Avoid These Charities At All Costs

By Rhiannon Winner on July 11, 2016

Only black flats fit the dress code at my middle school. As the kind of tween who would have happily worn a full Sailor Moon cosplay outfit to school, being confined to a uniform and flats was appalling. But that all changed sometime during my seventh or eighth grade year, when I was liberated (to an extent). The school announced that any pair of TOMS shoes would also be acceptable. I was, of course, elated. Shoes in any color I wanted? Everyone bought as many TOMS as their parents would allow, and soon the classroom floors were covered in glitter from my sparkly silver pair.

The reason we were all suddenly allowed to wear TOMS was because of the charitable aspect of the company. For those who don’t know, TOMS promises to donate a pair of shoes to a person in need for each pair that’s bought. What about that business model isn’t appealing to the average consumer? You get to wear cute shoes (appealing to both middle schoolers and adults) and you’re helping someone! What neither my school nor I realized at the time was that TOMS isn’t all it’s chalked up to be. They don’t actually help communities in need; in fact, they exacerbate already poor situations. There are some short-term benefits to TOMS’ buy-one-give-one model, but in the long run, the local economy is wrecked by charities like TOMS.

Look at it this way: imagine that you’re a shoemaker in an impoverished country. One day, TOMS shows up with hundreds or thousands of pairs of free shoes. You’re instantly out of business, because no one is going to buy anything you’re selling when they could get a pair for free. You might argue, yes, but isn’t it okay to let one person suffer a setback if it will benefit everyone else in the community? Putting aside the moral questions that raises, it doesn’t benefit everyone else. In the short term everyone has a new pair of shoes. Great! What happens when they wear out? TOMS shipments are often unpredictable, and since the local shoemakers are long out of business, what are you going to do when it’s finally time for another set? You have to begin importing shoes, often at ridiculously inflated prices. This community was impoverished to begin with, so many people will end up shoeless again. And whoever imports and sells shoes to those who can afford them is out of luck when TOMS eventually shows up with another shipment. To be fair, TOMS has been reconsidering their business model over the past couple of years. They have begun employing workers in impoverished countries, which will help sustain both the local economy and the brand, but journalist Amy Costello points out, “the company still has lots more work to do.” They are still dumping loads of shoes on communities that need investment, not another crate of shoes.

TOMS is not the only guilty charity. The same goes for charities that distribute clothes to those in need. Why would you bother shopping at any local stores when charities will drop off truckloads of clothes for free? And the ones that flood communities with free food, when they were already growing a sufficient amount, or close to it, on their own? You guessed it. They put local farmers out of business for good. Almost any charity that boasts it’ll distribute things for free is doing more harm than good.

This is only one part of the problem. Charities trying to provide free goods are addressing a singular issue, such as the dearth of shoes or clothing, and neglecting the root cause. They are not making attempts to alleviate poverty by working with governments to promote change or providing jobs. They are treating one symptom of a larger disease, which brings communities no closer to any long-term solutions.

All charity comes from a place of kindness, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There are still people in need, and there are still wonderful people who want to help them, so what other options are there?

Seek out charities that don’t just drop off free things. Search for charities that provide basic commodities for people (such as Charity: Water, which works together with local communities to provide fresh drinking water), or buy from companies that employ local communities at living wages (like Krochet Kids, which employs people in underprivileged communities in Uganda and Peru, while offering educational benefits). These kinds of charities provide necessities that really do need to be provided by the outside, or jobs that will stimulate the local economy. Suddenly, those shoe sellers and clothing producers and farmers are back in business. They will sustain the community in the long term – the kind of thing a charity handing out free products couldn’t possibly accomplish. Additionally, look for charities that try to affect change at the governmental level though advocacy. These kind of charities attempt to treat the root cause of poverty, rather than just papering over the problem with free items.

It is fair to note that whether or not this model works greatly depends on where it is being employed. Buy-one-give-one models are dangerous in impoverished communities because there is no wealthier base among them who can sustain local businesses. In countries where there is a sizable middle class, however, these charities have the potential to be effective. Take Mealshare, for example. It’s a Canadian nonprofit that aims to partner with restaurants. Customers can purchase a meal for themselves, as well as a meal for someone who cannot afford their own. Because Canada has a strong middle class that can sustain its businesses even when free food is available, and money is being invested into Canadian restaurants for the system to work at all, Mealshare has been a successful program thus far. However, if it were implemented in, say, an incredibly poor country like Sudan, where wealthier Canadians paid for the meals and the Sudanese received free food, the model would fall into the same trap as other buy-one-give-one charities.

There is a time and a place for handing out free goods. In places where the population is too poor to accept them and lacks a wealthier population to sustain local businesses is not the kind. Although researching a charity takes a little longer than simply clicking a donate button, it is worth it to ensure that your money helps people instead of impoverishing them.

Follow Uloop

Apply to Write for Uloop News

Join the Uloop News Team

Discuss This Article

Get Top Stories Delivered Weekly

Back to Top

Log In

Contact Us

Upload An Image

Please select an image to upload
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format
OR
Provide URL where image can be downloaded
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format

By clicking this button,
you agree to the terms of use

By clicking "Create Alert" I agree to the Uloop Terms of Use.

Image not available.

Add a Photo

Please select a photo to upload
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format