Serving Older New Yorkers and Sustaining the Mission: A Financial Analysis of LiveOn NY

Maya Christine Gonzales, Tonika Kareema Henry, Ethan Freedman, Yi-Jun Yeh

April 28, 2026

Columbia University School of Social Work, New York

Submitted in partial fulfillment as Assignment Four: Final Evaluation Paper within the requirements for Columbia’s School for Social Work program and Prof. Monica Foote’s Financial Management class.

Acknowledgements

In introducing the following work, we would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory on which we learn, work, and resource from Columbia University School of Social Work is land of the Lenape and Wappinger indigenous peoples. Let us commit ourselves to the struggle against the forces that have dispossessed the Lenape, Wappinger, and other indigenous people of their lands.

We would also like to acknowledge Prof. Monica Foote and their facilitation of SOCWT7125. With Prof. Monica Foote’s lectures, recommended readings, and our additional thoughts – this piece took form. Moreover, to all our peers in class who contributed to discussions and building ideas that related to the present topic. With these acknowledgements, we present our following work.

Executive Summary

This paper presents a financial analysis of LiveOn Ny, a nonprofit organization based in New York serving the state’s elderly population since 1979. Using eight financial ratios drawn from three years of audited financial statements (FY2022-FY2024), this evaluation takes the perspective of nonprofit financial consultants and is addressed to LiveOn’s senior leadership to assess the organization's financial health, sustainability, and operational efficiency.

LiveOn NY demonstrates exceptional mission commitment. Its program expense ratio reached 85.3% in FY2024, well above the 65-70% benchmark recommended by Bowman (2011), and its management and general (M&G) overhead remained lean at 10.7%. Unrestricted net assets grew significantly from $9,074 in FY2022 to $421,369 in FY2024, and membership dues increased steadily to provide a reliable earned revenue stream. These indicators reflect disciplined stewardship and genuine organizational effectiveness.

Beneath this strong programmatic performance lies a set of interconnected structural vulnerabilities. The most significant is LiveOn’s deepening dependence on government grants, which grew from 44.5% of total revenue in FY2022 to 56.2% in FY2024. This concentration risk, compounded by declining foundation grants and a 53% drop in individual contributions in FY2024, exposes the organization to serious disruption if government funding is delayed or reduced. The 2023 fiscal year demonstrated this risk concretely as reimbursement delays forced LiveOn to draw $249,293 from restricted endowment funds to sustain operations, with only $100,000 replenished by FY2024.

Liquidity remains a persistent concern. The organization has never reached the recommended 90-day cash reserve benchmark across any of the three years reviewed, holding only 36 days of operating cash at its lowest point in FY2023. The average collection period deteriorated from 70 days in FY2022 to 110 days in FY2024, meaning the organization routinely waits nearly four months to receive money it has already earned. These cash flow pressures are structural and reflect the timing risks inherent in a funding model based on reimbursements.

In response, this paper advances two time-bound recommendations. First, LiveOn should reinvest in fundraising capacity and actively diversify its revenue base to restore fundraising expenditures in the near term and reduce government concentration below 50% over the span of multiple years. Second, LiveOn should implement a formal cash management and reserve-building strategy, targeting an operating reserve equivalent to at least three months of expenses and deploying structured receivables tracking to prevent future liquidity crises.

LiveOn NY’s mission is clear, and its program stewardship is commendable. The financial work ahead is not about changing what the organization does. The work ahead is about ensuring the organization remains strong enough to keep pursuing its mission.

Introduction

This paper seeks to analyze the nonprofit LiveOn NY (LiveOn), utilizing its financial statements as a primary source and supplementing this data with secondary research from financial scholars. Since 1979, LiveOn NY has been a coalition of more than 100 community-based advocates who work together to collectively ensure the social and psychological support of New York State’s historically marginalized elderly population. As stated on its website, LiveOn defines its mission as championing “the diverse network of nonprofit organizations that help New Yorkers thrive in their communities. Through advocacy, mobilization, and coalition building,” LiveOn “advances systemic change to ensure that New York is an equitable and inclusive place to age regardless of wealth, racial disparities, and other barriers” (LiveOn NY, n.d.). Long-term, it “envisions a New York where all older adults have the resources they need to age in community and enjoy a high quality of life in later years” (LiveOn NY, n.d.). The scope of LiveOn’s work extends to millions of elderly adults and their caregivers throughout the state of New York (LiveOn, NY, n.d.). LiveOn is a direct service organization and a nonprofit driven by advocacy at a systems level, and this particular organization's structure informs the forthcoming financial analysis and interpretation.

