Survey finds 43% of Des Moines nonprofits have limited reserves

Nonprofits may be operating steadily today while facing a much narrower margin for error in the months ahead. A July survey by the Community Foundation of Greater Des Moines found that 43% of respondents had fewer than six months of reserves, while nearly half expressed concern about long-term sustainability. The survey is regional and explicitly not intended to represent the full nonprofit sector. But its combination of limited liquidity, reliance on individual giving and continued fundraising pressure reflects the financial questions now confronting NGOs across North America: how much cash is genuinely available, how exposed is revenue to a small number of sources, and which programs can be sustained if conditions worsen?

The Community Foundation’s biennial survey collected responses from 148 organizations across fields including human services, housing, health, education, arts and environmental work. Twenty-four percent reported more than 12 months of reserves, while 31% reported seven to 12 months. The remaining 43% had less than six months of reserves.

That distribution does not establish a universal benchmark for financial health. Reserve needs vary by payroll cycle, government reimbursement timing, restricted funding, debt obligations and the volatility of an organization’s programs. It does show, however, that a substantial share of respondents may have limited time to absorb a delayed payment, an unexpected cost or a fall in donations.

The survey identified individual donations as the most common primary revenue source, ahead of government funding, fees for service and corporate giving. It did not publish a numerical concentration ratio, such as the percentage of revenue supplied by the top donor or funding stream. That limits how precisely the sector-wide risk can be measured.

Still, the pattern matters. Where a single donor segment, government contract or major gift accounts for a large share of unrestricted cash, an organization can appear financially sound until that source changes. A July 16 analysis from PKF O’Connor Davies framed the issue through questions boards should ask about adequate reserves, reliance on one funder, program subsidies and the adequacy of indirect-cost rates.

The recent reporting suggests that resilience is being judged less by whether nonprofits expand and more by whether they can maintain services through volatility. PKF’s analysis highlights cash-flow forecasting, revenue diversification, donor stewardship and compliance as connected priorities. It also points to the need to understand which programs generate unrestricted cash and which require internal subsidy.

For finance teams, that means monthly visibility may be more useful than a backward-looking annual result. A strong income statement cannot by itself reveal whether restricted receipts, delayed reimbursements or rising payroll commitments are creating a near-term cash squeeze. Organizations need to distinguish accounting surplus from spendable liquidity and to model the effect of losing a major revenue source.

The Greater Des Moines survey found that fundraising and donor engagement were the most significant barriers identified by respondents. Many organizations were also balancing rising community needs with staffing and planning challenges. Most reported having a strategic plan, but fewer reported succession or talent-development plans, linking financial resilience to leadership continuity.

The immediate implication for NGOs is practical: reserves, revenue mix, program economics and workforce capacity should be reviewed together rather than in separate planning cycles. The current data are too regional and uneven to support a single sector-wide threshold, but they are strong enough to make liquidity and concentration visible as operational risks—not merely accounting measures.