The Overhead Myth Still Hurts Nonprofits

When boards and donors treat low overhead as proof of virtue, they often reward underinvestment in the very systems, people, and infrastructure that make mission success possible.

The development report looked good. The board packet was tidy. One trustee, flipping through the financials, stopped at a line that seemed to bring immediate comfort.

“Administrative and fundraising costs are only 18% of expenses,” he said. “That’s excellent.”

A few heads nodded.

Low overhead. Strong discipline. Good stewardship.

Case closed.

Except it wasn’t.

The CEO knew the finance team was stretched thin. The database needed work. Staff salaries were below market. A key compliance function was being held together by people already carrying too much. Technology had been postponed again because it was easier to delay an upgrade than to explain why “overhead” had gone up.

The ratio looked healthy.

The organization was not.

That is the problem with an obsession with overhead. It turns one narrow financial measure into a moral judgment. It makes people feel virtuous about underinvestment and suspicious of the very infrastructure that allows a nonprofit to do serious work well.

And it still distorts how too many boards, donors, and funders think.

What people mean when they say “overhead”

In nonprofit conversations, “overhead” usually refers to expenses that are not booked directly to program services, mainly management and general plus fundraising. In audited financial reporting, nonprofits present expenses by both nature and function, and boards often focus more on the support-function side of that statement than they should.

That has produced a bad habit.

Instead of asking whether an organization is well managed, financially healthy, strategically sound, and getting results, people ask a simpler question:

How low is the overhead ratio?

Simple questions are seductive.

They are also often the wrong questions.

The formula people love, and the trouble it causes

The basic version looks like this:

Overhead Ratio = (Management & General + Fundraising Expenses) ÷ Total Expenses

Some organizations also translate it into donor language:

For every dollar spent, X cents go to program and Y cents go to administration and fundraising.

Those formulas are not inherently wrong. They can be useful as part of a broader dashboard. Even the leaders behind the campaign to end the overhead myth never argued that overhead numbers are meaningless. Their point was that overhead ratios are a poor standalone test of nonprofit performance and can push donors and organizations toward the wrong conclusions.

That distinction matters.

A ratio can be real and still be misused.

Why the overhead myth refuses to die

The overhead myth survives because it gives donors and trustees something that feels objective. It compresses a complicated organization into one easy number. Low overhead feels disciplined. High overhead feels indulgent.

But nonprofit effectiveness does not work that way.

In 2013, the CEOs of GuideStar, Charity Navigator, and BBB Wise Giving Alliance publicly urged donors to stop using overhead ratios as the primary measure of a charity’s worth. They argued that donors should pay more attention to transparency, governance, leadership, and results, and warned that excessive focus on overhead can starve organizations of investments in planning, systems, evaluation, and talent.

That argument is still right.

And still not fully absorbed.

What gets sacrificed when nonprofits chase low overhead

When a nonprofit is pressured to look lean at all costs, the cuts rarely come from abstraction.

They come from real operating muscle.

They come from:

• salaries that stay too low to retain strong people

• finance teams that are too thin for the level of complexity they manage

• technology upgrades postponed year after year

• compliance and internal controls treated as optional until something breaks

• fundraising teams expected to build sustainable revenue without enough capacity to do it well

None of that shows up in a donor appeal.

All of it shows up eventually in organizational weakness.

Researchers examining the nonprofit starvation cycle found long-run evidence of downward pressure on reported overhead, with the heaviest cuts falling on staff wages and professional fees, precisely the places where capacity and resilience are built.

That is what makes overhead fixation so damaging. It does not merely create bad optics. It can create bad organizations.

A low ratio can mean efficiency, but it can also mean underinvestment

To be fair, lower support costs are not automatically bad, and higher support costs are not automatically good. Context matters.

A lean organization with strong systems, stable leadership, and clear results may in fact be running very efficiently.

But a low ratio can also mean:

• deferred maintenance in systems and technology

• inadequate staffing in finance, HR, or development

• dependence on burnout

• weak succession planning

• fragile infrastructure hidden behind flattering program percentages

That is why overhead is a clue, not a verdict.

It should invite better questions, not end the conversation.

What donors and boards should ask instead

If you want to understand whether a nonprofit is strong, do not stop at the overhead line.

Ask:

• Are the financial statements transparent and intelligible?

• Is leadership stable and credible?

• Does the organization invest enough in systems, talent, and compliance?

• Are fundraising costs producing durable, repeatable revenue?

• Is the board getting evidence of outcomes, not just activity?

• Are cash flow, reserves, and internal controls healthy?

• Does the organization have the infrastructure to scale without breaking?

Those questions are harder than “What percent goes to overhead?”

That is exactly why they are more useful.

The fundraising side of the myth

Overhead obsession becomes even more distorted when it spills into fundraising.

A nonprofit that underinvests in development may look efficient in the short term while quietly weakening future revenue. Strong donor systems, stewardship, copy, analytics, prospecting, and relationship management all cost money. Calling all of that “overhead” and treating it as suspect is like asking a business to grow without spending on sales.

Boards should not ask only, “How little did we spend on fundraising?”

They should also ask, “What did that spending produce, and is the engine getting stronger?”

Cheap fundraising is not the same as strong fundraising.

The real shift nonprofits need

The point is not to defend every administrative expense. Nonprofits still owe donors discipline, clarity, and honesty. Waste is real. Bloat is possible. Sloppy management should not hide behind lofty language about infrastructure.

But serious organizations should not apologize for investing in what makes serious work possible.

Staff development is not mission drift. Technology is not an indulgence. Evaluation is not fluff. Strong finance is not bureaucracy for its own sake. Thoughtful fundraising is not a necessary evil.

These are not distractions from impact.

They are part of how impact becomes sustainable.

The real lesson

The most dangerous financial myth in the nonprofit sector is not that overhead exists.

It is that low overhead proves virtue.

Sometimes it proves efficiency.

Sometimes it proves fear.

Sometimes it proves that an organization has learned to look strong on paper while growing weaker beneath the surface.

That is why better governance requires better questions.

A ratio can help. A ratio can warn. A ratio can mislead.

But it cannot tell you, by itself, whether a nonprofit is excellent.

The real question is not how little an organization spends on support.

It is whether it is investing enough to do its mission well.

Want more practical analysis on nonprofit finance, fundraising, and governance? Explore the latest articles on NonProfit.Blog or subscribe for new posts.