I work for a nonprofit that gets poor results for the amount of money we spend

by Alison Green on February 26, 2025

A reader writes:

I have worked in nonprofits for the entirety of my career (~15 years). I’m a highly mission-driven person, so I am generally a lot happier in my work when I feel strongly connected to the nonprofit’s aims. As an example, I’ve worked at both a public library and a private college, and I was much happier at the library even though the hours were longer, the pay less, and the work more menial — just because I felt like my work was contributing to a better cause.

I was recently hired at a very small nonprofit that, on paper, seemed to tick all the boxes for me. However, having been there for a few months now, I’m growing increasingly uncomfortable with the way it operates.

It’s a little difficult to describe while maintaining anonymity, but I think the best comparison would be a soup kitchen (very similar in terms of the services we provide and overall “goodness” of the mission). If you look at the hard data — which in my comparison would be organization budget vs. people served — the overall impact becomes … not very impressive. When you do the math, it’s like it costs our soup kitchen $50 for each individual meal served. (Again, this is not exactly what we do, but this is the best analogy I could find. We do not have any additional programs that could be justified as part of the expense while having a nebulous hard-data result, like educational programs.)

I don’t think there’s any fraud going on. I’ve seen the budget sheets and everything seems to be accounted for; the director and founder does not pay himself an exorbitant rate (it’s actually fairly low, in my experience — in fact, identical to the other staff salaries, which are good for the area we live in but definitely not luxurious). I honestly think it’s just bad management (it’s a very recently founded nonprofit and the director had no prior experience in nonprofits) and, mostly, a giant blind spot where the director doesn’t seem to have recognized that the math ain’t mathing. I think when the org was first founded, the numbers were a little better, but he’s added staff over the years at a rate that our actual output doesn’t match.

In addition to just making me unhappy, this disparity is affecting my work. Part of my job is applying for grants and other funding, and we are very often rejected. I can’t be sure, but I am assuming that the budget-to-services ratio is turning off a lot of funders. (Why would you give us $1,000 to feed 20 people a single meal, when the average meal cost in our state should mean that could feed 250 people?) It’s definitely obvious to anyone who pays a little attention; I have a good friend who works in a nonprofit of similar size and she pointed it out in casual conversation: “Wow, that’s like $X per person served.”)

So I suppose I have two questions:

1. Is there any way possible to point this out to the director in a way that is constructive? Fixing it would require a complete overhaul of the entire organization, which isn’t my purview — but as I said above, it’s affecting the results I get for the work I do. I’m afraid I’m going to just blurt it out defensively if the director continues to moan about the fact that we get rejected for grants I’m applying to. No matter how eloquently you write, a lot of funders want the hard numbers.

2. Does this reflect poorly on me? Should I just get out? I very much get the vibe that this organization is just an outlet for our director to feel good about himself — he comes from money, and has never had a real job where he wasn’t working for family, so this essentially allows him to LARP as a do-gooder without making any real difference. If I do depart, is it worth mentioning in an exit interview, or would that just be seen as a cheap parting shot?

I am grateful for any advice you might have for me. This job ticks a lot of boxes for me in terms of salary, commute length/hybrid work, and the actual tasks I’m doing, so I don’t know if I should just plod ahead while ignoring the giant elephant in the room.

Nah, you should get out.

You want to work for a mission-driven organization that’s making a real difference, and this isn’t that. This sounds very much like, as you said, a chance for the director to play at charity work without the accompanying results that make charity work worthwhile.

You want to work somewhere that’s effective. This organization isn’t.

If you were someone who just wanted a paycheck, it might not be a problem to continue on there. (Even then, it still could be a problem, depending on where the org’s funding is coming from; at a certain point there are ethical issues with working for an ineffective organization that’s taking funds away from more worthy recipients … although one can certainly argue that it’s incumbent upon funders to do enough research to see when that’s happening.) But you are someone who wants work where you have a real impact on the world, and you’ve seen enough to know this doesn’t check that very important box for you.

Moreover, this job risks holding you back professionally, especially as a fundraiser. When you’re applying for your next job, employers will want to hear about the successes you had in this one, and if you can’t point to any, that’s going to be a problem! (Perhaps less so if you don’t plan to stay in fundraising, but even then you’d still want to be able to point to a pattern of results and this job doesn’t sound like it’s positioning you well to do that.)

As for pointing out your concerns to the director, you’re actually situated very well to do that! As the person who applies for grants, it’s part of your job to know what funders are looking for and it’s entirely consistent with your job to explain that funders want to see a better budget-to-services ratio. Hell, if you really want to put effort into helping him see that, you could even try to arrange a few conversations with potential funders to get them to comment on either the org’s weakness in that area or what metrics they look for generally, so that you can then relay that back to your director. But even if you don’t do that, there’s lot of material out there that you can reference about what expenses are and aren’t considered reasonable when applying for grants. You’d be doing this not necessarily because you expect the director will overhaul the entire organization in response to it (he probably won’t, although who knows) but simply to try to break through the blind spot that he appears to have. If he’s moaning about being rejected for grants, this is a conversation that absolutely should happen.

And yes, you can mention it in an exit interview too. It’s not a cheap shot to say, “As someone who’s in this field because I want to have an impact, I ended up being disappointed by the results we get for the money we invest, and would like to see a higher effectiveness rate as measured by X.”

You may also like:
{ 115 comments }

{ 115 comments… read them below }

  1. Justin*

    Having gradually moved up the ladder from an inefficient nonprofit to a stable but middling one with no growth to one that’s well run and very successful yet still mission driven, you can find a better one.

    We still have issues, but they’re not “oh, no, this is a waste of money” level stuff, which is nice.

    1. Nicosloanicota*

      That’s funny, I’ve personally found the reverse; my smaller, scrappier nonprofits did a lot of things badly and maybe weren’t very efficient overall, but they valued every dollar, whereas my current larger org is arguably much more effective big picture, but also “wastes” money on things that make me flinch a bit (all-staff retreats in expensive places, board meetings in luxury settings, etc). I do understand that sometimes you have to spend money to make money.

      1. Nina*

        Being inefficient is worse. Even if you “feel” scrappier the goal is presumably to help a particular population, not just to feel like martyrs. Presenting a professional image to people like board members is part of running anything. Useful work doesn’t have to come from someone’s basement.

          1. Great Frogs of Literature*

            There is, but it’s possible that the board members who are willing to go there don’t bring in the same connections/money as the ones who like luxury settings.

