Social Currency


Part 1 of 3: Re-examining Nonprofit Economies

The pursuit of a just and equitable society can invite a measure of paralysis when you’re faced with the simple challenge of where to start.  Even if you narrow your focus to the nonprofit sector in particular, there are countless ways to approach the question of how to effectively promote positive change. 

At NFF, our approach has been to help nonprofit organizations develop the financial capacity to keep providing the programming their missions demand.  The end goal of this work is the facilitation of social change, but the approach demands an initial focus on the welfare of individual organizations.   But what if we approached the question from another angle?  What if we started by focusing on the needs of whole communities and then asked what resources individuals and organizations - including nonprofits - could provide to fulfill those needs? 

We recently spoke with Cheyenna Weber of SolidarityNYC, a collective which seeks greater visibility and networking opportunities for organizations such as cooperatives, collectives, and credit unions - participants in New York City’s “Solidarity Economy” - in order to foster grassroots economic development and social justice.  Drawing on that conversation, we plan to present a series of three posts, where we  look at how the solidarity economy reframes the problem of the economics that undergird an institution-focused nonprofit sector, then we’ll flesh out the solution a solidarity economy framework proposes, and, finally, we’ll look at real-world examples that suggest practical steps funders, nonprofits and their communities can take to bring about more comprehensive strategies for change in particular communities. 

We know that nonprofit organizations exist, first and foremost, to achieve social missions.  However, the current economic crisis has also made it quite clear that regardless of tax status, nonprofits navigate the same economy as their private and public sector counterparts. Because nonprofit programs are designed primarily around criteria of mission achievement rather than stand-alone economic sustainability, and because these programs are often intended to serve clients who are unable to pay market rate for services, they rarely earn enough direct revenue to cover the organization’s costs.  Instead, nonprofits must rely on economic subsidy from other sources - often government or private sector wealth.

So, it’s not just that nonprofits are in the same macro-economic boat as everybody else – nonprofits rely on these other sectors to survive.  For nonprofits, this often means navigating a dual relationship, trying to meet the priorities of those paying for services on one side and the needs of those receiving services on the other.  In this relationship, each party comes to the table with a set of priorities which can sometimes vie for attention.

For example, if a nonprofit relies on grant funds in order to maintain operations, leadership may feel forced to adjust the program structure in order to pursue a particular piece of programmatic funding (and the overhead coverage it provides) even if it does not quite fit with the mission or client .  Furthermore, two nonprofits with similar missions can find themselves in competition for funding from the same sources, and may therefore be less likely to undertake collaborative efforts with one another, even if those collaborations might best serve their constituents. 

Client Nonprofit Funder Diagram

In other words, the power of money - even the most well-intentioned money - can decrease the power held by clients and the organizations that serve them to shape the programs intended to bring about change in their communities. 

Read More

Editor's Note: A version of this post originally appeared at the ASU Lodestar Center Blog as part of their Research Friday series.

In our professional and personal lives, we are all asked to take a dozen or more surveys every year.  At work, I receive email surveys on everything from how we use social media to how we like the services of our vendors.   At home, I get opinion questionnaires from organizations ranging from political parties to movie ticket vendors.

Being the recipient of so many surveys, I pick and choose which I respond to.  No doubt you do as well.  As NFF embarks on its fourth annual nonprofit State of the Sector Survey, I hope you will choose to spend a few minutes of your valuable and busy work time responding to ours.  Here’s why.

Nonprofits are our social safety net, particularly now, during the hard times our country continues to experience.  They help and enrich people and communities, some of whom face dire health, housing, or food access circumstances.  Yet many of the nonprofits that we rely on for a just and vibrant society are themselves in dire circumstances.  Revenue is down, particularly from government funders, while service demand is up (77%  saw a rise in service demand last year, on top of increases in service demand in previous years). 

As we’ve seen with the rise in democratic political movements across the globe

Read More

Great art is often created without lots of money and can be enjoyed for many years. Great arts organizations without the right kinds and amounts of money, however, struggle to see another day.

Mission success for nonprofit arts organizations is reflected in the creation, sharing and appreciation of meaningful work.  Each organization has a different artistic vision and goals, as well as its own strategy for reaching and engaging audiences.  Behind every successful organizational strategy there should be a sound approach to obtaining and stewarding the financial resources required to support mission execution over time. This is a capitalization plan. At its essence, a capitalization plan serves as a roadmap for ensuring an organization has the cash and other assets it needs to manage risk and pursue opportunity.

