You’re better off donating that money to a local food bank. Some stores around here also have pre-bagged meals that you can buy for them to donate to those in need, but the food bank will be able to stretch your money further.
I do that too, but the local largest food bank has conditions that don’t make it preferable for monetary donation. I would really prefer anonymous donations, and that isn’t easily possible with my food bank. They do not accept cash. Also, I would ultimately prefer my donations to go directly to the people that need it without administrative overhead shaving off percentages.
On multiple occasions I went to the food bank and handed out cash to patrons that were in line waiting for food. No strings, no obligations, just give them a friendly wave and hand them bills before moving on to the next car. I know people are in need if they’re at the food bank, and I trust they know how to spend the cash better than I do, so I give cash. The food bank asked me to stop doing that.
Also, I would ultimately prefer my donations to go directly to the people that need it without administrative overhead shaving off percentages.
If a food bank can buy rice at $1/lb and its overhead costs are 10%, while grocery stores sell rice at $1.20/lb, donating to a food bank gets more rice to those in need than donating to the individuals.
Or a charity that provides hot food (meals on wheels, homeless shelters) can definitely turn $100 into a lot more ready-to-eat hot food than giving $100 directly to a person, because those organizations can leverage economies of scale in cooking large batches of food.
The fact is, the larger food nonprofits can effectively feed people for cheaper than individuals can achieve on their own. Much of it comes from scale, and some of it comes from being able to manage supply chains to intercept what would be waste from distributors, retailers, etc.
Also, I would ultimately prefer my donations to go directly to the people that need it without administrative overhead shaving off percentages.
The fact is, the larger food nonprofits can effectively feed people for cheaper than individuals can achieve on their own. Much of it comes from scale, and some of it comes from being able to manage supply chains to intercept what would be waste from distributors, retailers, etc.
I have two issues with your reply:
I’d love to give cash directly to my local food bank. They don’t accept cash donations, only credit card, personal checks, or ACH transfers. I also believe that food banks are likely better stewards of donations rather than giant charities with multiple layers of administration such as the United Way. I would love it if the food bank would allow me to walk in and hand them my cash.
Your response is solving only for the food problem. I fully agree that the food bank is a great solution with bulk buying and known logistics for collecting, buying, and dispensing food, but not all problems those in need have are food problems. If I give a $20 bill to someone, yes, they could “inefficiently” buy food with it. Or maybe they’ll get food from the food bank and they have more pressing needs that the food bank doesn’t solve like paying for medication, rent, or school supplies for their kids. Whatever the need is, I trust the person in need to spend the cash I give them as they know their needs better than anyone else. Frankly, I find others deciding on how those in need should spend money to be incredibly dismissive and condescending. These folks in need are just like us in every regard, except they don’t have as much money. We are equals in every way except life has given me enough money and them not enough. They are no worse than the rest of us on how they spend money. I can’t know their needs better than they do. I give cash directly to the person that needs it because I trust them to know how to spend it better than anyone else.
You’re right, but that’s just one of several factors at play. An individual is generally better positioned to identify and prioritize their own needs and wants. But they needs to be counterbalanced with the comparative advantage that another might have in being able to satisfy those needs/wants more efficiently.
The food example is just the best example of the economies of scale. A soup kitchen may have utensils and equipment that the individual does not have, such that they can accomplish far more and meet far more need than giving directly does.
Other nonprofits may provide shelter, warmth, clothing, etc. in a more efficient manner than what the individual could accomplish.
Ideally, the efficiency can come in the form of providing something that the person would’ve bought, at a cost that is much lower than what the person would have had to pay, that frees up the rest of that person’s finite remaining money to be steered towards their own identified priorities. In that way, it’s still more efficient to give to cost-effective charities because meeting that need can still result in more cash in that needy person’s pocket.
In that way, it’s still more efficient to give to cost-effective charities because meeting that need can still result in more cash in that needy person’s pocket.
This statement ignores two issues:
Identification of cost-effective strategies requires time and energy (and likely transportation requirement) from both donors and service recipients. Those at the bottom end of the economic spectrum usually have all of those things in short supply.
Your statement also assumes that there exists locally a cost-effective charity that serves every need of life of those in need.