            (Maybe not! I don’t know your context. But it’s a possibility.)

            1. Ann Nonymous*

              I’ve found this to be true. I’ve been a member and in leadership with several community-based non-profits. The small, scrappier ones make every buck count, but a larger one I’m newer to has wealthy committee members, board member and patrons and put on a lavish fundraiser a couple of times a year. They bring in beaucoup bucks and see to really put them to good use and are considerate of how money is used. Very interesting to see the differences in the high-end vs the low-end organizations.

            2. boof*

              Oh, this too. If they’re looking for say, big doners asking them in the setting of a pizza party in someone’s basement or something, there are times when luxury factors into overall cost efficacy in a positive way. I don’t think luxury is inherently evil it really just depends on how/when/why it’s applied and how the overall numbers look (ie, asking staff to slave and providing ineffeicient services so those at the top can go on luxury vacations; no! Having staff once a year go to a luxury retreat to update on the latest metrics, trainings, challenges etc while also providing a cheap, efficient service – sure, why not? Asking everyone to camp out and quadruple bunk is fun in college not for a career or if you aren’t able bodied etc etc)

          2. boof*

            IDK, if they’re overall being really efficient I think it’s kind of nice to treat staff to temporary luxury from time to time? (if it was an all staff thing vs just bigwig thing)

        2. Cmdrshprd*

          Another thing sometimes valuing every dollar spent is not always wise.

          If you spend 30 minutes to save $10 on an item, but it cost the org. $15 in staff time, (assuming $30hr) to find that coupon, cheaper website etc, you did not really save money infact you spent $5 more than if you had just paid the higher price and moved on.

  2. Amber Rose*

    I have tried making business cases. Computing numbers. Creating statistics. Being politic. Being blunt. Being blunt to nearly the point of rudeness. If management hasn’t already noticed a giant red flag waving in their faces, it’s not because they lack data, it’s because they have firmly closed their eyes. This is a near universal truth in all workplaces, non-profit or not.

    I think based on your own self-assessment OP, all those boxes this place ticked are going to get overwritten by the futility of this place, and you’re going to be miserable if you stay.

    1. Look at your nonprofit's 990*

      Yup. I was going blue in the face warning our leadership about a dumb decision that makes their work more convenient, but opens them up to failing an audit. Then I realized how ridiculous it was that I cared more about an audit than the people who are paid more than 4 times what I am to deal with that stuff. I’ve done my part by warning them. If they want to touch the hot stove, they can touch the hot stove.

      1. Richard Hershberger*

        This is the very sound principle of not caring about your work more than your boss does. This is an important life lesson.

    2. Pay no attention...*

      I wouldn’t even say it’s that they’ve closed their eyes…or lack data. To me, that indicates they have a different mission than either what they say it is, or what you think it is. That doesn’t have to mean fraud or malice. With the OPs example of a soup kitchen this gets difficult to convey — it could just be that the mission isn’t 100% to feed a person a meal, done, mission accomplished.

      1. Amber Rose*

        Never assume malice where ignorance is the answer.

        I honestly believe that OP’s management mean well, I just don’t believe they care enough to worry about minutia like efficacy.

        1. epicdemiologist*

          This reminds me of various groups and foundations in honor of someone’s beloved child who was affected by a disease, crime or other hazard. The founders are focused on creating something with their name/branding as a memorial. They often don’t look around to see if established groups or programs are already doing the work, and doing it better because they’re subject matter experts and they’ve aware of best practices and evidence-based interventions.

          1. Sam I Am*

            Yes! A lot of people want to start a charity but have no idea how to do so and mostly just end up diverting money and volunteers from established organizations in the space.

        2. Nicosloanicota*

          I would really want to know how open the Director is to feedback. Some wealthy but well meaning people are willing to make changes (particularly when suggested by someone who is not a peon) and others have too much ego involved to even hear about it. If the money is literally disappearing somewhere, bringing it up may be met with outright hostility. But that’s always my deciding factor when considering organizational change; does leadership *want* to change? If not, nothing you do will ultimately matter.

          1. Georgia Carolyn Mason*

            Wow, I’m used to these folks as Board members, can’t imagine how frustrating they’d be as actual organization leadership. (Or people in leadership positions, even if they don’t actually lead.) You can do better, OP.

        3. Pay no attention...*

          Yes, but i think what I was trying to say and didn’t quite get there was it could be that they are trying an idea that either hasn’t been tried before, or filling a niche that remains unserved by other orgs. Soup kitchen is a difficult example…but what if they are serving a small population that other soup kitchens have failed to feed, and it costs more to serve this group because, while soup is cost effective and proven to feed the largest number of people, it isn’t the answer for this small group that can’t or won’t eat soup. The fact that the need still exists indicates that the efficacy of other larger, better-established, or more efficient orgs hasn’t been 100% either. Sometimes the mission isn’t do the most good for the most amount of people.

          1. Nina*

            This is a good point, but if it was focused on a particular group of people presumably donors and OP would know that and wouldn’t be alarmed if the gluten free soup kitchen was more expensive than a normal soup kitchen.

            1. Nicosloanicota*

              Yeah even if there is an answer there, it sounds like OP and the CEO need to tease out what it is in order to explain it effectively to funders. So OP still needs to have the conversation (and be prepared to job search if she doesn’t like what she’s hearing).

          2. Amber Rose*

            Based on the info provided by OP, the issue is expenditures. They keep increasing their costs while not expanding their services, so they appear to be mostly fundraising their own salaries and overhead.

            1. LW*

              This is EXACTLY it! I’m not saying that providing jobs is not valuable, but because we keep adding staff without expanding services, it’s as if the primary goal of the nonprofit is “employ development professionals” instead of our actual mission.

              1. Funko Pops Day*

                It might make sense to have a conversation about how this fits into a long-range vision. E.g., needing a bunch of development staff to support fundraising without expanding services might make sense if you’re in the “whisper phase” of a big capital campaign to build a new facility that will triple your kitchen and seating capacity plus add space to have partner orgs provide additional services to your clients. But it seems like that would be something you ought to be made aware of if it’s what the director has in mind!

                1. fhqwhgads*

                  I suspect it may be more of a “hmm, we’re not raising enough, better hire more fundraisers” but then they’re turned down for funding because their ratios are bad…and founder’s response is to…hire more fundraisers again type of situation.

        4. JustCuz*

          “Never assume malice where ignorance is the answer” read in Maggie Smith’s voice.

