Estimated reading time: 9-10 minutes
If you’ve been following my Charity Research Guide, you’ll know we’ve covered a lot of dense material; it’s a bit overwhelming. So, to wrap things up, I’d like to leave you with a few practical recommendations and reflective thoughts that I hope will resonate.
Some practical recommendations
One of the biggest shortcomings of modern charity is its failure to provide real agency to the people it seeks to support. Too often, aid programs are designed and implemented by donors, governments, or large organizations – groups that are often far removed from the realities of those on the receiving end. These actors tend to assume they know what’s best, without truly trusting people to define their own needs. But research consistently shows that people are more than capable of making responsible decisions for themselves. And the simplest way to support that? Just give them money. Direct cash aid has been shown to be transformative – not only for recipients, but also for local economies. It’s often more efficient than traditional aid models, too. That’s why I personally recommend supporting organizations using cash transfer approaches.
I also recommend broadening our focus away from Canadian charities. The reality is that global needs are often much greater than those in Canada. And while donating to a Canadian charity that works internationally can still help, it’s almost always less efficient than supporting organizations that are locally based in the regions they serve. In today’s world, sending money to an organization in Türkiye is just as easy as donating to one in Toronto. Canadian charities tend to be relatively well-supported, while internationally, many organizations are severely underfunded.
This makes our research even more complicated, though, since expanding our focus means considering countless organizations around the world. But it also reveals many new opportunities. Understandably, some people worry about scams or fraud when donating to foreign organizations. However, with today’s charity evaluators and watchdogs – some of which I covered in a previous post – you can find many trustworthy options.
Another common hesitation with donating internationally is the loss of tax benefits, since donations to charities not registered in Canada don’t come with a tax receipt. While it’s reasonable to consider tax benefits – after all, a 20-40% credit can mean more funds to donate in future years – this mindset can significantly limit our giving. What if we found an international charity delivering ten times the impact? What about one delivering a hundred times? These high-impact organizations do exist. Focusing too much on tax credits can also distort our motivations, leading us to give more for personal financial gain rather than genuine care for the cause.
Lastly, let me take a tangent to talk about something I take issue with on a personal level – organizations that present themselves as charitable but aren’t. For example, shifting briefly from financial donations to in-kind donations, let’s consider thrift stores. While Goodwill and Salvation Army are legitimate registered charities, Value Village is not; it’s a for-profit company! Though Value Village markets itself as supporting local charities, the truth is different. The charities they partner with simply collect clothing donations, which they then sell to Value Village at a discounted price. In other words, those charities are really just cheap suppliers for Value Village.
Value Village also accepts clothing “donations” directly. This is an interesting concept – would you choose to “donate” your old phone back to Apple? Probably not. From an environmental perspective, sure, there’s some benefit. But Goodwill and Salvation Army offer the same environmental benefits while also providing genuine charitable support. Value Village is just one example of unethical marketing. That’s why I recommend being on the lookout and always questioning organizations that present themselves as charitable – because these days, being “charitable” can be good for business.
Bringing in some other voices
In this final section, I want to bring in some other voices to help us reflect and challenge ourselves again on how best to allocate our money.
One idea I’ve been thinking about is the movement to ‘Think global, act local’ – a phrase you’ve probably heard. It means to recognize global issues and then use that knowledge to inform local actions. For instance, we clearly see climate change as a global challenge with impacts such as increased frequency and severity of wildfires. By recognizing this global issue, we could choose to support a local organization who works in forest management in our area (“raking the forests” as Trump would say!). Such local actions help reduce the risk of wildfires, which in turn lessens the strain on emergency resources – resources that can then be allocated to address other urgent disasters elsewhere.
Local initiatives can only go so far though. If we focus too narrowly on local interventions, we risk overlooking more urgent needs elsewhere. This brings us to another voice – Thomas Fuller, a 17th-century British clergyman, famously said, “Charity begins at home, but should not end there.” His insight reminds us that acting locally is important, but not sufficient. While it’s natural to focus on the people and issues closest to us, once that local foundation is secure, we should extend our efforts outward.
Another interesting perspective I recently came across on this topic is from Sam Harris, an American public intellectual, speaking about effective altruism. He argues that it’s natural for us to care more about those close to us than about strangers, even when the needs of the latter are greater. Harris suggests that the best approach might be for most of us to accept this reality – focusing our attention on our immediate circles – while relying on institutions like governments and societal norms to create a fair system that prioritizes those suffering the most. In doing so, Harris challenges the core idea of effective altruism: that we can and should show equal levels of compassion to strangers as we do to our loved ones.
