USING DATA ANALYTICS TO DRIVE MISSION &
OUTCOMES: A CASE STUDY
Presented by:
DAVID PADDISON, MBA, CHFP
CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC.
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
“
The coming years will no doubt see the continued growth in data-driven nonprofits and social businesses, operating in an environment that increasingly seeks and even demands evidence of
impact.
Stanford Social Innovation Review, Summer 2016
ABOUT ME…
Dave Paddison, EVP of Analytics & Data Strategies
15 years of executive experience in
nonprofit/social services, mostly finance, technology & admin roles
Focused on metrics, dashboards & analytics
Passion for data-driven performance management
Anything worth doing is worth doing better!
WHAT WE’RE GOING TO COVER…
The Changing Nonprofit Industry
Becoming Data-Driven
Implementing an Analytics Program
Case Study: Catholic Charities of Phoenix
Wrap-Up and Q&A
THE CHANGING NONPROFIT INDUSTRY
External Expectations are Changing
Focus on Return on Investment (ROI)
▪ Stakeholder social ROI
Social Investment & Collective Impact
▪ Are resources allocated to highest SROI?
Evidenced-Based Funding
▪ Evidence of Efficacy
THE CHANGING NONPROFIT INDUSTRY
New Generation of Leadership
Increasing number of Senior Executives
& Board Members from for-profit world.
Mobile technology as preferred channel of consuming information.
Increasingly focused on EFFECTS rather than EFFORTS.
THE CHANGING NONPROFIT INDUSTRY
The Proliferation of Data
90% of all the world’s data has been created in last two years
Global Internet traffic
▪ 1992 = 100 GB per day
▪ 2018 = 50,000 GB per second
By 2020 - 50 billion smart connected devices around the world
Only 0.5% of all of the data is analyzed – think about the potential.
THE CHANGING NONPROFIT INDUSTRY
Confluence of Factors
External Expectations
▪ Social ROI
▪ Impact Investing
▪ Evidence-Based Funding
New Generation of Leadership
Proliferation of Data
THE CHANGING NONPROFIT INDUSTRY
DATA-DRIVEN
QUALITY OUTCOMES EFFICIENT DELIVERY
EVIDENCE-BASED
PROGRAM EFFICACY
The Value Proposition
The goal of any nonprofit organization should be to maximize the value it provides to ALL STAKEHOLDERS.
THE CHANGING NONPROFIT INDUSTRY
BECOMING DATA-DRIVEN
The Three-Legged Stool
Implementing an effective analytics program requires three things:
1. TOOLS … Technology & Data Infrastructure
2. PROCESSES … Facilitate Decisions
3. CULTURE … Leadership Buy-In
BECOMING DATA-DRIVEN
Adopting a Data-Driven Culture
Starts at the top (executive team or board)
Focus on maximizing STAKEHOLDER VALUE.
IMPLEMENTATION does not equal ADOPTION!
Leadership must promote an environment of MULTI-DIRECTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
BECOMING DATA-DRIVEN
Implementing an Analytics Project
Must be collaborative (value proposition)
Define success for your organization
Start with the end in mind
Utilize Agile Development (The Lean Start-Up, Eric Reis)
Start small and scale up
BECOMING DATA-DRIVEN
IMPLEMENTATION METHODOLOGY
Eight Steps to Successful Analytics
1. Establish Independent Analytics Team.
2. Develop an Assessment Questionnaire.
3. Conduct Collaborative Meetings.
4. Determine Accessibility to Data.
5. Build the Data Model & Visualization.
6. Launch the Analytics MVP – quickly!
7. Collect Regular Feedback.
8. Make Frequent Revisions.
IMPLEMENTATION METHODOLOGY
Eight Steps to Successful Analytics
1. Establish an independent analytics team.
Natural analysts or tech-savvy folks; not just IT staff; should include Performance Quality Improvement (PQI) staff
2. Develop an Assessment Questionnaire. Do not focus on what data you have, focus on what you want to measure!
IMPLEMENTATION METHODOLOGY
Eight Steps to Successful Analytics
3. Collaborative Meetings. Analytics team
meets with program/department to define unique “success measures” and assess data needs (complete the assessment).
