[PDF] - 6/28/2013 Breaking out of the Nonprofit Starvation Cycle to Better PDF Document

SLIDE 1

6/28/2013 1

“Breaking out of the Nonprofit Starvation Cycle to Better Deliver on Mission”

Collaborating to accelerate social impact

y

July 17, 2013 MIE National Directors Conference

Who is The Bridgespan Group?

The Bridgespan Group aspires to a society characterized by equality

f opportunity and justice. To that end, we collaborate with mission-

driven leaders and organizations seeking to break cycles of intergenerational poverty, provide effective safety nets and ensure core human and civil rights

2 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

core human and civil rights.

History: Founded in 2000
Values: Impact, respect, candor, collaboration, passion
Services: Strategy consulting, leadership development, philanthropy

advising, and developing and sharing insights

Offices: Boston, New York, and San Francisco (~200 staff)
Clients: 400+ foundations and nonprofits globally

Why we are here today

Importance of economic clarity for strategic

decision making

Challenging macro environment

3 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Resource allocation as key lever for impact
Need for support structures and getting

them funded

SLIDE 2

6/28/2013 2

Objectives

Provide interesting and practical information
Understand what applies to the legal aid field
Give opportunity to connect and discuss with

4 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Give opportunity to connect and discuss with

your peers

Today’s agenda

Key trends in government and philanthropic funding
Managing and succeeding in tough times

5 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Understanding your costs and why it matters
Break
Dynamics of the Starvation Cycle and breaking out of it
Wrap up

1,000,000,000 1,500,000,000

Funding in USD I OLTA

Legal community

Other 1,293,742,000

Civil Legal Aid Funding comes primarily from public sources

6 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

500,000,000

LSC State Legislatures Fdns/ Corps Other Public Funds

2012 Data Collection = $1,294,000,000 2011 Data Collection = $1,344,000,000 2010 Data Collection = $1,375,000,000 So, a 3.5% decrease from the prior year, when there was a 2% decrease from the high.

SLIDE 3

6/28/2013 3

Federal funding outlook is bleak

Government Accountability Office -- Realistic Scenario

7 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Source: GAO Note: Data are from Alternative model used in GAO’s Fall 2011 simulations based on the Trustees’ assumptions for Social Security and CMS Actuary’s alternative assumption for Medicare. * This also includes spending for insurance exchange subsidies and CHIP

State and local outlook also troubling

Surplus (Positive balance) 5 4 3 2 Percentage of GDP Government Accountability Office -- Estimate of State and Local Operating Balances, as a Percentage of GDP

8 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Source: GAO simulations, updated April 2011

Deficit (Negative balance) 1

1
2
3
4
5

Operating Balance 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2055 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2060 Year

Near-term budgetary concerns not making the situation any better

Fallout from the federal stimulus

$740B of ARRA funding has paid out; the stimulus

has run its course

As one non-profit executive noted, the stimulus

money running out is a “cliff we are toppling over.”

9 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

$2.1T in pending cuts stemming from the Budget Control Act

$900B in cuts to discretionary funding starting in FY

2012

An additional $1.2T across the board trigger cuts will

begin to take effect in FY 2013

SLIDE 4

6/28/2013 4

Philanthropic giving is improving slowly…

Total charitable giving has increased in current dollars in every year since

tracking began in 1967 with the exception of three: 1987, 2008, and 2009

2012 charitable giving grew 3.5% (1.5% when adjusted for inflation)

R h di t it ill t k t l t i t i h

10 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Researchers predict it will take at least six more years to raise as much as

before the recession

Only sharp growth in giving came from corporations (12%), foundations

increased their grants by 2.3%.

