Part I: The financial position of the Akron Zoo Ratio Debt Ratio Current Ratio Operating margin Net

surplus 1986 0.84 13.98 43% 1987 0.79 5.09 53% 1988 0.55 4.80 52% 1989 0.68 3.69 40% 1990 0.69 4.71 42% Average 0.71 6.45 46%

$232,541.00 $353,864.00 $341,781.00 $240,961.00 $298,954.00 $293,620.20

The above ratios tell us an interesting story about the financial position of The Akron Zoo. Over the past four years, the Zoo has averaged a net surplus of $293,620.20 per year, and because of this ongoing surplus, the Zoo has landed in good financial standing. The debt ratio illustrates that the Zoo has on average maintained only $.71 of debt for every $1 of equity for the past 5 years, with the maximum debt ratio being at $.84 of debt for every $1 of equity. This is a really strong ratio for a nonprofit. Additionally, their current ratio, with an average of 6.45, shows that the zoo is highly liquid, but is possibly bad at managing its short term assets. Even though the there was a 12% drop in the operating margin between 1988 and 1989, the Zoo still has strong numbers here. For the 5 years represented in the case study, the Zoo was profiting an average of $.46 for every $1 in sales. Given the described economic situation in Akron, and the competition in the area for limited resources, the Akron Zoo appears to be in good financial health.

Part II: Major environmental factors that influence the Zoos financial position and its
operating surplus and/or deficits Figure 1

Akron Zoo Annual Attendance

160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 1983 1984 1985 1986 1986 1988 1989 1990 1991 Akron Zoo Annual Attendance

In Figure 1, we see the annual attendance of Akron Zoo. Despite a dip in attendance between 1988 and 1989 that was caused by severe weather in both the spring and the winter, there has been a 234% increase in attendance from 1983 to 1991. This increase is quite remarkable because according to the case study, the region's population dropped by roughly 2% between 1980 and 1990. Figure 2 illustrates how the Zoo's attendance compares to surrounding area attractions. As Figure 2 shows, the Akron Zoo has experienced the largest attendance numbers for two years in a row. Below each attraction, the price of admission is listed1. We can also see that in addition to having the largest attendance numbers, the Zoo also has one of the lowest admission fees in the area. The combination of reasonably low admission prices, coupled with children's love of animals has made it an area favorite

The National Invention Center is listed as (N/A) because according to the case study it is not open yet

among families. According to the data, this has kept to Zoo highly competitive and put it in good financial standings. Figure 2

Annual Attendance for Akron Area Attractions

140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 Historical Akron Zoo National Hale Farm Art Stan Society ($3) Invention & Village Museum Hywet ($3) Center ($6.50) (Free) Hall & (N/A) Gardens ($6)

1989 1990

Part III: A financial strategy for the Zoo

Despite the good financial health, and the high liquidity of the Zoo, I would never advise an organization to take out a long or short term loan unless it was absolutely necessary. Because nonprofits are so venerable to volatility during economic downturns, bank loans tend to be higher risk for nonprofits than they are for for-profit companies, in my opinion. The financial strategy I would suggest for the CEO of the Akron Zoo is a four pronged approach: 1. Nominally increase admission prices (1992 and again in 1994) 2. Engage the community through micro-fundraisers (1992- indefinitely) 3. Conserve resources by "Going Green" (1992-1993)

4. Add a grant writer to staff. (1994) It is important to note that the changes I propose should be implemented over a period of time as to not over-burden the community, or the budget of the organization. The order listed above is the order in which I would recommend implementing changes. 1) Nominally increase admission prices Upon seeing the results of the zoo's survey report, it is clear that in order to secure its financial future it needs to expand and have a wider array of exhibits, with an emphasis on exhibits for children, and a return of a bear exhibit.2 In the survey, 51.8% of people said that they attended the Cleveland Zoo, and 45.2% of people stated that they had visited Sea World in the past year. These two parks are of particular importance because: a) they both have a higher admission fee than the Akron Zoo and b) they are both located farther away. Additionally, the three times the Zoo increased their admission price, there was an increase in attendance. Taking these three factors into consideration, it is safe to assume that if the Akron Zoo increased its admission fees, there would not be an adverse reaction on attendance. Assuming that the attendance rates at the zoo stayed the same, if the zoo increased all admission prices by $.50 in 1992, they could obtain an additional $62,681.50 per year for two years, and an additional $125,363 for the two years after that, resulting in an additional $376,089 being raised between 1992 until the end of 1995. Because the Zoo has historically raised its prices by $.50

According to the Akron Zoo Visitor Survey that was conducted in 1989, the two highest preferred new projects were "Build Exhibits for Children" and "Bring back the Bears".