          And yes, this is true. Ignorance is likely more at play here. I remember at this one company I worked for they brought in this guy to talk about suicide awareness. He had started a local non-profit in his daughter’s name who committed suicide. He, from what I can tell, spends most of his speeches talking about what lead up to her suicide while yadda yadda yaddaing over all the very real ways he contributed to her very real, very awful situation (blames the mother) and then spent about 5 minutes on what his org offers. Nothing on how many people they have helped or what warning signs to look for. Just a speech on how bad his ex was, that his daughter died by her own hand, and that he has this org that gets kids in front of therapists somehow. It was very annoying and VERY on brand for this area.

        5. Ellie*

          If the founder comes from a wealthy family, it might be that he genuinely doesn’t understand that $50 should be good for more than a few meals. I think it’s worth talking to him.

    3. Antilles*

      I think it’s worth at least trying to have the conversation once. Because it is possible that they’re just clueless and having it all laid out in one place will open their eyes. Maybe they’re only seeing pieces of the picture which in isolation look fine and getting the whole picture makes them blink. Maybe they legitimately don’t know what industry standard is, so they don’t realize that the $50 per person served is way above the norm. Particularly since this is a non-profit where OP genuinely wants to see the mission succeed, I think it’s absolutely worth a shot.
      That said, emphasis on “once”. Making a business case like this either gets people on board immediately or it doesn’t; this isn’t Beetlejuice where saying it twice does nothing then a third time suddenly changes things.

      1. Nicosloanicota*

        Ideally, OP could compare the price per meal (in this metaphor) of a few similar groups. Nonprofits can be quite collaborative so it’s totally possible they’ll share it with you if you ask, or you can do some market research through affinity groups. They may be very willing to help you dig into how they got their numbers down and why yours is high, especially something like a soup kitchen that serves the next county over and has a different funding profile. The issue to me is, why hasn’t the CEO pursued this before now and how will they receive the info from OP …

    4. Beth*

      I agree that OP’s self-assessment of this organization vs their own goals and values shows that this is a bad fit, and they’re going to get more and more frustrated with it over time.

      But that’s tempered by it checking a lot of boxes in the short term. Having a stable job with good pay and a reasonable commute is a great position to run a “look for a really good fit even if it takes a while” job hunt from!

      I think OP could very successfully run a two-pronged strategy: 1) do a good job here for now, including talking to the director about improving efficiency and the funding issue their current numbers are causing, and 2) put feelers out to find a similar role at an organization they feel better about. Hopefully at least one of those will pan out before they start to feel miserable about their work.

  3. Dawn*

    I recently left a volunteer role because the organization wasn’t having an impact.

    I was really excited to get this role! It’s with a really respected service organization! I’m sad not to be able to call myself a member anymore!

    But my local chapter is hidebound, the leaders are all very elderly and sedentary (I’m not just saying this, the chapter president is over 90,) and in an entire year with the organization I never ended up actually doing anything because they had 40 members and only 20 volunteer slots open per year – and when I did volunteer to take on a larger role, they hemmed and hawed so much that I just basically got ghosted on it.

    So, yeah. All of this is to say that if you want to make a difference, it is perfectly reasonable and ethical to find a role where your time and effort is being better spent.

    1. Nicosloanicota*

      I have seen this play out and it’s always interesting. The conventional advice to anyone trying to start a new nonprofit is “please don’t – look around at existing nonprofits who are serving this need and add your energy to their efforts.” Which I actually do agree with! But sometimes the existing ones are so moribund you end up with duplication as people start wanting to do their own volunteering on the same issue elsewhere. No good solution really. I think about this stuff all the time as it’s relevant to my career.

      1. Dawn*

        So I don’t want to give too much away, but I’m a horticulturist, and this is one chapter of an international group that’s a very recognizable name among plant people. I’ve known members of the overall organization since I was a very small child, and I was thrilled to be accepted.

        But this particular chapter does next to nothing and I don’t think that’s really acceptable in this era of climate change where it’s more important than ever that those of us with a lot of growing knowledge be out there sharing and applying it to help the community, particularly when it comes to food security, and our chapter wasn’t doing any of that, or almost anything else. I was thrilled to be a member, but it was embarrassing to be a member doing nothing in the face of the state of the world today.

  4. bye*

    I mean, I don’t see the harm in explaining this reasoning to the director the next time he asks about being rejected from grants. How he reacts will really tell you whether or not he founded the organization for a good reason vs just LARPing as a do-gooder (and idk, I get where you’re coming from, but this comment just seemed unnecessary – it seems like you already have a judgement on the director and included this so we’d all feel the same way).

    Either way, like Alison said, I’d be looking for my next role. If the director takes your insights to heart, he’ll be setting up your successor to better the organization and how it serves people. If not, then the organization probably won’t last much longer.

    1. Nicosloanicota*

      I definitely had a come-to-Jesus talk with my Director a few years back about why we weren’t getting any grants. I had to do it just as best practice as the fundraiser or else I would have felt guilty drawing my salary. I laid out: here is how many grants we applied for in this year. Here’s how many we got. Here’s the pattern of which ones we got and which ones we didn’t. Here’s what I believe is holding us back on the others and what I recommend we do about it. Surprise surprise they didn’t really take my advice (I ended up leaving) but at least I felt I had upheld my duty to the mission.

      1. Nicosloanicota*

        I was also explicit: “we’re being awarded about 30% of what we apply to. In my experience, that’s low. I’d like to see us more around 50%. Also, it means if we don’t change anything, to hit our budget goal of X next year, we would need to apply to 3X opportunities to have a chance at meeting the goal, based on our track record. And by the way, I have only been able to identify 2X opportunities that even make sense for us.”

      2. boof*

        this is perfect. It’s worth it to take a shot but if they haven’t noticed by now they don’t care (so either they know and don’t care or don’t care to know). Still, the excuse is gone if you know you’ve laid it out anyway, and if you’re on the way out don’t see the harm / something you can even discuss with places you apply to maybe (in the polite why are you leaving / why do you want this role sort of way).

