Balancing the Mission Checkbook

What amount is the right size of donation for your organization? Most of us would laugh at the question and answer “$1 million, of course.” But ask again, with a dose of both reality and prudence. What is the amount that would have a long term, stabilizing impact on your organization if you could rely on annual gifts from many donors? It’s probably far, far below $1 million. It’s probably even below $1,000. Many nonprofits overshoot this number, though, chasing larger gifts and grants, thinking that bigger dollars are the answer. I’m not sure that’s ever a realistic strategy, but I think it’s too risky in the midst of the recession.

The Value of Smaller Gifts

I’m pleased that smaller gifts are drawing greater attention and wanted to highlight a few noteworthy examples. The article Save Our Ship in American Theatre Magazine describes the efforts of theaters to rebuild from financial struggles:

The hero who emerges from emergency campaigns is the small donor. Practically every artistic leader I spoke with used the words “grassroots” and recounted anecdotes about donated piggy banks. Over and over, artistic leaders said that it was not one single donor that saved them but rather many, many modest donations - gifts of $100 and $150 that added up to serious money.

The value of many, many small donations was proven on November 17th. At the end of the fundraising-palooza of Give to the Max Day, 38,778 gifts had been made totaling $14,000,406. That divides to a $361 average gift. Many of the most impressive Give to the Max Day campaigns yielded great numbers of both donors and dollars with pretty small average gifts. The organizations with the largest numbers of donors had average gifts ranging from $75 to $100. Organizations receiving the most dollars also had modest average gifts between $65 and $325.  Other examples of the power of small donations can be seen in the international response to the recent earthquake in Haiti, such as the American Red Cross raising $3 million as of 9am EST in $10 increments through a text message campaign.

In his book The Art of the Turnaround, Michael Kaiser describes the process of Alvin Ailey Dance Company’s financial recovery. He offers this advice:

Aiming to fill a deficit with one extraordinary gift is usually just a pipe dream. We need to focus on “right-sized gifts,” gifts that make sense given the budget and the profile of the organization. For the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, with a $6-million budget and a $1.5-million deficit, $50 was too low and $1-million was too high. At Ailey, while we did receive larger gifts, we focused our fund-raising on $1,000 gifts. Our board felt comfortable asking for this amount from friends and associates, and this was an amount that would make a difference to us.”

If you prefer to hold out hope for large gifts and grants, be aware of the risks. The Minnesota Council on Foundations just released their 2010 Funding Outlook based on a recent survey. The survey found that overall funding by Minnesota’s foundations will stay fairly level in 2010 compared to 2009, for which we should be thankful. There is wide variation, though, in the grantmakers’ forecasts. More grantmakers expect decreases in giving in 2010 than expect increases: 30 percent expect to give less compared to 25 percent who expect to give more. At least 20% of foundations expect to decrease the number of grants awarded, as well.

Keep up the grantwriting, RFP submissions, and lunches with prospective large donors. But take Michael Kaiser’s advice to heart - make the priority for 2010 to build a reliable base of “right-sized” gifts.  They really do amount to something very important.

The Minnesota Council on Foundations invited Judith Alnes from MAP for Nonprofits and me to contribute an article for their current issue of Giving Forum. The title is Nonprofit Survival: Four Steps to Take Now. Add this article to the dozens that have been written in the past few months about what nonprofits should/could/might/ought to do in order to maintain their organizations and community services in the face of the harsh economic environment.

Harsh is the word for it. When I read the article in print today, this statement in the conclusion really jumped out for me:

“Those of us in leadership roles should remember that this time will be judged by the actions we take or the actions we fail to take.”

That’s a lot of weight being carried by leaders of nonprofits.

David Brooks described the pressure in his column in yesterday’s New York Times:

“It’s no fun being a leader in a financial crisis. You’ve got to be bold but reassuring, free-spending but disciplined. You must decisively crush the short-term problem without freaking everybody out and leaving a long-term mess.”

He was writing about Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, but I think many nonprofit directors share the feeling.

Nonprofit Leadership

Leadership in nonprofits has been the subject of many articles, studies, forums, and institutes. I have benefited from some of these greatly, learning about my personal style and how to nurture my strengths, include other viewpoints, and work collaboratively to create a team. Sometimes, being a leader requires you to take responsibility for tough problems and be held accountable for the results. Commenter Claudia Dengler’s response to one of my December posts really hit a nerve. She said:

“And on the personal side, if you thought you were lonely at the top before…even the most transparent leader will find they have to hold information close, thinking deeply, often privately, about the full weight of their impending decisions.”

If you’re the one who has to stare at the budget column or read the letter informing you of a funding reduction you know what this feels like. As David Brooks said, it’s no fun.

Ideas about Support and Resources

What kinds of support and resources do leaders of nonprofits need to manage the personal demands and the pressure of leading in this environment? Based on the number of people I’ve seen at the various meetings and forums about managing in difficult times, there are a lot of people looking for something - some skills, some information, even some secret solutions (there aren’t any). I also think that we’re all looking for some reassurance that we’re not alone in the struggle.

