Download - Statewide Nonprofit Budget Survey - Lackawanna

PA Statewide Nonprofit Budget/Recession Survey

United Way of PennsylvaniaScranton, PA

March 16,2011

Statewide Nonprofit Budget/Recession Survey

1. The recession has caused new families to turn to community-based groups for help.

Four out of five respondents (82 %) report that conditions related to the economy have increased demand for services.

• 51 % increase in "first-time" households seeking services• 52 % increase in unemployed clients • 26 % increase in uninsured clients

2


Social Conditions in PA• Number of people on food stamps rose nearly

150,000 in 2010 (about a 9 percent increase). Total food stamp participation is over 1.4 million.

• Unemployment has risen significantly from 5.7% in 2008 to a high of over 9% last year.

• Significant numbers of PA Seniors struggling with utility payments.

3


Social Conditions in PA• Over 40,000 Pennsylvanians added to the

ranks of the uninsured with the loss of the adult Basic program.

• The program’s waiting list stood at nearly 500,000 and had grown by nearly 125,000 citizens within the last year.

4


2009 Budget Impasse

• 64 % of agencies relied on reserves • 28 % utilized lines of credit • 8 % had no reserves

5


2. State budget cuts have made it harder for nonprofits to fulfill their mission.

Over a third of responding organizations (34 %) reported turning away individuals needing services; while 18 % revoked services from individuals due to lack of funding.

• 37 % eliminated programs • 45 % reduced hours • 41 % expanded waiting lists

6


3. Nonprofits already faced significant cuts in state funding.

• Over two-thirds of over 1,000 respondents (70 %) have had their budgets cut in 2009 and 2010.

• A third of respondents (33 %) experienced state funding cuts in excess of $50,000 over the last two years.

• Another 30 % reported reductions from $5,000 to $50,000.

7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rear_Plaza_3.jpg


4. State funding is very important to many community-based nonprofits.

State funding totaled more than 50 % of overall organization budget for just over a quarter of responding nonprofits (27 %).

The majority of respondents (55 %) said that state funds represent a portion— 30 % or less— of their overall budgets.

8


5. Like many Pennsylvania families, nonprofits have tightened their belts.

Almost two-thirds of nonprofits (64 %) report laying off staff as a result of funding cuts.

• 53 % accessed reserves • 39 % activated lines of credit• 26 % have no source of emergency funding

9


6. Private funding sources for nonprofits have not made up for the loss of state support.

Non-governmental sources of funds have remained flat or decreased since 2008 for most nonprofit organizations (77 %).

10

• 95 % of respondents from Lackawanna County have had their budgets cut in 2009 and 2010.

• 15% experienced state funding cuts in excess of $50,000 over the last two years.

• Another 43% reported reductions from $5,000 to $50,000.

11

Nonprofit Budget/Recession Survey: Lackawanna County

24% of responding Lackawanna County organizations reported turning away individuals needing services; while 19 % revoked services from individuals due to lack of funding.

• 10 % eliminated programs • 24 % reduced hours • 24 % expanded waiting lists

12


19 % of Lackawanna County respondents report laying off staff as a result of funding cuts.

• 24 % accessed reserves • 33 % activated lines of credit• 14 % have no source of emergency funding

13


95% of respondents report that conditions related to the economy have increased demand for services in Lackawanna County.

• 57 % increase in "first-time" households seeking services• 48 % increase in unemployed clients • 29 % increase in uninsured clients

Non-governmental sources of funds have remained flat or decreased since 2008 for most organizations (62 %).

14


• We have cut back on services provided but not on hours.

• Had a hiring freeze for vacant positions.• Cutback on programs for senior adults• More people going unserved, agency unable

to cover the costs of program deficits in the long-term.

• Waiting lists would grow and people would go unserved.

15
