread, it doesn’t just damage the nonprofit being discussed, it hurts us all.

I read an article in a local Saint Paul newspaper this week that really drove this home. The paper has been following a story about financial problems at a local community organization, the Highland District Council. In May, the council’s new board discovered that payroll taxes and IRS 990s have been unpaid and un-filed for quite a while (maybe since 1998). The result is, of course, a messy and expensive problem that threatens the council’s ongoing work. The part of the story that bothers me the most, though, is this quote from a board member, “It’s not at all uncommon for nonprofit organizations to have these problems. They usually get worked out because the government wants nonprofits to stay around.” I don’t want to accept this version of low expectations for nonprofits. The reality, in my experience working with nonprofits, is that this IS uncommon. Most nonprofits, even small organizations with one or two staff members, pay their payroll taxes (often by using a payroll service), file their required reports, and stay on top of bookkeeping. Nonprofits Assistance Fund has worked closely with 1600 nonprofit organizations on financial issues. Less than 20 of them have had this kind of long-term payroll tax or IRS reporting problems. The quote in the article continues with, “This problem is a bit more uncommon in terms of how much it has been publicly discussed.” This has been a very public story with a variety of complicated local issues. I wish the board of directors and community members served by the Highland District Council the best. They have a lot of work ahead of them and I hope that they work through this situation and continue to serve the community. Because it is so public, though, it’s essential to fight the image of poorly run nonprofits elsewhere. We can’t accept low expectations.

This is just one story, but NYU Professor Paul Light’s Organizational Performance Initiative has been researching public confidence in charitable organizations for several years. The finding of the 2006 Survey reports that 71% of Americans said that charitable organizations waste a great deal of money, a synonym in my book for poor management. The report states, “Asked which problem facing charitable organizations is bigger – the wrong priorities or spending money wisely – only 17 percent of Americans answered that charitable organizations have the wrong priorities, while 73 percent said charities have the right priorities, but do not spend money wisely.” According to the report, confidence in organizations is strongly related to discretionary giving and volunteering.

Let’s not accept low expectations for nonprofits. In addition to the work you are continually doing to improve management within your organization, become an ambassador for high expectations of nonprofit management. Start talking about qualified and accountable nonprofit management as the reality that we expect and that we believe.

How should I answer the question, “How do I start a nonprofit?” I need an answer because it’s a question I hear pretty frequently. The common scenario is a phone call to our office looking for assistance to start a new nonprofit organization. (We are the Nonprofits Assistance Fund, after all.) The person on the line feels a personal call to action to address some need in their community – tutoring for kids, beds for the homeless, treatment for victims of abuse, and many other important and urgent issues. The question, though, shouldn’t be “how do I start a nonprofit”. The question should be, “How can I help to address this important community need?.” I try to help them step back a little and consider the real problem, not the conclusion they’ve already reached. If they can think about the bigger picture of how they can add their energy and talent to a community need, the options are vast. The answer is not always (in fact frequently is not) to incorporate another nonprofit organization. Time Magazine has a terrific article in the March 5, 2007 issue on this topic, “Rethinking Nonprofits”. Dan Kadlec boils the question of whether or not to start a new nonprofit organization down to three essential questions: Am I cut out for this?, Is my idea different?, and “Is a start-up necessary?”. The reality is that starting a new nonprofit corporation requires focusing the initial time, effort, and money on the start up rather than on the important community need. If someone is absolutely set on starting a new organization, we always send them to the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits web site for all the basic steps required. Note that the very first section of the “How to Start a Nonprofit” section at MCN is titled “Alternatives to Starting a New Nonprofit”. For a longer, more comprehensive resource about starting a new nonprofit, download the publication “Get Ready, Get Set” from the Center for Nonprofit Management in Los Angeles . The guide discusses how to conduct market research on the community need and available funding, and the legal and organizational steps. The Exempt Organization Division of the IRS also has several helpful publications and a new on-line training program.

The phone callers asking about starting a nonprofit tend to fall into categories. One group are of people who are deeply committed to helping their community and they just don’t know about the alternative ways to get involved. A second group are people who are ultimately trying to create a job for themselves and they believe the myth that there are “millions of dollars in grants available for you today!.” I don’t have much patience for them. The last group are those who have already started an informal program or project and want to find a way to get some money or help to continue or survive. These calls are the most complicated and the toughest to help. I can only hope that they have put some effort into the basic research and needs review as described in Dan Kadlec’s article. Otherwise they will confront the harsh reality of funding, boards, and the steep learning curve of a start up.