Someone somewhere getting water some of the time doesn't validate an industry that operates primarily for different outcomes.

We describe the purpose of things in terms of what they most commonly do. You can hit someone in the head with a garden shovel, but shovels are digging tools rather than weapons, because digging is the primary use. If Big Charity is about, one way or another, transferring say 75% of revenue to the aggrandizement of the operators, then then 25% of services does not validate the enterprise. The Japanese Yakuza do great disaster relief, that doesn't make them a morally worthy charity.

The rest of your comment goes on to make my own points for me. You say low wages aren't related to how charities operate, then in the same breath describe the criteria for the best charity as being "most efficient" and necessarily most cost-cutting. I can't believe you don't see how this is self-reinforcing.

It's not like if you talk to these administrators they can't justify their own salaries, they are accountable to their Boards. They argue they need to be so highly paid because of their ability to maximize fundraising and minimize costs. No administrator in the world admits to being overpaid, they all need that six figure income and claim they'd make more elsewhere. They give themselves bonuses on the basis of outsourcing work to contractors like Aramark who crush their work forces and cause most of the problems, certainly all the problems related to poverty, that these charities are supposed to address.

Yes, I am discounting the idea that market oriented "efficiency" can ever lead to charitable outcomes, and that as a result all "big charity" is a reverse Robin Hood transfer from poor to rich.

Philantrocapitalism was a failure during the Gilded Age and it's a failure today.