    2. Festively Dressed Earl*

      This, exactly. LW didn’t mention whether anyone has actually addressed the blind spot. Since LW has experience that this new organization lacks, it may be worth bringing it up. Instead of one big meeting, document the inefficiencies that are turning off donors in emails to the higher ups. “Major Soup Company is passionate about our mission but are raising concerns about the weekly caviar-oatmeal school breakfast program. If there’s any movement on Kiera’s breakfast cereal initiative, please let me know so I can leverage that information.” “Oyster Cracker Corporation cited cost effectiveness as the main reason for donating to Clam Chowder For All instead of us; we’re at 50 bowls per $1000 compared to the 200 bowl statewide average.” Then when LW leaves, at least they tried to clue in the rich director on the off chance that he truly does want to help.

  5. MsM*

    At least a few of these grant applications have to require budget narratives, right? That’s an easy opportunity to talk to the director or the program officer or whoever and go, “I need to provide some context here as to why our cost to individuals served ratio is so high.” Because there might be a deliberate choice or model where that actually makes sense – it may still not appeal to every funder, but at least it’s a thing you can spin about why people should support your organization over whoever can just do the bare minimum at the lowest cost. If no one else can articulate that case, and that doesn’t prompt some thinking on their end, then yeah, that’s a problem.

    1. Maudite Entendante*

      This is a really good point – it’s possible (though by no means guaranteed!) that there’s value being added in ways that don’t show up in a straightforward cost-per-person way.

      Totally making up hypotheticals that fit with the food bank hypothetical here, but: are the meals more nutritionally complete? is there someone there at mealtimes who also helps people with health insurance applications? is your population poorly served by traditional outreach strategies so you’ve maybe had to recruit multilingual staff to build relationships at the local homeless encampment before people even make it into the door to get the food in the first place? In other words, where *is* that money going, and is it something that needs to be part of the story you tell funders (and yourself) about the work you do?

      (and if the answer is “annually repainting the office in the Pantone Color of the Year,” well, that’s information too.)

      1. Maudite Entendante*

        (just a note that I was typing this at the same time the conversation below about operating costs was going one, but short-term increases in development staff costs definitely don’t fall into the “silly luxury expense” bucket for me, as long as they’re doing the early network-building work that will help them earn out in years 3+)

      2. Coverage Associate*

        For a soup kitchen specifically, though I know it’s not the real situation, a big issue will be how they get the food, from donations of canned goods to retail to wholesale, and sometimes retail versus wholesale donations. I have known hunger oriented non profits that do it in each of these ways, and each of them have pros and cons. For example, I imagine that a nonprofit that buys food retail supports local businesses, but definitely spends more on food than a nonprofit that receives food donated by manufacturers and producers.

        There are also nonprofits where employing disadvantaged staff is part of the mission while others rely on volunteers.

        1. Paint N Drip*

          Good point – I assume OP knows, but maybe it is worth digging into for their peace of mind (or to firm up their decision to leave). My favorite local nonprofit values feeding the community AND supporting farmers, plus employing folks who need employment or have challenges in keeping traditional employment – their per-meal cost is higher than other kitchens, but the math is different

  6. Lizzo*

    For future job searches, you can look up a nonprofit’s 990 form (available on Guidestar, ProPublica, and a few other sites) and take a look at the finances to see what you’re dealing with ahead of time.

    I would also take a look at the founder’s involvement in the organization. Frequently the blindness you describe is because the founder is running things, and they care deeply about the cause, but they don’t have a clue about the management side of things. (I’m not saying all founders are flawed in this way, but after 20+ years in the sector, I’ve seen it enough to know it’s common.)

    Finally, where the hell is the Board of Directors in all of this? In order to be a nonprofit, you need to have a board, and that board has a fiduciary responsibility for the organization. Are they asleep at the wheel?

      1. AndersonDarling*

        As I was once told, “Many Boards are filled with people who just want to play with their dollhouse.”
        Small time non-profits frequently have board members that want to say they are on a board, and they think about the responsibility on the day of the board meeting then forget about it. When they have to make decisions, then they shift resources, money, and personnel around with the same seriousness as moving dolls around rooms of a dollhouse.

        2. Judge Judy and Executioner*

          Can confirm. I spent over 4 years on a board that just wanted to plan parties and events. We had tens of thousands of dollars sitting in non-interest-bearing accounts. Literally, at every board meeting, I pointed out 1-3 things we could do within our mission to help the community with our funds, but it all was ignored. I retired a year earlier than planned to get the heck out.

    2. Falling Diphthong*

      Gonna make a guess that it’s the directors relatives or friends, and they, also, view the mission as giving him something to keep him busy.

      1. MsM*

        Could also just be people who are really interested in what the nonprofit does (particularly if they think they can use it to advance their pet projects), but haven’t internalized the fiduciary duty part enough to be willing to get into the weeds on finances. That also tends to happen a lot with small/early-stage nonprofits.

        1. LW*

          This sounds pretty spot-on to me. I am actually really perplexed as to how no one on the Board has pointed this out, because, as I said, a friend of mine who also works in nonprofits pointed it out in casual conversation! I know our director also has difficulty attaining and retaining Board members.

          1. MsM*

            See, that’s troubling. I’m more used to having difficulty getting board members to move on or at least take a break because they still feel responsible for the institution even if they’re not serving it as effectively as they could be. If people keep leaving, that at minimum speaks to a problem with the selection and onboarding process, and probably with the director and/or senior leadership in general.

  7. MSV*

    I’m also in the nonprofit because I want to make a difference. I’d strongly encourage you to look into effective altruism, especially for specific cause areas (e.g., effective animal altruism, effective climate altruism, effective poverty relief). I’ve worked for several ineffective organizations before coming to one that is 10x or 100x more effective–and it makes such a difference! I am inspired to come to work everyday. I hope the OP is someday soon as well!

    1. Madame Desmortes*

      Effective altruism is closely tied to eugenics, billionaire-ism, and other dangerous and often evil ideas and actions. Please read Timnit Gebru’s work on TESCREAL ideologies.

      1. Peregrine*

        There are also several Michael Hobbs podcasts that discuss the issues with effective altruism, including one about how deworming isn’t nearly as effective as is usually reported.

        1. Amaryllis*

          I was going to suggest the Maintenance Phase podcast episode on Marianne Williamson where they discuss how having a high-profile but inexperienced director can cause issues in NGOs.
          (lots of ED trigger warnings on this one folks)

      2. Katie A*

        It’s incorrect to say these things about effective altruism as a whole. It applies to a small subset of effective altruists and is absolutely not inherent to the movement/approach.

        A lot of people who are into effective altruism are just ordinary people who are interested in the best way to improve the world.

        I’d second the suggestion for the LW to look into effective altruism. The work effective altruist organizations do in development and global health is especially heartening and interesting.