Nearly 40 percent of the 6,000 charities that responded to a study by the

Nonprofit Finance Fund said they planned to change how they raised money this year

Source: Giving USA Report 2013, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, CCS Snapshot of Today’s Philanthropic Landscape 2012

…with individual donors giving more than 70% of all philanthropic dollars

60 80 100% Human Services Public-Society benefits Health

International affairs

Arts,culture & humanities

Environmental/ animals To Individuals

100% 60 80 100% Bequests

Corporations

Foundation $316.2B

11 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Source: Giving USA Report 2013, CCS Snapshot of Today’s Philanthropic Landscape 2012

20 40 60 Giving by type

f recipient (2010)

Religion Education Foundations 20 40 60 Giving by source (2012) Individuals

$8 $10 $12 erson

Legal Aid Funding Trends (not inflation adjusted)

12 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

$0 $2 $4 $6 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Dollars Per Poor Pe LSC IOLTA State Public Private

SLIDE 5

6/28/2013 5

Summary Legal Aid trends

Funding from public sources decreasing
Biggest drop in relatively restriction free and (historically)
ngoing sources
Total reduction around $82.3M
Public: LSC (-14%) state funding (-7%)

13 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Public: LSC ( 14%), state funding ( 7%)

Private: IOLTA (-7%)
Increasing sources virtually all private
Total increase around $32.3M
Only legal community funding generally unrestricted and ongoing (+7%)

Questions for discussion

What aspects of our findings most resonate with

your experience?

14 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Where/how/why are you seeing things differently?

Today’s agenda

Key trends in government and philanthropic funding
Managing and succeeding in tough times

15 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Understanding your costs and why it matters
Break
Dynamics of the Starvation Cycle and breaking out of it
Wrap up

SLIDE 6

6/28/2013 6

Small group discussion at table

How has the economic situation impacted your
rganization?
Where did you have to make adjustments or cuts?

16 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

y j

Programs?
Overhead?
Staff?
What has worked well, what has not worked so well?

Most nonprofit organizations have felt the impact of the downturn

Many organizations have experienced

funding cuts

17 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

The demand for services continues

to increase

Anxiety levels of staff are high

Nonprofits we surveyed saw less severe decreases in revenues in 2010

Percentage of respondents reporting decrease in revenues

80%

Percentage of respondents reporting decrease in revenues greater than 10%

62%

18 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

2009 2010 32%

Source: Bridgespan Succeeding in Tough Times Survey Results, N for 2009=106, N for 2010=102

2009 2010 18%

SLIDE 7

6/28/2013 7

Most direct service nonprofits experienced higher demand for services in 2010

Respondents reporting increased demand for services in prior year (percent) 100% 95% 88% 81% 80% 80%

19 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Source: Bridgespan Succeeding in Tough Times Survey Results, N =102 Health Multi-service Providers Education and Youth Services Other Housing and Elderly Services Job Training Arts/ Culture 25%

We also sought to learn more about how government funded nonprofits and government officials viewed the situation

We focused our research on a few guiding questions:
How are nonprofits funded by government viewing the situation?
What do they believe the future holds for them and their beneficiaries?
How are they preparing for that future?
How do their perspectives compare with those of government funders?
To help answer these questions, we conducted a survey for

20 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

p q y nonprofit organizations who received more than 50% of their revenues from government

68 survey responses received
59 from human service organizations
56 from organizations which received funding from more than one type
f govt. funding stream (local, state, national)
We also conducted 23 interviews
17 interviews with nonprofit leaders
6 interviews with federal, state and local government officials

“Has your organization’s total funding from all government sources increased or decreased since the recession began in 2008?”

21 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG Note: 68 survey takers answered this question

SLIDE 8

6/28/2013 8

“Over the next 2-3 years, I expect that funding for my organization from all government sources will likely ___ ?”

