First published Philanthropy Monthly, September, 1983
Why does a not-for-profit organization issue financial statements, or submit financial reports to federal and state governments?
One important reason is that the reports, whether issued by the organization or mandated by law, provide access to information that donors and potential donors need to make rational decisions as to whether or not to support the organizations.1
At present, accountants, federal and state charity regulators, leaders of not-for-profit organizations, donors representatives, and others are engaged in discussions of whether certain information should be included in such statements and reports--and, if so, how.
The discussions deal with such matters as how not-for-profit organizations should report the receipt of certain types of gifts, how they should allocate expenses of multipurpose activities, what they should include in the category of "available assets."
The discussions are taking place now partly because generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) as applied to not-for-profit organizations vary considerably. There are four systems of accounting: for colleges and universities, for hospitals, for health and welfare organizations, and for other not-for-profit groups.
The federal-state Form 990 (and state supplements), however, must be completed by almost all not-for-profit organizations. Therefore, discussions often focus on the rules for reporting specific line items on Form 990 and supplements. In particular, discussions have dealt with items that relate to the organizations to which contributions are tax deductible (hereinafter called "charities").
This article will suggest that:
In this article, we will consider:
This discussion will be based on the assumption that a general-purpose financial report, or a federal-state financial report filed by a charity, need not contain in clearly labeled form all the information required for donor decision-making. But it would seem reasonable to expect that such reports should contain all the elements from which donors and others can compile the information they want and need.
This information, to be relevant and reliable, should be comparable. That is, the figures should be prepared in such a way that one organization's performance can be compared with that of a similar organization if the user wishes to do so. Since evaluation methods differ, the user, or evaluator, should be able to find, and compile according to the method he or she uses, the needed figures.
Unfortunately, as Table 1 shows, the first two questions are the most important--and the hardest to answer directly. There are no generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for reporting service efforts and accomplishments.
The federal-state Form 990 asks that accomplishments and related costs be reported in Part III. Data obtained from Part III, however, vary greatly in relevance and reliability.
For example, donors may look at Part III and find how many drug addicts an agency tried to rehabilitate. But the donor will look in vain to find what percentage of those served were permanently rehabilitated and what proportion of the community's addicts were served. Chances are the information is not available to the reporting agency itself.
The same sort of problem arises in many other attempts to evaluate program effectiveness. Without information on effectiveness, evaluation of program efficiency is meaningless. True, many organizations can report reliable information about the outputs of their programs, e.g., the number of persons counseled, the number of patients treated, the number of publications issued. But the figures do not tell the length of the counseling sessions, the variety and complexity of the illnesses treated, or the distribution and use of the publications. In other words, one agency's figures will not be comparable to another's.
Obviously, some information can be obtained from such figures. A very low number of outputs and a high program cost would cause donors to wonder (provided the donors had any idea of what "low" and "high" might be in this case). A further inquiry might reveal whether or not the high unit cost was justified.
Nevertheless, financial reports today do not contain the kind of information needed to provide satisfactory answers to Questions 1 and 2.
Why, then, are financial reports useful to donors who are concerned with something more than the financial viability of a human-service organization?
Because the answers to Questions 3 through 6 can be obtained from financial reports, provided the reports contain enough detail. The details needed, and methods of presenting the figures, are described later in this article. Reliable, comparable information that answers the four questions, 3 through 6, provides indirect but useful evidence of the organization's level of program efficiency and probable program effectiveness.
NIB compiles data from Form 990 and other sources to provide donors with such information--the most relevant available in the present state of the art. For example, in evaluating an organization, NIB compares program costs to available support, revenue, program and fund-raising costs to available contributions, and total expenses to available assets. NIB shows the relationship of one figure to another by expressing it as a ratio.
NIB has found that four financial ratios can provide some meaningful answers to Questions 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Question 3 asks: What portion of my gift might be used for program?
An answer to that question can be found by dividing Program Expense (Line 13 of Form 990) by Total Support/Revenue (Line 12).
The amount reported for Program Expense depends, however, on how the organization allocates certain expenses. In particular, it depends on how the organization allocates the costs of multipurpose programs that include fund raising as one of their purposes. (The accounting issues related to this and other ratios are discussed in the next section of this article.)
