[igor47]

What does "the high percentage" mean? I donate plenty of money to both foreign and domestic non-profits and a pretty bad overhead is 20% in my experience. I generally aim for overhead ratios of 10% or so and have no problems finding lots of quality orgs in that range.

[zmgsabst]

That far more than 20% disappears into petite bourgeoisie pockets in government programs — what we were talking about in this thread.

Eg, of the budget in Seattle.

[estearum]

It's crazy how you can't just like give specific information about what exactly you're talking about. Is it just vague gesticulation all the way down?

[zmgsabst]

It’s an intentionally difficult to parse network of public and private groups.

I did say specifically what I was talking about — public funds like Seattle, where $18000/homeless per year disappears through the network into employee pockets while delivering substantially less to those it’s nominally for.

https://www.pacificresearch.org/despite-big-budgets-homeless...

I think you’re being intentionally dense.

[estearum]

"A lot of money is spent and the outcome is not as good as expected" does not indicate "an intentionally difficult to parse network of public and private groups" where money "disappears through the network into employee pockets."

Here's another possibility: the problem is much more challenging or more expensive to solve than one would expect from the outset. Or the challenge of the problem just vastly outstrips the talent of the people dedicated to solving it.

I don't know about you, but I encounter unexpectedly hard problems or insufficiently talented problem-solvers probably 1,000 to 10,000 times more frequently than I encounter complex conspiracies to steal money.

I think you need far more evidence than you have to make the claims you're making. Which is why they aren't specific.