22 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG Note: 67 survey takers answered this question

Nonprofits viewing pending federal cuts with pessimism and uncertainty

“The federal budget cuts enacted this summer and the additional cuts likely in the months ahead will cause significant problems for our organization as we

Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements:

23 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Note: 67 survey takers answered this question

for our organization as we seek to fund our mission” “Our organization has an adequate understanding

f how the pending

federal budget cuts will impact our organization”

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

FOCUS COMMUNICATION COLLABORATION

Focus resources on

mission critical

Communicate with and

engage stakeholders

Collaborate with other
rganizations

Organizations haven taken different approaches to address the crisis

24 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

programs

Scale back, eliminate

subset of programs g g (staff, volunteers, board)

Discussions
Communication plans
Board involvement in

addressing challenges

g

Form advisory group
Share resources such

space and admin. support

Apply jointly for funding

Need to understand full costs Challenging and time consuming Effective to better meet demand

SLIDE 9

6/28/2013 9

Too slow to cut costs
Focus on fundraising

However, many show gaps with potential for serious consequences

25 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Few deep reserves
No well-defined contingency plan

Actions by government funded organizations we surveyed with focus on long-term

80% Identified full cost to deliver each program or service 80% Increased efforts to accurately

measure outcomes

80% W

k d l l ith b d t dd d t

26 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

80% Worked closely with board to address downturn 77% Improved productivity with available

resources

72% Clarified which programs are

strategic priorities

72% Diversified funding outside of gov’t sources

Note: 67 survey takers answered this question

71% Froze salaries and hiring 62% Reduced staff 62% Reduced costs by increasing administrative efficiencies

Short-term actions by government funded

rganizations we surveyed

27 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

42% Utilized reserve funds 29% Cut salaries 46% Changed services to lower costs

Note: 65 survey takers answered this question

SLIDE 10

6/28/2013 10

7 steps to help managing through tough times

1. Act quickly, but not reflexively, and plan contingencies
2. Protect the core
3. Identify the people who matter most and keep that

group strong

28 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

4. Stay very close to your key funders (and don’t wait for

them to call)

5. Shape up your organization
6. Involve your board
7. Communicate openly and often

Growing organizations have used outcomes measurement, contingency plans, and communications

Additional common tactics associated with growth (% tried in the prior year)

76% 94% 69% 84% 59%

29 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG I ncreased efforts to accurately measure outcomes Developed a contingency plan Created a communications plan to address recession

43%

Decreased/ stable revenue Increased revenue Source: Bridgespan Succeeding in Tough Times Survey Results, N=102

Today’s agenda

Key trends in government and philanthropic funding
Managing and succeeding in tough times

30 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Understanding your costs and why it matters
Break
Dynamics of the Starvation Cycle and breaking out of it
Wrap up

SLIDE 11

6/28/2013 11

Why this matters to executive directors

Resource allocation is an important part of strategy and

powerful lever for achieving goals

Unrestricted funds are often your most precious resource

Th t f ki t d ff i iti l t

31 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

The art of making trade-offs is critical to your success
Examples
Which programs do we fund?
Should we expand to a new location?
How much money to we need to sustain our programs?

Scope of financial data available in many nonprofits is still worrisome

Revenues are typically sufficiently understood
Full cost transparency is the exception and every
rganization has their own way at looking at its cost

information

Limited views

32 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

8Total costs only 8Grant accounting only 8Program-specific expenses is what is usually needed

Rationale for limited data

8Time and resource intensive 8Insufficient systems 8Information not used

By service offering

“True Costing” seeks to address these issues

By functional area

How are costs grouped?

Functional analysis True cost analysis

33 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Direct costs of

programs

Gross contribution =

program revenue – program costs

Direct and indirect costs
Focus on key cost drivers
Net contribution =

restricted program revenues – (direct + indirect program costs) Which costs assigned to programs? Financial measure?

SLIDE 12

6/28/2013 12

Begin by examining your programs, both in theory AND in practice

Mapping and Target

utcomes

Target participants Target program

perations

Your management’s definition of programs IN THEORY

34 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

pp g segmentation

f programs,

participants,

utcomes

Actual

utcomes

Actual participants Actual program

perations

Analysis of actual program, participant, and performance IN PRACTICE, and impact on costs

What is the difference?