The following memo is authored from the perspective of nonprofit financial consultants and is directed to LiveOn’s senior leadership. The goal is to use financial ratio analysis across a three-year period to evaluate the organization’s financial health, sustainability, and operational efficiency. Following this introduction is a presentation of justifications for eight relevant ratios, a multi-year trend analysis examining how the ratios interact, a cohesive financial story connecting LiveOn’s finances to its operations and mission, and a SWOT analysis of organizational strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Concrete, strategic, and time-bound recommendations are offered to strengthen LiveOn’s financial position, drawing on Bowman (2011), Finkler et al. (2017), McLaughlin (2009), and additional scholars.

While LiveOn demonstrates strong mission alignment through consistent investment in programs, culminating in an 85.3% program expense ratio in FY2024, the organization’s financial structure raises significant questions about long-term sustainability and funding diversification. Its growing dependence on government revenue, persistently inadequate cash reserves, and deteriorating receivables collection efficiency expose the organization to systemic risk as it deepens work critical to its mission. This analysis aims to demonstrate both the commendable stewardship of LiveOn’s leadership and the urgent financial work to adapt ahead.

Ratio Selection and Defense

The selection of financial ratios speaks to the notion that ratios are interpretive tools, and the choice of which ratios apply reflects analytical priorities and understanding of an organization’s particular context. Bowman (2011) notes that ratio analysis must be tailored to the specific characteristics of the nonprofit being analyzed, accounting for its funding structure, service model, and operating environment. Finkler et al. (2017) similarly argue that financial ratios gain their meaning through comparison across time, against benchmarks, and alongside peer organizations. With this in mind, eight ratios were selected across four categories designed to capture the dimensions of LiveOn’s financial condition most relevant to its operations as a government-funded, social services and advocacy-centered nonprofit.

Summary of all eight ratios (FY2022–FY2024)

xychart-beta
	title "Selected trend lines (FY2022–FY2024)"
	x-axis ["FY2022","FY2023","FY2024"]
	y-axis "Percent" 0 --> 100
	line "Program Expense Ratio" [77.6,74.9,85.3]
	line "M&G Expense Ratio" [11.5,13.2,10.7]
	line "Govt. Revenue Concentration" [44.5,53.9,56.2]

Financial Analysis of LiveOn: Trends and the Financial Story

Reading LiveOn NY’s financial ratios across three fiscal years reveals a dynamic narrative of deliberate prioritization of its mission, a structural challenge around liquidity, a funding concentration risk that is intensifying, and the beginnings of what may become a tension between short-term efficiency and long-term sustainability.

Common Size Ratios

Ratio 1: Program Expense Ratio

Formula: Total Program Expenses / Total Expenses

Source: Statement of Functional Expenses (LiveOn NY, 2023, 2024, 2025)

The Program Expense Ratio is the most immediately favorable ratio in LiveOn’s financial profile. As Table 2 shows, total program expenses, comprised of Member Services and Policy and Advocacy, moved from $1,570,234 (77.6% of total expenses) in FY22 to $1,529,228 (74.9%) in FY2023 before surging to $1,702,125 (85.3%) in FY2024 (Statement of Functional Expenses; LiveOn NY, 2023, 2024, 2025). The FY23 dip reflected a slight reduction in program spending alongside a growth in supporting services. The FY24 surge to 85.3% was driven primarily by a $223,119 increase in Member Services expenses alongside a dramatic drop in fundraising from $243,069 to $80,490. For context, Bowman (2011) suggests that most well regarded nonprofits maintain program ratios above 65% to 70%, and LiveOn’s FY24 figure is exceptional compared to this benchmark.

