Doing good while reading good — join the Nonprofit Good News-Letter.
50 Reasons Why It Is Hard to Run a Nonprofit — Challenge 30: Guilt
An executive director I worked with turned down a $5,000 line item for staff training in next year's budget. Her reasoning was immediate and visceral: "That's two months of food for the pantry."
She wasn't wrong about the math. She was wrong about what it meant.
That $5,000 in training would have reduced data entry errors in grant reporting, improved volunteer supervision, and given her development director the skills to write stronger proposals. Over twelve months, the return on that investment would have dwarfed two months of pantry supplies.
But it didn't feel that way. It felt like taking food from hungry people to send staff to a workshop. And so she cut it. Again.
In 2013, something remarkable happened. The CEOs of GuideStar, Charity Navigator, and the BBB Wise Giving Alliance — the three organizations that rate American charities — signed a joint letter to donors. The letter said, in essence: stop using overhead ratios to judge nonprofits. The practice is damaging the organizations you're trying to help.
The letter came three months after Dan Pallotta's TED talk made the same argument to millions of viewers: charities are penalized for investing in themselves while for-profit companies reward identical investments. A for-profit company that spends 20% on R&D is "innovative." A nonprofit that spends 20% on infrastructure is "wasteful."
The problem has a name. Ann Goggins Gregory and Don Howard described it in a 2009 Stanford Social Innovation Review article as the "starvation cycle." The dynamic is perverse: funders penalize overhead spending. Nonprofits respond by underreporting and underinvesting in infrastructure. Programs suffer because the infrastructure that supports them erodes. Funders see poor results and tighten overhead requirements further.
The cycle feeds itself. And it starts with guilt.
A 2012 analysis found that the American public believed nonprofits should spend no more than 23% on overhead. For context: Harvard's overhead rate for on-campus research is 68%. Advertising agencies average 55%. The 23% expectation isn't a reasonable standard. It's an impossible one.
But most EDs have internalized it anyway.
My book identifies guilt as a challenge specific to serving vulnerable populations — and that specificity matters. The guilt isn't abstract. It's tied to real people. The ED who cuts the training budget isn't thinking about "overhead ratios." She's thinking about the family that came in last Tuesday.
That emotional math is real. But it leads to predictable organizational damage.
Deferred technology. The database that crashes. The donor management system from 2012. The website that doesn't work on mobile. Each year the upgrade gets pushed because the money "should go to programs."
Untrained staff. People doing their best without the skills they need, making avoidable errors, burning out faster.
No reserves. When every dollar goes to direct services, there's nothing left for the quarter when a major grant doesn't come through. The organization that can't survive a three-month funding gap is one surprise away from crisis.
No succession planning. Because investing in leadership development feels like overhead. Until the ED leaves and the organization nearly collapses.
The organizations that shut down don't usually shut down because of mission failure. They shut down because the infrastructure was never funded.
Here's the reframe: feeling guilty about overhead doesn't mean you're committed to the mission. It means you're vulnerable to the starvation cycle.
The most resilient organizations I've worked with — the ones that serve their communities decade after decade — are the ones that invest in themselves without apology. Not extravagantly. Deliberately. They fund training because trained staff make fewer mistakes. They maintain technology because functioning systems free up time for mission work. They build reserves because organizations without reserves don't survive surprises.
This is sustainability, not selfishness. And the distinction matters, because the communities you serve need you to exist next year, not just this month.
If you're looking for a deeper framework on how to think about these tradeoffs — when to invest, what to invest in, and how to make the case to your board and funders — that's a core part of what I cover in Nonprofit Good News Premium. The newsletter exists specifically for leaders navigating these structural challenges.
Look at next year's budget. Find one line item you cut because it felt like overhead. Ask yourself: what's the cost of NOT spending that money? If the answer involves staff burnout, avoidable errors, or organizational fragility — put it back in.
The food pantry needs you to be here in five years. That requires infrastructure. Not guilt.
This is part of an ongoing series exploring the 50 challenges outlined in Managing Your Nonprofit for Resilience (Wiley, 2023). Subscribe to Nonprofit Good News Premium for implementation tools and deeper analysis.