Research history

Current published edition

Overhead ratio

As recorded by . This is a dated public record of drafts, changes, sources and review declarations. A page, checksum or merged pull request does not establish a scientific result or independent review.

Edition
edition:2026-11-07-encyclopedia
Edition checksum
e146b1666792c4b20504af099ca65663d0f70fea584397f38cb5eda241137bde
Projection checksum
a017dac8fb17a969a8d72ae660365d8c9a3840125e29cb258e797f50a27552ed
Period
inclusive to exclusive.
Starting baseline
Unknown before the recorded capture. Present states are not backdated to January.

JSON retains the complete pinned edition. CSV covers every recorded event in this edition; view filters do not change either download.

Recorded activity and qualification

  • 69Stable records
  • 71Subject versions
  • 69Recorded events
  • 0Review declarations
  • 0Subjects with qualifying source review
  • 0Peer-reviewed manuscripts
  • 0Qualifying research results
  • 1Editorial correction artifacts
  • 2Changed claim subjects
  • 23Open problems
  • 0Partially resolved problems
  • 0Solved problems
  • 0Problems under review
  • 0Unresolved challenges

Qualification follows the exact recorded public declarations. The ledger cannot establish identity, independence, source reading or truth by itself. Editorial corrections, proposed methods and software checks are separate from qualifying research results.

Coverage and limits

66 source entries are covered by this edition. Claim-level records cover only their selected wording and context; they do not qualify a whole manuscript. Source-derived case labels describe the published summaries, not Charitology fieldwork or charity ratings.

Entry links open the present site. The separate pinned source text retains this edition’s exact archived bytes.

Overhead ratio · Encyclopedia entry · version 1
Source review: draft

concept:overhead-ratio

Qualification follows the exact recorded public declarations. The ledger cannot establish identity, independence, source reading or truth by itself.

Versions and exact subjects

Version entries 1–1

Version 1: Overhead ratio

Current subject in this edition

Subject checksum
f0753458bc7b3a0b30fe5d6957d639d5c878a37dddcd30bbd81d69ee3f563c10
Version checksum
eb020977d52d7e66430715384edd373b4335951be331479141b04143dab9e006
Authorship declaration
unknown; completeness unknown.
aliases
[
  "overhead",
  "program expense ratio",
  "administrative costs",
  "fundraising ratio"
]
conditions
[
  {
    "collection": "conditions",
    "id": "overhead-myth"
  },
  {
    "collection": "conditions",
    "id": "measurement-gap"
  }
]
related
[
  "/diagnosis/overhead-myth/",
  "/record/myths/",
  "/open-problems/the-overhead-replacement/",
  "/tools/charity-lookup/",
  "/record/lexicon/#overhead-ratio"
]
summary
The share of a charity’s spending that goes to management and fundraising rather than to programs. It is easy to find and widely used, but it does not establish what a charity achieves.
Exact archived Markdown body

Inert source text, including its original formatting. It is not executed as page markup.

U.S. charities that file the full IRS Form 990 report their expenses in Part IX, the Statement of Functional Expenses, which sorts them into three columns: program services, management and general, and fundraising. The **overhead ratio** is the share that falls in the second and third columns. A charity that spends $100 with $15 on management and fundraising has an overhead ratio of 15 percent.

## Why it became the default

It is printed on a public form, and it seems to answer the question donors most want answered: how much of my gift reaches the cause? Part IX does not itself measure results.

## What it can’t tell you

The ratio says how costs are split, not what they buy. Some costs of running an organization well land in those columns, while shared costs must be allocated by function under the IRS instructions, and they are often what make a program work. A charity can spend almost nothing on overhead and achieve nothing, and another can invest heavily in systems and change thousands of lives.

The ratio also shapes behavior. Ann Goggins Gregory and Don Howard described a *nonprofit starvation cycle*: funders expect low overhead, charities feel pressure to meet the expectation, so they underspend on infrastructure and underreport what they do spend, which keeps expectations low. They cited a study in which more than a third of organizations reported no fundraising costs at all, and a 2001 survey by the Better Business Bureau in which more than half of American adults said overhead should be 20 percent or less.

## An open letter

In June 2013 the leaders of GuideStar, Charity Navigator and the BBB Wise Giving Alliance, three organizations that donors turn to for information about charities, published an open letter calling the overhead percentage a poor measure of a charity’s performance. They asked donors to look instead at transparency, governance, leadership and results. They also said that very high overhead can still be a sign of fraud or poor management, so the ratio can prompt further questions without being a verdict on its own.

