Showing posts with label nonprofit issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nonprofit issues. Show all posts

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Highlights of the Trump Budget Proposal


HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
  • Proposed funding change: -17.9%
  • Up for elimination: $4.2 billion for things including the Low Income Home Energy Assistance and the Community Service Block Grant programs
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
  • Proposed funding change: -13.2%
  • Up for elimination: $3 billion in spending on the Community Development Block Grant program; $1.1 billion for the HOME Investment Partnerships, Choice Neighborhoods, and Self-help Homeownership Opportunity programs
DEPT. OF STATE AND USAID
  • Proposed funding change: -28%
  • Spending cuts: $650 million over three years from development banks including the World Bank. Also, reduction in support for the United Nations, including peacekeeping efforts
  • Up for elimination: Global Climate Change Initiative; the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance account

Trump Budget Cuts Billions of Dollars From Antipoverty Programs

The Chronicle of Philanthropy
By Alex Daniels, Megan O’Neil, and Timothy Sandoval
The Trump administration’s preliminary budget proposal would zero out many nonprofit-administered antipoverty programs in areas including heating assistance, affordable housing, and economic development, while also eliminating federal agencies such as the National Endowment for the Arts.
Also on the chopping block is the Corporation for Community and National Service, which provides charities with tens of thousands of low-cost AmeriCorps workers each year, and the agency’s Social Innovation Fund, which steers public and private dollars to nonprofit programs that prove positive results.
The White House called for foreign-assistance spending by the State Department and USAID to be cut by nearly one third, or more than $10 billion.
The spending cuts outlined in the summary "skinny budget" released Wednesday would require the approval of Congress. Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the White House will release in May a full budget for fiscal year 2018.
"Skinny budgets are tricky because they give you top line, but they don’t give you a lot of details," said Alicia Phillips Mandaville, vice president for Global Development Policy and Learning at InterAction, a membership group of international charities. "This one calls out some specific things but not always in ways we can tell what will come out in the subsequent, more detailed version."
Presidents never get everything they request, but the White House budget proposal is always an important and influential starting point for the months of tough negotiations that follow on Capitol Hill.
The stakes for nonprofits are high. Public charities get about one-third of all their revenue from government grants and fees for services, including Medicare and Medicaid payments, according to the Urban Institute’s National Center for Charitable Statistics. Nonprofit revenue totaled $1.7 trillion in 2013, according to the center.

Rallying Cry

Nonprofit leaders across the country reacted with dismay to the cuts proposed in the budget, which they characterized as deep and damaging. They say that if Congress enacts even a portion the cuts outlined by the Trump administration — which were proposed to help pay for a $54 billion increase in military spending — it will have far-reaching consequences for charitable programs and their beneficiaries.
"This is an opportunity for a rallying cry," said Tim Delaney, president of the National Council of Nonprofits.
He called on nonprofit leaders to examine how the potential cuts might affect their organizations and the people they serve. Then they can start reaching out to partner groups and state nonprofit associations to coordinate on advocacy with local representatives.
Nonprofits should emphasize how the cuts will affect the people they serve — not their organizations, Mr. Delaney said. "Nobody cares about whether nonprofits are getting hurt — or this corporation or that entity. The real concern is how this will affect the lives of individual Americans."

Economic Development

President Trump’s budget proposal would shutter multiple programs that serve low-income communities. It would eliminate the Legal Services Corporation, which provides legal representation for low-income people. It would also close the doors at several regional commissions that provide education, clean water, economic development, and health grants in low-income areas: the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Delta Regional Authority, the Denali Commission, and the Northern Border Commission.
Other programs that would be slated for closure include several U.S. Housing and Urban Development efforts to provide low-income housing, including the HOME Investment Partnerships, Choice Neighborhoods, and Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity programs.
The proposal also calls for a 17.9 percent, or $15.1 billion, cut in the Department of Health and Human Services. It doesn’t specify whether the Senior Nutrition Program, which supports Meals on Wheels groups across the country, would be cut.
"We don’t know how that will be spread out, but it is pretty frightening," said Ellie Hollander, president of Meals on Wheels America.

