When Nonprofit Overhead Becomes the Mission Instead of Supporting It
The debate around revenue versus overhead in veteran nonprofits is not as simple as many would like to believe. A high percentage of operational expense does not automatically signal waste or misconduct. In certain cases, particularly with very small or start-up nonprofits, I can absolutely understand how overhead climbs above 85 percent. When a handful of volunteers are running everything out of donated spaces, their cars, and their kitchen tables, the essentials like rent, travel, website costs, software, insurance, and even paper and printer ink can consume most of the budget. These organizations often have limited funding, limited staff, and a mission that depends entirely on grit and personal sacrifice. In those situations, the people running the organization are doing the work themselves, usually without pay, and living their mission in a very real sense. I know several start-up nonprofits that make a remarkable impact with almost no financial resources. Their focus is service, not self-preservation.
That is the part of the conversation too many people miss. Context matters. Scale matters. Intent matters.
What I cannot overlook, however, is when large, well-established nonprofits with millions in revenue operate with the same high overhead percentages and then expect the public to applaud their “impact.” In my opinion, this does not track. If your CEO or Executive Director earns more than the highest paid mayor in the country, while your organization brings in less money each year than it spends, or posts declining revenue year after year, something is off. And not “we need new toner in the printer” off. Structural off. Priorities off. Payroll off.
A nonprofit with that kind of revenue has the resources to hire competent financial planners, experienced development teams, digital strategists, and administrative staff. They have access to expert consultants, grant writers, and entire HR departments. They have every tool necessary to avoid the sinking ship model. Yet some of these organizations continue to drift because leadership compensation grows even when mission performance does not. When that happens, donors are not supporting a mission. They are underwriting a lifestyle.
Veteran families and surviving spouses live with the consequences when services are cut, when programs stagnate, and when organizations with powerful branding do not deliver on their promises. The stakes are too high for sloppy budgeting or inflated salaries. There is nothing wrong with paying nonprofit professionals appropriately. Skilled leadership deserves fair compensation. But fairness is not the same as excess, and excess is not the same as impact.
The public should not have to wonder whether their donations pay for services or for someone’s second home. Veteran communities should not have to question whether a nonprofit values their needs or their narrative. And donors should not be asked to trust organizations that cannot demonstrate responsible stewardship.
It is time for more transparency, more accountability, and more alignment between mission and money. The veteran community deserves nonprofits that prioritize the work over the prestige. The families depending on these services deserve organizations that place impact first, ego last, and results squarely at the center.
When nonprofits remember who they are supposed to serve, their budgets tend to fall in line. When they forget, the numbers tell that story too. The difference is not in the size of the organization, but in the integrity of its leadership.
