Advertisement

Cash Machines or More?

  • Diana Leat
Chapter
  • 278 Downloads

Abstract

One of the charges charities fear most is being seen to spend too much on ‘overheads’. In a charity’s publicity and fundraising materials, there are often prominent claims that ‘every penny/cent’ goes to help those in need, implying that the charity spends nothing on offices, utilities, staff, and so on. Endowed foundations do not need to make such claims for fundraising purposes, but trustees may nevertheless keep a tight rein on any spending that is not directly related to the foundation’s mission. Organisations that work to support and advise foundations are frequently asked what percentage of a foundation’s income it is reasonable to spend on overhead, and whether there are any benchmarks.

Keywords

Administrative Cost Overhead Cost Public Benefit Expense Ratio Melinda Gate Foundation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anheier, H.K., and D. Leat. 2006. Creative philanthropy. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Borms, de, L.T. 2005. Creating impact in a globalised world. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Boris, E.T., L. Renz, A. Barve, M. Hager, and G. Hobor. 2006. Foundation expenses and compensation: How operating characteristics influence spending. http://urnban.org/url.cfm?ID=311281
  4. Buteau, E., P. Buchanan, C. Bolanos, and K. Chang. 2008. More than money: Making a difference with assistance beyond the grant. Washington, DC: Center for Effective Philanthropy.Google Scholar
  5. Cairns, B., S. Burkeman, A. Harker, and E. Buckley. 2011. Beyond money—A study of funding plus in the UK. London: Institute for Voluntary Action Research.Google Scholar
  6. Center for Effective Philanthropy. 2015. Investing and social impact: Practices of private foundations. Washington, DC: Center for Effective Philanthropy.Google Scholar
  7. Council on Foundations. 2007. A closer look at foundation administrative expenses. Washington, DC: Council on Foundations.Google Scholar
  8. Craig, K. 2002. The value-added foundation: Grantees’ views on the fund’s performance. The Commonwealth Fund Annual Report 2002. Google Scholar
  9. Esposito, V.E., and J. Foote. 2003. Family philanthropy in twenty-first century America. In From grantmaker to leader: Emerging strategies for twenty-first century foundations, ed. F. Ellsworth and J. Lumarda, 3–39. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  10. Fleishman, J. 2007. The foundation: A great American secret; How private wealth is changing the world. Cambridge, MA: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  11. Leat, D. 1998. Faith, hope and information: Assessing a grant application. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  12. Leat, D. 2014. The inventive foundation - Creating new ventures in Europe. London: Barrow Cadbury Trust, Paul Hamlyn Foundation, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.Google Scholar
  13. Nittoli, J. 2003. Acts of commission – Lessons from an informal study, foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/practice matters/Google Scholar
  14. Orosz, J.L. 2007. Effective foundation management: 14 challenges of philanthropic leadership - and how to outfox them. Lantham MD: Altamira.Google Scholar
  15. Pollack, T., and P. Rooney. 2003. Management and general expenses: The other half of overhead. Nonprofit Quarterly (Spring): 30–32.Google Scholar
  16. Porter, M.E., and M.R. Kramer. 1999. Philanthropy’s new agenda: Creating value. Harvard Business Review 77(November/December): 121–131.Google Scholar
  17. Renz, L. 2011. Benchmarking foundation administrative expenses: How operating characteristics affect spending. New York: Foundation Center.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Renz, L., and R. Elias. 2007. More than grantmaking: A first look at foundations’ direct charitable activities. New York: Foundation Center.Google Scholar
  19. Schramm, C. 2006–07. Law outside the market: The social utility of the private foundation. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 30: 356–415.Google Scholar
  20. Sharp, M. 2010. The communications supercharge, how foundations are using communication to boost policy engagement. Los Angeles: The Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy, University of Southern California.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diana Leat
    • 1
  1. 1.Cass Business SchoolLondonUK

Personalised recommendations