NIB states it believes a charitable organization should spend at least 60% of its available support/revenue for program. In special circumstances exceptions may be made. Others may find a different ratio acceptable or may have different definitions of the figures that should be included in the ratio.
The rules NIB follows in calculating the ratio are described on pages 20 and 21 of NIB Standards in Philanthropy and in Table 3 accompanying this article.
Question 4 asks: What portion of my gift might be used for fund raising?
The answer can be found by dividing Fund-Raising costs (Line 15, Form 990) by related Contributions (Lines 1a through 1d, Form 990).
NIB believes that, except in special circumstances, the cost of fund raising should be no more than 30% of funds raised--and, in many cases, less. (See pages 0 9 and 20, NIB Standards in Philanthropy.)
Question 5 asks: What portion of my gift might be used for management and general?
For the answer, divide Management and General expenses (Line 14, Form 990) by Total Expenses (Line 17).
NIB suggests this ratio should usually be no more than 15 or 20 percent. (See page 21 of NIB Standards in Philanthropy.)
Question 6 asks: Does the organization really need my contribution? (Or does it have enough available assets to do its job without my help?)
For an overall answer to this question, divide Total Expense (Line 17) by Available Assets (Line 74 less lines 68 and 69).
NIB believes "it is not unreasonable to build such available assets to approximately 100% of an agency's most recent annual expenses or its budgeted expenses for the next year." (See pages 17 and 18, NIB Standards in Philanthropy.)
Discussions among accountants, government regulators, not-for-profit organizations' managers, and donors have dealt primarily with rules for completing specific line items on Form 990. There has been relatively little discussion centered on the kinds of questions to which donors need answers and the usefulness of the figures in enabling donors to arrive at rational decisions. Yet it is likely that, if donors can obtain what they need to know, other users of Form 990, its supplements, and general-purpose financial reports, would be able to find what they want and need to know also.
Only seven financial figures are needed for the ratios that express the relationships between a charity's various functional activities and their costs. These figures appear in general-purpose financial reports and in Form 990. As noted above, the figures cover:
For reliable and comparable public disclosure, each figure must be arrived at by the reporting organization according to the same rules. At present, this is not always the case. Here are the problems:
Some accounting literature presents generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) that are more general. Thus a charitable organization may make significant departures from the method of expense allocation prescribed by the Black Book. It may then have significantly different ratios of contributions to fund-raising costs, or program expense to total expense. Yet it may still receive an unqualified auditor's opinion on its financial statements in accordance with one set of GAAP.
Perhaps the most troublesome figures, from the standpoint of many regulators and donors or donor-service organizations such as NIB, are those that include costs of multipurpose activities. In particular, the costs of activities that involve both program services and an appeal for funds may be distributed in at least two ways, depending on the GAAP being followed by the reporting organization.
Non-expendable contributions, related fund-raising costs, and non-expendable assets are not usually included in the computation of any of the four ratios. Classifying board-designated funds or L, B & E funds as non-expendable can significantly reduce the ratio of total expenses to available assets. Depending on circumstances, the other ratios may be changed by including or not including funds as expendable or non-expendable. Such classifications are not permitted by GAAP, however.
The diversity in generally accepted accounting principles is perhaps a reflection of the diversity of individuals and groups that use charities' financial reports. They include, but are not limited to: individual donors; grantmakers for corporations, foundations, and government; allocations committees of federated organizations such as the United Ways; other resource providers; trustees and managers of charities; federal, state, and local charity regulators; analysts for "watchdog" agencies; reporters and writers.
Each of these users makes some sort of evaluative decision on the basis of the financial report. Each user may have his or her own ideas as to what should be included under such headings as "contributions" or "available assets"--perhaps depending on the GAAP with which the user is most familiar.
As evaluators, the users may find the four ratios helpful. Many do. Yet they may still want to select the method of compiling the ratios' numerators and denominators that most appeals to them.
