A Balanced Understanding Of Nonprofit Overhead

In my seven years as an operations consultant and ten additional years of experience working in the nonprofit space, few conversations have been as persistent and polarizing as the one concerning overhead costs. This topic often provokes strong opinions because it touches the core of what a nonprofit stands for and how it functions.

Overhead costs—those expenses related to administration, salaries, and general operational functions always get scrutinized unfairly. On the one hand, a donor camp believes keeping overhead low is essential. They argue they want to see their contributions directly supporting the cause, not covering administrative expenses. They say, "We support programs, not people." This preference stems from a desire to ensure that funds are maximized for direct program delivery rather than administrative expenses.

On the other hand, many professionals, myself included, argue that adequate overhead is crucial for operational effectiveness and sustainability. The reality is that behind every successful program or initiative is the backbone of administrative support, strategic planning, and skilled personnel who ensure its smooth operation. I've yet to hear a credible answer to why donors think nonprofit overhead should range from 5 – 15% when corporate overhead averages 35%. If you have a good reason, please enlighten us in the comments below.

Nonprofits contribute to their own problem by agreeing to engaging in this vicious cycle. Grantors and donors frequently prioritize organizations that report low overhead costs. Consequently, nonprofits often feel compelled to understate or minimize their overhead to appeal to these funding sources. I've seen the detrimental effects of this "low overhead" mentality firsthand.

Corporations have Marketing, Human Resources, Finance, and Sales functions to deliver their product or service to their customer, which no one questions. Not even with exorbitant CEO salaries 10x of employees and large sums going to stadiums, sports teams, and events sponsorship. Capitalism is more understood than service. Donors seem to think a corporate profit program is more deserving than a nonprofit program serving those in need. Could it be the word "non" in the sector's categorization? The only difference between for-profit and nonprofit businesses is that the owners distribute the profits among their shareholders. In contrast, a nonprofit's profits roll back into the business to continue serving its constituents.

I understand donors want assurance that their money is making a tangible impact. However, an obsession with minimizing overhead can be misleading. I've seen firsthand how insufficient investment in overhead can weaken an organization. Underfunded administrative functions lead to disorganization, high staff turnover, and burnout. Without proper infrastructure, even the most well-intentioned programs can falter. Adequate overhead ensures an organization has the resources to recruit and retain talented staff, implement robust systems, and adapt to changing circumstances.

Moreover, high-quality administration supports better fundraising, program implementation, evaluation, and strategic planning—essential for long-term success. Investing in these areas can yield significant returns, both in terms of operational efficiency and program effectiveness.

?

?

A significant part of resolving this debate involves communication. Nonprofit fundraisers and leaders must shift the narrative from overhead as a necessary evil to overhead as an essential component of organizational success.

?

Nonprofits must break down budget allocations and show how each expense supports the mission. Transparency isn't just about low overhead; it's about honest and comprehensive reporting on how funds?are utilized?to further the cause. I believe the proper, true, and effective allocation is 65% Program, 24% Administrative Functions, and 11% Fundraising and Donor Engagement.

In my practice, I emphasize the importance of fostering a culture that understands and values the role of overhead, which involves training staff and board members to see the big picture and understand how different parts of the organization contribute to the overall mission. It also means encouraging donors to adopt a more nuanced view of nonprofit finances. Engaging donors in conversations about the actual costs of achieving impact can be enlightening. Many donors are willing to support overhead if they understand how it contributes to the success of the programs they care about.

As someone deeply committed to integrity, honesty, and accountability, the best solutions arise from inclusive dialogue and a shared vision. For donors who refuse to change their position, it is in the Nonprofit's best interest to walk away. It is tricky to do but a tougher thing to deliver when under-resourced. Nonprofits exist to drive positive change and impact. To fulfill this mission sustainably, they must move beyond the superficial allure of low overhead and embrace a more holistic approach to funding.

My hope is that everyone will work together to bridge the gap in understanding overhead. This balance is crucial for organizational sustainability.?Remember, culture always trumps strategy, and culture is how you treat your people—including how we invest in them, which reflects our values.

?