I appreciate you’re trying to take the macro approach and on paper its not wrong. In practice the limits of my donation ability isn’t going to move the needle on a city wide or nationwide approach. However, if I can put $20 in someone’s hand’s they can immediately address an urgent need or stave off an urgent need with $20 of mitigation. I don’t know of a charity that’s going to put $20 of gas in their car so they can continue to make it to work on time so they keep their job. I don’t know of a charity that will get them $20 worth of school fees so their kids can continue to get educated.
There’s no wrong way to donate that I can think of. Keep doing what you’re doing to help. I’ll keep doing my way too. Both of us are working on the same goal of helping others. We’re just going at it from different directions.
Identification of cost-effective strategies requires time and energy (and likely transportation requirement) from both donors and service recipients.
If I have $500 to donate, giving 25 people $20 each is gonna take a bunch of overhead in the searching and matching. Plus the logistics of actually being in the same place at the same time to hand over cash.
Make it $5000 and the logistics become impractical. The economies of scale don’t just extend to the service being provided, but also to the identification of the needy person who can benefit from that charity.
Your statement also assumes that there exists locally a cost-effective charity that serves every need of life of those in need.
The beauty of the food bank is that it knocks out an expense for almost anyone who uses it, leaving them more cash to buy a tank of gas or school supplies or medication. Everyone needs food. Someone who needs more money for gas can get that if their grocery bill is reduced by $20. Money is fungible, so addressing the most fundamental needs ends up solving that problem of double coincidence that you’re alluding to.
I’m not saying this approach is perfect. And I’m generally in favor of giving directly, especially for governmental transfers. But there is still a huge role to be played by nonprofit organizations, especially in meeting the foundational needs like food, water, shelter, and medical care.
If I have $500 to donate, giving 25 people $20 each is gonna take a bunch of overhead in the searching and matching. Plus the logistics of actually being in the same place at the same time to hand over cash.
It look me less than 30 minutes to hand out $400 with $20 to a car to those in line at the food bank. Another time it did take a bit longer at about 40 minutes. Another time yet, it was again about 30 minutes. It was after the third time the food bank asked me to stop giving out cash to those in line. I respect their mission so I stopped. I’m looking for more ways to give directly. For a newly divorced mother of two small children I bought an old car and fixed it up for her with brand new tires and a tune up. I started this thread asking about how to identify those that need their groceries paid for. If you have more ideas about directly giving to those that need it, please share them. Please don’t just tell me to donate to another charity.
The beauty of the food bank is that it knocks out an expense for almost anyone who uses it, leaving them more cash to buy a tank of gas or school supplies or medication. Everyone needs food. Someone who needs more money for gas can get that if their grocery bill is reduced by $20. Money is fungible, so addressing the most fundamental needs ends up solving that problem of double coincidence that you’re alluding to.
I don’t understand why you keep presenting this as an “either/or” scenario. I’m fully in favor of food banks. I’m also in favor of giving cash directly to those that need it. If they already have food from the food bank, more food from the food bank won’t fill the gas tank. We need both food bank, and cash to those that need it.
But there is still a huge role to be played by nonprofit organizations, especially in meeting the foundational needs like food, water, shelter, and medical care.
I agree with you on this. Keep doing what you’re doing.
I do that too, but the local largest food bank has conditions that don’t make it preferable for monetary donation. I would really prefer anonymous donations, and that isn’t easily possible with my food bank. They do not accept cash. Also, I would ultimately prefer my donations to go directly to the people that need it without administrative overhead shaving off percentages.
On multiple occasions I went to the food bank and handed out cash to patrons that were in line waiting for food. No strings, no obligations, just give them a friendly wave and hand them bills before moving on to the next car. I know people are in need if they’re at the food bank, and I trust they know how to spend the cash better than I do, so I give cash. The food bank asked me to stop doing that.
If a food bank can buy rice at $1/lb and its overhead costs are 10%, while grocery stores sell rice at $1.20/lb, donating to a food bank gets more rice to those in need than donating to the individuals.
Or a charity that provides hot food (meals on wheels, homeless shelters) can definitely turn $100 into a lot more ready-to-eat hot food than giving $100 directly to a person, because those organizations can leverage economies of scale in cooking large batches of food.
The fact is, the larger food nonprofits can effectively feed people for cheaper than individuals can achieve on their own. Much of it comes from scale, and some of it comes from being able to manage supply chains to intercept what would be waste from distributors, retailers, etc.