        1. Kevin Sours*

          When I think about effective altruism I immediately think of Samuel Bankman Fried and I can’t think of anybody pushing it I’ve encountered that wasn’t of that ilk. If it’s a small subset it’s definitely the dominant one.

    2. MissBliss*

      The most effective form of poverty alleviation is just giving people money, but most effective altruists aren’t exactly singing the praises of Universal Basic Income or, heaven forbid, corporations and billionaires paying equitably proportional taxes so that the government can provide services.

      Unfortunately, the effective altruism crowd seems to be more concerned with numbers of people served than true alleviation of issues. The reality is that some of the best interventions are incredibly inefficient because what people need is SUPPORT. Sometimes you can get both – the provision of mosquito nets is really, really cheap, and can significantly cut down mortality rates from malaria. But simply being efficient doesn’t mean it’s worthwhile.

      1. Katie A*

        Neither of these things is true in my experience. Why do you think effective altruists are against giving people money or are more concerned with the number of people helped as opposed to whether or not the help actually solves the problem?

        Giving people cash is a very popular idea among EAs. They talk about that in a development context and in the context of UBI, and some EAs have worked to increase taxes on the rich.

        As for just looking at the number of people helped and not alleviating issues, a huge part of effective altruist work is evaluating whether or not the support and resources provided by an organization actually achieve the goals they’re meant to achieve. Or are you talking about something different?

          1. MSV*

            I consider myself EA and one of the charities I support is Give Directly, which literally puts cash in the hands of those who can use it most. Policy–like tax reform–is also usually considered to be extremely high-impact work in EA circles, and many EA funders specifically fund policy work that can do more than charity itself can.

            1. MissBliss*

              Those are both interesting examples – and very different from the types of things I typically hear of as being part of effective altruism.

              I firmly believe the biggest impact a billionaire could have on American society would be to fund tax policy work and lobby on behalf of reform.

              Many nonprofits do excellent, if not efficient (which is not a dig! I don’t think efficiency is the most important thing), work – but many are also not meant to change the world substantially, but instead to care for the individuals who are being left behind in the world as-is. We do need organizations to do the dreaming and scheming to make things happen and people to fund them. So if that’s a different facet of effective altruism, I would be very much behind it.

        2. MissBliss*

          Thank you for linking that article! It’s interesting, though I don’t know that I entirely agree with the author’s argument… Partially because it seems like the author is saying that “This is what effective altruism actually is” in a way that a bunch of people I’ve seen claiming to be effective altruists don’t actually operate. But it’s also the internet, so how much are those folks actually embodying the things they claim to stand for in their real life?

          It could be me misunderstanding what the term is meant to mean (having learned it from people professing to be EAs), or it could mean that there are different views within the movement that don’t necessarily agree with each other (as is commonly the case with movements). But I have found a good number of people who are more concerned with efficiency than efficacy, if that makes sense – who are worried primarily about the overhead rates and per person cost, instead of weighing other factors like quality of services provided, the impact of staff turnover rates on client outcomes, welfare of employees, etc.

      2. an EA*

        Where on earth are you getting your information?

        The largest UBI trial in the world was done by GiveDirectly, which is funded in significant part by EAs. Two of the orgs on GiveDirectly’s “Funders” page are ones that I know are specifically EA projects (Good Ventures and The Life You Can Save), and many individual EAs have also given tremendous sums (I personally have donated an appreciable fraction of my lifetime earnings). In general, GiveDirectly is probably the organization talked about the most in EA circles outside of specific EA orgs (e.g. GiveWell or Giving What We Can).

        It’s difficult to convey the starkness of the contrast between your impressions and my reality! Anecdotally, UBI is also one of the most popular policies among EAs for addressing rich-country poverty (though the most impoverished countries are considered first priorities for poverty alleviation, for obvious reasons).

        I think there are some people out there for whom winning fights on Twitter is more important than conveying accurate information, which is especially awful when it comes to topics like this because, yeah, the decisions people like you and me make based on that info can mean the difference between life and death for a child dying of preventable disease. It’s easy to let our eyes gloss over big numbers about “impact”, but you have to remember that each 1 is an entire human life. A two year old child who sleeps safely under a malaria net AND a mother who can cry in relief that her baby’s fever was just a passing illness AND a community that doesn’t have to gather around one more tiny grave AND a nation that has one more healthy person to work towards overcoming legacies of colonialism and oppression.

        These numbers really matter because these people really matter.

        1. ABC1223*

          But there are also “effective” altruism organizations that are more. “You give us money and we give the money to an organization dedicated to protecting against space alien death rays. Because if 8 billion people get vaporized and their great great great grandchildren never exist that’s worse than anything”

          “Oh and don’t ask why the space alien defense organization is run out of my house and how I can have a brand new Rolls Royce every month”

  8. bamcheeks*

    LW, my first question would be, where are you getting “the average meal cost in our state should mean that could feed 250 people”? I realise this is just an example, but what you’ve not told me here is whether this is your first soup kitchen and $50 per meal SEEMS like a lot to you, or whether you’ve worked in soup kitchens before and you know that a meal should be a lot more like $4. And that would be the first thing I’d want to know.

    In my experience, whenever you start full-costing things up, including not just the raw materials for the Thing, but also admin support, marketing, evaluation, back office services etc, it always adds up to a lot more than anyone would casually guess Thing costs to deliver, unless they’re really used to the economics of how much Thing costs. Like, I have not worked in a soup kitchen, but if someone who did work in a soup kitchen told me it actually costs $50 per soup provided, once you’ve factored in ingredients, cooking, building rental, outreach work, grant applications and sustainability, evaluation of the service etc, I would think, huh, wow, that’s a lot more than I thought but I believe you. Because everything I know about my area of work is that when you fully cost something, it’s about 10x what the person on the street would guess from what they can see. And I really can’t tell whether you’re speaking from a level of expertise and knowing that three of those roles are redundant and this is a wildly inefficient way to distribute soup (or feedback from the funders to that effect), or just comparing the cost of a tin of soup to the organisational finances and going, ??????

    So I would dig into that a bit more, and if you do have substantive feedback from funders, access to “typical” costs in this area, or substantial expertise to draw on, I would certainly raise it with the CEO or the board, state your qualifications and sources, and explain the impacts you’re seeing in the grant funding area. If you think the work is valuable, then I definitely think it’s worth seeing what you can do to influence the organisation and make it do the work better.

