Fictitious case study: Volunteers decide to start a charity out of compassion for people. The charity grows so big it is able to begin to pay the volunteers for their time. People move into positions of power. They ask for volunteers to keep running the tasks that help the community directly. Paid employees do the "real work", like data reports and admin. The charity influences the government to cut social security payments, so people in the community can go back to work and rely on them less, but what really happens is that the demand for the charity's services grow. The charity now puts out word that they need more funding. Most of the funding goes to keep the charity's staff employed. Volunteers keep running the community services.
This is a hypothetical situation and there are many wonderful charities out there, with wonderful intentions, but there may also be some organisations out there where there good intentions are a front for self interest. Hopefully we will be able to tell the difference.
How does one ensure that most of the funding given to charities goes to the people in the community who need it, not to support the charity's structures?
How do you ensure that volunteers are still willing to give time when they see people around them being paid to do the same tasks that they do, or sometimes even less work? Or do you make it a rule to pay all or none?
Awareness of the dynamics that exist between organisations and their network structures, e.g. between this charity and government. If a charity can influence government decisions, why did they make the request to cut people's source of money? Was it to do good to the community, or to assist themselves?