redundant charities - an independent review by joel bird

Joel Bird, experienced international development practitioner and founder of InDev, shares his thoughts on Redundant Charities

I wasn’t sure about this book to start with.

I'm not a big supporter of the charity model, and often advocate for completely different models to be used in their place. Picking up this book, I was excited to read about challenges to the charity-based approach to impact, but as I started reading, I became more concerned that it wasn’t advocating change, but arguing to maintain charity models and thinking.

A few pages in, I started to wonder if I had the wrong book.

But I kept reading and as Weh laid out the issues with the current models, and his ideas for change, I found myself agreeing with more and more of his points.

In today's landscape, many charities are offering valuable programs, yet failing to drive the necessary change needed. The staggering number of charities working globally while the need grows exponentially highlights how desperate we are for a change in approach.

For many charities, despite their great intentions, the focus is on self-preservation, and project, rather than mission, delivery and what the charity, their founder, and their supporters want rather than what is needed.

On this, the book and I agree wholeheartedly.

Stepping back, charities address system failures, whether governmental, societal or environmental. This is a critical role, but often the focus shifts from fixing the failure that created this issue to ‘plugging the gap’.

For many charities, rather than fixing the problem (outlined in their mission) they plug the gap and deliver projects that on the surface are good, connect with supporters and leave a warm feeling, but essentially, maintain the system failure and aren’t able to achieve their real mission.

Weh’s focus on ‘Redundant Charities’ is to shift the focus to the mission, and place a clear end goal and timeframe in place. From here, plugging the gap doesn’t fit a redundant charity, as the focus is on removing the charity, and so, deep, real impact becomes the focus. This shift in mindset, planning and focus is critical, and sorely needed in many of todays charities.

For us to solve real problems in places like Vanuatu, things need to change. Image: InDev

Having said that, while Weh and I ferociously agree on most points, there were a couple of key aspects that I deviated from the model shared:

Disagreement 1: Are charities the right fit?

I kept coming back to my own questioning on whether the charity model is the right fit for majority of issues (spoiler: I don't think it is). There's an underlying assumption, which is alluded to in the book, but not explored that charities remain the assumed model for resolving social issues. We see an issue, so start a charity to fix it.

Although charities have their place, especially in systemic issues, there needs to be a step prior, that sees the issue and asks, ‘What's the best model to address this?’.

Enterprises, marketing campaigns, policy, and networks, all are just as valid in addressing issues, and in many cases more successful. In terms of delivering projects, entrepreneurial approaches can be far more effective and sustainable. Systems change through networks and policy can transform without the need for a charity.

Disagreement 2: is redundancy the goal for all charities?

I also differ in seeking ‘redundancy’ as the ultimate goal for *all* charities. While for many it is certainly necessary, some of the challenges we face are simply too immense to be realistically tackled within a specific timeframe.

By adopting a perspective that aims solely for charity redundancy we limit the ambitious thinking that's so desperately needed. It narrows the focus to what's achievable in a specific timeframe, which is undoubtedly a step towards the impact needed, but not the complete answer.

For me, there's value (and need) in charities taking the lead and actively seeking solutions to these mammoth issues. But, if they are to look at these immense, societal issues, there must be a deep scrutiny and understanding of their impact, constructing systems that are laser-focused on that, and working to deliver it.

If redundancy isn’t the primary objective, then charities need to be able to share and demonstrate a crystal-clear mission and strategy that focuses on solving the problem and not ‘plugging the gap’.

Despite my different thoughts on how often charities are needed, the core focus of this book is undoubtedly necessary in todays charity sector:

a need for greater clarity in mission, a laser focus on why the charity exists, and a deep dedication to deliver this mission without distraction.

This is a critical and timely call for everyone in the social impact sector to think deeply on how we deliver impact, what role we play, and what our end game is.

Joel Bird is an experienced International Development practitioner, Entrepreneur and Strategic advisor. Having worked within the global development sector for over 10 years across small NGOs, commercial units and university sectors, he has a long history in the sector.

Having noticed a gap in providing insights and news on what was happening in the region, Joel founded InDev as a series of LinkedIn posts in 2021, growing to one of the fastest growing media offerings in the sector with 6 months.

InDev Media delivers news, updates, jobs and events for the Global Development Sector in the Asia Pacific. As a unique offering within the global development sector, our vision is to enhance the sharing of critical knowledge, insights, and opportunities to create greater impact of development activities.

You can get a copy of Redundant Charities through Amazon Australia, Amazon US, or Amazon UK. I've listed 9 global sellers for my book on my website here.

Read the book? Don't forget to leave your review on Goodreads.