Balancing the Mission Checkbook

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.

Call it what you want – surplus, positive change in net assets, or profit – nonprofit organizations really need to plan for, and embrace, the importance of building financial capacity by generating a cushion. We don’t have a common language for this, and many nonprofit leaders would be uncomfortable using a term like “profit” when describing their financial goals. The word is much less important than the practice of budgeting and managing to build surpluses. Read “Organizational Slack (or Goldilocks and the Three Budgets” by Woods Bowman, published in the Spring 2007 issue of The Nonprofit Quarterly, for a very helpful overview of the topic.

The definition of slack used by Bowman is “a cushion of potential resources which allow an organization to adapt to internal pressures for changes in policy, as well as to initiate changes in strategy with respect to the external environment.” The benefit of a cushion is probably clear to any nonprofit director. Money doesn’t just fall into your lap to build a reserve. Bowman makes it simple and direct: “Where does financial capacity come from? There can be only one place: annual surpluses.”

Planning for an annual surplus, specifically an unrestricted surplus, is a positive, important, beneficial, and necessary practice for all nonprofits. I emphasize the importance of viewing unrestricted operating results, rather than the total of all unrestricted and restricted funds, because of the volatility in results caused by the timing of project and multi-year grants.

One step that could encourage the practice is to add a measure or ratio that defines the annual addition to the reserve or cushion. In the for-profit world, this is communicated in a fundamental ratio:

Net Operating Income = Profitability Ratio
Total Sales, or Revenue

The comparable measure for a nonprofit could be a CINA (change in net assets) ratio:

Unrestricted Change in Net Assets = CINA Ratio
Total Unrestricted Income

Try calculating this ratio for your nonprofit organization for the past few years and you will start to see how well the ratio can communicate the building, or depleting, of financial capacity. How high should the ratio be? On this point a for-profit and nonprofit organization will differ. A for-profit company seeks the highest ratio possible. For a nonprofit the ideal amount of surplus depends on what they need – and that balancing act is complicated. Bowman’s article has a whole section on measuring the right amount of slack needed.

How important are financial ratios? I’ve had several very lively discussions recently about the value of using financial measurements, specifically ratios, to assess the financial health of nonprofit organizations. The appeal of ratios is that they are so tangible and certain, which makes them seem very reliable - especially compared to attempts to evaluate management strength or program effectiveness.

I will confess that I’m a finance person and I love financial analysis the way other people love mystery novels – I can follow the clues and tell a story from the numbers. So I’m surprised that I find myself in these discussions taking the devil’s advocate role that ratios are valuable only at certain times and with a lot of conditions. Used as a generic measure, ratios can potentially even mislead. To prove my case, consider the value of the “program service ratio” in evaluating nonprofits. This is the percentage of total expenses that are spent on program services rather than general and administrative and fundraising. Whenever someone attempts to impose a standard ratio that all nonprofits should use, we all bray about how different organizations are depending on their size, years of operation, field of service, client base, etc, etc. I agree with all of those arguments against a single standard and use the same reasoning to argue that ratios are valuable only when used in the right context and with the right information.

The first law of quality financial analysis – always use the right comparative information. Financial information by itself is just a list of numbers on paper. The understanding comes when it is compared – to the budget, the previous year’s reports, a set of goals, a peer organization or industry averages. Ratio analysis follows the same law. Yes, you should calculate ratios to analyze financial information, but then the ratios must be used with the right comparative information. There is no single “current ratio” for all nonprofits, but there is probably a good one for your nonprofit. A small nonprofit with few bills can have a strong current ratio compared to a larger organization with a larger budget, but that doesn’t tell us that one organization is in better financial shape.

After making an argument about the shortcomings of ratios, let me switch sides and offer a resource for ratio calculations.  Analyzing Financial Information Using Ratios has just been posted on our website as part of our Financial Management Resources. It includes an overview of ratios, definitions and descriptions and an excel worksheet for the calculations.

When I argue that ratio analysis is not a complete and reliable method to assess financial health, I have to offer some alternatives. How can we assess nonprofit financial health? What IS financial health? In a word, financial health is stability - the confidence that the organization will be able to serve its community and clients in the future. I can think of only three universal signs of stability that can apply to all nonprofits: reliable revenue, managed expenses and adequate cash. Pretty simple, and even these have to be understood in the context of the organization. Measuring and assessing these three components can take the form of ratios, trend analysis, comparisons with peers, budgets, plans or history. They are the fundamental financial levers that build stable operations. If you are interested in going through an in-depth analysis of your organization’s financial picture, with an emphasis on the types and reliability of income, consider attending Minnesota Council of Nonprofits’ workshop: Planning for Financial Sustainability on May 8th.

I led a workshop this morning called “Monitoring Your Financial Health” that covers a variety of methods for interpreting and analyzing nonprofit financial reports. The group read and compared reports, calculated income, expense and balance sheet ratios, and reviewed key indicators. When we talked about how to communicate the financial analysis to management teams and boards of directors I distributed a few samples of executive summary and dashboard reports (download an example here). As always, several of the workshop evaluations listed these reports as a highlight of the materials. The idea of dashboard reports has been around for a long time in business and nonprofit management. (For a good introduction to the concept see these articles from CompassPoint’s Board Cafe and the October 12, 2006 issue of The Chronicle of Philanthropy.)

I think that the reasons that workshop participants respond so strongly to the reports are their clarity and simplicity. Ideally, a dashboard report conveys in one page the key indicators for the organization and relates those indicators to goals, historical information, or benchmarks. The people in my workshop today know that this type of report is one that every nonprofit board wants to have.

So why don’t we all have dashboard reports? We don’t because they are very hard to develop. The art to creating a good dashboard is identifying what information really matters. The dashboard in your car shows you the speed, fuel level, oil pressure, blinkers, and warning lights. Think of all the other information that could be displayed as well - but isn’t – because too much information is overload. To create a valuable summary or dashboard tool you have to cull through all the possibilities and select the five to eight key indicators that convey the most important measures for your nonprofit organization.

I use two example reports in the workshop. One of the examples is for an organization in the middle of turnaround after several years of financial problems, and the other is an organization that is healthier financially seeking to diversity its contributor base. These nonprofits have very different key indicators. One watches cash and payables closely while the other needs more information on development.

The other challenging task to developing good dashboards is selecting appropriate goals or benchmarks. These deserve some focus because the wrong goal can send you in the wrong direction. One well-intentioned but problematic benchmark that I’ve seen at many organizations is the goal of building a cash reserve equal to three to six months of operating expenses. It’s a terrific goal, of course, but it’s unrealistic for boards to expect a nonprofit to build that level of unrestricted cash balance in one year or less. Fieldstone Alliance published a good book last year on identifying appropriate and useful measures, Benchmarking for Nonprofits. Here’s a link to a free excerpt.