This informs true cost by identifying (in principle and practice) key cost drivers

Various ratios of staff to participants

– Case loads, class/program sizes – Level of utilization of resources

Levels of ‘dosage’ of a service (may contain three

components)

35 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

components)

– Duration of time service is delivered – Frequency in which services are offered – Intensity of effort per instance of services

Target number of participants served, and outcomes

to achieve

Where revenue comes from, what restrictions this

places on who is served

Let’s start with an example

$3 200 Average cost per youth for nonprofit X to serve ~1,100 youth $3 400 Contract price per youth by Dept of Juvenile Justice to serve 200 more youth

36 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

$3,200 $3,400

SLIDE 13

6/28/2013 13

At its most basic, this looks pretty good

$3 200 $3 400

=

$200 Surplus per youth Contract price per youth by Dept of Juvenile Justice to serve 200 more youth Average cost per youth for nonprofit X to serve ~1,100 youth

37 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

$3,200 $3,400

=

$200

Further analysis reveals different picture

Nonprofit X serves youth with different intensities of service – and this impacts cost

A t

$5,470

Program A: Intensive services for the most at-risk youth (cost per youth)

38 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

$3,200

Average cost per youth for nonprofit X to serve ~1,100 youth

, $2,800 $1,600

~500 youth ~275 youth ~300 youth Program C: Light services for on- track youth to keep them on-track (cost per youth) Program B: Moderate services for struggling youth (cost per youth)

We learn that this contract is specifically for intensive services to youth most at-risk

$5,470

~300

$3,400 = ($2,070)

Deficit per youth DJJ funding per youth Average cost per Program A: Intensive services for highly at-risk youth (cost per youth)

39 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

$3,200 $2,800 $1,600

~500 youth ~275 youth 300 youth

This would result in $414K deficit And it gets worse...

g p youth for nonprofit X to serve ~1,100 youth Program C: Light services for on- track youth to keep them on-track (cost per youth) Program B: Moderate services for struggling youth (cost per youth)

SLIDE 14

6/28/2013 14

$580

These costs do not include indirect costs or new fixed investments

$5 470

May require new ‘fixed investments’ New senior manager to

versee 500 vs. 300 youth

program Need to cover portion of admin, mgmt costs Program A: Intensive services for highly at-risk youth (cost per youth)

40 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

$700 $340 $580 $3,200 $5,470 $2,800 $1,600

~500 youth ~275 youth ~300 youth % of senior leadership team’s time to oversee Costs such as additional IT, facilities, etc. not captured in ‘direct’ estimate Average cost per youth for nonprofit X to serve ~1,100 youth , g

(may go down with growth)

Other variable indirect costs not included in estimate Program C: Light services for on- track youth to keep them on-track (cost per youth) Program B: Moderate services for struggling youth (cost per youth)

So it gets worse…

$3,400

=

($2,650)

Deficit per youth DJJ funding per youth

$580 $5,470

~300 Average cost per th f fit Program A: Intensive services for highly at-risk youth (cost per youth)

41 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

This would result in $530K deficit $700 $340 $3,200 $2,800 $1,600

~500 youth ~275 youth youth youth for nonprofit X to serve ~1,100 youth Program C: Light services for on- track youth to keep them on-track (cost per youth) Program B: Moderate services for struggling youth (cost per youth)

$580

…Although it might get better (no promises)

$2 917 $3 400 = ($97)

Deficit per youth DJJ funding per youth

Hypothetical – Contract requires 15:1 staff ratio; this nonprofit provides Program A at 10:1 (and staff represent 80% of direct costs)

Program A: Intensive services for highly at-risk youth (cost per youth)

42 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

$700 $340 $580 $3,200 $2,917 $2,800 $1,600

~500 youth ~275 youth ~300 youth

$3,400 ($97) This would result in $49K deficit

Average cost per youth for nonprofit X to serve ~1,100 youth

However – does this

rg believe it can

achieve same results with higher ratio?

Program C: Light services for on- track youth to keep them on-track (cost per youth) Program B: Moderate services for struggling youth (cost per youth)

SLIDE 15

6/28/2013 15

Example/exercise: a high school youth org.