## What could replace it

Finding a simple public measure that tracks results without being easy to game is [Open Problem 6, the Overhead Replacement](/open-problems/the-overhead-replacement/). The raw material exists: [Charity Impact Media](https://theguysaccount.github.io/charity-impact-media/) publishes Form 990 spending breakdowns, with every number linked to its filing and no ratings attached. See also the [Myth-Busting Series](/record/myths/) on the claim that a low overhead ratio means a good charity.
Cited evidence
Pinned source capture
Exact version fields and declaration references
{
  "adapterVersion": "research-encyclopedia-v1",
  "authorship": {
    "actorIds": [],
    "complete": false,
    "refs": [],
    "state": "unknown"
  },
  "hash": "eb020977d52d7e66430715384edd373b4335951be331479141b04143dab9e006",
  "id": "version:concept-overhead-ratio-v1",
  "previousId": null,
  "recordId": "concept:overhead-ratio",
  "sources": [
    {
      "selector": {
        "kind": "entry"
      },
      "sourceId": "source:encyclopedia-overhead-ratio-v1"
    }
  ],
  "subject": {
    "body": "\nU.S. charities that file the full IRS Form 990 report their expenses in Part IX, the Statement of Functional Expenses, which sorts them into three columns: program services, management and general, and fundraising. The **overhead ratio** is the share that falls in the second and third columns. A charity that spends $100 with $15 on management and fundraising has an overhead ratio of 15 percent.\n\n## Why it became the default\n\nIt is printed on a public form, and it seems to answer the question donors most want answered: how much of my gift reaches the cause? Part IX does not itself measure results.\n\n## What it can’t tell you\n\nThe ratio says how costs are split, not what they buy. Some costs of running an organization well land in those columns, while shared costs must be allocated by function under the IRS instructions, and they are often what make a program work. A charity can spend almost nothing on overhead and achieve nothing, and another can invest heavily in systems and change thousands of lives.\n\nThe ratio also shapes behavior. Ann Goggins Gregory and Don Howard described a *nonprofit starvation cycle*: funders expect low overhead, charities feel pressure to meet the expectation, so they underspend on infrastructure and underreport what they do spend, which keeps expectations low. They cited a study in which more than a third of organizations reported no fundraising costs at all, and a 2001 survey by the Better Business Bureau in which more than half of American adults said overhead should be 20 percent or less.\n\n## An open letter\n\nIn June 2013 the leaders of GuideStar, Charity Navigator and the BBB Wise Giving Alliance, three organizations that donors turn to for information about charities, published an open letter calling the overhead percentage a poor measure of a charity’s performance. They asked donors to look instead at transparency, governance, leadership and results. They also said that very high overhead can still be a sign of fraud or poor management, so the ratio can prompt further questions without being a verdict on its own.\n\n## What could replace it\n\nFinding a simple public measure that tracks results without being easy to game is [Open Problem 6, the Overhead Replacement](/open-problems/the-overhead-replacement/). The raw material exists: [Charity Impact Media](https://theguysaccount.github.io/charity-impact-media/) publishes Form 990 spending breakdowns, with every number linked to its filing and no ratings attached. See also the [Myth-Busting Series](/record/myths/) on the claim that a low overhead ratio means a good charity.\n",
    "collection": "encyclopedia",
    "frontmatter": {
      "aliases": [
        "overhead",
        "program expense ratio",
        "administrative costs",
        "fundraising ratio"
      ],
      "conditions": [
        {
          "collection": "conditions",
          "id": "overhead-myth"
        },
        {
          "collection": "conditions",
          "id": "measurement-gap"
        }
      ],
      "related": [
        "/diagnosis/overhead-myth/",
        "/record/myths/",
        "/open-problems/the-overhead-replacement/",
        "/tools/charity-lookup/",
        "/record/lexicon/#overhead-ratio"
      ],
      "sources": [
        {
          "note": null,
          "publisher": "Internal Revenue Service",
          "title": "Instructions for Form 990, Part IX, Statement of Functional Expenses",
          "url": "https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i990",
          "year": 2025
        },
        {
          "note": null,
          "publisher": "Ann Goggins Gregory and Don Howard, Stanford Social Innovation Review",
          "title": "The Nonprofit Starvation Cycle",
          "url": "https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_nonprofit_starvation_cycle",
          "year": 2009
        },
        {
          "note": null,
          "publisher": "The Chronicle of Philanthropy",
          "title": "3 Major Charity Groups Ask Donors to Stop Focusing on Overhead Costs",
          "url": "https://www.philanthropy.com/news/3-major-charity-groups-ask-donors-to-stop-focusing-on-overhead-costs/",
          "year": 2013
        },
        {
          "note": null,
          "publisher": "Charity Impact Media",
          "title": "Charity Impact Media",
          "url": "https://theguysaccount.github.io/charity-impact-media/",
          "year": null
        },
        {
          "note": null,
          "publisher": "Candid",
          "title": "The overhead myth: crash course to fundraising transparency",
          "url": "https://candid.org/blogs/the-overhead-myth-crash-course-to-fundraising-transparency/",
          "year": 2022
        }
      ],
      "summary": "The share of a charity’s spending that goes to management and fundraising rather than to programs. It is easy to find and widely used, but it does not establish what a charity achieves.",
      "title": "Overhead ratio"
    },
    "type": "entry"
  },
  "subjectHash": "f0753458bc7b3a0b30fe5d6957d639d5c878a37dddcd30bbd81d69ee3f563c10",
  "version": 1
}