4. Determine Data Accessibility. Given the defined metrics, determine where/how to obtain the required data (may require
changes to the data process)
IMPLEMENTATION METHODOLOGY
Eight Steps to Successful Analytics
5. Build the Data Model & Visualization. Data model merges (“normalizes”) disparate data and creates a foundation upon which the
data visualizations can be built & published.
6. Launch the Analytics Minimally Viable
Product (MVP). Pick a “go live” date and push out an MVP as quickly as possible.
IMPLEMENTATION METHODOLOGY
Eight Steps to Successful Analytics
7. Collect Feedback. Depending on the frequency of publishing the
reports/visualizations, meet with
program/department and obtain feedback on the good, bad & ugly.
8. Make Frequent Revisions. As quickly as
feedback is provided, make revisions to the visualizations (take consistency into
consideration when making revisions).
IMPLEMENTATION METHODOLOGY
Potential Barriers to Analytics Team
Culture change is always difficult. Evaluation, metrics and accountability are scary concepts, particularly in organizations where it didn’t
previously exist.
Resources – time, skills, funds, etc.
Disparate & legacy systems can make data collection and accessibility difficult (may not be collecting data you need)
IMPLEMENTATION METHODOLOGY
CASE STUDY: Catholic Charities Community Services
History and Background of CCCS
Started in 1933 as a child welfare agency but have grown significantly over 84 years to
include 22 programs in 7 counties in Northern AZ, touching over 100,000 lives.
$35MM budget (2018) comprised primarily of cost reimbursement federal grants/contracts (HS/EHS, Immigration/Refugee).
450+ employees across the 7 counties (mostly in Maricopa).
CASE STUDY: CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES
Transition of Leadership
New executive leadership in 2014 (CEO, CFO, VP Fundraising)
CFO focused first 3 years rebuilding infrastructure (Accounting, Financial Reporting & HR).
CEO focused on reshaping the culture of the
organization and improving communications with staff and community.
Great deal of foundational work done; we are now planning for growth & high-impact service.
CASE STUDY: CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES
The Outlook of Leadership
Adapt to the changing nonprofit environment.
Focus on maximizing COMMUNITY IMPACT.
Using data to inform and guide our future
decisions to meet the changing expectations of ALL of our stakeholders.
Analytics & data are such a strategic focus of ours, we did not want it to simply be a
“component” of a functional area, but a foundational element of our future.
CASE STUDY: CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES
The Outlook of Leadership
We created a department dedicated solely to ANALYTICS & DATA STRATEGY.
This combined several functions: IT, Business Systems, PQI and financial reporting.
Goal of ADS is to maximize the analytics value chain:
CASE STUDY: CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES
Our First Analytics Project
MANA House is a 49-bed Veterans Transitional Housing facility funded through the VA GPD program.
Chose the program because:
❖ Capital needs to build a new facility (donors, city, county, etc.)
❖ Limited external requirements, mostly internal needs for metrics
❖ Small scope of data accessibility (data sources)
Goal for the project: Create an MVP dashboard that pulled operational and financial data together to create insight into performance.
CASE STUDY: CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES
Our First Analytics Project
CASE STUDY: CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES
IMPLEMENTATION METHODOLGY & TIMELINE
Establish Analytics Team ADS department (NOV’16)
Develop an Assessment Questionnaire Simple guiding document (DEC’16)
Conduct Collaborative Meetings Focused on outcomes & metrics (DEC’16) Determine Accessibility to Data System: HMIS, GP, Excel (JAN-FEB’17) Build the Data Model & Visualization Sourced data & built model (MAR-APR’17) Launch the Analytics MVP Met with program & launched (MAY’17)
Collect Regular Feedback Publish dashboard on monthly basis (Ongoing)
Make Frequent Revisions At least 6 revisions to date (Ongoing)
Our First Analytics Project
Assessment Questionnaire focused on FOUR areas:
1. Required Metrics (grant reporting, billing, compliance, etc.)
2. Voluntary Metrics (currently being tracked/measured)
3. Insight Metrics (what do you want to know)
4. Impact Metrics (measure the impact on the mission)
CASE STUDY: CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES
Our First Analytics Project
The Tools We Used…
❖ Simplified data sourcing using MS Excel (program
& financial data) and “data dumps” in flat-file CSV format (HMIS).