Community Block Grants

Donna Butts, executive director of Generations United, which supports social services for children and the elderly, is especially concerned about the proposed elimination of the Community Development Block Grant program. It provided $3 billion in grants in the current fiscal year to states, cities, and counties to provide job training, develop housing for low-income residents, build community centers, make loans to small businesses, and redevelop homes.
The block grants allow states and localities flexibility to design programs as they see fit. But because each recipient uses the grants differently, it can be hard to come together to fight the proposed cuts, according to Ms. Butts.
"It’s a blessing and a curse," she said. "When it’s block granted, it’s harder to rally a constituency. It makes it easier to cut."
Ms. Butts is bracing for more. She thinks the $1.5 billion Social Services Block Grant program, an entitlement program that supports foster care and adoption services and adult day care for the elderly, could be vulnerable. It was not included on the proposal, which only outlined cuts in discretionary programs. (Discretionary spending is implemented through appropriations bills, while spending on entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare is mandatory.)
Generations United and social-service organizations from all 50 states sent members of Congress a letter defending the program last week. But Ms. Butts fears that the deep cuts the administration has proposed throughout domestic programs will pit social-service groups against one another.
“Nobody cares about whether nonprofits are getting hurt -- or this corporation or that entity. The real concern is how this will affect the lives of individual Americans.”
"We are stronger together, but some groups are starting to express a willingness to elevate their particular age group," she said. "Some of the groups are starting to splinter."

Foreclosures and Evictions

South Jersey Legal Services, which receives the majority of its funding from the Legal Services Corporation, last year handled more than 9,200 cases. Douglas Gershuny, the group’s executive director, said the proposed elimination of the Legal Services Corporation would reduce that number by a third.
"That means more unjust foreclosures and evictions resulting in homelessness," he said in a statement. Mr. Gershuny also worried that more domestic-violence victims would be unable to escape abuse, and more homeless veterans and hungry children would be denied government benefits.
Closing the Appalachian Regional Commission would be a "cruel disinvestment" from an area hit hard by the collapse of the coal economy, said Jake Lynch, spokesman for the West Virginia Community Development Hub.
Over the past two years, the commission has made $73 million in grants to improve life in coal production areas. Mr. Lynch’s group received $94,000 to mentor local community teams in ways to diversify their economies.
"The specter of ARC vanishing is really sad," Mr. Lynch said. "West Virginia could use some hope and could use some help, and ARC has been providing that."

Advocacy for the Arts

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities are among 19 independent agencies identified for elimination in President Trump’s budget.
The elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts would be a significant blow to the roughly 100,000 nonprofit arts organizations across the nation, said Robert Lynch, president of Americans for the Arts, a network of cultural groups.
Although the amount of money the endowment provides is small, cutting the NEA would disrupt other streams of funding for cultural organizations, he said. Almost all NEA grants are matched by state and local money, and campaigns for private donations are often built around NEA-funded projects, he added.
Ending the NEA would not put many arts organizations "out of business directly," he said. "But that’s really not the point — services will be reduced and survival will be a little bit harder."
The NEA has been a catalyst for growth in the arts since it was formed in the mid-1960s, he said. There were only four state arts councils before the NEA was formed, he said. Now all 50 states have them.
Mr. Lynch noted that on Tuesday about 700 arts leaders will be on Capitol Hill protesting cuts to the NEA and other arts funding during "Arts Advocacy Day."

Ripple Effect

John Gomperts, director of AmeriCorps from 2010 to 2012, said nonprofits with staff members who come to them through programs run by the Corporation for National and Community Service should be talking to their congressional representatives about why they are important.
"We have been, for the last 20-plus years, asking young people to step up and be leaders in their own communities in the county," said Mr. Gomperts, now chief executive of America’s Promise, which works to improve graduation rates, among other things. "It is such a red, white, and blue kind of idea."
Many AmeriCorps volunteers are young people trying to serve children growing up in difficult circumstances, he said.
"I understand the president is trying to give expression to a different set of priorities, but the notion of uninvesting, disinvesting, in young people on both sides of this equation just seems to me unfortunate and shortsighted."
The current appropriation for the Corporation of National and Community Service is $1.1 billion, up from $1 billion in 2016. The agency has sustained attacks from lawmakers and others before, some of whom questioned whether paid service is really service. Nonprofit leaders and champions of national service said they find it striking that President Trump has not said much about volunteering and civic engagement, breaking with decades of presidential tradition.
AnnMaura Connolly, president of the advocacy group Voices for National Service, said that eliminating the Corporation for National and Community Service would cost taxpayers money. She cited a Columbia University study that found that for every $10 spent by the federal government on national service, $15 was raised from private sources to pay for such work.
"By matching or exceeding federal support with private-sector dollars, national service programs lessen the strain on the federal government through partnerships with more than 1,100 community and faith-based nonprofits," Ms. Connolly said in a statement. Among those charities that rely heavily on national service programs are Habitat for Humanity, Catholic Charities USA, and the American Red Cross, she said.

