Having manged a few 'charities' I feel quite mixed in my reaction to this article.

On one hand I think the proof of need is a much more important question than the amount that is being spent on admin.

I am also conscious though that there are organisations out there that are able to garner wide public support because their cause is essentially conservative and they spend alot to make alot. The revolutionary in me baulks at that.

But I also think charities are an easy target for criticism from people who have no idea how tough it is to raise money in such a crowded competitive environment. Nobody really wants to fund core functions or infrastructure but without them the other work can't happen.

Private companies generally (obviously not exclusively) only support specific projects, and govt and philanthropic trusts increasingly only fund specific functions and limit overheads to around 12%. Who will pay for the building, the advocacy work, the community networking? Who acknowledges the voluntary hours? There needs to be an acknowledgement of the social good inherant in the voluntary processes as well as the 'product'?

If you want a system to compare organisations then at the least the assumptions behind this needs to be transperant - including voluntary and in-kind contributions in income and expenditure, and a clear defintion of what is administration, as well as a way of measuring primary and secondary outcomes.

Having worked in a university environment I know that they can often claim over 100% in overheads on staff hours in research grants. I have no argument with this but the looking at charities out of context does rile me.