every two years, this has show to be a nominal enough increase over a long enough period of time as to not ward off patrons. When increasing prices, it is important to make sure customers realize why the increases are happening. This could be accomplished by placing signs at the gates that read "For just 50, you are helping to bring back the bears!" When people feel they are getting something for their additional funds, they will be lest resentful over the admission increase. 2) Engage the community through micro-fundraisers It is important to make the community emotionally in the expansion of the Zoo. From my experience as a fundraiser, when people are more emotionally invested in a cause, they become more financially invested in it as well. But turning to the community for support in helping to build the new features at the Zoo, you will be making it a true community achievement. I recommend the use of micro-fundraisers because in this form, more people can get involved. In his 2008 presidential campaign, then Senator Barak Obama raised $500 million from 3 million donors making 6.5 million donations (Vargas, 2008). That equates to a little over $77 per contribution. What is important here though is not the size of the contributions; it is the number of people that gave. By asking your community for $5 instead of $500, you are going to get more people to give. Proposed micro fundraisers include: Asking people to donate $1-$5 at the grocery store when they are checking out This is modeled after my local Safeway, which will ask customers if they would like to add $1 to their bill for a cause (the causes rotate every month) According to the store's manager, in August (the most recent data available) that one location

raised almost $25,000 for a local animal shelter. The manager also informed me that the store record was $125,000 in one month for breast cancer research. Penny drives at local schools An annual penny drive at local schools might not raise $10,000, but it will excite your target demographic about going to the zoo. If the prize was offered that the class that raises the most money at each school will get a free field trip to the zoo, the kids will spend money on concessions and souvenirs while they are there, money will be raised through the drive, and kids will be talking about the zoo so much, many of them will convince their parents to bring them to the zoo, even if their class didn't win the field trip. Asking people to donate an additional $1 or $2 with their zoo admission to help add new exhibits. Much like the grocery story ask, this nominal amount will add up. Granted, not everyone will want to give on top of their admission, but some people will. If only 1/4 of people from 1991 gave and extra dollar to help the zoo, they would have raised and additional $31,340. The additional benefit to doing micro-fundraisers instead of running a capital campaign is you will be decreasing the competition with other local area nonprofits. The case study tells us that the National Inventor' Hall of Fame has committed to raising $40 million from the community. In an area that has been hard-hit by the economy, $40 million sounds like a very large amount of money; $1 or $5 to help support your local zoo, on the other hand, sounds much more manageable to most families. 3) Conserve resources by "Going Green"

In the case study, we see that the Akron Zoo is burdened by the ever-increasing cost of trash disposal. In addition, there is reference to the large amount of flowers and plants that are located throughout the Zoo. Even though the City of Akron provides the utilities, and presumably the water to the Zoo, there is still something to be saved by "Going Green". One of the large expenses in landscaping costs is mulch and fertilizer. If the Zoo were to institute a composting program at their concessions, use compostable cups, straws, plates, cutlery, et cetera, and composted these materials on site with food scraps and animal poo, they would save on both trash disposal and landscaping. Furthermore, according the City of Akron website, the city charges 20% less for recycling pickup than they do for trash pickup, so by implementing a recycling initiative at the Zoo for both workers and patrons, the Zoo could save up to 20% on trash disposal. These are just a few examples, but ultimately "Going Green" initiatives not only increase a company's reputation in their community, but they also save money along the way. 4) Add a grant writer to staff If all the aforementioned plans are successful, and the Akron Zoo is able to raise the funds necessary to complete the needed expansions, the CEO should consider bringing a grant writer onto staff. From my experience, grant writers are the most fiscally efficient member of a development team. From their $40,000 to $50,000 a year salary (often higher) they can bring in millions of dollars. The case study tells us that the Zoo is currently only receiving one grant per year from the city of Akron. Considering all the educational programming and conservation work that the Zoo does, there are clearly more grants that should be available to them. According to the grant writer at the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle, there are 18 city and regional

foundations that the WPZ received educational or conservation grants from this year, and an additional 38 that her team applied to. The Akron Zoo clearly has some worthy programs (Bring the Zoo to You, and the conservation education), I am inclined to believe that the lack of grant money in the budget isn't from lack of availability, but rather from lack of trying. As I used to tell my canvasser, "You will never get $1,000 from a donor if you don't ask for $1,000." Whereas these four points are my recommendations are the financial strategy for the Zoo, they are not my recommendation for the overall health of the organization. Ultimately, the most advantageous thing the CEO could do at this point would be to commission a three year strategic plan. In the overarching goal of securing the sustainability of the Zoo, it is clear that there must be a plan to expand in order to keep people engaged. Yet to ensure that these changes can be made in a way that will not cause the financial ruin of the organization, the emphasis of the strategic plan should be placed on securing a broad and diverse base of support for the Zoo, while a secondary emphasis should be set to building new attractions. The next strategic plan, which should comprised in 1995, should focus more on building and expanding the Zoo's programs.

Works Cited
Vargas, J. A. (2008, November 20). Obama Raised Half a Billion Online. The Washington Post.