Organization Z in New Orleans Case Management Employment training Education

Math/English tutoring for in- school youth GED support for out of school youth

Program description

– Year-round, bi-weekly 1 hour sessions with youth-trained social worker to provide positive adult role model and support, including referral to internal and external programs and advocacy with

Program description

– A 3-month basic job skills training, internship, and job placement service for age 18+ participants who graduate high school or gain a GED and do not proceed to college

Program description
Program description

Advance to Referred to

EXAMPLE

43 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

4

programs, and advocacy with juvenile justice system if necessary – Case-load of 50 youth per case manager

Target participants

– 500 youth – Youth ages 14-18 living in Orleans parish – Youth come from families at or below 300% of poverty

Target outcomes

– Youth remain free from engagement with juvenile justice system – Youth get placed in education programming to complete high school, get GED college – Offered twice a year

Target participants

– 50 youth per session – Age 18+ – Requires they have a GED or high school diploma, and come through case management and education programming

Target outcomes

– Acquisition of a full-time job – Employed 90 days later – Employed 1 year later (may not be in same job)

Program description

– Weekly 2 hours of group tutoring in math by grade – Weekly 2 hours of group tutoring in English by grade

Target participants

– 250 youth, in school – Must be engaged in CM

Target outcomes

– Reading/math at grade-level,

n-time grade advancement

– Graduation from high school with a 3.0 GPA – Individualized Life Plan to seek post-secondary education or employment

Program description

– 2 hours a day, 3 days a week of GED test tutoring, in the afternoon/evening

Target participants

– 250 youth – Out of school, age 16+, must be engaged in CM

Target outcomes

– Acquisition of GED within 2 years – Individualized Life Plan to seek post-secondary education or employment

The actual analysis revealed the following

Organization Z in New Orleans Case Management Employment training Education

Math/English tutoring for in- school youth GED support for out of school youth

Program insights

– Average case-load actually 35, with variation from 30-70 – Only 50% of youth meeting bi- weekly

Actual participants
Program insights

– Full participation in basic job skills course – Only 25 slots currently available for internship per session

Actual participants
Program insights

O l 73% f th ti i t i

Program insights

85% f th ti i ti t Advance to Referred to

EXAMPLE

44 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

p p

– 555 youth being served, but only 70% from Orleans Parish – rest from Jefferson Parish, St. Charles Parish; no funding coming from those parishes to support programming – 95% of youth had engagement with juvenile justice system pre- engagement with Org Z – No tracking of economic status

Actual outcomes

– Only 35% of youth have additional involvement with juvenile justice system once they begin engagement with Org Z; Only 15%

f youth meeting bi-weekly get in

trouble – All youth referred to an education program

p p

– 50-75 youth per session – Only 70% are graduates of either education program

Actual outcomes

– 85% job placement rate by end of program – Participation in internship component does not influence likelihood of successful job placement – 90% remain in a job at 90 days – No data tracked/available for employment at 1 year – Only 73% of youth participate in both math AND English

Actual participants

– 280 youth, all in school – All youth referred by CM

Actual outcomes

– Youth participating in both math and English have 90% likelihood of graduating on time – Youth in just one only have 60% on-time grad. rate – 30% of youth drop-out, end up in GED program – ILP’s not tracked; grade advancement not tracked – 85% of youth participating at target dosage

Actual participants

– 250 youth – 70% youth referred by CM; 30% involved without being in CM system

Actual outcomes

– 90% receive a GED within 2 years – ILP’s actively tracked through a home-grown Microsoft Access-database created by staff

Only 80% of target Orleans Parish youth in CM actively participating in education program, even once referred

Activity discussion:

What observations do you have from this analysis?
What impact could actual performance be having on the cost

structure of this nonprofit, its pricing, its revenue, and on its funder relationships?

45 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

If you were the Executive Director of this nonprofit, what

would you explore further? What actions might you take that could influence cost? Performance?

SLIDE 16

6/28/2013 16

It is important to allocate the direct costs of staff...

