Balancing the Mission Checkbook

There was a breakthrough last week for nonprofits. In a joint announcement, Guidestar and other major charity “watchdogs” made a very strong case that overhead ratios are meaningless. The phrase used in the opening paragraph says the ratio is “useless for evaluating a charity’s impact.” Read the full release The Worst (and Best) Way to Pick a Charity This Year and then copy it to share far and wide. Some of the reasons for de-emphasizing this ratio cited in the announcement will be familiar to nonprofit leaders:

• 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.

Three cheers, at least, are deserved for Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (GEO) new publication On the Money by Nancy Burd. You can download either the executive summary or full report from the website.

As summarized on the GEO website:

This publication highlights the financial challenges nonprofits face and the ways in which grantmakers are both improving the situation as well as perpetuating the problem.

The first section, Assessing the Problems, identifies five problem areas:

1. Restrictions on Funding
2. Misperceptions Around Sustainability and Growth
3. “Too Many Masters”
4. Onerous Grantmaking Practices
5. Knowledge Gaps

The other sections discuss Barriers to Smarter Grantmaking and Ideas for Grantmakers.

It’s impressive how in 28 pages the author distills a variety of ideas, research, and practices about the realities of financial instability faced by nonprofits. The report also provides helpful and realistic suggestions for grantmaking organizations based on practices that have already been developed and implemented by foundations.  The advice and guidance for funders is great, but this guidebook is a must read for everyone in our sector.

I’m pleased that GEO will be focusing on nonprofit finance and encouraging foundations to understand how “many prevailing approaches and practices in philanthropy can unwittingly create problems for the nonprofit sector.” Many nonprofits have experienced these unintended consequences and will welcome a dialogue on this topic.

However, nonprofit organizations also have a lot to learn from the report’s comprehensive overview of grantmaking. Misconceptions about the true cost of programs and capital needs apply equally (or more) at many nonprofits. We can’t expect a seismic shift in foundation practices and investment unless we nonprofit leaders understand and can effectively communicate what it takes to sustain ourselves.

Download this report, read it, and copy it for your board and senior staff.

I’m convinced that the reason that people care about the overhead ratio of charities is because we keep telling them that it’s important. I have an announcement to make: I am a donor to quite a few nonprofits, and I don’t care what percentage of their budget is spent for overhead. I think that a lot of donors would agree.

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.

The theme for the Carnival of Nonprofit Consultants this week is “What one thing should we do to improve the state of the sector?” My nomination is to declare 2008 the year that the program service-administrative cost ratio formula became irrelevant.

Yes, the good old 70%-30% ratio has been declared officially useless in identifying whether or not a nonprofit organization is effective in accomplishing its mission and helping the community. Most readers of these blogs have probably been beating their heads against the wall about this anyway. I read a lot of research reports and I have never read one that demonstrated that the expense ratio is a clear indicator of the quality of programs or management, or impact on the lives of people. One reason why we continue to chase this argument, though, is because the ratio is prominent, well known, and easily calculated.

We need a two-step retirement plan. First is to jointly stop using the ratio as a way to distinguish our organizations from others, in an unhealthy type of competition, as in “our administrative ratio only is 5%, so your donated dollar will go farther with us.” The second is to find a better way to convey the quality and effectiveness of the work that you do, which requires a real method of evaluating and communicating the programs and impact on clients.

So don’t be irrelevant – join the movement.