While I enjoy hearing other voices on these topics, I personally question this idea. I see significant challenges in relying on institutions to implement a fair system that truly supports disadvantaged people. While such systems may work reasonably well in developed countries, many places with weak or ineffective governance struggle to uphold these ideals, which contributes directly to the suffering of large numbers of people. So then, who will look out for those people?
Another interesting argument in the same vein comes from Marc Andreessen, a ‘techno optimist’ and fervent supporter of capitalism. Marc defends free markets as being the true mechanism through which strangers can be helped, simply through the fundamental ask/bid nature of the markets and through the social programs which can be unlocked through excess profits. Therefore, he says, opening countries to free markets will solve these social issues.
He cites David Friedman, who argues that people take action for only three reasons: love, force, and money. Marc contends that love doesn’t scale – that is, we cannot compel feelings of love toward strangers because it’s simply not natural. Since most of us wouldn’t want to use force to make people charitable, a monetary incentive system remains the only viable option – that is, capitalism. So, rather than donating to charities, he might suggest we consider investing in businesses that address social needs through the market. It’s an idea worth reflecting on.
Finally, I would like to bring in some voices of ordinary people and their thoughts on how best to give to charities. Naturally, I turned to Reddit and found some interesting insights. Here are a few of my favorite donation recommendations from Reddit users.
- from extrabigcomfycouch: Anyplace mental health related.
- from tommyballz63: I like things that help animals and wildlife because nobody else has their back.
- from consuellabanana: I divide between 3 charities: (1) local food banks/pantries since they provide direct impact, (2) an education fund that directly supports underprivileged students in my home country, where my dollars go much further, and (3) local libraries because I love them.
- from Pandalusplatyceros: This is going to sound crazy but consider donating to political parties. There is no entity more powerful or better funded than the government and putting the right people in charge of it can change lives at far larger scales than even the best charities.
- from NotHisRealName: Whatever you’re passionate about. If it’s a national org though, donate to the local office instead.
- from SarcasticBooger: Facebook is not good for much but one thing I use it for is keeping on top of the local community groups. Every now and then people will post in need of something whether that’s food, winter clothing, or services like elderly people on fixed incomes who need something done in the yard or in their house but cant afford it. I’ve reached out directly a number of times in that regard and you can often make a difference to someone without even needing to give money.
- from Andrew_1515: For our wedding we asked guests to donate to Aunt Leah’s which helps bridge some of the housing gap for vulnerable kids and young mothers to avoid getting onto the streets. It really resonates with us and helps a number of kids and families every year avoid getting caught in a vicious cycle.
- from Ginginer_Chick: As a former librarian (thanks Covid) I would like to say you can always donate to your local library. Most libraries have a “friends of the library” charity. You would be surprised how much libraries do for their community outside of the realm of books.
- from theassasintherapist: Donate your time to local charities that helps your community. That way, you can actually see the physical impacts of your contributions.
- from listentowhales: A little controversial, but Save a Child’s Heart is an Israeli charity that does cardiovascular surgery on kids from the developing world. Because of the war, they’ve lost some funding.
- from GalianoGirl: Ask your employer if they do any matching. Over the years I have had several employers who matched up to $200 in employee donations to registered Canadian charities. It is a great way to give more bang to your buck. I really wish CRA gave credit for volunteer hours, not just cash donations. Even if set at minimum wage, it might encourage more people to volunteer in our communities.
- from Purify5: We often do Ronald McDonald House… Our situation wasn’t really bad but we met a number of other families there and it was very apparent how such a little thing made a world of difference for these families.
- from Clakke: Give to causes you care about. There is no shortage of worthy causes and you can’t pick them all, so pick the ones that matter to you. And focus on those that are addressing the root causes. e.g. Addressing why food insecurity exists, not just giving food to those who need it.
- from [deleted]: I donate to the local aquarium, because my parent’s donated to it since the aquarium’s inception and I basically kept it going in their honor, I think it’s what they would want (I have the same membership number and everything, I remember it always gave my dad a laugh when he had to call in to guest services) plus when friends bring their kids to town I can get them in for free and the kids love it.
- from Ryanboone: I donate to the high school wrestling team I was a part of back in the day. It’s an impoverished area, but the program has helped turn kids lives around. Boys and girls now.
- from rpotterflca: Just find someone in need and give it directly to them.