That doesn't work if the extra income is produced by convincing people to donate to your charity rather than others, which I'd bet is often the case. Comparing your first and third examples, that's $9 million that might have gone directly to people in need through a different charity.

I do agree that people who work for charities should be paid, but the overhead needs to be reasonable. I don't know where the line should be drawn, but if a charity has far worse overhead than average, that's probably a problem.

#2 imo. #3 is always at a perceptual disadvantage, because people are less willing to donate/spend on things they know have a high operating cost (in terms of salary/bonuses) when it comes to nonprofits.

Many would say it doesn't matter if the end amount gets where it's supposed to, but humans don't like the concept of wasting their charity.

Sorry it's intended to be a relationship and those were just a couple of examples. There are millions of values between #2 and #3, and some different relationship could be at play. What I mean is that for different people, wasting is a different value. Some people might be okay with a 40% overhead while other might not be okay with a 20% overhead.

I prefer, Case #1 esp. when it hires locals exclusively. Its much more robust and sustainable model.

Case #3 looks more like your average Poverty Inc. Circle Jerk. Where the 2 million will be largely spent on hiring consultants for high premium.

There's a finite number of dollars available for charity. There's a fine line between "raising awareness", and a zero-sum shouting match for attention.

Peacocks that invest energy into longer, heavier tails get more mates in the end, making it worth the investment for them and their offspring, but if all peacocks agreed to just halve the size of their tails, the species as a whole would suffer less predation and starvation (please ignore shoddy biology, take it as a crude analogy).