Ratio 2: Management and General (M&G) Expense Ratio

Formula: M&G Expenses / Total Expenses

Source: Statement of Functional Expenses (LiveOn NY, 2023, 2024, 2025)

The M&G Expense Ratio remained stable and well within the 10% to 25% benchmark for social service nonprofits across all three years: 11.5% in FY2022 ($233,260), 13.2% in FY2023 ($269,091), and 10.7% in FY2024 ($213,448) (Statement of Functional Expenses; LiveOn NY, 2022, 2023, 2024; McLaughlin, 2009). As Table 3 shows, salaries consistently dominated M&G spending, comprising approximately 45.9% in FY2022, 43.3% in FY2023, and 49.0% in FY2024. The FY23 uptick in overall M&G ratio was driven largely by a jump in Professional Fees, Legal and Accounting from $38,130 to $53,784, reflecting one-time transition costs associated with implementing an operating lease recognition (FASB ASU 2016-02). By FY2024, professional fees dropped to $26,525 and total M&G fell to its lowest level in the review period.

Ratio 3: Government Revenue Concentration Ratio

Formula: Government Grants / Total Public Support and Revenue

Source: Statement of Financial Activities (LiveOn NY, 2023, 2024, 2025)

The Government Revenue Concentration Ratio reveals the single most significant structural financial fact about LiveOn, as it signals a deepening dependence on government grants. As Table 4 indicates, government grants grew from $921,169 (44.5% of revenue) in FY22 to $1,082,483 (53.9%) in FY23 and $1,210,812 (56.2%) in FY24 (Statement of Activities; LiveOn NY, 2023, 2024, 2025). Notably, the absence of the PPP grant after FY22 and declining foundation grants (from $535,000 to $412,500) were partially offset by growing membership dues and conference income. That being said, government grants remained the dominant source. Finkler et al. (2017) identify concentration risk as a central form of financial vulnerability in nonprofits. Individual contributions declined from $92,524 in FY23 to $43,070 in FY2024, a 53.0% drop that coincides with the reduction in fundraising investment observed in Table 2.

The connection between the Program Ratio and the Government Concentration Ratio reveals a major financial narrative for LiveOn. Their impressive efficiency in meeting their mission is structurally dependent on government funding. If that funding were reduced or delayed, which is a real and documented risk seen in FY23 with grant reimbursement delays, the organization’s ability to maintain current services would be immediately threatened.

Efficiency Ratios

Ratio 4–5: Receivables Turnover and Average Collection Period

Formula: (Revenue / Total Receivables) and (365 / Receivables Turnover)

Source: Statement of Financial Position (Receivables) and Statement of Activities (Revenue) (LiveOn NY, 2023, 2024, 2025)

Table 5 shows the components underlying the receivables efficiency ratios. Receivables Turnover declined from 5.22 times in FY22 to 2.92 times in FY23, then partially recovered to 3.32 times in FY24. This decline was driven primarily by the dramatic growth of government grants receivable from $305,316 in FY22 to $498,647 in FY23 and $534,141 in FY24 (Statement of Financial Position; LiveOn NY, 2023, 2024, 2025), meaning the organization was earning more government grant revenue and collecting it more slowly. The Average Collection Period worsened from approximately 70 days in FY22 to 125 days in FY23 before partially improving to 110 days in FY24. This means that in FY24, on average, LiveOn waited approximately 3.5 months after providing services before receiving payment. Finkler et al. (2017) emphasizes that accrual-based surpluses do not guarantee positive cash flow, and the timing of cash inflows is a critical and distinct dimension of financial risk.

xychart-beta
	title "Liquidity timing pressure (FY2022–FY2024)"
	x-axis ["FY2022","FY2023","FY2024"]
	y-axis "Days" 0 --> 140
	line "Avg Collection Period (days)" [70,125,110]
	line "Days of Cash on Hand (days)" [59,36,50]

Liquidity Ratios

Ratio 6: Current Ratio

Formula: Current Assets / Current Liabilities

Source: Statement of Financial Position (LiveOn NY, 2023, 2024, 2025)

Table 6 shows the complete current assets and current liabilities underlying the Current Ratio. The ratio moved from 3.19 in FY22 to 1.60 in FY23 before recovering to 2.80 in FY24. Nonprofit benchmarks generally target 1.5 to 2.0 as comfortable (Bowman, 2011). However, the composition of current assets tells a more critical story than the ratio alone. In FY24, of the $920,204 in current assets, only $272,215 (29.6%) was cash. The remaining $647,989 (70.4%) consisted of receivables that were owed and not yet collected. The FY23 spike in total current liabilities to $557,692 was driven almost entirely by the $436,276 Operating Lease Liability recognized under FASB ASU 2016-02, which collapsed the current ratio to 1.60 despite the organization's otherwise stable financial position (Statement of Financial Position; LiveOn NY, 2024).

