The debate about charity overheads re-emerged after the Australian Red Cross was criticised for spending 10% of its Disaster Relief Fund on ‘office costs’.

The charity is leading the response to the devastating fires sweeping the nation, and has been the first port of call for the millions moved to donate. Instead of setting up a new fund, they have sensibly been directing donors towards their standing Relief Fund – of which, they reserve 10% of donations for backroom costs.

Unsurprisingly, the response to this news has been polarising. Either, people are outraged that 100% of donations have not been spent directly on reconstruction. Or, they are furious that this is even a debate in the first place.

Away from the battleground of Twitter, my take is a bit more nuanced. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that both reactions have merit.

Running a charity demands significant investment in overheads. We rightly expect our charities to be effective, strategic and prudent with our hard-earned cash. All of this requires a level of professionalisation that is impossible without skilled staff, diverse expertise and functioning offices.

But more than this, spending money on ‘office costs’ is a core part of delivering sustainable change – something any charity worth its salt should be aiming for.

As a sector, we have dug our own hole by bending over backwards to tell a story of ‘low overheads’ – separating this core part of our work when asking for money. It is also where the Australian Red Cross have found themselves in trouble, after promising to spend 100% of a previous fund directly on the response.

Instead of making these false promises, we should be having an open and honest conversation with the public about what it takes to deliver sustainable change.

Read the full article about disaster relief funding by Martha Mackenzie at NPC.