❖ Combined the data (manual entry) into one basic data set. Minimal data so we did our data
transformation in Excel.
❖ MS Power BI to build our data model and visualizations from the collected data set.
CASE STUDY: CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES
MANA House Dashboard Report
MANA House – Our Analytics MVP
CASE STUDY: CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES
Dashboard shows we are have a net surplus, but WHY?
WHY do we have so much in LOST REVNUE (3.8%)?
WHY was there such a HUGE increase in expenses in April?
WHY are our NEGATIVE EXITS so high? What is our TARGET?
WHY is employee turnover so
high over past 12 months?
MANA House – Our Analytics MVP
CASE STUDY: CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES
Our GPD contract does not cover our costs (89.6%).
Our surplus is due
exclusively to fundraising.
Lost revenue is highest in Dec/Jan, which makes sense.
Big increase in April was due
to LABOR COST, but what?
MANA House – Our Analytics MVP
CASE STUDY: CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES
Highest discharges in
DEC/JAN which makes sense.
But in DEC, 5 were discharged to Perm Housing & 8 to OTHER
We are meeting our goal of under 23% negative discharge…
File compliance is our internal measure to ensure quality
…But we are missing on both
Perm.Housing & Employment
Analytics Projects – Other Examples
CASE STUDY: CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES
Workers Compensation Analytics Employee Survey
Executive Financial Dashboard
Analytics Team – Next Projects
CASE STUDY: CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES
Rolling-out program dashboards to each of our 22 programs over the next 12 months (build-measure- learn)
After roll-out, we build the impact management decision processes.
Head Start Analytics Project – coincides with new Performance Standards issued by OHS
Philanthropy Analytics Project – deep-dive analysis of
our donor database and predictive analytics to increase
fundraising
References & Information
Data-Driven Nonprofits – Steve MacLaughlin
Creating A Data-Driven Organization – Carl Anderson
Fundraising Analytics - Joshua M. Birkholz
The Lean Start-Up – Eric Reis
Stanford Social Innovation Review – ssir.org
Microsoft Power BI – powerbi.com Questions or Comments?
Dave Paddison, MBA, CHFP
[email protected]
O: 480.369.7003 C: 602.882.7348
LIQUIDITY Needs Monitoring CAPITALIZATION Needs Monitoring PERFORMANCE Needs Monitoring EFFICIENCY Needs Monitoring
LIQUIDITY CAPITALIZATION PERFORMANCE & EFFICIENCY
Days Cash on Hand Unrestricted Net Assets ($000) VARIANCE ANALYSIS **
4Q Trend YOY Trend 4Q Trend YOY Trend Grants & Contributions
Gov. Funding Program Fees TTL REVENUE:
Labor Expenses Non‐Labor Costs TTL EXPENSES:
CHG in UNA
** Eliminates intercompany revenue & expenses Cash Balances ($000) Debt‐to‐Net Assets Revenue & Expense Trends ($000)
Quarter
4Q Trend YOY Trend 4Q Trend YOY Trend Advancement
CDA/UW Govt‐Fed Prog.Fees
Other (Intercompany) TTL REVENUE:
Labor‐Related Non‐Labor Costs Admin/Indirect Accounts Receivable DOH Unrestricted Liquid Net Assets (%) TTL EXPENSES:
CHG in UNA
4Q Trend YOY Trend 4Q Trend YOY Trend
Efficiency Ratios & Trends Quarter