Foreign Aid

Ms. Phillips Mandaville of InterAction said the proposed one-third cut to foreign assistance includes a reduction in U.S. support for and work with the United Nations and the World Bank.
"At a macro level, those things, added up, really potentially undermine our ability as a country to be engaged in the world," she said.
While many big U.S.-based aid organizations get more than half their revenues from government, others are mostly supported by private philanthropy. Those donors want to see the country continue to play a leading role in global health and development efforts.
"Part of what they are concerned about is not just how much money the United States is putting into something but the net effect on development and humanitarian outcomes if the U.S. withdraws like this," she said.
Spending on foreign aid accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget, Ms. Phillips Mandaville said, a good value considering it saves lives and protects U.S. interests. And she questions the choice to slash an already tight foreign-aid budget to pour more into defense spending.
"The same way that Thanksgiving dinner isn’t just about turkey, our global leadership isn’t just about the military," Ms. Phillips Mandaville said. "In dinner terms, what this budget does is propose to eliminate mashed potatoes and pumpkin pie in order just to get more turkey."
She and others in the development community said that U.S. foreign-aid spending has long enjoyed strong bipartisan support in Congress and that they hope lawmakers will reject proposed cuts to that piece of the budget.
David Miliband, chief executive of the International Rescue Committee, said that slashing the U.S. foreign-aid budget endangers the country’s work to prevent and respond to global crises like ISIS and Ebola.
“The notion of uninvesting, disinvesting, in young people on both sides of this equation just seems to me unfortunate and shortsighted.”
"Working to counteract these with a forward-leaning foreign-aid policy doesn’t just mean saving lives today but sparing the U.S. and its allies around the world the much more difficult, expensive work of combating them tomorrow," Mr. Miliband said in a statement.

Taxes May Be Next

The White House’s proposal did not include details on the administration’s plans for tax policy — so its views on the charitable tax-deduction were not included. Speaking at a rally in Tennessee on Tuesday night, President Trump said that a tax-overhaul bill would follow on the heals of health-care legislation.
Steve Taylor, counsel for public policy for United Way Worldwide, said he’s heard support for the charitable tax deduction in conversations he’s had with White House staff and members of Congress. Still, neither the administration nor legislators on Capitol Hill have ruled out that limits could be placed on the deduction as part of a tax-overhaul bill — which Republicans are hoping to pass this year.
Mr. Taylor said it’s hard to know where the GOP-controlled Congress will come down on the charitable deduction. "At the end of the day, Congress is looking for revenue that they can use for their big-picture plan, which is to lower taxes," he said. "And they’re looking under every stone for that revenue, so we are as vulnerable as any" group.

Monday, January 25, 2016

Nonprofit Knowledge Matters: Trends, Love, and What's Ahead in Fundraising

Nonprofit Knowledge Matters banner

Top Twelve Trends to Watch in 2016 
In each issue of Nonprofit Knowledge Matters, we highlight trends to help charitable nonprofits survive and thrive. This year’s first look ahead focuses on the top public policy challenges and opportunities that charitable nonprofits will face in 2016. Just to clarify, “public policy” means “external-influences-that-can-limit-your-nonprofit’s-mission.” As with much of the Council of Nonprofits’ work, these trends focus where the action is: in states and localities; perhaps some of these trends are happening right now in your community. Help your nonprofit’s board and staff monitor where the pinch-points will be for your nonprofit in 2016 by reading 2015-2016: The Years in (P)Review

Want to stay up-to-date with policy trends? Make sure your nonprofit is a member of its state association of nonprofits and subscribe to Nonprofit Advocacy Matters, our free newsletter that focuses on nonprofit policy trends, rounded out by examples of nonprofits engaging in everyday advocacy. 

