It’s better than no guidance at all, but it contributes to a very shallow way of thinking about overhead expenses that ends up saying that nonprofit employees should be poorly paid and have shitty working conditions, because that’s all overhead. It’s also fairly easily manipulated in reporting - https://afpglobal.org/news/fundraising-expense-myth-what-cor...
They don't care about overhead, they will recommend a charity that prevents a death per $5'000 and has a 50% overhead over a charity that prevents a death per $10'000 and has a 20% overhead.
I’m very familiar with them, yes. They definitely care about overhead
> We quantify impact using a variety of different measures, including "cost per life saved" (when applicable) and "financial benefits to recipients per dollar spent by donors" (when applicable).
I don't understand how that is a meaningful definition of overhead. Overhead is money that is not being spent on salaries and goods that directly impact outcomes. Therefore cheaper outcomes always imply lower overhead.