ERE Burden Labor Efficiency Non‐Labor Efficiency Fixed Asset Efficiency Prog.Exp Efficiency Rev. Growth Current Ratio [CA / CL] Working Capital [CA ‐ CL] Exp. Growth
Growth Efficiency
4Q Trend YOY Trend 4Q Trend YOY Trend FR/Adv Growth
Govt. Growth Prg.Fee Growth
Forecasted Cash Flow Net Surplus/(Deficit) + Interest & Taxes + Depreciations & Amort TOTAL EBITDA
On Track Needs Monitoring Needs Attention/Action DEBT‐SERVICE‐COVERAGE 3.12
3.4%
‐10.4%
15.7%
‐17.6%
n/a
0.1% 7.0% ‐4.0% 2.2%
‐40.5% 31.6%
22.1% 3.8%
n/a ‐17.7% 8.7% ‐6.4% 1.3%
n/a
n/a ‐51.9% ‐22.1%
‐7.4% 5.7% ‐3.8% ‐1.3%
n/a ‐43.0% 105.3%
Q4‐17 Q3‐17
Q2‐17 Q1‐17
0.65 0.57 0.60 0.59 0.57
4.04 3.16 3.30 3.44 3.25
1.48 1.62 1.45 1.55
21.2% 22.6% 19.8% 23.7%
9.59 7.61 8.12 8.10 8.31
$1,372
Goal = $4,000 / Proj = $3,394 Goal = 3.00 / Proj = 2.26
Goal = $6,400 / Proj = $6,414
Goal = 2.00 / Proj = 1.42
Goal = 35.0% / Proj = 18.6%
Goal = $2,744 / Proj = $1,191
Goal = 45.0 days / Proj = 38.7 days Goal = 30.0 days / Proj = 13.0 days
$227
$7,008
$902
$59
$9,568
19.6%
Q4‐16
$2,366
$251
$596
Q4‐16 1.51
$8,972
$6,355
n/a
June 30, 2017
CAPITAL STRUCTURE & REVENUE MIX
Assets =$18,585k
Q1‐17 Q2‐17 Q3‐17 Q4‐17
$578
$334
$848 18.8%
($531) ‐2.0%
ACTUAL
$5,368
$26,452
$203 0.9%
$11,434 $10,654 ($780) ‐7.3%
$33,729 $33,275
$1,909
BUDGET
$4,520
$26,983
$1,772 $137 7.8%
$1,625 $727 $1,178
VAR($) VAR(%)
$454 1.4%
$191 $314 ($123) ‐39.1%
$33,538 $32,961 ($577) ‐1.8%
$22,104 $22,307
$248 $388 $290
$64
$6,490 $6,859 $6,596 $6,507
$338 $413 $429
$89
$78
$434
$65
$5,333 $5,634 $5,669 $5,467
$2,503 $2,768 $2,386 $2,612
$7,900 $9,135 $8,202 $8,492
$268 $271 $269 $425
$8,323 $8,505
$462 ($122) ($12)
$8,104 $8,673 ($204)
YOY REVENUE DIVERSIFICATION
$191 $314 ($123) ‐39%
$1,909 $1,772 $137 7.8%
$33,729 $33,275 $454 1.4%
$22,104 $22,307 $203 0.9%
Liab + Net Assets =$18,585k
CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC
EXECUTIVE FINANCIAL DASHBOARD
YTD (12 months ending 6/30/2017) FY 2017 FORECAST (excl. Interco)
$11,434 $10,654 ($780) ‐7.3%
$33,538 $32,961 ($577) ‐1.8%
FORECAST 2017 BUD VAR($) VAR(%)
$5,368 $4,520 $848 18.8%
$26,452 $26,983 ($531) ‐2.0%
Q1‐17 Q2‐17 Q3‐17 Q4‐17 FY‐2017
($204) $464 ($122) $53 $191
$44 $41 $40 $79 $204
$221 $229 $228 $272 $951
$61 $734 $147 $405 $1,346
14.2 7.2
10.8 11.0 13.0
‐ 5.0 10.0 15.0
Q4‐16 Q1‐17 Q2‐17 Q3‐17 Q4‐17
1,246 627
1,014 988 1,191
Q4‐16 Q1‐17 Q2‐17 Q3‐17 Q4‐17
38.4 53.9
40.1 44.9 38.7
Q4‐16 Q1‐17 Q2‐17 Q3‐17 Q4‐17
2.57 2.06 2.30 2.09 2.26
Q4‐16 Q1‐17 Q2‐17 Q3‐17 Q4‐17
6,121 5,920
6,387 6,285 6,414
Q4‐16 Q1‐17 Q2‐17 Q3‐17 Q4‐17
1.47 1.63
1.49 1.56 1.42
Q4‐16 Q1‐17 Q2‐17 Q3‐17 Q4‐17
20.4%
10.6%15.9% 15.7% 18.6%
Q4‐16 Q1‐17 Q2‐17 Q3‐17 Q4‐17
3,853
3,228 3,347 2,933 3,394
Q4‐16 Q1‐17 Q2‐17 Q3‐17 Q4‐17
6%
16%
65%
13% Cash
A/R FFE Other
14%
44%
35%
7%
ST Debt LT Debt NA‐Unr NA‐Res
14.3% 2.4% 73.2% 10.0%
13.9% 3.4% 76.6% 6.1%
Advance. CDA/UW Fed.Gov Prog.Fees
Q4‐16 Q4‐17 (ACTUAL)
25%
35%
Cash Balances 20%
AR Days On Hand 30%
Current Ratio 15%
OVERALL LIQUIDITY 100%
Expense Analysis 30%
OVERALL PERFORMANCE 100%
EFFICIENCY
100%
Labor Efficiency 20%
Non‐Labor Efficiency
OVERALL CAPITALIZATION
20%
Revenue Growth 35%
Growth Efficiency 25%
OVERALL EFFICIENCY 100%
Unrestricted Net Assets 25%
Debt‐to‐Net Assets 25%
Unrestricted Liquid Net Assets 25%
Working Capital CAPITALIZATION