Finding Nonprofit Love Online
Valentine’s Day is only a few weeks away. An eHarmony for nonprofits may not yet exist, but your nonprofit’s potential soulmate is looking online. Maybe it will be a casual, one-time volunteer experience or maybe your nonprofit can find a life-long supporter. GuideStar, one of the most popular sites used by people looking for information on nonprofits, is launching newly redesigned profiles today. Learn how GuideStar’s profiles and other online profiles can bring your nonprofit lots of love.


Charity regulators moving forward with single portal multi-state registration plans
State charity regulators working to streamline the difficult and expensive process used by nonprofits to register for charitable solicitation in multiple states seek your input as they design the beta version of a “Single Portal Multi-State Registration” website that they plan to launch this year. They have issued a “request for information” (RFI) to the public – including charitable nonprofit staff members, board members, fundraising consultants, and professional advisors to nonprofits – asking for help designing a process that will be as nonprofit friendly as possible. We encourage all those who currently complete registrations on behalf of charitable nonprofits – whether in just one state or in multiple states – to learn more about the single portal multi-state charitable registration project, and then comment on the RFI to help shape the end-product so your nonprofit will have a better experience using the portal. 


Trends for Charitable Nonprofits to Watch


Five trends to watch in 2016 (Social Velocity)



Tips for getting more from your online presence



Trending topics



Nonprofit Advocacy in Action

IRS withdraws irksome gift substantiation proposal (National Council of Nonprofits)

Nonprofit Transparency

The Foraker Group in Alaska shares how its theory of change focuses on the role of nonprofits to strengthen the communities where we live.


Did you receive this email from a friend?

Sign up now to receive this free e-newsletter each month.
© Copyright 2016 National Council of Nonprofits. All rights reserved 
1001 G Street NW | Suite 700 East | Washington, DC 20001 | www.councilofnonprofits.org

Sunday, January 24, 2016

What We Learned About Your Bylaws

 
 
Our staff attorneys have spent more than a year reviewing hundreds of nonprofits' bylaws.Here is what they learned about the most common legal pitfalls!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









This is the first in a series of "The Five Most Common Bylaw Pitfalls for New York's Nonprofits" produced by NYCON's Legal Team. Stay tuned for Legal Pitfall #2 Next Week!
 
Welcome to the New Year! Can you believe it's 2016 already? Our legal team  spent much of 2015 reviewing and revising hundreds of our members bylaws for compliance with the new Nonprofit Revitalization law.
 
As you probably know by now, the law governing nonprofits recently changed pretty drastically. Some changes are for the better (yes, email voting can happen now!) but some make running a nonprofit a little more difficult. 
 
For better or worse, most of the time they necessitate a change in the way we structure and govern our organizations, and that means revising our bylaws to bring ourselves into compliance
 
Our attorneys have seen the same pitfalls time after time. So, NYCON is kicking off the new year with knowledge gleaned from the bylaw reviews our team has already done... And here is what they learned!
 
 
Legal Pitfall #1: 
An Inadequate Conflict of Interest Policy
 
As many nonprofits are aware, the 2014 NYS Nonprofit Revitalization Act ("NPRA") requires far more formality than was previously required with respect to the disclosure, review, assessment and reporting of real and potential conflicts of interest.  Yet, it's still common to see nonprofit by-laws with a clause saying it will "maintain, regularly-updated conflict of interest procedures in order to fully comply with all applicable laws and regulations."
 
So, what's wrong with that? Well, for starters, such a limited conflicts of interest "policy" fails to comply with the law.  New NPRA obligations require all nonprofits to adopt and implement written conflicts of interest policies and procedures, which must address specific criteria. 
 
Beyond statutory obligations, from a practical standpoint, a nonprofit with such a deficient policy simply doesn't have appropriate policies and procedures in place to properly address any real or potential conflicts of interest, let alone justify its response to any such situations, if ever questioned. A deficient policy needlessly undermines the mission, compromises operations and potentially exposes the nonprofit to liabilities.
Need Additional Resources?
Check out the Attorney General's Guidance entitled "Conflicts of Interest Policies Under the Nonprofit Revitalization Act of 2013." That resource will outline the minimum statutory requirements for New York nonprofits.
Register for our webinar! 
Members Only Webinar:
 
"The New Legal Bylaw Pitfalls Every New York Nonprofit Should Know"  RSVP Today.
 
