IN RE: Salaries as a portion of income. First of all, your terms are screwy: Not-for-profits, by definition, don't have a "gross profit." Later in your post, you seem to re-cast the question to: is there a standard for what portion of gross revenue is used for salaries? The short answer is: no. In service agencies, almost all of the revenue is used for salaries, besides rent, non-capital equipment, supplies, insurance, etc. In a museum, more might be used on non-salary items having to do with caring for a structure or collection and mounting exhibitions. The longer answer is that funders will certainly look at how your income is being spent. If you raise $200,000 each year, and 50% of that is spent on the director's salary, then funders will definitely question the value of giving you money toward your mission. This kind of arrangement suggests a possibly shady not-for-profit, like the "drum and bugle corps" run by a district superintendant in New York City. The Times reported a situation like the one you describe, where it appears that this not-for-profit exists principally to contribute to the income of its director. Eric Siegel [log in to unmask]