    But it is also legit to just move on if that’s not what you signed up for, or if you don’t think it’s possible, or even if you don’t 100% know the org is doing its thing badly but just don’t think the vibes are right.

    1. Caramel & Cheddar*

      Yes, all of this, this is exactly what jumped out at me while reading this letter. Maybe the cost of the food alone would be $5/meal, but the costs to get to the point where you’re actually able to serve the meal are much more than that.

      At some point in the last twenty years (probably longer), disproportionally high admin and/or overhead costs as a percentage of a charity’s budget has become a lightning rod for bad management accusations, but that’s not necessarily the case and it does a disservice to a lot of orgs to assume as such, especially when people get advice like “Don’t donate to orgs where the admin/overhead is high.” Every non-profit I’ve ever worked in has spent at least half the company’s budget on salaries; that sounds like a lot on paper to people who don’t work in the sector, but for the kind of work we did it was a perfectly reasonable amount (and many would argue was too little!). In this case, LW describes that the increased staff budget didn’t come with an increase in people served, but it’s possible that wasn’t the purpose of hiring those additional staff.

      It doesn’t sound like this is the right job for LW, which is fine independent of everything else.

      1. JR17*

        This!! I just looked at Coca Cola’s income statement for 2924. Generally regarded as a respected company, right? In 2024, they had $47 billion in net operating revenues. Cost of goods sold (the cost of making the soda, including the ingredients) was $18.3 billion. “Selling, general, and administrative expenses” was $14.6 billion. Other operating charges was $4.6 billion, not sure what that includes, and there was also some interest expense. But basically, Coke’s overhead rate is running pretty close to 50% – and no one would ever tell them to spend less on marketing or strategy.

    2. JR17*

      This is a great insight. The other thing I’d consider is whether the organization is in growth mode, because you have to spend ahead of growth. That is, if, for instance, they were building a new program, they have to do the strategic planning, raise the funds, built the partnerships, do the outreach, etc. all before having a single person served.

    3. Strive to Excel*

      OP sounds like an experienced not-for-profit employee, so I’d be willing to guess that the numbers quoted are reasonable. But if they want to stay, it would still be an essential exercise to dig in and figure out what costs are going where compared to what other organizations are doing. Even better would be getting financials from some comparative organizations (if they’re available) and see where their costs are.

      Do you have more admin? Less admin? Are your overhead costs higher (on a % basis as well as an absolute)? Is it your variable costs – if it’s costing $50 per meal instead of $5, is that because the pasta you’re using is the gourmet variety? Or is there a flat dining hall rental fee, and you’re only getting 10 people in the door instead of 100 people like your comparative organizations are? Or is it because your organization’s mission isn’t just to be a soup kitchen, it’s to be an allergen-free soup kitchen and all the ingredients are more expensive compared to all the other local soup kitchens?

      That said. You can do this analysis until you’re blue in the face, but if senior management isn’t backing you up in improving things it’s an exercise of frustration more than in efficiency. If what you’re hearing is “we’re losing money but we don’t know where!” it’s helpful, but “hey, at least we’re still helping people” is a sign to find a different not-for-profit.

      1. bamcheeks*

        I read it as an experienced non-profit employee, but I couldn’t tell whether they were experienced in this particular service — and IME it is pretty normal for someone who is providing a business function like grant writing to move around lots of different types or organisation in the way that it wouldn’t be if you were, say, an occupational therapist. So that’s why I asked!

    4. LW*

      So I got that stat from a source that we actually use frequently—it’s from a Feeding America study—and it’s not perfect math because obviously we have overhead etc, but I was trying to illustrate the proportional difference between the money we take in vs. services provided. We’re not actually a soup kitchen, but it’s the closest I could get while maintaining anonymity.

      I think the problem I see is that our director added a lot of staff very quickly, and a big number of those were development staff, and our services provided haven’t increased to reflect the now much larger amount of money we’re fundraising for each year. So essentially it looks like the additional development staff are just fundraising to cover their own salaries, because for the increased amount of money we raise our services are not expanding.

      1. JR17*

        That all totally makes sense and is good context. I’ve been told to expect, when adding a fundraiser (like, an additional development FTE), to expect it to take two years for the person to be profitable, so it could just be that the org is in the early part of the growth curve, so that ultimately the existing staff is able to produce far more results. But also, it doesn’t sound like you have a ton of confidence in the ED to pull off the kind of substantial growth that would be required for those numbers to be in a better place a year or two from now. If that is what’s going on, though, that’s certainly context that funders would be interested in (and that may or may not address their concerns, depending on how confident they are in the org’s growth plans).

        1. LW*

          I think the big difficulty I see is that while, yes, we’re in the early part of a growth curve, there’s a ceiling. To use the soup kitchen analogy again, let’s say our org has a finite amount of kitchen space that can only produce X number of meals in a day, regardless of if we keep adding staff—it’s a capacity issue. On top of that, the actual number of food-insecure people in our service area (our county) is not very big—it’s a rural county, so the population itself isn’t big, and while food-insecure people make up a large percentage of that number, the number itself is pretty small.

          So essentially: in order for our services provided to keep up with fundraising growth in a way that would make it all make sense, we’d need to invest a lot of money in acquiring more space (which there are no plans to do in our 5-yr strategic plan), and then if we did, we’d pretty quickly outpace the actual number of people available to serve.

      2. Pop*

        Okay, this is helpful intel. Is this growth part of a strategic plan, with a plan to add more program staff (in two years) after raising $x? That would make the organization “inefficient” in dollars short term as part of a long term strategy. Given what you’ve said about the founder I’m guessing this isn’t what’s happening – but it’s certainly a possibility.

      3. Ann O'Nemity*

        Thanks for the additional detail! How long ago did the director add the development staff? Does he have a timeline in mind? For instance, is the expectation that the new fundraisers cover their salaries in year one, double that in year two, and reach 4x by year three?

        As a related example, at my last nonprofit, we launched a new fundraising gala but didn’t anticipate turning a profit until year three. In the long run, it became a great fundraiser! But we knew it would take a few years to get it off the ground.

      4. Oof*

        This helps to know – so the organization is raising more money, but not enough money to cover the fundraising staff and increased programming. Talk to the ED about putting a future plan together. That will be a great “notes on budget” portion. But a young non-profit, in a niche field is always going to have challenges in grant funding; particularly over the past six months or so. This may be the time to focus on individual giving; I know grants are often the lion’s share, but it could be the bridge until you have had enough time to get institutional funding rolling.

