Legitimate concerns about the Clinton Foundation's reliance on funding from foreign governments and the organization's mixed record of disclosures have, in recent weeks, given way to more outlandish claims about the organization's failures. Most notable among these is the oft-repeated claim that only 10% of its money goes toward charity.
This claim reflects a fundamental misunderstanding about nonprofit accounting. Nonprofits disclose how much of their expenses are on the mission ("programs"), and how much are on fundraising and administration ("supporting services"). From the Clinton Foundation's most recent (consolidated) financial statements, a full 88% of its expenses are classified as program expenses, meaning 88% of spending can be attributed to current efforts to achieve its mission. The dichotomy between this and the claim that only 10% is spent on charity arises because only a small subset of the program expense figure represents grants to other charities – if only such grants are considered "program" expenses, then the figure drops from 88% to 13%. Since the Clinton Foundation is not primarily a grant provider but rather a direct service provider, however, the latter is hardly a figure worth noting.
To get some perspective, consider the Clinton Foundation's closest peer, the Carter Center. In its most recent financials, the Carter Center showed 91% of spending on programs and only 5% on grants.
The natural follow up question is if the organizations aren't spending the majority of the program costs on grants, where are they going? The next two charts reflect the breakdown of "program" expenses for the two organizations.
What does this tell us? By and large, the Clinton Foundation's limited grants are in line with what we should expect of a charity of its sort. The notable differences in Clinton Foundation spending are (i) the smaller share of costs that reflect donated medical supplies and (ii) the higher share of costs spent on personnel. As it turns out, both of these reflect broader trends of the organization.
In short, it is fair game to ask why donated medicines have taken on less importance in the Clinton Foundation’s work and why personnel costs have taken on more importance, but dismissing all program expenses that are not grants to others as waste fails to recognize the nuance of charitable activities.