Can We Help? 
If you Still Have Questions 
and you are with a current NYCON member. you can submit your questions to our legal team here.
 
Need a Bylaw Review? If you'd like to find out more about our bylaw review services (including how to get a price) please click here.
 

Google
New York Council of Nonprofits
Daily update  January 1, 2016
NEWS
Text Box: The NonProfit Times
The NonProfit Times
The NonProfit Times
Living wage advocates in New York City last year managed to bump the ... said Doug Sauer, CEO of the New York Council of Nonprofits (NYCON).
Google Plus
Facebook
Twitter

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Google Alert - New York Council of Nonprofits

The wrecking of a blue-chip New York nonprofit

wrecking-blue-chip-new-york-nonprofit
FEGS. (PIX 11)
TweetShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPrint
ALBANY—When Federation and Employment Guidance Services announced a month ago that it planned to close amid a $20 million revenue shortfall, the nonprofit world was shocked.
But the ruinous series of decisions that wrecked FEGS—a health and human services nonprofit that has long been one of New York’s largest, most well-regarded social services organizations—was years in the making.
A Capital review of the nonprofit’s financial disclosure forms and yearly tax returns reveal an agency engaged in risky long-term behavior and slowly drowning in debt, seeking capital financing from an ever-widening array of sources to expand its operations and interests even as those operations failed to produce profit.
As that behavior was intensifying, city and state governments continued to provide FEGS’ grants and finance its debt, lending the organization money while it approached collapse.

