> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • An Update for Readers on Our New Nonprofit Status
Sign In
  • Latest
  • Advice
  • Opinion
  • Webinars
  • Data
  • Grants
  • Magazine
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
Sign In
  • Latest
  • Advice
  • Opinion
  • Webinars
  • Data
  • Grants
  • Magazine
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
  • Latest
  • Advice
  • Opinion
  • Webinars
  • Data
  • Grants
  • Magazine
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
News
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

Grant Makers’ Simplistic Overhead Rates Shortchange Nonprofits, Report Says

By  Drew Lindsay
May 19, 2016

The Ford Foundation works with thousands of nonprofits, each with different needs and structures. Yet its program grants pay for related indirect costs at a single rate — 20 percent of the grant.

Such one-size-fits-all grant making ignores enormous variations in nonprofit costs and virtually guarantees that grantees are shortchanged, according to a new study. Digging into the finances of a small sample of nonprofits, the report found that indirect costs ranged from 21 percent to 89 percent of direct costs. The median indirect cost rate was 40 percent, more than two-and-a-half times the 15 percent reimbursement rate common among major foundations.

Indirect-Cost Reimbursement Rates

Most major grant makers allocate a small percentage of project grants to paying overhead.

  • Ford Foundation 20%
  • Gates Foundation 15%
  • Carnegie Corporation 15%
  • John Templeton Foundation 15%
  • California Endowment 15%
  • MacArthur Foundation 15%
  • W.K. Kellogg Foundation 15%
  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation 12.5%
  • Helmsley Charitable Trust 10%-20%
  • Lilly Endowment 10%
  • Mellon Foundation 0%

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from v144.philanthropy.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

The Ford Foundation works with thousands of nonprofits, each with different needs and structures. Yet its program grants pay for related indirect costs at a single rate — 20 percent of the grant.

Such one-size-fits-all grant making ignores enormous variations in nonprofit costs and virtually guarantees that grantees are shortchanged, according to a new study. Digging into the finances of a small sample of nonprofits, the report found that indirect costs ranged from 21 percent to 89 percent of direct costs. The median indirect cost rate was 40 percent, more than two-and-a-half times the 15 percent reimbursement rate common among major foundations.

Indirect-Cost Reimbursement Rates

Most major grant makers allocate a small percentage of project grants to paying overhead.

  • Ford Foundation 20%
  • Gates Foundation 15%
  • Carnegie Corporation 15%
  • John Templeton Foundation 15%
  • California Endowment 15%
  • MacArthur Foundation 15%
  • W.K. Kellogg Foundation 15%
  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation 12.5%
  • Helmsley Charitable Trust 10%-20%
  • Lilly Endowment 10%
  • Mellon Foundation 0%

“Our sense is that the way we finance nonprofits is broken,” said Jeri Eckhart Queenan, a co-author of the report by the Bridgespan Group, a nonprofit consultancy. “What we see in the data is that one-size-fits-all just doesn’t work. Many funders are systemically and chronically underfunding the very nonprofit organizations that they rely on to achieve impact and solve society’s most pressing problems.”

The report calls for research to establish benchmark indirect-cost rates based on various types of nonprofits. A local arts organization, for instance, might have a lower reimbursement rate than an international development group with staff around the globe.

Ms. Eckhart Queenan said Bridgespan is working on such ideas with Ford and other large foundations. “We’re very excited about that,” she said. “We’re also mindful of how hard this is. Each of them has a different portfolio, different types of grantees, different challenges.”

ADVERTISEMENT

More Sophistication

The report arrives at a time when advocates of new approaches to nonprofit financing point to changing attitudes about overhead costs and traditional grant making. Jacob Harold, CEO of GuideStar, said the Bridgespan report is one of several efforts to analyze the economics of social change. “I’m excited about this,” he said. “It’s an indication of the field getting more sophisticated about some really hard questions.”

Antony Bugg-Levine, head of the Nonprofit Finance Fund, called the Bridgespan report a “positive contribution” to the conversation about financing alternatives. But he cautioned that foundations, armed with benchmarks, might simply set new indirect-rate policies rather than work with grantees to understand their true costs.

“We have this little bit of an opening in the conversation about what it takes to provide organizations with the full funding they need,” he said. “It would be unfortunate if all that energy is absorbed into simply renegotiating indirect rates.”

‘Shadow Economy’

In its report, Bridgespan studied 20 nonprofits with annual budgets ranging from $2 million to $650 million. They were a mix of direct-service and advocacy groups such as Good Shepherd Services in New York and Achieve, an education group in Washington, D.C.; global networks like Heifer International; and research organizations such as Seattle’s Center for Infectious Diseases Research.

The research labs in the study had the highest median indirect expenses, at about 63 percent of their full costs. The median for the others was 44 percent for international networks; 40 percent for advocacy organizations; and 25 percent for direct-service groups.

ADVERTISEMENT

Bridgespan’s definition of indirect costs included administration; field and network operations; project-related equipment and facilities; and “knowledge management,” including staff with program and subject expertise.

The report notes that it’s common for program officers and nonprofits to tweak financial data to get around indirect-cost limits. “As a result,” it says, “we do not know as a sector what it really costs to achieve impact.”

Talking about this “shadow economy,” one nonprofit leader says in the report that her organization has two budgets, “one that has the real numbers, and another that shows the funders what they want to see.”

Note: An earlier version of this story said the report found that indirect costs ranged from 21 percent to 89 percent of total costs, not direct costs.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Foundation Giving
Drew Lindsay
Drew is a longtime magazine writer and editor who joined the Chronicle of Philanthropy in 2014.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

  • Foundations Show Signs of Rejecting ‘Overhead Myth’
  • Explore
    • Latest Articles
    • Get Newsletters
    • Advice
    • Webinars
    • Data & Research
    • Magazine
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Latest Articles
    • Get Newsletters
    • Advice
    • Webinars
    • Data & Research
    • Magazine
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Work at the Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Gift-Acceptance Policy
    • Site Map
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Work at the Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Gift-Acceptance Policy
    • Site Map
    • DEI Commitment Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Organizational Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Organizational Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Philanthropy
  • twitter
  • youtube
  • pinterest
  • facebook
  • linkedin