Strategic plans often lack a rigorous financial foundation. They fail to consider the long-term financial resources needed to support program goals. And when they do include a financial plan, they often conflate regular revenue (ongoing) with capital (periodic), or neglect capital needs altogether.  While financial projections that quantify the future revenue and expenses associated with a strategy are critical components of any strategic plan, they are not enough.  Consideration must also be given to the organization’s long-term balance sheet –or capitalization– needs. 

A capitalization plan is really just an approach to building the right balance sheet. It should consider the kinds and degrees of artistic and organizational risk an organization can and wishes to tolerate, as well as the creative ambitions to which its leaders aspire.  Specifically, a capitalization plan should address an organization’s financial health and goals in the following three areas: liquidity, adaptability and durability.

  • Liquidity: having adequate cash to meet ongoing operating needs
  • Adaptability: access to flexible funds to adjust to evolving circumstances
  • Durability: assets to address a range of future needs

Capitalization planning is not one-size fits all

While the amount of adequate liquidity may differ by organization, cash is king for all nonprofits, regardless of size. Many organizations also need periodic access to flexible capital to pay for adaptation –whether related to growth, restructuring, program revitalization or even downsizing. 

Read More

“The bomb buried in Obamacare explodes today,” Rick Ungar declares in a December 2nd Forbes blog post describing a regulatory provision in the Affordable Care Act:

"[T]he medical loss ratio...requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers’ premium dollars they collect—85% for large group insurers—on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit. Failure on the part of insurers to meet this requirement will result in the insurers having to send their customers a rebate check representing the amount in which they underspend on actual medical care."

If this regulation is indeed a bomb, then nonprofit administrators must now be totally shell-shocked from navigating the demands of donors, institutional funders, government agencies charity rating agencies, consultants and even board members who want similar oversight of the ratio between program and administrative or fundraising expenditures and then use that data to make claims about operational efficiency. 

The fact that this kind of ratio system is now being applied prominently to a for-profit industry gives us an opportunity to highlight the way similar measures have served as a minefield in the nonprofit sector for years.

The differences between nonprofits and insurance giants are more striking than the similarities. As for-profit entities, insurance companies’ customers are expected to pay a market rate for their services, these funds are always unrestricted, annual surpluses are encouraged rather than stigmatized, and financial gain is the primary motivator.  None of these apply broadly to nonprofits.

Presumably as a matter of public policy, the medical loss ratio is being applied to insurance companies because those companies might otherwise spend even more on lavish executive salaries, luxurious offices, and so on.  But, in an environment where nonprofits face restricted grants and overall scarcity of funds, not to mention baseline commitment to mission, what would be the equivalent goal for imposing such ratios on the nonprofit sector?  Are such measures likely to be successful in inducing “operational efficiency?” 

In posts following up on Ungar’s initial article, Sarah Kliff (on the Washingon Post’s site) and Ungar raise the issue of how the government will define which expenses qualify as direct medical care, which will be administrative expenses, and which expenses could be left out of the equation altogether.  Many of these particulars seem to be addressed up front in the legislation, though one assumes that the financial staff of insurance companies will ultimately find room for interpretation. 

For the nonprofit sector, too, that room for interpretation is significant.

Read More

Editor's Note: A version of this post originally appeared at the ASU Lodestar Center Blog as part of their Research Friday series.

At Nonprofit Finance Fund (NFF), we use financial data every day in our work with nonprofits and their funders. One source of data informing this work is our annual State of the Sector Survey. Throughout the year, I’ve been blogging about key trends from our 2011 survey, which was completed by nearly 2,000 nonprofit leaders nationwide. They told us about their organizations’ financial outcomes from 2010 and speculated on what 2011 would bring. As we look back on what was certainly a challenging year, I thought it would be interesting to revisit some of their expectations.

Nonprofit leaders told us about planned changes to their service offerings in 2011: 

Planned Changes 2011

Although contributed revenue was generally down from public and private sources alike, a majority of nonprofits indicated that they actually planned to add or expand their offerings in 2011. Many anticipated expanding the geography they serve or partnering with another organization in order to meet the increased demand for their services. In fact, 88% of respondents indicated some sort of shift in their service delivery. But it wasn’t just program change; management steps and tough decisions were also required.

Nonprofits told us about their planned financial management actions in 2011:

Nonprofit leaders have learned to expect the unexpected. As a result, many predicted that they would engage more closely with their board and develop a “worst case scenario” contingency budget. If they were fortunate enough to have reserves, some groups planned to tap them. Many organizations decreased expenses. But some collaborated to manage their expenses and a third of organizations actually increased their expenses. Twelve percent even expanded their space. A big picture takeaway from both these charts:

Read More

Today, with the help of a particular kind of money--Change Capital--Alvin Ailey American Dance Foundation is attracting new revenue by building a technology platform and internal capabilities that maximize opportunities for patron and audience engagement.  Merce Cunningham Dance Foundation is raising money upfront to wind down its operations in a graceful way and leave a meaningful legacy. 