Ratio 7: Days of Cash on Hand

Formula: Cash / (Total Expenses / 365)

Sources: Statement of Financial Position (cash) and Statement of Activities (expenses) (LiveOn NY, 2023, 2024, 2025)

Table 7 shows the full calculation underlying each year’s Days of Cash on Hand figure, and also displays the gap between LiveOn’s actual cash position and the 90 day benchmark across all three years. LiveOn held 59.02 days of operating cash in FY22, which declined to 36.46 days in FY23 before recovering to 49.78 days in FY24, all derived from cash and cash equivalents on the Statement of Financial Position and total expenses on the Statement of Activities (LiveOn NY, 2023, 2024, 2025). Across all three years, the organization fell short of the 90 day safety buffer that Bowman (2011) and others recommend as a minimum for nonprofits with volatile revenue streams. The gap ranged from -30.98 days in FY22 to a low of -53.54 days in FY23, partially recovering to -40.22 days in FY24. The FY23 endowment decline due to government reimbursement delays is precisely the scenario these benchmarks are designed to prevent (Finkler et al., 2017).

Long-term Solvency

Ratio 8: Debt Ratio

Formula: Total Liabilities / Total Assets

Source: Statement of Financial Position (LiveOn NY, 2023, 2024, 2025)

Table 8 provides the complete Statement of Financial Position breakdown underlying the Debt Ratio. In FY22, total liabilities of $229,492 represented 19.0% of total assets of $1,208,142. The ratio rose sharply to 36.6% in FY23, driven almost entirely by the recognition of a $436,276 Operating Lease Liability (78.2% of all liabilities in FY23) required by FASB ASU 2016-02. As Hager (2001) cautions, abrupt changes in nonprofit solvency ratios should be evaluated in context, as accounting changes can produce misleading signals. By FY24, as the Operating Lease Liability declined to $203,821 (62.0% of liabilities), the Debt Ratio improved to 22.3%, close to its FY22 baseline. Most significantly, the net assets section reveals the dramatic growth of unrestricted net assets from $9,074 in FY22 to $421,369 in FY24, representing a meaningful expansion of organizational financial flexibility.

LiveOn’s Integrated Financial Story

Taken together, these eight ratios, supported by detailed line-item tables, tell a coherent financial story about LiveOn NY from FY2022 to FY2024. The organization is deeply and genuinely committed to its mission, with an 85.3% program expenses ratio, well-controlled M&G overhead at 10.7%, and growing net assets that all demonstrate genuine program stewardship. However, the mission efficiency has been built on a foundation that carries structural risk. The government revenue concentration has increased from 44.5% to 56.2% across three fiscal years, while fundraising investment collapsed from $243,069 to $80,490, and individual contributions fell by 53%. Layered on top of this are the cash flow and receivables challenges, as a 110-day average collection period, only 50 days of operating cash, and a three-year pattern of never reaching the 90-day benchmark signal, which pains LiveOn. The FY23 endowment drawdown was a preview of a recurring vulnerability that the organization must proactively address to sustain itself for many years to come.

