What's Your Non-Profit's Bottom Line?

From Guest Blogger Nick Cooney. Nick is the author of "Change Of Heart: What Psychology Can Teach Us About Spreading Social Change" (www.ChangeOfHeartBook.com), and the founder and director of The Humane League, an animal advocacy organization based in Philadelphia, PA.

Is your non-profit succeeding in its mission? How can you tell?

Large for–profit corporations spend millions of dollars each year gathering data to compare the success of different approaches in advertising, audience targeting and product offerings. The success (or failure) of each is measured by the impact it has on the company's bottom line. Imagine what would happen to businesses if, instead of using a bottom line to analyze their success, they used the type of information commonly cited by non-profits:  anecdotal evidence, raw output and how much they cared.

Dear Pepsi Shareholders,    

This has been a very successful year for us indeed! We know Pepsi is the best cola out there, and we are 100% committed to getting the whole world to realize it too! Our achievements this year included a $50,000 awareness-raising advertising campaign on buses, billboards, and in magazines. These eye-opening ads highlighted our higher sugar content (yum!), attractive bottle design, and our Pepsi Generation credibility. We also launched "PepsiKids2.0," an online social forum where youth can get together and let each other know why they're committed to drinking Pepsi. Enclosed is a picture of Bobby Withers, an 8 year-old boy that had been drinking Coca-Cola his whole life. Now, he and his mom are buying a 12 pack of Pepsi each week! With your support, Pepsi is helping to create the world we all wish to see: a world where everyone drinks Pepsi.

As laughable as such a letter would sound coming from a large corporation, for many non-profits this type of analysis represents the farthest they’ve gone in measuring their impact. And it's not just small non-profits that have failed to take a bottom-line approach to their work. A study of one hundred and fifty-five major foundations (each with over one hundred million dollars in assets) found that only eight percent could describe the specific types of information or data that led them to believe they were likely to achieve some of their goals. The study, conducted by the Center for Effective Philanthropy, found that instead of hard data most foundations used anecdotal evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of their programs. Only thirty-nine percent used any tools or indicators whatsoever in assessing even a portion of their work, with even less (twenty-six percent) using indicators or tools to assess all of their work.

Anecdotes and reports of our non-profit's raw output can’t give us clear insight into how much good we've done. Even worse, they provide no guidance on how to be more successful in the future.  Setting a bottom line enables us to quantify the amount of good we’re doing now and compare it to the amount of good we could be doing by using other methods, messages, or strategies. Without a bottom line (and gathering data to see the impacts our different decisions have on that bottom line), we'll be relying on assumptions and guesswork when assessing our accomplishments and deciding what to do next.

What exactly is the bottom line for non-profit organizations? Generally speaking, it is the amount of good that we have created in the world. Our bottom line should be the number of people (or animals, or portions of the environment) whose lives we've impacted.

A sound bottom line for a family planning organization would be the number of unwanted pregnancies they had prevented that year. "This year our non-profit reduced the teen pregnancy rate at Northeast High School by 10%." A follow-up question would be, "Which one of our programs contributed the most to that drop: distributing free condoms; in-class presentations about the importance of contraception; or hanging posters around the school encouraging students to make all sex safe sex.

A sound bottom line for an environmental organization would be the amount of harm they've prevented from happening to the environment. "This year our non-profit prevented 100 tons of greenhouse gas emissions; how can we increase that amount next year?" Follow up questions would be "Which of our programs contributed most to those greenhouse gas emissions: encouraging the public to carpool to work, or encouraging home owners to reduce their electric use? And how much money did we spend per ton of greenhouse gas emissions savings with each of those two programs?"

The Jameel Poverty Action Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has applied a bottom-line focus to analyzing poverty-reduction and public health efforts around the world. Founded by M.I.T. economist Esther Duflo, J-PAL’s mission is to conduct randomized trials of aid projects to see which are successful and which aren’t. Much like clinical drug testing, J-PAL researchers create both a test group for a particular project and a control group and then analyze what impact the project had. 

For example, in trying to prevent the spread of malaria is it more effective to give away bed nets (which protect people from malaria-carrying mosquitoes) or to sell them at a low price under the assumption that a person is more likely to use a net if they had to purchase it themselves? To find out researchers divided a segment of Kenya’s population into two groups, giving away free nets to the first group and selling the nets at low cost to the second group. Researchers then tracked how many of the nets were put to use and how they impacted the spread of malaria in each of the two groups. The result:  free nets did more to combat the spread of malaria than low-cost nets, at least in Kenya.

J-PAL’s scientific analysis on the effectiveness of different aid programs should serve as a model for advocacy organizations. Any non-profit serious about creating change should be collecting data on how effective their programs are (and whether they’re effective at all), and basing all decisions around their bottom line. Heartwarming anecdotes and emotional appeals are perfect when soliciting donations, but a by-the-numbers analysis is what's needed to make sure we're putting those donations to good use.

For more on the role that research can play in helping non-profits succeed, visit www.ChangeOfHeartBook.com.

Can non-profit organizations meet all the needs for-profit businesses currently meet?