These are success stories.  But, when grantmakers and grantseekers fail to make the distinction between different kinds of revenue and capital, the consequences can be dire: desired outcomes aren’t met, organizational infrastructure is hollowed out, and communities go underserved.  Given these risks, the nonprofit field and funder community need greater clarity about the role of each type of money and what they can separately and collectively achieve. 

First, some definitions:

General Operating Support

GOS is unrestricted revenue, meaning it can be spent at the organization’s discretion – on anything. It might be used to fund programming, to offset administrative salaries or to pay the rent.  In a universe where many grants are tied exclusively to specific programs or projects—often without paying for an appropriate share of the infrastructure required to deliver them—GOS is a rare form of flexible revenue that can pay for mission-critical expenses that few (sadly) are yet willing to support. As such, annual GOS is an essential element of a healthy revenue mix for any organization. It is typically raised from select foundations as well as individuals and corporations, often through special events.

Capacity Building Revenue

Grants for capacity building, whether formally restricted or not, are revenue typically earmarked for building new organizational knowledge, staff and infrastructure. Board development, expansion of the marketing department and the purchase of new technology would all qualify as capacity building expenses.  GOS is often but not always used to pay for capacity-building activities. In that sense, the two can overlap. The difference is that capacity building dollars usually have a specific non-programmatic intention.  They are typically raised from foundations.

Change Capital

Change capital is a concept we developed at NFF to describe a flexible form of capital, distinct from revenue.

Read More

Attendance at the TCG Fall Forum on Governance is comprised of primarily executive directors and board members, with a sprinkling of representation from artists and staff members from the nonprofit theater world.  So, after a day of terrific conversations, it was with great pleasure that I gathered a handful of them together for a panel discussion: “So You Have a Deficit, Now What?”  What followed was a refreshingly frank discussion punctuated with practical lessons applicable to the work of any nonprofit administrator: 

Preliminaries
We began with a few general concepts:

  • Talk of deficits demands a consideration of assets, but some valuable assets don’t appear on a balance sheet.   Assets can also include intangibles such as:  audiences, knowledge, staff members, a board of directors, openness to change, technological tools and savvy, diversity of background and age among your staff, board and stakeholders, civic and business partners, your “brand”, organizational self awareness, and, critically, when seeking to overcome deficits, knowing your impact. 
  • When considering “health” metrics at NFF, we think in terms of “months of cash” on an Unrestricted Liquid Net Assets (ULNA) basis.  If you strip away all of the buildings, property, equipment, temporarily restricted, and permanently restricted items from your Net Assets, how much cash is left for operations?  It can vary, but a rough starting point for an ideal is a 3 month cash/ULNA reserve.  
  • Deficits can be “financed” through a variety of means including: accounts payable, mortgage debt, drawing on reserves, foregone wages, employee furloughs, and over-extended lines of credit.  It can be difficult to ascertain whether an organization is operating at a deficit, and structural operating deficits can be masked by a period of operating at sub-par capacity levels in order to keep expenses in-line. This will not be sustainable.

Managing Costs and Revenue

Tracy E. Long, General Manager of Adirondack Theatre Festival started off the panel by describing an initiative to overcome a $29,000 shortfall on a prior year’s performance, an 8% deficit on the annual budget.  While the scale may seem relatively small, the deficit posed a significant challenge to their cash flow and was an ongoing concern.  Long took on the deficit by addressing both revenue and costs: 

Revenue side

  • Increase ticket revenue on the margin by raising ticket prices by $3 each.
  • Develop theater projects with partners to share costs but generate new and increased revenue.
  • Respond to board member interest in hosting a “Brewfest” with board member spouses and another nonprofit to generate fundraising revenue. 

Cost Side

  • Decrease rehearsal periods for plays that could still be produced effectively with shorter advance time,.
  • Change the design on printed materials to result in lower printing costs.
  • Cut the full-time production manager and move to a “variable” staffing method – hiring as needed for theater tech and sharing the management tasks among the remaining staff.

Accumulated vs. Structural Deficits
Michael Gennaro, Executive Director, Trinity Repertory Company, began by making two important points:

  • Even well managed companies are beginning to fail.
  • Accumulated deficits and structural deficits are different and managing them requires different strategies. 