Additionally, what makes LiveOn’s financial story especially important is that its strengths and vulnerabilities are occurring simultaneously. FY2024’s 85.3% program expense ratio and 10.7% M&G ratio suggest disciplined mission stewardship that the organization appeared to hold itself deeply accountable for championing “the diverse network of nonprofit organizations that help New Yorkers thrive in their communities” (LiveOn NY, n.d.), but those improvements also coincided with a steep reduction in fundraising expenses from $220,083 in FY2022, to $243,069 in FY2023, and to $80,490 in FY2024, and, in addition to that, there was a decline in individual contributions from $92,524 in FY2023 to $43,070 in FY2024. These pieces of financial information seem to mean that parts of LiveOn NY’s lower-cost operating structure may also reflect weaker investment in private revenue generation rather than greater operating efficiency. At the same time, LiveOn NY’s balance sheet looks stronger than its position on cash and cash equivalents suggests. Although unrestricted new assets increased, the organization continued to operate with only 49.87 days of cash on hand in FY2024, and the notes from the FY 2022, 2023, and 2024 financial statements make clear that donor-restricted endowment assets were not available for general expenditures. In fact, the delayed government reimbursements in FY2023 were serious enough that LiveOn used restricted endowment funds to support operations. These delayed government reimbursements created a $249,293 deficiency that was only partially repaired in FY2024 through a $100,000 replenishment. These financial points, when gathered together, suggest that LiveOn NY was not struggling because it lacked mission discipline or overspent on administration. Rather, LiveOn NY’s core financial challenge appears to be structural: its operating model depended too much on the timing and continuity of government cash flows.

SWOT Analysis

Strengths

LiveOn NY's greatest internal strength is its commitment to mission. In FY2024, the organization directed 85.3% of every dollar spent directly toward its programs, well above the 65–70% benchmark that Bowman (2011) considers strong for nonprofits. Administrative (M&G) overhead remained lean at 10.7%, meaning the organization runs efficiently without wasting resources on management costs. On the balance sheet, unrestricted net assets grew significantly from just $9,074 in FY2022 to $421,369 in FY2024, giving leadership more financial flexibility than it had before. Membership dues also grew steadily from $193,105 to $278,708 over the same period, providing a reliable and consistent source of income that does not depend on government approval or grant cycles.

Weaknesses

LiveOn's most persistent internal challenge is that it does not hold enough cash to protect itself when things go wrong. Across all three years reviewed, the organization never reached the 90-day cash reserve that experts recommend, holding only 59 days in FY2022, dropping to just 36 days in FY2023, and partially recovering to 50 days in FY2024. Making this worse, the organization is waiting longer and longer to collect money it has already earned. The average collection period stretched from 70 days in FY2022 to 110 days in FY2024. These two problems collided in FY2023, when delayed government payments forced LiveOn to draw $249,293 from its restricted endowment funds just to keep operations running. By FY2024, only $100,000 of that had been replenished. At the same time, the organization cut its fundraising budget dramatically from $243,069 in FY2023 to just $80,490 in FY2024, and individual contributions fell by 53% in a single year, weakening the private revenue base the organization needs to reduce its dependence on government funding.

Opportunities

Despite these challenges, LiveOn has real opportunities to strengthen its financial position. Its earned income streams (conference revenue, rental income, and marketplace initiative income) have all grown steadily and are not subject to government reimbursement delays. As Finkler et al. (2017) note, growing these types of reliable, diversified revenue sources is one of the most effective ways a nonprofit can reduce its vulnerability to funding disruptions. The growth in unrestricted net assets also creates a good opportunity to build a formal operating reserve, which would directly address the cash shortfall that has persisted across all three years. Finally, LiveOn's recognized standing as the leading advocacy organization for senior services in New York positions it well to pursue larger, multi-year foundation grants, a move that could provide more stable and predictable funding compared to the reimbursement-based government contracts it currently depends on.

Threats

The most serious external threat facing LiveOn is its deepening dependence on government funding. Government grants grew from 44.5% of total revenue in FY2022 to 56.2% in FY2024, meaning more than half of the organization's income now comes from a single source that operates on political timelines and bureaucratic reimbursement schedules outside of LiveOn's control. McLaughlin (2009) warns that nonprofits with this level of revenue concentration face existential risk when that funding is disrupted, and LiveOn has already experienced what that looks like. The FY2023 reimbursement delays were serious enough to force a drawdown of restricted endowment funds, meaning this threat is not theoretical, it has already caused real financial harm. Compounding this, foundation grants declined from $535,000 in FY2022 to $412,500 in FY2024 at the same time that individual giving fell sharply, meaning LiveOn's private revenue base is shrinking when it needs to be growing.

