Balancing the Mission Checkbook

How many surveys have you completed that gathered information about how the recession is affecting your nonprofit? I think that we’ve gotten at least ten requests to complete surveys in the past six months (and have responded to at least five or six). With the ease of surveying using SurveyMonkey, Zoomerang, and other services, it seems like everyone with a computer has recently conducted a survey about the recession. I gathered the various reports I’ve received lately and searched for others, finding many, many more.

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.

I was at breakfast last week with the founding executive director of a nonprofit and he made an off-hand, joking comment about how he supposed that that meant the organization had “Founder’s Syndrome.” It did make it sound like a disease, like Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. This isn’t the first time that I’ve heard this annoyance from a founder about this term that is used so frequently. Is it really fair, or even accurate, to label all founders with a pejorative term? It doesn’t sound very appreciative – like, “Thanks for having the guts and moxie to start this organization.” Most founders who I know didn’t fully realize what they were getting into when they started the nonprofit. Most start nonprofits because they feel deeply about the program and mission. They didn’t anticipate needing to fundraise, recruit and develop a board, manage staff, and make dozens of decisions every day. They did what they needed to – and now they have this Syndrome.

I won’t deny that there are organizational development issues that frequently occur in organizations with a strong founder/leader that impact decision-making, control, knowledge, and direction. When we call it a Syndrome, though, it sounds incurable. I think it needs a better identity as a leadership problem that can be corrected. I also take issue with the description of Founder’s Syndrome since I’ve worked with many nonprofits with all the same poor practices that were led by a second, third, or fourth director. Whoever the director is, these characteristics describe a common leadership problem that becomes an obstacle to effectively sharing responsibility, authority, and building a strong organization.

Does the founder, or strong leader, have to leave the organization to “cure” the Syndrome? I hope not, and I have seen plenty of examples of founder/leaders taking part in an organizational transition. It takes commitment, effort, and lots of trust – and requires that the board and staff respect the leader for what they have done in the past and what they are capable of in the future.

I’ve had several conversations lately with directors and board members of nonprofits about offering benefits to employees. The question often starts as a budget question – can they afford it? After a while, though, we end up in a discussion about organizational culture and values. Nonprofits often have stated values – a set of guiding principles that have been crafted during strategic planning with the board, staff and other constituents. Our goal and intention is live out our values in every aspect of the organization. Here are some values that are frequently embraced by nonprofits: Respect, Integrity, Cooperation, Teamwork, Dignity. These values statements and employee benefit questions can collide when nonprofits make financial decisions and feel that they have to choose between budgets for employee benefits and wages or budgets for added programs. But what about those values? If respect, teamwork, and mutual support are core values, what about living wages jobs and employee benefits?

How can nonprofits justify spending 70% of the budget on payroll?

I’ve talked to three nonprofits in the last month that are working their way through this question – with difficulty. One of the difficulties is caused by the ambivalence that some staff and board members may have about compensation in general, particularly in young or small organizations. I was recently asked by a new employee of a nonprofit “how can nonprofits justify spending 70% of the budget on payroll?” I asked him how he thought they should spend their budget and he answered, of course, “the clients”. He needed a quick lesson in the financial basics of how nonprofit social service agencies provide their services. This same naiveté leads boards to convince themselves that employee pay and benefits are a less worthy budget choice than other priorities. Every nonprofit with paid staff has to face this question at some time.

Of the three nonprofits I’ve talked to about benefits recently, two of them have been operating for less than three years and are navigating a familiar organizational transition in staff and structure. The third nonprofit is a long-established organization, with social justice as a core value, that’s had employee benefits on the priority list for years. They’re having the hardest time with the benefits question because it has become a critical values clash that’s been avoided for years – and it’s getting worse as time goes by without facing their responsibility to “walk the talk”. So look at your values statements again and make sure that you haven’t been ducking your responsibilities.

To learn more about employee compensation structure and employee benefits in Minnesota, see the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits Salary Guide. The Guide reports overall benefit trends by filed of service, budget size and location, and specific information detailed by benefit categories and positions.