      5. Smithy*

        As a fundraiser – I totally believe your view of this organization. While we don’t always know exactly what the optimal numbers look like – because so much of our job is distilling complex projects into short paragraphs it becomes easy to tell if things feel off.

        That all being said, as someone who’s worked for a similar job where not only was impact suspect – but there were a LOT of other bad things going on – the impact to you probably won’t be that much. When job hunting there were people in the same sector who knew about my org, as well as people who had no clue, but it didn’t really impact how I was seen.

        I will also say that with everything going on with US government grants there are actually loads of fundraising jobs out there from orgs looking to increase their private sector quickly. Based on a few interviews, some of these jobs don’t seem great for entirely other reasons. On the one hand, I think you might be able to find another job relatively easily, but on the other – it might be a case of going from one problem to another. From what you’ve said, I’d wait 6-12 months before looking just for the new US granting normal to settle in a bit more with nonprofits development plans and expectations.

    5. mreasy*

      The LW indicated they’d worked in nonprofits for 15 years, so I’d presume they would know what they’re talking about here, and know where to find that information.

  9. Mesquito*

    It might be worth finding out what is average for your service in your city. For example, it’s pretty standard that homeless services spend many times over what it would cost to just house up that client on a monthly basis. It’s terrible, and you might not be ok with it anyway, but it is standard.

    1. bamcheeks*

      yep, the good old, “here, use this money to relieve poverty. Try anything and everything, and be as efficient as possible. The catch is, you can’t give money to poor people”.

    2. Roland*

      Why terrible? “Just give them money to pay their rent” can work great for people who are teetering on the housing-insecure edge, but it’s not going to help at all with many long-term chronically homeless folks. Orgs don’t pay case managers for fun. I worked with a housing npo for a year and there can be a LOT of support needed to get homeless folks into good gomes and actually keep them there.

      1. ABC1223*

        Exactly. Many long-term homeless individuals have severe mental health and or substance use issues which need to be addressed. Otherwise just giving them money could be a disaster

  10. Allornone*

    I’m a grant writer for non-profits by trade, and before accepting any new position, I always check the organization’s profile on websites like Guidestar (Candid) and Charity Navigator. It’ll usually paint a pretty good picture beforehand where the money comes from and how it’s spent. This really can’t help you now, but for future reference maybe. If a place doesn’t have a profile on sites like these, it can most definitely be a red flag.

  11. Karmelcornicopia*

    Is there a board of directors for this organization? That’s another group who might be receptive to the message about this blind spot.

    I certainly don’t think OP should go to the board without having had a conversation with the director. (And Allison has excellent points about natural ways to talk to the director.)

    But in the general topic of non-profits, I wanted to say we shouldn’t forget that boards of directors exist for reasons just like this. And if it’s a GOOD board, they are well-positioned to make a difference.

  12. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

    “this organization is just an outlet for our director to feel good about himself”

    There is so, so, so much of this in small & young non-profits.

    I wish major donors & founders would consider that very often the best thing they could do is give the money to an efficient, established non-profit, and then put their time and energy either in fundraising or volunteering closer to the ground. But very often their ego and the desire for a good reputation among their peers (or the general public) pushes them to try to run their own shop, with this result.

    1. Snarkus Aurelius*

      This right here. I worked for a hunger charity started by a guy who was exactly like this. When I did the math, I realized we only helped less than one percent of our target audience, every year. What’s worse is that we were driving farmers *into* poverty because we were flooding the agriculture markets with free food, and they couldn’t sell their products for profit.

      That was the last time I ever did charity work. I’m still very disillusioned.

  13. Ann O'Nemity*

    The LW says they’ve only been there a few months and hasn’t yet asked about this bluntly. I’d start there!

    Ask the Director about the business model and apparent lack of impact efficiency. It’s possible that there are other factors that make it more expensive to carry out the mission. High operational costs in urban areas, serving high-need populations needing additional support, logistical and infrastructure barriers, systemic barriers beyond the org’s control, etc.

    Even with best practices, the nonprofit could be facing unavoidable inefficiencies. If the LW better understands what’s going on, there may be options for optimization and revising fundraising strategies. Then make the decision about whether it’s worth leaving over.

  14. Salty Caramel*

    Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. I think your best bet is to get out.

    I live in a big city and I can get a meal delivered from DoorDash with fees, tax, and tip for $25, and I’m not talking McDonald’s, but something that also includes lean meat & vegetables.

    1. Susie and Elaine Problem*

      Keep in mind that the OP isn’t specifically talking about food specifically. That was just the best example they could give that matched the nature of their non-profit.

    2. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

      This is an extremely poor comparison even if the soup kitchen were not just an *example*. The DoorDash 1099er is likely not making a living wage. They don’t have any overhead. They don’t need to rent a commercial food prep space. They don’t need to pay salaries. It’s literally a taxi for your bag of food.

  15. WhiskeyTango*

    My experience is that people who are bad at business are just bad at business. You can’t change that. I was in a similar spot (although not a nonprofit, just a regular business that was slowly running out of credit) I tried — including illustrating how the math was wrong. Management kept saying that they knew they needed to change, but just couldn’t do it.

    You can try and hope that he’s willing to take that as a sign to put someone else in charge of running the operations and lowering overhead, but if he doesn’t take that very necessary step, it’s not ever going to change.

    1. Yes And*

      “My experience is that people who are bad at business are just bad at business.” That’s true, but also sometimes people who are very GOOD at the business they came from are still bad at nonprofit. The conditions, rules, and goals are just different. That’s why so many career nonprofiteers get their hackles up when people from the for-profit world think they’re going to ride in and tell us how to do our jobs by modeling them after for-profit business.

      From LW’s description, this appears to be a case of, “I have money, so I can run a nonprofit.” Very Maya Rudolph in Loot. It usually doesn’t work.

  16. Nicosloanicota*

    I’m a grantwriter for nonprofits so I feel uniquely qualified to weigh in here. If the Director is open to it, I’d certainly try to nudge before giving up. You could try to write a grant for a strategic plan and bring in a consultant to review what’s holding up the org. You have the unique vantage point of being able to explain an important metric and why your org isn’t flying. I wouldn’t walk away without trying in a couple different ways, assuming you agree that having an effective soup kitchen in this community would be a good thing (I’ve walked away from nonprofits where I realized their mission wasn’t very critical even if they were able to implement it – say, there’s another perfectly good soup kitchen that serves the same neighborhood more effectively, so the dollars you earn are just taking away from them. It does happen. Even then, I tried to shift the mission first (Could we serve this other neighborhood instead? Could we collaborate with other group and take on X aspect they can’t address?).