Recommendations

The importance of our ratio analysis and SWOT assessment is to generate innovative, evidence-backed recommendations that LiveOn NY can utilize to improve their service delivery from a financial lens. As aforementioned, the organization’s core challenge is an increasing dependence on government revenue, a weakened fundraising function, deteriorating receivables collection, and chronically inadequate cash reserves. These weaknesses are in contrast to its strong mission alignment. This is demonstrated by its program commitment where, from FY2022 to FY2024, LiveOn’s program expense ratio was a strong 85.3%, while its management and general expense ratio was a lean 10.7%. Hence, our recommendations for LiveOn focus not on mission alignment or programmatic funding but on its volatile operating model (Finkler et al., 2022, pp. 509–510). We believe that two core recommendations should be implemented across an immediate, medium-term, and long-term timeline. Specifically, LiveOn should 1) rebalance its financial model by investing in revenue diversification and fundraising capacity, and 2) strengthen liquidity and financial resilience through cash management and reserve building.

Recommendation 1: Revenue Diversification and Fundraising Capacity in the Short, Medium, and Long-term

The first key recommendation for LiveOn NY is to rebalance the financial model by investing in revenue diversification and fundraising capacity. To explain, across all three years of financial statements, LiveOn became increasingly dependent on government funding, reaching 56.2% of total revenue in FY2024. Simultaneously, individual contributions saw a drop and fundraising expenses dropped by nearly two-thirds from FY2023 to FY2024. What can be gleaned from this pattern is that LiveOn’s improved financial position in FY2024 is positive, but not inherently sustainable since it is driven in part by reduced investment in revenue generation. Therefore, instead of continuing to prioritize low overhead, LiveOn should intentionally reinvest in fundraising and diversified revenue streams. Though this may temporarily increase the administrative and fundraising ratios, in the long-term the dividends could be immensely supportive. Gregory and Howard argue that, due in part to the pressure to maintain a low overhead - which is more visible now than ever - nonprofits have a tendency to underinvest in fundraising and infrastructure. They coined the term “nonprofit starvation cycle” to encompass this phenomenon that ultimately undermines organizational effectiveness and endurance (Gregory & Howard, 2009, pp. 49–50). Fortunately, LiveOn NY can reinvest in fundraising and diversify revenue streams in the short, medium, and long-term.

Immediately, LiveOn NY can work to restore fundraising spending to prior levels and prioritize high-year revenue sources, such as major donors and foundations. In the medium-term, LiveOn NY can reduce reliance on government funding by expanding earned revenue streams (i.e., membership dues, conferences, marketplaces initiatives) and rebuilding individual giving. In the long-term, LiveOn NY can develop a balanced revenue portfolio where no single funding source dominates; this should allow for the nonprofit to pursue its mission with a heightened sense of autonomy and stability. This recommendation is grounded in the financial management concept that nonprofits should maintain flexible and diversified revenue streams to support the impact and longevity of their work (Bowman, 2011, pp. 1–2).

Recommendation 2: Cash Management and Reserve-Building in the Short, Medium, and Long-term

The second core recommendation is to strengthen liquidity and financial resilience via cash management and reserve-building. Although LiveOn’s current ratio improved in FY2024, the organization continues to cope with liquidity challenges, such as a high average collection period and only about 50 days of cash on hand. The financial literature emphasizes that strong accrual performance does not always breed operational stability if cash is not readily available (Finkler et al., 2022, pp. 513–515). To mitigate this issue, LiveOn should focus its attention on cash flow management and reserve-building.

In the short term, this can look like implementing a structured receivables tracking system and establishing a minimum cash threshold to ensure the organization can meet its immediate obligations. Medium-term, it can improve internal financial reporting and forecasting to identify liquidity risks earlier and manage delayed reimbursements more effectively. To evidence this point, consider the FEGs report, which shows that weak financial monitoring systems can prevent organizations from recognizing fiscal dangers in time to respond. (Human Services Council, 2016, pp. 3–5). Finally, in the long-term, LiveOn NY can build and maintain an operating reserve equivalent to at least three months of expenses, so as to provide a buffer against delayed funding and economic uncertainty. Bowman notes that reserves are essential for allowing nonprofits to maintain services during periods of financial stress (Bowman, 2011, pp. 154–155). To conclude, with this recommendation, LiveOn NY can transform from reactive financial management to proactive risk management, ensuring that it can sustain its programs even when external funding conditions are unstable.