The objective of those who are trying to resolve the six accounting issues described above is to reach a consensus on a single set of rules to determine what should be included or excluded from each element or line item. In view of the varied--and sometimes conflicting--approaches of the participants, however, consensus may be impossible to reach.
It might be more feasible--and just as useful--to agree on the sub-elements of information that must be made available to all evaluators.
This could be done no matter what GAAP may be finally agreed on for the seven basic financial figures: contributions, total support/revenue, program expense, management and general expense, fund-raising costs, total expenses, and available assets. All organizations that prepare general-purpose financial reports or file Form 990 must have the sub-elements in their records so they can combine them in the seven basic figures. Thus there should be no inherent difficulty in preparing uniform and easily understood supplemental notes and schedules that disclose the sub-elements from which the GAAP figures have been compiled.
Table 2 lists the sub-elements that should be disclosed.
Table 3 shows the various ways in which the sub-elements may be compiled by donors and others for inclusion in their ratios.
These supporters are primarily interested in the organizations' effectiveness and efficiency, and only secondarily in their financial strength or fund-raising.
Since no reliable method of directly evaluating programs effectiveness and efficiency has yet been developed, supporters must seek the answers to their questions by an indirect approach, using data that can be reasonably reliable and comparable.
With the data, ratios showing the relationship of one set of figures to another can be prepared and used in evaluating the activities to which the ratios refer.
Unfortunately, there is considerable disagreement as to how certain figures in financial reports should be compiled to arrive at the seven elements used in the evaluative ratios.
Differences in compilation methods can markedly affect the size of (and therefore the implications to be drawn from) the ratios.
This article therefore recommends that, regardless of the method of compilation, all sub-elements used in compiling the seven elements be disclosed in general-purpose financial reports and in Form 990.
Donors and other interested persons will thus have the information they need to make their own analyses and evaluations.
1 Those who make decisions about allocating resources to nonbusiness organizations include both (a) lenders, suppliers, employees, and the like who expect repayment or other direct pecuniary compensation from an entity and have essentially the same interest in and make essentially the same kinds of decisions about an entity whether it is a nonbusiness organization or a business enterprise and (b) members, contributors (donors, grantors), taxpayers, and the like who provide resources to nonbusiness organizations for reasons other than expectations of direct and proportionate pecuniary compensation. Financial Accounting Standards Board Concepts Statement 4, pars. 15-19, 29.
| QUESTIONS DONORS ASK (*) | RATIOS (ANSWERS) | ACCOUNTING ISSUES |
|---|---|---|
| Q. 1: How effective is the organization in carrying out its mission?
Q. 2: How efficient are the organization's program services? |
General purpose financial reporting does not provide answers to these questions. (However, see Part III of IRS Form 990.) | At this time there are no generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for reporting service efforts and accomplishments. |
| IN THE ABSENCE OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 1 & 2 QUESTIONS 3 TO 6 BECOME EVEN MORE IMPORTANT AND RELEVANT INDICATORS OF ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE. | ||
| What portion of my gift might be used: | ||
| Q. 3: For program? | RATIO NO. 1:
Program Expense(13)** |
Cost Allocation
Donated Services Special Events Revenue Recognition Expendable Versus Non-expendable Long Term Grants, Etc. |
| Q. 4. For fundraising? | RATIO NO. 2:
Fund-raising Costs (15) |
|
| Q. 5: For management and general? | RATIO NO. 3:
Management and Gen. (14) |
|
| Q. 6: Does the organization really need my contribution? (Or does it have enough available assets to do its job without my help?) | RATIO NO. 4:
Total Expenses(17) |
|
(*) General purpose questions about an organization's performance that donors seek answers to when they conduct evaluations and make gift decisions.
** IRS Form 990 line numbers are in parenthesis.
NOTE: The reliability and comparability of all Form 990 figures depend on how well the preparer followed the IRS and state reporting instructions, the departures they may have made and any special circumstances that may exist.
(*) NIB also includes these ratios in its reports on organizations along with the ratio based on figures as they appear in the audited financial statements.
Wilson
C. Levis was formerly Program Director, Education and Agency Relations, National Information Bureau, New YorkCopyright, Wilson C. Levis
Return to Fundraising Productivity Series Home Page