MORE ON CAPITAL

ADVERTISEMENT

Now, FEGS is considering declaring bankruptcy, according to sources familiar with discussions among the nonprofit’s leadership and other social services agencies. And state and city agencies that contract with the nonprofit are feverishly working out plans to transfer the charity's caseload to other organizations.
FEGS revealed an unexpected $19 million operating shortfall in an all-staff email that was sent Dec. 12, and first reported by  The Jewish Daily Forward, which also reported that the charity's C.E.O. Gail Magaliff and executive vice president had been replaced.
The potential implications of the nonprofit’s collapse aren’t just financial and logistical—FEGS is responsible for running hundreds of city and state social-service programs—but also political, raising questions about how a host of well-connected directors, regulatory entities and elected officials failed to see the disaster coming.
“Our view is that there were sufficient signs for the board, funders and lenders to question the financial direction and health of the agency,” said Doug Sauer, head of the New York Council of Nonprofits. “It had to be brewing. There are usually straws that break the camel’s back but it's usually a long road.”
The work of unraveling what happened and who is to blame—to say nothing of what happens next—is only just beginning.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office and the state attorney general’s office are reportedly investigating the circumstances of FEGS’ collapse. At the same time, two nonprofit umbrella agencies—the Human Services Council and UJA (one of FEGS’ funders)—have launched their own independent inquiries into the charity’s downfall.
But it is already possible, using information in the organization’s financial disclosure documents, to see the outlines of a disastrous pattern in which FEGS made unwise investments, then used loans and grants to cover faltering components of the business.
The nonprofit effectively borrowed to cover up its losses until the debt became insurmountable.
According to the tax forms reviewed by Capital, FEGS poured money into its for-profit subsidiaries, launched an ultimately unsuccessful managed long-term care providing offshoot, invested money in offshore funds in the Cayman Islands, Greenland and Iceland, engaged in unusual auditing practices, increased executive salaries even as debts mounted, and may now owe the state tens of millions of dollars because of Medicaid overcharges.
FEGS IS PART OF AN INSULAR UNIVERSE OF OVERLAPPING Jewish nonprofits, and it is tied to the UJA Federation, the umbrella group that raises and distributes money to a number of its related charities.
In the past couple of years, nonprofits within that universe have been at the center of a number of scandals: The C.E.O. of the Met Council on Jewish Poverty was convicted in a wide-ranging decades-long fraud scheme last year, and the C.E.O. of the New York Legal Assistance Group resigned amid stories of a federal investigation into the charity’s finances. NYLAG, Met Council and UJA Federation all shared board members. And NYLAG, FEGS and Met Council all have connections to the accounting firm Loeb & Troper, which has been FEGS’ accounting firm for years.
FEGS now operates nearly 200 different programs. It constructs housing for the developmentally disabled, pays aides to care for those clients, and operates as a vocational center, finding employment for them in specialized work programs. The agency also operates programs to help transition formerly incarcerated individuals back into society, setting individuals up with mental health providers and case managers to help them acquire housing, jobs and schooling.
It runs affordable housing buildings for the deaf, blind and poor, and uses its ample staff to help enroll clients in city and state funded social services, from Medicaid and Medicare to food stamps.
FEGS began as a small vocational center for Jews in 1934, helping poor immigrants in the New York area. Over time, its mission expanded to the range of social services it provides today, with particularly sharp growth in the mid-90s, after a wave of Jewish immigration from the former Soviet Union.
By then, FEGS had also developed a reputation as one of New York City’s most trustworthy nonprofits, routinely winning the city and state’s largest contracts for disability services and welfare-to-work programs. It was one of seven charities used each year by the New York Times to find profile subjects for the paper’s annual holiday-time solicitation, “The Neediest Cases.”
In 1998, in a boom economy for welfare-to-work programs like the ones FEGS ran, the agency signed a 15-year lease at 315 Hudson Street, on Manhattan’s West side, taking six floors and 400,000 square feet on the site of the former Jujube candy production factory.
The lease was worth a reported $60 million.
It was also in the mid-1990s that the nonprofit opened the first of several for-profit subsidiaries, a plan the company later described as a strategy to save on outsourcing costs. Many nonprofits create for-profit subsidiaries to help produce revenue in an era of unreliable government funding. But FEGS’ for-profit strategy, over time, became a burden and a source of instability.
A 2006 PROFILE IN HEALTHCARE EXECUTIVE MAGAZINE of FEGS’ then-C.E.O. Alfred Miller said the organization had evolved in a Darwinian fashion to survive over its decades of existence, growing from “a small employment and guidance service to a comprehensive health and human services system with a $230 million budget, 15 subsidiary and affiliated corporations, and more than 300 facilities, residences, and off-site locations.”
At the time of the interview, Miller cited General Motors as the charity’s primary business model, praising the automotive giant's ability to integrate “previously independent brands” and “create economies of scale and create a shared infrastructure.”
(This was three years before General Motors filed for the largest industrial Chapter 11 bankruptcy in American history, a victim of its unwieldy economies of scale and massive, unsupportable shared infrastructure.)
FEGS, like G.M., had “created, or became affiliated with 15 different corporations covering everything from technology and human resources to disaster management and home care,” the magazine wrote.
Miller was gone by 2007, when C.E.O. Gail Magaliff took over. The company’s efforts to diversify got more aggressive, and unusual.
