Look for % spent on doing the thing Vs admin fundraising
Don’t be too hung up on the % though. The sheer amount spent on work matters too.
Charities have to waste a lot of opportunities to bring more money into the sector on being hung up on ratios. There is a huge amount of pressure to maintain a 1:5+ fundraising to spending ratio.
In reality this can mean it’s seen as better to spend £100k on fundraising to bring in £500k and have £400k to help people. When in fact it would be better to spend £1m on fundraising to bring in £2m and have £1m to help people.
One situation has 20% being spent on fundraising and admin, the other has 50%. But the one that looks worse is helping more than double the amount of people.
The amount that is spent in admin is a factor in effectiveness but it’s fairly easy to get that coded to project spending. So with really low admin costs, could well be being allocated to a project budget. More difficult to do that with fundraising costs, as fundraisers tend to need to be based in the rich country to be effective.
And if you think getting admin costs allocated to a project sounds bad, it’s often really not. The project will take on current/former service users of the project to help out and pay them. Often helping people escape poverty, get a stable job or training, go on to help others, build a positive place in their community etc.
The obsession with ratios really limits the amounts charities can do and it is corrosive.
It’s more effective to look at impact studies, which focus on outcomes. So how much change does each £1 spent on projects have rather than how much of each £1 raised is spent on projects. It’s about the change they manage to make in an area not how virtuously they manage to code the spending.