Continuing on this theme, how effective are nonprofits at making the case for unrestricted support? Rather than bemoaning the lack of unrestricted funds, what can we learn? An article in last Sunday’s New York Times, “Here’s My Check, Spend It All At Once”, connects the current financial challenges at the American Red Cross to their Donor Direct policy established in response to the fallout about the use of funds donated after the September 11 attacks. When the Red Cross commits to direct all of your donated funds wherever you choose, what donor wouldn’t take the opportunity to be the master of their own philanthropy? The long-term results, though, may be the kind of deficits that the American Red Cross is facing. Was the Donor Direct policy an extreme reaction – did the Red Cross go too far as a reaction to a communications and PR problem?Following the references in the Times article, I compared the online fundraising messages of the American Red Cross and of Doctors Without Borders. The choice of how to direct donations is the first question for a donor at the American Red Cross. While the option “Where the Need is Greatest” is the first choice offered, specific funds are immediately listed below. The FAQ section even offers more options:

I don’t see the fund that I wanted to donate to. What do I do?
Due to space limitations, we are limited in how many funds we can make available for online donations. If you would like to donate to a fund that is not listed, please contact Donor Services.

Contrast this with the Doctors Without Borders website, which provides a concise summary of how funding is used to carry out their programs. Note that the information doesn’t offer the donor a choice to designate their funds to a specific use. In the FAQ section, in fact, Doctors Without Borders makes the case for unrestricted gifts:

Can I earmark my donation for a certain area/project?
We appreciate your interest in supporting our programs. While it is possible to have your gift directed toward a specific program or country where we are currently working, we ask that you contribute unrestricted funding. By not restricting your contribution for a specific emergency or project, you will enable us to allocate our resources more efficiently and where the needs are greatest.

All of these appeals and messages rely on trust, of course, and donor trust is what the American Red Cross must rebuild. Every nonprofit should care about this, because the public’s perception and confidence in the Red Cross is a good indicator of confidence in all nonprofits.

I find it interesting that I’ve read and heard quite a lot lately about foundation leaders discussing the relative merits and challenges of moving some of their grantmaking from program and project grants to general operating support. The New York Times recently published a re-framing piece on this by Denise Caruso, “Can Foundations Take the Long View Again?” The members of GEO (Grantmakers for Effective Organizations) have been engaged in a long discussion and analysis on this topic. They have published several thoughtful guides (free registration is required to view them). What I don’t think I’ve heard is a comparable discussion from nonprofit leaders about how much impact and long-term value their clients and communities would gain from more general operating support. If you are the director of a nonprofit, you may think that is an obvious statement – but I don’t think that connection is made very well. There are several issues involved, including different terminology and understanding of budgets.

What is a general operating grant? Is it a grant to pay for overhead expenses, or is it funding to provide comprehensive support for the organization’s mission and activities? Too frequently, the term is used as in this excerpt from an article, “General operating money is certainly one of the more difficult categories of funding to secure, mostly because it’s a lot less appealing to the funder. Let’s face it, paying rent is not nearly as sexy as helping people fulfill their potential as human beings.” STOP saying that. This is the kind of thinking and woe-is-me mentality that can’t make the case for general operating support. There is an implicit choice in this article: We have $10,000. Should we spend it on rent, or should we spend it to help people fulfill their potential as human beings? How about this instead: Let’s spend it on rent, salaries, benefits, supplies, and phones to operate our effective, innovative programs that help people fulfill their potential.

Do we need some new terminology to cut through this mess?

• General Operating Grant: Apparently, this is a grant to pay for distracting, hard to justify, and uninteresting expenses (like rent and phones).

• Program Grant: A grant that is restricted for a defined set of activities and outcomes that fit with the organization’s mission. All expenses included in the program budget, including salaries, rent, and supplies, are needed to carry out the program’s goals.

• Core Mission Grant: A grant provided to an effective organization to use as their leaders direct in order to support and achieve their mission. Some of the funds may be spent on immediate program and organizational needs and some on long-term investments, such as program development, staff training, and technology.

According to Caruso’s article, “The majority of foundation leaders polled in the studies acknowledged that unrestricted operating funds were better and more effective for grantees. But they continue to focus their grantmaking on project support, they said, because they prefer its clear-cut results.” Flexibility is the key value of core, or operating, support. Think about how you can make the case that flexibility will enable your nonprofit to be more responsive to community, better prepared for the future, and more effective in all of your programs and activities – that’s results.