In the charity world, we lack imagination.

Schopenhauer said, “Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world.”

Though I'm sure Schopenhauer didn't have charities in mind at the time of writing, his point has eerie relevance to the world of charities.

When a charity focuses on itself and its own limitations, the world shrinks accordingly. The non-profit will focus more and more on what they can do, rather than what is needed. They start to retrofit solutions to problems, without really taking the time to work out what the core problems are, and hence what solutions would be suitable.

You've probably heard that saying: to every person with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail?

If this is true, then the modern non-profit wields not a hammer but a sledgehammer, beating the nail into submission until it succumbs to the force of its bludgeoning.

Amongst supermarkets, Costco is the place where every problem is solved. Need 10 litres of olive oil? No problem! Need a coffin?

We’ve got you covered.

In the world of non-profits, the Costco equivalents are mega corporation-style non-profits like World Vision or Oxfam. They are the Swiss Army knife of social ventures. They exist to solve every problem. They’ve evolved over time to meet any problem that the market throws at them.

“The market,” as far as these organisations are concerned, is where funding exists. They will address any multitude of problems, assuming funding is available, rather than solve a central problem once and for all.

It’s understandable that there will always be problems for large charities to address, so if they are able to continue telling their story of addressing needs, they will continue to grow.

And those charities who tell their story best are most likely to benefit.

Between 1999 and 2011, World Vision increased its annual income by 365%, from US$600 million to US$2.8 billion. This is the very definition of market penetration - a term that feels oddly out of place when talking about helping people and planet.

The billion-dollar revenues of mega charities are a far cry from the revenue they garnered during their humble beginnings. The first big international charities were created after the Second World War as relief efforts following the war. However, they soon evolved to serve humanitarian needs more broadly.

This is perhaps one of the first examples of mission drift. A charity starts out with a very specific purpose, which is time-bound, and then evolves to address another need. It would have been easy for the founders of these charities to justify continuing to grow.

There must have been a myriad of issues in the world in the 1940s and 1950s that needed addressing.

Smaller non-profits are often born out of opportunism. Well-meaning travellers, nearing the end of their careers as teachers, will establish an organisation that teaches children English in poor countries.

This is a good example of solving a problem with the solution in mind, rather than the problem in mind. It’s taking a sledgehammer to a nail, simply because that’s the tool that is in one’s hand.

If you are introduced to a charity by a friend, it can often be hard, without spending hours digging through annual reports, to work out if this charity is worth supporting or not.

I’ve found that there is one shortcut that often, but not always, works to see if the charity is legit.

Scan the charity’s website. Go to the ‘About us’ or ‘History’ section of the website and read about the origins of the charity. Alarm bells should ring if the origin story of the founder is something like the following:

While backpacking in Thailand, 19-year-old Chloe walked along the back streets of a poor community and was struck by the poverty the local children were facing. A young girl named Kannika, no older than eight years old, asked Chloe to buy some flowers from her. “But why aren’t you in school?”

Chloe asked. Chloe gave Kannika $200 and made her vow never to skip school again. The next day, Chloe quit her Bachelor of Arts degree and chose to live in Thailand for the next year, setting up a local school providing Western-standard education for Thai children.

There is something charming about Chloe’s need to act immediately, and we’re instantly curious about the outcome of her story with her as the protagonist. However, as far as we can tell, Chloe has no background in social work or international development. She hasn’t done any research into the root causes of Kannika’s absence from school. She hasn’t collaborated with any local partners.

In this example, Chloe has simply taken a sledgehammer — her good intentions and time — to the nail.

But what if charities saw themselves as part of the solution, not the entire solution? What if they focussed more on the end goal, and the legacy they were to leave behind?

Raising The Village, a Redundant Charity that works in Uganda, is lead by Shawn Cheung, who had this to say about their role in solving social issues.

When asking him how they define success, Shawn says they ensure they are “contributing to the social fabric of our society, because we see ourselves as a single thread, not the entire blanket”.

That's the difference between a traditional charity and one that takes a redundant charity mindset. It comes down to humility, and ultimately, being realistic about what the charity can do.

Shawn Cheung of Raising the Village. Photo supplied.

Over 90% of the seating allocation has been sold for the Redundant Charities book launch on the 6th of June in Sydney. Now is the time to get your ticket here!

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.