... but would just like to say "AAAAAAAAARGHHHHHHH" at the minimum overheads comment. If we're talking about international development, Mr H's article is spot on.

 But it does *not* reflect a general 'rule'. If it's a charity in an emerging economy, then yes, overheads are tiny, compared with 'value added' - because wages and prices tend to be lower in such economies.

However, if you're supporting a small community group in the UK, please bear in mind that their overheads may not be much less, in percentage terms, than those of large charities - especially if the organisation is just over the audit threshold, or has necessary staff to meet its obligations and carry out its work. Charity workers need to eat and live somewhere. That does not, repeat not, imply that they are inefficient: so-called 'grass roots' charities often have the kind of social return that would make any investment banker sit up if that return could be sensibly measured in terms of financial value.

So how do you find out? - well, if you want to support a grass roots charity close to where you live (Community Foundations are a good source of leads, as may be volunteer bureaux or your local free newspaper) - phone 'em up and ask if you can visit. Most will be only too pleased to share what they are doing: after all, as they are small, what you might be able to give will have more value to them.

I work for a funder. Saying "no" to organisations that deserve money is horrible (even Bill Gates couldn't fund everyone who asks us). But it doesn't kill you - well, it hasn't me, so far (sorry).

----------------------------------------------- .

.. nearly Vlad the Impaler