Personally I think it very much depends on what the aims of the charity are. In something like finding a cure for cancer or changing public policy on the environment, then a larger charity makes more sense.

But, actually in the case of the NSPCC, whilst I think they do very good work; they only provide part of the solution. If you want to tackle child abuse in the home (where the majority of it takes place) you generally have to be able to offer support to parents and activities to take their kids of them for a while. Those sort of organisations, in my opinion, work better by being locally run and managed.

Not only do they quickly adapt to the needs of the individual group; they give a sense of ownership and empowerment that the big charities are sadly lacking. Large membership charities rarely release control, other than perhaps elections for a board or representatives (and then some don't even do that).

For the third sector to be vibrant it needs not to be run by men-in-suits or distant corporate offices; but engaged individuals who can make a difference in the community around them. In simply looking at the outcomes, I think we are ignoring the fact that some of the most beneficial work a charity does is during the process of reaching its product.

I guess we'll agree to disagree Adam. I'm not having a sideswipe at NSPCC generally, but I find it surprising that the best way to spend my £2 a month is on a £10 million billboard campaign raising awareness about an issue that is never out of the media, either directly or tangentially (take Madeleine McCann and Chris Langham for two most recent examples). 

 As for evidence, of course, it's difficult to measure the effectiveness of such campaigns....and there is little evidence. But it cuts both ways: there is as little evidence for your somewhat naive hope that "heightened awareness might even succeed in driving home to abusers how unacceptable their behaviour is". Indeed, your justifications for awareness raising use the words 'might' and 'may' in quick succession.

So we are just swapping points of view without any evidence: mine is that awareness raising of this type in this area is more of a waste of time/money than say, targeted educational programmes, rehabilitation work, frontline support for children....and yours is that it is not. But neither of us has any evidence or ways of measuring.

I'm afraid to say, SSE, that I don't agree with the conclusions you draw from New Philanthropy Capital's work. Their report into child abuse - which I think you're referring to - indeed argues that it's hard to demonstrate a firm link between raising awareness of abuse and actually getting people to stop beating children. But this doesn't mean that awareness-raising (one of the NSPCC's key aims) is a waste of time.

If the NSPCC - or any other charity - succeeds in attracting public support for its cause, it stands a better chance of being able to influence politicians, and drag the issue up the legislative agenda. Greater publicity might also make local government officials take (in this instance) child abuse more seriously, leading to greater resources being diverted to the issue on the ground. On top of this, heightened awareness may well create an atmosphere where abuse is more easily reported, and less easily ignored. It might even succeed in driving home to abusers how unacceptable their behaviour is.

None of this is easy to prove. But just because NPC hasn't developed a tool to track how awareness-raising affects behaviour, this by no means implies that awareness-raising is a waste of time. The Guardian's crass and unthinking judgement only illustrates the shallowness of the paper's thinking on this issue.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

I hear you on this, Adam, and agree with the majority of the points you make. There's no proof that either small or big charities are more effective / successful because of their size alone. Balancing up economies of scale / reducing back-office costs with distance from frontline / bureaucracy is a tricky equation (and these are only parts of it). As ever, it is the people running and populating these organisations that make the difference.

 I was surprised that you mentioned NSPCC in the context of awareness-raising campaigns, though, given that New Philanthropy Capital's recent report suggested that there was "zero evidence that this leads to fewer beatings"; the Guardian's follow-up comment was ""[NSPCC] will survive the NPC report, but it should regard it as a timely wake-up call- a reminder that donor money should go to what works. Everything else is marketing."

Would the money have been targeted somewhere different if the charity was smaller? Discuss...