I'm an academic researcher that studies nonprofits and trust me, you are not alone in thinking this. But the problem with charities constraining themselves to t

I'm an academic researcher that studies nonprofits and trust me, you are not alone in thinking this. But the problem with charities constraining themselves to their original narrow mandate is that this leads to tiny nonprofits trying to solve the greatest challenges facing humanity (poverty, disease, etc.). Tiny nonprofits simply cannot impact the world significantly. Sure there are examples of egregious shadiness in nonprofits, but an above comment mentioned the Red Cross basically putting 375m/500m of donations toward the programs. Honestly, if they send every dollar received straight the beneficiaries, they would have raised significantly less than 500m. Would it be better for the programs to receive 375m/500m or 25m/25m? Sure we don't know how much they would have raised without all the fundraising, but this issue is more nuanced than people think. EDIT: I read the Red Cross article from NPR, and it appears that example falls under legitimate questioning of the use of funds. My larger point still applies in general though.