I have two issues with your reply:
I’d love to give cash directly to my local food bank. They don’t accept cash donations, only credit card, personal checks, or ACH transfers. I also believe that food banks are likely better stewards of donations rather than giant charities with multiple layers of administration such as the United Way. I would love it if the food bank would allow me to walk in and hand them my cash.
Your response is solving only for the food problem. I fully agree that the food bank is a great solution with bulk buying and known logistics for collecting, buying, and dispensing food, but not all problems those in need have are food problems. If I give a $20 bill to someone, yes, they could “inefficiently” buy food with it. Or maybe they’ll get food from the food bank and they have more pressing needs that the food bank doesn’t solve like paying for medication, rent, or school supplies for their kids. Whatever the need is, I trust the person in need to spend the cash I give them as they know their needs better than anyone else. Frankly, I find others deciding on how those in need should spend money to be incredibly dismissive and condescending. These folks in need are just like us in every regard, except they don’t have as much money. We are equals in every way except life has given me enough money and them not enough. They are no worse than the rest of us on how they spend money. I can’t know their needs better than they do. I give cash directly to the person that needs it because I trust them to know how to spend it better than anyone else.
You’re right, but that’s just one of several factors at play. An individual is generally better positioned to identify and prioritize their own needs and wants. But they needs to be counterbalanced with the comparative advantage that another might have in being able to satisfy those needs/wants more efficiently.
The food example is just the best example of the economies of scale. A soup kitchen may have utensils and equipment that the individual does not have, such that they can accomplish far more and meet far more need than giving directly does.
Other nonprofits may provide shelter, warmth, clothing, etc. in a more efficient manner than what the individual could accomplish.
Ideally, the efficiency can come in the form of providing something that the person would’ve bought, at a cost that is much lower than what the person would have had to pay, that frees up the rest of that person’s finite remaining money to be steered towards their own identified priorities. In that way, it’s still more efficient to give to cost-effective charities because meeting that need can still result in more cash in that needy person’s pocket.
This statement ignores two issues:
I appreciate you’re trying to take the macro approach and on paper its not wrong. In practice the limits of my donation ability isn’t going to move the needle on a city wide or nationwide approach. However, if I can put $20 in someone’s hand’s they can immediately address an urgent need or stave off an urgent need with $20 of mitigation. I don’t know of a charity that’s going to put $20 of gas in their car so they can continue to make it to work on time so they keep their job. I don’t know of a charity that will get them $20 worth of school fees so their kids can continue to get educated.
There’s no wrong way to donate that I can think of. Keep doing what you’re doing to help. I’ll keep doing my way too. Both of us are working on the same goal of helping others. We’re just going at it from different directions.
If I have $500 to donate, giving 25 people $20 each is gonna take a bunch of overhead in the searching and matching. Plus the logistics of actually being in the same place at the same time to hand over cash.
Make it $5000 and the logistics become impractical. The economies of scale don’t just extend to the service being provided, but also to the identification of the needy person who can benefit from that charity.
The beauty of the food bank is that it knocks out an expense for almost anyone who uses it, leaving them more cash to buy a tank of gas or school supplies or medication. Everyone needs food. Someone who needs more money for gas can get that if their grocery bill is reduced by $20. Money is fungible, so addressing the most fundamental needs ends up solving that problem of double coincidence that you’re alluding to.
I’m not saying this approach is perfect. And I’m generally in favor of giving directly, especially for governmental transfers. But there is still a huge role to be played by nonprofit organizations, especially in meeting the foundational needs like food, water, shelter, and medical care.
It look me less than 30 minutes to hand out $400 with $20 to a car to those in line at the food bank. Another time it did take a bit longer at about 40 minutes. Another time yet, it was again about 30 minutes. It was after the third time the food bank asked me to stop giving out cash to those in line. I respect their mission so I stopped. I’m looking for more ways to give directly. For a newly divorced mother of two small children I bought an old car and fixed it up for her with brand new tires and a tune up. I started this thread asking about how to identify those that need their groceries paid for. If you have more ideas about directly giving to those that need it, please share them. Please don’t just tell me to donate to another charity.
I don’t understand why you keep presenting this as an “either/or” scenario. I’m fully in favor of food banks. I’m also in favor of giving cash directly to those that need it. If they already have food from the food bank, more food from the food bank won’t fill the gas tank. We need both food bank, and cash to those that need it.
I agree with you on this. Keep doing what you’re doing.