Nam e of program s/ activities I n-Patient Program Out-Patient Program I n-Hom e Program After-School Program Total staff direct cost List of program - specific staff Salary plus benefits/ tax $ 207,000 $ 172,200 $ 325,110 $ 230,090 Check Director of IP $112 000 100% 100%

I LLUSTRATI VE

46 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Director of IP $112,000 100% 100% Director of OP $135,200 100% 100% Director of IH $155,000 100% 100% Director of AS $103,000 100% 100% Program associate 1 $65,000 60% 20% 20% 100% Program associate 2 $65,000 20% 80% 100% Program associate 3 $60,000 10% 40% 30% 20% 100% Tutor $36,900 100% 100% Family and child counselor $87,300 70% 30% 100% Consultant to IP program $50,000 100% 100% Consultant to IH program $65,000 100% 100%

…as well as non-staff direct costs

Nam e of program s/ activities I n-Patient Program Out-Patient Program I n-Hom e Program After-School Program Total non-staff direct cost List of program - specific staff Total expenses $ 1 0 6 ,2 00 $ 2 4 0 ,3 50 $ 1 0 7 ,6 50 $ 1 1 6 ,0 00 Check

I LLUSTRATI VE

47 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

spec c sta e pe ses $ 0 6 , 00 $ 4 0 ,3 50 $ ,6 50 $ 6 ,0 00 C ec Supplies $112,000 60% 20% 20% 100% Local site rent and utilities $135,200 50% 50% 100% Transportation $155,000 45% 55% 100% Consultants $103,000 100% 100% Food and miscellaneous $65,000 60% 40% 100%

There are three basic methods for allocating indirect costs…

Then allocate indirect costs, using drivers

48 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Flat across programs Proportional based on program size Based on specific program knowledge In practice, nonprofits use a combination of all three

SLIDE 17

6/28/2013 17

Finally, distinguish restricted from unrestricted funding

Not all revenue is created equal
Getting clear on which pieces come with strings attached is key

to understanding true financial picture

49 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

… is tied to utilization

n specific

programs … is given to the org. in general and offers maximum flexibility …is not restricted in the traditional sense but still face limitations Unrestricted funding Restricted funding Potential grey area

ILLUSTRATIVE

Bringing it all together: Here’s what one nonprofit knew before true cost analysis...

50 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

In-Patient Out-Patient In-Home After-School

Indirect costs Restricted revenue Unrestricted revenue Direct costs

…and here’s what they learned

ILLUSTRATIVE

51 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

In-Patient Out-Patient In-Home After-School

Direct costs Unrestricted revenue

SLIDE 18

6/28/2013 18

52 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Today’s agenda

Key trends in government and philanthropic funding
Managing and succeeding in tough times

53 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Understanding your costs and why it matters
Break
Dynamics of the Starvation Cycle and breaking out of it
Wrap up

Does any of this sound familiar?

“No administrative fees means that all money goes to local charities.”

Ad for donation drive

“Our organization has remained lean, allocating nearly 90% of revenue to direct service

54 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

nearly 90% of revenue to direct service programs...”

Large multi-service organization in CA

“100% of your donation will go towards programs that help children; 0% will go to overhead.”

Large health services organization

SLIDE 19

6/28/2013 19

What about this?

“The 10% figure is totally unrealistic…”

Executive Director

“We’re having to raise pools of general support to pay for our real overhead

55 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

“13% overhead doesn’t nearly capture the reality of

ur administrative costs.”
Nonprofit COO

pp p y costs.”

Board Chair

But Wait!

56 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG Adam E. Moreira, Wikimedia Commons Gallery

We don’t judge companies on their overhead

40% 50%

Average for service industry = 34% Sales, General & Administrative Expense as % of Total Sales

57 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

10% 20% 30%

Source: Compustat; Standard & Poor’s Global Industry Classification Standard Structure

Software and services Health care equipment and services Communications services Consumer services

SLIDE 20

6/28/2013 20

How does this play out for nonprofits?

