Yes and no.
Large charitable organizations may have overhead... but so do smaller organizations. For those big organizations that run effeciently, overhead is a smaller percentage of costs because they pool resources.
So say there are 5 medium sized charities and one big one. Let's compare. The five medium sized charities still need a CEO or Exec. Director, they need human resources department, payroll, communications and marketing, a finance department...
In the larger organization you have the same but often, they have LESS staff than the administration staff of 5 or so medium sized charities.
The bigger the charity, the more likely they are to get sponsorship funding from corporations - sadly, corporates want to sponsor a charity that is going to help them with their sales and marketing (yes, there are a few corporate exceptions out there)
So there's my YES answer
On the No side: Larger charities usually have so much risk exposure that insurance companies demand more risk management practicies. So in some large charities (not all) you end up with staff that spend all of their time making sure that the form is in the right format and that the manual on manuals is updated and distributed, trained and re-trained. You get the idea (yes, I worked for a big charity that had a manual on manuals). They've got forms for creating forms, guidelines and schedules - some of it creates efficiency, some of it just creates more work and more need for administrative assistants and data entry clerks to keep all of this tracked and recorded. Again, not all big charities end up creating a bureaucratic nightmare but the risk is higher that it will happen the bigger you get.
Smaller organizations usually have more active volunteers than they do staff. And the volunteers are more active in day-to-day operations. Small organizations can still manage risk without adding a huge bureaucracy because their scope and number of volunteers and programs is that much more manageable.
Smaller organizations are usually local - so if you donate to them, you can see that your dollars are going directly into the community.
However, that said. Our society NEEDS both types of charities. We need large charities who can carry a big stick to lobby government, to create awareness about a health risk or an environmental issue. Picture the next earthquake or tsunami without the Red Cross for example - how many small charities would you need to do the same? How many small charities would be ready to operate immediately?
We need small charities to help locally with individual needs and day-to-day strife and to give a voice to little known conditions or issues.
Also remember too that big charities used to be small charities. And every charity, regardless of size has the potential to grow.
2007-12-18 04:23:11
·
answer #1
·
answered by madamoo 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
Most organizations are only as good as the intentions of the people running them. While it is true that a large portion of the funds collected go for overhead costs, how would people donate on a large scale without these organizations.
For example, after hurricane Katrina would you just have mailed a check to "Random Person in New Orleans".
2007-12-18 04:03:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by Dave W 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
yes it is a good idea, although they need to be policed carefully. Larger organisations are easier to be made accountable...
Two good examples of where this is successful,
The Red Cross - part of their charter is to be Non-religious and Non-political, which is the key to their success. The red cross is the largest charity organisation and this has helped them to do things that other organisations could not do, such as the ban on land mines that they facilitated.
Oxfam - another non-religious and non-political organisation that looks at the fundamentals of poverty and seeks to help people on a basic economic and infrustructure level, as opposed to the feel-good work that is often done by other organisations during disasters without any emphasis on the reasons behind the disaster.
The key to both being very good organisations is the NON-RELIGIOUS, NON-POLITICAL nature of their work. Too many aid organisations have a hidden agenda to convert the people they are meant to be helping and this is a terrible thing.
2007-12-18 10:48:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Large organizations are expensive to fund and maintain. That money could be going directly to the people in need instead of supplying overhead costs for the organization.
2007-12-18 03:53:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think that having large charity organisationS is a bad idea.
Because people compete to see who can do the most good and that becomes the priority instead of just helping people.
2007-12-18 03:51:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
I think we need to focus on a more community based charity. We as neighbors, friends and family know the people in our community who need it the most. We also know what assets they have and if we are the ones doing the distribution than we know that no one is taking this money for themselves. (ex. Salvation Army Scandal in my community)
However they are probably necessary but where does it stop there is a laptops for kids charity, although yes it is good, yes children in Africa don't have the government support like our children do but our education system is seriously lacking in itself and this money could be used in our communities. Where is it going to stop, is there going to be charities for plastic surgery and botox for underprivileged models and actresses next. come on.
These people that donate thousands a year to charities but their neighbor is deciding between what bills get paid first, what's more important heat, shelter, food, childcare so I can go to work and pay the bills etc.. So many Americans live in poverty, yes there is government funding but everyone does not qualify and the levels are not high enough. The people that get no aid are the true poor because they have nothing to rely on but themselves.
I feel that many people donate so they can feel good not because they care out of kindness not hospitality, for competition and you know because they make everyone aware of their contribution. Sending Christmas gifts to charities in someone else's name, but that is another argument. Telling everyone about how much they send, oh these poor children. Absolutely Ridiculous.
So while they are a good thing in some ways, I very much disagree with them. I do think some of them are good, it just depends how they were started. I don't remember who but one basket ball player has a charity for single moms to buy a home because he was raised by a single mom, you know he started that out of good intentions not to scam people or make a buck. I saw a magazine article with him eating dinner with one of the recipients and her son, it brought a tear to my eye. The ones that I get emotional over I think must be good but others that just seem to be done for money I don't get emotional over.
Many of the cleft lip and palate charities that you see on tv, the surgeries are so cheap a fraction of what they are here in the U.S. and that may be very upsetting to someone paying the other bill but it is a needed charity because many of these children have to wear bags over their heads in other countries for fear of being killed or so says my son's plastic surgeon.
2007-12-18 04:57:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by littlemisscontroverse 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
No because of all of the corporate overhead. They still have to have CEO's, (but they're called "Presidents".), and they still have to have a large staff in charge of something.
Therefore, most of the money does not go to the causes oringinally intended.
2007-12-18 03:57:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by Big Bear 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Dave, not the best example,,, my family would have gotten more help that way. But I do agree with you, it's just that NOLA is an entirely differant (everything) than the rest of the world
2007-12-18 04:26:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by stormy 4
·
0⤊
2⤋