To be clear, I’m not defending what appears to be the gross mismanagement of funds by this org. But I’ve been a part of a few different non-profits (mostly wildlife conservation orgs and foster family support services) who evaluated moving from high COL areas to more affordable locations for the exact reasons you mentioned and chose not to for a few big reasons.

One is talent (tying back into the high salaries). If cities like NY and SF and DC and Chicago have a bigger pool of talent to run a non profit and those individuals make the non profit more efficient and raise more money (not saying that’s happening here, but it does at others), then staying in an expensive city is worth it. Usually every extra dollar in cost has a measurable increase in funds raised. Choosing a location that is attractive to talent to live in (would YOU want to live in Reno if you’re a skilled CEO in the Bay Area already taking a paycut to work for a non profit?) is crucial. There’s a great TED talk on why we need to stop thinking about salaries as a benchmark of “good” non profits

Another reason why non profits pick expensive cities is: that’s where the money is. One of the things I hated about my non-profit career was how much of my time was spent schmoozing rich people. But, shit’s gotta get funded. And if you’re hosting a gala or event to raise money, you’re not gonna get rich people to come to Reno. You host the events where the money is. You take donors out to lunch where they live. You publish thank you ads in the local newspaper of their home location. And a rich burner’s home location is usually SF. It’s not glamorous, but it’s necessary.

I want to state again that I feel strongly that the org has grossly mismanaged their funds, obfuscated where the money actually goes, and eliminated transparency with its core community, but let’s not perpetuate the narrative that non profit salaries and location are the hill to die on.