“Marc Nonprofit” “Ann Funder”

58 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

“No more than 10%

f these funds can be

used for non-program expenses.” Pressure to conform → Under-report + Under-invest The Nonprofit Starvation Cycle

59 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Pressure on nonprofits to conform

“The Starvation Cycle”

More than half of donors expect nonprofits to spend less than 20% on overhead

20 30% Percent you expect spent on programs 30% 25% 22%

60 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

10 > 80% At least 80% At least 70% At least 60% 8% At least 50% 12% Don't know 3%

Source: BBB Wise Giving Alliance Donor Expectations Survey, 2001; case study interviews

SLIDE 21

6/28/2013 21

Donors consider overhead rate more important than program effectiveness

61 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

80% of foundations said they did not include enough

62 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

include enough

verhead to

cover the cost of reporting.

Government contracts limit overhead

“[Government funder X’s] rate is woefully

inadequate. We report our finances to

comply with the grant, then look elsewhere to bridge the huge funding gap that this grant creates.”

63 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG Source: Case study interviews

SLIDE 22

6/28/2013 22

Nonprofits feel pressure to limit overhead

“Do you feel pressures from ____ to limit

verhead, fundraising or admin expenses?

“20% overhead is the industry norm. It doesn’t capture the way we think about and manage overhead…”

64 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

“We found that a peer

rganization allocates

70% of their finance director’s time to

programs. That’s

preposterous.”

Many nonprofits underreport true overhead “Analysis of over 220,000 Forms 990 found widespread reporting that defies plausibility.”

37%

65 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

37%

Percent of nonprofits reporting ZERO fundraising expenses on their IRS form 990 Actual overhead often differs from reported

66 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Org 1 Org 2 Org 3 Org 4

SLIDE 23

6/28/2013 23

These differences aren’t surprising given:

Lack of accountability and standards for nonprofit reporting
Lack of infrastructure and systems

67 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Tacit “support” of misleading reporting by multiple players
Lack of consequences for misreporting

Under-investment hampers impact

68 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

The Nonprofit Starvation Cycle

69 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Pressure on nonprofits to conform

“The Starvation Cycle”

SLIDE 24

6/28/2013 24

Where is your organization?

(A) Highlight us (B) Equip us (C) Convince us (D) Convert us We’re able and We’re willing to We’re able to report We’re not able or

70 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

willing to report on full costs report on full costs but not able

n full costs but not

willing willing to report on full costs

Framework courtesy of Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (GEO)

Nonprofit leaders, know thy costs

It’s impossible to know if you are misreporting or under-

investing without clarity on your true costs

This IS about having clarity, within your management team,
n where your money is going and what trade-offs you are

making (explicitly or implicitly)

71 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

g ( p y p y)

This is NOT the same as reporting

your functional “pie” on your 990

r in your annual report

Ending the cycle: It starts with funders

Shift to a focus on outcomes
Be honest about what it takes to achieve outcomes
Provide general operating support

72 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Provide general operating support
Pay a fair share of overhead when making program grants

SLIDE 25

6/28/2013 25

Ending the cycle: Nonprofits also must act

Share real overhead with the board
Share real overhead with funders
Ask “Where are we under-investing?"

73 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Ask Where are we under-investing?
Educate donors on critical importance of overhead

Small Group Discussion

How much does the Starvation Cycle affect the Legal

Aid Field?

Today?
In the future?

74 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

In the future?

What do you see as the biggest challenges and
pportunities for your organization?

Additional resources

For Nonprofits For Funders

75 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

SLIDE 26

6/28/2013 26

Today’s agenda

Key trends in government and philanthropic funding
Managing and succeeding in tough times

76 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Understanding your costs and why it matters
Break
Dynamics of the Starvation Cycle and breaking out of it
Wrap up

Thank you!

To sign up for our newsletters, alerts, Twitter posts, or RSS feeds, visit:

www.bridgespan.org/subscriptions

77 130717-MI E Conference TBG pres ... TBG

Marc.Rahlves@Bridgespan.org