3 ms·
I'd guess through volunteer time, as a lot of charities are run on the ground. Anything to reduce overhead cost.
by lowmagnet 14y ago
I'd guess through volunteer time, as a lot of charities are run on the ground. Anything to reduce overhead cost.
- cbr 14y agoThis is a false bargain. Spending money on overhead can make the money the charity spends on its program go much further. http://blog.givewell.org/2007/01/16/which-of-these-boasts-is-not-like-the-others/ http://blog.givewell.org/2007/01/16/which-of-these-boasts-is... http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/06/09/why-ranking-charities-by-administrative-expenses-is-a-bad-idea/ http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/06/09/why-ranking-charities...
- sliverstorm 14y agoVolunteer time is valuable, but it can help to have full-timers in administrative/organizational positions. Of course, this observation is mostly based on larger charities, with assets and property and non-trivial operating costs. I could see how a tiny charity without these burdens could get along fine without.
- PotatoEngineer 14y agoThe trouble is that ultra-low-overhead charities can be completely ineffective. If a charity doesn't pay for computers, utilities, sorting machines, postage meters, etc. (or pays for only the bargain-basement minimum), then each hour of volunteered time is less effective than if there are sufficient facilities available. Overhead is, in reasonable quantities, a good thing.