June 30, 2017 FINANCIAL DASHBOARD ‐ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LIQUIDITY
There are chiefly four (4) conditions to measure the financial health and integrity of any nonprofit organization: LIQUIDITY, CAPITALIZATION, PERFORMANCE, and EFFICIENCY . These four conditions work in tandem to provide a stable foundation upon which to operate and grow any organization, but are most critically important for nonprofits with limited ability to raise capital and expand its revenue base.
PERFORMANCE
Variance Analysis 20%
Trend Analysis 20%
Revenue Analysis 30%
Days Cash On‐Hand
CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC
LIQUIDITY Needs Monitoring CAPITALIZATION Needs Monitoring PERFORMANCE Needs Monitoring EFFICIENCY Needs Monitoring
DAYS CASH ON HAND UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS REVENUE ERE BURDEN
LABOR EFFICIENCY
CASH BALANCES DEBT‐to‐NET ASSETS
EXPENSES
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DAYS UNRESTRICTED LIQUID NET ASSETS (%)
GROWTH EFFICIENCY
NET GAINS (LOSSES)
CURRENT RATIO WORKING CAPITAL The net result of the positive revenue variance of
$454k and the negative expense variance of
$577k has been an overall negative variance to Net Income of $123k, missing the budget of $314k by 39.1% to post a net gain of $191k.
The company's Current Ratio has seen a considerable decrease over the past year, declining ‐11.9% from 2.57x to 2.26x. Since last quarter, the ratio has experienced notable growth, increasing 8.1% since Q3‐17.
Working Capital has seen a sizeable decrease over the past year, declining ‐11.9% to $3,394k. Since Q3‐17, working capital has experienced strong growth, increasing 15.7% over the past three months.
Grants & Contributions have posted a significant positive variance to budget of 18.8%, surpassing its target of $4,520k by $848k. Funding from government contracts has posted a minimal negative variance to budget of ‐2.0%, missing its target of $26,983k by $531k. Program Fees have posted a notable positive variance to budget of 7.8%, surpassing its target of $1,772k by $137k.
The net result of these variances is that Total Revenue has posted a minimal positive variance to budget of 1.4%, surpassing its target of
$33,275k by $454k.
The growth efficiency ratio indicates that over the past four quarters, the company has been marginally inefficient at producing revenues with its current cost structure. This means that as revenues have grown (or declined), expenses have grown (or declined) only slightly more. In only two of the past four quarters has the company's revenue growth outpaced its expense growth. This indicates that revenue growth may be costing the company more in expense than it is contributing to net assets.
CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC June 30, 2017 FINANCIAL DASHBOARD ‐ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There are chiefly four (4) conditions to measure the financial health and integrity of any nonprofit organization: LIQUIDITY, CAPITALIZATION, PERFORMANCE, and EFFICIENCY . These four conditions work in tandem to provide a stable foundation upon which to operate and grow any organization, but are most critically important for nonprofits with limited ability to raise capital and expand its revenue base.
