Balancing the Mission Checkbook

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.

I have a New Years Resolution suggestion that has nothing to do with exercise or diet. Resolve to learn more than you already know about economics, markets, and personal finances.

It’s a matter of self interest for you and for the nonprofits that you serve, now more urgently than ever. Think in hindsight of all the financial choices that have been made about questionable mortgage terms, high home prices, risky investments schemes, and un-diversified retirement portfolios. Could some of the pain have been avoided if consumers, and nonprofit leaders, were more educated about the basics of economics and personal finance? I think so.

In his New York Times article, Contemplating the Boobs We Were, Peter Applebome recounts financial mistakes and asks:

“Are we doomed forever to be the fleeced or is there anything we can learn from this latest round of financial catastrophe? In fact, there are plenty of lessons to be learned. So here’s a revolutionary idea: Maybe it’s time we even start thinking about ways to teach them.”

Freakanomics author Stephen Dubner was even more direct last summer in his blog, asking Are We a Nation of Financial Illiterates? Included in his post, Dubner recites this list of suggested financial basics:

1. Basics of how markets work.
2. Time value of money and the working of interest compounding.
3. The concept of risk and the working of risk diversification and insurance.
4. Basic accounting (very basic).
5. Rights and responsibilities of consumers and institutions.

Read the full post for more detailed descriptions.

I’m sure that if individuals who work at, or serve on boards of, nonprofits were to gain more financial literacy that the nonprofits would also benefit. At Nonprofits Assistance Fund we see many problems that could have been avoided with better understanding of topics such as supply and demand, investment risk, and the difference between cash and income. Resolve to learn more this year, no matter whether you’re starting at Econ 101 or financial analyst level.

If you are a young professional in Minnesota, consider working on a Citizens League Action Group on this topic that is starting soon.

The New York Times published an article this week about the Gilmanton New Hampshire Year-Round Library Association and their efforts to raise money for operating costs. Led by dedicated and committed volunteers, a facility has been built by moving and refurbishing an 18th century barn, but no funds are in hand to open the doors. The article reports that they are “looking for someone who will provide at least $1 million for a private endowment” to support the ongoing operating costs. Wouldn’t every nonprofit like to “find” someone who will donate $1 million! This is a case for Mythbusters - Nonprofit Finance Edition.

There are no magic donors. In the article, one of the volunteers hopes that “Maybe someone out there has had a dear loved one that’s passed away, or a child or parent they’ve given everything possible to, and this would be a special new gift.” I don’t mean to pick on the volunteers for their effort. And I certainly love the picture of the barn/library, having grown up in New England with a lot of time spent in a picturesque, cozy library. I hear that kind of wishful thinking elsewhere, though, and am concerned that the myth of the elusive, secret donor is dangerous. Hoping and waiting for One Big Gift that solves everything might just be an excuse not to do the hard work of fundraising. Now, as always, fundraising involves identifying those who care about the cause, building relationships, making the case, and demonstrating responsibility - step by step.  I recommend this recent blog post from PhilanTopic that smartly translates the core principles of donor cultivation and planning into useful advice for today.

If you’re like me, you’re reading a lot of reports, surveys, and advice right now looking for useful data and direction. To help you cull through this material, Nonprofit Assistance Fund has launched a new blog, Nonprofit Harvest.  Our goal is not to post every available resource, but to consistently provide useful content that will help nonprofits.  I encourage you to read the blog, share resources you have found helpful, and offer your own suggestions for how nonprofits can navigate this challenging economy.

At Nonprofits Assistance Fund we frequently talk with managers of nonprofit organization that are facing cash flow shortfalls. It’s really common that the of timing income and expenses gets out of sync.  Income is received according to grant, contract, and contribution cycles, which are often irregular. Meanwhile, payroll and rent payments have to be paid very regularly.  While this is an everyday topic for our staff, cash flow problems cause concern and worry at the nonprofits that are feeling the pinch.

To all those nonprofits, current news reports can help you understand that cash flow is important for every nonprofit, business, and even government.  Large businesses are scrambling to obtain short-term cash from borrowing through what’s known as commercial paper.  Over the weekend, the state governments of both Massachusetts and California notified that US Treasury Department that they might need short-term cash flow assistance. These are big numbers, too. Next time your nonprofit needs some help in tiding over a cash flow dip, take heart. You’re in good company, and this is a day to day reality for any organization.

If you are interested in assessing your organization’s cash position, you can download our Cash Flow Template to make your own cash flow projection.

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.

This week has brought an interesting alignment in the discussion, or debate, about the future of philanthropy. Last Sunday, the magazine section of The New York Times was all about “Giving it Away” and trends in philanthropy. One particular article, “For Good, Measure” discusses a current hot topic: “Foundations are increasingly using “metrics” to determine if their grants are working. But can you really measure the return-on-investment of giving to a cause?” The article is one of many that I’ve read on this theme of trying to quantify impact, and it’s direct cost and value. An interesting article and we could debate many of the points. I really paid attention, though when, in a single day this week, two business leaders in Minneapolis asked me if I had read the article. They were impressed and very interested. That was a sign to me that this is moving from the conferences and into daily reality.

On the heels of this article, Nonprofit Quarterly offered a preview of a new book, Just Another Emperor: the Myths and Realities of Philanthrocapitalism, by author Mike Edwards, opening with:

“A new movement is afoot that promises to save the world by revolutionizing philanthropy, making non-profit organizations operate like business, and creating new markets for goods and services that benefit society. Nick-named ‘philanthrocapitalism’ for short, its supporters believe that business principles can be successfully combined with the search for social transformation.”

Edwards makes a strong argument that this movement is the wrong direction for several reasons, chiefly that social transformation is an entirely different “product” than producing goods and services. The preview sparked a lively response in blogs and on NPQ’s Forum from leaders in the sector. There is an air of “think tank” to this for me, though. We can have a healthy, and undoubtedly lengthy, debate on theory, myth, and reality. Most of the nonprofit organizations that we work with every day are not immediately affected by this trend, if that’s what it is. Most charitable dollars are still received from individuals or from traditional grantmaking practices. For “service-providing” nonprofits, delivering the essential social services, health care, and education needed in the community, public dollars dominate and are unlikely to take a radical turn towards long-term “investment.”

The growing awareness of philanthrocapitalism in the business world will require an equal awareness and response from nonprofits. If you think this debate can be ignored and relegated to the think tankers, I’d suggest that the discussion is important for us all to pay close attention to. Remember that there was a time decades ago that the basic structure of grantmaking was created. You wouldn’t want to be caught napping if the world that you know really changes. This topic relates to my post last week, which generated a comment recommending the book Good to Great and the Social Sectors by Jim Collins. Edwards also notes this short (35 pages) and valuable book - add it to your must read list.