Since 2009, the earliest year for which the charity’s tax returns are available, the nonprofit has been investing millions of dollars in offshore accounts in Greenland, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, a practice nonprofit experts said was atypical.
(A FEGS spokeswoman did not respond to a question from Capital asking when the nonprofit first began investing in the off-shore accounts, and declined to comment substantively on any aspect of this article.)
By 2014, FEGS owned 66 different properties, and leased 414 sites around New York as part of its organization, disclosure documents show. It had a $250 million annual budget, thousands of employees, and claimed to serve an estimated 100,000 clients a year. It had created four for-profit subsidiaries, and eight related not-for-profit subsidiaries, five of which were related to FEGS through common board members.
It is unclear whether FEGS’ for-profit firms ever made any money. And disclosure documents show the reverse—that the charity has for years been propping up the for-profit subsidiaries with a steady stream of funding.
Last week, the Forward reported that the charity began transferring millions of dollars to the for-profit subsidiaries by 2011. Returns reviewed by Capital show FEGS moving $8.6 million from the nonprofit side to one for-profit information technology company, AllSector, in 2011. In 2012, the charity transferred even more: $9.1 million.
Both that company and another for-profit subsidiary to which FEGS had made substantial payments, called HR Dynamics, had more than a half-dozen creditors as of July 2014, according to a review of financing statements filed with New York’s state department. AllSector signed financing agreements with at least five different creditors, dating back to 2009, using the company’s equipment as collateral. HR Dynamics opened two separate lines of credit from Chase Manhattan Bank and JP Morgan Chase beginning in, 1999, records show.
These subsidiaries investments might have raised alarms if they’d been subject to wider review. But because of the way the payments were accounted for, they were hard to notice.
As the Forward reported, transfers of funds between FEGS and these for-profit subsidiaries were not traceable in the organization’s 990 tax forms or the audit prepared by FEGS’ long-time accounting firm Loeb & Troper. The firm performed a consolidated audit—that is, a review that did not separately audit each of the company’s subsidiaries.
"If the auditor is doing its job then it in fact prepares an audited statement or relies on an audited statement that’s prepared for each separate entity and then it compiles them," said Bill Josephson, an expert in tax-exempt organizations and former assistant attorney general-in-charge of the New York Charities Bureau.
Josephson said the charity’s tax returns would have made it virtually impossible for the board members to know which assets belonged to the nonprofit and for profit subsidiaries, clouding the picture of AllSector’s financial health.
"The 990 has a question on it that says 'has the audit committee and the board read the financial statements' … but since they’re consolidated there would be no way for even a careful reader to know that there was a problem with AllSector technology," Josephson said.
EVEN AS IT POURED MONEY INTO ITS ILL-FATED for-profit subsidiaries, FEGS itself continued to expand, building up its shelter and housing services for developmentally disabled, elderly and impoverished clients. The charity’s $250 million annual budget was propped up largely by grants and roughly $200 million in annual revenue from state and federal Medicaid dollars.
But its debt obligations were piling up.
To build up its housing portfolio, FEGS routinely had gone to a variety of city and state funding sources over the past decade, seeking millions of dollars’ worth of advances on construction and capital costs for their new facilities, taking out low-interest loans that it didn’t have the means to pay back.
From the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, the charity received $800,000 in advances for housing developments and S.R.O.s. From the state’s Office of Mental Health, more than $3.4 million for facilities in East New York and the Bronx. And for more than a decade, FEGS, like many other nonprofit institutions around the state, had been financing new projects with money from bond proceeds through the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, a state public authority.
It’s through the dormitory authority, or DASNY, that state leaders could have exercised some discretion over FEGS’ ultimately unsustainable levels of borrowing, spending and new investment.
DASNY is controlled by an 11-member board, a majority of which are by statute the responsibility of the governor. (There are five direct appointees of the governor on the board—though one spot is currently left vacant and waiting to be filled by Governor Andrew Cuomo—with three more seats filled by the administration’s health and education commissioners and the state budget director.) The remaining three slots are controlled, respectively, by the state comptroller and the leaders of the Assembly and State Senate.
In addition, many of the bond issues that the DASNY board votes on must be approved by the state Public Authorities Control Board, which is made up of five members, including the state budget director, State Senator John DeFrancisco and, until very recently, former Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver.
In total, FEGS has received $23.25 million in building loans from DASNY, from three different bond offerings, the most recent of which was issued in 2012. The debt is secured by the properties that FEGS used the money to build—residences and facilities to house the nonprofit’s disabled, elderly or impoverished clients.
FEGS is still repaying the state for those bond proceeds. Financial records from mid-2014 show the nonprofit still owes $11.9 million to DASNY to pay back the principal on its debt.
The charity also received money from other public authorities in recent years, including the Industrial Development Agencies of the City of New York and Suffolk County.
FEGS owed a total of $14.9 million to all of the public authorities as of June 30, 2014, according to disclosure documents filed with DASNY last summer and marked “Draft.”