Timeline in recorded order

Public occurrence time and ledger recording time are different. A coverage baseline records what was present at capture; it does not invent an earlier history.

Events 1–1

Coverage baseline

Recorded order
58; sequence 1 for this record.
Public occurrence
Undated / no earlier occurrence asserted · undated
Recorded in ledger

Additional exact-source encyclopedia coverage. Earlier authorship, source reading, independent review and historical event dates remain unknown.

Observed baseline: version 1.

Exact event fields
{
  "actorIds": [],
  "hash": "82a2120fc66b5a63b07d7368bd13ee974ffaa98f17cb1e6fadf966725798ec5c",
  "id": "event:concept-overhead-ratio-1",
  "initialProblemState": null,
  "observationIds": [],
  "occurredAt": null,
  "ordinal": 58,
  "previousHash": null,
  "previousId": null,
  "reason": "Additional exact-source encyclopedia coverage. Earlier authorship, source reading, independent review and historical event dates remain unknown.",
  "recordId": "concept:overhead-ratio",
  "recordedAt": "2026-11-07T23:20:18.679Z",
  "refs": [],
  "sequence": 1,
  "timeBasis": "undated",
  "type": "baseline",
  "version": {
    "recordId": "concept:overhead-ratio",
    "subjectHash": "f0753458bc7b3a0b30fe5d6957d639d5c878a37dddcd30bbd81d69ee3f563c10",
    "version": 1
  }
}

Review declarations

No public review declaration is recorded for this subject in this edition.

Dated public metadata observations

These observations record only the displayed metadata at inspection. A merge, closed issue or empty review list does not establish research or independent review.

github-pull-request · 2026-10-27T08:20:16.587Z

Observed public object

{
  "base": "975bbbbbd198d4b3c4e1777013d0410588a838b3",
  "draft": false,
  "head": "3653d41717a86db2933b02664d7026a329350a66",
  "mergeCommit": "8df2d0ddbc6d91b9841c6bbb94dbde1fc7c00137",
  "mergedAt": "2026-10-27T08:10:57.000Z",
  "number": 15,
  "state": "closed"
}

be39e645f9291ea3931584665b011df77bfa8340e4d32f36562eb526f8e62396

github-pull-request · 2026-10-27T08:20:16.587Z

Observed public object

{
  "base": "905bdd27bb5f16027c3b3ad3c0f5ee3fc18e3e45",
  "draft": false,
  "head": "510320528e89f45caa9c42eb5a6eda3d6ad1bede",
  "mergeCommit": "3a57d24acc6efd4eb3ae60c59da36ea17c023fb9",
  "mergedAt": "2026-10-26T05:24:43.000Z",
  "number": 3,
  "state": "closed"
}

1ec26b57bd6ef466311b11958d47e9d144ec150ea5689838ae8036eb363aacbf

github-review-list · 2026-10-27T08:20:16.587Z

Observed public object

{
  "prNumber": 3,
  "reviewIds": []
}

3b7b719dbdd25b9937ba6c640f7234921611db30818b5675db41b9fa3534d926

github-issue · 2026-10-27T08:20:16.587Z

Observed public object

{
  "commentCount": 0,
  "number": 1,
  "state": "open"
}

b411d756f95b7434bc8a2a73dd5599f751afe621b2ab673c0e2e7b056d37bb14

Corrections stay public

This ledger reads checked-in public evidence. It does not read private browser registers, publish a local result, assign reviewers or rate charities. New evidence and corrections enter through the repository’s public contribution process.

How to contribute or challenge a claim