Small non-profits are being overlooked

The argument

Donors often overlook small non-profits and charities, even during an international health crisis. When people think about giving money to a cause, they immediately think of the big, multi-national charities — the organisations with the name recognition, the advertising budgets and the visible presence in coverage of the emergency. Giving follows attention, and attention concentrates on the largest players, which means the distribution of donations reflects prominence rather than need. The sector those donations skip over is most of the sector. Among non-profits, 92% have a budget of less than $1 million, and 88% have a budget of less than $500,000. Organisations of that size have no reserves to absorb a shock, and many have been forced to cancel fundraising events and are running low on funding and supplies. A cancelled annual fundraiser is a rounding error for a multinational charity and an existential event for a group operating on a few hundred thousand dollars a year. Meanwhile the need has not paused. While it may seem prudent to focus on fighting the virus itself, many issues that ail communities — such as poverty, hunger, and domestic violence — are still occurring, and some of them, domestic violence in particular, have actually got worse due to the circumstances of the lockdowns. The crisis has therefore increased demand on these services at the same moment it has cut off their income, which is the worst possible combination for an organisation without reserves. Many of these issues are tackled by small, local non-profits, many of which struggle for funding under normal circumstances. They are also the organisations closest to the people they serve, operating in the neighbourhoods where the need arises. Considering that many people rely on these services for their health and safety, we cannot forget to lend a helping hand to these smaller organizations.

Context

When people think about giving money, they immediately go to the non-profits they have heard of. These are the large, multinational charities, leaving local community organizations underfunded.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Small charities are important, but their net impact on the country is often small. An established and powerful NGO has the ability to reach a larger portion of the population. Their ability to lobby, finance, and implement policy and change have a greater effect in the long run. Additionally, they are often much easier to donate to. They typically have easy to navigate websites with simple donation processes. Smaller organizations may require you to physically donate or contribute in some way. The relative ease of supporting a large NGO ultimately means that more people will back them. Lastly, the larger NGO's require a much higher funding threshold than a smaller organization. If a larger group is better funded, they can likely better meet the needs of someone than a smaller organization.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Big NGOs and charities have the capabilities to help more people. [Rejecting P2] Large organizations are more visible and easier to give to, while smaller non-profits are often harder to find and donate to. [Rejecting P3] Smaller organizations require less funding than a large, international NGO.