Michael drew from his experience with the Pennsylvania Ballet as his first example.  When he went there he found an accumulated deficit of $2 million on a $6 million operating budget.  In that instance Michael suggests the first step is to analyze what makes up the debt you are inheriting and evaluate any creative strategies you can employ to get rid of it.  At the Pennsylvania Ballet, the debt was almost completely financed through accounts payable, so Michael negotiated a “work-out” with the vendors to pay a percentage on the dollar of outstanding bills and thus retire the deficit.

In his current tenure as the Executive Director at Trinity Rep, he inherited a more challenging scenario:  Three separate lines of credit were maxed out or frozen, and the building required an expensive update to meet fire code standards.  Together, they amounted to more than $3 million dollars of accumulated deficit with the cost of deferred upgrades to the building generating a structural deficit.  In this instance he took the following steps:

Read More

Editor's Note: This post originally appeared November 4th, 2011 on NFF's Money and Mission blog at the Chronicle of Philanthropy. 

The economy’s slow recovery has prompted many nonprofit leaders to wonder how to prepare for what could be an even tougher and longer road out of the recession than anybody expected. While concerns about the possibility of a double-dip recession come and go, it is probably wise to follow the old adage to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Here’s what it means to prepare:

Shore up the revenue and find your weak spots

Don’t assume that because you have always received a grant from a particular donor that you will continue to receive one next year.  Reach out to your longtime grant makers, arm them today with real information about the value of your work. Do it now even if your annual report is not due until December. Look for reasons to remind them why your work—and hence their money—is essential.

Listen and try to understand how your grant makers are thinking about this crisis; it affects them, too. Virtually every foundation has gone through a reduction of sorts. Sharing is helpful and builds different kinds of bonds.

Seek out information that can be helpful, which means asking your grant makers and your clients for constructive feedback.

If you are not measuring your results, start now. Don’t worry about being perfect or starting a rigorous 10-year longitudinal study. Push yourself to move beyond the anecdote. Jim Collins, the author of Good to Great and other books, had it right:  “It doesn’t really matter whether you can quantify your results. What matters is that you rigorously assemble evidence—quantitative or qualitative—to track your progress. If the evidence is primarily qualitative, think like a trial lawyer assembling the combined body of evidence. If the evidence is primarily quantitative, then think of yourself as a laboratory scientist assembling and assessing the data. … What matters is not finding the perfect indicator but settling upon a consistent and intelligent method of assessing your output results and then tracking your trajectory with rigor.”

Take advantage of networks you have but don’t use.

Think broadly about your networks. Look at your competitors as comrades-in-arms and find ways to complement and enhance your work through partnership. Don’t just say you’ll collaborate because you’re supposed to.

Read More

Organizations that can clearly and accurately articulate their financial story and resource needs are better positioned to make a strong case for support. In both good times and bad, your stakeholders will be more engaged if you can provide a data-driven assessment that links your nonprofit’s financial health to its impact and accomplishments. This can inform strategic planning and guide leadership in making mission driven, financially sound decisions.

We've created a worksheet divided into six core areas of nonprofit finance, described in detail in the document available as a pdf here or embedded below:

  1. RevenueNonprofit Finance Fund's Enterprise Platform
  2. Expenses
  3. Probability and Savings
  4. Health of the Balance Sheet
  5. Liquidity
  6. Financial Planning

Use the worksheet to capture a snapshot of your nonprofit’s strengths and weaknesses. Together, these areas help you balance the three critical components essential to your organization’s long-term viability: Mission, Capacity, and Capital.  

Editor's Note: This post originally appeared October 5th, 2011 on NFF's Money and Mission blog at the Chronicle of Philanthropy.  

Today’s economic realities have prompted many nonprofits to consider new business models so they can better serve their constituents while ensuring their own financial solvency.

These adjustments are taking many forms. Some organizations are investing in new ways to deliver programs and services, while others are making their current activities more effective and efficient. Change can mean restructuring operations, collaborating more formally with similar nonprofits or, as now happens with greater frequency, trimming the size of the group’s staff as well as its programs and activities.

Regardless of what form it takes, change isn’t easy for many nonprofits. It’s time-intensive and expensive, and it involves risk.

What makes some organizations more likely than others to adopt change effectively? A history of surpluses? A board that is willing to step out of its comfort zone? An entrepreneurial management culture?

Those traits are important, but they are hardly all that matters.

Based on the Nonprofit Finance Fund’s work with hundreds of nonprofits, here are 10 characteristics we see again and again in organizations that succeed in making strategic changes:

Read More

Search Blog

Our 2012 Survey is Live!

NFF's 2012 Nonprofit Sector Survey

 

Find NFF here...