This is a time to learn a new leadership approach or adapt well developed leadership practices. I have some ideas about what needs to change and I hope that you will weigh in as well.

I offer three suggestions to start:

• Nonprofit directors often lack support networks of true peers because they’ve learned to manage the relationship with their board and to treat other nonprofits as competitors. We need to lower our guards and be more honest and open with others in our field.

• There are hundreds of different ways that staff leaders and board leaders work together. Many executive directors don’t really know what to expect from with their boards right now. Executive directors and board chairs need to have a conversation about how the board’s role, practices, and composition will need to change to adapt to long-term financial and community uncertainty.

• Find a friend with whom you can confidentially share your fears and pressures, get some reassurance, sympathy, and care - and then do something fun.

What are your ideas?

Right now, about 25% of the nonprofits that we are working with pretty closely are in the midst of a capital campaign, are just finishing their campaign, or have plans to launch one in the next year or so. The meaning of “capital” campaign is evolving, and about one-third of these campaigns include a substantial amount of flexible working capital and infrastructure investment in addition to traditional bricks and mortar. (This is an important trend that I’ve written about before.) Looking at the campaigns and organizations as a whole, it’s clear that the campaigns that are going well were thoughtfully planned out, based on feasibility studies, and focused on donors with whom the nonprofit already had a relationship. The campaigns that have floundered or dragged on were based on some broad assumptions about who “should” support them, plugged numbers to fill out the budget, and the planning happened along the way. These observations lead right to the basics of capital campaigns – lots of planning, being realistic, committing the time and people, and monitoring everything as you progress.

Capital campaigns also demand consideration of external factors, including the competitive impact of other capital campaigns and of economic trends. We in Minnesota can thank the Minnesota Council on Foundations for conducting a survey last month on Capital and Endowment Campaigns in Minnesota, 2007-2008. The survey reports on 62 current and 72 planned campaigns for buildings, endowments, and infrastructure investments. The largest campaigns are for colleges and universities, with human services and health care a distant second and third. Interestingly, the higher ed, health care, and arts organizations expect most of their funds to come from individuals donors, while human service nonprofits expect about half to come from grants. This week’s Chronicle of Philanthropy reports in “Feeling the Squeeze” that some large capital campaigns are running into some resistance from large donors concerned about the economy. The examples in the article, which is only available in its online format to subscribers, indicated that gifts were delayed or stretched out, but that the campaigns continued to be successful in a different environment.

If you are beginning to plan a new fundraising push – whether you call it capital campaign or not – you need to understand the trends, the local landscape, and how many other “asks” will be in the mail.

I recently had the pleasure of participating in a roundtable conversation with leaders from several Minnesota foundations about the Big Topic of general operating support. The meeting was convened by Minnesota Council on Foundations and published as the feature story in the new issue of Giving Forum. This issue includes the roundtable discussion as well as related stories about trends in types of support, current practices, and additional thoughts from other leading foundations.

I left the roundtable with a sense that this may be a good time to start moving on from this endless discussion/argument. As Juliet remarked, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other word would smell as sweet.” Today’s version is “General operating support, by any other name would help as much.” It was notable that the participants didn’t have a “line in the sand” definition of general operating support. The distinction didn’t seem to be nearly as important as you might think with these foundations that understand that program grants have to include all the costs of the programs. The foundations were not very concerned with tossing out gen op requests. They were focused on working with nonprofits doing good work in the community that matched their foundation’s areas of interest, and providing support – program, project, organizational – to help them to do that work. We talked a lot about flexibility, long-term relationships, trust, and shared community goals.

What are the goals? Foundations want and need to understand how the funds they provide are helping to meet needs in the community that match their priorities and interests. Nonprofits want and need funds to support programs that further their mission with some flexibility to respond to the changes that might occur. Both foundations and nonprofits want to help the community. Both also want to have trusting, honest relationships. Too often, unfortunately, these priorities have led to battles in the general operating vs. program grant war. Are the goals really all that different? I suggest that we move the last goal into first position – both foundations and nonprofits want to have trusting, honest relationships. These relationships require clear information, reliable decisions (no surprises on either side), real numbers, and a good match in mission and community vision. I know that you might say that the particular foundations represented at the roundtable are some of the most committed to creating these relationships (and they are). Fortunately they are also leaders in the foundation community.

By the way, it’s interesting to read your own words in a transcript, as I got to do with this Giving Forum. I cringed a little when I read this verbatim excerpt: Barr, “I hear [nonprofits] say that general operating pays the rent and program support pays for the work; that’s the worst accounting I’ve ever heard.” Harsh – but I stand by it.

Reading the headlines reflecting concerns and jitters about the direction of the economy is causing leaders of nonprofits to ask how it will affect their organizations. For some people, a state of worry has set in. I can see why. Today, the StarTribune posted this article on their website, “Chairman Bernanke says Fed ready to cut interest rates again as needed.” The article predicts further cuts to key interest rates “to rescue a weakening economy.” Factors cited included the unemployment rate, weak real estate, tightening credit, and high energy prices. What’s a nonprofit leader to do? Anyone who has worked for a nonprofit for more than three years has experience with a tough economy, so many directors and managers will be well prepared to respond to lean times. But how worried should you be right now and what are your concerns? I think it’s worth a review of the causes and effects that may have a direct impact on your nonprofit organization.