Days Cash On Hand (DCOH) has seen a notable decrease over the past year, declining ‐8.5% to 13.0 days. Quarter‐over‐quarter (Q/Q), DCOH has experienced notable decline, decreasing ‐9.3% over the same quarter in the prior year.
Unrestricted Net Assets (UNA) have seen a steady increase over the past year, improving 4.8% to
$6,414k. On a quarterly basis, UNA has experienced marginal growth, increasing 1.3%
quarter‐over‐quarter.
Employee Burden (ERE) has seen a significant increase over the past year, rising from 19.6% to 23.7%. Since last quarter, ERE has experienced a steady increase, rising 387 basis points in the last three months.
The company's Labor Efficiency Ratio has seen a steady increase over the past year, improving 3.2%
from 1.51x to 1.55x. Since Q3‐17, the ratio has experienced notable growth, increasing 7.4% over the past 90 days. This indicates that over the long‐
term the company is increasing its capability to increase revenues from the funds it expends on labor. Currently, for every $1.00 the company spends on labor expense, it generates $1.55 in revenue, compared to $1.51 a year ago.
Cash balances have seen a steady decrease over the past year, declining ‐4.4% to $1,191k. Since last quarter, cash has experienced a sizeable growth, increasing 20.6% or $203k.
Debt‐to‐Net Assets (D/NA) has seen a marginal decrease over the past year, declining from 1.47x to 1.42x. Since Q3‐17, the ratio has experienced a notable decrease, declining ‐9.2% over the past three months.
Total Labor Expenses have posted a minimal positive variance to budget of 0.9%, coming in below its target of $22,307k by $203k. Non‐Labor Expenses have posted a notable negative variance to budget of ‐7.3%, coming in above its target of $10,654k by $780k. In all, Total Expenses have posted a minimal negative variance to budget of ‐1.8%, coming in above its target of
$32,961k by $577k.
AR Days on Hand (ARDOH) has seen amarginal increase over the past year, growing 0.7% to 38.7 days. Since Q3‐17, ARDOH has experienced asubstantial decline, decreasing ‐13.8% over the past three months.
Unrestricted Liquid Net Assets (ULNA) have seen a solid decrease over the past year, declining from 20.4% to 18.6% of total Net Assets. On a Q/Q basis, ULNA has experienced anotable decline,
decreasing to 18.6% from 20.4% in Q4‐16.
Grants & Contributions Gov. Funding
Program Fees **
TTL REVENUE:
Labor Expenses Non‐Labor Costs Indirect/Admin Costs **
TTL EXPENSES:
CHG in UNA
PLUS: Depreciation PLUS: Interest EBITDA
LESS: Interest
LESS: Principal Reduction Cash Flow after Debt Service DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE
$5,634,149
$268,961
$8,670,976
$463,663
$359,610
$8,439,085
$53,372
Q4 ACTUALCATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC June 30, 2017 FY 2017 FORECAST
FY 2017 ACTUAL ACTUAL
$5,368,098
$191,321
‐$121,650
$1,467,759
$6,507,108
$517,590
$8,492,457
$5,467,061
($204,063)
$1,872,854
$6,859,056
$402,729
$912,222
$6,490,029
$497,984
$7,900,235
$5,333,492
$267,505
$8,104,298
$1,115,264
$6,595,575
$490,897
$26,451,769
$1,909,199
$33,729,066
$8,323,387
$9,134,639
$33,537,745
$22,103,825
$1,164,725
Q1 Q2
ACTUAL
Q3 ACTUAL
$268,649
$8,201,736
$5,669,123
$2,767,866 $2,385,615 $2,612,414 $10,269,195
$1,346,276
$43,706 $40,797 $40,224 $78,788 $203,516
$221,422 $229,212 $228,425 $272,380 $951,439
$43,706 $40,797 $40,224 $78,788 $203,516
$61,065 $733,672 $146,998 $404,541
3.12
$57,000 $57,000 $57,000 $57,000 $228,000
($39,641) $635,875 $49,774 $268,752 $914,760
0.61
7.50 1.51 2.98
$2,503,300
LIQUIDITY CAPITALIZATION
1) DAYS CASH ON HAND ‐ a measure of the number of days in cash a company has 1) UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS ‐ Funding for a nonprofit that have no restrictions or in its bank accounts to cover its daily operating expenses. pending performance obligations (equivalent to equity in a for profit company) Days Cash on Hand = (Cash & Equivalents / Total Period Expenses) x Period Days Unrestricted Net Assets = Total Net Assets ‐ Restricted Net Assets
2) CASH BALANCES ‐ Just as the title implies, it is the total available cash in all 2) DEBT‐TO‐NET ASSETS ‐ A measure of a nonprofit's leverage , or the amount of debt company bank accounts to meet operating expenses. the organization has used to finance the organizations operations/growth.
