On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Ingrid Srinath <ingrid.srin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The only issue I have with that logic is that it prevents any organisation > from achieving sufficient scale to have significant impact. The charity > sector may be the only one I know where success in terms of growth/size is > penalised by those who support the sector. Is there a need for a charity to grow to that scale if it weren't actually trying to cut costs substantially? Yes, some costs are cut by scale but I've yet to find a charity in India who has an aggressive goal to keep costs at 20% or less even in the next five years. Scale in this sector hardly seems to have the kind of impact one thinks of - even the biggest charities struggle to do the on-the-ground things (and usually outsource to more efficient, smaller charities). If all they're doing is being middlemen, then everyone will question the need for them to exist. With the advent of the net and the ability for the smaller folks to highlight what they do, like a Project Why, I believe the large-charity model will have to be done by the large-businessman-who-donates like the Buffetts and the Gates'. (also the private charity uses a tax loophole to pretty good effect).
