It's actually pretty good. Having worked with a number of nonprofits, around 10% going to fundraising is pretty normal. Things like fundraising galas are expensive.

That said, the bigger question isn't the amount they spend on fundraising but how much good they do with the money they raise. And the Red Cross has decidedly mixed reviews at that.

As you might expect there are a number of non-profits that act as watch dogs for other non-profits, almost like a Better Business Bureau (BBB) type of concept, and they grade them on these financial dealings. Historically, I think Florida has the worst, where you see many non-profits spending upwards of 90% of their income on salary and administrative costs, meaning at best 10 cents on the dollar gets spent on the cause.

Off the top of my head the formulas give the best rating if the total compensation of the board is less than 10% of income, the cost of fundraising is less than 35% of income and at least 65% of the income goes to the cause/projects.

Of course I am with you, if you have ever attended some of these non-profit fundraisers, its pretty disgusting, a ballroom full of people living the high life, taking beneficial tax deductions, and so full of self-congratulatory righteousness you'd have to ask them to save some room if you'd have any interest in patting them on the back.

No, that's not a lot. It's actually pretty good.

I think the beef with Red Cross is that the money is not spent effectively. Take a look at the investigative links nearby for more. These dollar figures, although crisp and numerical, do not illustrate the real issue.