The key is to understand your income mix. There are essentially five distinct sources of nonprofit income and each income source expands or contracts depending on different factors in the economy. If you understand the sources of income that are most important to your organization, then you can focus on following movements and trends that will matter. One overall trend to keep in mind is that the “nonprofit economy” tends to lag the general economy by about a year. Here are some ideas for trend watching the economy.

Program service revenue, or payment for directly providing services, is the largest total source of income for nonprofits. Income from contracts for service, especially from government agencies, is determined based on tax receipts and state and local budgets. We know how many reductions occurred a few years ago and most of these sources haven’t rebounded. If this is your primary income source, the keys are the reports from the state and the budget process. You can track these through the Minnesota Budget Project. To survive with contracts, it’s important to understand the true costs of delivering the services (which is probably not the amount you are paid for delivering the services) and having your eyes open about the need for additional subsidy - and where to get it.

Program service revenue that is paid directly by the user of the service - like tuition, memberships, tickets, and fees – is a lot like business income and reacts to market downturns depending on the buying power of your customer. If your service is considered discretionary, like entertainment, then consumer spending is worth tracking by reading the business section of the paper.

If foundation grants are an important component of your income, watch the stock market. Because endowment payouts are calculated in a way that evens out big increases and decreases, there is no reason to expect a big decrease in 2008. However, pay attention to the excellent surveys and analysis from Minnesota Council on Foundation including Grantmaking Outlook and Giving in Minnesota. If the market performs poorly over time, some reductions in grants could develop. Keep in mind, though, that even with the poor market performance several years ago, grants from Minnesota foundations have increased total dollars almost every year (more details in the MCF reports). If your endowment is an important source of income, the same market trends described above apply.

For nonprofits that rely on individual donors it’s a mixed bag of economic news. This recent online discussion about the Outlook for 2008 hosted by the Chronicle of Philanthropy highlights some opportunities for planned giving and large gifts that transcend the economy, and emphasize the importance of relationships and communications in maintaining a building a donor base.

So don’t assume the worst or start a chorus of woe about the poor economy. Yes, there will be challenges, but you can understand how economic trends will affect your nonprofit. Knowledge is power and will help you anticipate and plan for any changes.

October was conference month for me. I attended four annual conferences of statewide or national organizations. I started with the joint conference of the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits and MN Council on Foundations followed by the MN Association of Community Health Centers, Independent Sector and ended with Opportunity Finance Network. One conference each week in a single month – why does everyone have to meet in October? I attended five plenary sessions, three keynotes, two awards dinners, and (I think) eleven topic sessions. I also presented three of the sessions at two different conferences.

I heard many smart and experienced people talk about important, urgent issues. I learned about technical and financial topics and policy and economics. After all of my conference experiences this month, I have one burning question: what’s the point of PowerPoint? Many of the conference sessions included a PowerPoint presentation, but in very few cases, did the visuals add anything of value. I hate to admit it, but the PowerPoint that I created for one of my sessions was a case study in dullsville. We all complain about it, but when are we going to stop mistreating our audiences and improve the practice?

The typical use of PowerPoint at the conferences was a number of slides with 4 to 8 bullet points containing 40 to 70 words. Most used no visuals except the logo of the presenter’s organization or a Microsoft design template. In many sessions the presenter also distributed printed copies of the slides as a handout. The best of the presentations used the slides as a focus point for the audience with key phrases and issues. Less effective presentations used slides with every word of the information, lots of data and detailed descriptions, and lists of the names of the panel members and topics for the session. The worst users included slides with complex charts that were unreadable both on the screen and on the printed page. Unfortunately, the audience can end up frustrated, confused, bored, or insulted.

Despite my complaints, I don’t hate PowerPoint. Research about learning styles shows that many people learn through visuals, and PowerPoint can be a great communications tool. Here are a few suggestions to improve your use of PowerPoint:

• Learn how to use PowerPoint. It’s not a difficult program but there are features that need practice and testing.
• Good presentations don’t just happen, they require planning and preparation. The problem with templates is they make it easy to take shortcuts and create a bad presentation.
• PowerPoint is a visual tool – make it visually interesting and engaging with pictures and graphics that build on your message. This includes both the pictures and the slide design.
• Get a copy of the book “Why Bad Presentations Happen to Good Causes” published by Cause Communications. This terrific book, less than 100 pages long, is full of practical information to improve presentation content, delivery, and use of PowerPoint. Most nonprofits can get a copy for free.
• Visit David Canfield’s 8 Mistakes of Microsoft PowerPoint Presentations for a list of common mistakes we have all made at one time or another.
  

I’m back from conference-land. Next week I’ll be back with thoughts about financial issues for nonprofits.