On 10 Apr 2013, at 12:25, Deepak Shenoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Ingrid Srinath > <[email protected]> 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). > One via media that works is organisations who get their start-up costs, investments funded by foundations allowing contributions from the public to be used almost entirely for programmes.