By last summer, FEGS had so much debt that it failed to meet the state’s requirements for debt coverage, meaning that its income was not enough to pay down its the principal and interest on the debt it owed. In its June 2014 disclosure forms, the charity indicated it would seek a waiver from the state to get around the debt-service requirements.
“As of June 30, 2014, FEGS was not in compliance with the debt service coverage ratio on three DASNY bond issues covering eight properties operated under the auspices of OPWDD,” the application says. 
DASNY spokesman John Chirlin declined to comment on whether the state had granted FEGS the waiver, saying the authority is subject to Securities Law constraints because of its outstanding bonds, and could only provide such information through “appropriate secondary market filings.”
Nonprofit experts said auditors from Loeb & Troper, the accounting firm that prepared FEGS’ tax returns and financial statements for years and also serve a multitude of other New York nonprofits, never distinguished between current and non-current assets in the charity’s filings, which may have obscured just how little liquid cash the charity actually had to pay off its debts.
Regardless, DASNY only acknowledged the existence of FEGS’ problems in a disclosure document published on February 25, 2015, weeks after news broke of FEGS’ impending closure. It was the first time in dozens of legally required state disclosure filings that the extent of FEGS’ financial difficulties was made apparent.
“DASNY has been advised that FEGS is experiencing serious financial difficulties, intends to discontinue some or all of its operations in the near future and has been in contact with the New York State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (‘OPWDD’) with regard to identifying potential replacement operators for a number of the programs and facilities which FEGS currently operates,” the disclosure document said.
Josephson, the former state charities bureau regulator who described the challenges FEGS posed to would-be auditors, nevertheless questioned DASNY’s lack of awareness about the charity’s finances.
"It is certainly relevant to ask DASNY whether they had any early warning with respect to the AllSector problem or were they relying on Loeb & Troper,” he said. “And how could they rely on Loeb & Troper if Loeb & Troper didn’t separately disclose the AllSector investment, which it doesn’t look like it did.”
Asked when DASNY first became aware of FEGS’ financial problems, DASNY spokesman John Chirlin said, “DASNY filed disclosure documents in connection with bonds that DASNY issued on behalf of FEGS. FEGS’ bond debt service payments are current as of the date of such disclosure documents. Please note that because DASNY has outstanding bonds, we are subject to Securities Law constraints and need to provide information through appropriate secondary market filings.”
The charity has also looked beyond government for credit advances.
In March of 2012, FEGS took out a $3 million, five-year equipment loan for a VOIP telephone system from JP Morgan Chase.
Disclosure documents show the charity also owes more than $14 million in mortgage payments over the next five years, an amount that may be larger than the value of the mortgaged properties, which are "on the books" for $9.8 million. And the charity is paying rents for buildings it cannot afford. By 2014, roughly 10 percent of its annual revenue, more than $25 million dollars a year, was tied up in long-term operating leases that are extremely difficult or costly to break.
Some observers questioned whether the charity’s size had made it difficult for its leadership to know its own sprawl.
The charity itself has a 26-member board of directors, and four officers. Its 2013 tax returns show 17 key employees and medical directors, each of whom earns low- to mid-six-figure salaries to manage the nonprofit.
“Somehow the issue to me is board governance,” said Naomi Levine, director of N.Y.U.’s Center for Philanthropy and Fundraising. “Boards are critical and they are not being trained properly. If the boards assumed those responsibilities you might avoid the tragedy that happened at FEGS.”
The scale of the financial damage isn’t yet known, but the picture is likely to look worse, not better, as numerous investigations progress.
Disclosure documents revealed that one of FEGS’ related subsidiaries is the subject of a state Office of Medicaid Inspector General audit that examined roughly $80 million worth of Medicaid payments to the charity made between 2006 and 2009. The audit is estimated to have found the charity overcharged Medicaid by between $13 million and $20 million, a finding that would mean between one quarter and one-fifth of all the charity’s billings covered by the audit were in error. That audit has not yet been released.
FEGS, according to its financial reports, had very little cash on hand, which gave it little ability to maneuver if it encountered unexpected setbacks. The Medicaid audit appears to be one.
And it coincided with another: In late 2014, New York City decided against renewing two longtime contracts for city employment and training programs. The costs to FEGS of losing those contracts was $11 million. With little cash on hand, there was no way to buffer the losses.
In addition, two social services agencies are now conducting separate investigations into what happened, as rumors of an impending bankruptcy swirl.
The Human Services Council, a nonprofit industry body, began its investigation this week, setting up a council of roughly 20 members—academics, local nonprofit heads and consultants who advise nonprofits on financial and organizational matters. The committee met for the first time on Tuesday, and plans to issue a report analyzing what led to FEGS’ failure and what lessons it holds for the industry moving forward.
If FEGS does declare bankruptcy, the former social services agency’s union employees say they worry they’ll be too far back in the line of creditors to be paid what they’re owed.
The Social Service Employees Union Local 215, which represents around 1400 of FEGS’ 2200 employees, says FEGS currently owes employees around $5 million in vacation pay, severance pay and benefits.
“If they declare bankruptcy that means the union will have to get in line with other creditors to get those benefits,” said union spokesperson G.L. Tyler.
Groups associated under the UJA Federation of charities have already picked up a slice of the charity's 172 different programs, but according to Jewish Week, more than 100 different programs are still without a future operator.