Conclusion

This analysis set out to evaluate LiveOn NY's financial health, sustainability, and operational efficiency across three fiscal years using eight financial ratios drawn from its audited financial statements. What emerged is a picture of an organization that is deeply committed to its mission and spends its money carefully, but one that is operating on a financial foundation that carries serious structural risk.

LiveOn's strengths are real and worth acknowledging. Its 85.3% program expense ratio in FY2024, lean administrative overhead at 10.7%, and growing unrestricted net assets all reflect an organization that takes its mission seriously and manages its resources with care. These are not small achievements for a nonprofit operating at LiveOn's scale in one of the most expensive cities in the world.

However, the ratios also tell a more cautionary story beneath the surface. Government grants now make up more than half of all revenue. Cash reserves have never reached the recommended 90-day benchmark in any of the three years reviewed. The average collection period has stretched to 110 days, meaning LiveOn waits nearly four months on average to collect money it has already earned. And in FY2023, the organization was forced to draw down restricted endowment funds just to keep operations running. These are not isolated problems. They are connected symptoms of the same structural challenge: LiveOn depends too heavily on government reimbursements that arrive on a timeline it cannot control.

The two recommendations in this paper, reinvesting in fundraising and revenue diversification, and building a formal operating reserve, are not in conflict with LiveOn's mission. They are what will allow the mission to continue. As Gregory and Howard (2009) warn, the pressure to keep overhead low can quietly push nonprofits into a starvation cycle where underinvestment in fundraising and infrastructure slowly erodes the organization's ability to function. LiveOn is not there yet, but the steady decline in fundraising spending and private contributions over the past three years is a warning sign that deserves serious attention.

LiveOn NY has spent more than four decades building power and resources for older New Yorkers who have too often been overlooked. The financial work ahead is not about changing what the organization does. It is about making sure the organization stays strong enough to keep doing it. With intentional investment in revenue diversification, stronger cash management, and a commitment to building financial resilience, LiveOn is well positioned to sustain and deepen the impact that its mission demands.

References

Bowman, W. (2011). Finance fundamentals for nonprofits : Building capacity and sustainability. Wiley.

Finkler, S. A., Calabrese, T., & Smith, D. L. (2017). Financial management for public, health, and not-for-profit organizations. CQ Press.

Finkler, S. A., Smith, D. L., & Calabrese, T. D. (2022). Financial management for public, health, and not-for-profit organizations. CQ Press.

Goggins Gregory, A., & Howard, D. (2009). The nonprofit starvation cycle. Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_nonprofit_starvation_cycle

Hager, M. A. (2001). Financial vulnerability among arts organizations: A test of the Tuckman-Chang measures. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(2), 376–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764001302010

Human Services Council. (2016). New York nonprofits in the aftermath of FEGS: A call to action. Human Services Council. https://humanservicescouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Initiatives/HSCCommission/HSCCommissionReport.pdf

LiveOn NY. (n.d.). About us. LiveOn NY. Retrieved April 22, 2026, from https://www.liveon-ny.org/aboutus

LiveOn NY. (2023). Audited financial statements: Fiscal year ended June 30, 2022. In LiveOn NY. LiveOn NY. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/562a3197e4b0493d4ffd3105/t/63e515f36235ba3ca97234dc/1675957747962/Live+ON+Fin+Stmts+6-30-2022+FINAL.pdf

LiveOn NY. (2024). Audited financial statements: Fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. In LiveOn NY. LiveOn NY. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/562a3197e4b0493d4ffd3105/t/6643b2e00a47e456bb9cda27/1715712736342/LiveOn-+FY23+Fin+Stmt+-+Final.pdf

LiveOn NY. (2025). Audited financial statements: Fiscal year ended June 30, 2024. In LiveOn NY. LiveOn NY. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/562a3197e4b0493d4ffd3105/t/681cc0df83fa9c361f48d381/1746714847814/LiveOn+NY+Fin+Stmts+6-30-2024.pdf

Mclaughlin, T. A. (2009). Streetsmart financial basics for nonprofit managers. Wiley.

Tinkelman, D., & Parsons, L. M. (2023). Research handbook on nonprofit accounting. Edward Elgar Publishing.