Know someone who needs this? Forward it. Did someone send this to you? Subscribe here
Almost every nonprofit leader I've spoken with knows the secret. Some admit it after their second coffee, others in frustrated whispers at conferences. Here it is: when your systems are broken and no funder will pay to fix them, you find the money anyway. You have to.
You call it "allocation." You call it "shared costs." You bury operational roles in program budgets because that's where the money is.
Your Deputy Director who spends 60% of their time firefighting broken processes is a lot more than 15% of your program cost.
The tracking system you desperately need gets paid for in pieces, hiding it across multiple restricted grants that prohibit this exact purchase.
Bridgespan's research found that nonprofits routinely report 20% overhead when their real costs are closer to 30-40%. It’s called "benchmarking with peers."
Everyone's doing it. Everyone knows everyone's doing it. And everyone stays quiet because the alternative is admitting to donors and funders that you're technically misallocating restricted funds.
This isn't fraud (though it skirts uncomfortable territory). It's the rational response to a system that punishes organizations for being honest about what things actually cost.
The fiction benefits no one. Organizations become experts at creative accounting instead of operational excellence. New EDs inherit shadow budgets they don't understand. Staff burn out maintaining systems held together by workarounds and "just ask Sarah, she knows how it works."
The real cost is the cumulative organizational exhaustion of operating this way for years. It's the talented program director who leaves because they can't stand spending half their time on administrative workarounds that everyone agrees needs fixing but no one will fund. It's the moment when you realize you've spent more energy hiding your infrastructure needs than it would have taken to fix them, if only the money existed.
Some organizations eventually find funders who get it, and I know a few brave EDs who have successfully made the case. But those success stories are rare enough that we write articles celebrating them as breakthroughs.
The rest keep doing what they've always done: finding the money anyway, staying quiet about where it came from, and hoping that when the next funder asks why your overhead ratio is so low, they'll just accept the answer and move on.
We need someone to say out loud what everyone already knows: the current system creates an entire sector of organizations that literally cannot afford to operate at the capacity their missions demand.
And until that changes, the smartest, most ethical leaders you know will keep making uncomfortable compromises - because their communities need them to keep the doors open.
What would make you most likely to forward this email?
