Restricted money, and the cost of proving it.

“The grant paid for the program. It did not pay for proving the program happened.”

Funding arrives with conditions, and the conditions have a cost. Most organizations know their program cost and very few know their cost of compliance with the funders who pay for it.

restricted funds
cost allocation
program vs support
reserves policy
funder reporting
net contribution

Your words, not ours.

Where it concentrates here

Five places the money tends to go in nonprofit and grant-funded organizations. Each one is concentrated — a single agreement, a single queue, a single account nobody reviews — which is why sampling walks straight past them.

Reporting obligations across many funders, each in a different format, absorbing finance capacity that is never costed against the award.
Allocation between program and support cost set years ago on a basis nobody can now reconstruct.
Restricted funds carried unspent while unrestricted reserves are drawn down.
Fundraising channels reported by income raised rather than by net contribution.
Volunteer effort treated as free, ignoring the management cost of coordinating it.

Not every nonprofit and grant-funded organizations is the same business

Foundation and grant-fundedRestricted funding where the restriction outlives the staff member who negotiated it, and compliance is reconstructed at audit.
Membership and associationDues set years ago against services that expanded, with member cost to serve never calculated.
Arts and culturalEarned revenue with high fixed costs, where a program's true contribution is buried in shared overhead.
Federated and affiliate modelsShared services charged to affiliates on a formula nobody has revisited.
Social enterpriseA trading arm whose margin subsidizes the mission and is reported as though it were mission delivery.

Where this data actually lives

Blackbaud Financial Edge or Sage Intacct for fund accounting; Raiser's Edge or Salesforce NPSP for development
A grants tracker separate from both, usually in Excel, holding the real deadlines
Restricted fund balances reconciled annually rather than monthly
Program outcome data collected for funders and never used for management

Named because it changes what the intake asks for. An extract from one of these has known gaps, and the review is built around them rather than surprised by them.

Reported in your numbers, not ours

program contribution
indirect recovery
cost per outcome
restricted vs unrestricted balance
months of operating reserve
fundraising cost ratio
grant compliance findings
donor retention

The obligations that set the deadlines

Form 990 and the functional expense allocation behind it
Single audit under Uniform Guidance where federal spend crosses the threshold
State charitable registration and renewal in every state you solicit in
Grant reports with their own deadlines, formats and allowability rules
Donor restriction documentation, which is what an auditor will ask to see

What the review would ask you for

7 requests written for nonprofit and grant-funded organizations and asked of nobody else — 3 of them core. They sit alongside the operating spine every business has — finance, revenue, receivables, payables, contracts, people, IT, operations, risk, commercial and governance — which is 107 further requests.

Funding by source Core Restricted, unrestricted, and the terms attached.
Grant portfolio Core Award, period, spend to date, reporting obligations.
Cost allocation between program and support Core The basis, and when it was last examined.
Funder reporting burden Number of reports, effort to produce each.
Fundraising cost and return By channel and campaign.
Reserves policy and position
Volunteer contribution and its management cost

Anything you do not have can be skipped in one click, with a reason. The intake is completed in the client portal, which saves each answer as it is given and can be returned to as often as you like.

When this stops being interesting and becomes urgent

An audit finding, especially a repeat one
A major grant ending and exposing which shared costs it carried
A capital campaign or a merger conversation
A board asking which programs actually cover their costs
A restricted fund balance nobody can explain

Who this involves

Signs it: Executive director or CFO
Resists it: Program leads whose individual economics become visible to the board
Has been asking for it: Finance, who already know which programs are subsidized

Who commissions it

Finance directors, CEOs and trustees. Phase one is priced before phase two is discussed, the report is yours either way, and we take no vendor commissions or referral fees on anything we recommend.

See the proposal and the price Talk it through first

The proposal sets out the sequence week by week, what we would need from you, and what it costs for your number of operating units. No call required to see the number.

Closest to this

Operations that share more with nonprofit and grant-funded organizations than the sector label suggests.