I just came across an interesting blog post by Stephen Monrad with title of "Can non-profit organizations meet all the needs for-profit businesses currently meet?" His conclusion is that "If a non-profit organization wanted to produce toothbrushes, there is no reason in principle that it couldn't."

I found it to be an interesting post. What follows is the comment that I left on the blog:

In the original post you say that there "is no reason that I could find that they need to limit their work to charitable or social goals." Well, actually, there is... In the U.S., at least, nonprofits receive their tax-exempt status - 501(c)(3) - from the IRS. The application requires a statement of the organization's charitable, educational, or social goals or mission. Presumably, the IRS reviews that before approving the application... presumably...

But, that doesn't mean that a nonprofit couldn't manufacture toothbrushes. If, somehow, the production of toiletries were related to the charitable purpose. For example, I'm aware of a catering company that is a tax-exempt nonprofit. The nonprofit's mission is to train at-risk populations in how to work in the food industry. New cooks enter the program, are trained, work real catering gigs, and then graduate to make room for the next group of new cooks.

To the clients hiring them for parties, they're just like any other caterer, but to the IRS it's a legitimate social enterprise providing educational assistance. I don't know how to translate that story to making toothbrushes, but you get the point.

A nonprofit can also run a for-profit business. A typical example would be a thrift shop set up to support a social cause. In this case, the IRS sees the profit from that enterprise as "Unrelated Business Income." The nonprofit does pay taxes on that portion of their income, but as long as it doesn't become their primary activity, it doesn't endanger their tax-exempt status for the charitable work.

In one of the comments, Clyde writes, "... Losses are a definite probability, but profit is a no-no, by definition." You'd think so, but "nonprofit" is really a misnomer. Nonprofits can (and, in good years, should) earn more than they spend in order to build reserves for lean years (such as we're now experiencing). What nonprofits are barred from doing is distributing that profit to the Board or principals as dividends. Profit is wonderful, as long as it is re-invested into the charitable mission.

Anyway, thanks for this post - It's an interesting conversation.

Assymetry versus Strategic Funding

My friend, Tom, over at the True Talk Blog, has an interesting post called "Asymmetry is the New Black." The concept of asymmetry explains how small, start-up companies or organizations can effectively compete and steal marketshare from larger, established ones. Tom sees asymmetry in action in everything from YouTube to the blogging movement to the Iraqi insurgency.

Tom explains it like this:

Asymmetrical competitors use size (small), speed (fast), and thinking (innovative) to more than compensate for their relative lack of resources. This brand of competition is enabled by today's technology, which dramatically reduces the barriers to entry.

As I wrote in my comment on Tom's blog, I love the concept that being small and agile is a competitive advantage in the corporate world. It's a very exciting and inspiring idea.

Unfortunately, in the nonprofit world, we tend to be behind the curve in these types of trends. Right now it's seems that we're all witnessing contraction and mergers.

This is at least partly the result of funders getting more "strategic" with their dollars (ie: fewer, larger grants to established organizations, rather than many smaller grants to a variety of organizations).

While nonprofits look to joining forces with each other to achieve some sort of efficiency, what are we losing? Does our growth destroy the competitive edge we had in achieving our missions? I'm afraid that may well be the case in some of this.

So, how do we communicate this to funders? We've got to let them know that small is beautiful!

Tom says that, "The only option for established market leaders? Get small, get fast, get smart. Now." Isn't it an irony that as the corporate world adopts this ideology, we're being told to do the opposite?

Does your nonprofit organization employ a**holes?

Warner Business Books will shortly be releasing a new book that will is destined to be a business classic, if only for its title: The No Asshole Rule - Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't, by Stanford Professor Robert I. Sutton.

Beyond the catchy title (that I'm sure just about everybody who's ever had a job can relate to), Sutton actually does have something to say about the toxic effect of a**holes on the workplace:

Assholes have devastating cumulative effects partly because nasty interactions have a far bigger impact on our moods than positive interactions - five times the punch, according to recent research. ... These findings help explain why demeaning acts are so devastating. It takes numerous encounters with positive people to offset the energy and happiness sapped by a single episode with one asshole.

There are also, according to Sutton, degrees of a**hole activity. We all may be guilty of occasional bad moods leading to "temporary a**hole" status. And then, there are those who qualify as "certified a**holes."

While the book is written about the for-profit business world, it can almost certainly be applied to the nonprofit world as well. Some of you may be thinking, "No, not in the nonprofit world! We're all good and pure!"

Well, unfortunately, my experience tells me that while that may be true than in other sectors of the economy, the nonprofit sector is not immune from the destructive nature of a**holes in the workplace.

The difference may be that in the "heartless business world" managers may be quicker to deal with potential a**holes in the making, while we nonprofit folks may be more forgiving, and not have the heart to fire somebody who really needs it.

So, remember, it's not just because you don't like the a**hole in question. You have to fire this person because they are toxic to your organization, they diminish productivity, and that is hazardous to your mission.

Read more about the book, and Don Griesmann's full review, at CharityChannel.com