If the current WE scandal is teaching us anything, it’s that there are right and wrong ways for the government to try to advance the good work of charities. The lessons here go deeper than headlines about conflicts of interest, mismanagement, or the results of yet another ethics inquiry waiting in the wings. With the global pandemic, the dramatic downturn in the economy, and a 30 per cent decline in donations to local charities the Canadian charitable sector is fighting for its survival just as its community services and front line volunteers are most needed. Now is a particularly poor time for the government to bungle its efforts (whether through haste, waste, or impropriety) to support the sector. The government contracted with WE to administer the Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG) to mobilize and train young people to serve as volunteers with local charities. That effort has fallen embarrassingly flat. It is now mulling over options to connect charities and social service organizations with private investors via a new $750-million social finance fund. It is not clear how many people this would help or how quickly this assistance could reach its intended targets. There is an alternative proposal on the table that the government should not overlook: a temporary, dollar-for-dollar, charitable donation matching program. For every dollar a citizen gives to a registered charity of their choice, the government matches that dollar, mostly from money that is already budgeted as part of the federal charitable tax credit program. The aim is to deliver a no-hassle, easy to administer, immediate economic stimulus, using already budgeted dollars to leverage a wave of private, charitable giving. This would provide a more immediate and comprehensive boost to charities than anything the government has considered so far. Research has shown that people are about 20 per cent more likely to give when they know their contribution will be doubled. They also give in larger amounts. The approach is also tested and tried and familiar to Canadians. When the Canadian government did this to provide disaster relief following the tsunami in 2004, Canadians donated nearly $140 million. Furthermore, the approach avoids favouritism, as folks donate and direct dollars to local or national charities, eliminating contracts, grants, or other hoops that can exclude smaller or less well-known charities whose work is often equally important to local communities and equally, or more so, hurt by sudden drops in donations. Growing support for this idea in the charitable sector suggests that if the government really wants to help charities, this proposal just may be a match made in heaven and an opportunity for the government to clean up its messes. If the government really wants to promote volunteering, a good way to begin is to address the urgent cash crunch charities are facing, by growing the pool of givers that has been declining in recent years. A shrinking percentage of Canadians has been bearing a disproportionate load of funding the essential work of Canada’s 80,000 plus charitable organizations. Research indicates that those who build real ties to the charities they support are also more likely to volunteer and be more engaged in their communities. There appears to be a law of mutually reinforcing charitable benefit. Statistics Canada surveys of giving, volunteering and participating routinely discover that those who give often volunteer too, and those who volunteer are often some of the biggest givers to charitable organizations. While this is about stopping the bleeding, it is also about changing the long-term picture, using this crisis to build new and different habits. But stopping the bleeding comes first. Charities have laid off more than 84,000 full-time and part-time staff as a direct response to the pandemic and plummeting revenues in the first half of 2020. If the government wants to keep programs and charities from closing their doors, announcing a matching dollar commitment would provide immediate relief and an injection of private dollars and broad civic engagement like no other proposal under consideration. If a second wave to this pandemic should come, now is the time to act to strengthen the invisible safety net and community first-responders that we all depend on in times of need. The time for this kind of all-hands-on-deck policy innovation is long overdue.