Public think small charities are least wasteful and closest to beneficiaries
An interesting article in the third sector and perhaps a wake-up call to those of us in larger charities, not necessarily because we are more wasteful but more because we may appear (because of our size) to be more bureacratic & less in touch with grass roots supporters. For smaller charities who have a local base and perhaps a local face is it easier to create personal relationships & communicate at a face to face level? Is it simply that smaller charities are at that stage in their evolution where their costs are lower because their area of coverage is smaller & potentiall their remit? Is it invevitable as a charity grows that the public perception is that they become more wasteful? Clearly some charities are more wasteful than others but is there any relationship to their size? - be interested to know if anyone has done any research on this? Whatever the reason, those of us working for larger charities obviously need to find ways to find more effective ways of demonstrating that we are watching the pennies & we do care about wastefulness.
Interesting points Carol; I think it' safe to say that as organisations grow it becomes harder to manage resources efficiently and this applies to all sectors. I think the real challenge for big charities is not so much wasting resources but their ability to remain focused on their objectives and keeping in touch with the needs of their local client bases. It's hard to do this when your head office that makes all the decisions is seen to be far removed from the area of operation, especially if the CEO rarely gets to visit. That's not to say that big charities can't be beautiful though - examples like Comic Relief show how a largish organisation can still operate with minimum waste and still be totally focused on their stakeholders so it can be done well...