Balancing the Mission Checkbook

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.

This month, Nonprofits Assistance Fund announced a new training service designed to help members of nonprofit boards understand and use their financial reports titled Financial Clarity for Nonprofit Boards. This idea has been brewing for a couple of years in response to the many nonprofit directors who come to one of our workshops and say, “I wish my board were here.” One of the most important factors that we considered as we were developing this new training was the diversity of nonprofit boards. Not all nonprofit boards are the same – and that’s a good thing. Unfortunately, I have read too many books and articles about board roles and responsibilities that describe a one-size fits all approach.

In a typical chapter about boards, the list of responsibilities includes: hiring and evaluating the executive director, fundraising, strategic planning, financial oversight, and identifying future board members. Beyond that list, board members are warned, they should not meddle. Well, this list may be appropriate for organizations with sufficient resources and staff to carry out all of the ongoing activities but there are many nonprofits that are not at that point – and may never be. Young organizations with a small staff need more involvement, and nonprofits that are reaching into communities with deep and specific needs may need a different kind of board – community involvement. How the board actually gets its work done needs to vary depending on the organization’s current needs (which will change). With this understanding, we created the financial training for boards to be flexible and allow us to meet the board where they are and build the capacity that fits them.

I recommend a report from a study that was completed in fall 2006, “Coloring Outside the Box: One Size Does Not Fit All in Nonprofit Governance” by Kim Sundet Vanderwall and Ellen Benevides for MAP for Nonprofits. The study reports on discussions about how boards work in 40 small grassroots nonprofits and organizations based in cultural or rural communities. What they found was a variety of different ways that organizations had created to get the work of the board done. In few cases were the boards following the “textbook” model.

Common strengths the researchers discovered were the level of shared commitment, values and connection between board members. Common struggles were attendance and engagement, clarity of roles, and some of the specific roles and structure. It’s interesting to read the differences in perceptions about the board given by board members compared to directors and staff members.

The report concludes not with a prescription for all boards to follow, but a list of five core recommendations:

1. Know what you must do as a board.
2. Find a way to make that happen in as streamlined a way as possible.
3. Be creative and think outside the box.
4. Keep the spirit of the organization alive in all you do.
5. Challenge those who provide technical assistance to boards to present standards and best practices in a way that takes size, resources, and culture into account.

Another consultant who frequently writes about a variety of approaches for boards is Mike Burns at Brody Weiser Burns. Mike’s article “Avoid Pigeonholing Your Board into Traditional Models” was written almost 10 years ago but it’s still very timely. Mike also has a blog on nonprofit board issues now, Nonprofit Board Crisis.