  17. HailRobonia*

    At the very least you have a good, nay PERFECT, talking point for job interviews.

    Why are you leaving Organization X? Because the organization was significantly less impactful than you were comfortable with and you are looking at making a greater difference with Organization Y.

  18. Glengarry Glenn Close*

    Does this non profit have a board? A Finance committee? CFO or similar?

    If none of those people don’t care or are marginalized, I don’t think there’s a future here

  19. HonorBox*

    OP, in a past life, I was the staff person overseeing a grant process. I accepted the applications, prepared materials for the decision makers, and then communicated with recipients. When funds were awarded, I didn’t provide a ton of detail about why decisions were made, but if someone reached out to ask for more information, I was more than happy to provide a snapshot of the feedback from the committee. You may not be getting specific information when you’re turned down for grants, but you can certainly ask for more. Even asking something like “in the future, what might change the decision” could illicit an answer that helps you. At the very least, if your director asks why you were turned down, you’ll have a little more concrete information that shows it isn’t something you’ve done to create that. Provide your director that information. Maybe that changes the operations, and maybe it doesn’t. You’ve done right by the funders and done right by making an attempt to change the operations.

    And while you’re doing that, look for other places to work… because even if changes are made, this isn’t somewhere that fits what you’re looking for, and won’t for awhile.

  20. tina turner*

    When I editred a Q&A newsp. column I used to get questions like this. There was a non-profit “review” agency people could check to see a charity’s use of fun ds. People need to know they can do this.

  21. Delta Delta*

    I haven’t worked in nonprofits in a long time, but my memory is that sometimes nonprofit directors are committed to the idea and to the mission but don’t know how to make that happen. It might be worth investigating whether the executive team has experience in actual management or if they are nice people who want to make a difference. There’s an overlapping Venn diagram on folks like that; I wonder if management just doesn’t fall into that middle category.

    If OP works as a fundraiser, and OP isn’t able to be effective, OP ought to go elsewhere, since this may end up making future work hard to get.

    1. Miss Demeanor*

      Yes, OP, it’s time to go because it seems unlikely your ED will get the training and experience his non-profit needs to be truly cost-efficient.

      Every development person I’ve ever worked with has reported to the Board as well as the ED. Is there any way you can report to both the ED and the Board (preferably at the same time) why you aren’t getting grants to fund the work? I agree also with Alison that
      taking the ED to meet with a prospective finder could be enlightening. I’d suggest, however, taking a Board member so they, too, can learn how your organization is viewed by funders.

  22. el l*

    If you work at a for-profit place that can’t make money, you’re going to have a bad time.

    If you’re going to work at a non-profit that clearly can’t do its job and secure funding, you are also going to have a bad time.

    It’s only a matter of time before it catches up. Yeah, go.

  23. Raida*

    If you could contact some of the grants that rejected your org’s applications and ask for just two sentences confirming the cost:output ratio is the reason for the rejection, then you could provide that hard data as an issue, one impacting your job specifically, one that impacts the org overall and *will continue to do so*.

    And then I would also be looking to leave.

    You give the founder the info they need, they can take it on board or not without you.

    It’s the ethical thing to do, while also looking after yourself.

  24. Claire*

    “I can’t be sure, but I am assuming that the budget-to-services ratio is turning off a lot of funders.”

    Have you tried asking the funders directly for feedback? I work in the nonprofit sector, and this is absolutely feedback you should be asking for.

  25. SeeReeves*

    I want to push back a little on the premise that cost per client is the only measure of a nonprofit’s efficiency. Granted, this was just an example for anonymity, but since the letter focused so much on it, I wanted to raise this.

    It’s not how much you spend per client. It’s the outcome/impact of that spend. Taking this food bank example another step, maybe the other food banks in the area are able to operate at $10 a meal while yours is at $20. Using the cost per client measure your food bank must be inefficient! But the other food banks meals are boxed mac and cheese and canned soup, while your food bank provides fresh produce and whole grains. Is your food bank less efficient? Or is the better nutrition worth the extra cost?

    There’s also the ongoing under investment in nonprofit infrastructure. This expectation that nonprofit overheads should be unreasonably low. So all the other food banks in town can provide a meal for $10, but it costs your food bank $20 because the other food banks pay their employees less than a living wage and don’t offer any health benefits. your food bank lives its values by paying a living wage and offering health benefits. The other food banks aren’t more efficient, they’re exploitative of their workforce.

    Long story short, I’m not saying this is the case with this letter writer. They say their nonprofit is inefficient, and I believe them. I just wanted to point out that per client costs doesn’t equate to efficiency without taking a lot of other things into account.

    1. boof*

      I hear you and wondered about that – but if the cost (per LWs example) is 10x more expensive (like not $10 vs $20 per meal, but $10 vs $100 per meal) they better be able to spell out to donors why their service is so much more expensive – maybe there’s a reason ie “we are focused on people with rare and serious medical needs and all our food needs to be carefully sourced and vetted past a qualified nutritionist” but I would hope LW would have some idea (and would have shared it!) if they’re fulfilling some particularly difficult niche that might justify the high expense ratio.

  26. Dani*

    Agreed that leaving is best. Leave while you have energy and self-respect; don’t wait until you are ground down and embarrassed to have enabled the dysfunction.

    I stayed too long in a similarly-inefficient org, trying to improve things while it slowly dawned on me that I was being gaslit and lied to by “Leadership”. It hurt me and set me back more than I realized.

    Eventually I could not look funders’ representatives in the eye (literally hid from folks on a site visit bc Leadership had failed so completely to implement anything I/we’d proposed, but was comfortably out front caked in makeup telling bald face lies about the program’s successes). I really regretted winning certain awards for the org because the ED and her family dumped the money on the ground or poured it into fictive consultants (her husband & relatives) while more worthy organizations and the vaunted “Community” got very little.

  27. The_artist_formerly_known_as_Anon-2*

    Surprise, surprise!

    A lot of non-profits are operated – not to serve a cause – but for the purpose of running an organization and keeping the big bosses of it employed. Not ALL of them – but if you look at the salaries of the big guns who run them – well….

Comments are closed.