Restricted/Unrestricted: Few funders want to pay for just plain administration. Often the best approach for technology funding is to include an “indirect percentage” which covers administrative costs as a budget line item in any grant application. Sophisticated and reasonable funders will expect it, as they realize that you have to keep the lights on somehow even as you are performing to the restrictions of a project.

In many cases, however, I think when we talk about nonprofit x (technology, HR, management) we’re frequently talking about things which could easily apply to a larger group of small and medium businesses. Not that there isn’t anything unique about the mission-based sector, but some of what is identified as being NP-specific isn’t.

I think NPITM’s list is good, though, and don’t really have anything else to add at this point. It is a little tricky to wrap your head around. I think a lot of it has to do with personal idealism – NP IT folks do it in part because we support the missions of our employers/clients, just like other NP staff.

Most IT departments are reported on the corporate balance sheet under administrative cost, which is squeezed and squeezed. The markets don’t like to see large administrative costs. They tend to carry an almost immoral tenor – if you’re spending money on administration, you’re inefficient – just like in the non-profit sector.

So perhaps there is more money, but it’s anything but unrestricted.