Debt‐to‐Net Assets = Total Debt & Liabilities / Total Net Assets
3) ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DOH ‐ The measure of how many days, on average, it 3) UNRESTRICTED LIQUID NET ASSETS ‐ The % of unrestricted (unencumbered) net as‐
takes to convert the company's billed invoices to cash (days to get paid) sets are currently in the form of cash or cash equivalents.
Accounts Receivable DOH = (AR Balance / Total Period Sales) x Period Days Unres. Liquid Net Assets = Cash & Cash Equivalents / Unrestricted Net Assets 4) CURRENT RATIO ‐ Measures a company's ability to pay back short‐term obligations 4) WORKING CAPITAL ‐ The amount of liquid capital remaining after all current ob‐
(debt & payables) with short‐term assets (cash, inventory, receivables). ligations are paid; Inadequate working capital greatly inhibits growth potential.
Current Ratio = Current Assets / Current Liabilities Working Capital = Current Assets ‐ Current Liabilities
EFFICIENCY
1) VARIANCE ANALYSIS ‐ How is the company performing compared to the approved 1) ERE Burden = Total ERE Costs / Total Salaries & Wages
budget? Have the drivers been identified? Is management making appropriate * Measures the cost of benefits and taxes for each employee/FTE
adjustments to operations in reverse negative or expand positive variances? 2) Labor (Non‐Labor) Efficiency = Total Revenue / Total Labor (Non‐Labor) Costs 2) TREND ANALYSIS ‐ Are revenues trending in a positive direction? Are expenses * Indicates how much $1 in labor (non‐labor) expense generates in revenue
trending in line with revenues or are they moving against revenue trends? Are 3) Fixed Asset Efficiency = Total Revenue / Total Net Fixed Assets trends explainable? Are they expected to continue? * Indicates how much $1 of fixed assets generates in revenue 3) HORIZONTAL ANALYSIS ‐ On a month‐over‐month or quarter‐over‐quarter basis, 4) Program Exp. Efficiency = Total Revenue / Total Program Expenses
are there any large fluctuations in revenue mix or in individual expense cate‐ * Indicates how much $1 of direct program expense generates in revenue gories (e.g. "whipsawing")? Are they identified and being acted on? 5) Growth Rates (REV & EXP) = (Change in Amount)/Prior Period Amount 4) VERTICAL ANALYSIS ‐ Are categorical expenses experiencing significant changes * Measures the Q/Q and Y/Y growth trends for revenues and expenses
as a % of total of all expenses? Are there changes to the revenue mix % that are 6) Growth Efficiency = Revenue Growth / Expense Growth
associated with any changes? * Indicates whether revenue and expense growth is in line/diverging/converging
CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC June 30, 2017 EXECUTIVE FINANCIAL DASHBOARD ‐ REFERENCE GUIDE AND DEFINITIONS
There are chiefly four (4) conditions to measure the financial health and integrity of any nonprofit organization: LIQUIDITY, CAPITALIZATION, PERFORMANCE, and EFFICIENCY . These four conditions work in tandem to provide a stable foundation upon which to operate and grow any organization, but are most critically important for nonprofits with limited ability to raise capital and expand its revenue base.
Liquidity is a measure of a company's ability to meet its expense and debt obligations. High liquidity means ample cash to meet current obligations.
Capitalization refers to how effectively a nonprofit is utilizing debt and net assets to fund its operations and asset growth.
PERFORMANCE
Performance is a combination of several measures including expense & revenue trends, growth rates, and vertical & hortizontal analyses.
Efficiency refers to how effective management has been in operating the company and includes ratios that indicate the ability of management to adapt to changes.
