Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
If we compare that with the admin overheads from some of the other groups, you have to wonder. I believe that one of the most egregious examples, since corrected to some degree, was UNICEF with an 80% overhead (or somewhere in that area) and who, by the 1990's, appear to have been spending the vast majority of their money on conferences and symposia (cf. Chattering International: How UNICEF Fails the World’s Poorest Children, James Le Fenu, 1993).
Part of the confusion here was the way in which UNICEF structured its budget, which made it look like less money than was going into programming than was actually the case. Moreover, the egregious cases no more justify giving up on development agencies and NGOs as instruments of policy than do bloated weapon acquisitions budgets and $640 toilet seats mean that we jettison the military. Rather, they are reasons for reforms.

To take a few more typical cases. UNRWA--the largest UN agency in terms of staff--spends 11% of its budget on program support, and 89% on programmes. MSF--a fairly typical humanitarian NGO--spends 13% of its budget on support and fund-raising, and 87% on programme delivery. Those, I would suggest, are more typical numbers these days.