Most charities have a mission. I use to have an attitude of critiquing how they use their money. Than I worked for a non-profit & another & another. Here's what I learned.
I realized you can't critique how they spend their money from outside.
The most important thing isn't how the money is used but the impact they have on their mission. If a CEO takes 98% of the money but the non-profit ends hunger, is that a problem?
If you want talent, it costs money to keep & retain it. A lot of non-profits had amazing young people working there but those people wanted to have families & move up in the world.
Non-profits that are 100% volunteer are usually less organized & less efficient. Most small non-profits that do pay employees pay very poorly & can't keep great employees which hurts efficiency of their mission.
Sometimes really good opportunities come up for non-profits that could help their mission immensely but they have to turn them down because it would really look bad on their finances when people look at their administrative costs. There actually seem to be black markets out there of non-profits trying to move money around to achieve missions around without hurting their administrative cost to money spent directly on mission ratio.
People need to quit handicapping non-profits. Solving problems cost money & non-profits often spend more time managing accounting than thinking about the problem they're trying to solve.
