NGOs are not meant to make a profit. Donors expect funds to go to the mission, and most organisations hold only modest reserves, and not for long. That is how it should be. But it creates a structural tension that is rarely discussed openly: NGOs must respond quickly to sharp changes in funding, while the quality of their work depends on keeping skilled people who are hard to replace.
Full-cost recovery is a large part of the answer. This article looks at why the dilemma is so often underestimated, and what organisations can do about it in practice.
A sector built on volatile funding
Most NGO funding is restricted and time-bound. Grants typically run for one to three years. Donor priorities shift with politics and strategy, exchange rates move, and a single funding decision can remove a large share of a country office’s budget. Without profit margins or substantial reserves, there is little buffer. And because staff are usually the largest cost, adjusting to less funding almost always means adjusting staff.
The staffing dilemma
Programmes are delivered by people: project managers, finance officers, M&E staff and community facilitators. Many of them have been trained by the organisation itself over years. They know the donor rules, the systems, the local partners and, above all, the communities.
When a grant ends and the next one is not yet secured, the organisation faces a hard choice:
- Let staff go and lose capacity that took years to build. When new funding arrives, the organisation recruits and trains again, start-up is slower, compliance mistakes increase and relationships have to be rebuilt.
- Keep staff without funding and drain limited unrestricted funds or reserves, which is only sustainable for a short period.
This dilemma is widely underestimated. Donors fund projects, not organisations, and rarely see the cost of rebuilding capacity every funding cycle. NGOs themselves sometimes treat it as bad luck rather than as a predictable risk they can plan for.
Why this matters for development
NGOs often start development where others do not: in remote areas, with new approaches, building trust with communities before governments or markets follow. That role depends on qualified people with local knowledge, many of whom the NGO trained itself. Losing them at the end of every grant undermines exactly what donors value most in NGOs.
What does full cost actually include?
It helps to think in three layers:
- Direct programme costs: activities, programme staff, travel, materials and partner grants.
- Shared support costs: finance, HR, procurement, IT, office running costs, M&E and compliance functions that serve several projects at once.
- Indirect costs: governance, senior leadership and other costs that cannot reasonably be linked to individual projects.
For the staffing question, one more view helps: which roles and costs keep the organisation itself running, and which exist only to deliver a particular project? Making that visible shows what must be protected when funding drops, and where there is room to flex.
Seven practical steps
1. Know your real costs
Build a simple cost model of your support functions and the essential capacity you need to keep running, per office and for the organisation as a whole. You cannot recover what you have not quantified.
2. Choose clear allocation keys
Decide how shared costs are distributed, for example by staff time or programme expenditure. Keep reliable time records, keep the method simple, apply it consistently and write it down in a cost allocation policy.
3. Budget shared costs as direct lines where allowed
Many donors cap indirect cost rates but accept well-justified shared costs as direct budget lines. Check each donor’s rules and include them transparently, with a short explanation of the allocation.
4. Look at the portfolio, not just the grant
Track how much of your support costs is covered by your grant portfolio, per year and per office, and be realistic about funding that is expected but not yet confirmed. That shows where the gaps are and which proposals need to carry more.
5. Plan for flexibility and continuity
Treat the end of a grant as a predictable event, not a surprise. Map which roles are essential and which can flex. Stagger grant end dates where possible, plan in advance how key staff can move between projects, and use unrestricted funds deliberately as a short bridge for the people you cannot afford to lose. A clear reserve policy, with a defined purpose, level and time limit, makes these choices easier to defend.
6. Negotiate with evidence
Donors respond better to numbers than to principles. A clear cost model makes it easier to defend shared costs, and to discuss realistic close-out periods, the timing of follow-on phases and the value of flexible funding.
7. Make it audit-proof
Charge actual costs according to the documented method, keep time records and allocation calculations, and reconcile regularly. The most common audit finding on shared costs is not that they were charged, but that the basis for charging them could not be shown.
Common pitfalls
- Double charging: the same cost recovered both as a direct line and through the indirect rate.
- Budget-based charging: charging the budgeted amount instead of actual, allocated costs.
- Waiting too long: staffing decisions taken in the last month of a grant are almost always more expensive than those planned six months ahead.
- Forgetting partners: local partners face the same dilemma, often with even fewer reserves.
A word to donors
Funding the organisation behind a project is not overhead. It is what makes results possible and sustainable. Realistic shared costs, longer grant periods, flexible funding and support for bridging between phases help partners keep the people who make programmes work.
Quick checklist
- Do we know our annual support costs per office?
- Do we know which roles are essential and what capacity we must protect?
- Do we have a written cost allocation policy?
- Does every proposal budget include shared costs where the donor allows it?
- Can we see our cost coverage across the full grant portfolio?
- Do we have a plan to bridge key staff between grants, and a reserve policy that supports it?
- Could we show an auditor how each shared cost was calculated?
If the answer to one or more of these is no, that is where to start.
Working on cost recovery, a cost allocation policy or funding continuity for your organisation? Get in touch to explore how KGS can help.
Leave a Reply