Avoiding self-made financial disasters

A three-year old human services nonprofit was dealing with serious discord between board members and the executive director. The board felt that overhead costs at 20% of revenue were too high and that the perceived imbalance was taking too much money away from programs. The ED countered that the reduced effectiveness was due to not having enough qualified staff. The board issued an ultimatum. Reduce staff costs by 20%, or the ED would be replaced.

The ED responded by cutting hours, wages and benefits, whereupon 4 of 14 staff members quit. Citing failure to deliver client services, the board fired the ED anyway. The ED then filed a wrongful termination lawsuit, since the board mandate to reduce costs by 20% was achieved due to having fewer employees, and having fewer employees impacted client services. The ED eventually won the case.

On the face of it, this seems like a classic case of a power struggle between the board and the executive director, with the staff and clients caught in the middle.

Upon further examination, the actual cause of the imbalance between overhead and program budgets proves to be more complicated.

The board had previously voted to expand a program by 50%, as outlined in the five-year plan. They mandated that the counseling center be open two more hours daily, and four hours on Saturday. This increased payroll and other overhead costs such as utilities and office supplies by about 12%. In addition, a change in state regulations required that there had to be an upper-level professional physically on duty whenever the client services center was open. Heretofore, the master's level staff only had to be available on call during evening and weekend hours. Shortly after the expanded program started, state and county funding for the program was abruptly scaled back by 15% due to decreased tax revenue.

The immediate problem was that the board failed to re-assess the challenges to the program and when the problems became obvious, they responded by trying to cover funding shortfalls by cost reduction alone. In the long term, their desire to hold administrative and other overhead costs at 10% of revenues was simply unrealistic, given their need for highly qualified professional staff.

The problem seems very simple. In their zeal to help more people, the fundraising part of the equation had been overlooked. Instead of diversifying and expanding sources of non-governmental funding, the nonprofit was relying solely on  government fee-for-service revenue to pay for the expansion.

The real problem was a failure by the board to adequately develop contingency planning and funding. As many organizations often do, they neglected the unpleasant parts of strategic planning. They developed the strengths and opportunities section well, but failed to acknowledge the threats and weaknesses portions, taking the rose-colored glasses approach.

You cannot plan adequately without considering worst-case scenarios. This organization was relying solely on one source of funding and that source had historically been very sensitive to outside influences, in this case a substantial drop in state tax revenues coupled with increased regulatory costs. In addition the board was highly resistant to developing an emergency fund. All revenue had to be spent on the mission annually, and even the idea of having excess funds (called profit outside of the nonprofit sector) at the end of the year was abhorrent to the board.

The board had made half-hearted attempts at fundraising, but felt that it was unnecessary due to their fee-for-service model. Donor development or grant research wasn't even mentioned in their financial plan.

The obvious answer was to postpone the planned expansion and start developing a more diversified funding stream. The NPO's mission was still being fulfilled in regard to their existing client base, and a 15% fee-based income reduction was realistic to try to cover with income from fundraisers and grants.

Instead, this nonprofit came very close to shutting down. Client services had to be curtailed by a full 75%. The staff eventually settled at just four paid professionals. In press releases, the nonprofit blamed the recession and the resulting loss in government funding. In reality, the reason was poor planning.

Bad things do happen to good people and organizations. Some things truly are beyond one's immediate control. Recognizing and planning for that can make the difference between success and failure.

Growing Your Board

Every successful nonprofit can trace its success back to a founder that had the foresight to assemble an effective board of directors. Good boards are not born, they are cultivated and grown.

There are boards, and then there are BOARDS. Good boards are not like a pile of cut lumber. They are more like branches of a tree, in that they constantly nurture the mother plant, evolve to meet changing conditions, and send out seeds or runners to stay alive and viable. Once a pile of lumber is used up, it's just gone. It's static, because the pile will only produce a pre-conceived structure. A tree keeps producing living tissue for decades, even centuries.

Developing good boards takes the skill of a master arborist. You have to know how to select the right seed stock, when to prune away the dead wood, and how to nurture it so it can produce the best fruit, before your nonprofit can collect a successful crop. Here are some of the indicators that your board is growing well. 

A good board provides structure for the nonprofit.

It maintains a coherent mission-centered direction, imposes reasonable limitations on behavior and finances, and oversees and guides mission accomplishment. Board members are legally responsible for the conduct and financial integrity of the nonprofit, as well as the success of the mission.

Good boards participate financially.

Every board member should have some financial investment in the organization. That doesn't mean the board is, should, or can be the sole support of your NPO. It does mean that they should give an annual sum that shows they are personally invested in success. Grantors often ask for the amount each board member contributes annually. That amount should show real commitment relative to the size of the nonprofit and its mission. For very small or new nonprofits maybe that's a few hundred dollars a year for the whole board, while larger organizations might expect a minimum four-figure donation from each member. After all, if the board doesn't support their own organization, why should anyone else?

Good boards set goals and make decisions.

The board must have performance standards and clear goals for the organization. If the same action items are on every agenda, or there is no or little progress being made in achieving predetermined goals, the board must be willing and able to take corrective action.

 Good boards understand the requirements of fundraising.

Every board member should understand how much needs to be raised, why it needs to be raised, and have a basic understanding of the process involved in soliciting funds.

Good boards get involved in fundraising.

There are many ways for the board to participate in fundraising. Perhaps they show up at events and pressers. Maybe they sign thank-you letters to donors. They can publicize the nonprofit through their business and personal connections. They can serve on phone lines at telethons. They may plan fundraising events. Whatever their contributions, they are active in the fundraising process at some point.

Good boards understand that there is a cost to fundraising.

"Free" money doesn't exist. Someone has to write the grants, research funding opportunities, attend events where there may be sympathetic prospective contributors, and manage the grants. Paper, printing, and distribution of fundraising documents or other marketing costs actual money. Controlling  fundraising costs can't be limited to "if it costs money we ain't doin' it". Pick a reasonable percentage of the budget to devote to fundraising, monitor its ROI effectiveness, and accept that cost without complaint.

Good boards show up.

Good boards have strict meeting attendance and conduct policies and enforce them. The board chair must take attendance and educate, caution, and finally eliminate no-show, unreasonably disruptive or overly passive board members and recruit new ones that will take their responsibilities more seriously.

Good boards invite civil discussions on issues.

Boards should not be rubber-stamps for the founder, board chair or president. No member should feel that they can't offer a suggestion or request clarification of a point. On the other hand, a good board chair does not allow these discussions to degenerate into shouting matches. Meetings should be run under Robert's Rules of Order, and after a reasonable discussion period any new information or dissenting opinions should be either voted upon, tabled and considered in the next meeting, or assigned to a committee for further investigation.

Growing your board is a learning experience, but the end result will be well worth the effort.

Sexy financial statements - Are you kidding!?

On a one to ten scale of what's sexy or exciting, financial statements generally rank at about minus one for most nonprofit board members. Nonprofits still in the early growth phase may not fully understand the relationship of the board's financial or fiduciary responsibility to their overall governance role. There may not even be a formal accounting system in place.

Board members, whether nonprofit or for-profit, typically aren't finance or accounting majors. I can clearly remember sending out the financials to the board members of a small nonprofit in advance of an annual meeting. One of them called and very nicely but sincerely told me that I shouldn't waste postage and paper sending them to him in the future, since it was all "just so much gobbledygook to me". When I explained that I was required to send them because the board was responsible for understanding the financial position of the organization, he asked if I could just tell him where on the papers he could see whether the organization was making or losing money.

This is an all-too-common reaction to the financial portion of a board agenda. In many cases, once the board meeting starts, the chairperson asks if anyone has any questions or comments, and then there is a voice vote to accept all the financial information as written. It's almost a Pavlovian response.

Fiduciary oversight isn't optional.

The problem with that is once you vote to accept the financials, you are effectively saying that you know what's in them. If something is amiss, you can be held responsible for any problems.

For those nonprofits that say they don't need financial statements due to their small revenue streams, or because they are about mission, not money, listen up. If you are a nonprofit corporation, you may be required to use the accrual method of accounting. That means you do need some sort of basic accounting system that can produce financial statements. Leaving the tax man out of it, prospective donors and grantors expect it as well.

Most board members don't intentionally shirk their fiduciary duties, and they are not too lazy or mentally incapable of understanding financials. Financial reporting is simply a foreign language to them. Sometimes they are successful professionals in other fields, but they rely on a staff of accountants to keep the books and synopsize any findings. Other times they are community members whose closest brush with accounting is when they file their taxes. Sometimes they just don't understand the legal impacts of rubber-stamping the financials.

Ignorance isn't bliss.

Not knowing what's contained in the financials is not a defense. Shareholders, members, donors, and the IRS won't accept that as a reason if there is some sort of mismanagement, fraud, or other illegal act discovered. The solution to that is developing a basic ability to understand the financial statements.

There are a number of mini-courses, books and video presentations available that offer financial training for non-financial people. Think of them as sort of a pocket dictionary for another language. When you travel to another country, you may not need or want to know how to carry on an hour-long conversation in another language, but you do need to know how to ask for a doctor or a bathroom.

No degree required.

This isn't about becoming a certified financial professional and to some extent, it isn't even about that much argued-over bottom line. Depending on your board composition, even a one or two-hour presentation can be sufficient to provide all the knowledge most board members need.

Local associations of financial professionals often have seminars that can be scheduled into a retreat or executive training session. In a pinch, you could even have a independent accounting professional or instructor attend a board meeting and explain the financials once a year. The goal is to be sure that everyone has at least a basic understanding of what to look for relative to seeing problems or trends. The purpose of reviewing financials isn't to check the math, it is to obtain operational guidance for the board.

Financials are more than just numbers.

The purpose of this instruction is not to turn the board into bookkeepers or accountants. It is simply to provide a way for the board to recognize problems or trends. For instance, if the depreciation figure is significantly different from last year or the last quarter, does that mean that something new was purchased?  If so, what is it, what did it cost, and is that cost reflected elsewhere in the financials? If not, why was the figure adjusted? If it is significantly lower, does something need to be replaced because it is too old to function properly anymore? Does that affect net worth?

Financial statement training isn't very sexy, but going to jail or watching your organization dissolve in bankruptcy isn't much fun either.

For many organizations, November is approaching the end of the fiscal year. Think about offering financial statement training as a year-end training camp or informational webinar. Some members might even consider it a perk!